HOWTO: Overclock C2Q (Quads) and C2D (Duals) - A Guide v1.1 - Page 2 - Overclock.net

sgtdisturbed47 · 06-07-07

Quote:

Originally Posted by H3||scr3am

man my Q6600 is on water and the P5N32-E SLi Mobo...I'm @3.1 and everytie i push it any further i hit issues... such as it does a POST and freezes, or just keeps in a POST loop...terrible, i can ramp it up to 3.25 for benchs and such but havn't been able to go much further, and its a pain, i want to suicide it to 3.8-4 range...

I get the same problem with my P5N-E motherboard.

Knitelife · 06-07-07

Kentsfields have issues with some motherboards and overclocking.

I cant say much for the other boards they listed as having issues, but the P5B Deluxe gets along very well with the Kentsfields based on the 5 that I have.

I will be receiving a P5K Deluxe (P35 chipset) tomorrow and will be testing it this weekend with a new Q6600 I got yesterday.

From this article link

Quote:

Overclocking, not with all MOBO!

Unlike with the QX6700, the Q6600’s multiplying coefficient is blocked for increases. Some will say that this isn't a problem as it is possible to increase the FSB. This is true, but unfortunately Kentsfield processors like the QX6700 and Q6600 have some trouble with high FSBs and some motherboards for a reason unknown to us.

With the ASUSTeK P5W-DH Deluxe and the bios 1707, with a stable configuration we were unable to reach over a FSB of 333 MHz. This was 3 GHz for the Q6600 and 3.33 GHz for the QX6700. Even at 3.1 GHz, the Q6600 had errors when several sessions of Prime 95 were launched simultaneously. If, however, we used the multiplying coefficient, the QX6700 was stable from 3.46 GHz.

The P5W-DH wasn't the only card that suffered from this problem, which we hope will be solved by a new bios. However, it wasn't the case of the P5B Deluxe and for this reason we chose this card.

With this motherboard we have had more flexibility with FSB and with this processor we reached 9x378 MHz, or 3.4 GHz. The configuration was stable with four Prime 95s for 30 minutes. To reach this frequency we had to increase the voltage to 1.45V in the bios. It’s important to know that with this card and despite the CPU block power supply of 8 phases, there is a strong voltage reduction in practice with the Kentsfield; 1.4V in stand by and falls to 1.35V in use. With this voltage our meter went a little crazy and measured 172 watts in use or 70 watts more than with initial settings. In consequence, it will be difficult to cool the processor silently.

Silent_Hill · 06-08-07

Absolutely awesome guide !!

Will be of great help once new overclockers read it .. it certainly helped me alot .. very much appreciated !!

:-)

graysky · 06-08-07

Cool, glad it helped you out. Did you lower your temps or raise your cpu speed at all?

Sideburns · 06-08-07

I'm pretty sure you used too much thermal paste....especially since it looks like you lapped your processor...

too much for me to read, but apears to include most useful information.

graysky · 06-08-07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sideburns

I'm pretty sure you used too much thermal paste....especially since it looks like you lapped your processor...

too much for me to read, but apears to include most useful information.

Thanks for the comment. I agree that it *looks* like too much TIM; however, that was the 3rd or 4th attempt (started off using very little) post-lapping. It took much more after I lapped compared to the amount I used when I didn't lap. I can't explain it, but the temp data doesn't lie: my temps using less would hit 80 °C which was insane... I actually thought I took too much off until I realized maybe the advice I got in the forums wasn't correct. I then applied a little bit more (as you saw in the pic) and got some pretty great temps.

PixelChief · 06-10-07

Thanks so much for this guide! It was very helpful.
I saw that you said you had it stable at 3.2ghz, which is what I'm shooting for.
What settings did you change for 3.2ghz? I don't mind a few extra volts, as I've got good cooling.
Thanks.

graysky · 06-11-07

Quote:

Originally Posted by PixelChief

Thanks so much for this guide! It was very helpful.
I saw that you said you had it stable at 3.2ghz, which is what I'm shooting for.
What settings did you change for 3.2ghz? I don't mind a few extra volts, as I've got good cooling.
Thanks.

It required a higher vcore and I can't remember if I had to bump up the NB vcore as well. Give it a try and report your results

Steve-0 · 06-11-07

I'm seeing more and more people switch over to quad-core... Question Yorkfield is supposed to be the native quad-core right?

AMD Dave · 06-11-07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve-0

I'm seeing more and more people switch over to quad-core... Question Yorkfield is supposed to be the native quad-core right?

I don't think so....I could be wrong but I don't think we'll see native quads from Intel until later next year.

EDIT : Nehalem maybe?

		Overclock.net - Overclocking.net > Intel > Intel CPUs
HOWTO: Overclock C2Q (Quads) and C2D (Duals) - A Guide v1.1

06-10-07	#17 (permalink)
PixelChief New to Overclock.net Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 1 Rep: 0 Unique Rep: 0 Trader Rating: 0	Thanks so much for this guide! It was very helpful. I saw that you said you had it stable at 3.2ghz, which is what I'm shooting for. What settings did you change for 3.2ghz? I don't mind a few extra volts, as I've got good cooling. Thanks.

06-11-07	#19 (permalink)
Steve-0 New to Overclock.net Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 583 Rep: 44 Unique Rep: 40 Trader Rating: 1	I'm seeing more and more people switch over to quad-core... Question Yorkfield is supposed to be the native quad-core right?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)