1366 x58 Xeon Enthusiast overclocks club

Ocre said:
Are you running IBT on maximum? Usually it finds issues within the first 5 loops.
Click to expand...
Yep, maximum or high and for 10 iterations usually.

Ocre said:
That's the thing about overclocking, you can't ever be sure of stability even with the best stress test apps. They are usually good enough t get you started, a rough cut.
but the real world apps you run are the only true way to find out if your OC is stable enough for your needs. This is what I call rock solid. Not only passes stability test I ran but also runs 24/7 without crashing. Still though, Its hard to say any PC that is overclocked is 100% stable and 100% fine. There always could be that random app or random crash. My i7 920 was extremely stable for me all the way up to 4.2ghz. It would run everything I would throw at it, no problem. But I remember at least 2 times I blue screened running my daily driver 3.8ghz overclock. This was 2 blue screens years apart. Both times I rebooted and ran a ton of stability test and games that should crash the computer if my overclock had become unstable, I ran everything I had but it seemed 100% fine. I just chalked it up as one of those things, but you just have to know that there is always that risk when overclocking.
But heck, in my case those random blue screens may not have had anything to do with my OC at all. It just might have been one if those things....
Click to expand...
The problem is it's very suspicious that I can't even avoid in-game crashes at 3.2 GHz with generous voltages, yet it can pass IBT at 4-4.4 GHz with reasonable voltages quite happily.

Ocre said:
Anyway, I would run make sure the ram and IMC was stable. Run memtest overnight with your overclocks that crashed. Also, what vtt voltage are you running? How bout the uncore speed?

You could try bumping up the vtt just for extra stability. Perhaps try bumping up some other voltages one at a time, like IOH core or PLLs.
Click to expand...
I've tried 180x20 at VCore = 1.35 V and VTT = 1.35 V, still got crashes. Already ran memtest, passed no problems. Uncore speed is Auto but I've also tried manually choosing the option that is double the DRAM speed to no avail.

One thing I haven't played with is PLL voltage but I've never needed to touch that in the past. Is it worth trying to push that up to maybe 1.84 V even for a mild overclock? I'm sure I've heard at some point that increasing PLL voltage can actually harm stability...
 
DragonQ said:
Yep, maximum or high and for 10 iterations usually.


The problem is it's very suspicious that I can't even avoid in-game crashes at 3.2 GHz with generous voltages, yet it can pass IBT at 4-4.4 GHz with reasonable voltages quite happily.


I've tried 180x20 at VCore = 1.35 V and VTT = 1.35 V, still got crashes. Already ran memtest, passed no problems. Uncore speed is Auto but I've also tried manually choosing the option that is double the DRAM speed to no avail.

One thing I haven't played with is PLL voltage but I've never needed to touch that in the past. Is it worth trying to push that up to maybe 1.84 V even for a mild overclock? I'm sure I've heard at some point that increasing PLL voltage can actually harm stability...
Click to expand...

I have the asus p6t delux v1 and increasing pll does help mine. i run mine at
XMP profile 1, 22 multi,speed step disabled, blck 191, dram autos to 1531, ULCK 3254 or auto, Dram timing 1N, Vcore 1.35,PLL 1.9, QPI/Dram 1.35, Load line calibration enabled, Dram voltage 1.66, both spectrum's disabled, C1E enabled, C-State disabled, Bios EHCI Hand-off disabled, all onboard devices disabled, Storage config Raid, All ACPI enabled, and upped all other volts just slightly over standard but that part probably has no effect but i can say this

I don't get any crashes and my temps never go above mid 70s even running ibc at max and furmark all night, but i will admit higher increasing pll doesn't seem to help most people. Why it does on mine i have no idea
 
Last edited:
DragonQ said:
The problem is it's very suspicious that I can't even avoid in-game crashes at 3.2 GHz with generous voltages, yet it can pass IBT at 4-4.4 GHz with reasonable voltages quite happily.
Click to expand...

Video card doing ok? Try furmark for an hour or two at stock.
Also, IBT isn't the best for testing long term stability, Prime95 blend overnight usually can catch any errors that pop up (although not always, especially when dealing with high BCLK and low voltages).

If all of that passes, try Furmark+Prime95 Small ffts (watch your temps!). If you get problems then, you might want to look at your power supply.
 
primetime said:
I have the asus p6t delux v1 and increasing pll does help mine. i run mine at
XMP profile 1, 22 multi,speed step disabled, blck 191, dram autos to 1531, ULCK 3254 or auto, Dram timing 1N, Vcore 1.35,PLL 1.9, QPI/Dram 1.35, Load line calibration enabled, Dram voltage 1.66, both spectrum's disabled, C1E enabled, C-State disabled, Bios EHCI Hand-off disabled, all onboard devices disabled, Storage config Raid, All ACPI enabled, and upped all other volts just slightly over standard but that part probably has no effect but i can say this

I don't get any crashes and my temps never go above mid 70s even running ibc at max and furmark all night, but i will admit higher increasing pll doesn't seem to help most people. Why it does on mine i have no idea
Click to expand...

By increasing your PLL what did it improve? Are you able to run lower vcore than at 1.8?
 
tbob22 said:
That could be or it could be the IHS not quite right. Either way this cpu requires too much voltage for my taste.

Edit:
I was able to get 4ghz to work ok at 1.275v and got the QPI down to 1.25v at 200mhz bclk, 2000mhz ram, 3200mhz UCLK. Temps are now as follows:
58 - 60 - 48 - 51 - 69 - 60

I'm ok with that for now.

Edit2: Aaand it crashed. The hot core decided to jump up to about 75c after a while as well. I'm going to say it's a lost cause, at 3ghz/1.1v now.
Click to expand...

Your memory issue is extremely strange to me. I wonder if the seller would just let you swap it if you tell him its not working with your ram,

As for the temps, that spread from low to high seems strange to me as well. Mine is not even 10c from the lowest to the highest. Of course I am running a closed loop (lq320) but your results still seem interesting to me.

These are used chips and who knows what your particular chip has gone through. If I was you I would be either contacting the seller or doing as you say, selling the chip you have. Something just don't seem right about it.
 
Ocre said:
Your memory issue is extremely strange to me. I wonder if the seller would just let you swap it if you tell him its not working with your ram,

As for the temps, that spread from low to high seems strange to me as well. Mine is not even 10c from the lowest to the highest. Of course I am running a closed loop (lq320) but your results still seem interesting to me.

These are used chips and who knows what your particular chip has gone through. If I was you I would be either contacting the seller or doing as you say, selling the chip you have. Something just don't seem right about it.
Click to expand...

That's a great idea, the seller has a few other x5670's for sale from A/B batches. That'd save some time. :cool:
 
DragonQ said:
Yep, maximum or high and for 10 iterations usually.


The problem is it's very suspicious that I can't even avoid in-game crashes at 3.2 GHz with generous voltages, yet it can pass IBT at 4-4.4 GHz with reasonable voltages quite happily.


I've tried 180x20 at VCore = 1.35 V and VTT = 1.35 V, still got crashes. Already ran memtest, passed no problems. Uncore speed is Auto but I've also tried manually choosing the option that is double the DRAM speed to no avail.

One thing I haven't played with is PLL voltage but I've never needed to touch that in the past. Is it worth trying to push that up to maybe 1.84 V even for a mild overclock? I'm sure I've heard at some point that increasing PLL voltage can actually harm stability...
Click to expand...

So, what kind of crash are you getting? Blue screens or hard freezes? It may not be the CPU at all,

Here is a few things off the top of my head.
-hard lock ups and reboots can be power supply related.
- it could be your graphics card going out. Or an issue there
- Might try reseating both the CPU and GPU. Check very closely for damaged pins in both those places.
- if you have blue screens then look up the code. Sometimes it can be helpful. I had a bad HD that caused bluescreens in certain games only. It wouldn't pass the long or short test in seagate tools.
-once again, try looking at your memory. And trying different settings.

My corsair ram issue was strange. This was brand new 1600mhz 8-8-8 ram that seemed well at first but I started having stability issues later. Having already tested the ram when I got it, I was looking for several days at all these other things. Eventually I had everything back at stock but still not able to pass a stability test. I thought the CPU was the issue but I decided to test by putting in my old ram and boom,....issue was gone.

then another bombshell. All my notes and settings I had took down when I was working out the characteristics of my x5670 CPU were all garbage. I was running crazy stuff like 1.38vtt and much higher vcores to get stable with that corsair ram. With my old ram, I can run the blck all the way up to 220mhz with 1.2v vtt. Maybe even lower, that is just where I set it. The corsair had me at almost 1.4v for that high of a blck.

Anyway, that ram was flaky and I didn't recognize the signs. I have been rock solid now going on 2 months. My PC is on 24/7.

Not all chips are the same but I think as long as your under 200blck and your uncore is kept close to stock, you shouldn't even need 1.3v vtt for ram speeds 1600mhz and under.

Higher ram speeds and large amounts of ram will need extra vtt. And also, not sure how well these westmereEPs do running ram at 2000mhz and over. My only experience with high speed ram went real bad, but that was because I had ram that was going defective on me. I have new ram on the way so I will give it another go. But what I am saying is I am just not sure how well these chips handle high speed ddr3. At the time they were developed, only slow ddr3 existed and the max size was 4gb per stick. And even this ram had very slow timings back then. Like cas 9 for 1333mhz.

I have heard of some strange quirkiness with golftown IMC and ram compatibility issues. Such as some chips just not stable at all with cas 8 but fine with 7 or 9. There are a few cases I can think of,

Just some stuff to think about.

When I had my corsair ram issue, I danced all around it for several days because I was sure it was good because I tested it a week ago.

Just remember, things can start going bad at any time just because. Ram, PsU, GPU, hd, etc.
 
The crash I get in TF2 is one of the following:

- Application randomly closes for no reason.
- Players and other objects in the game turn invisible, then anywhere from 10 seconds to 2 minutes later the application closes.

The latter is more common. No error messages, no BSODs, no restarts. I initially thought it was just a bug in the game but I can't repeat the issue at stock speeds. If it was a GPU issue I'd expect to see the problem at stock too, surely? The GPU is not overclocked and never has been.

Another reason I'm sure it's related to the overclock is that when I was doing testing a couple of weeks ago at 4.2-4.4 GHz to find what voltages I needed, other applications would also randomly close sometimes. This stopped happening since I sorted out the voltages etc. except for this one game.

I'll try Furmark at stock tonight and see what happens!
 
DragonQ,

Your confusing me. I thought you just said you can't avoid these crashes even at 3.2ghz which is stock turbo speed.

If your gou and ram check out. Try different drivers maybe. Check verify your game files and if you had any crashes/lock ups while attempting overclocks, check the file structure on your hard disk. You can set up a boot time chk disk in windows.

I don't know. It seems awfully strange. I think its gonna be something unexpected. Maybe uninstall the game and reinstall it.
 
tbob22 said:
By increasing your PLL what did it improve? Are you able to run lower vcore than at 1.8?
Click to expand...

why on earth would i need/want to do that? even in the summer my ancient air cooler keeps my temps mid 70's......in the winter its rare to go above 70......1.35 vcore is not hurting a thing....whats the logic in 1.8 vcore? might as well bought an atom processor

Capture_zpsp5t6yxih.png
[/URL][/IMG]
 
Last edited:
He is asking you was you able to run a lower vcore after you increased your PLL to 1.9v.

His words are just confusing you.
 
primetime said:
why on earth would i need/want to do that? even in the summer my ancient air cooler keeps my temps mid 70's......in the winter its rare to go above 70......1.35 vcore is not hurting a thing....whats the logic in 1.8 vcore? might as well bought an atom processor
Click to expand...

Sorry, I didn't word that very well. :p

I was just asking if you are able to run a lower vcore with the PLL at 1.9v versus the PLL at 1.8v.

Also, I ordered another 5670 and made sure it sounded like a good batch. The seller has also accepted to exchange the one I have with a B batch. One of them has gotta be better than this one. :)
 
Last edited:
How did it sound like a good batch?

Revision?

How many revisions are there with the x5670? Wonder what mine is?

Anyway, these sellers get them by the hundreds. They were all installed in different boards and different racks, etc. so, one could have seen torched due to a damaged cooling, overheating, power surge, etc and the one in the rack beside it be fine. There is no way of knowing.

Also, just could have been a not so great chip all along
 
Ocre said:
How did it sound like a good batch?

Revision?

How many revisions are there with the x5670? Wonder what mine is?

Anyway, these sellers get them by the hundreds. They were all installed in different boards and different racks, etc. so, one could have seen torched due to a damaged cooling, overheating, power surge, etc and the one in the rack beside it be fine. There is no way of knowing.

Also, just could have been a not so great chip all along
Click to expand...

It's really just guessing.

With my 860's I've had better luck with 3rd and 4th numbers being lower, I've only had A's and B's.

L935B730 - 3.8ghz needed 1.4v - temp difference between cores was about 10-15c
L930B821 - 3.8ghz needed 1.35v - 4ghz needed 1.4v

L016A767 - 4ghz needed 1.25v - 4.2ghz needed 1.35v - 4.4ghz needed 1.45v
I ran this one for a few years at 4ghz.

Between my w3520 and 920 which are basically the same chip
920 - 3943B012 - 4ghz needed 1.25v
w3520 - 3912B371 - 4ghz needed 1.25v

Some say the last 3 numbers make a difference as well, it stands for the location on the wafer. I believe the lower the number the closer to the center.
A tends to need less voltage but gets hotter and B needs more voltage but is cooler, anything other than B and A is an unknown factor. So far I haven't had great luck with F according to this chip.

Of course all of this is just guessing, and in the end it might not mean much.

I'll post my new batch #'s and results as well as the old one once it's all settled ;).

More info here
 
tbob22 said:
Sorry, I didn't word that very well. :p

I was just asking if you are able to run a lower vcore with the PLL at 1.9v versus the PLL at 1.8v.

Also, I ordered another 5670 and made sure it sounded like a good batch. The seller has also accepted to exchange the one I have with a B batch. One of them has gotta be better than this one. :)
Click to expand...

Oh ok....then my answer is NO.....vcore voltage is pretty much tied to the speed your running....4.4 needs more, 4.2 needs less.....my board just likes the extra pll to make to make it bullet proof stable....for most people it makes no difference at all raising the pll but it don't hurt to try it once for testing OR if your getting instability, i would try almost any setting:D
 
Ocre said:
DragonQ,

Your confusing me. I thought you just said you can't avoid these crashes even at 3.2ghz which is stock turbo speed.

If your gou and ram check out. Try different drivers maybe. Check verify your game files and if you had any crashes/lock ups while attempting overclocks, check the file structure on your hard disk. You can set up a boot time chk disk in windows.

I don't know. It seems awfully strange. I think its gonna be something unexpected. Maybe uninstall the game and reinstall it.
Click to expand...

An X5650's max speed at stock is 2.66 - 3.06 GHz depending on core load, and it seems fine at that. However, manually setting to 160x20 (3.20 GHz) still resulted in a crash. I've already tried upgrading GPU drivers, didn't help. I've already checked the file integrity within Steam and it checked out, although I will uninstall it and reinstall it anyway.
 
As an eBay Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Prices will go down, I have absolutely no doubt. Looking over a longer spread, the slight uptick for the x5650 and x5660 means very little. These were the first chips that caused the massive wave of x58 owners to upgrade. One day I was looking, it seemed there were far higher numbers of x5680s and x5690s. Not a lot of people bought those chips. And the last time I looked, there were x5680s selling at 170$. Today there are several x5680s selling for the crazy low price of 160$

This is about the price of the x5660 a yr or so ago. It he x5680 is creeping down towards the 150 mark. If you can't see the completely clear trend, I am sorry.

I would just like to say that when I was talking about chips coming down in price, I was specifically talking about the higher multiplier models. Go back and read my post and it should be there..
But the fact that the x5660 and x5650 might have went up slightly really doesn't mean anything. For starters, its tax time and these lower priced westmereEPs are far more popular, they have been and continue to sell much better than the higher tier models. A seller only has so many of them and if they start moving faster and faster, it is only natural that they start trying to jack up the price. If the seller is running low on them, he might ask more just because as well. But in this case, the price is most likely come up because there was a surge in demand and the sellers responded.

But it still doesn't make my prediction wrong. As we can see, the higher multiplier chips are still coming down. The tax refund season can easily explain why the cheaper chips went slightly up. Even still, one cheap deal isn't a sign of a true trend and my prediction is that we will see westmeres come down lower and lower over time. And i am absolutely sure they will. Especially the higher dollar chips that most people have avoided. They have much further to come down and I am not sure how much lower the x5650 will ever go. It was already dirt cheap. And that's what happens when sellers start flooding the market. And as long as they are plentiful, we will see great prices. Even if there is a slight increase from time to time, for whatever reason.

But you see that there are thousands of higher clocked westmeres on eBay already, and you see more and more being listed by the week......

Prices will come down. Soon we will see x5690s coming on down towards 150 like the x5680 already is. That's my prediction

But on its way, it may not be a straight path. It could go down and then up some. But overtime, these chips will come down iin price.
 
DragonQ said:
An X5650's max speed at stock is 2.66 - 3.06 GHz depending on core load, and it seems fine at that. However, manually setting to 160x20 (3.20 GHz) still resulted in a crash. I've already tried upgrading GPU drivers, didn't help. I've already checked the file integrity within Steam and it checked out, although I will uninstall it and reinstall it anyway.
Click to expand...

Sorry, thought you had an x5670. My bad.

I think you should be able to figure it out, just try different things.
 
I picked up an x5675 off the forums here for 100 bucks, it wouldn't boot at first on my asus cg5270 (rampage gene ii oem) did a bios update and put the vclock up to 175 and its running just fine at 4.4 ghz on the stock cooler under 50c. I cant wait to put this under my water loop and see what happens!
 
Finally had some time to try a new config:

VCore = 1.25 V
VTT = 1.25 V
PLL = 1.84 V
BCLK = 160 MHz
Multiplier = 20
DRAM Voltage = 1.66 V
LLC = Enabled

So far no crashes. The only difference I'm aware of between this setup and the previous one I had (which crashed at 160 MHz) is the higher PLL voltage. I shall continue to bump up the BCLK and see what happens. 190-200 MHz should be easy so we'll see.
 
Last edited:
Same settings but with BCLK = 180 MHz seems to be fine also (had to drop DRAM and Uncore frequencies due to multiplier restrictions though, of course).
 
DragonQ said:
Same settings but with BCLK = 180 MHz seems to be fine also (had to drop DRAM and Uncore frequencies due to multiplier restrictions though, of course).
Click to expand...

your board should be capable of up to 190 blck min and with turbo you be well over 4ghz
 
Did another couple of hours at 200 MHz BCLK, no crash so far. I guess it was just the PLL voltage that was too low...I have no idea why though, must just be chip specific. Never had to touch it for my old i7-920.

Might try 200 MHz with turbo boost enabled next, although I think it'll probably just fall over as soon as it hits 4.6 GHz on occasion. Currently at 1.275 V for VCore and VTT.
 
My x5650 comes in tomorrow. Can't wait, replacing a I7 920. One other thing though. I have a X58-UD3R board, and i'm not pleased with my ssd performance with either controller. I can only get about 360mb reads with a 550mb drive even with the crappy Marvell sata 3 controller. Would it be good to just invest in a cheap pci-e sata3 card to get the ssd to its rated speeds on this older board ?
 
BobbyG27 said:
My x5650 comes in tomorrow. Can't wait, replacing a I7 920. One other thing though. I have a X58-UD3R board, and i'm not pleased with my ssd performance with either controller. I can only get about 360mb reads with a 550mb drive even with the crappy Marvell sata 3 controller. Would it be good to just invest in a cheap pci-e sata3 card to get the ssd to its rated speeds on this older board ?
Click to expand...

Don't get a cheap controller, it will be worse than the Intel SATA II in the end. Even if it gets higher read/write speeds, latency will be much worse. If you want to see a real improvement then you'll need to get a decent LSI controller (~$150).

In all honesty, if you aren't copying files between two high speed drives or doing high demand video rendering (4k 24p or 1080p 60p or higher) then the higher write speeds aren't going to make any real world difference as operating systems and most applications make very small reads/writes.
 
Ah, gotcha. I guess I could always just get a 2nd ssd and run a raid 0 with the marvell also. I'm using a Crucial BX100 250gb and could just get another for $94
 
BobbyG27 said:
Ah, gotcha. I guess I could always just get a 2nd ssd and run a raid 0 with the marvell also. I'm using a Crucial BX100 250gb and could just get another for $94
Click to expand...

The marvell controllers are pretty terrible in real world performance (although better in synthetic benchmarks), and I don't believe they support TRIM so that could cause issues down the road (this depends on the SSD used as well as many have garbage collection built in these days so TRIM isn't needed so much). Honestly, I'd just avoid using it with SSD's.

You could run raid with the Intel controller and you'd get good speeds, but you may not notice much difference for general use.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-raid-benchmark,3485-10.html
 
From the toms article,

Almost No Advantages for SATA 6 Gb/s On A Typical Desktop

The 840 Pro soared in our synthetic tests when we had it hooked up to a 6 Gb/s port. It also fell flat several times when we hamstrung it using SATA 3Gb/s. When we specifically targeted sequential reads and writes, along with random I/O at high queue depths, the differences were especially pronounced. But once we started through our handful of real-world tasks, booting up and shutting down Windows 8, and loading a number of applications, the differences shrank to almost nothing. The deltas we did measure wouldn't be perceptible during your day-to-day grind.

Because the synthetic benchmarks deliberately push workloads designed to flesh out the differences between extremely-fast devices, but are seldom seen in a desktop environment, they don't correlate to the more common tasks you perform. Random I/O is important to measure, but there's a fair chance that you'll never see a queue depth of 32. And while we enjoy clocking peak sequential transfer rates like quarter-mile drag races, it's pretty uncommon to move large media files between two storage devices that wouldn't bottleneck each other. If you do copy an ISO, for example, from one SSD to another, you'll get a nice boost from SATA 6Gb/s connectivity. But if you're moving the same file from an SSD to a conventional disk, the fastest interface in the world won't help overcome the spinning media's limitations.
Click to expand...

The sata 3 is one of the drawbacks to having such an old platform. But don't let the synthetics fool. The real world penalty is much much smaller than what most people think. Sata 3 is not gonna be an issue unless you ip just can't stand the thought of it. Side by side, running real apps like gaming, the sata 3 is completely fine. You would get very little to no speed up, it is nothing like what the synthetics show. Don't spend a lot of money expecting some massive speed up. If your drives were running 6Gb speed, your every day experience would be pretty much exactly the same.

I kind of planned around my sata 3gb anyway. I am using pny optima ssd instead of a Samsung 850, I just didn't see the point in buying expensive ssd drives that I couldn't even fully utilize. So, 80 bucks for a 240gb ssd isn't such a terrible thing. Surely there are better drives out there but my PC doesn't feel any slower than my haswell laptop with its sata 6Gb SSD. Win 8 doesn't feel any smoother and I really can't feel any speed difference....unless I run some benchmark that tells me. Those large block massive read spees just don't happen in the real world.

In all honesty, my prefer my desktop 10,000 fold. Cause anything I really do, any real work, its always faster. And when It comes to gaming, there it is no contest.
I find the sata 3Gb/s to be perfectly fine for my needs and a compete nonissue when it comes to gaming.
 
Ocre said:
The sata 3 is one of the drawbacks to having such an old platform. But don't let the synthetics fool. The real world penalty is much much smaller than what most people think. Sata 3 is not gonna be an issue unless you ip just can't stand the thought of it. Side by side, running real apps like gaming, the sata 3 is completely fine. You would get very little to no speed up, it is nothing like what the synthetics show. Don't spend a lot of money expecting some massive speed up. If your drives were running 6Gb speed, your every day experience would be pretty much exactly the same.

I kind of planned around my sata 3gb anyway. I am using pny optima ssd instead of a Samsung 850, I just didn't see the point in buying expensive ssd drives that I couldn't even fully utilize. So, 80 bucks for a 240gb ssd isn't such a terrible thing. Surely there are better drives out there but my PC doesn't feel any slower than my haswell laptop with its sata 6Gb SSD. Win 8 doesn't feel any smoother and I really can't feel any speed difference....unless I run some benchmark that tells me. Those large block massive read spees just don't happen in the real world.

In all honesty, my prefer my desktop 10,000 fold. Cause anything I really do, any real work, its always faster. And when It comes to gaming, there it is no contest.
I find the sata 3Gb/s to be perfectly fine for my needs and a compete nonissue when it comes to gaming.
Click to expand...
This is true. It's better to use good SATA 3 Gb/s ports (i.e. Intel ones) than crap SATA 6 Gb/s ports. You'd almost never see the difference between the two even if all else was equal but you definitely want to steer away from Marvell controllers, they're generally cheap and nasty. Any modern SSD will fly on a good SATA controller regardless of speed.

Honestly, the lack of USB 3.0 on older chipsets is more annoying. Transferring some files to a backup drive now and maxing out at 33 MB/s is depressing.
 
Matthew Kane said:
Those running overclocked 4ghz + hex Xeon's what sort of temperatures your NB's are clocking at?
Click to expand...

EVGA FTW3 Asus Rampage3 Asus P6T D V2 all on AIO hydro coolers, all x5660, all at 4ghz, they were running hot.
They were in the low 60s, I put fans blowing on the heatsinks and the temps went down to 48-52c much better.

The stock type coolers blow some air over the heat sinks, some aftermarket air and most all hydro coolers do not blow any air over the NB HS so a fan may have to be added.
 
primetime said:
bill any way to check temp on p6t's?
Click to expand...

I don't think the P6T's have a NB temp sensor, only a sensor on the board somewhere in the expansion slot area (I could be wrong).


Just got one of my x5670's. These temps are more like it! With everything set to auto (3.2ghz, 1.15v) I'm getting a max of the following with P95 after 15min:
42 42 37 42 41 39

Now to overclock.. :D

Also, I'm still having the same memory issue (1600mhz does not work at 133mhz bclk and so on). Must be something about this board with these CPU's.
 
I was under the impression that usb3 works great just by installing an expansion card. There are cheap pcie cards and I heard the performance is great. May not be as good as an onboard controller but heard the speeds were fantastic.

Anyone have a usb3 pcie card?
 
Ocre said:
I was under the impression that usb3 works great just by installing an expansion card. There are cheap pcie cards and I heard the performance is great. May not be as good as an onboard controller but heard the speeds were fantastic.

Anyone have a usb3 pcie card?
Click to expand...

Yep, I have a cheap one I got at best buy for $20, I get about 200MB/s on my 5tb Toshiba.

Any USB3 card with a NEC/Renesas chipset should work just fine.

Edit: Not quite 200MB/s but still pretty good:

CSji7yh.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top