thast easy. its very normal actually..bump cpu volt to 1.4 now it'll work. at every increments of FSB there needs to be a volt increase..thats how oc'ing works. so..clear cmos..and apply those settings once again with 1.4V now. =]
1 - 20 of 41 Posts
2
Quote:
tried it, same problem
![]()
Originally Posted by elito thast easy. its very normal actually..bump cpu volt to 1.4 now it'll work. at every increments of FSB there needs to be a volt increase..thats how oc'ing works. so..clear cmos..and apply those settings once again with 1.4V now. =] |
Quote:
hehe, BE wasnt in my price-range for a quad core!
HT Link is @ x8 multiplier. Keeping it below 2GHz. Auto seems to bring it too high with a FSB increase.
Will try bumping the NB Freq up higher, dropped it a bit figuring it might make things more stable.
When you mention voltage, were you talking about NB voltage? If so, I got "CPU NB VID Control" and "NB Voltage Control" in BIOS, which one would I be increasing?
TIA
Originally Posted by youra6 wouldnt have this problem with a BE... is the HT lin on auto? I wouldnt personally mess with the HT bump the NB freq. and voltage up a bit I dont know DDR3 timings, double check if they are good |
HT Link is @ x8 multiplier. Keeping it below 2GHz. Auto seems to bring it too high with a FSB increase.
Will try bumping the NB Freq up higher, dropped it a bit figuring it might make things more stable.
When you mention voltage, were you talking about NB voltage? If so, I got "CPU NB VID Control" and "NB Voltage Control" in BIOS, which one would I be increasing?
TIA
Quote:
what matters if its a BE or NON BE..ppl are getting the impression that BE's are better than NON BE chips..and that is wrong.. every cpu chip has its limit so you're bound to hit a wall somewhere - once you do..you try to bump the least voltage needed at a time..to get past/ stable that wall..then you'll hit another wall which will require more volt bumps.. I.E. - my 720 - its a BE, but its limit is 3.7GHZ on x4 and 3.8 on x3 i believe? its still gonna be those limits whether i clock by fsb or multi. and i use fsb to clock btw. doesnt earn me any mileage. BE chips just makes OC'ING EASIER with the ability to just use multi instead, but even with just multi upperage - volt increase is a must anyway..
Originally Posted by youra6 wouldnt have this problem with a BE... is the HT lin on auto? I wouldnt personally mess with the HT bump the NB freq. and voltage up a bit I dont know DDR3 timings, double check if they are good |
Quote:
ok..1.4 doesnt work. thats fine, 1.425 now..its the only way..i remember with my own opty165 chip, inorder for me to go from 2.7-2.8 it needed a .75mv but from 1.8-2.7 it was on stock..so you get the idea now..
Originally Posted by avin hehe, BE wasnt in my price-range for a quad core! HT Link is @ x8 multiplier. Keeping it below 2GHz. Auto seems to bring it too high with a FSB increase. Will try bumping the NB Freq up higher, dropped it a bit figuring it might make things more stable. When you mention voltage, were you talking about NB voltage? If so, I got "CPU NB VID Control" and "NB Voltage Control" in BIOS, which one would I be increasing? TIA |
Quote:
find me a 945 that goes past 4.0ghz on air and I will shutup.
Im not saying its better, Its just harder to OC a non BE chip. Where are you getting your facts?
Originally Posted by elito what matters if its a BE or NON BE..ppl are getting the impression that BE's are better than NON BE chips..and that is wrong.. every cpu chip has its limit so you're bound to hit a wall somewhere - once you do..you try to bump the least voltage needed at a time..to get past/ stable that wall..then you'll hit another wall which will require more volt bumps.. I.E. - my 720 - its a BE, but its limit is 3.7GHZ on x4 and 3.8 on x3 i believe? its still gonna be those limits whether i clock by fsb or multi. and i use fsb to clock btw. doesnt earn me any mileage. BE chips just makes OC'ING EASIER with the ability to just use multi instead, but even with just multi upperage - volt increase is a must anyway.. |
Im not saying its better, Its just harder to OC a non BE chip. Where are you getting your facts?
2
Quote:
k,
tried up to 1.475, same issue
![]()
it freezes and restarts before the memory is read during the startup procedure.. ie in starting, i see the bios manufacturer, and CPU type. next normally i see it scan through available memory but it freezes and restarts before this, and loops..
Originally Posted by elito ok..1.4 doesnt work. thats fine, 1.425 now..its the only way..i remember with my own opty165 chip, inorder for me to go from 2.7-2.8 it needed a .75mv but from 1.8-2.7 it was on stock..so you get the idea now.. |
tried up to 1.475, same issue
it freezes and restarts before the memory is read during the startup procedure.. ie in starting, i see the bios manufacturer, and CPU type. next normally i see it scan through available memory but it freezes and restarts before this, and loops..
2
Quote:
tried a 0.04V increase on NB, same issue
cannot visit the link you posted cuz its starred out
![]()
would a NB voltage increase make a difference since NB Freq is set below 2000 (it ran at 2144 fine w/ stock voltages).
Originally Posted by youra6 it would be the NB voltage control NB VID = Voltage for integrated memory controller, increased when overclocking memory. NB Voltage = Voltage supplied to the north bridge chipset (790FX/790X/etc.) which controls the PCIE lanes, not usually increased in values. I personally wouldnt raise the NB VID past 1.375v. Im not sure how it is for a stock 620 tho http://www.**************/forum/show...07/index.html? this can explain a few things |
cannot visit the link you posted cuz its starred out
would a NB voltage increase make a difference since NB Freq is set below 2000 (it ran at 2144 fine w/ stock voltages).
2
Quote:
no it wouldnt. bump vcore to 1.45
and if that doesnt work, bump NB voltage
if that doesnt work, bump RAM voltages
PS: Elito, found a 945 past 4.0ghz on air yet? I didnt think so
Originally Posted by avin tried a 0.04V increase on NB, same issue cannot visit the link you posted cuz its starred out
would a NB voltage increase make a difference since NB Freq is set below 2000 (it ran at 2144 fine w/ stock voltages). |
and if that doesnt work, bump NB voltage
if that doesnt work, bump RAM voltages
PS: Elito, found a 945 past 4.0ghz on air yet? I didnt think so
Quote:
tried all 3, goes a bit further in bootup sequence but still fails POST
NB @ 1.160 from 1.100 default, DRAM @ 1.700 from 1.600 default, and VCore at 1.45
i just have this nagging doubt it has summin to do w/ the ram timings..
Originally Posted by youra6 no it wouldnt. bump vcore to 1.45 and if that doesnt work, bump NB voltage if that doesnt work, bump RAM voltages |
NB @ 1.160 from 1.100 default, DRAM @ 1.700 from 1.600 default, and VCore at 1.45
i just have this nagging doubt it has summin to do w/ the ram timings..
Quote:
no buddy, WHERE ARE YOU getting your facts from?. and exactly.. a 945 will not get pass 4.ghz..WHY? because its got a LIMIT. every chip does..and you indeed made it sound like BE chips were better when u stated "should've gone with a BE" i simply explained that BE chips were easier to OC because it enabled another option with the usage of multi.
++and you know, youre hilarious, pls explain to me - what does it prove if there was a 945 that hits 4ghz on air? it'll prove that the step up - 955 is a better chip because its got a higher BASECLOCK and a BE CHIP? or that the 955's OC potential is higher cus its BE chip? w/e it is, dont forget to add back the 200mhz back to the 945..cus the 955 does have a 3.2 baseclock..so i honestly dont see what youre trying to show me here..
Originally Posted by youra6 find me a 945 that goes past 4.0ghz on air and I will shutup. Im not saying its better, Its just harder to OC a non BE chip. Where are you getting your facts? |
++and you know, youre hilarious, pls explain to me - what does it prove if there was a 945 that hits 4ghz on air? it'll prove that the step up - 955 is a better chip because its got a higher BASECLOCK and a BE CHIP? or that the 955's OC potential is higher cus its BE chip? w/e it is, dont forget to add back the 200mhz back to the 945..cus the 955 does have a 3.2 baseclock..so i honestly dont see what youre trying to show me here..
You will have to do some research on DDR3 timmings
![]()
I dont them too well
3
Quote:
do you think timings could be the issue though? or is it just me :S
found some articles on mem timings and gonna do some reading on it
![]()
Originally Posted by youra6 You will have to do some research on DDR3 timmings
|
found some articles on mem timings and gonna do some reading on it
Quote:
Ugh you just dont get it....
You just disproved your own argument by those words i bold that YOU SAID.
The 955 is better because it can overclock higher period. Are you saying the X3 720 cant overclock to 3.8, even though its stock clock is 200 mhz lower than even the 945????
I have seen many 940's overclock past 4 on air it has the same base clock
Yet the 945 is as expensive as a 955 yet cant overclock as high as the 940...
I never said it was "better" I only said it OC better. Unless you go online and prove me wrong otherwise, I will stand by what I say. And please dont put words in my mouth. I never said it was better
This argument is fruitless; you should look at a good look at your own argument before criticizing others
And to OP, sorry if it seemed that we have trolled on the subject. I wont be diverging the topic anymore
Originally Posted by elito no buddy, WHERE ARE YOU getting your facts from?. and exactly.. a 945 will not get pass 4.ghz..WHY? because its got a LIMIT. every chip does..and you indeed made it sound like BE chips were better when u stated "should've gone with a BE" i simply explained that BE chips were easier to OC because it enabled another option with the usage of multi. ++and you know, youre hilarious, pls explain to me - what does it prove if there was a 945 that hits 4ghz on air? it'll prove that the step up - 955 is a better chip because its got a higher BASECLOCK and a BE CHIP? or that the 955's OC potential is higher cus its BE chip? w/e it is, dont forget to add back the 200mhz back to the 945..cus the 955 does have a 3.2 baseclock..so i honestly dont see what youre trying to show me here.. |
You just disproved your own argument by those words i bold that YOU SAID.
The 955 is better because it can overclock higher period. Are you saying the X3 720 cant overclock to 3.8, even though its stock clock is 200 mhz lower than even the 945????
I have seen many 940's overclock past 4 on air it has the same base clock
Yet the 945 is as expensive as a 955 yet cant overclock as high as the 940...
I never said it was "better" I only said it OC better. Unless you go online and prove me wrong otherwise, I will stand by what I say. And please dont put words in my mouth. I never said it was better
This argument is fruitless; you should look at a good look at your own argument before criticizing others
And to OP, sorry if it seemed that we have trolled on the subject. I wont be diverging the topic anymore
Quote:
you simply can't read right..that was more of a "question" rather than a statement..but ok.
Originally Posted by youra6 Ugh you just dont get it.... You just disproved your own argument by those words i bold that YOU SAID. The 955 is better because it can overclock higher period. Are you saying the X3 720 cant overclock to 3.8, even though its stock clock is 200 mhz lower than even the 945???? I have seen many 940's overclock past 4 on air it has the same base clock Yet the 945 is as expensive as a 955 yet cant overclock as high as the 940... I never said it was "better" I only said it OC better. Unless you go online and prove me wrong otherwise, I will stand by what I say. And please dont put words in my mouth. I never said it was better This argument is fruitless; you should look at a good look at your own argument before criticizing others And to OP, sorry if it seemed that we have trolled on the subject. I wont be diverging the topic anymore |
1 - 20 of 41 Posts
