Go Back   Overclock3D Forums > [OC3D] Processors & Platforms > Overclocking
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
  #1  
Old 04-06-08, 06:10 PM
method526 method526 is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 5
can't overclock to 3.6 no more on Q6600

i used to be able to clock my q6600 to 3.6 but now things have changed (i think it's due to my new vid card: PNY 9600GT).

specs:

Q6600 G0 (currently clocked at 334x9 @ 3.01 GHZ)

Abit IP35 Pro

Mushkin Redline 2x2GB 1000Mhz

PNY 9600GT

HIPER HPU-4M880 880W ATX12V / EPS12V Power Supply 100 - 240 V UL, CE, CB, TUV, FCC, CSA - Retail

4 Aerocool 140mm fans

1 Antec 120mm fan

2 CoolerMaster 120mm fans (case is CM690).

my vcore is set to 1.3925 in bios and and my uguru says it's at 1.33V. RAM is at 2.050v at 1002Mhz and is at 5-5-5-12-2T (the EPP is 5-5-5-12-2T @ 2.050v). all other voltages are set at default. i also found out that i cant even go to or past 3.2GHZ without BSOD...got ideas?

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-06-08, 06:53 PM
Luigi Luigi is offline
OC3D Elite
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,499
What temps etc? Maybe something changed in bios, newer version?
__________________
Luigi

-----------

Project: Flat Pack - Coming soon
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-06-08, 08:12 PM
Rastalovich's Avatar
Rastalovich Rastalovich is offline
OC3D Elite
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Testing hardware somewhere
Posts: 11,419
I`d take the memory out of epp, go 1:1 with the ratio, check with cpuz what the 400mhz timings are, and try for 400x9 - start at 333x9 and go up obviously, but stay underneath the epp for now.

Thing about the Q6600 and the P35 range of mobos, it takes no effort at-all to go from 2.4 to 3. 3.33 should be easy and 3.6 if ur temps can handle it, my Scythe can`t 24/7. Wc and u look further for sure, not too much mind.
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-06-08, 06:19 PM
The Computer Council The Computer Council is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 106
Hi there.

Do you know what the VID of the chip is? It may need a little more juice than 1.39v. You should be able to up it to 1.45 on air comfortably, with acceptable temperatures. Try changing the Vcore in increments to see if that helps.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-06-08, 08:32 PM
FarFarAway FarFarAway is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 0
And let's be fair - 3.6GHz isn't too shabby for a Q6600
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-06-08, 09:37 PM
The Computer Council The Computer Council is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by name='Kempez'
And let's be fair - 3.6GHz isn't too shabby for a Q6600
Certainly not.

Thats what we run our rig here at, would like to go more but that'll mean swapping out for some H20.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-07-08, 12:31 AM
pafk0o pafk0o is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 157
and what about q6600 and 780i chipset, dont know why but i cant go further than 3.15gh without BSOD(got now running at 333x9- 3ghz and it is very very stable),at 3.3ghz system is starting but after just few minutes it crash(sometimes seconds), strange thing is that when i put e6750 i can easly overclock it using FSB at 400.
__________________
RQ_LESS_OR_NOT_EQUAL



Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-07-08, 09:00 AM
Mr. Smith's Avatar
Mr. Smith Mr. Smith is offline
OC3D Elite
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Reading
Posts: 4,063
Agreed it's a decent OC but he USED to be able to get 3.6ghz so why can't he now?

I was thinking this very same thing about my chip, it used to bench at 4ghz no problem but now it is very fussy... Even at 3.6ghz 24/7.

I think you (like me) have induced a mild case of cpu degradation. Read the article below...

Quote:
Degradation - the process by which a CPU loses the ability to maintain an equivalent overclock, often sustainable through the use of increased core voltage levels - is usually regarded as a form of ongoing failure. This is much like saying your life is nothing more than your continual march towards death. While some might find this analogy rather poignant philosophically speaking, technically speaking it's a horrible way of modeling the life-cycle of a CPU. Consider this: silicon quality is often measured as a CPU's ability to reach and maintain a desired stable switching frequency all while requiring no more than the maximum specified process voltage (plus margin). If the voltage required to reach those speeds is a function of the CPU's remaining useful life, then why would each processor come with the same three-year warranty?

The answer is quite simple really. Each processor, regardless of silicon quality, is capable of sustained error-free operation while functioning within the bounds of the specified environmental tolerances (temperature, voltage, etc.), for a period of no less than the warranted lifetime when no more performance is demanded of it than its rated frequency will allow. In other words, rather than limit the useful lifetime of each processor, and to allow for a consistent warranty policy, processors are binned based on the highest achievable speed while applying no more than the process's maximum allowable voltage. When we get right down to it, this is the key to overclocking - running CPUs in excess of their rated specifications regardless of reliability guidelines.

As soon as you concede that overclocking by definition reduces the useful lifetime of any CPU, it becomes easier to justify its more extreme application. It also goes a long way to understanding why Intel has a strict "no overclocking" policy when it comes to retaining the product warranty. Too many people believe overclocking is "safe" as long as they don't increase their processor core voltage - not true. Frequency increases drive higher load temperatures, which reduces useful life. Conversely, better cooling may be a sound investment for those that are looking for longer, unfailing operation as this should provide more positive margin for an extended period of time.



The graph above shows three curves. The middle line models the minimum required voltage needed for a processor to continuously run at 100% load for the period shown along the x-axis. During this time, the processor is subjected to its specified maximum core voltage and is never overclocked. Additionally, all of the worst-case considerations come together and our E8500 operates at its absolute maximum sustained Tcase temperature of 72.4ºC. Three years later, we would expect the CPU to have "degraded" to the point where slightly more core voltage is needed for stable operation - as shown above, a little less than 1.15V, up from 1.125V.

Including Vdroop and Voffset, an average 45nm dual-core processor with a VID of 1.25000 should see a final load voltage of about 1.21V. Shown as the dashed green line near the middle of the graph, this represents the actual CPU supply voltage (Vcore). Keep in mind that the trend line represents the minimum voltage required for continued stable operation, so as long as it stays below the actual supply voltage line (middle green line) the CPU will function properly. The lower green line is approximately 5% below the actual supply voltage, and represents an example of an offset that might be used to ensure a positive voltage margin is maintained.

The intersection point of the middle line (minimum required voltage) and the middle green line (actual supply voltage) predicts the point in time when the CPU should "fail," although an increase in supply voltage should allow for longer operation. Also, note how the middle line passes through the lower green line, representing the desired margin to stability at the three-year point, marking the end of warranty. The red line demonstrates the effect running the processor above the maximum thermal specification has on rated product lifetime - we can see the accelerated degradation caused by the higher operating temperatures. The blue line is an example of how lowering the average CPU temperature can lead to increased product longevity.



Because end of life failures are usually caused by a loss of positive voltage margin (excessive wear/degradation) we can establish a very real correlation between the increased/decreased probability of these types of failures and the operating environment experienced by the processor(s) in question. Here we see the effect a harsher operating environment has on observed failure rate due to the new end of life failure rate curve. By running the CPU outside of prescribed operating limits, we are no longer able to positively attribute any failure near the end of warranty to any known cause. Furthermore, because Intel is unable to make a distinction in failure type for each individual case of warranty failure when overclocking or improper use is suspected, policy is established which prohibits overclocking of any kind if warranty coverage is desired.

So what does all of this mean? So far we have learned that of the three basic failure types, failures due to degradation (i.e. wearing out) are in most cases directly influenced by the means and manner in which the processor is operated. Clearly, the user plays a considerable role in the creation and maintenance of a suitable operating environment. This includes the use of high-quality cooling solutions and pastes, the liberal use of fans to provide adequate case ventilation, and finally proper climate control of the surrounding areas. We have also learned that Intel has established easy to follow guidelines when it comes to ensuring the longevity of your investment.

Those that choose to ignore these recommendations and/or exceed any specification do so at their own peril. This is not meant to insinuate that doing so will necessarily cause immediate, irreparable damage or product failure. Rather, every decision made during the course of overclocking has a real and measureable "consequence." For some, there may be little reason to worry as concern for product life may not be a priority. On the other hand, perhaps precautions will be taken in order to accommodate the higher voltages like the use of water-cooling or phase-change cooling. In any case, the underlying principles are the same - overclocking is never without risk. And just like life, taking calculated risks can sometimes be the right choice.
Anandtech

If it isn't that I'd say like Rast it is a ram issue...
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump






All times are GMT. The time now is 04:46 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.