Q6600 "more responsive" at stock

[vorticalspace]

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"

When you put it like that

Sure I read somewhere that there wasn't any real benefit to running ram out of sync with system bus
May have been on a different system.

Thanks

 

[vorticalspace]

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.

Hi
Core Temp reports VID of 1.2625v

I can run a rock solid 3.2Ghz by manually setting Vcore to this VID in BIOS with all other voltage settings on normal. Temps at late 50's under load)
(reads as 1.232v in CPU-Z)
Setting Vcore to auto seems to greatly increase the voltage relative to what is actually needed!!

It would appear to be a good chip but 3.6Ghz does require 1.4Ghz in BIOS with temps in the late 60's with prime.

 

[Big.Wayne]

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

I read somewhere that there wasn't any real benefit to running ram out of sync with system bus

Hey vorticalspace

If you wanna do a user experience test then give this a try

Intel® Core™2 Q6600

• 9 x 333 = 2997MHz
• DDR2-800 [6:5]

Now coming from a 3.6GHz clock with the memory [1:1] you would expect the slower processor clock above to be noticably slower right?

• CPU: 3600MHz
• System Bus: 1600MHz
• Memory DDR2: 800MHz

vs

• CPU: 3000MHz
• System Bus: 1332MHz
• Memory DDR2: 800MHz (CL4)

When you get time set up the above clock and give it a whirl, do some stuff in windows, play some games, use your computer for different tasks and tell me if you can tell which config "feels" faster! . . . avoid the benchmarks for the moment and instead just rely on your human senses!

[edit]

Also try:

Intel® Core™2 Q6600

• 9 x 356 = 3204MHz
• DDR2-854 [6:5] CL5

 

[setter]

1.4v in bios is fine, as is late 60's in p95, i had a 1.2750 vid q6600, 1.4 for 3.6ghz, i did get it prime stable at 3.8ghz, but that involved lapping the cooler and cpu, and very quick fans, incidentally, at 3.6ghz it hit 68-68-62-62, i lapped it, upped the vcore and hit 3.8ghz, same load temps.

 

[vorticalspace]

When you get time set up the above clock and give it a whirl, do some stuff in windows, play some games, use your computer for different tasks and tell me if you can tell which config "feels" faster! . . . avoid the benchmarks for the moment and instead just rely on your human senses!

He stated with a sense of knowing

I will try these settings but I suspect in general usage, I can already guess the outcome.

At the mo, my main worry is that the Q6600 doesn't bottleneck my soon to arrive GTX580............sorry, meant to say GTX460 768

It's certainly not holding up my GTX 260 so we will see

 

[vorticalspace]

1.4v in bios is fine, as is late 60's in p95, i had a 1.2750 vid q6600, 1.4 for 3.6ghz, i did get it prime stable at 3.8ghz, but that involved lapping the cooler and cpu, and very quick fans, incidentally, at 3.6ghz it hit 68-68-62-62, i lapped it, upped the vcore and hit 3.8ghz, same load temps.

Thanks
As stated, i'm really looking to maximise system throughput for when my GTX580 arrives.

Upping the CPU from 3.2 to 3.6 adds approx 1000 CPU points in vantage although interestingly, the GPU score remains the same.(no bottleneck?)

I'll have to monitor CPU/GPU load when the 580 arrives

 

[VaderDSL]

Yeah my Q6600 is a G0 but sadly a 1.325vid I tend to run it at 1.405v in BIOS. The RAM is pretty bog standard stuff so I don't think I'll have much luck dropping the latencies. Any my IP35 Pro is really fussy at the moment.

 

[C64]

So what are the optimal settings for ddr2 pc6400 baring in mind a lot of this ram can achieve 500mhz or more

 

[Big.Wayne]

the highest possible frequency with the lowest possible timings!

Become familiar with the memory multipliers and learn how to use them . . . clock your memory to within an inch of its life, add some vDimm if needed, slacken timings a bit and most importantly . . . Keep the sticks running cool!

 

[redshadows]

Hey redshadows

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

Ok my counting was off

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

not one person that doesn't look for max FSB / GHZ first

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"

cant get this board over 450FSB way to go on a blanket analysis on hardware

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

As can I, but slack timings vs more actual speed......lol ddr2 1066@ 5-5-5-5-15 vs ddr2 1200@ 7-7-7-18
look it up

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 . . . that's 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

Unless the BIOS table cant handle the divider properly the end user wont be able to tell.

I said I dont want to argue, but mate you poke fun at me.

And who ever said about folding (bigadv) my i7 prefers more GHz to RAM timings, it was a point I was making not saying I fold on Q6600 but I suppose I should have make that clear.....