• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Just thought I'd run my Q6600 at stock vcore ...

blackninja

blackninja

blackninja

Associate
Joined
13 Nov 2007
Posts
1,483
This is in the interest of reducing power consumption and noise levels.

Since I have had my Q6600 I have never seen what it can do at stock vcore - well now I know. All my fans are fixed at their lowest settings and I have saved this profile to BIOS - it is now my default! I am still trying to detect any 'difference' to my 3.8GHz usual settings as I write this .. but to be honest I can't ;)

underclockzk3.jpg
 
400 x 8 would be a better way of getting 3.2 and running your mem at 1:1, still nice clock from stock volts :)
 
I'm running at stock volts now and found 3.2 ghz very easy once I updated the mobo bios. Idle temps are 39,34,33,37 and under load are high 50's. And no I can't tell the difference between 3.2 ghz and 3.6 ghz.
 
I couldn't tell the difference when there was a 600mhz one, except for benching / 3D Mark 06. Windows use and games I couldn't tell the difference, maybe something using the CPU more intensively might show but not for everyday use I didn't notice either!
 
HeX said:
400 x 8 would be a better way of getting 3.2 and running your mem at 1:1, still nice clock from stock volts :)
Click to expand...

Hex you (or another kind soul) couldn't give a quick explanation why (400x8) is better, I was under the impression that higher multi was better.

Thanks :)
 
Last edited:
Beowulf1100 said:
Hex you (or another kind soul) couldn't give a quick explanation why (400x8) is better, I was under the impression that higher multi was better.

Thanks :)
Click to expand...

Higher fsb is better but hard to acheive stable.

That is because the board will be running at 400Mhz compared with 356Mhz for 3.2Ghz. It also means you can have your memory running at 1:1 and at 800Mhz compared with just 712Mhz - you would have course change your memory ratio but odd ratios are slower than "round" ones like 1:1 3:2 etc.

Try if for yourself in benchmarks and games.

Higher multis been refferred to as been better is because it is easier to reach the maximum of the cpu but is irreevant if you are not aiming for the max.

For example e8xxx are capable of in excess of 4Ghz but with a e8400 you would need your fsb to be 444Mhz to hit 4Ghz but would need to be 500Mhz to hit 4.5Ghz which not all mobos do whereas the 9.5 multi on the e8500 means you only need 473 fsb to hit 4.5Ghz.

Oddly with my mobo/cpu combo the 8x multi is more stable than the 9x multi. I struggle like hell to get anything over 3.2Ghz stable on the 9x multi yet 8 x 450 = 3.6Ghz is easy.
 
I would imagine a higher FSB (IE lower multi) would also help with intercore communication on Kentsfield as it uses the FSB to communicate between each pair of cores. Higher memory bandwidth is never a bad thing, and faster FSB = slightly reduced latency too.

Stability is the key though, if the lower multipliers get the speed your after and is stable, then go for it, but if its unstable switching to a higher multi puts less stress on the motherboard and ram.
 
HeX said:
400 x 8 would be a better way of getting 3.2 and running your mem at 1:1, still nice clock from stock volts :)
Click to expand...

Not strictly true - With the memory timings being equal a higher FSB will give a higher bandwidth - my RAM does up to 380 @ 4-4-4-12 ... at 400 I need 5-5-5-15 to achieve stability and it will go to about 440 at these settings. In either case the RAM is running synchronously at 1:1 ..
 
blackninja said:
Mine is actually running at 1.15v under load - If I could undervolt my chip I would (Does anybody know how to do this on an ABIT IP35 Pro?)
Click to expand...

afik you can't as you can't set the boot up voltage any lower than the VID.

So a 1.2v VID q6600 and a board with lots of vdrop and vdroop like the abit pro would give you the lowest voltage under load.

1.15v is pretty good. If you had a 1.325v VID chip you'd be looking at over 1.2v under load even with the worst mobo.
 
It is suprising how much power use can be reduced by, my Athlon x2 3800 works at stock speeds at 1.1v and 2.6ghz at 1.2v! Way below the stock voltage of 1.35v.
 
Having fun over the weekend I was able to leave my Q6600 at 2.4 ghz and run only 1.05 volts through it. Successfully prime95'd it all night long. Idles at 33,30,32,28c and never gets above 50c. I put my hand on the exit fan coming out the back and the air was actually cool ... not even warm! Just having fun with this chip.

Last week I ran 1.6 volts through it and hit 3.8 ghz! My little whore. ;)
 
095000loadlineonjv6.jpg


Nice results blackninja! . . . heres my E6300 running undervolted, 0.9500vCore set in BIOS resulting in 0.928vCore in windows idle/load. 37°C full Orthos Small FFTs load temps cooled by a passive TRUE.

It's hard to judge how much of a undervolt this is until you reverse it and add this voltage to the VID:

1.325v - 0.397v = 0.9280v

1.325v + 0.397v = 1.722v
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom