On 21 Jan, 04:41, "Fishface" <inva...@ddress.ok?> wrote:
> bornfree wrote:
> >I have a small overclock (300mhz) on my Intel Core 2 E6300 machine.
> > Should I use Gigabytes equivalent to speedstep?
>
> If it is stable at your chosen overclock, then sure, why not? It'll run cooler,
> use less power, and probably last longer.
On 21 Jan, 04:41, "Fishface" <inva...@ddress.ok?> wrote:
> bornfree wrote:
> >I have a small overclock (300mhz) on my Intel Core 2 E6300 machine.
> > Should I use Gigabytes equivalent to speedstep?
>
> If it is stable at your chosen overclock, then sure, why not? It'll run cooler,
> use less power, and probably last longer.
If I double or triple my over clock, do you think the speedstep will
cause problems?
Somewhere on teh intarweb "bornfree" typed:
> On 21 Jan, 04:41, "Fishface" <inva...@ddress.ok?> wrote:
>> bornfree wrote:
>>> I have a small overclock (300mhz) on my Intel Core 2 E6300 machine.
>>> Should I use Gigabytes equivalent to speedstep?
>>
>> If it is stable at your chosen overclock, then sure, why not? It'll
>> run cooler, use less power, and probably last longer.
>
> If I double or triple my over clock, do you think the speedstep will
> cause problems?
Why would it?
I have a rock-solid stable system, an E4500 that was supposed to run at 11 x
200(real)MHz for 2.2GHz CPU clock. I've restricted the multiplier to 8x,
raised the vcore a smidgen, set the FSB to 413 (seemed like a good number),
for a "1652MHz" [quad-pumped] FSB, which is running my DDR3/800 1:1at "826".
I have left speedstep, EIST, whatever you want to call it, enabled. When the
PC is idling the multiplier drops to 6x and gives me a CPU speed of just
under 2.5GHz. That's plenty powerful for running a system at idle don't you
think? When I need the power it switches to 8x faster than I can blink.
I could lock it at the 8x multiplier, disable SS/EIST (in fact I did for a
while) but I don't see the point. <shrug>
--
Shaun.
Use speedstep or not? 
I had to check!
Linear Mode
