Q9650 & chance at 4GHz vs Q6600 @ 3.6GHz

[virtualstuff 757]

>next step is to locate the Tjunction Max on that slug.>http://processorfinder.intel.com/Default.aspxCheers, http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y156/awf1/sign.jpg

[Guest simjunkie]

Greetings!Thermal Design Power: 95WThermal Specification: 71.4

[Guest D17S]

That's Tc (Temp core), guys. Using Tc as a limit is no problem, 'long as a user knows the difference between that measurement and Tj (junction). And that's a huge VID range. Da no, but is it possible that Intel would release a CPU that needed 1.36 volts to run at a default clock? I'd send that one back! BTW, Vdroop is your friend. Running without is just another way to burn your toast.

[Guest Nick_N]

>>>next step is to locate the Tjunction Max on that slug.>>>>http://processorfinder.intel.com/Default.aspx>>Cheers, Unfortunately that will not give you the tJ value however the thermal spec would suggest it is 95c and like all good engineering firms they pad their numbers a bit to cover their arseIn example.. my QX6700 has a confirmed tjM of 100c however the Intel spec says 71c is the TS for the proc which is fine but that value is padded somewhat. If one stands by that value when setting up a clock they are simply maintaining the same pad but going over the TS value a bit during high load tests or even short bursts will not damage the core. If we really want to know the tJ I can contact an Intel engineer who can relay the information... Its either 95 or 100c, one of the two and I do think it is 100c so if he remains at 75 and under, hes covered either way.Just an FYI for everyone,.. the sky is not falling when using load line calibration. Vdroop is still working on the board but simply does not have the same effect on the voltage change. Volts and amps are 2 different things. Using LLC or CVD does not turn Vdroop 'off'. It simply dampens the effect and allows better stability in a high clock, that's ALL. clocking 400MHz with LLC or CVD disabled and the right approach to parts and temps will net the EXACT same useful life span on the components as clocking 450MHz on the right parts and temps with the damper feature enabled, no difference

[Guest simjunkie]

I know the difference between the two specs, thanks Sam.-jk

[tfm 169]

Thanks for those comforting words about LLC, Nick_N. I've read some scare stories on (I think) Anandtech about LLC, which I found puzzling because LLC makes it very easy for me to get my E8600 to 4.3GHz from a 480MHz FSB on my Rampage Extreme using about 1.325 vCore. To get there without LLC I need to push the CPU voltage very close to, or in excess of, the maximum specified by Intel (1.365v for an E8600). So I'm pleased to see that I'm not completely frying my CPU just by using LLC .Tim

[Guest Nick_N]

>Thanks for those comforting words about LLC, Nick_N. >>I've read some scare stories on (I think) Anandtech about LLC,>which I found puzzling because LLC makes it very easy for me>to get my E8600 to 4.3GHz from a 480MHz FSB on my Rampage>Extreme using about 1.325 vCore. To get there without LLC I>need to push the CPU voltage very close to, or in excess of,>the maximum specified by Intel (1.365v for an E8600). So I'm>pleased to see that I'm not completely frying my CPU just by>using LLC .>>Timin any clock you are damaging the hardware, does not matter if its 400, 450, 500, 550mhz

[Guest simjunkie]

>Thanks for those comforting words about LLC, Nick_N. >>I've read some scare stories on (I think) Anandtech about LLC,>which I found puzzling because LLC makes it very easy for me>to get my E8600 to 4.3GHz from a 480MHz FSB on my Rampage>Extreme using about 1.325 vCore. To get there without LLC I>need to push the CPU voltage very close to, or in excess of,>the maximum specified by Intel (1.365v for an E8600). So I'm>pleased to see that I'm not completely frying my CPU just by>using LLC .>>TimMe too on the LLC.DDR3? I'm so jealous!

[tfm 169]

To Nick_N: Yes, but I don't expect to hang onto this for more than about a year. I'm actually quite pleased with the results I'm getting now so I might skip the Nehalem "tick", but if so I'll probably be buying again at "tock" time. My temps and voltages are below the published maxima so hopefully I won't blow anything up before then. Or am I being too optimistic?To simjunkie: Yes again - DDR3 gives a nice little boost IMHO, mainly to the snappiness of scenery loading at low altitudes. I've got mine running at 1600MHz 7-7-7-20 with latency at under 46ns as reported by Everest - all thanks to reading posts on this forum, many of them Nick_N's by the way.Incidentally, I can recommend this X48 MB (a Rampage Extreme). Even as a complete novice, I have got pretty good results quite easily compared with the cheapo P35 MB (an Asus P5K) that I bought initially. The settings I use are not nearly "maxed out" - I've had the CPU running at about 4.5GHz, all on air and without fiddling with anything except the basic settings, which are the only ones I "understand" even remotely - but my current numbers seem to me to be a more sensible compromise as well as hitting a sweet spot for the RAM multiplier thingy.Tim

[Guest Nick_N]

>To Nick_N: Yes, but I don't expect to hang onto this for more>than about a year. I'm actually quite pleased with the results>I'm getting now so I might skip the Nehalem "tick", but if so>I'll probably be buying again at "tock" time. My temps and>voltages are below the published maxima so hopefully I won't>blow anything up before then. Or am I being too optimistic?>Timthe reason for LLC is to do exactly what you are doing and not run the CPU on the high end of voltage potential just to maintain the clock. You are not going to blow anything up. Your useful component life expectancy is the same as someone using 400MHz and is clocking a slug. If you are well within temps and voltage specs and keep the tower clean for airflow, you are fine. If you sit on the very 'edge' of critical temps and voltages under normal system use, that

[Guest simjunkie]

The Extreme would definitely be my first choice. I love the Rampage twins!-jk

[virtualstuff 757]

>"maxed out" - I've had the CPU running at about 4.5GHz, all on>air and without fiddling with anything except the basic>settings, which are the only ones I "understand" even remotely>- but my current numbers seem to me to be a more sensible>compromise as well as hitting a sweet spot for the RAM>multiplier thingy.>>TimYou be also surprised what an GA-EP45-DS3P can do with a E8600 and nowhere near the max Vcore 1,3625V of that 45Nm :-) more like 1.2375V ;-) Prefer to keep things cool...Have my 620HX PSU running and low spike values...Running mem at 4-4-4-15 :-) DDR2 lolMan this E8600 is really a beast and cool too full loadFSX hehehe 48 C/47 C core temp and that is on Air. With OCCT we have higher values but still low enough to stay away more then 45 C from TJ. max (which is for this one 100 C ;-))http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y156/awf1/sign.jpg

[Guest simjunkie]

'Also, in MEMSET, set the tREF (Refresh Period) to the HIGHEST "T" value in the dropdown.'Nick, I have mine set to 60 right now. Should I set a higher value? I've read about this setting and that it needs a much higher value for higher FSB, why is that?I know I need to put this thread to rest, I'm at a good clock. I just want to know about this setting. Thanks Nick, -jk

[Guest Nick_N]

tREF is a change that will have very little influence on stability with Intel, AMD can be different. To simplify it past the engineese... What you are doing is placing a command to the memory to fire a refresh period with longer bursts of data instead of shorter which in turn increases performance slightly.. you are increasing the data within the period of a minor 'wait state' in the form of a refresh occurs which is why higher values are better instead of lowerSame principle as why the clocking I posted works.. more money in the bank per cycle means more cash at the end of the month to pay bills and FSX sends a whopper of a bill to you each month.You are looking at the WRONG value... the one I am talking about is tREF (at the bottom of the MEMset list) not Refresh Cycle TimeIn the case of Refresh Cycle Time or tRFC, LOWER is faster but more unstable. The lowest stable value possible is the best. It can be used to trim in FSB changes, yes, since its influence on the system has a greater change in stability than 'overall' performance. Higher memory speed such as DDR3 typically runs a higher tRFC. DDR2 typically runs a lower however that can vary from manufacture and run of memory product too. tRFC is a wait state that tells the memory how long to wait from the point where it gets the REFRESH command to the point where it fires the ACTIVE command. So if tREF is HIGH there will be more data with less REFRESH commands per cycle on the same rank and if tRFC is low, that refresh command will move to the ACTIVE command state fasterSo by setting tREF to the highest value you are actually influincing tRFC as well because there is more data in the burst between those pauses in which tRFC cycles back around to the ACT stateUnderstand?

[Guest simjunkie]

I got the two confused. I see now. I'm going to use Memset 3.5, why shouldn't I use BIOS for these settings?