I hope this doesn't sound flameish, as it isn't intended to be. I just thought I'd explain why I made the recommendation about the vCore being raised.
Originally Posted by dr_bowtie
Thats just plain bad advice comming fron Intel users....
The Brisbane line of chips will clock higher on alot less voltage... if he can make it to 2900 on 1.296v it will make 3.0ghz on about 1.35v
I would consider myself knowledgeable enough with regards to clocking both Intel and AMD CPU's. The reason I recommended raiseing the vCore to 1.5v is because the opening poster didn't mention if he was stable at lower clocks or if he'd done any prior stress testing. Ontop of that, I did a little research to boot. Judgeing by the earlier CPU-Z screenie, the RAM isn't being stressed beyond its default speed or volts either.
I never post information that is based purely on the opinions of other forum members. I always research from various other sources to verify comments, in this case reviews of the opening posters CPU and motherboard. There are plent that are readily available from credible sites if a person takes the time to use Google.
"We worked to reveal the maximum clock speed this processor could work at by raising the Vcore from the nominal 1.25V to 1.5V."
Gavrichenkov, I., 2007, Two Cores at a Low Cost: AMD Athlon 64 X2 3600+ CPU Review
With regards to other Brisbanes attaining high FSB with low vCore, this will depend on the batch of CPU's aswell. Not every CPU clocks the same. There are many members with E6600's who are able to run at 3.6Ghz with much lower vCores than mine (1.45v vs 1.55v).