Q9450 OC / Temps / Settings

[SNiiPE_DoGG]

justintoxicated, i didnt know you weren't raising your VTT volts, head up to 1.35 in bios (1.34v actual) and your proc should easily get to 3.6 seriously the vtt and 1.6v on the NB will give you that ability to do at least 460 fsb with this board.

i posted a gtl chart over in the x48 thread for you a lil while back, that should help with changing the VTT up

[Justintoxicated]

justintoxicated, i didnt know you weren't raising your VTT volts, head up to 1.35 in bios (1.34v actual) and your proc should easily get to 3.6 seriously the vtt and 1.6v on the NB will give you that ability to do at least 460 fsb with this board.

i posted a gtl chart over in the x48 thread for you a lil while back, that should help with changing the VTT up

Unfortunately that is not the case as I already tried these settings even played with some different GTLs settings acording to other charts my probing the MB and getting the same percentages...

It seems to me I can get away with having my GTL's set incorrectly if I boost Vtt voltages, the more Vtt the more headroom I have for not having the correct GTL. I WAS increasing NB CPU and Vtt but have been working on lowering them for the past week. Unfortunately GTL charts are only somewhat helpful every proc mb may be different. GTL charts should allow you to make a good hypothesis abotu your own setup though! My chip does not match other GTL charts at all.

But hey check it out now! I'm 3200 mhz stable without adding voltage to anything else! Vtt is now at 1.100 with some nice GTL adjustments! leaving them at default levels I have to add a bunch of CPU and Vtt and maybe (dont remember exactly) NB voltages.

Now the next step is to lower GTL's until I'm not stable once I get these as low as possible I will calculate percentages and try for higher clocks keeping them set at this ratio.

Its my new hypothesis that when people switch boards and achieve much higher overclocks (under 500 FSB wise at least) that the MB is simply adjusting their GTL's closer to the CPU's needs. At least to some extent. I do think the DFI board is very capable esp under water, but the Auto GTL settings are no where close to what my CPU needs to achieve higher FSB.

GTL's are KEY!

I have to get to work but I will explain my GTL hypothesis when I get to work.

[SNiiPE_DoGG]

Unfortunately that is not the case as I already tried these settings even played with some different GTLs settings acording to other charts my probing the MB and getting the same percentages...

It seems to me I can get away with having my GTL's set incorrectly if I boost Vtt voltages, the more Vtt the more headroom I have for not having the correct GTL. I WAS increasing NB CPU and Vtt but have been working on lowering them for the past week. Unfortunately GTL charts are only somewhat helpful every proc mb may be different. GTL charts should allow you to make a good hypothesis abotu your own setup though! My chip does not match other GTL charts at all.

But hey check it out now! I'm 3200 mhz stable without adding voltage to anything else! Vtt is now at 1.100 with some nice GTL adjustments! leaving them at default levels I have to add a bunch of CPU and Vtt and maybe (dont remember exactly) NB voltages.

Now the next step is to lower GTL's until I'm not stable once I get these as low as possible I will calculate percentages and try for higher clocks keeping them set at this ratio.

Its my new hypothesis that when people switch boards and achieve much higher overclocks (under 500 FSB wise at least) that the MB is simply adjusting their GTL's closer to the CPU's needs. At least to some extent. I do think the DFI board is very capable esp under water, but the Auto GTL settings are no where close to what my CPU needs to achieve higher FSB.

GTL's are KEY!

I have to get to work but I will explain my GTL hypothesis when I get to work.

you expecting magic when there is very little there.

I can do 400x9 with 1.1v vtt all day long, but if you EVER want to be stable at 440 plus your going to need at least 1.3v if not higher to achieve this.

I have been working with this board, overclocking quads, since its release (almost a year now), I know exactly how it behaves at different FSB levels and what the required settings are. Basically what I'm saying is that you are wasting your time trying to reach mid 400's with such a low vtt, and you need to tweak gtls when you have that higher voltage, otherwise none of the gtl tweaking you did carries over...

[Justintoxicated]

you expecting magic when there is very little there.

I can do 400x9 with 1.1v vtt all day long, but if you EVER want to be stable at 440 plus your going to need at least 1.3v if not higher to achieve this.

I have been working with this board, overclocking quads, since its release (almost a year now), I know exactly how it behaves at different FSB levels and what the required settings are. Basically what I'm saying is that you are wasting your time trying to reach mid 400's with such a low vtt, and you need to tweak gtls when you have that higher voltage, otherwise none of the gtl tweaking you did carries over...

I never trie dover 400 FSB at these voltages.

Problem is even with Vtt @ 1.35 and CPu at 1.4v I can't boot up over 400 FSB... My only stable overclock is at stock voltage with custom GTL's...
3200MHZ is my Max overclock with CPU and NB under water cooling. Actualy if I take out 4GB of ram my max stable overclock is 3400MHZ with high CPU and Vtt voltages. I guess my CPU or Motherboard just sucks? I must have wasted over 48 hour straight playing with this, and I keep going back, to 3200 MHZ completely stable. Its very strange to me I guess my intel just overclocks like asz.

When I say stable I mean at least 50 iterations of Intel Burn Test, often it will fail onyl after 20 tests or so.

[SNiiPE_DoGG]

I never trie dover 400 FSB at these voltages.

Problem is even with Vtt @ 1.35 and CPu at 1.4v I can't boot up over 400 FSB... My only stable overclock is at stock voltage with custom GTL's...
3200MHZ is my Max overclock with CPU and NB under water cooling. Actualy if I take out 4GB of ram my max stable overclock is 3400MHZ with high CPU and Vtt voltages. I guess my CPU or Motherboard just sucks? I must have wasted over 48 hour straight playing with this, and I keep going back, to 3200 MHZ completely stable. Its very strange to me I guess my intel just overclocks like asz.

When I say stable I mean at least 50 iterations of Intel Burn Test, often it will fail onyl after 20 tests or so.

r u kidding? burn test is bs and nothing loads a cpu like that so why bother?

that's like taking a coat hanger and hanging a 100lb weight from it to test its reliability, when all you really need it to do is hang a coat

I've never had a system that was 2hr OCCT stable crash on my before so that is my stability benchmark.

[Justintoxicated]

r u kidding? burn test is bs and nothing loads a cpu like that so why bother?

that's like taking a coat hanger and hanging a 100lb weight from it to test its reliability, when all you really need it to do is hang a coat

I've never had a system that was 2hr OCCT stable crash on my before so that is my stability benchmark.

I have had systems that pass 48 hours of prime crash on me before.

Stable is stable I don't want "stable enough" thats not acceptable for me. I'd rather be truely stable than pretend that I am. If the CPU can pass it at default speeds it should be able to with a so called "Stable" overclock. 3200MHZ is all I can hit and adding voltage to the CPU does not help. I have spent over a month total trying to go higher, I have only managed to do so with 4GB memory and alot of voltage. I feel much better knowing my CPU can take anything I throw at it and will be stable. Sure nothing loads it up like burntest but thats not to say it will never make a mistake unless it is under a load. 50 iterations of Burntest takes about 4-6 hours to complete with 8 GB of memory. I think tis very reasonable.

[SNiiPE_DoGG]

I have had systems that pass 48 hours of prime crash on me before.

Stable is stable I don't want "stable enough" thats not acceptable for me. I'd rather be truely stable than pretend that I am. If the CPU can pass it at default speeds it should be able to with a so called "Stable" overclock. 3200MHZ is all I can hit and adding voltage to the CPU does not help. I have spent over a month total trying to go higher, I have only managed to do so with 4GB memory and alot of voltage. I feel much better knowing my CPU can take anything I throw at it and will be stable. Sure nothing loads it up like burntest but thats not to say it will never make a mistake unless it is under a load. 50 iterations of Burntest takes about 4-6 hours to complete with 8 GB of memory. I think tis very reasonable.

no, your being unreasonable, my computer never crashes and I use it all the time for all different kinds of things. Dont complain to all of us that you cant get your cpu to OC high when you put it under ridiculous stress and then say "oh its unstable"