Why can't I run 8x450 with my Q6600

blackninja · 20 Jan 2008 at 13:45

I can run my Q6600 G0 at 428x9 (3.85GHz)
I can run an E6550 at 463X7
I can run an E6320 at 463X7
I have tested my RAM to DDR2 1080 by changing multipliers ...

So, I know that my board will do 463 stable - I could not get above 463 FSB stable with the Dual core chips. With the E6550 it boots at 470 but is unstable in windows. I know that the RAM in theory can handle an FSB of 540. I know that the Quad will do 3.8GHz+.

Putting all of this together with voltages and timings taken from all the above and with an extra boost for the MCH to 1.52 (I stopped raising it there!) @ 450x8 (3.6GHz) windows fails to boot as the BSOD makes a regular appearance!

Question is then: What should I look at to get 450x8 to boot ?

w3bbo · 20 Jan 2008 at 14:23

Up your NB voltage and FSB voltage.

blackninja · 20 Jan 2008 at 15:26

Tried ....

CPU VTT @ 1.57
MCH @ 1.72

Same problem ... it will fail to get to the login screen @ 450x8

Tried PCIex clock of 105 ... logs in to windows then BSOD

Tried PCIex clock of 110 ... logs in to windows then fails after a few minutes browsing ... but I can consistantly get into windows.

Tried PCIex clock of 115 ... gets to log inscreen then BSOD ...

Cob · 20 Jan 2008 at 15:38

Try 450x7 to see if the chip has a FSB wall.

Also just because your board can clock a dual core past 450mhz doesn't mean that it can do the same with a quad. Motherboards will usually clock a dual-cores FSB far better than a quad-cores FSB.

blackninja · 20 Jan 2008 at 16:02

Cob said:
Also just because your board can clock a dual core past 450mhz doesn't mean that it can do the same with a quad. Motherboards will usually clock a dual-cores FSB far better than a quad-cores FSB.

I agree with this statement which is why when given that I could only get the duals stable at no more than 463 I am inclined to think the mobo is the issue and dropping a bit of FSB potential for quad is probably what is happening here ... when I wanted higher FSB with the duals there was no obvious solution although 'they all do 500+' was the general response ...

450x7, 450x6 gives the same result ....