680i C2Q FSB Wall

X

xp3nd4bl3

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 25, 2004
Messages
2,259
Hey I just got that XFX 680i A+ board with Q6600 that Tiger was selling and I started overclocking. I can't even get this damn thing to do 400Mhz. I thought this A+ revision was supposed to be a great quad core overclocker. Somebody point me in the right direction with this board

Got all the spread spectrums disabled.
Speedstep/C1E/Thermal Control disabled.

The board will give me 355x9 (3.2 Ghz) stable but will NOT do 400x6. I updated to the P28 BIOS. Tried upping the FSB and nForce voltages with no luck.

HELP ME OUT!!
 
Have you tried above 400Mhz? Aren't FSB walls usually for a specific clock frequency?
 
Well all I can do is relate my own experiences. I hit a FSB wall on my Abit IN9 32xmax 680i board around 333ish on my QX6700.. I tried everything and it simply would not go higher.. So.. I purchased the XFX 680i LT board and now I am hitting 400 FSB with NO problems. I think around 450 give or take a little, I crap out. So, be sure that you have the LATEST Bios version. Be sure you have the correct voltage on your ram, the correct NB volts, your timings are correct and not set too tight, see if the linked or unlinked option works for you and be sure that you have adequate cooling. What are your timings? 1T, 2T? Voltage on your ram? Linked or Unlinked? What divider are you using? What multiplier did you set on your CPU? What kind of ram do you own?
 
I feel like I've tried everything. I've got two 2GB Ballistix kits, I'm not even overclocking the RAM yet, I'm sure it can do 1066 but I'm leaving it at 4-4-4-12-2T 800 @ 2.2V which is what it's rated at until I get the FSB where I want it. I tried going linked/unlinked and it didn't seem to make a difference.

Maybe I'll try pulling out a pair of the memory modules?
 
Well i know the q6600 has a different multiplier but heck, I could not even get my qx6700 to work on a 6x multi.. 400 x 8 wouldnt work for you? Even 400 x 7 would still put you at a modest 2.8ghz.. Also, what kind of divider are you trying to set?
 
Maybe time for a little more voltage?
What overclocks are you expecting on these quad cores?
Wouldn't their overclocks be lower than the Core 2 Duo's since they're limited by the slowest core?
 
CoW]8(0);1031193834 said:
Maybe time for a little more voltage?
What overclocks are you expecting on these quad cores?
Wouldn't their overclocks be lower than the Core 2 Duo's since they're limited by the slowest core?
Click to expand...

Without knowing what his divider is set at, my first thing would be to find out what its set at? I would NOT touch his vcore yet.. He says 400 x 6 would NOT work. That would only be 2.4ghz. Definately NOT a vcore issue at this point. Lets see what he says about his divider setting.
 
Interesting....I'm wondering if it's a chipset issue because the 680i has had issues with quad cores from what I remember.

Wouldn't the best way to leave RAM out as a deciding factor be by setting the divider to something like 1:2.
 
officermartinez said:
Hmmmmm... what divider are you using? 1:1? 3:2? etc..
Click to expand...

This board doesn't do dividers, it's either linked 1:1 or unlinked where you manually enter the memory speed in Mhz. I'm leaving it unlinked at 800Mhz. I can leave it unlinked and go all the way up to 1100Mhz on the RAM and it doesn't affect stability, but as soon as I try to push the bus past ~355 (no matter what multiplier) it's unstable.
 
CoW]8(0);1031193860 said:
Interesting....I'm wondering if it's a chipset issue because the 680i has had issues with quad cores from what I remember.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I would have expected but this new revision of the 680i (A1, A+, etc) is supposed to fix the quad issues. :confused:
 
First off, every board is different. Secondly the revision in question that has the quad core overclocking fix is the A1 and T1 revision boards. Part numbers 122-CK-NF68-A1 and 122-CK-NF68-T1.

That being said what did you expect to hit? The Q6600 will not overclock to the degree of the E6600. It just doesn't have that much headroom. What cooling are you using? It's been my experience that anything past around 3.2GHz will be a pain in the ass to do without water cooling. These things just get too hot.
 
xp3nd4bl3 said:
That's exactly what I would have expected but this new revision of the 680i (A1, A+, etc) is supposed to fix the quad issues. :confused:
Click to expand...

The A1 and T1 revisions have fixed the quad core overclocking issues, that does not mean that you can get the same results as you would from a Core 2 Duo. The quad core chips just don't overclock as well.

xp3nd4bl3 said:
This board doesn't do dividers, it's either linked 1:1 or unlinked where you manually enter the memory speed in Mhz. I'm leaving it unlinked at 800Mhz. I can leave it unlinked and go all the way up to 1100Mhz on the RAM and it doesn't affect stability, but as soon as I try to push the bus past ~355 (no matter what multiplier) it's unstable.
Click to expand...

That's not accurate at all. The board does in fact have dividers. However when in unlinked mode the board sets the dividers for you automatically. Just look in CPU-Z and it will tell you what the divider is. You'll see all kinds of crazy results, but there are in fact dividers. Your choices are Linked, Unlinked, and Linked/Synced. The latter offers the best overclocking experience followed by linked and unlinked.

These are great overclocking boards, but they are not all equal, and they do require a ton of tweaking sometimes to get the results you desire. Additionally you just can't expect the same things out of a quad core CPU that you can a dual. It just doesn't have the overclocking headroom.
 
Dan_D said:
First off, every board is different. Secondly the revision in question that has the quad core overclocking fix is the A1 and T1 revision boards. Part numbers 122-CK-NF68-A1 and 122-CK-NF68-T1.

That being said what did you expect to hit? The Q6600 will not overclock to the degree of the E6600. It just doesn't have that much headroom. What cooling are you using? It's been my experience that anything past around 3.2GHz will be a pain in the ass to do without water cooling. These things just get too hot.
Click to expand...

I'm using an Ultra 120 Extreme. I can get it to run solid at 3.20Ghz (355x9) and the temps max out at 57C under about 10 mins of sp2004. I guess I just wanted to see what this board can do in terms of FSB since it's supposed to be awesome.
 
xp3nd4bl3 said:
I'm using an Ultra 120 Extreme. I can get it to run solid at 3.20Ghz (355x9) and the temps max out at 57C under about 10 mins of sp2004. I guess I just wanted to see what this board can do in terms of FSB since it's supposed to be awesome.
Click to expand...

It is, but if you do some research you'll find that no board is really that awesome FSB wise when overclocking quad core CPUs. They just don't overclock like their dual core counterparts. BTW at 57c under 10 minutes of load your processor is nearly at the upper range of what it can handle. 65c is the limit. I'd bet that if you load your CPU down for a couple of hours you will be close to around 61c or 62c. Far too close to that 65c mark if you ask me. Especially when the worst parts of summer hit.

If you want super high overclocks with the quad core CPUs, air cooling just won't cut it.
 
Dan_D said:
That's not accurate at all. The board does in fact have dividers. However when in unlinked mode the board sets the dividers for you automatically. Just look in CPU-Z and it will tell you what the divider is. You'll see all kinds of crazy results, but there are in fact dividers. Your choices are Linked, Unlinked, and Linked/Synced. The latter offers the best overclocking experience followed by linked and unlinked.

These are great overclocking boards, but they are not all equal, and they do require a ton of tweaking sometimes to get the results you desire. Additionally you just can't expect the same things out of a quad core CPU that you can a dual. It just doesn't have the overclocking headroom.
Click to expand...

Ahh I missed those dividers thanks for pointing that out. Gives me a better idea of how it works. It looks like I can push the FSB quite a bit farther with only 2 memory modules in (though still not 100% stable at 400Mhz).

I guess you're right and I should be happy with my 3.20Ghz quad core and all 4 gigs of my ram at 1066. I can't wait to try a C2D in here just for poking around.

Thanks for all the help!
 
xp3nd4bl3 said:
Ahh I missed those dividers thanks for pointing that out. Gives me a better idea of how it works. It looks like I can push the FSB quite a bit farther with only 2 memory modules in (though still not 100% stable at 400Mhz).

I guess you're right and I should be happy with my 3.20Ghz quad core and all 4 gigs of my ram at 1066. I can't wait to try a C2D in here just for poking around.

Thanks for all the help!
Click to expand...

The 680i boards aren't huge fans of overclocking with four modules. I went through a massive ordeal concerning this myself.
 
Dan, thanks for all your advice I really appreciate it. I think I'll leave the CPU at 3.0Ghz which it can do on stock volts and stays much cooler. Thanks again!
 
xp3nd4bl3 said:
Dan, thanks for all your advice I really appreciate it. I think I'll leave the CPU at 3.0Ghz which it can do on stock volts and stays much cooler. Thanks again!
Click to expand...

Past 3.0GHz the Core 2 Quad Q6600 really starts to heat up. This is probably why there are no Core 2 Quad/Extreme CPUs that break 2.93GHz yet. For awhile you couldn't even get the QX6800 unless you were a system builder and water cooling was always recommended. Fortunately Intel has our backs and new steppings of the Core 2 Quad/Extremes are rumored to be on the way. They have a higher thermal ceiling so that less effective cooling can be used safely. Allowing for greater overclocking and running those processors in stock machines without water cooling them.

If you want to break 3.0GHz with a Q6600, QX6700 or QX6800 I suggest water cooling them.
 
You may just be running into a FSB hole. I got a QX6700, 4 sticks of ram and an EVGA 680i. On mine anything between 360-400mhz isn't stable no matter what multi I use. I know my CPU is good for 3.5ghz. 10x350 is stable, 9x390 isn't, 8x438 is. Try using 425mhz and see what happens.
 
MetsFan978 said:
You may just be running into a FSB hole. I got a QX6700, 4 sticks of ram and an EVGA 680i. On mine anything between 360-400mhz isn't stable no matter what multi I use. I know my CPU is good for 3.5ghz. 10x350 is stable, 9x390 isn't, 8x438 is. Try using 425mhz and see what happens.
Click to expand...

Wow you called it! I set the speed to 1699x7 and it's stable?! That's really odd. The cores run a lot hotter compared to the same clock speed at 1333x9 though.
 
Damn this CPU runs hot. Wish all 4 cores were the same temps did I install my cooler wrong?

425Mhz.jpg
 
70c is too hot for these processors. You need to get the temperature down below 65c to be on the safe side.
 
You beat me to it Leeghoofd...

I was about to mention the Tjunction for Dual Cores is 85C whereas the Tjunction for Quads is 100C.

Quad Cores have a higher thermal envelope.. I've been running 51-55C (Depending on the core) idle, 66-70C under load for months now.

Oh wait, are we talking BIOS temps or CoreTemp temps?
 
leeghoofd said:
Weren't the quads safe for 90°C operation and dual cores 65°C ?
Click to expand...

worthIT said:
You beat me to it Leeghoofd...

I was about to mention the Tjunction for Dual Cores is 85C whereas the Tjunction for Quads is 100C.

Quad Cores have a higher thermal envelope.. I've been running 51-55C (Depending on the core) idle, 66-70C under load for months now.

Oh wait, are we talking BIOS temps or CoreTemp temps?
Click to expand...

The Tjunction yes, the processor itself NO. I looked at the thermal design specifications white papers yesterday because of a similar argument in another thread. The 130watt processors (QX6700 and QX6800) are rated for 64.5c and nothing more. The 105watt Q6600 is only rated for 62.2c.

It's all here in section 5.1.1 ftp://download.intel.com/design/proc...s/31559202.pdf
 
http://pc.ign.com/articles/747/747606p3.html

Pretty good article if you want to read a simple walk-through overclocking on this board.

I'm running at 3.2 right now. I'm using THIS combined with THESE for cooling.

After 20 minutes running Orthos, the temp gets up to 62 and stays there. BUT I haven't started scaling back voltage to complete the overclocking yet.
 
I am having a problem with the same 2 things. I ordered the same Mobo/Proc off TD, installed them last night and all is up and running. I opened CPU-Z today and saw my core speed at 1600 Mhz with Multiplier at 6. The bios (running straight out of box) allows me to go from 6-9 multiplier. Set it to 9, booted up, open CPUZ... I get 1600x6, however it jumps between the 2. I am sitting here watching my multiplier jump back and forth x6/x9.

It states my Bus Speed at 266.7, my Voltage is hoping from 1.168 - 1.176, which is what's kicking the multiplier from 6/9. I'm not sure why it's doing it.

*Off Topic* Intel TAT not work on Vista x64? Won't boot for me. Did my readings in Everest CPUID as well, same figures.Used Speedfan to test my CPU temps

CPU says at 38C, Cores 0-3 27-30C. I want to overclock some, but I am more interested in getting it to just run properly :)

I can't figure out what is making it hop between the 2, but would like to have it running at least at 2.4Ghz


Any help would be appreciated.


wtf.jpg
 
landryto said:
I am having a problem with the same 2 things. I ordered the same Mobo/Proc off TD, installed them last night and all is up and running. I opened CPU-Z today and saw my core speed at 1600 Mhz with Multiplier at 6. The bios (running straight out of box) allows me to go from 6-9 multiplier. Set it to 9, booted up, open CPUZ... I get 1600x6, however it jumps between the 2. I am sitting here watching my multiplier jump back and forth x6/x9.

It states my Bus Speed at 266.7, my Voltage is hoping from 1.168 - 1.176, which is what's kicking the multiplier from 6/9. I'm not sure why it's doing it.

*Off Topic* Intel TAT not work on Vista x64? Won't boot for me. Did my readings in Everest CPUID as well, same figures.Used Speedfan to test my CPU temps

CPU says at 38C, Cores 0-3 27-30C. I want to overclock some, but I am more interested in getting it to just run properly :)

I can't figure out what is making it hop between the 2, but would like to have it running at least at 2.4Ghz


Any help would be appreciated.


wtf.jpg
Click to expand...

You may just have EIST/Speedstep enabled. Turn that off in your BIOS and you should see your full clock speed all the time. When idle, a speedstep enabled machine will clock the CPU down via multiplier (down to 6) in order to keep the heat down and keep the power usage down. (This also leads to the CPU fan running slower or not at all until needed.)
 
I went back into the BIOS and checked the Speedstep, I did have that disabled, however there was another option which was doing exactly what you described that I now forget the name of, I disabled that and tada, it works properly. Thank you for the help, forced me to go back in the bios. It is running at the correct speed now

My CPU sits around 40C now each core 29-32C. I think I could stand to do some over clocking without cooking this thing in to worthless.

Thanks again for the help.
 
landryto said:
I went back into the BIOS and checked the Speedstep, I did have that disabled, however there was another option which was doing exactly what you described that I now forget the name of, I disabled that and tada, it works properly. Thank you for the help, forced me to go back in the bios. It is running at the correct speed now

My CPU sits around 40C now each core 29-32C. I think I could stand to do some over clocking without cooking this thing in to worthless.

Thanks again for the help.
Click to expand...

You are welcome.

Oh yeah, you should be able to crank it up quite a bit actually.
 
Did yuo guys consider that this issue could be a result of the XFX boards being the same ones that the EVGA 680i AR boards were that limited the Quadcore overclocks? Has XFX released a revision board?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top