|
![]() |
Overclock.net - Overclocking.net > Intel > Intel - General | |
Odd Stability Testing
|
||
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools |
|
|
#1 (permalink) |
|
New to Overclock.net
|
Hey guys, I'm working on OCing a Q9300 and am encountering some odd results when doing stress testing.
I'm running Win7 x64, Q9300, Gigabyte EG45M-UD2H (G45) Using IntelBurnTest 2.3 I'll sometimes get test times that are about 500sec and only 10GFlops. Which is ~4 slower than what it should be. Both CPU-Z and CoreTemp are reporting everything is running at it's proper speed when this happens. CoreTemp (And the sound of my PWM fan) tell me the cpu isn't heating up as much during the slow tests either. I'm really at a loss for what could be causing this. It didn't happen at stock or up to about 2.6GHz. But now I'm sitting at 360fsb and 2.7ghz and getting runs that take 214sec which is slower than I was getting at stock. Unfortunately I've never OCed with this board or a quad core before, so I'm learning the particulars of both as I go along. And what's happening is leaving me kind of baffled. Thanks for any ideas!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2 (permalink) | |||||||||||
|
4.0 GHz
![]() |
It could be power throttling. if the chip is drawing more power than it is rated for then it may be dropping your multiplier. often when that happens it switches between the multipliers very quickly so that real temp and cpuz do not have time to react. if it is thermal throttling most bios's have the option to disable it. just look for any type of throttling or power saver features and disable them.
it could also just be you are getting minor errors. try upping your voltage a little. also, i see you are new here, you should go to User CP > Add System and fill out your system specs so we can easier help you in the future. :-) you will like it here, welcome. :-)
__________________
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
#3 (permalink) |
|
New to Overclock.net
|
It's not thermals, only getting a max of 62c on one core and the rest are 1-2c lower.
And I will admit I still have the power saving and all features on, as I'd rather leave them on for as long as I can. However, I think the problem was with IntelBurnTest as the LinPack test in OCCT v3.1.0 (Which in theory should be the exact same test) runs with no problems at what seems to be the proper speed and heats the cores up properly. Go Figure. IntelBurn was also throwing errors at the end of the 2nd pass while the OCCT version kept on going with no errors showing. And ::FacePalm:: yeah, totally forgot to fill out my profile. And we even get nice formatting here unlike [H] which is where I'm used to hanging. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 (permalink) | ||||||||||||
|
4.0 GHz
![]() |
Quote:
__________________
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
#5 (permalink) |
|
New to Overclock.net
|
Ah, never heard of power throttling before. I should be pulling under 100w still as I haven't bumped the volts up any so far.
My e6300 was so much easier to OC, just bump the vcore a lil from time to time and run out of ram speed ![]() I was avoiding P95 as everything I was reading was saying about how much better the IntelBurn and everything was. I'm thinking I may go back to the tried and true of it though. 24hour run on blend hasn't failed me yet in terms of system stability. As the LinPack thing acts strange, even in OCCT now. Last edited by WintersFury : 4 Weeks Ago at 08:32 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 (permalink) | ||||||||||||
|
Intel Overclocker
|
I got that once when my OC wasn't stable
__________________
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
#7 (permalink) | |||||||||||
|
4.0 GHz
![]() |
No problem, i hope you figure everything out. ;-)
btw, thank you for the +rep, you got me my second flame. :-)
__________________
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
#8 (permalink) |
|
New to Overclock.net
|
No prob, I was about to hit my head against the keyboard from the thing not working right.
Passed an 1hr 45min of small FFT's in P95, so I figure my OC is pretty stable. Now to try for 3.0+ tomorrow. Hopefully I can do it without bumping the volts much as it's all going to be jammed in a SFF case and I'm getting ~60c temps with no case. This G45 chipset is far more powerful in running up the FSB than I was expecting from a chipset with integrated graphics. Though doing a bit of reading, I'm seeing it's the same as the P45 with less in the way of optimizations for discreet graphics. So I'm thinking I made a wise choice to pay a few more $ for it. Last edited by WintersFury : 4 Weeks Ago at 10:34 PM |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|