The Intel Quadcore Database

Heh can get it to boot at 4ghz, but no way stable fails 2 seconds into prime lol :p

4ghzjs2.jpg
 
@ w33bo a database suggestion.

The temps in the database are all fairly close at a given overclock, what would be good is a column showing the thermal interface material used in the overclocked setup. Especially in the case of the 3.60Ghz setups because of the variation in vcore. It may reveal something important, woujld also be an easier addition than listing all the specific components in the w/c setup ;)
 
@ Fireskull - I need your details as follows :

CPU
Revison
FPO#
Clockspeed
Vcore
Vid (core temp)
Motherboard
Cooling
Thermal Paste used
CPU Temp

I'll then enter it into the database.

@Jleo - I'll put it into the database but tbh you shouldn't read too much into the temps as its hard to compare 2 systems unless the cooling and ambient temps are the same but for clarity I'll add it as it will give an idea of who's using what I guess.
 
CPU: Q6600
Revison: G0
FPO#: L727A923T
Clockspeed: 3600
Vcore: 1.472
Vid (core temp): 1.3000
Motherboard: Asus P5k Premium
Cooling: Custom Watercooling, D-Tek Fuzion block
Thermal Paste used: Akasa silver stuff all i had left :o
CPU Temp: 52c
 
CPU: Q6600
Revision: G0
FPO: ?
Clockspeed: 3200
Vcore: 1.248
Vid: 1.2750
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA_P35_DS3P
Cooling: Tuniq Tower 120
Thermal Paste: AS5
CPU Temp: 55.5 (Average)

Q6600 @3.2

My first ever attempt at overclocking. I think I can get away with lowering the Vcore a bit which should lower the temperature. Once I've done that I'll whack it up to 3.6GHz :D

Is there anyway of getting the FPO without looking at the CPU?
 
CPU - Q6600
Revison - G0
FPO# - L726 A854
Clockspeed - 3600
Vcore - 1.376 in cpuz, set to auto in bios
Vid - 1.275
Thermal Paste - AS5
Temp - Varying between 57-60 on hottest core depending on test (got my gfx in the same loop :()
Motherboard - Asus P5K-e
Cooling - Custom Water

primestable3-6.jpg
 
@Fireskull, PinkFloyd

Are you sure you are running small fft's? Max length is 64k???

Small fft's stress the cpu the most so to gain entry and to make the database comparable you will need to run small fft's I'm afraid :(.
 
Last edited:
If you could m8. The thing is yours and PinkFloyds results show fft length in well in excess of what small fft's usually use therefore some of the stressing will be passed onto the memory lowering cpu temps for a short while thereby not putting it under as much stress. I may be wrong but I think thats how it works.

I know its being picky but to make the database fair and allow folk to compare temps etc we all need to be running the same tests. I'm sure it will pass fine but for clarity if you could run small fft's it would be much appreciated.
 
w3bbo said:
If you could m8. The thing is yours and PinkFloyds results show fft length in well in excess of what small fft's usually use therefore some of the stressing will be passed onto the memory lowering cpu temps for a short while thereby not putting it under as much stress. I may be wrong but I think thats how it works.

I know its being picky but to make the database fair and allow folk to compare temps etc we all need to be running the same tests. I'm sure it will pass fine but for clarity if you could run small fft's it would be much appreciated.
Click to expand...

No problem will let it run again tonite :p
 
Hehe, thought as much. Damn nice clock btw for such a low vcore. Much better than my cpu @ 3.6 (needs 1.45 iirc).
 
w3bbo said:
Hehe, thought as much. Damn nice clock btw for such a low vcore. Much better than my cpu @ 3.6 (needs 1.45 iirc).
Click to expand...

Yea thats what i thought nice clock for auto volts, anything under 3.6 and mines fine on auto but need to up it to get 3.6 stable :/
 
/hopes for the best.

Running with small ffts now, within a few mins its hitting 60 on load. Hope it will be stable, atleast this should be a little less heat coming off of the ram + chipset atleast!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom