|
The Official OC (OverClocking) Thread!
|
|
|
NO Fanboy comments needed
|
|
MaccerM
Member
|
26. November 2008 @ 15:49 |
Link to this message
|
|
I think a 4Ghz Q9xx0 would be fantastic. I also know that it'll cost at least £100 more than hitting 4.5Ghz with a dual. For a stepped upgrade I don't think the current quads are a better choice for playing games... for the next X months. And when everyone is buying i7s I'll get a Q9xx0 when they cost £100 not £250!
However with the exchange rates as they are I might not be buying anything for a while! UK has been hit with 25% extra on anything priced in dollars :o(
Q9550 @ 3.4Ghz-1.275v & TRUE, Asus P5N-T Deluxe, 4Gb Dominator 1066 (5-5-5-15), Inno3d OC 8800GTs in SLi with TT Duorbs, 580w 5.1 Setup, 2x DVD-RAM, 320&160Gb SATA2 HDDs, 17" 3ms Hyundai TFT, 700w Jeantech PSU.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
26. November 2008 @ 16:43 |
Link to this message
|
I don't think that you're going to see the Q9650s' going down for some time. Even though i7 has been released the costs for a motherboard are still quite high and you will also have to get a trio of DDR3. For a dual core to come close to matching a 4 GHz quad it would have to hit about 9GHz stable which we both know will never happen even with liquid nitrogen. I have no intentions of building an i7 setup until the 35nm chips arrive.
Had it to 4.15 before my memory crapped out but since I have no intentions of running at that speed it's a moot point.
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. |
|
spamual
Suspended permanently
|
27. November 2008 @ 02:11 |
Link to this message
|
|
soph, just remember thats IF a program ustilizes a quad core fully :D
and psshhhhtt.... (its 32nm next not 35 :D)
|
|
MaccerM
Member
|
27. November 2008 @ 04:34 |
Link to this message
|
|
The consideration for me is price. An E8400 should work out under £100 once I Ebay the E6320, give me another 1Ghz+ of clock speed and leave some cash spare for a new monitor. It'd either be that or a Q6600, and there's no guarantee I'd even hit 3.4 with one of those, plus every Q6600/E8400 comparison I've seen has said get the E8400 because once you factor in the OC its much quicker. Need to try and find a Q6600 vs E8400 with Sli comparison to see what this quad/dual core & dual cpu difference is (if any) - anyone know of a link?
Q9550 @ 3.4Ghz-1.275v & TRUE, Asus P5N-T Deluxe, 4Gb Dominator 1066 (5-5-5-15), Inno3d OC 8800GTs in SLi with TT Duorbs, 580w 5.1 Setup, 2x DVD-RAM, 320&160Gb SATA2 HDDs, 17" 3ms Hyundai TFT, 700w Jeantech PSU.
|
|
MaccerM
Member
|
27. November 2008 @ 05:15 |
Link to this message
|
Ok, I managed to turn up this little link;
http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i7-mu...mance-review/19
That compares a stock 3Ghz E8400 and a Q9770 stock at 3.2Ghz and the top increase in fps over the 8400 is 35% in FC2 and 25% in crysis warhead, with two extra cores, another 200mhz on the clock and triple SLi!
The Q9770 is 5% faster clocked, and assuming that you'd be able to get the E8400 clocked 10-15% higher than the Quad or maybe more, also remove the overhead of one of the graphics cards then I reckon (by my finger in the air maths) they're gonna be about the same (and I'll save £100-200).
Looks like the i7 is a bit of a beast? just have to wait for the rest of the hardware to catch up!
Q9550 @ 3.4Ghz-1.275v & TRUE, Asus P5N-T Deluxe, 4Gb Dominator 1066 (5-5-5-15), Inno3d OC 8800GTs in SLi with TT Duorbs, 580w 5.1 Setup, 2x DVD-RAM, 320&160Gb SATA2 HDDs, 17" 3ms Hyundai TFT, 700w Jeantech PSU.
|
|
spamual
Suspended permanently
|
27. November 2008 @ 08:13 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
27. November 2008 @ 08:32 |
Link to this message
|
Anything other than Dual cores, if you exclusively play games, using only one graphics card is still a waste of time, I'd guess for about the next 9-12 months. Beyond that point it'll be worth owning a quad regardless.
Check it out though, in a game like Supreme Commander, you're looking at 51fps with an X2 4400+, versus 83 with a 3.6Ghz 45nm Quad. The difference is even bigger with the other titles tested, but no more of a problem as far as actual smooth gameplay goes.
|
|
MaccerM
Member
|
27. November 2008 @ 08:48 |
Link to this message
|
But Sam, that is comparing apples with badgers.
Of course a new gen Intel quad will be leagues ahead of a previous gen AMD dual...
Anyway, I am decided. I will be persueing a hot dual core for after xmas and a 22" tft rather than a Q9xx0. Think that's a much better use of the same amount of cash in my own situation.
Q9550 @ 3.4Ghz-1.275v & TRUE, Asus P5N-T Deluxe, 4Gb Dominator 1066 (5-5-5-15), Inno3d OC 8800GTs in SLi with TT Duorbs, 580w 5.1 Setup, 2x DVD-RAM, 320&160Gb SATA2 HDDs, 17" 3ms Hyundai TFT, 700w Jeantech PSU.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
27. November 2008 @ 08:52 |
Link to this message
|
Indeed, the comparison is obvious, but it's to highlight the fact that CPUs are still very much important for games. A Phenom 9650 scores 64 in that test - not bad, but a far cry from what you can easily get from a Core 2 Quad.
|
|
bigwill68
Suspended permanently
|
28. November 2008 @ 18:04 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
The Q9770 is 5% faster clocked, and assuming that you'd be able to get the E8400 clocked 10-15% higher than the Quad.
@MaccerM
I hate to busted your bubble brother this shot of
mine is pass 15% I've seen them as high as 110%
but that's crazy Oc'ing and..I only got my cpu
voltage set at +0.075 to get this Oc stable on
the BioStar.
this pic here is under stress after 45mins of Orthos lowing
the volts down from +0.150 to +0.075 at that +0.150v it
was at 1.344v now at stock auto setting 333x9 stressed it
is 1.200v
Done out of Here!
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
28. November 2008 @ 18:26 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
The Q9770 is 5% faster clocked, and assuming that you'd be able to get the E8400 clocked 10-15% higher than the Quad.
I'm not certain who posted this info but its wrong. If you are talking about an Intel core 2 quad Q9700 at 3.2 GHz there is absolutely nothing that you can do with an E8400 to match it even if the 9770 isn't overclocked. Unless of course you can get the E8400 to about 7GHz and then you'd be the first. If the 9770 was over clocked then you would have to reach well beyond 7 GHz.
I don't have a Q9770 but I do have a Q9650 and here is a basic benchmark. Use the image that I'm posting as a baseline and when your E8400 beat it then you have a chance.;P
The important thing is to compare like to like.
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 28. November 2008 @ 18:59
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
28. November 2008 @ 18:39 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by bigwill68:
Quote:
The Q9770 is 5% faster clocked, and assuming that you'd be able to get the E8400 clocked 10-15% higher than the Quad.
@MaccerM
I hate to busted your bubble brother this shot of
mine is pass 15% I've seen them as high as 110%
but that's crazy Oc'ing and..I only got my cpu
voltage set at +0.075 to get this Oc stable on
the BioStar.
this pic here is under stress after 45mins of Orthos lowing
the volts down from +0.150 to +0.075 at that +0.150v it
was at 1.344v now at stock auto setting 333x9 stressed it
is 1.200v
Sweet! Good luck with it.
Russ
GigaByte 990FXA-UD5 - AMD FX-8320 @4.0GHz @1.312v - Corsair H-60 liquid CPU Cooler - 4x4 GB GSkill RipJaws DDR3/1866 Cas8, 8-9-9-24 - Corsair 400-R Case - OCZ FATAL1TY 550 watt Modular PSU - Intel 330 120GB SATA III SSD - WD Black 500GB SATA III - WD black 1 TB Sata III - WD Black 500GB SATA II - 2 Asus DRW-24B1ST DVD-Burner - Sony 420W 5.1 PL-II Suround Sound - GigaByte GTX550/1GB 970 Mhz Video - Asus VE247H 23.6" HDMI 1080p Monitor
 |
|
bigwill68
Suspended permanently
|
28. November 2008 @ 19:37 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Sweet! Good luck with it.
Russ
I'm trying my best Russ:)
another test after voltage decrease to +0.075v
I'm happy with it:)
Done out of Here!
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
28. November 2008 @ 19:43 |
Link to this message
|
bigwill68
Not bad. Could you posts your temperatures at that speed with RealTemp, a screenshot of CPU-Z, and screenshot of Linpack?
Yea I know it's a lot to ask but it would be interesting to see.
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. |
|
bigwill68
Suspended permanently
|
28. November 2008 @ 20:51 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Sophocles:
bigwill68
Not bad. Could you posts your temperatures at that speed with RealTemp, a screenshot of CPU-Z, and screenshot of Linpack?
Yea I know it's a lot to ask but it would be interesting to see.
there you go Sophocles
Done out of Here!
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
28. November 2008 @ 21:02 |
Link to this message
|
|
bigwill
I suspected EO stepping. Now let's stress test it. Start with Linpack.
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. |
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
28. November 2008 @ 21:32 |
Link to this message
|
|
Has the rule for how long to run LinPack for changed? I ask because both my system and a friend's have at some stage been setup so they pass Linpack, but are inherently unstable. I assume 1/2 memory and 5 runs isn't sufficient to properly test a quad. Perhaps leave the test running for longer? I would but I'm concerned about the extreme (and unrealistic) temperature rise the program creates.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
28. November 2008 @ 21:44 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
Has the rule for how long to run LinPack for changed? I ask because both my system and a friend's have at some stage been setup so they pass Linpack, but are inherently unstable. I assume 1/2 memory and 5 runs isn't sufficient to properly test a quad. Perhaps leave the test running for longer? I would but I'm concerned about the extreme (and unrealistic) temperature rise the program creates.
Sammy the last time that I ran Linpack I think that I had FULL RAM and 5 passes. I would just run the test with RealTemp or similar progie in the background and see what she does. I wouldn't be to worried about a 8-10 pass test. ;) I ran the FULL RAM because I wanted to really see if the RAM was steady... and it was.... I didn't post it but I may have it handy if you wanna see it. :)
good luck as usual. :D
...gm
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
28. November 2008 @ 21:47 |
Link to this message
|
|
I run Linpack with Everest in the system tray. My cores hit the high seventies, and my main CPU temp hits 60-61 on a 5-pass test. Considering normal load temps are low 50s at the most, that's a bit excessive.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
28. November 2008 @ 21:50 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Has the rule for how long to run LinPack for changed? I ask because both my system and a friend's have at some stage been setup so they pass Linpack, but are inherently unstable. I assume 1/2 memory and 5 runs isn't sufficient to properly test a quad. Perhaps leave the test running for longer? I would but I'm concerned about the extreme (and unrealistic) temperature rise the program creates.
The rules are the same but with one minor difference. If you have a system with 2X 2 gigabytes of RAM the system will not even run when you start it. I mean it won't get past two seconds so it seems to have a problem with either large modules of RAM over 1 gigabyte, or more than two gigabytes of RAM, but since I don't use 4 modules I can't say. When the memory is reduced to two gigabytes then it runs well if the processor is fine, but a little over and it might crash. I haven't tried with my Vista rig yet because it gets in the way of folding but I suspect that it will be less of a problem.
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 28. November 2008 @ 21:52
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
28. November 2008 @ 21:52 |
Link to this message
|
|
Interesting, the test ran fine at half memory usage on both 4x1 and 2x2 modules, but I was under the impression the 1/2 memory usage meant half your remaining memory, not half of the whole lot?
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
28. November 2008 @ 22:02 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
nteresting, the test ran fine at half memory usage on both 4x1 and 2x2 modules, but I was under the impression the 1/2 memory usage meant half your remaining memory, not half of the whole lot?
With two gigabytes of memory I can send the system to Hell but add more and it won't even get to stressing. I suspect that this is a problem with Win XP since it can only address 800Mb per application but Vista can almost double that. I would run it now on my vista rig since it has a P5Q pro, E8400, and two Gb of Corsair Dominators, but then I would lose a lot of points.:)
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. |
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
28. November 2008 @ 22:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
Actually yes, that'll be why. It's a big problem for the game 'Age of Conan', so much so in fact if you up the detail it crashes every other minute unless you use a 64-bit OS....
|
|
bigwill68
Suspended permanently
|
29. November 2008 @ 01:06 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Sophocles:
bigwill
I suspected EO stepping. Now let's stress test it. Start with Linpack.
Done out of Here!
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
MaccerM
Member
|
1. December 2008 @ 06:05 |
Link to this message
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Q9770 is 5% faster clocked, and assuming that you'd be able to get the E8400 clocked 10-15% higher than the Quad.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not certain who posted this info but its wrong. If you are talking about an Intel core 2 quad Q9700 at 3.2 GHz there is absolutely nothing that you can do with an E8400 to match it even if the 9770 isn't overclocked. Unless of course you can get the E8400 to about 7GHz and then you'd be the first. If the 9770 was over clocked then you would have to reach well beyond 7 GHz.
I meant this in relation to gaming FPS. I'm not trying to say that a dual is going to outperform a quad in multithreaded synthetic benchmarks! lol.
I meant that currently, for gaming, a heavily O/c'ed E8400 is probably going to play all your current games just as well as a moderately clocked Q9xx0 and you'll save over half the cost of the CPU. Of course the quads have more power and other advantages but for 100% gaming use you cannot yet justify the extra cost over a quick dual core.
Q9550 @ 3.4Ghz-1.275v & TRUE, Asus P5N-T Deluxe, 4Gb Dominator 1066 (5-5-5-15), Inno3d OC 8800GTs in SLi with TT Duorbs, 580w 5.1 Setup, 2x DVD-RAM, 320&160Gb SATA2 HDDs, 17" 3ms Hyundai TFT, 700w Jeantech PSU.
|
