1 Aug 2008 at 21:54 #1 benskia benskia Associate Joined 6 Oct 2005 Posts 576 Um... Why can I run at 8 * 410, but not 9 * 350. Which is actually slower CPU and memory rating wise? I dont get it. Anything that would cause this? I'm on a p5q-pro with Q6600. Cheers.
Um... Why can I run at 8 * 410, but not 9 * 350. Which is actually slower CPU and memory rating wise? I dont get it. Anything that would cause this? I'm on a p5q-pro with Q6600. Cheers.
1 Aug 2008 at 22:05 #2 Diggsy Diggsy Soldato Joined 31 Aug 2007 Posts 4,856 Could simply be an 'FSB hole' preventing you from using 350. Have you tried 8 x 350 to check?
2 Aug 2008 at 13:03 #3 Cob Cob Soldato Joined 30 Jul 2006 Posts 18,485 Location Antrim town I've seen other people mention that their quads clock better on the x8 multi. Tho it's usually nearer 3.6ghz that the oddity occurs. I would expect any Q6600 to do 350x9.
I've seen other people mention that their quads clock better on the x8 multi. Tho it's usually nearer 3.6ghz that the oddity occurs. I would expect any Q6600 to do 350x9.
2 Aug 2008 at 21:01 #4 Buckster Buckster Soldato Joined 20 Aug 2006 Posts 9,768 mine clocks better on a x9 ! I'd say you've probably come up against a motherboard limitation, as on the higher fsbs it probably drops to a lower strap
mine clocks better on a x9 ! I'd say you've probably come up against a motherboard limitation, as on the higher fsbs it probably drops to a lower strap
2 Aug 2008 at 22:35 #5 Greebo Greebo Caporegime Joined 20 Jan 2005 Posts 45,777 Location Co Durham anything past 3.2Ghz is more stable with the 8x multi on my cpu/mobo. I have never figured out why. And definitely not a fsb hole either.
anything past 3.2Ghz is more stable with the 8x multi on my cpu/mobo. I have never figured out why. And definitely not a fsb hole either.
2 Aug 2008 at 23:29 #7 Cairnsey Cairnsey Associate Joined 2 Jan 2007 Posts 2,305 Location England strap prolly
