http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=41019Here's an example of what this final C2 tweak can do. This IS the Q6600. It's simply unbelievable Intel will be getting $1K for this when we will be getting it for $250.Remember though, we gotta get that "G0" stepping. That's the final tweak.

Ended up having to buy this week cause my son's A64 rig (my old one) finally passed away and he couldn't wait the month it would take me to guarantee a G0 Q6600 :-lolAnyway, bought an E4300 which is running nicely at stock volts at 3GHz - not bad for a $117 CPU! When the Q6600s drop by another $100, perhaps after the Penryn's are launched, and G0s are aplenty and have proven themselves to OC beyond 3.5GHz on air at stock voltage (am I dreaming?), THEN I'll buy one :-lolGary

>overclocked. From Sam, I know to disregard the quad pumped FSB>figure, so that's pretty much irrelevant.Hey Dog - So what you're saying is that the 1066 FSB for the q6600 vs the 1333 FSB for the E6850 is basically irrelevant? That was going to be my next question. I've preordered the q6600 but the FSB difference was nagging at me.VicVisit the Virtual Pilot's Centerwww.flightadventures.comhttp://www.hifisim.com/Active Sky V6 Proud SupporterRadar Contact Supporter: http://www.jdtllc.com/

Well, if I might chime in about the FSB. The existing 266mhx FSB (QDR'd 1066) still has plenty of capacity for anything running today. But even so, the O/C-er will be manually setting any FSB speed manually, to way beyond that new 333 (QDR 1333) preset. For instance the Q6600 with the GO stepping has a preset FSB of 266 (QDR 1066). It's looking like it will O/C to 3.6Ghz, That means that QDR'd 1066 FSB (266mhz nominal) will be manually re-set by an O/C-er to a QDR'd 1600 (400 mhz nominal). The Q6600 has a 9 multiplier, so 400 X 9 = 3.6ghz. See how it works? There's a thread around that explains this stuff in paInFuL detail! At 266mhz, faster FSB speeds are irrelevant other than as the 'speed control knobs' to drive other components to faster speeds.

I think it's just a guarantee that it will run with a 333 MHz clock at stock voltage (and therefor with retail HSF). scott s..

Hi Vic -I meant what Sam and Scott said (thanks fellows). The published FSB speed is the nominal rating, but when you overclock either of these chips, you are doing so by increasing the FSB. These cpu's stand up to a whole lot of increased buss speed. As Sam has drummed into my thick head, it's just advertising. It's not like there's a governor built in to deny any attempt to go faster. With the new G0 revision, the cores will go even faster and run even cooler, according to unanimous early reports. Meaning they'll do even more with stock air cooling, whatever the nominal advertised FSB rating is. They have the G0 revision in common, and that's what makes the difference between new and old models, and makes the new models the same in that particular regard.For the serious overclockers whose reports I'm currently devouring, it's a fairly standard day at the office to have clock speeds between 400 and 500. Using Intel's quadrupling terminology, that translates to FSB speeds of between 1600 and 2000. And that has been accomplished with cpu's rated at an FSB (Intel quadrupled) of 1066, the number you mentioned, Vic. That means they are operating roughly 60 to 100% faster than their nominal advertised rating, and a likewise fistful faster than the "new and improved" rating of 1333.Applying that to your specific question, neither the Q you pre-ordered nor the new Duo you ask about is actually limited to the rated buss speed, and each can go dramatically higher, which is why I called the nominal rating pretty much irrelevant.Intel's marketing mumbo jumbo of quadrupling buss speeds gets you all tangled up. 1066 is really 266.5 and the Q6600 has a multiplier of 9, which yields the rated speed of 2398.5 or 2.4 GHz. 1333 is really 333.25, and the E6850 also has a multiplier of 9, yielding the rated speed of 2999.25 or 3.0 GHz. That multiplier of 9 means only that either cpu running at a buss speed of 400 would effectively run at 3.6 GHz. Only, the Q would be doing it with four brave little hearts and the Duo would only have two sturdy tickers. Which is why Sam brought me to my senses when I drifted away to the siren song of Intel marketing in a momentary lapse.I sure hope I've learned all this correctly. Sam will gently herd me back on to the reservation if I've messed this up. But that's what I meant, Vic, by the FSB nominal rating being irrelevant.-Seadog

Actually, the FSB is a motherboard (Northbridge) speed. The CPU / FSB relationship can be compared to a race car on a racetrack. The CPU is the race car that can go xyz mph. The motherboard provides the racetrack on which the CPU runs. The race track (FSB) can accommodate a racecar that can go xyz mhp + a-bunch.There's another CPU/FSB relationship to consider. The Abit O/C team had a FSB beyond 600mhz (QDR 2400mhz). This was an entirely useless exercise. They were just showing off, but it's a good example of how all this works. The FSB also controls the CPU's speed.A CPU's clock speed is caused by the CPU's multiplier times the FSB speed. In this case, what multiplier must they have been using with the CPU? The Q6600's default multiplier is 9X. So, a 600mhz FSB would have had that poor 'ol 66 running at 600 X 9 = 5.4 ghz. Woah. No chance of that, yet. Intel lets us turn Down the multipliers of these CPUs in the bios. So, the Abit team probably re-set the CPU's multiplier to what? 5X, or so? That would cause the CPU to run at 600 X 5 = 3.0 GHZ. That makes more sense. They wanted to show off their mobo, not Intel's CPU. The goal was to sell mobos to unenlightened enthusiasts. A 600mhx FSB (just like a 333 mhz FSB)is entirely useless. CPU speed is what we are after. Even at that old 166mhz FSB speed, we have plenty of 'racetrack.' AGP vs PCI-e? IDE vs SATA? It's the same hype. So far, the PCI-e Vcard and SATA harddrive interfaces (buss speed capabilities) are StiLl entirely unnecessary. For instance, just this month WD finally achieved a 95 MB/sec transfer rate from a single drive. The old IDE standard maxed out at 133MB/s limit. . . how many years ago? We still don't have a drive even needs the old IDE standard's capability. Now, SATA II can handle 375MB/s. And they advertise this as if it will somehow magically make your HD go faster Geeze! Even the the Indianapolis 500 track will not help my '63 Ford go faster. (aka, "Gotta have the 333 mhz FSB." Really?) Maybe hard drives (and systems) will finally get there too . . in 5 years. What's a punter to do? The CPU does not Run at a FSB speed. It is Driven by the FSB speed. Seein' the relationships?(Edit : BTW, we cross-posted. If I'd seen your post, I could have enjoyed another sip of sarsaparilla. The real point here is that there's no need to spend a gazillion bucks to get FSX to RoCk. Maybe I'll even try LOMAC again. Nice job.)

Hello Sam and everyone,Although I have decide to go ahead with Q6600. I still want to know something clear for my computer knowledge.When people talking about overclock, is it all about the increase of FSB speed only? not about the increase of multiplier (like from 9x to 10x or more)? Is the CPU's multiplier "fixed and locked" by the manufacturer (Intel, AMD)?When we overclock by increasing the FSB speed, let's take the Q6600 as example with FSB speed 266.5, how can we know the limit of the FSB speed that the CPU can accept? 400,410,420.... 450? Or it is vary by the cooling system we pick? I didn't overclock any CPU before. Therefore, I only plan to overclock the quad core conservatively. I don't want to burn my CPU. Can anyone suggest me a safe overclcok FSB speed please?One more question, are most of the other brand's CPU cooler perform better than the Intel original heatsink and fan? I am consider the mid price level, Asus Triton 70. Would anyone give me some advice please?Thank you very muchAlkit

Generally, multipliers can be adjusted down, not up. O/C-ing is done by leaving the multiplier alone and bringing up the FSB, slowly. Your ram will (might) also be driven faster by FSB too. For instance, DDR2-800 is only rated to run with (up to) a 400 mhz FSB speed. All mobos are different. Make sure you have control of your ram. Check out your Mobo manual. They are all different. Run this little program each time you try a higher speed. http://sp2004.fre3.com/beta/beta2.htmThe program will fault if the system is not stable. If you go too far, the 'puter just will not boot. Don't worry. Just reset the CMOS to the bios defaults (still got your mobo manual handy?) and try again. Don't go so far next time. Up the FSB until you get some faults, then back the FSB speed back a notch. Then run Orthos over night. Good to go.Try the factory heat sink first. If you get any where near 3.4 - 3.6, re-consider an add-on heatsink. $60-80 might get you to a stable 3.6 - 3.8 . . . maybe. 4.0 may be a miracle, but we'll just have to wait and see, but it won't happen on air. So, is that extra 100 - 200 mhz worth 60 bucks? Could be, but we're starting to pay big for that last, real expensive 5% of performance. That's the way it always is.Speed costs. How fast do you want to go? and speaking of, here are the two big dogs: http://www.tuniq.com.tw/Cooler%20Info/Tower-120LFB.htmhttp://www.thermalright.com/product_default.htm

Hello Sam,Thanks for the teaching. Now I got a basic of how the O/C work like.I am not greedy for the O/C result (I think). I will be very happy to see any speed increase to above 3. Even 3.0 would be great too, from 4 x 2.4 become 4 x 3.0. This is not a small jump.I will wait for more O/C review before O/C-ing further in future. I personally think 9 x 450MHz = 4050 Mhz is the hard limit. Somewhere I wont dare to reach to.Alkit

Thanx Sam and Seadog, it's getting a little less fuzzy as I go along. I've fortunately/unfortunately been reading everything I can find on o/c and have gotten myself thoroughly addled. Some folks say to o/c the memory first and when that's stable start on the CPU. Others say to leave the memory "relaxed" (whatever that means) and o/c the CPU and then go back and tweak the memory.I've pretty well decided on my system - it will be overkill for my needs but what the heck - I've decided on a Thermaltake Kandalf Case with built in LCSAsus P5N32-E SLIIntel Q66002G Mushkin XP2-8500 DDR28800GTX 786 or 640Thermaltake 850W PSU1 - 320G 7200rpm drive 3 partitions-system1/system2/progs)just in case I decide to try Vista2 - 320G in RAID 0 for FSX1 - 500G 7200rpm for backupI plan a 'modest' o/c - have no need to go to the edge so to speak, frankly, I'm just interested to see if I can do it. :)VicVisit the Virtual Pilot's Centerwww.flightadventures.comhttp://www.hifisim.com/Active Sky V6 Proud SupporterRadar Contact Supporter: http://www.jdtllc.com/

I'm not sure that FSB speed should be discounted, since that directly impacts the memory controller and hence the ability to move data to/from the cores. Of course, that also depends on the effectiveness of the on die cache which Intel have historically used a lot of to compensate for lower memory bandwidth.The Intel P35 design guidelines show that the northbridge (MCH in Intel-speak) is designed for FSB speed of 800, 1067, and 1333 MHz (i.e., BCLK 200, 266, 333). It also is designed for memory speed of DDR2 667 and 800, and DDR3 800 and 1067.scott s..

Hi Vic -I've seen that advice about tackling the RAM first, as well, but I don't think it applies to you and me, who will be aiming for comfortable, air cooled overclocking with perhaps nothing more than the stock Intel cpu cooler.That advice strikes me as being for the gang that wants to be in Guiness' World Records. Running RAM right up to the insane edge of meltdown doesn't actually garner very much in the way of increased performance, according to all the test results. Certainly not enough to warrant the risk of destruction, not to mention the extreme labor.Look at it this way - If you only increase the FSB to 333, the same as the E6850 would be running at, and change nothing else, you'd have a cpu doing 3.0 GHz, and your DDR2 1066 RAM would be loafing along at 666, about 60% of its rated capacity. To run the selected RAM at its rated speed, you would need a board that offered the ability to unlink the RAM clock speed from the FSB clock speed, and I don't know whether the one you have in mind can do that - or else you'd have to run an FSB of 533, which is in the stratosphere of overclocking the cpu you've chosen and would require massively upgraded cooling.DDR2 800 RAM has way more than enough capacity for the modest overclocking you have in mind and is a darn sight cheaper, as well. Like, around $80 for 2 GB.-Seadog

I agree that RAM overclocking is fine tuning you may want to do LATER, but not first and especially not for newbies.I just put together an E4300 (1.8GHz), 2GB 800MHz DDR2 and 7900 GTO 512M system for my son, and our overclocking was a simple as:Before even installing Windows:- install Windows XP and all drivers needed to show a clean device manager.- install a stress test program like Orthos.- restart computer and go into BIOS- unlock FSB and RAM divisor (the latter for speed matching, not for overclocking) in BIOS and increase FSB up 20MHz from 200MHz (which is E4300 default) whilst keeping resultant RAM speed <= 800MHz (down from 4:1 to 3:1)- save settings and reboot computer. DON'T let it get past the hit DEL to enter BIOS screen (reset button if you have to), as you don't want it to start loading windows (yet)- if it boots fine, go into BIOS and bump it up by another 20MHz, again keeping resultant RAM speed <= 800MHz using the RAM divisor- repeat until she no longer boots or keeps rebooting :-) remember the last FSB and RAM multiplier that worked. (eg. 400MHz in our case and 2:1 RAM divisor - which gave 3.2GHz)- reset BIOS, using motherboard jumper if required.- set the FSB back 20-25MHz from the last known FSB value that would boot (ie. we picked 376MHz) and set the last working RAM divisor (ie. 2:1 for us)- let it boot into windows, start up Orthos and see how it goes. In our case, 4.5 hours later it was still running strong with no errors.- voila! 1.2 free GHz from a 1.8GHz chip! :-)OK, maybe not super simple, but the basic principle is that you nudge it until it chokes a little, all the while keeping RAM within rated limits, then back off by 100-200MHz resultant OC speed and stress test under full load to certify.Gary

This is turning into a really enlightening discussion. Now much to add to the advise. We might be ready for an extra little detail. Does memory speed . . . or the an increased FSB speed provision for that memory's increased speed. . . really matter? Tom's did an article a while back that looks at the very question: http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/03/31/tig...cies/index.html"The bottom line is that as long as you have enough memory - preferably 2 GB - the extra money you pay for more memory speed would be better invested in a faster graphics card. And if you don't play games, then the CPU and hard drive offer more room for improvement than the memory" (Tom's).Even the games only get a few extra FPS with faster ram speeds."Look at it this way - If you only increase the FSB to 333, the same as the E6850 would be running at, and change nothing else, you'd have a cpu doing 3.0 GHz, and your DDR2 1066 RAM would be loafing along at 666, about 60% of its rated capacity. To run the selected RAM at its rated speed, you would need a board that offered the ability to unlink the RAM clock speed from the FSB clock speed, and I don't know whether the one you have in mind can do that - or else you'd have to run an FSB of 533, which is in the stratosphere of overclocking the cpu you've chosen and would require massively upgraded cooling.DDR2 800 RAM has way more than enough capacity for the modest overclocking you have in mind and is a darn sight cheaper, as well. Like, around $80 for 2 GB" (Seadog).Perfectly said. Actually I'm thinking about going for 4 gigs in the new rig. I have 4 installed right now in the old box and constantly see 2 gig+ in use. If I'm flying and some pesky distraction comes up, I can just pause/minimize the flight and do other work. There is no ram swapping at all and the computer remains totally available. Even with 2 gigs, it would sometime stumble along as it swapped out FS to make room for a big photoshop session . . . of just an email. With my current 4 gig install, the bios recognizes 3.5 and Vista sees 3.0. I've had TM seeing over 3 gigs in use, so that Vista limit seems arbitrary. And then the other thing. Ram is Sooooo cheap right now.