Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel CPUs › 9x333, 8x375, or 7x428 on a Q6600 - Which is faster?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

9x333, 8x375, or 7x428 on a Q6600 - Which is faster?

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 
What is a better overclock?

Good question. Most people believe that a higher FSB and lower multiplier are better since this maximizes the bandwidth on the FSB. Or is a low bus rate and higher multiplier better? Or is there no difference? I looked at three different settings on my Q6600:

9x333 = 3.0 GHz (DRAM was 667 MHz)
8x375 = 3.0 GHz (DRAM was 750 MHz)
7x428 = 3.0 GHz (DRAM was 856 MHz)

The DRAM:CPU ratio was 1:1 for each test and the voltage and timings were held constant; voltage was 2.25V and timings were 4-4-4-12-4-20-10-10-10-11.

After the same experiments, at each of these settings, I concluded that there is no difference for real world applications. If you use a synthetic benchmark, like Sandra, you will see faster memory reads/writes, etc. with the higher FSB values -- so what. These high FSB settings are great if all you do with your machine is run synthetic benchmarks. But the higher FSB values come at the cost of higher voltages for the board which equate to higher temps.

I think that FSB bandwidth is simply not the bottle neck in a modern system... at least when starting at 333. Perhaps you would see a difference if starting slower. In other words, a 333 MHz FSB quad pumped to 1333 MHz is more than sufficient for today’s applications; when I increased it to 375 MHz (1500 MHz quad pumped) I saw no real-world change; same result when I pushed it up to 428 MHz (1712 MHz quad pumped). Don’t believe me? Read this thread wherein x264.exe (a video encoder) is used at different FSB and multiplier values. Have a close look at the 3rd table in that thread and note the FPS (frames per second) numbers are nearly identical for a chip clocked at the same clockrate with different FSB speeds. This was found to be true of C2Q as well as C2D chips.

You can do a similar test for yourself with applications you commonly use on your machine. Time them with a stop watch if the application doesn’t report its own benchmarks like x264 does.

Some "Real-World" Application Based Tests

Three different 3.0 GHz settings on a Q6600 system were tested with some apps including: lameenc, super pi, x264, winrar, and the trial version of photoshop. Here are the details:

Test O/C 1: 9x333 = 3.0 GHz


Test O/C 2: 8x375 = 3.0 GHz


Test O/C 3: 7x428 = 3.0 GHz


Result: I could not measure a difference between a FSB of 333 MHz, 375 MHz, or 428 MHz using these application based, "real-world" benchmarks.

Since 428 MHz is about 28 % faster than 333 MHz, you’d think that if the FSB was indeed the bottle neck, the higher values would have given faster results. I believe that the bottleneck for most apps is the hard drive.

Description of Experiments and Raw Data

Lame version 3.97 – Encoded the same test file (about 60 MB wav) with these commandline options:
Code:
lame -V 2 --vbr-new test.wav
(which is equivalent to the old –-alt-preset fast standard) a total of 10 times and averaged play/CPU data as the benchmark.

Super Pi version 1.1 – Ran both the 1M and 2M tests and compared the reported total number of seconds to calculate as the benchmark.

x264 version 0.54.620 – Ran a 2-pass encode on the same MPEG-2 (480x480 DVD source) file twice and averaged the FPS1 and FPS2 numbers as the benchmark. In case you’re wondering, here is the commandline options for this encode, pass1:
Code:
x264 --pass 1 --bitrate 1000 --stats "C:\\work\est-NEW.stats" --bframes 3 --b-pyramid --direct auto --subme 1 --analyse none --vbv-maxrate 25000 --me dia --merange 12 --threads auto --thread-input --progress --no-psnr --no-ssim --output NUL "C:\\work\est-NEW.avs"
And for pass2:
Code:
x264 --pass 2 --bitrate 1000 --stats "C:\\work\est-NEW.stats" --ref 3 --bframes 3 --b-pyramid --weightb --direct auto --subme 6 --trellis 1 --analyse all  --8x8dct --vbv-maxrate 25000 --me umh --merange 12 --threads auto --thread-input --progress --no-psnr --no-ssim --output "C:\\work\est-NEW.264" "C:\\work\est-NEW.avs"
The input avisynth script was:
Code:
global MeGUI_darx = 4
global MeGUI_dary = 3
DGDecode_mpeg2source("C:\\work\est-new.d2v")
AssumeTFF()
Telecide(guide=1,post=2,vthresh=35) # IVTC
Decimate(quality=3) # remove dup. frames
crop( 2, 0, -10, -4)
Spline36Resize(640,480) # Spline36 (Neutral)
RAR version 2.63 – Had rar run my standard backup batch file which generated about 0.98 G of rars (1,896 files totally). Here is the commandline I used:
Code:
rar a -u -m0 -md2048 -v51200 -rv5 -msjpg;mp3;tif;avi;zip;rar;gpg;jpg  "e:\\Backups\\Backup.rar" @list.txt
where list.txt a list of all the dirs I want it to back up. I timed how long it took to complete with a stop watch. I ran the backup twice and averaged it as the benchmark.

Trial of Photoshop CS3 – I used the batch function in PSCS3 to batch bicubic resize 10.1 MP to 0.7 MP (3872x2592 --> 1024x685), then applied an unsharpen mask (60 %, 0.8 px radius, threshold 12), and finally saved as quality 8 jpg. In total, 57 jpg files were used in the batch. I timed how long it took to complete two runs, and averaged them together as the benchmark.

Here are the raw data if you care to see them:
computer
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
3370K Asus P8Z77X-V Pro GSKILL Ripjaw Vertex 4 
CoolingOSPowerCase
NH-D14 Linux SEASONIC SS-560KM P183 
  hide details  
Reply
computer
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
3370K Asus P8Z77X-V Pro GSKILL Ripjaw Vertex 4 
CoolingOSPowerCase
NH-D14 Linux SEASONIC SS-560KM P183 
  hide details  
Reply
post #2 of 12
I've ran lower multi (450x7) and now with the full multi (350x9) and I see absolutely no difference at all, that's why I'm sticking with the full multi.

BTW, I did try with the P4 660 as well and same results, it seems as if for Intel processors, FSB means nothing......but the clock speed and high-memory-bandwidth.

Also, I like using the full multi which allows me to use the power saving features and make my CPU run at 2.10ghz for idle and 3.15ghz for load, something that the lower multi wouldn't allow.
post #3 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nasgul View Post
I've ran lower multi (450x7) and now with the full multi (350x9) and I see absolutely no difference at all, that's why I'm sticking with the full multi.

BTW, I did try with the P4 660 as well and same results, it seems as if for Intel processors, FSB means nothing......but the clock speed and high-memory-bandwidth.

Also, I like using the full multi which allows me to use the power saving features and make my CPU run at 2.10ghz for idle and 3.15ghz for load, something that the lower multi wouldn't allow.
But ppl keep recommending overclockable ram throughout this forum! Which still makes no sense as your not needing to run such a high FSB. So why are ppl still recommending higher speed memory on Core 2 Duo/Quad systems?
 
X79 Build
(13 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7-6950X @ 4.0Ghz Asus Rampage V Extreme [Bios:3101] 2x EVGA GeForce Titan X SC Editions in SLI 32GB (4×8) Corsair Dominator Platinums (3000Mhz) 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 950 Pro 512GB M.2 Nvme 2x 256GB Vertex 4 SSD (RAID-0) 2x 2TB Seagate Barracuda [Storage] Pioneer BDR-207DBK Blu-ray Writer 
CoolingOSMonitorPower
Corsair H105 (Push/Pull) Windows 10 Pro x64 2x 27" Asus PG278Q ROG Swift 144hz  Corsair AX1500i Digital ATX 80 Plus Titanium 
CaseAudio
Lian Li PC-O8WX ATX Cube Case Logitech Z906 5.1 Surround 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-3930K (C2) @ (4.6Ghz) Asus Rampage IV Extreme X79 (Bios 3204) 3x EVGA GTX780Ti's SC Editions 32GB (4x8GB) G-Skill TridentX 2400Mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
2x 256GB OCZ Vertex 4's (RAID-0) 2x 2TB Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 64MB Cache Pioneer BDR-207DBK Blu-ray Writer Corsair H105 (Push/Pull) 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Win7 Pro 64Bit & Win10 Pro 64Bit Asus ROG Swift (2560x1440 @144hz) Corsair AX1200 + Corsair RED sleeved cables Coolermaster Cosmos II Ultra 
  hide details  
Reply
 
X79 Build
(13 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7-6950X @ 4.0Ghz Asus Rampage V Extreme [Bios:3101] 2x EVGA GeForce Titan X SC Editions in SLI 32GB (4×8) Corsair Dominator Platinums (3000Mhz) 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 950 Pro 512GB M.2 Nvme 2x 256GB Vertex 4 SSD (RAID-0) 2x 2TB Seagate Barracuda [Storage] Pioneer BDR-207DBK Blu-ray Writer 
CoolingOSMonitorPower
Corsair H105 (Push/Pull) Windows 10 Pro x64 2x 27" Asus PG278Q ROG Swift 144hz  Corsair AX1500i Digital ATX 80 Plus Titanium 
CaseAudio
Lian Li PC-O8WX ATX Cube Case Logitech Z906 5.1 Surround 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-3930K (C2) @ (4.6Ghz) Asus Rampage IV Extreme X79 (Bios 3204) 3x EVGA GTX780Ti's SC Editions 32GB (4x8GB) G-Skill TridentX 2400Mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
2x 256GB OCZ Vertex 4's (RAID-0) 2x 2TB Seagate Barracuda 7200.14 64MB Cache Pioneer BDR-207DBK Blu-ray Writer Corsair H105 (Push/Pull) 
OSMonitorPowerCase
Win7 Pro 64Bit & Win10 Pro 64Bit Asus ROG Swift (2560x1440 @144hz) Corsair AX1200 + Corsair RED sleeved cables Coolermaster Cosmos II Ultra 
  hide details  
Reply
post #4 of 12
Thread Starter 
@Mhill - Probably for 2 reasons:

1) they're just regurgitating info. they read somewhere
2) they truly want to run higher overall clock rates, not just a higher FSB to achieve the same clockrate.
computer
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
3370K Asus P8Z77X-V Pro GSKILL Ripjaw Vertex 4 
CoolingOSPowerCase
NH-D14 Linux SEASONIC SS-560KM P183 
  hide details  
Reply
computer
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
3370K Asus P8Z77X-V Pro GSKILL Ripjaw Vertex 4 
CoolingOSPowerCase
NH-D14 Linux SEASONIC SS-560KM P183 
  hide details  
Reply
post #5 of 12
Well if I cant run my ram at a setting of 2:3 or 4:5 because of my overclock I will run 500x8 with ram 1:1 so I can get ddr2 1000 vise getting ddr2 888 when running a 444x9 multi. The faster ram helps with things like super pi benches and other benchmarks if you can keep nice tight timings and stuff.
xeon
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
W3520 x58 ud5 9800gtx+ tridents 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
wd black x2 W7 64 acer 23 ocz 850hx 
Case
haf932 
  hide details  
Reply
xeon
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
W3520 x58 ud5 9800gtx+ tridents 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
wd black x2 W7 64 acer 23 ocz 850hx 
Case
haf932 
  hide details  
Reply
post #6 of 12
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MADMAX22
The faster ram helps with things like super pi benches and other benchmarks if you can keep nice tight timings and stuff.
That's the whole point of my thread... you can get nice and quick bench marks, but those are more or less approaching the theoretical maxs for the hardware. What's the point of powering all that FSB bandwidth if real applications you would run on your machine aren't limited by much lower numbers?
computer
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
3370K Asus P8Z77X-V Pro GSKILL Ripjaw Vertex 4 
CoolingOSPowerCase
NH-D14 Linux SEASONIC SS-560KM P183 
  hide details  
Reply
computer
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
3370K Asus P8Z77X-V Pro GSKILL Ripjaw Vertex 4 
CoolingOSPowerCase
NH-D14 Linux SEASONIC SS-560KM P183 
  hide details  
Reply
post #7 of 12
Yeah I understand what your getting at, thats why its allways good to try real worlld test to see whats faster for your setup. Its like burning a cd and using a stop watch to figure out which is actually faster.

Really I just like running everything at its max so I like high fsb but yeah it really isnt necessary. Plus I like running my ram faster and with 500fsb my ram is running at its stock speed with a little tighter timings. I wish I could pull off 450fsb with 4:5 divider but my board doesnt like to run that divider above 400fsb. The 2;3 divider would be pushing any ram way to high for a 450fsb so I am kind of SOL for doing that. Although I would like to .
xeon
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
W3520 x58 ud5 9800gtx+ tridents 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
wd black x2 W7 64 acer 23 ocz 850hx 
Case
haf932 
  hide details  
Reply
xeon
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
W3520 x58 ud5 9800gtx+ tridents 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
wd black x2 W7 64 acer 23 ocz 850hx 
Case
haf932 
  hide details  
Reply
post #8 of 12
Thread Starter 
Gotcha, like i said in the guide, it's your chip, do what you want with it
computer
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
3370K Asus P8Z77X-V Pro GSKILL Ripjaw Vertex 4 
CoolingOSPowerCase
NH-D14 Linux SEASONIC SS-560KM P183 
  hide details  
Reply
computer
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
3370K Asus P8Z77X-V Pro GSKILL Ripjaw Vertex 4 
CoolingOSPowerCase
NH-D14 Linux SEASONIC SS-560KM P183 
  hide details  
Reply
post #9 of 12
Thread Starter 
In the interest of overkill, I just completed the same benchmark @ 7x428 (edited first post in thread). Results are the same: no benefit of an even higher FSB.
computer
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
3370K Asus P8Z77X-V Pro GSKILL Ripjaw Vertex 4 
CoolingOSPowerCase
NH-D14 Linux SEASONIC SS-560KM P183 
  hide details  
Reply
computer
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
3370K Asus P8Z77X-V Pro GSKILL Ripjaw Vertex 4 
CoolingOSPowerCase
NH-D14 Linux SEASONIC SS-560KM P183 
  hide details  
Reply
post #10 of 12
Very nice experiment. This allows us to conclude that the overemphasis on overclocking RAM, different settings with the CPU, and synthetic benchmarks are actually superfluous. The results don't accurately insinuate any real world applications performance. In most cases, it will be negligible.
Monstar Bawls
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Asus P5W DH Deluxe EVGA GeForce GTX 260 896MB G.Skill 4GB DDR2 1000 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2 x Wester Digital Caviar Black 750 GB RAID 0 LITE-ON DVD±RW/DVD-RAM w/ Lightscribe Microsoft Windows 7 Professional 64-bit Acer AL2216W 22" Widescreen 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G15 OCZ GameXStream 700W Antec Nine Hundred Logitech G9 
Mouse Pad
Razer eXactMat 
  hide details  
Reply
Monstar Bawls
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Asus P5W DH Deluxe EVGA GeForce GTX 260 896MB G.Skill 4GB DDR2 1000 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2 x Wester Digital Caviar Black 750 GB RAID 0 LITE-ON DVD±RW/DVD-RAM w/ Lightscribe Microsoft Windows 7 Professional 64-bit Acer AL2216W 22" Widescreen 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G15 OCZ GameXStream 700W Antec Nine Hundred Logitech G9 
Mouse Pad
Razer eXactMat 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Intel CPUs
Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel CPUs › 9x333, 8x375, or 7x428 on a Q6600 - Which is faster?