Hardware Setting Recommendations

Quote:
Whoopass, welcome to OCN

I noticed you mentioned your memory is sitting at DDR2 960. That means your memory is running at 480Mhz which is about 80Mhz overclocked from the factory 400Mhz. This might be the cause and limitation of your current OC. Having overclocked memory can sometimes cause stability issues. I'd suggest running a lower memory frequency (lower the divider) to see if that helps. Try DRR2 667 to see where that puts you. Making changes to your memory can be done within the BIOS under Cell Menu->Advance DRAM Configuration. Change DRAM Timing Mode from Auto to Manual and see if that provides any additional options. Sorry I wish I could help you more with that but your manual isn't exactly informative. Perhaps someone else with this board can pop in and help.

I'd also like to note that the Phenom 9500 was one of the first Phenom processors that came with the TLB bug (translation lookaside buffer). This was plagued in the first version of the Phenom processors (9500/9600). Overclocking is a bit difficult with the existence of this bug. The B3 stepping later on fixed this problem and made overclocking a bit more friendly. If you do want to push your processor more, please disable any options in the BIOS that are related to "virtualization". Look under CPU Feature->SVM Support. Please disable that option. I believe this is where the TLB bug showed it's evil colors.

If you can please add your system specifications to your signature. This is extremely helpful to me and other members. You can do this by going here: http://www.overclock.net/specs.php?do=addsystem.

Don't hesitate to ask more questions

Good luck

I'm using a TLB_disable fix integrated with CrystalCPUID and an application made by Sam2008. That being said, when I first tried to install vista, the system was very unstable until I manually set the memory and other features in the bios (not tweak, just switch from auto to manual settings).

As for your suggestion, my options for DRAM is DTC 0, DTC 1 or Both. If I use Auto - that's what gives my system problems. I'm unsure which one I should be using, or the individual clock settings for the timings that you can change after that (you know what everyone shows the 5-5-5-15-3 stuff lol)

Also just a curious question. My memory both the dual channel and single channel are 800 capable. Would the system run better on under-clocked settings because it allows for better buffer control?

I'm making this relation to the way networks and routers and those devices handle bandwidth. Sometimes having a slower fix speed, or dedicated channels (1 up and 1 down - send / receive idea) make the connection faster and more stable. Sometimes having to large of a open speed doesn't allow for things to be "pushed" through at as fast a pace.

Like a highway, if there's 2 lanes and everyones doing 120, then you're going to do 100-120. But with 4 lanes, you can have some people do 80, while others go 120 - there's more room, so the speeds are flexible and inconsistent.

I'm only asking cause I don't understand why we would invest money into an 800Mhz capable memory stick when it's better to just under-clock it anyway.

Quote:
Whoopass, from what I understand the TLB patch does more harm then good. According to this review it really degrades performance of the machine: http://techreport.com/articles.x/13741.

For your memory, if you have this kit (TWIN2X4096-6400C5) then you should be running these settings:

5 (tCL)
5 (tRCD)
5 (tRP)
18 (tRAS)
23 (tRC)

VDimm should be 1.9volts

I'd advice removing the other Kingston set. It's recommended that you have a matching set of memory when overclocking. It's just much easier to overclock without the frustration in dealing with two different types of memory. Run the memory at it's rated speed. DDR2 800Mhz would surely offer a higher bandwidth speed as oppose to DDR2 667, 533 ect. When you start overclocking though you'll need to drop the frequency so that it does not cause any stability issues with your OC. The memory can be adjusted/played with later on.

Hope that helps

Quote:

Thanks for the settings configuration - I can never understand how those work with memory or what they are for lol. - really appreciate it

From my understanding about the TLB situation - it was more of an issue with server side than client (because clients would never do the computations that would be problem some - correct me if I'm wrong cause in no way do I want my system to crash randomly lol - had enough of that just trying to install vista 64). Also that the hitting performance is a waste and that's why people try to disable the patch for client purposes.

Now I could be wrong - just want to clarify one thing - what you're suggesting - are you saying I should be using the patch because it will make the system unstable if I don't? Or that I shouldn't be so I can get a better OC performance?

I haven't had any issues yet with it disabled - however when the patch is running I do notice that my CPU graphic usages idling can be anywhere from 20-40%. I'm not to happy about that idea because then eventually it'll wear down the CPU faster than it's expected life span.

- To Gerikoh

I realize the 9500 is a very challenging chip to tamper with and I couldn't agree more with the frustration of my limitation in the MSI bios I have lol. I'm used to ASUS boards but the two came in a package deal at a very decent price and I had another computer needing parts so I just upgraded mine to QC and placed my old X2 and other parts in the needing PC.

To be honest, I've enjoyed the transition, the shear increase in performance and advances using the 64 bit Vista with 4+ GB of ram = it's just really worth it if you know your way around computers.

At the end of the day, I'm not really looking to "overclock" my settings per-say. I mean I want a smooth, steady performance. One that maximizes the communication between all components. It's like the networking example I used above in a previous post. Sometimes restricting your components to lower but consistent and steady values provides a much faster and more efficient setup.

At the end of the day, I don't want to have to tamper with each game and application I run (like Adobe CS3 suite, MS VS 2008 or any other heavy end application using CPU and memory resources.) just so they run smoothly. I find some games I can run all my settings high and use Vsync and pre-load information into memory and then others I have to disable and shorten those values just to make it run smoothly.

I don't care what anyone says but when games and applications give you a guideline to what you need to run them - and my system beats every expectation (for the stuff I run) by at least double, I shouldn't have any issue between applications with 1 setting. So that's why I'm looking to make the communication between the CPU, memory and board (and any other part I can tweak) more stable and fluent. Heaving a steady feed, with proper buffer control and basically the end result being "instantaneous" communication between one device to the next rather than wait times and delays based on one part being so fast and the other one relatively slow to it.

I hope what I'm saying is clear with those trying to help. I realize that it's not your ordinary over clocker demands (usually getting the most for your money) but it still abides by over-clocking rules. Cause if you're not careful you can burn out parts lol and that I don't want to do.

Thanks for all the help so far and to come. I'll try the memory clocking settings the next time I Reboot and post any news here. I'll try with the Kingston in there first but if it becomes an issue I'll remove it. Just tired of bending over and pulling out and putting in RAM sticks lol - my computer is overloaded with wires - only because I place them together in paths that allow the CPU and GFX card breathing room. I also don't keep my sides on - I find the system runs better without them .

Quote:
Whoopass, from what I understand the TLB bug only effected the virtualization aspect of the board. The TLB patch was suppose to fix the bug but at the same time it decreases performance. Some have just simply disabled the patch and ran without it. If you intend on not enabling the virtualization extension in your BIOS then I wouldn't worry about the bug. If I'm wrong, someone please jump in and correct me.

Are you still running the Kingston set with the Corsair set? As I stated before you may have a easier time overclocking with a matching set of memory (same sub-timings, voltages, IC's).

Hope that helps