• 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.

Q6600 G0 @ 3ghz out of the box

Pulsedriver

Pulsedriver

Pulsedriver

Soldato
Joined
19 Dec 2003
Posts
3,086
Location
UK
Hey folks,

So i've got my Q6600 G0 @ 3ghz on first boot up, loaded up Prime95.

333mhz x 9

Ram @ 2.50 Divider.

Only concern is the voltage? I have not set it manually on my mainboard ( It seems to do it automatically)

3ghzG0.jpg




Look ok?
 
Why did you do that OC out of box ?.

Its a good idea to test CPU 1st etc and make sure all is well.

Also to get high OC, you take it easy over long period of time.
 
Last edited:
I only want to go to 3ghz Im not interested in going higher than that, so just thought i'd do it straightaway.

It's not a massive clock to be fair...
 
Nice, why is your ram running so loose timmings, and the divider this should easily do 900 MHZ ?
 
You can set the eam tinning to 4-4-4-12, where the ram is designed for, put the voltage up to 2.15 V and should be fine, For 450 FSB, keep the timings and up voltage to 2.25 V
 
Don't trust CPU-Z for voltage readings when overclocking, use the monitoring software that came with your motherboard for that if possible.
 
janesssssy said:
Why cant you OC first thing? Not sure what you mean about letting it run in?
Click to expand...


The CPU could have had issues at stock as new, what do you think I meant, its common sence to test all at stock as new then if all is ok, Overclock it.

You obv dont know much about hardware if you do not understand it can get higher Overclocks if took slowly, it can take weeks to get a CPU to its final OC speed, some believe ram can burn in others dont, I personally have seen gains over time with ram I used in past, it just would not clock as high at 1st till ran in.
 
helmutcheese said:
The CPU could have had issues at stock as new, what do you think I meant, its common sence to test all at stock as new then if all is ok, Overclock it.

You obv dont know much about hardware if you do not understand it can get higher Overclocks if took slowly, it can take weeks to get a CPU to its final OC speed, some believe ram can burn in others dont, I personally have seen gains over time with ram I used in past, it just would not clock as high at 1st till ran in.
Click to expand...

to be fair, although I think I've experienced burn in I've never seen any hard evidence, and my experience was having a cpu under phase at 1.7v that seemed to clock slightly higher after I'd burnt it in at that voltage with a modest oc with a stress test for 24 hours.

Its hardly scientific and not worth telling someone they don't know about hardware for.
 
Still, IMO its madness to even do the above, common sense to do 1st ever boot at auto settings and see if all is well, not agree ?.

And if they need to question why to take it slowly, they really do not understand.
 
Last edited:
helmutcheese said:
Its a good idea to test CPU 1st etc and make sure all is well.
Click to expand...
Yup I think thats good advice, get a feel for things, see how the temps are etc. I prefere it this way because if you have some glitch or error you know its nothing to do with an overclock etc

helmutcheese said:
Also to get high OC, you take it easy over long period of time.
Click to expand...
I don't subscribe to that school of thought myself.

janesssssy said:
Why cant you OC first thing? Not sure what you mean about letting it run in?
Click to expand...
There are those folk that believe in a phenomena known as *Burn-In*. What this idea means is that your hardware gradually becomes better after running for a wee while, think of it as something similar to the burn-in period a car has, its engine is meant to start working properly after XYZ miles.

There has been no proof as such of this but many users report better overclocks or being able to use much lower vCore to keep a chip stable i.e They needed 1.5vCore for total stability but after a *burn-in* period they have been able to reduce to to say 1.4 vCore. This apparently applies to memory as well.

An overclocker who believes in Burn-in sets his vCore to the max and tries to find his chips max overclock straight away. Someone who doesn't believe in burn in will set the vCore very low and work their way upwards.

I like to keep an open mind about things though! :cool:

pcphenomenaxt0.jpg

Burn In - Myth or Reality?
 
Last edited:
helmutcheese said:
You obv dont know much about hardware
Click to expand...


Know what they say about people living in glass houses? I've seen you state some real duzzies in the past and not say anything but that comment to the guy is a bit out of order. If a cpu is stable and passes all stability tests overclocked, especially at stock volts then its a no brainer it'll be fine at stock speed as the possiblilty of errors increases, not decreases as the cpu is overclocked, though i do run it stock for a few mins to gauge how much extra temps are garnered from overclocking. As for your burn in theory, i have never seen it tbh and i've played with and overclocked everything under the sun from since i was a kid with my first PC. I've not seen any real evidence of vcore/Vdimm needed being less over time and this can be explained away by the sheer randomness of voltage regulation, i've had cpus run 1.4GHz one night at 1.4v and refuse to even boot this speed the next morning, theres a lot of factors involved.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom