Xtreme Low Q6600 G0 Temp on Air !!! (Lots of Pics)

[Spanki]

Intel Xeon X32xx Quad Core G0 stepping:

• Intel Xeon X3230 2.66Ghz - SLACS - G0 - 100W / TDP 85C - 1.100-1.372V
• Intel Xeon X3220 2.40Ghz - SLACT - G0 - 100W / TDP 85C - 1.100-1.372V
• Intel Xeon X3210 2.13Ghz - SLACS - G0 - 100W / TDP 85C - 1.100-1.372V

Slight typo there... the X3210 should be SLACU.

Thanks for the other info, but as we all know, ES != retail .

[Clint]

Having that Enabled costs nothing in terms of performance and it will alert you when running some poorly coded or malicious software that is trying to access memory it shouldn't be. It won't limit your overclock in any way.

http://www3.intel.com/cd/ids/develop...eng/149308.htm

Exactly what I've in mind too unclewebb, thanks for the explaination.
I really don't know what Clint was thinking.......

First of all, posting a lnk to an overview of an function with only a few lines of describing the intention of said function is not by any means considered a "proof" or valid argument...not by me anyway.
(it says nothing of the "cost" now, does it?)

Execute Disable Bit and Data Execution Prevention (DEP) are intimately close to each other, they WILL lower your systems efficiency due to the characteristics of "things".

NOTE: I write "characteristics of things" only because I've already promised certain mods here not to be so harsh on the "less knowledgeable" here.

Please please go out there and gather some info, and prefereably a more indepth one than that one you gave.

Anyway, I would disable Execute Disable Bit in BIOS

and DEP with this: (from Start Menu/Run)

bcdedit.exe /set {current} nx AlwaysOff

This WILL have an positive effect, trust me.

[ss256]

I just got my Q6600 from NCIX, same exact Batch #: L723A765 as XtremeTiramisu. It will be a week until I can get my D-TEK Fuzion on it. I'll keep you updated.

[unclewebb]

This WILL have an positive effect, trust me.

I posted that quick link to the Intel documentation so you or others could learn more about what it does and then you can make up your own mind whether you want it on or off.

I'm always interested in learning Clint. Do you know what type of benchmarks show how having the NX bit enabled decreases performance. I've never found any measurable difference in performance during testing but maybe there are programs out there where a performance hit can be measured.

The NX bit enabled has notified me of software that was trying to execute code in an area of memory that was reserved for data. A properly written program does not do that. The only time having the NX bit enabled will stop a program from running is if it is a malicious piece of code executing where it shouldn't be or it's a poorly written piece of code that is likely trying to access an uninitialized null pointer. I don't want either type of code running on my system so I have it enabled.

If you would have made it to page 2 of that link I posted then you would have come across this page which I think is a very thorough document about the NX bit:
http://www3.intel.com/cd/ids/develop...eng/149307.htm

[Clint]

I posted that quick link to the Intel documentation so you or others could learn more about what it does and then you can make up your own mind whether you want it on or off.

I'm always interested in learning Clint. Do you know what type of benchmarks show how having the NX bit enabled decreases performance. I've never found any measurable difference in performance during testing but maybe there are programs out there where a performance hit can be measured.

The NX bit enabled has notified me of software that was trying to execute code in an area of memory that was reserved for data. A properly written program does not do that. The only time having the NX bit enabled will stop a program from running is if it is a malicious piece of code executing where it shouldn't be or it's a poorly written piece of code that is likely trying to access an uninitialized null pointer. I don't want either type of code running on my system so I have it enabled.

If you would have made it to page 2 of that link I posted then you would have come across this page which I think is a very thorough document about the NX bit:
http://www3.intel.com/cd/ids/develop...eng/149307.htm

You are completely missing my point here, I still don't see any verification that it doesn't "cost" anything performancewise...the pdf tells nothing about the performance hit.

Everything comes at an price you know, and DEP for once is very well known to generate more problems than resolving them...

I also thought XtremeTiramisu was more inclined to getting the most out of his OC due to the vast amount of post and with the frequency he post them telling us about his fantastic chip...

But Ok, if you wanna go out on the net between the benches and posting of results chasing some pron...well by all means, keep those things.

To the rest:
Try this:

1.Do a fresh upstart of your box, and wait 5 min. (Vista related)
2.scribble down your memoryusage, then bench something

3a. In Vista use bcdedit.exe /set {current} nx AlwaysOff
3b. In XP add "/noexecute=alwaysoff" to your boot.ini (without ")

4.reboot and disable Execute Disable Bit in BIOS

5.fire up the OS and wait 5min (Vista related)
6. scribble down your memoryusage, then bench something

..should be an eyeopener, taken honest reflection is given..(that is, leaving the ePenis out of the equation..hehe )

[unclewebb]

Thanks for the informative post Clint. Hopefully I'll have some time tomorrow to do some thorough testing.

[Clint]

Thanks for the informative post Clint. Hopefully I'll have some time tomorrow to do some thorough testing.

Absolutely only my pleasure, together we make this board rock!

[mobo57]

Just to add to the database, GA-P35-DS3L, water cooled Q6600 G0, 4 g OCZ Plat rev 2- 14-4-4-4.
24/7 370x9 @ 1.32 vcore, 2.1 vdimm, 1.6 chip. Ambient 28 to 30c, idle cores at 38c, load 54 to 56c. Added to my render farm so it runs hard all of the time.

[unclewebb]

This WILL have an positive effect, trust me.

RLM: After reading a statement like that I thought I was going to see a little more performance gain than what I actually saw.