Suicide Quad @ 4.23 (xp vs vista)

Bengaboy · 4 Oct 2007 at 15:04

weescott said:
Sanding down the IHS to make it flat. better temperatures

Is it possible if you sand it down too much then your going to sand away something important to the cpu? Never lapped or even bought pc parts, apart from a gfx card , so i wouldnt know!

weescott · 4 Oct 2007 at 15:14

Not really. You start with 400grit paper and work your way up to 1200 depending if you want the shiny look or not. You would have to sand a heck of a lot to get to the core(s) and be incredibly stupid.

Azza · 4 Oct 2007 at 15:16

Awesome stuff w3bbo.

Can it run any other benchmarks at that speed?

drunkenmaster · 4 Oct 2007 at 15:24

well, to be honest the xp vs vista debate isn't showing anything here. xp default install is fairly memory/process heavy compared to a nice clean multiple process disabled install. likewise vista can be streamlined for performance massively, much further than xp. for instance getting into xp is one thing, getting into vista and loading up all the cache into mem means its simply doing a lot more work. disable superfetch, and a bunch of other stuff and you'd have a different story.

once you hit max stable speed there shouldn't be any difference between either OS.

Sh3rlock · 4 Oct 2007 at 15:31

What sorta temp differences would you notice by lapping the CPU ?

Stelly · 4 Oct 2007 at 15:35

Damien. said:
What sorta temp differences would you notice by lapping the CPU ?

Some people are seeing as much as 10c difference

Stelly

frustin · 4 Oct 2007 at 15:38

that's incredible, just getting it to shine!

frustin · 4 Oct 2007 at 15:39

weescott said:
Not really. You start with 400grit paper and work your way up to 1200 depending if you want the shiny look or not.

ok i am going to go out and buy some sandpaper (of which i know nothing about really) do i buy 400, 800, and 1200 only? do i need to be in between as well?

sablabra · 4 Oct 2007 at 16:06

frustin said:
ok i am going to go out and buy some sandpaper (of which i know nothing about really) do i buy 400, 800, and 1200 only? do i need to be in between as well?

Start with 400 to get through to the copper. After that you may move on to about 600-800 and finish it off with some 1200 or even 2000. Remember you need a completely flat surface or it'll all be a waste. You might want to see if your IHS is flat before you begin as well. Remember that even the mounting bracket can actually bend the IHS if it's too tight. Keep in mind you'll lose your warranty as well.

Logic Zero · 4 Oct 2007 at 17:42

frustin said:
ok i am going to go out and buy some sandpaper (of which i know nothing about really) do i buy 400, 800, and 1200 only? do i need to be in between as well?

Make sure you get wet and dry paper! Not sandpaper!

w3bbo · 4 Oct 2007 at 18:44

drunkenmaster said:
well, to be honest the xp vs vista debate isn't showing anything here. xp default install is fairly memory/process heavy compared to a nice clean multiple process disabled install. likewise vista can be streamlined for performance massively, much further than xp. for instance getting into xp is one thing, getting into vista and loading up all the cache into mem means its simply doing a lot more work. disable superfetch, and a bunch of other stuff and you'd have a different story.

once you hit max stable speed there shouldn't be any difference between either OS.

Simple fact is that vista wouldn't boot with the same settings I used in XP infact it wouldn't boot with more vcore than xp. There are no 'tweaks' done to either OS the only thing disabled is the visual stuff. I'm sure that Vista can be stripped down to a more amicable benching system but then it wouldn't be Vista would it, ergo it wouldn't be a fair comparison. Both OS's were 32bit - XP Pro and vista ultimate. Both on separate HD's.

My max stable speed is 4ghz (p95 8 hours) and both OS were obviously fine at this speed, but comparing on a like for like 'out of the box' basis, XP wins hands down.

lavigne_22 · 4 Oct 2007 at 20:54

nice work w3bbo

w3bbo · 4 Oct 2007 at 21:00

Cheers m8. Any news on that phase yet? Would like to know how far these things can be pushed with that cooling.

lavigne_22 · 4 Oct 2007 at 21:20

hello
well just testing atm...at 4ghz with 1.4v....temps i cant tell as mobo temps only go as low as 1c
but probs around -25-30c
going for around 4.5ghz but i think maybe that would need 1.7v...cpuz reads it a fair bit lower than in bois atm

easyrider · 4 Oct 2007 at 21:25

lavigne_22 said:
hello
well just testing atm...at 4ghz with 1.4v....temps i cant tell as mobo temps only go as low as 1c
but probs around -25-30c
going for around 4.5ghz but i think maybe that would need 1.7v...cpuz reads it a fair bit lower than in bois atm

What mobo?

What phase?

waso_dude · 4 Oct 2007 at 22:32

lavigne_22 said:
hello
well just testing atm...at 4ghz with 1.4v....temps i cant tell as mobo temps only go as low as 1c
but probs around -25-30c
going for around 4.5ghz but i think maybe that would need 1.7v...cpuz reads it a fair bit lower than in bois atm

MENTAL!!!

Get modding the voltage on that board tbh..

weescott · 4 Oct 2007 at 23:54

easyrider said:
What mobo?

What phase?

Has to be a heck of a unit with those temps. Getting -25c with a dual at 1.65v, and I'm not even sure the mount is right.

easyrider · 5 Oct 2007 at 00:37

weescott said:
Has to be a heck of a unit with those temps. Getting -25c with a dual at 1.65v, and I'm not even sure the mount is right.

me too

frustin · 5 Oct 2007 at 18:43

how do you ensure a flat surface? is it flat already? if so you have to just be careful not to rub too much in one corner, or whatever, right?

lavigne_22 · 5 Oct 2007 at 20:54

weescott said:
Has to be a heck of a unit with those temps. Getting -25c with a dual at 1.65v, and I'm not even sure the mount is right.

was just a guess as mobo only reads to 1c

chiller reads -47c.....about same as my dual at 4.4ghz...and that was -30c ish