Q6600 "more responsive" at stock

[Big.Wayne]

yes very nice . . . what exactly is the argument your trying to engineer here? . . . and how is it different to anything I have said to mediaman about why his system is feeling "clunky"?

 

[redshadows]

yes very nice . . . what chip is that? . . . and what exactly is the argument your trying to engineer here? . . . and how is it different to anything I have said to mediaman about why is system is feeling "clunky"?

Sorry edited in q6600, no argument mate, just saying more GHz is better than ratio for RAM or even timings.

I see your point but unresponsive system due to overclocking can only be caused by drivers or ....dare I say again, BIOs memory tables

EDIT: with you post count + your reputation I am not looking for an argument bud, I dont like blowing my own trumpet but Im not wrong

I see your point, I really do but I have been overclocking the Q6600 since 2006, my fav processor (next to the pd805)

 

[Big.Wayne]

just saying more GHz is better than ratio for RAM or even timings.

for a fact will score better with more GHz, that is fact, more GHz is better....score wise

I dont like blowing my own trumpet but Im not wrong

Well if your talking about a "snappy" low latency system with improved memory bandwidth your statement is incorrect isn't it?

If I am reading your posts correctly you seem to be advocating that a Q6600 running @ 3.7GHz - DDR2-822 [1:1] is "all round" preferable to a Q6600 running at 3.6GHz - DDR2-1200 [3:2]

What is all this talk of running the RAM 1:1 with the FSB?

 

[redshadows]

Well if your talking about a "snappy" low latency system with improved memory bandwidth your statement is incorrect isn't it?

If I am reading your posts correctly you seem to be advocating that a Q6600 running @ 3.7GHz - DDR2-822 [1:1] is "all round" preferable to a Q6600 running at 3.6GHz - DDR2-1200 [3:2]

Yes, That would bench better, memory speed just makes up part of the story

Faster CPU over Memory any day
The type of latency we are talking about here is almost unnoticeable on day to day use.
Memory tables that don't handle it well would cause it to be noticeable though

 

[steve258]

If we're talking about a few hundred MHz then I agree CPU speed is more important. But very often when a system is close to its oc limit you have to dramatically reduce nb/ram settings in order to make it stable, and that's when it's better to run slightly lower CPU speed in favour of tight timings.

Ive tested my system @ 3.7ghz with super tight timings and it performs better in games than 3.8ghz with slack timings.

Op I think it feels snappier at stock because the mb default timings at stock fsb is tighter. When overclocking the timings are lossened to accommodate your oc. Go into your bios and try reducing the trd value (performance level). P45 chipset should be able to achieve 7/8 at 400fsb with a bit of extra nb voltage. Use sisoftsandra mem bandwidth test to check the latency.

 

[Big.Wayne]

Hey redshadows

Just been reading through mediaman's thread again trying to make some sense of your "contributions" and work out what it is your actually trying to say inbetween "blowing your own trumpet". . . I offered up some info to the O.P which you felt the need to quote and then take the thread on a slight tangent? . . . I'm really not sure what point it is your trying to make in relation to this thread or anything I have said but I can see some of your statements are incorrect and "sweeping" or just blatently stating the obvious . . .

I have been overclocking the Q6600 since 2006

Incorrect statement? . . . or you must have a time machine . . . pretty sure the q6600 [B3] wasn't released till early 2007 and the q6600 [GO] wasn't out till middle of 2007

my RAM is running 4-4-4-15 @ 1066 2.0v , 3:4 , [email protected] with my NB @ 1.3v

I could tighten nothing in my system, its tweaked

Hmmm that's tweaked but there is scope to "polish your overclock" further and make the system even faster right?

How about 3.6GHz (8x450) with RAM running 4-4-4-15 @ 1080 [6:5] . . . dropping the CPU multi from its native [x9] to [x8] along with the increased FSB would push the NBcc clock from 400MHz to 506MHz which is a 27% increase is System Bus Bandwidth . . . everything would be faster . . . even your "scores"

The type of latency we are talking about here is almost unnoticeable on day to day use.

I can tell the difference in actual usage between a high latency and a low latency system?

Yes, That would bench better, memory speed just makes up part of the story

Your saying a Q6600 running @ 3.7GHz - DDR2-822 [1:1] is "all round" preferable to a Q6600 running at 3.6GHz - DDR2-1200 [3:2] and would bench better . . . thats another sweeping statement as for starters the second config with faster memory would be provide a better user experience due to its lower system latency and be more "snappy" which you wouldn't need a benchmark to tell . . . the first 3.7GHz config running [1:1] would be more "laggy" to use due to its higher latency and would only scores better in tests that were heavily processor based or where the data sat in the processor cache. . . any application that responded to lower tRD and memory bandwidth would pull ahead on the 3.6GHz config even though running at 100MHz less processor frequency

Still GHz is better than any memory dividers/timings.

more GHz is better than ratio for RAM or even timings.

I could run 450FSB with a bad divider or 440 with a good divider and for a fact will score better with more GHz.

Blanket statements, your meaning to say for certain things more GHz is better but for general useage and a snappy low latency system and applications that are bandwidth or tRD effected then paying attention to your Memory/NB/tRD/NBcc is also important and will "score better" and "feel better" than El-Clunko untweaked [1:1] with higher CPU GHz!

Keep going man . . . I'm hoping to extract a nugget of useful info from you as you been clocking LGA775 since 2007 at least and your clock is pretty decent (if its real and stable?) . . . I was on LGA775 from Nov 2006 to Nov 2009 and never made it past DualCores . . . heres my best day-to-day, air-cooled stable clock using E8400, P5Q-E and some special PC2-5300

El-Tweako

 

[Frozennova]

folding (bigadv) its better as well.

Funnily enough Bidadv folding doesnt run on anything with less than 8 cores so you need an i7 with HT as a minimum.

I'm with wayne, from my overclocking experiences on AM3 processors, tweaking your memory timings and reducing overall system latency certainly makes the system snappier.

 

[w3bbo]

It depends on what you are after. In terms of the OP I would have to side with wayne however redshadows is correct in saying that for out and out CPU benchmarks, cpu clockspeed will win out. For 24/7, everyday use I would much prefer a balanced, low latency system.

 

[Essexraptor]

Q6600 B3 - Jan 08 2007

Q6700 G0 - Jul 16 2007

A little useless information

 

[VaderDSL]

Dummy incoming, ok, I have a Q6600 with some stock Crucial PC6400 ram. If I use 8X400 to give me 3.2Ghz, what divider should I run at?

I believe I should run 1:1 for DDR800 as my ram is only rated at that?

Sorry, it's been such a long time since I've messed around

 

[vorticalspace]

Dummy incoming, ok, I have a Q6600 with some stock Crucial PC6400 ram. If I use 8X400 to give me 3.2Ghz, what divider should I run at?

I believe I should run 1:1 for DDR800 as my ram is only rated at that?

Sorry, it's been such a long time since I've messed around

Bumpety Bump!!!

Big.Wayne, someone, I am also interested to know.

Currently running my Q6600 at 3.6Ghz (400 x 9) on PC6400 ram (1:1)

Thanks

 

[vorticalspace]

Also

RAM at 5-5-5-18 at 1.8V
All other system voltage at normal except Vcore (1.4 in bios)(1.376 in CPU-Z)

Do you think I could tighten the ram?

Thanks

 

[Big.Wayne]

• Q6600
• Crucial PC6400 ram

If I use 8X400 to give me 3.2Ghz, what divider should I run at?

I believe I should run 1:1 for DDR800 as my ram is only rated at that?

If your using DDR2-800 and running a 400MHz-FSB you have no choice but to use sync [1:1] on an Intel® LGA775 chipset . . .

The only other option with the chip at 3.2GHz would be:

356 x 9 = 3204MHz ~ [6:5] DDR2-854

If your RAM will clock that bit extra give it a try and see what you think!

 

[Big.Wayne]

Currently running my Q6600 at 3.6Ghz (400 x 9) on PC6400 ram (1:1)

Not much else you can do really with DDR2-800 memory!

Do you think I could tighten the ram?

Why don't you try and see?

 

[vorticalspace]

Not much else you can do really with DDR2-800 memory!

I've currently set the memory multi to 2x

I could manually set this to I think 2.4x which would run the ram faster but out of sync.

Is there really any point to this as surely the ram would just be left waiting for the rest of the system!!!

Thanks

 

[vorticalspace]

Why don't you try and see?

I could up the Ram voltage to 2.1 and run at 4-4-4-12

Would this give a noticeable boost?

Thanks

 

[Big.Wayne]

• DDR2-800 CAS5 12.5ns (128-bit) 6,400 MB/s
• DDR2-800 CAS4 10.0ns (128-bit) 6,400 MB/s

20% reduction in memory latency, slightly "snappier" system response and slightly less delay on every transaction between the CPU >> NB >> Memory . . . give it a pop although if your mem is rated CL5 it may not wanna play!

 

[Big.Wayne]

Is there really any point to this as surely the ram would just be left waiting for the rest of the system!!!

If your running 400MHz-FSB then this gets Quad-Pumped up to 1600MHz-System-Bus

• Memory DDR2 = 800MHz
• System Bus = 1600MHz

which part do you think is "left waiting"

 

[vorticalspace]

• DDR2-800 CAS5 12.5ns (128-bit) 6,400 MB/s
• DDR2-800 CAS4 10.0ns (128-bit) 6,400 MB/s

20% reduction in memory latency, slightly "snappier" system response and slightly less delay on every transaction between the CPU >> NB >> Memory . . . give it a pop although if your mem is rated CL5 it may not wanna play!

Thanks for the info

memory is Corsair CM2X1024-6400C4 (4 sticks)

in CPU-Z, it shows a EPP#1?? at 400 frequency of 4-4-4-12 @ 2.1V

Will give it a go

 

[setter]

Some vid info would help on the q6600's your clocking, it is an important factor, higher vid chips, ie, 1.32500 will run cool but wont oc for squat, lower vid cpu's will overclock well, but run hot, i got lucky, 1.2750 which is middle of the road, runs cool and clocks ok.