Core 2 4500 Won't OC :(

'Bob Johnson' wrote:
| I disabled SpeedSteep anf am running at 11x 272 (2.9ghz) with the voltage
| set to auto so I think it bumped it a bit; I'll have to write it all down.
|
|
| I didn't know about the "hidden" menu so, thanks for that.
|
|
| I ran the dual core version of Orthos for a while this morning. The core
| temps went from 32° to 58° with room temp around 67° F. Is that OK?
_____

There really is no 'OK' core temperature. Since overclocking involves, in
part, swapping temperature for clock speed, a lower CPU core temperature is
helpful. On the other hand, at a certain point lowering the core
temperature becomes more expensive than just getting a faster stock clock
speed to begin with. As long as you can keep the core temperature 10
degrees C below the Intel specified top operating temperature you are likely
to realize most of overclocking potential of a particular CPU that is
available at a reasonable cost. Water cooling can get you another 10 - 15 C
temperature reduction. After that you would need to move to phase change
cooling (think refrigerator) or Peltier arrays. And finally, there are
reports of extreme overclocking using cryogenic cooling - but that is more
for bragging rights than useable computer power.

Keep in mind that there are THREE settings for Orthos. The small FFTs
setting generates a considerably higher core temperature than the other two
choices (for small FFTs the data and program loops are contained almost
entirely in the L1 and L2 caches so that the core never have to wait for
main memory access.)

Phil Weldon

"Bob Johnson" <me@getlost.com> wrote in message
news:Jaednc3fQ9af-s7anZ2dnUVZ_uuqnZ2d@comcast.com...
| Thanks, Everyone
|
|
| I disabled SpeedSteep anf am running at 11x 272 (2.9ghz) with the voltage
| set to auto so I think it bumped it a bit; I'll have to write it all down.
|
|
| I didn't know about the "hidden" menu so, thanks for that.
|
|
| I ran the dual core version of Orthos for a while this morning. The core
| temps went from 32° to 58° with room temp around 67° F. Is that OK?
|
|
|
|
| "Fishface" <invalid@ddress.ok?> wrote in message
| news:6mB4j.298$md.260@trnddc06...
| > Bob Johnson wrote:
| >
| >> Do the memory settings look oK?
| >
| > Do you know about pressing <ctrl>+F1 in the BIOS to enable the
| > advanced settings?
| >
| > The SpeedStep seems like a desirable feature, but can create instability
| > when overclocking, probably because it drops the voltage, too. You can
| > mess around with it later, but for now, you should disable it.
| >
| > Unfortunately, my DS3L is not currently set-up, so I can't easily check
| > the BIOS screens. Your setup screens should look pretty much like
| > these, I think:
| > http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=110004
| >
| > In order to run 3 GHz, you might try setting your "CPU Clock Ratio" to
| > '9',
| > your "CPU Host Frequency" to "333", and your "System Memory Multiplier"
| > to "2.0". Leave your "CPU Voltage Control" on "Auto" for now-- it will
| > be
| > raised automatically (to some predefined extent) for you when
| > overclocking.
| > Look at the "Normal CPU Vcore" to see what your CPU is asking for on the
| > VID pins. You can try lowering it later if it is stable. This will run
| > your
| > DDR2-400 memory at DDR2-333 speed.
|
|
|
|
| Why would you lower the ratio and raise the bus speed if the result is the
| same?
|
|
|
|
| >
| > 8 x 375 will also give you 3GHz. 7 x 428 would also, but your memory is
| > then running out of spec at DDR2-428 speed. In the bios screen, the
| > memory speed will be shown doubled, since it is "double data rate",
| > but the actual clock frequency will be half that with the "System Memory
| > Multiplier" at "2.0".
|
|
|
|
| Doesn't the GB board automatically keep the memory at 800 if auto is
chosen?
|
| >
|
|
| > Is this your RAM?
| > http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820231098
| > It calls for 1.8v to 2v. The "DIMM OverVoltage Control" can be set to
| > "+0.2v" to give you 2v, since the BIOS has this screwy way of setting
it.
| > Since you are not overclocking your RAM, at least not yet, you should be
| > fine with that.
|
|
|
|
| Yes, that's it. Is it decent? Should I leave the "relaxed" settings
alone
| for now?
|
|
| Thanks to all!
|
| bob
|
|
|
|
|

"~misfit~" <misfit61nz@yahoot.com.au> skrev i en meddelelse
news:47528b91@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
> Trust CPU-Z. Especially if it's version 1.41. Trust it above all else.

There's a version 1.42 out http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php :-)

'Per Nielsen' wrote:
| There's a version 1.42 out http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php :-)
_____

Thanks very much for posting this information about the new version of CPU-Z
along with the URL.

Phil Weldon

"Per Nielsen" <dazzler53@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:47581a0d$0$21933$157c6196@dreader1.cybercity. dk...
| "~misfit~" <misfit61nz@yahoot.com.au> skrev i en meddelelse
| news:47528b91@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
| > Trust CPU-Z. Especially if it's version 1.41. Trust it above all else.
|
| There's a version 1.42 out http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php :-)
|
|

Somewhere on teh interweb Phil Weldon typed:
> 'Per Nielsen' wrote:
>> There's a version 1.42 out http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php :-)
> _____
>
> Thanks very much for posting this information about the new version
> of CPU-Z along with the URL.

Seconded. Thanks heaps. :-)
--
TTFN,

Shaun.