Any advice on how to oc this cpu with the other hardware i have posted would be great,anything over 3.2/3.4 ghz would be ideal,i have a akasa venom cpu cooler.
http://imageshack.us
http://imageshack.us
-
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.
Overclocking quad 9550
- Thread starter Spook187
- Start date
Set bus speed to 400.
CPU multiplier to 8.5. Gives speed = 400*8.5 = 3400 MHz.
Mem multiplier 1:1.
Mem timings as stock.
Might need a bit more volts, might not.
Stability test with Intel Burn Test.
Edit: you can keep speedstep (EIST) and all the halt state power saving etc. things on. They're very unlikely to affect your OC and can save a LOT of power.
CPU multiplier to 8.5. Gives speed = 400*8.5 = 3400 MHz.
Mem multiplier 1:1.
Mem timings as stock.
Might need a bit more volts, might not.
Stability test with Intel Burn Test.
Edit: you can keep speedstep (EIST) and all the halt state power saving etc. things on. They're very unlikely to affect your OC and can save a LOT of power.
Last edited:
Thank you joey,my first oc
lol yes some may say about time
Running prime 95 now,did other burn test with no problems,no extra volts were needed,are these temps ok for load.
[URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/42/unledaa.jpg/]
http://imageshack.us[/URL]
lol yes some may say about timeRunning prime 95 now,did other burn test with no problems,no extra volts were needed,are these temps ok for load.
[URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/42/unledaa.jpg/]
http://imageshack.us[/URL]Yep, lovely! Nice and cool.
Personally I'd be happy with that (I've settled for cool and low volt overclocks these days, call me a sissy), but I'm sure there's plenty of room left in the chip if you want to push it.
I'm a big advocate of Intel Burn Test for core 2 processors (over prime95), but it has some subtleties. There is a big thread somewhere, but the crux of it is that you need to choose the right amount of memory to push the chip to the max (larger memory use=more intensive) without using too much such that it starts using swap space. The way to tell is to note the GFlops column. At a clock speed of 3.4, the peak gigaflops possible is 3.4 * 16 = 54.4 GFLOPS. You want to be using a memory setting such that you get as close to this as poss, ideally within a few percent IIRC. You can achieve this multiple ways, but some combination of running it for a bit at max, killing it, running it again at the new max, killing it etc. until it's really stretched the memory, then reduce the usage slightly should work.
P.S. found the guide, courtesy of the wise WingZero30 http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18206940
Personally I'd be happy with that (I've settled for cool and low volt overclocks these days, call me a sissy), but I'm sure there's plenty of room left in the chip if you want to push it.
I'm a big advocate of Intel Burn Test for core 2 processors (over prime95), but it has some subtleties. There is a big thread somewhere, but the crux of it is that you need to choose the right amount of memory to push the chip to the max (larger memory use=more intensive) without using too much such that it starts using swap space. The way to tell is to note the GFlops column. At a clock speed of 3.4, the peak gigaflops possible is 3.4 * 16 = 54.4 GFLOPS. You want to be using a memory setting such that you get as close to this as poss, ideally within a few percent IIRC. You can achieve this multiple ways, but some combination of running it for a bit at max, killing it, running it again at the new max, killing it etc. until it's really stretched the memory, then reduce the usage slightly should work.
P.S. found the guide, courtesy of the wise WingZero30 http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18206940
cheers mate,my motherboard is a asus p5q se2,i shall have a read of that link,i got 3.4with no voltage tweaks,would i get 3.6 with no voltage increase.
Last edited:
Im thinking about upgrading my e8400 to a Q9550, thats if I can get 1 cheaply, or by swapping my E8400 for 1 with some money ontop.
Is this right guys, I have my e8400 at 3.8ghz using 9x422, so will I be able to overclock a Q9550 to 3.6, using the same mem speed as Im using now, accept it will be 1-2mhz higher then Im on now at 8.5x423/424? Or will my board throw its toys out of the pram as its got 2 more cores to power?
Is this right guys, I have my e8400 at 3.8ghz using 9x422, so will I be able to overclock a Q9550 to 3.6, using the same mem speed as Im using now, accept it will be 1-2mhz higher then Im on now at 8.5x423/424? Or will my board throw its toys out of the pram as its got 2 more cores to power?
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 7,058
- Location
- Bedford
na it says ver 17 supports the Q9550
Its only if you go for a Q9650 that it becomes dodgey to get it running on my board as you need to use the beta bios 18 to get it working, and even then its not guaranteed that it will work. I would love the q9650 because I should be able to run it the same speed as my E8400 at 3.8 as it uses the same multiplier,, but its a bit of a risk to get the Q9650 as is might or might not work in my board
.. I would need someone to lend me a Q9650 to try.Dam you ABIT, why did you have to leave
Last edited:
It's not as simple as just running it at the same FSB, quads take a lot more effort to OC. I'm in the process of doing this at the moment. My E8500 did an easy 4.2GHz at 443x9.5 but the same settings (obviously with a 9x multiplier) do not work for the Q9650 I just got.
I guess the Q9650 needs more volts then a dual to get it stable, and isnt 4.2ghz a too high to get a Q9650 stable at, as Im guessing its possible to get a Q9650 stable at 3.8?
It's not the chip that requires more volts it's things like the north bridge, southbridge, CPU VTT and even the GTL Refs that require playing with. As for 4.2GHz being too high you should check out threads on Clunk and XtremeSystems for how far these things clock. 4GHz should be attainable, most seem to clock to 4.2/4.3.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,584
- Location
- God's own country
Weird.
My E7500 did 364*11=4.0Ghz every day of the week and my my C2Quad is just as easy to oc.
Maybe you just need to play with it a little more?
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 8,876
- Location
- Hoddesdon, London, UK
Earlier or budget boards might struggle to run with Quads due to earlier boards plans not planning ahead for the power requirements of future chips (remember there was no quad with the first C2D cpus) and budget boards might have skimped on that, they might run stock speed fine but overclocking might be a bit too much.
While you may get away with a decent clock on an older board, you may find that on a more recent board you'd need a lot less volts etc.. and the longevity of the older board might come into question as its under high strain most of the time.
While you may get away with a decent clock on an older board, you may find that on a more recent board you'd need a lot less volts etc.. and the longevity of the older board might come into question as its under high strain most of the time.