Q9450 OC / Temps / Settings

[RunawayPrisoner]

AI Overclock tuner: manual
CPU Ratio Setting: 8
FSB Frequency: 475
FSB Strap to North Bridge: 333
PCI-E Frequency: 101
DRAM Frequency: DDR2-1141MHz
DRAM CLK Skew on Channel A1: auto
DRAM CLK Skew on Channel A2: auto
DRAM CLK Skew on Channel B1: auto
DRAM CLK Skew on Channel B2: auto
DRAM Timing Control: manual

1st Information :
CAS# Latency: 5
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Delay: 5
DRAM RAS# Precharge: 5
DRAM RAS# Activate to Precharge: 15
RAS# to RAS# Delay : 3
Row Refresh Cycle Time: 55
Write Recovery Time: 5
Read to Precharge Time: 3

2nd Information :
READ to WRITE Delay (S/D): 7
Write to Read Delay (S): 3
WRITE to READ Delay (D): 5
READ to READ Delay (S): 4
READ to READ Delay (D): 6
WRITE to WRITE Delay (S): 4
WRITE to WRITE Delay (D): 6

3rd Information :
WRITE to PRE Delay: 14
READ to PRE Delay: 5
PRE to PRE Delay: 1
ALL PRE to ACT Delay: 6
ALL PRE to REF Delay: 6
DRAM Static Read Control: Disabled
DRAM Read Training: auto
MEM. OC Charger: Enabled
AI Clock Twister: Stronger
AI Transaction Booster: Manual
Common Performance Level 8
Pull-In of CHA PH1: Enabled
Pull-In of CHA PH2: Enabled
Pull-In of CHA PH3: Enabled
Pull-In of CHA PH4: Enabled
Pull-In of CHB PH1: Enabled
Pull-In of CHB PH2: Enabled
Pull-In of CHB PH3: Enabled
Pull-In of CHB PH4: Enabled

CPU Voltage: 1.25xx
CPU GTL Voltage Reference (0/2): 0.630
CPU GTL Voltage Reference (1/3): 0.640
CPU PLL Voltage: 1.56
FSB Termination Voltage: 1.28
DRAM Voltage: 2.02 actual is 2.1
NB Voltage: 1.28
NB GTL Reference: 0.630
SBridge Voltage: 1.20
PCIE SATA Voltage: 1.60

Load Line Calibration: enabled
CPU Spread Spectrum: Disabled
PCIE Spread Spectrum: Disabled
CPU Clock Skew : normal
NB Clock Skew : normal

Advance CPU Settings
CPU Ratio Setting: 8
C1E Suppport: Disabled
Max CPUID Value Limit: Disabled
Intel® Virtualization Tech: Disabled
Vanderpool Technology: Disabled
CPU TM Function: disabled
Execute Disable Bit: disabled

That is what I had her set to 24/7 temps at 62 Celcius max at full load. I think it was like 35 Celcius max at idle.

Temperatures measured by Real Temp?

And... how did the processor die?

@RunawayPrisoner: you do know that both vcore and vtt(vfsb) have the absolute maximum value at 1.45?
1.3v vtt is not dangerous.Over 1.4 and you are in cpu killing territory. Also if your board overvolts and you put in bios 1.4 or less but the real voltage is much higher, then you can assume who killed your cpu.

Nope. Intel specifically stated in their specs sheets that 1.36v is recommended for max vCore. Beyond that, processor may perform in weird ways. Then beyond 1.45v, normal operation is no longer guaranteed.

As for VTT... believe it or not, maximum is 1.10v. Not even funny, as that means... you can't increase VTT at all.

Did you expect Intel say to anandtech, that exceeding nominal values (OC) is safe? That would simply encourage more people to OC and hence would also mean less money for Intel as people would OC instead of buying new CPUs. Intel and anandtech can just assume what was the cause of death of the CPU and Intel took their chance to clearly state that OC is bad and if you do it you may just kill your CPU. Truehighroller had his chip fry with a very low vcore of 1.26V. Does it meant that 1.26V can kill a 45nm chip? Or perhaps voltage regulators just can't work correctly when CPUs are heavily OCed. Some mobos are just not ready to work with quads at 4 GHz, which leads to mobos' failures and consequently dead chips.

You can also compare this situation to RAM makers. The standard voltage for DDR2 800 is 1.8V, yet some manufacturers would rate their sticks for max 2.4V, which is 33% higher than the standard value. Some of the sticks have been running such for 2 years and are still fine. On the other hand some sticks would die with 2V. Does it mean that 2V can kill DDR2? There's much more behind the phenomenon than just stating that such voltage is safe and such is not. If a given mobo has poor voltage regulators, then even safe voltage may cause a chip/stick to die. I've had my 45nm quad run a few times with VTT of 1.5V (overall about 30h) and it's still fine. I've also had my D9GMH stick killed while running with an EVGA 680 @2V within 24 hours, though it had run fine with my Asus P5Be @ 2.2V for a year. One incident can't be an oracle for all cases. I bet there are a number of people whose 45nm chips have been working with VTT>=1.45 and the CPUs are still fine.

Now look at the above settings of truehighroller - can you see any voltage that could lead to his chip being killed? I see none. If we were working for anandtech, we could state, that 1.26V can kill a 45nm chip and everyone would be afraid of setting more than 1.25V

If you look at Intel's specs sheets, you'll see that VTT should have a maximum of 1.10v, and seriously, maximum of 1.10v. Anandtech is recommending others to run at at most 1.40v, but that doesn't mean you can run it as high.

By the way, as stated, VTT is FSB Termination Voltage, not CPU Voltage.

Next is... never ever EVER turn off CPU TM Function. That means even if the CPU detects that it is overheating anywhere, it WON'T turn off!! (Sorry if I sound angry here, but this is critical! Much more critical than other settings!)

[truehighroller]

Temperatures measured by Real Temp?

And... how did the processor die?



Nope. Intel specifically stated in their specs sheets that 1.36v is recommended for max vCore. Beyond that, processor may perform in weird ways. Then beyond 1.45v, normal operation is no longer guaranteed.

As for VTT... believe it or not, maximum is 1.10v. Not even funny, as that means... you can't increase VTT at all.





If you look at Intel's specs sheets, you'll see that VTT should have a maximum of 1.10v, and seriously, maximum of 1.10v. Anandtech is recommending others to run at at most 1.40v, but that doesn't mean you can run it as high.

By the way, as stated, VTT is FSB Termination Voltage, not CPU Voltage.

Next is... never ever EVER turn off CPU TM Function. That means even if the CPU detects that it is overheating anywhere, it WON'T turn off!! (Sorry if I sound angry here, but this is critical! Much more critical than other settings!)

I was expieriencing weird issues with what I thought was my MB because I had shorted out the fan plug with a jumper :P oops. I rmaed the mb P5Q in sig and hooked everything up and still same issues. My issues were when I would go to start up Vista it would hang right after the progress bar and never go any further. I tried to reinstall vista and it would hang at the hard drive detection screen. It actually made my screen go all screwy the last time I tried to reinstall to where it looked like my screen had been swept with a broom, everything went all streaky across the screen. That one is hard to put into words.. I started trouble shooting by testing my memory which made it through like 70% of a pass with memtest with 0 errors and I figured ok it's not that..

I then proceeded to start breaking down my raid and running a single drive at a time to see if I could spot the bad one and I thought I had it then I went through one more time and all three drives seemed ok. I was like ok one thing left CPU. I swapped out mine with my old one now fiance's Q6600 and boom I was able to install Vista without a hitch. I recreated my three drive raid0 and proceeded to install Vista without a hitch. I let it sit there all by itself for prob 6 hours just falling asleep and what not and no issues. My only conclusion was it had to be my Q9450. I would think that it just wouldn't post if it was that but it sure seems to have been just that... I did a quick google and found a couple of post from not to long ago regarding Q6600's that were having similar issues to mine and they ended up being the peoples CPU'S.

P.S yes measured by realtemp.

[SuporterPoli]

Nope. Intel specifically stated in their specs sheets that 1.36v is recommended for max vCore. Beyond that, processor may perform in weird ways. Then beyond 1.45v, normal operation is no longer guaranteed.

As for VTT... believe it or not, maximum is 1.10v. Not even funny, as that means... you can't increase VTT at all.

Can you please point out that with a link or something?
I have this:

From this:
http://download.intel.com/design/pro...hts/318726.pdf
page 19/102

[RunawayPrisoner]

<<Sorry... cutdown effects...>>

From what I am seeing, seems like you fried something. Although RealTemp is not too bad, there are different opinions about the true TJ max of 45nm processors, thus... the general concensus is to stay about 30 - 40C away from TJ max in the worst case scenarios. Plus the fact that these processors are so sensitive to voltage increases in either vCore or VTT (please read below) makes it very lethal to run these at very high voltages on unstable boards.

...But that part was only to scare you. What I think happened is that you got one of those burn-in periods where your processor simply requires more voltage to run stable at a certain clock speed. And It seems 2.02v is too low for 1140MHz RAM. You could have decreased RAM speed or increased vCore and see if that made a difference. And sometimes, something else can go very wrong... like... mostly your northbridge! Believe me or not, the northbridge can cause all sorts of transparent issues when it's not tended to. Too low NB volt can cause random lock-ups anywhere, even if the processor is over-volted and rock-stable. If the chip truly died, it would not even boot. Since it boots, and it seems you are only getting artifacts and lock-ups, so I guess the culprit is the NB. And I think... that's very likely. Lookit how many things you are running through the NB? Your video card? Your RAM sticks? Your CPU? Your HDD? Gahh...

If it's lock-ups and not BSOD's or errors, look for the NB. It's the culprit.

And yes, this is still related to your MB. But there's nothing out there to benchmark motherboards, and quite honestly, I don't even think it's even possible to do that. The integrity of the system is held together by your board, and at most, you can only test different components, and not directly the board itself.

Can you please point out that with a link or something?
I have this:

From this:
http://download.intel.com/design/pro...hts/318726.pdf
page 19/102

From that document:

Table 2-2 specifies absolute maximum and minimum ratings only and lie outside the functional limits of the processor. Within functional operation limits, functionality and long-term reliability can be expected.

At conditions outside function operation limits, but within absolute maximum and minimum ratings, neither functionality nor long-term reliability can be expected.

From table 2-3 from that document: (it's just one table under the one you took in the screenshot)

VID range: Min: 0.8500 - Max: 1.3625
VTT (FSB Termination Voltage): Min: 1.045 - Normal: 1.100 - Max: 1.155

Outside such range, like Intel said, nothing is guaranteed anymore. Thus you should not go too crazy on VTT, as the maximum VTT allowed from the specs sheets does not exceed 0.05v from the normal VTT, and I can see quite a few are pumping in a lot. If the motherboard can sustain the load, it's fine, but if the motherboard can't... (since these are quad-core processors we are talking about) then you can expect very eerie results... often dead processors. VTT is even more sensitive than vCore in this case.

[SNiiPE_DoGG]

Can you please point out that with a link or something?
I have this:

From this:
http://download.intel.com/design/pro...hts/318726.pdf
page 19/102

I think runaway just got owned,

Seriously though no hard feelings, thanks for theinfo man, now I got to get to OCin the proc in my sig

[RunawayPrisoner]

Read what was in the documentation carefully, please. (what was said before that table, and what came after that table) I don't care if I'm wrong in this discussion. It's never been about right or wrong.

My advice to all Q9450 owners right now is to read precisely what I just posted, and not for the sake of me being right, but for the sake of yourselves being informed of what the true situation is, in case you kill off your processor and you don't know who you can cry to, or blame. Trust me, being in that situation feels very terrible, especially since this processor costs as much as $300. Killing one off is not an option.

Or fine... in case what I typed out wasn't interesting enough to read, I assume some screenshots would be more appropriate.









In other words, what Intel is trying to say is that... you should disregard table 2-2 almost completely. It was only for reference and not for any other purpose. Table 2-3 should be the one that you should follow, and according to specs, not even vPLL should exceed 1.50v! It seems absurd, but this means you should go as easy on voltage as possible.

We have had reports of dead processors and degraded processors, folks, please do not skim on any detail, unless you have cash to spare.

[003]

Intel is wrong. Q9450 will easily take 1.5v with proper cooling. Kind of ironic how they make the chip, and they can't even list its own specs correctly!

[SNiiPE_DoGG]

@runaway: 003 raises a very pertinent point about the white papers posted, are they not assuming the parameters of stock cooling? If so then their point may be relevant to those using air cooling, however once the processor is put under water the point may be moot

That said we have no idea what power phases this is reccomended to for, there is major difference on what extremes of voltage you can use between a 4-phase analog board and an 8-phase digital (being that the volts supplied from an 8-phase digital arefar more stable than any other power circuit around)

[RunawayPrisoner]

The cooling solution will only affect thermal specifications. These are electrical specifications we are talking about, and they don't just produce temperature, they also do other things.

Shoving unnecessary technical information down your throats are not what I would like to do at this point, so I would just put it this way: imagine... the processor as a gate (fixed dimensions), and the electrical current as a stick. Overclocking is to try to fit as big a stick through the gate as fast as possible, without actually breaking the gate. Now... on an unstable voltage current, the stick would have varied diameters at different parts of its body, and instability is caused by when a part of the stick cannot fit through or get stuck and block the flow. Now even if you have a more stable stick, a perfect stick with equal diameter anywhere on its length, but its diameter exceed the size of the gate, you'll obviously damage the gate.

Or if I have to put it in simpler terms, consider...
From 1.2v to 1.5v, that's a 0.3v increase. On 65nm processors, a 0.3v increase in voltage is a good increase from 1.3v to 1.6v! Do you run your 65nm at such a voltage increase?

And about VTT, its default value is 1.1v. From 1.1v to 1.4 or even 1.45v, how much of a voltage increase is that?

I am not discouraging overclocking. I am just telling you guys to be careful with the voltage, and not take the minimum and maximum specifications as the "safe" range, because that is not what Intel says. They made the chips, they at least know what they are doing. The key difference between you and them is that they made the chips, they have all of the documentations and all of the engineers needed to diagnose a problem. It's not as if they are clueless even about what they just made. It's actually quite... moronic (excuse me...) to assume that Intel does not know what they are making. If they did not know what they are making, the Core 2 series wouldn't be what they are now.

[003]

I was being half facetious and half serious actually

But seriously, according to what a lot of people would have me believe, my Q9450 should have died a good two or three months ago :P

EDIT:
I ran 65nm at 1.65-1.71v, they work great to this day and overclock as new!

[RunawayPrisoner]

It doesn't degrade that fast. Especially since you have a stable board, the chances are even slimmer. But... ehh... if you were on a lesser board, something might have happened... or... I don't know. If you poke around a bit, you'd see the thread about the 45nm degradation myth, and in it, they describe something known as... a voltage spike. That thing appears to be a PSU problem, and sometimes it would spike to almost 1.7v, an over a period of time, it did worry a few people. Well... anyway, let's just say, safe and sound first. And I'm being safe with my third chip. She's too golden to be reckless. Say... in 3 hours, I'll be back with a 24h prime screenshot at 1.09v.

(And yeah, I know you were being facetious. Just that someone else might have believed something else, so I needed to clarify something. Being the first stupid person to ever take one of these chips to 4GHz to bench and come back, I was lucky with my last two chips. Maybe my fortune with the Q9450 processors hasn't died out, but I don't want to abuse it. I'm being as safe to this baby as possible, because she's just that precious. )

[gillbot]

Intel is wrong. Q9450 will easily take 1.5v with proper cooling. Kind of ironic how they make the chip, and they can't even list its own specs correctly!

Intel is not going to advertize maximums so every joe blo can go out and push the limits. Of course they want you to think the Vmax is lower, it leads to less OC and more processor sales.

[003]

It doesn't degrade that fast. Especially since you have a stable board, the chances are even slimmer. But... ehh... if you were on a lesser board, something might have happened... or... I don't know. If you poke around a bit, you'd see the thread about the 45nm degradation myth, and in it, they describe something known as... a voltage spike. That thing appears to be a PSU problem, and sometimes it would spike to almost 1.7v, an over a period of time, it did worry a few people. Well... anyway, let's just say, safe and sound first. And I'm being safe with my third chip. She's too golden to be reckless. Say... in 3 hours, I'll be back with a 24h prime screenshot at 1.09v.

(And yeah, I know you were being facetious. Just that someone else might have believed something else, so I needed to clarify something. Being the first stupid person to ever take one of these chips to 4GHz to bench and come back, I was lucky with my last two chips. Maybe my fortune with the Q9450 processors hasn't died out, but I don't want to abuse it. I'm being as safe to this baby as possible, because she's just that precious. )

Thats a pretty nasty PSU problem ... 1.7v voltage spikes to the CPU ... thankfully, I did not skimp on my PSU (PCP&C Turbo-Cool 860). Could that be why I have not experienced any issues?

I am aware of the 45nm degradation thread, but it appeared to me that the general consensus was that the intel 45nm CPUs had an initial burn in period of about a week, and at the end of that period, they would require a slight increase in vcore to remain stable overclocked, but after that, they would sit rock solid.

Personally, I have not even noticed that burn in period. My Q9450 has been rock solid and not budged an inch since the day I got it many months ago, even with my "crazy" voltages. I have tried up to 1.65v in my quest to hit 4ghz... even for a single screenshot. But even after a beating like that, nothing changed.

And I know that there are a few intel 45nms out there that have been subjected to 1.8-1.9v under dice and ln2 for benching, and they are still operational to this day.

[SNiiPE_DoGG]

Thats a pretty nasty PSU problem ... 1.7v voltage spikes to the CPU ... thankfully, I did not skimp on my PSU (PCP&C Turbo-Cool 860). Could that be why I have not experienced any issues?

I am aware of the 45nm degradation thread, but it appeared to me that the general consensus was that the intel 45nm CPUs had an initial burn in period of about a week, and at the end of that period, they would require a slight increase in vcore to remain stable overclocked, but after that, they would sit rock solid.

Personally, I have not even noticed that burn in period. My Q9450 has been rock solid and not budged an inch since the day I got it many months ago, even with my "crazy" voltages. I have tried up to 1.65v in my quest to hit 4ghz... even for a single screenshot. But even after a beating like that, nothing changed.

And I know that there are a few intel 45nms out there that have been subjected to 1.8-1.9v under dice and ln2 for benching, and they are still operational to this day.

as I said in my earlier post spikes like that come from running 4-phase or 8-phase analog PWMS, not from PSU issues.

(Refresher for those who don't know the difference between analog and digital)

now on a crappy board with 8 phase analog the variation between each peak voltage can be large, and on top of that if the pwm is of poor quality, peaks will be different voltages.

a good 8-phase digital PWM like the DFI UT/LT boards or your Rampage x48 has no significant variation in cpu voltage, in the DFI boards case not even any vDroop (never used the asus so i cant say for them)


essentially, a good very high end motherboard is going to be able to run more agressive voltages within specs due to higher board voltage stability. however those running a lower end asus/DFI board or gigabyte or evga/XFX should probably leave their voltages at stock

[003]

That is the most plausible explanation I have heard to date. But I thought the Rampage Formula had an 8-phase analog PWM? And just because it is analog does not make it bad. There can be crappy 8-phase analog designs as well as good ones, same goes for digital.

[RunawayPrisoner]

I'm dropping it... if you want to kill the chip so bad, just go ahead and do it. I guess it wasn't my place to say that anyway.

Anyway, back to earlier, now 24-hour prime-stable with small FFT. Should I let it go longer?



For those wondering:

vCPU: 1.1000v set in BIOS (1.088v real as reported by BIOS and CPU-Z)
vCPU GTL: 0.65x (this is P5Q regular, and I don't have the option to tweak the other GTL value)
vPLL: 1.50v
vTT (vFSB): 1.10v
vNB: 1.10v
vSB: 1.10v
vPCIE: 1.50v

Load-Line Calibration: On

Everything else auto.

[truehighroller]

runawayprisoner wrote

"...But that part was only to scare you. What I think happened is that you got one of those burn-in periods where your processor simply requires more voltage to run stable at a certain clock speed. And It seems 2.02v is too low for 1140MHz RAM. You could have decreased RAM speed or increased vCore and see if that made a difference. And sometimes, something else can go very wrong... like... mostly your northbridge! Believe me or not, the northbridge can cause all sorts of transparent issues when it's not tended to. Too low NB volt can cause random lock-ups anywhere, even if the processor is over-volted and rock-stable. If the chip truly died, it would not even boot. Since it boots, and it seems you are only getting artifacts and lock-ups, so I guess the culprit is the NB. And I think... that's very likely. Lookit how many things you are running through the NB? Your video card? Your RAM sticks? Your CPU? Your HDD? Gahh...

If it's lock-ups and not BSOD's or errors, look for the NB. It's the culprit."




My response,


Ok you bring up a good point. It makes more sense then my cpu dieing. I will add this though, I had it at stock with the motherboard giving it 1.17v~ at the default 2.66Ghz setting of the chip when all this happened. I know that doesn't mean that isn't what is happening though. I have had no one mention this possibility to me and I appreciate it. I will try tomorrow to put the chip back onto my old GA-P35-DQ6 here and see if I can get it to act right on hers because I would rather try everything possible before throwing away my $300. I will post my findings sometime tomorrow. I tried to post this earlier but the database went down for the forums so.. I watched the departed for the first time. Good movie, Thanks again.

[truehighroller]

For those wondering:

vCPU: 1.1000v set in BIOS (1.088v real as reported by BIOS and CPU-Z)
vCPU GTL: 0.65x (this is P5Q regular, and I don't have the option to tweak the other GTL value)
vPLL: 1.50v
vTT (vFSB): 1.10v
vNB: 1.10v
vSB: 1.10v
vPCIE: 1.50v

Load-Line Calibration: On

Everything else auto.

I notice you have the p5q like me. Did you know the deluxe "mine" has a voltage bug in the bios? I'm just wondering thats all. Maybe you do. The voltage when set to the lowest setting will over volt bad on some of the settings just fyi in case you don't know and it overvolts bad on some.

[RunawayPrisoner]

I updated the BIOS because it could not hold 3.8GHz together (while it could boot into 500MHz just by adjusting FSB) and I did get 3.8GHz stable but 500MHz was no longer bootable, so yeah... maybe it did overvolt a bit with the original BIOS. Never bothered to check that, though.

It seems reasonable now. I took a multimeter to measure a few spots... and didn't find much. Maybe I'll disassemble the whole thing by Monday, remount some coolers, and try some other points to see where we can measure the exact voltages. Seriously... *beep* to ASUS for making a weird layout for this board. It's not like anyboard I have ever seen. Not that I want to complain... but it makes measuring a bit hard with the board inside the case.

So anyway, those settings are for the new BIOS. The old one didn't have some options.

P.S.: Good luck with the chip. I don't think she died. Maybe the NB didn't have enough voltage to sustain the load on everything... and you did mention unstable SATA lines.

P.S. 2: I won't be able to do anything if the board overvolts, by the way. Every single voltage value is set to their lowest possible, and I can't go lower without modifying something... well, let's see what happens.

[SuporterPoli]

@RunawayPrisoner: sorry to name you again, but do know i dont have anything against you, just really want to clarify some info.
Is there any possibility that Intel made the table that you are mentioning(2.3) for 2664MHz and the other one(2.2) for as a general information?
So basically 1.1vtt is enough for 8x333.
I'm currently running 1.347vcore(idle) and 1.332vtt(idle) for 3.55GHz in my Q9450 and after what you are saying i'm slowly/quickly killing my cpu. But my temps never go higher than 60degrees with a TRUE w Scythe S-Flex 1600rpm fans in push-pull. I'm tempted to go as high as 1.375 with the vcore and 1.35 with the vtt so see if i can reach 3.6.
I saw people shoving more than 1.4volts vcore in their duals. Also the anandtech dudes put their vtt at 1.45 which is pretty much near the absolute maximum rating, if not over when their board overvolts.

[SNiiPE_DoGG]

well at 100% stock settings my Q9650 did 400x9 but if you want to got past 4ghz you can't leave VTT alone or GTLs

[truehighroller]

I updated the BIOS because it could not hold 3.8GHz together (while it could boot into 500MHz just by adjusting FSB) and I did get 3.8GHz stable but 500MHz was no longer bootable, so yeah... maybe it did overvolt a bit with the original BIOS. Never bothered to check that, though.

It seems reasonable now. I took a multimeter to measure a few spots... and didn't find much. Maybe I'll disassemble the whole thing by Monday, remount some coolers, and try some other points to see where we can measure the exact voltages. Seriously... *beep* to ASUS for making a weird layout for this board. It's not like anyboard I have ever seen. Not that I want to complain... but it makes measuring a bit hard with the board inside the case.


P.S. 2: I won't be able to do anything if the board overvolts, by the way. Every single voltage value is set to their lowest possible, and I can't go lower without modifying something... well, let's see what happens.

No I mean it it overvolts bad, you should bump the settings "voltages" one step up otherwise you are pumping like 1.58v through the nb for example. Yes it does it that bad. The more I think about it maybe my was overvolting my nb to 1.58v or something and that was ing it up..... Anyway I just noticed you were at the lowest voltages and I remembered that it is bad on this board "real bad". Thanks again I just woke up and I am going to do some swapping of stuff here and see what I get.

[truehighroller]

Ok here I sit on my GA-P35-DQ6 stable as can be with my Q9450.. I pluuged it into my P5Q and I made it to the part where Vista shows the login screen and all I got was a green screen and it looked like the drives were staying active perminately at that point. It has to be the motherboard.

[RunawayPrisoner]

@RunawayPrisoner: sorry to name you again, but do know i dont have anything against you, just really want to clarify some info.
Is there any possibility that Intel made the table that you are mentioning(2.3) for 2664MHz and the other one(2.2) for as a general information?
So basically 1.1vtt is enough for 8x333.
I'm currently running 1.347vcore(idle) and 1.332vtt(idle) for 3.55GHz in my Q9450 and after what you are saying i'm slowly/quickly killing my cpu. But my temps never go higher than 60degrees with a TRUE w Scythe S-Flex 1600rpm fans in push-pull. I'm tempted to go as high as 1.375 with the vcore and 1.35 with the vtt so see if i can reach 3.6.
I saw people shoving more than 1.4volts vcore in their duals. Also the anandtech dudes put their vtt at 1.45 which is pretty much near the absolute maximum rating, if not over when their board overvolts.

Ehh... I need only 1.10v for VTT even at 3.8GHz, The only thing I need to increase is my NB voltage to reach higher clocks.

No I mean it it overvolts bad, you should bump the settings "voltages" one step up otherwise you are pumping like 1.58v through the nb for example. Yes it does it that bad. The more I think about it maybe my was overvolting my nb to 1.58v or something and that was ing it up..... Anyway I just noticed you were at the lowest voltages and I remembered that it is bad on this board "real bad". Thanks again I just woke up and I am going to do some swapping of stuff here and see what I get.

If it pumped that much through the NB, I'd think it would have died a while ago, because that area is always 60C, and with the NB overvolted so much, it would overheat. Seeing as to how a 24-hour prime sesson was possible, I guess it did not overvolt at all.

Edit: And yeap... just as I suspected. The board got stumped or something. If you are stable, even at stock, on a P35, then I guess that chip is too fine.

[truehighroller]

Ehh... I need only 1.10v for VTT even at 3.8GHz, The only thing I need to increase is my NB voltage to reach higher clocks.



If it pumped that much through the NB, I'd think it would have died a while ago, because that area is always 60C, and with the NB overvolted so much, it would overheat. Seeing as to how a 24-hour prime sesson was possible, I guess it did not overvolt at all.

Edit: And yeap... just as I suspected. The board got stumped or something. If you are stable, even at stock, on a P35, then I guess that chip is too fine.

Your nb temps should not be that high. Mine are like 32c. It is pumping to much into it IMO. I am back on my p5q with it now. I flashed the bios down to the 0704 with the q6600 in it since it seemed to have no issues with it, then sat her back down in her hole and here I type. WOOT