• 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.

*** Official AMD Phenom II X6 1055T & 1090T Overclocking Thread ***

doesnt look like a NB @ 3Ghz is making much difference in the results Ive seen

so no idea if to leave mine @3 or drop to 2.6 .. hmmm decisions decisions .. doesnt make much different to temps either on my system
 
whens bulldozer out .. only gotta last till then .. lol

dont think an NB @2.6 is holding back the cpu in general and matchs the HT link so cant argue against backing off as upping ram to 1600 had more effect than the NB @3Ghz

never an overclocker before but apart from waiting 8 hours for priming this has been a painless experience for a noob like me ..

just have to keep a close eye on temps as the summer heatwave approaches ... but generally for what I have tested on , video encoding the upgrade has made me feel like its a worthy improvement so Im a Happy Chappy for today :D
 
pauljen296 said:
Does anybody know of a benchmark for encoding? wouldn't mind seeing the different between my cpu and one of of these?
Click to expand...
http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=520

heres mine

Results for x264.exe r1342
--------------------------
encoded 1442 frames, 82.76 fps, 3898.70 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 83.68 fps, 3898.70 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 84.49 fps, 3898.70 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 84.43 fps, 3898.70 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 36.91 fps, 3966.44 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 36.88 fps, 3970.69 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 36.78 fps, 3970.70 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 36.64 fps, 3971.68 kb/s
 
Last edited:
from use I could not spot any real world difference between [email protected] and NB @2.6 .. then again didnt cause higher temps either really

odd but i guess raw cpu power , HTT link @ max 2.6 and good tight ram settings give a bigger boost ...

I have put my NB @ 2.6 now and really cant tell any difference , the pc is just as responsive and smooth if not a little smoother

not gonna prime for 8 hours though .. just a OCCT and quick IBT then everyday use until it blue screens or freezes .. lol ... will test all my usual software apps and games and see if any of them cause issues but im not expecting problems and everything feels rock solid
 
vandiesel said:
Not the best job but it is very tight around the hsf, it will do for now, here you go.

Click to expand...

Cheers, going to have to be a bit creative with mine as they are tucked right under the H50...

Should be able to squeeze the memsinks on them, see if that gives them enough cooling without having to find somewhere to put a fan!

Got a few of these i'm going to strap on:

29uswls.jpg
 
Well here's mine:-

Results for x264.exe r1342
--------------------------
encoded 1442 frames, 47.09 fps, 3899.26 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 47.38 fps, 3899.26 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 47.20 fps, 3899.26 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 46.63 fps, 3899.26 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 12.41 fps, 3971.53 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 12.54 fps, 3970.51 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 12.54 fps, 3970.63 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 12.48 fps, 3970.83 kb/s


System Details
--------------
Name Intel Core 2 Duo E7200

gareth170 Quote:
Originally Posted by pauljen296
Does anybody know of a benchmark for encoding? wouldn't mind seeing the different between my cpu and one of of these?

http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=520

heres mine

Results for x264.exe r1342
--------------------------
encoded 1442 frames, 82.76 fps, 3898.70 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 83.68 fps, 3898.70 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 84.49 fps, 3898.70 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 84.43 fps, 3898.70 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 36.91 fps, 3966.44 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 36.88 fps, 3970.69 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 36.78 fps, 3970.70 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 36.64 fps, 3971.68 kb/s
Click to expand...

It about 2x as fast as my overclocked E7200 duel core is yours overclocked gareth170? If so could you do a stock benchmark?
 
Last edited:
to be honest I dont think that benchmark is a fair reflection of real world ..

from personal experience I can say that the X6 is about the same as an i7 920 @ 3.2Ghz using an x264 encoder and with the X6 @ 4ghz it is anywhere from 25% to 40% quicker than the 920 @ 3.2Ghz ... these figures are based on encodeing the same file using the same settings on both cpu's and timing them manually to the completion time

so it really depends on the app used and if that app has specific Intel optimisations which from opinions on the interweb 'most benchmarks' have some form of Intel optimisation built in with Intels help.

all IMHO of course so I wont argue if peeps wanna pick holes :p
 
So has upping the HT link improved things too then? I thought HT 3.0 gave more than enough bandwidth?

Another thing I ll need to clock and compare, lol.

Be good to see some real world results of HT and NB at stock vs OC.
 
HT automatically clocks when you clock the NB and it tops at 2.6 unless you force higher (didnt try though)... there appears to be a little to gain upping the NB past 2.6Ghz but its not much for the extra voltage .. I didnt really notice any temp increase with a 3Ghz NB @ 1.35v

Im not totally sure if in the real world a NB of 3Ghz is noticable but there is room for improvement with tighter ram timings I believe

Overall I think its safe to say at the moment on the first batch of AMD X6 1090T that 4 Ghz is pretty easy its just a case of finding the lowest vcore for each chip to get there stable

With some tweaking it appears that the 1055 will do 4Ghz too so far but 3.8 or 3.9 maybe more realistic for 24/7 computing

then again someone is bound to come along and prove me completely wrong now .. lol
 
OK ... well mine does .. lol .. sitting at 2.6 according to cpu-z and has done since I touched any kind of clocking ..

beta BIOS is kinda almost an alpha with so many quirks like C&Q not working sometimes and working others when even disabled

I shall ignore th HTT readings then :D

did say i was a noob and now im proving it
 
yep I kinda understood that was the case ... but didnt know it was a bug I thought it was meant to ... learn something new everyday

guess its not having any effect and a proper official bios update should fix it but will that result in lower temps or slower performance ?

not too worried at the mo as system is stable ... hope a new bios dont mean have to go through everything again .. arrrgghhhhh .. lol
 
Upping the HT doesn't really have any effect on performance as it has more than enough bandwidth at stock.

The only reason mine is at 2200MHz instead of 2000MHz is due to a bios bug that sets it higher by default.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom