Overclocking E6600 on Asus P5W DH Deluxe

"Fishface" <?> wrote in message
news:f84Wh.154$no.85@trnddc02...
> Ed Medlin wrote:
>> Most, but not all memory will have some OC overhead. That is why
>> I went with faster rated memory (PC1066) for the E6600 for just a
>> little more overhead to run at 1:1.......I hope...:-).
>
> Yup, I'd say you're pretty much covered-- you might even have to
> drop the multiplier a tad!
>
>
yea.......nothing is a given though. I started getting some stuff in duing
the week. No case or memory yet. I am hoping for a 3.2ghz+ overclock, but
want to try and keep the noise down too. The two GF8800s are what I am a bit
concerned about as far as noise. I got the eVGA Superclocks (only ones with
lifetime warrantys) and have not heard anything about how loud they are.

Ed

"Michel R. Carleer" <> wrote in message
news:462b6839$0$14232$...
>
> "Phil Weldon" <> wrote in message
> news:1yEWh.24145$ link.net...
>> The DDR2 rating of PC1066 indicates a clock of 266 MHz.
>
> Yes but that is the internal mem clock. The 1:1 ratio takes the ratio
> between the CPU input clock (which is at the same time the CPU I/O clock)
> and the mem I/O clock. At least that's the definition from the mem
> manufacturers and many others. And they recommend the best match between
> CPU and mem, based on that definition. I have a feeling that the mem
> manufacturers would be stupid to tell on their web sites that a 2 times
> slower mem is enough for a given CPU clock speed, given the price
> difference you have to pay for the higher speed memory.
>
>> With 1:1 CPU clock
>> : memory clock ratio, a FSB speed of 1066 MHz requires PC1066 performance
>> memory. The DDR2 rating is FOUR X the memory clock. The nomenclature is
>> confusing, but the fact remains that PC1066 performance memory is
>> necessary
>> for FSB 1066 MHz operation at a 1:1 CPU clock : memory clock ratio.
>
> And the mem I/O clock is twice the internal mem clock. So, what you are
> doing is connect a CPU I/O 266 MHz clock to a mem I/O clock of 533 MHz. It
> is not the mem internal clock that you have to consider, it is the mem I/O
> clock, which is twice the internal mem clock. You see, from what I have
> read, the 1:1 ratio is NOT between the CPU I/O clock and the internal mem
> clock, but between the CPU I/O clock and the mem I/O clock.
>
>>
>> Phil Weldon
>>
>
> So, we simply do not have the same definition of what a CPU/mem clock 1:1
> ratio is. And it would indeed be nice to see if there is any improvement
> in overall system performance using your definition instead of mine. Of
> course, I do not take into account that when using a higher speed mem, but
> underclocked, the latency timings can be lowered by some significant
> value.
> Unfortunately I cannot test it, as I do not have DDR2 1066 mem at my
> disposal. Maybe you can?
>
> By the way, from what I understand: it is not PC1066, it is either DDR2
> 1066 (the chip speed in megabytes/sec) or PC2-8500 (the mem DIMM module
> speed in megabytes/sec, as the module bus width is 8 bytes large).
> Confusion, confusion... Arising from people on the net using different
> names for the same thing.
Phil's memory is listed as PC2 8500/DDR2 1066.......:-). Yea, this is all
pretty confusing when you start looking in the bios settings which show
settings that are .5 the speed as 533=1066 or 266=1066 quad pumped. I need
to find some more reading........:-)

Ed
>

Phil Weldon wrote:
> 'Thomas' wrote:
> > Phil, there's a very simple way of finding out which thesis is
> > valid; See what the impact on memory performance is by running some
> > benchmarks with yr memory at 1200 and at 600 'MHz'. This could
> > clarify alot. I'd like to do it myself, but my stuff won't arive
> > for some time... Videocard isnt deliverable until May 1st :'(
>
> For my system; E4300 / PC1066 (PC8500) memory / nVidia 690i
> motherboard
>
> Stock; E4300 @ 1.8 GHz / FSB 800 MHz / Memory 800 MHz / 200 MHz Clock
> / 1:1 CPU clock : memory clock ratio
> SiSoft Sandra 2007 Memory Bandwidth: 4252 MBytes/sec.
>
> Overclocked; E4300 @ 2.7 GHz / FSB 1200 MHz / Memory 1200 MHz / 300
> Clock / 1:1 CPU clock : memory clock ratio
> SiSoft Sandra 2007 Memory Bandwidth: 6307 MBytes/sec.

Thanks for the numbers, Phil,

But how about :
E4300 @ 2.7 GHz / FSB 1200 MHz / Memory *600* MHz / 150 Clock / 2:1 CPU
clock : memory clock ratio

What score does that result in?

--
Met vriendelijke groeten, Thomas vd Horst.

Ed Medlin wrote:
> Yea, this is all pretty confusing when you start looking in the bios
> settings which show settings that are .5 the speed as 533=1066
> or 266=1066 quad pumped. I need to find some more reading...

The BIOS screens shown here for an EVGA 680i board sure are
different from those on my Biostar i965 board.
http://www.bjorn3d.com/read_pf.php?cID=1069

"Phil Weldon" <> wrote in message
news:EOKWh.2698$ ink.net...
> Exactly.
>
> For my system; E4300 / PC1066 (PC8500) memory / nVidia 690i motherboard
>
> Stock; E4300 @ 1.8 GHz / FSB 800 MHz / Memory 800 MHz / 200 MHz Clock /
> 1:1
> CPU clock : memory clock ratio
>
> SiSoft Sandra 2007 Memory Bandwidth: 4252 MBytes/sec.
>
> Overclocked; E4300 @ 2.7 GHz / FSB 1200 MHz / Memory 1200 MHz / 300 Clock
> /
> 1:1 CPU clock : memory clock ratio
>
> SiSoft Sandra 2007 Memory Bandwidth: 6307 MBytes/sec.
>
> Most telling is that the system WILL NOT BOOT at the settings
> FSB 1200 MHz
> Memory 1400 MHz
> while it WILL boot at the settings
> FSB 1200 MHz
> Memory 1200 MHz
> and
> FSB 1200 MHz
> Memory 1300 MHz.
>
> I am fairly certain I can a higher CPU overclock with improved cooling.
> With a CPU clock of 350 (1400 MHz FSB) and an increased core voltage, the
> system can load Windows XP, but the CPU temperature is in the high 50s C
> even at very low CPU usage.
>
> Phil Weldon
>
Just installed Sandra 2007 and did the mem bandwidth benchmark too.
System: E6600 / DDR2 533 (PC5300) / P5W DH mobo.
Overclocked E6600 @ 3.0 GHz / FSB 1333 / Memory 667 / 333 MHz Clock
Sisoft Sandra 2007 Memory Bandwidth: 6144 MBytes/s.
I did not test at stock speed.

So you are faster than me, but vertainly not by a factor of 2. Taking into
account your 300 MHz versus my 333 MHz FSB clock, your mem system is about
14% faster than mine.

Phil, what are your latency timings? Mine are 5-5-5-15.

"Michel R. Carleer" <> wrote in message
news:462bbeb8$0$14247$...
> Just installed Sandra 2007 and did the mem bandwidth benchmark too.
> System: E6600 / DDR2 533 (PC5300) / P5W DH mobo.
> Overclocked E6600 @ 3.0 GHz / FSB 1333 / Memory 667 / 333 MHz Clock
> Sisoft Sandra 2007 Memory Bandwidth: 6144 MBytes/s.
> I did not test at stock speed.
>
> So you are faster than me, but vertainly not by a factor of 2. Taking into
> account your 300 MHz versus my 333 MHz FSB clock, your mem system is about
> 14% faster than mine.
>
> Phil, what are your latency timings? Mine are 5-5-5-15.
>
Sorry, my mem is not DDR2 533 (which would equate to PC4200), it is DDR2
667.
By the way, I use Sandra 2007.4.11.22.

"Michel R. Carleer" <> wrote in message
news:462bc02c$0$14236$...
>
> "Michel R. Carleer" <> wrote in message
> news:462bbeb8$0$14247$...
>> Just installed Sandra 2007 and did the mem bandwidth benchmark too.
>> System: E6600 / DDR2 533 (PC5300) / P5W DH mobo.
>> Overclocked E6600 @ 3.0 GHz / FSB 1333 / Memory 667 / 333 MHz Clock
>> Sisoft Sandra 2007 Memory Bandwidth: 6144 MBytes/s.
>> I did not test at stock speed.
>>
>> So you are faster than me, but vertainly not by a factor of 2. Taking
>> into account your 300 MHz versus my 333 MHz FSB clock, your mem system is
>> about 14% faster than mine.
>>
>> Phil, what are your latency timings? Mine are 5-5-5-15.
>>
> Sorry, my mem is not DDR2 533 (which would equate to PC4200), it is DDR2
> 667.
> By the way, I use Sandra 2007.4.11.22.
>
And changing the latency timings to 4-4-4-12, Sandra 2007 measures a memory
bandwidth of 6330 MB/s.
System fully stable. At 3-3-3-9 however, no POST. But I guess that's a bit
too agressive.
If only I could get my hands on PC10600 (DDR2 1333), then I could do more
appropriate tests to resolve the dispute between Phil and I.

Michel R. Carleer wrote:
> Just installed Sandra 2007 and did the mem bandwidth
> benchmark too. System: E6600 / DDR2 533 (PC5300) /
> P5W DH mobo. Overclocked E6600 @ 3.0 GHz / FSB 1333 /
> Memory 667 / 333 MHz Clock Sisoft Sandra 2007 Memory
> Bandwidth: 6144 MBytes/s.
> I did not test at stock speed.

I tried it, just for kicks, at my current 440 x 7 = 3.08 GHz setting
(also DDR2-667), timings 4-4-4-12, Biostar 965PT, E6400, usual
Windows crap running, plus firewall and antivirus, and got 7336.

I wondered how much influence the CPU speed had on that,
since I have no 9x multiplier to compare with you guys, so I
tried 8 x 440 = 3.52 GHz to see if the number changed -- 7483.
CPU speed seems to have an effect. Nevertheless tried and...

....got 5908 at 8 x 333 with 4-4-4-12. (no 9x)
....got 5830 at 8 x 333 with 3-3-3-12. Odd!
....got 5824 at 8 x 333 with 5-5-5-12. OK, either this board
or the software is doing something very strange!

"Fishface" <?> wrote in message
news:EeMWh.1173$Wa.831@trnddc08...
> Ed Medlin wrote:
>> Yea, this is all pretty confusing when you start looking in the bios
>> settings which show settings that are .5 the speed as 533=1066
>> or 266=1066 quad pumped. I need to find some more reading...
>
> The BIOS screens shown here for an EVGA 680i board sure are
> different from those on my Biostar i965 board.
> http://www.bjorn3d.com/read_pf.php?cID=1069
>
>
Exactly what I was saying. They may be different on my Asus P5N32-SLI 680i
board too. It would be easier, at least for an old fart like me, to have the
bios reflect in some way the actual memory ratings i.e. 533, 800, 1000 or
1066...........Instead of having to do equations to figure it out........:-)


Ed

"Fishface" <?> wrote in message
news:CzVWh.1241$Wa.1027@trnddc08...
> Michel R. Carleer wrote:
>> Just installed Sandra 2007 and did the mem bandwidth
>> benchmark too. System: E6600 / DDR2 533 (PC5300) /
>> P5W DH mobo. Overclocked E6600 @ 3.0 GHz / FSB 1333 /
>> Memory 667 / 333 MHz Clock Sisoft Sandra 2007 Memory
>> Bandwidth: 6144 MBytes/s.
>> I did not test at stock speed.
>
> I tried it, just for kicks, at my current 440 x 7 = 3.08 GHz setting
> (also DDR2-667), timings 4-4-4-12, Biostar 965PT, E6400, usual
> Windows crap running, plus firewall and antivirus, and got 7336.
>
> I wondered how much influence the CPU speed had on that,
> since I have no 9x multiplier to compare with you guys, so I
> tried 8 x 440 = 3.52 GHz to see if the number changed -- 7483.
> CPU speed seems to have an effect. Nevertheless tried and...
>
> ...got 5908 at 8 x 333 with 4-4-4-12. (no 9x)
> ...got 5830 at 8 x 333 with 3-3-3-12. Odd!
> ...got 5824 at 8 x 333 with 5-5-5-12. OK, either this board
> or the software is doing something very strange!
>
I just ran my current system, I630 3.0ghz @ 3.6, I915 chipset with Samsung
PC5300 memory at default cas 4-4-4-12 and got...
5744 on Sandra 2007. Weird. I would have expected a bit lower.


Ed
>