ASUS Maximus Formula SE

[Talonman]

here's my voltages on NB and ram. I used vista x64 in this run. I'm using the white ram slots. this bios I'm using is 0903. I'm doing 3.6Ghz 12x301 mem ratio 3:5 with mem speed at 501mhz

Looking damn good!

[weescott]

I hooked up my waterchiller to the chipset to see if it helped my clocks over a normal watercooled chipset. Controlled the temperature so it was 29c with 1.85v (9c over ambient) and yes, it helped get an extra 5FSB higher stable. Hitting the chips max FSB of 470 isn't so dificult now either.

[Nuckin_Futs]

$1000.00? You guys are looking at the QX "Extreme units. Why not look into the mainstream Q9450 for sarting price of $316.00 or Q9300 for $266.00. The Q9300 looks to be replacing the Q6700, where as the E8400 is close to the E6850 in specs.

I'm waiting on the Q8450 @ 2.66GHz/2x6m L2/1333FSB on 45nm scheduled price so far of $316.00 San Jose, CA.

[safan80]

$1000.00? You guys are looking at the QX "Extreme units. Why not look into the mainstream Q9450 for sarting price of $316.00 or Q9300 for $266.00. The Q9300 looks to be replacing the Q6700, where as the E8400 is close to the E6850 in specs.

I'm waiting on the Q8450 @ 2.66GHz/2x6m L2/1333FSB on 45nm scheduled price so far of $316.00 San Jose, CA.

I want to be able to do 11x400 those chips can't do that

I don't have credit, Do you wanna get me one too?

lol sorry I added some hard drives to my order so it's all filled up.

I ran both 0802 and 0901 at 5175 ghz and benched at 5.088 proof attached

proof would be the motherboard tab in that cpu-z screenshot

[devilhood]

Well, I just tried 0903 and it is quite simply atrocious.
It is causing ntfs.sys errors, where-as previously everything was fine with 0901.
Is it forcing a higher PCI-E frequency or something? I've locked it to 100, but I remember reading that ntfs.sys errors are usually associated with the PCI-E frequencies being pushed too hard.
Hmm.. odd, the voltages seemed fine according to hardware monitor, so I'm not sure why 0903 is so unstable for me

[safan80]

Well, I just tried 0903 and it is quite simply atrocious.
It is causing ntfs.sys errors, where-as previously everything was fine with 0901.
Is it forcing a higher PCI-E frequency or something? I've locked it to 100, but I remember reading that ntfs.sys errors are usually associated with the PCI-E frequencies being pushed too hard.
Hmm.. odd, the voltages seemed fine according to hardware monitor, so I'm not sure why 0903 is so unstable for me

maybe your settings under 0901 weren't fully stable. I'm using my settings from the 0901 bios in 0903 and I'm not having any trouble. My pci-e is at 100 as well. I hope your not using prime to judge stability because I did that and my system was completely unstable.

[leoftw]

$1000.00? You guys are looking at the QX "Extreme units. Why not look into the mainstream Q9450 for sarting price of $316.00 or Q9300 for $266.00. The Q9300 looks to be replacing the Q6700, where as the E8400 is close to the E6850 in specs.

I'm waiting on the Q8450 @ 2.66GHz/2x6m L2/1333FSB on 45nm scheduled price so far of $316.00 San Jose, CA.

I wouldn't mind dishing out 300 for something like that but I would never spend 1000 on a processor .

[devilhood]

maybe your settings under 0901 weren't fully stable. I'm using my settings from the 0901 bios in 0903 and I'm not having any trouble. My pci-e is at 100 as well. I hope your not using prime to judge stability because I did that and my system was completely unstable.

Under my 0901 settings everything was working fine, no crashes or BSOD's during 24/7 operation, that includes Prime and general usage.

[leoftw]

When I try to flash my bios it doesn't recognize my usb flash drive . I hit Alt=F2 but its not there Whats the deal?

[devilhood]

Hmm... ok the system is now stable, but only if I set SPD to Auto... I guess the new BIOS must be doing something completely different with the RAM.

I used to have 4-4-4-9-3-25-3(10)-3 and 7-3-5-4-5-4-5 working fine on 0901.

Reason for (10) is because Transaction Booster set to 0 changes tWR to 10 if it is set to 3 in the BIOS.

Everest seems to report Read Delay Phase Adjust as Neutral now, I don't think it was like that with the 0901 BIOS.

Guess I'll have to re-tweak the latencies bit by bit with this new BIOS, should be fun I guess *dies*

[Nuckin_Futs]

RE: "I want to be able to do 11x400 those chips can't do that"

why only aim for 400FSB. This is like stock for these X38's today. If talking bout the "QX", they were never really the better overclockers in the past, so I don't see why now, especially at a high multi like 11x. Why not try 6x or 7x for better FSB? The E8190 @ 2.66 is likely to be a god canidate for 500x8 on air for only $163.00. Why not see if the E8400 can go beyond 540FSB?

The entry level quad, Q9300, is gonna' have a 7.5x multi for 3.50GHz at 1333FSB. It will be interesting to see how the 0.5x works for overclocking

[leoftw]

forget my previous question . Updated to 0903 woot woot !!! I'm thinking of going with water , this air stuff ain't cutting it .

[devilhood]

Actually, just been playing around and 0903 is tons more fluid for some reason. There was definitely something not working with the previous BIOS' which we assumed did, and then they fixed it with 0903... probably to do with DRAM Static Read Control and the Transaction Booster causing big adjustments to the latencies.

[Trice]

So are a lot of people jumping to 0903? Im still on 505 I think...or something like that.

[devilhood]

So are a lot of people jumping to 0903? Im still on 505 I think...or something like that.

It seems to be ok, just watch how you set your latencies.

[binormalkilla]

W00T!!!!!!!!!! I'm excited guys. BIOS 0902 is a golden one for me. I can FINALLY boot over 415
Now testing at 415x9

[Nuckin_Futs]

DRAM Static Read Control and Transaction booster are both perforamnce options and if used wrong in an OC, of corse you will get instability. If you have good RAM and can get high FSB, you dont need to use mobo performance boosters. Do it yourself in manual timings if need be. Static Read Control helps keep the DRAM frequency to NB strap at a smooth curv as FSB scales upwards, so of corse if we disable it on top of adding booster, we limit FSB overclock and invoke a risk of instability.

This mobo has done 515FSB since BIOS v0401 and every one since with my E6750. Even though in v0602, I could manually use strap and DRAM frequency, I gained nothing from setting it to 333 and DDR1000 for the same 1:1, so I just leave it to "AUTO" from now on unless I need or want to test an updevider to see if worth the gain.

[binormalkilla]

All right I can't actually boot over 400 FSB if I use DDR2-1066 5-5-5-15 so I'm running DDR2-800 4-4-4-12. Doesn't bother me one bit because I am not a big superpi runner or anything.....the only bench I run (other than SANDRA stuff for testing) is 3dmark06.
I'm currently running 425*9 and I'm going to test that for stability.

[binormalkilla]

Whew.....after 3.6 the VCore scales freaking exponentially......I can boot at the same VCore but I crash instantly in Prime95. I upped it to 1.456 (according to CPU-Z) and I'm running 420*9 *(425 not stable just yet)
I'll be able to run 3dmark so far....I think. Stable for a few minutes in Prime95.....

[Nuckin_Futs]

Under my 0901 settings everything was working fine, no crashes or BSOD's during 24/7 operation, that includes Prime and general usage.

All right I can't actually boot over 400 FSB if I use DDR2-1066 5-5-5-15 so I'm running DDR2-800 4-4-4-12. Doesn't bother me one bit because I am not a big superpi runner or anything.....the only bench I run (other than SANDRA stuff for testing) is 3dmark06.
I'm currently running 425*9 and I'm going to test that for stability.

I know you all like the deviders, but just for fun, give 1:1 a try and you should get 450/475/500x7 with a lil ease. I did, review my recent treads.

Q6600 to 500x7 and 8 in 1:1 DDR1000 @ 4-4-4-10. 3.5GHz as 500x7 felt nice on air w/ ASUS P5K Deluxe. I will try it on this mobo just for the sake of knowing if the trouble is in the mobo set up and report back soon I hope.

[jonny_ftm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grnfinger
I do believe that code 4 is a OCCT error

codes 1,2,3,6: calculation error, bad for you
codes 4,5: OCCT memory management error (bad for OCCT)
codes 7 and 7+: OCCT bugs

Wrong, don't belive, be sure...
read me few lines above in this same post
__________________


My info came from Toms Hardware
I figured it wold be correct

My bad

It was ok for older versions of OCCTPT in deed, no worry

$1000.00? You guys are looking at the QX "Extreme units. Why not look into the mainstream Q9450 for sarting price of $316.00 or Q9300 for $266.00. The Q9300 looks to be replacing the Q6700, where as the E8400 is close to the E6850 in specs.

I'm waiting on the Q8450 @ 2.66GHz/2x6m L2/1333FSB on 45nm scheduled price so far of $316.00 San Jose, CA.

Here are entry level quad cores:
Core 2 Quad Q9300 2500 MHz 1333 MT/s 7.5x $266
Core 2 Quad Q9450 2667 MHz 1333 MT/s 8x $316
Core 2 Quad Q9550 2833 MHz 1333 MT/s 8.5x $530

To get only 3.6 GHz from the Q9300, you need 480 FSB.
And for the Q9550, a nice overclock would be 3.8 - 4.0 GHz, which needs 447 to 470 FSB

All these clocks can be reached with the actual Q6600 G0 with lower FSB

No motherboard can actually support in a FULLY STABLE way a +450 FSB on a quad core.

Unless X48 makes a huge improvement in overclocking the FSB for a quad core (yet to be proved), the Yorkfield will be a bad overclocker due to a low multiplier yielding to either a NB or a CPU FSB wall.

The OC story is changing: the CPU now has huge potential, but Intel needs to optimize the chipsets as they did with their CPUs. Unless they do it, the NB will be a new limit in OC

[leoftw]

do you see anything wrong with my overclock ?

I set everything to auto except for the multiplier and the fsb



I know I could push it to 3.8 but I don't know how to mess with the ram , nb and voltage too I'm a total noob

[JH_man]

Been reading through the last pages, but a bit unsure about what BIOS to go for, 0802 or 0903?

JH_man

[ElEctric_EyE]

i would say start with 0802 then see how much better 0903 is. 0903 is a noticeable improvement IMO.

[ElEctric_EyE]

Actually, just been playing around and 0903 is tons more fluid for some reason. There was definitely something not working with the previous BIOS' which we assumed did, and then they fixed it with 0903... probably to do with DRAM Static Read Control and the Transaction Booster causing big adjustments to the latencies.

heh, check out post 3522...