Vista - Post Your Overclock Results.

What makes the biggest difference is reading.

Maybe I should look at your post again in the morning with fresh eyes, because right now it's not making much sense to me? It sounds like you're saying that you could not get the board to post with default voltage, and while you haven't said it, I assume this is at stock speeds?

No stock speed is 2.13Ghz so this is not a bad overclock and it does make a big difference to the windows base score as it was only 5.4 at stock and I get a 5.8 at this clock and here is the temp it is running at and its air cooled!
System spec.jpg

I think the stock specs are 1.35v, 266Mhz bus, 1066Mhz FSB @ 2.13Ghz

Don't take it personally when I say the OC isn't great; it's just that it isn't. It does not matter what the stock speeds are of any line of cpu's. All cpu's of the same line have the same ceiling. Within that line, all cpu's when overclocked, if done correctly, and with a bit of luck, should reach the same ceiling. The only reason why your cpu starts off faster or slower than another cpu is because of the multiplier it has; everything else is pretty much the same.

Average Conroe overclocks are 3.4GHz-3.6GHz. Conroe stock speeds are irrelevant to achieving this result. Results may vary, but like I said, 3.19GHz is the lowest OC I've seen. You may have seen others lower, I may have not looked at enough?

Having said that, you may very well have problems reaching this now? It's all a question of how long you've been pumping high volts into the core, how well you've kept it cool, and how your core reacts to all this? No need to reply back on that point, nobody could give you an answer, that's all up to the core. It's going to degrade on its own terms.

ya if stock is 2.13 and your running it at 2.4, thats not much of an OC at all. and to be running that at 1.5v. thats CRAZY. I'm at 1.384 with a 3.5 GHz OC on a Quad. those volts are way way to high. are you sure somethings not wrong. You should set all the voltage back to auto. and the CPU to stock. then try slowly going up higher on each at a time. see if you can get the same oc, at a lower voltage.

Also the e8400 is a Great CPU. if moneys not the issue. I have freinds with there e8600's running 4.6 GHz with great temps on Air.. My buddy does his 3DMark06 tests on his e8600 at 4.9 GHz, on Air. so they are great.. I want to get one. I just might snag a e8400 somewhere just for some fun. not sure yet tho.

If you look at my first post you will notice that the CPU speed is @ 3.2Ghz, the multiplier changes down to 6 when there is no load and idles @ 2.4Ghz.

Here is the current specs

Lower OC.jpg

I have set it back to a multiplier of 7 now anyway, I am still happy with that and at least the FSB is still at 1600Mhz and I still get my 1:1 ratio with my ram!!

If you're under the impression that running at a higher fsb is better than running a higher cpu frequency, please let me dissuade you of that notion now. Perhaps you're using so many volts because your focus has been too much on memory speed and not on the big picture? Higher cpu speeds is much better than high memory speed.

If you could get 3.5GHz on the cores, even if you had to run the RAM at 800MHz to do it, it would run circles around your current setup.

It would.

Trust me.

I OC'd my CPU from 2.4 to 3.2 (33%) and left my RAM as it was being read at 800 MHz - and my system go a nice boost in responsiveness.

I then took the RAM to specs at 1000 MHz and the only thing I can really notice different is that my WEI memory index score went from ~5.4 to 5.9....

Yup, I've been reading that RAM from 800 to 1000 or even 1066 isn't that big a difference. Really at all other than WEI.. So I'm now going higher on my OC's and leaving the RAM synced at 800 or so. Then I can keep the volts down cuz not runnin at Spec'd 1000, and even tighten timings.

OK, So I have some New OC results for you John and everyone else.
I finally hit 3.7 GHz BOOYA!


I've been runnin this Q6700 with the 10x Multi. and I've never been able to get the system to load above 3.66 GHz, but today I read in eVGA's forum that some people can't get there 10x or anything higher to work. So I tried a 9x Multi. and I got to 3.7 GHz in my first try. So next I'll try for 3.8 GHz. hehe

Also I ran another Mark06 with that OC down to 3.66 GHz. and got a slightly higher score, not much higher. but it is higher so Here's that also for everyone.



Overall I'm pretty happy with getting to 3.7 GHz. But the fact that I'm more stable at a 9x than a 10x make's me think that getting a QX would not give me much for great results. So my new upgrade might just end up being the Q9550

nice clocks!!! Gunther...

your correct about the RAM mate...... my gskill will do 1140mhz @ 5-5-5-15 but its actually faster @ 800mhz 4-4-4-12

i tried to find a balance between the two @ 1050 4-4-4-12 ..2.2v
but one stick died recently ...should of left it @ 800mhz