3.3 or 3.4 ?

Bartmasta

Bartmasta

banned
I'm currently at 3.3 ghz, but I can go to 3.4 Ghz.

Right now I have idle temps of about 28 'C and load about 52'C. going to 3.4 will make my load 57' C or something and max is 62'C.

Should I do it?

edit

im at 3.4 now Ill play soem cod4 and post my highest temp
 
Last edited:
with that temp rise with just 100mhz extra i wouldnt bother,you wont realy see any diffrence going from 3.3 to 3.4.

3.2-3.3 is plenty fast enough :P
 
Cod4 is crashing and saying it's encountered an error

I think ill go back to 3.3

load temps are 46' C btw max is 62'c

its also possible that not enough voltage maybe. Ughhhhh.
 
I tried going to 3.4 also. No matter what, it just wouldn't do it. I actually passed an hour of OCCT (CPU only) testing, but when I rebooted, it gave me a BIOS error. I had to reset the jumper.

The max I ever got it was 3.38, which seemed really stable (FSB/HT bus at 218), passed all stability tests and ran real-world programs and games great. But I'm perfectly happy running it at 3.3 with a lower voltage and low temps. Not like you'll see any difference in speed anyway haha.
 
With a Windsor or Brisbane running air cooling 3.3ghz is about the most they like. The X2 6400BE was alittle better but they were the top yield ones from the Windsor F3 stepping, they could get to 3.5 easier. But other than that one you have to bump the voltage up some much and then deal with the heat, its just not worth it.
 
smoothjk said:
I tried going to 3.4 also. No matter what, it just wouldn't do it. I actually passed an hour of OCCT (CPU only) testing, but when I rebooted, it gave me a BIOS error. I had to reset the jumper.

The max I ever got it was 3.38, which seemed really stable (FSB/HT bus at 218), passed all stability tests and ran real-world programs and games great. But I'm perfectly happy running it at 3.3 with a lower voltage and low temps. Not like you'll see any difference in speed anyway haha.
Click to expand...

I've managed 3458Mhz and it was stable enough to run 3dmark06 haha temps were like 12'C idle, 41 'C load

you can see screenshot in the 3dmark06 scroes thread
 
I would also stick with 3.3GHz, I could have kept my rig at 4.1GHz but it requires a significant voltage bump, which IMO isn't worth it for only an extra 200MHz.
 
Wow, your room must be freezing ;).

I agree with the statement that the extra couple hundred Mhz probably isn't going to be very noticeable. If your temps are jumping up too, it makes it less worth it, imo.
 
oh and another thing.

When I overclocked earlier to 3.5, and ran 3dmark06, I got a bsod that was 0x44 error.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms793442.aspx

I don't know what could of caused it. Not enough voltage? Was it even the CPU? My temps were under 40'C so sure couldn't be that. When I lowered the frequency to 3458, it worked.

Maybe if I can get past this problem I can go to 3.6 GHZ for 3dmark06 :P

Nightrain said:
Wow, your room must be freezing ;).

I agree with the statement that the extra couple hundred Mhz probably isn't going to be very noticeable. If your temps are jumping up too, it makes it less worth it, imo.
Click to expand...

Yeah I decided to go with 3.3 GHZ

Also my room is normally 22 'C or so, but I had the window WIDE open and a regular fan blowing at my pc with case off.
 
Last edited:
I've found that most BSOD's are caused not by too high of a temperature, but rather lacking voltage to keep the parts stable. As long as the temps are fine I would increase the CPU voltage as well as making sure the RAM isn't set too low (both timings and voltage) for the speed it's running at.
 
My ram is at 2.2V and 5-5-5-5. It's been tested to work at 2.2 V with 4-4-4-4 not overclocked and 1.8 V at 4-4-4-4. Is that good? I think it's was at 880 Mhz or something. Should I lower it?
 
Bartmasta said:
My ram is at 2.2V and 5-5-5-5. It's been tested to work at 2.2 V with 4-4-4-4 not overclocked and 1.8 V at 4-4-4-4. Is that good? I think it's was at 880 Mhz or something. Should I lower it?
Click to expand...
Do you mean 5-5-5-15 @ 2.2V? If so then that should be fine at 880MHz, however if you raise the memory speed more (when you are overclocking it further), then I would consider raising the timings to say 6-6-6-18, and then if it's stable slowly try lowing then again.
 
sorry I meant.

The ram works at 4-4-4-4 NOT overclocked at 2.2 V

And it works at 5-5-5-5 NOT overclocked at 1.8 V.

My ram is 5-5-5-5 and at 2.2 V and the OC isn't huge.

So am I good? Or do I need to loosen the timings?
 
Again the cycle time can't be 5 clocks with the rest of the timings at 5 clocks, it has to be something more realistic like 5-5-5-15. But anyways, that's besides the point.

You say you are running CL5 @ 2.2V overclocked to 880MHz correct? Is that when you are at 3.3GHz or when you were at 3.4/3.5? I would still try raising the timings to 6-6-6-18 @ 2.1-2.2V and see if that helps.
 
[-0MEGA-];1132287 said:
Again the cycle time can't be 5 clocks with the rest of the timings at 5 clocks, it has to be something more realistic like 5-5-5-15. But anyways, that's besides the point.

You say you are running CL5 @ 2.2V overclocked to 880MHz correct? Is that when you are at 3.3GHz or when you were at 3.4/3.5? I would still try raising the timings to 6-6-6-18 @ 2.1-2.2V and see if that helps.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's 5-5-5-5-15 , but I didn't know what the ending was so I thought you'd get what I mean by saying 5-5-5-5

I had 892mhz for ram at 3458 MhZ for my cpu.

I will try to loosen timings but I'm not sure how to do that. Will it make my 3dmark06 score worse?

edit: will this tool work for changing ram timings? Central Brain Identifier

Ok I have the problem but I don't know what to change :s

Read cas latency?
 
Last edited:
personally I would stop 10c BEFORE the limit....this keeps you safe.


Also you worry to much about some stupid 3dmark score....my score is 0 why..because I don't care as long as it plays games and does what I need it too ^-^.
 
Twist86 said:
Also you worry to much about some stupid 3dmark score....my score is 0 why..because I don't care as long as it plays games and does what I need it too ^-^.
Click to expand...
Yes some people try to get the absolute best 3DMark score, even if it means sacrificing gaming performance or graphics quality.

However I personally think that 3DMark is a great program for determining the gains of an overclock. Say you overclock your CPU by 300MHz and want to see how much of a difference it makes, running 3DMark (or any other benchmark) is an easy way to compare the differences.
 
I decided not to overclock any further just for a score.

It's nice to try with stock speeds, and then overclocked speeds that are stable for gaming and everyday use. It's not really worth it to try and get the best overclock for some score.

My overclock didn't get me that much points anyways. I had like 10000 stock and with stable speeds im at 10700 and with my max Im at 11015
 
Bartmasta said:
I decided not to overclock any further just for a score.

It's nice to try with stock speeds, and then overclocked speeds that are stable for gaming and everyday use. It's not really worth it to try and get the best overclock for some score.

My overclock didn't get me that much points anyways. I had like 10000 stock and with stable speeds im at 10700 and with my max Im at 11015
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree. While it's nice to find the absolute maximum speed that you can get your processor, it's usually not ideal to leave it running like that for everyday use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top