Stuck at 2.8Ghz...what should I do???

L

Lyquist

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 21, 2004
Messages
3,368
I have a E6300 running at 400 x 7. I have Patriot 667 ram running at 800. Shouldn't I be able to go higher? No matter what I do I can't get 425FSB at all. Do you think my ram hit a limit? I would like to think that my chip hasn't hit a limit because I'm still at default vcore. Any suggestion would be appreciated. Below are my system specs.

E6300 @ 2.8GHz
Gigabyte DS3
Patriot 667 ram 2x1GB
etc....

Lyquist

P.S. I need to say that I'm not complaining at all. If all I get is 2.8GHz, then that is fine. I just really like to overclock and want as much as I can get and it still be stable.
 
The lowest mem divider I have on the DS3 is 1:1....so I can't go any lower than I am now. Thanks for the feedback though.

Lyquist
 
Wow. That's useless.

Might want to get some better RAM if you want to go higher.

Or loosen the timings.

Or up the voltage.
 
Do you think my ram hit a limit?
Click to expand...

yes ( and I warned ya :eek: )

what are your ram timings set at in the bios?

edit : What is your memory voltage set at and what is the stock voltage for the ram you are using.?
 
BillParrish said:
yes ( and I warned ya :eek: )

what are your ram timings set at in the bios?

edit : What is your memory voltage set at and what is the stock voltage for the ram you are using.?
Click to expand...

Ram timings at 4-4-4-12 in the bios. Stock voltage for ram is 1.8 I believe and it is running at 2.1 according to the gigabyte software.

Lyquist
 
You're lucky that DDR667 does DDR800 at all.

Most DDR2 667 ram is just the sticks that didn't quite make the DDR2 800 cut.

Which is probably what you have. ie: Sticks which did not do DDR2 800 at stock voltage so they binned it down to DDR2 667, and you were lucky you could get them to 800Mhz with a little extra juice.

Just like the processors many of us have. Some didn't make the cut at 2.93Ghz at default voltage, so they got binned down.

I'd just be VERY happy with what you got.

Besides I prefer nice round #'s.

2.8Ghz at 400FSB (or 1600 Quad pumped FSB - techinically) sounds really nice.

Its a lot easier telling a non-geek that you have a 2.8Ghz processor than a 2.842Ghz processor at 406 FSB.

Kinda why I like my clock at 333x9 = 3Ghz exactly, and when its idle via EIST its at 6x333 for 2Ghz @ only 1.05v !! :)
 
Your processor should never be idle....you should fold for the H!!! Check the distributed computing forum.

Lyquist
 
Nah, I'm selfish. Now if it was Folding for Porn, I might be interested.

Besides with my computer idle @ 2Ghz @ 1.05v I know its got to be conserving a nice amount of juice.
 
change the timing to 5 5 5 12 or 5 5 5 18 and you can get more more but you are approaching the edge.

give the 3 other board component in the bios voltage settings an extra .05 volts, the mch , FSB and I forget the other one. If your memory is rated 1.8 V 2.0 should be good .
 
BillParrish said:
change the timing to 5 5 5 12 or 5 5 5 18 and you can get more more but you are approaching the edge.

give the 3 other board component in the bios voltage settings an extra .05 volts, the mch , FSB and I forget the other one. If your memory is rated 1.8 V 2.0 should be good .
Click to expand...

btw its has been shown that these boards do not loose significant performace by using looser memory timings, the performance gain in processor speed more than makes up for it, to a point.

You can always run a benchmark at each memory setting/cpu overclock and make up your own mind once you determine exactly what is possible with your setup.

in the post above I made a typo what I am saying is your corrent memory voltage is good, dont think upping it will help. yet. ;)
 
annaconda said:
Well people are getting past 450fsb easily. Why he cannot?
Click to expand...

Maybe b/c for the 100th time he's using DDR2 667, so DDR2 800 is a stretch. Or maybe he just hit the limit of the CPU or motherboard. NOT ALL PARTS CLOCK THE SAME. Some are great, some are duds. Considering his ram, he's doing well.

BTW, if its so easy why aren't you higher than a measly 2.65Ghz overclock?
 
well
i have the exact same DDR op has. and ive taken it to 900mhz at 5-6-6-5-18

when your ram transfers at over 7gb/s, latencies dont matter for shit :)
 
omega-x said:
well
i have the exact same DDR op has. and ive taken it to 900mhz at 5-6-6-5-18

when your ram transfers at over 7gb/s, latencies dont matter for shit :)
Click to expand...
Same here... same exact ram and mine is stable at 940mhz
 
I dont want in the middle of this for any reason. However, at 4 4 4 12 he aint gonna get any higher. So the next logical thing to do would be ?????????? yep.
 
I thought he would have already tried it. B/c I had suggested it to him several times before to set ram to 5-5-5-15 and see how high he could get.

These DS3's are quirky sometimes they just hit a FSB. :/
 
I tried taking it all the way up to 5-6-6-18 and I couldn't hit 425 or 450. I can run 400 just fine with 4-4-4-12. I think I've just hit the limit of my memory. I can go all the way up to 2.8GHz with default vcore on my processor. I'll buy some faster RAM once the price goes below $200. I rarely spend more than $200 for a single computer part (except monitors). I may try to sell my Patriot 667 to make up some of the difference.

I am still pleased to be at 2.8GHz stable with default vcore. My memory takes 2.1Volts to get up to 800MHz.
 
It might be your motherboard, so new ram wouldn't do you any good.

And DDR2 ram is going to be "expensive" for a while. It was like $50 cheaper across the board for 2Gb kits just a few weeks ago. SO I don't see the point in buying new ram.

Some ram, just doesn't like certain speeds, but it can hit tight timings near its max speed.

If anything I'd wait and get a different processor that you can run with a higher multiplier for a higher clock. That would actually make your system faster. Where with the 6300 you might be pushing your mobo, ram & cpu all near the max. You get something like a 4300, 6500, 6600, etc... down the road you should be able to push it much higher hopefully at that same 400FSB. Ex: 6600 @ 9x400 = 3.6Ghz!!

You've caught the overclocking bug. Welcome to the world of endless upgrades and benchmarking! :) Its addictive, not like crack, booze, cigarettes, hookers, M&M's, or jogging. But close to it.

Seriously though a 400FSB is great for your mobo, your DDR2 667 at DDR2 800 @ 4-4-4-12 is great, the 6300 @ 2.8Ghz is good.

The only thing that would be remotely worth upgrading would be the CPU. And I'd wait on that a few months until they release some new models to hopefully bump all the prices down a notch.
 
I may end up doing that. I really want quad core when it comes out. Does anyone know if the DS3 is quad core compatible?? That would rock.
 
Lyquist said:
I may end up doing that. I really want quad core when it comes out. Does anyone know if the DS3 is quad core compatible?? That would rock.
Click to expand...

Core 2 Duo boards are supposed to handle Core 2 Quadro's. BUT supposedy there may be an issue with a few boards.

P.S. I had edited my last post after you made your post.
 
Thanks. I would love to have a cheap quad core:) ALthough I don't think they will be that cheap.
 
I have the exact setup - E6300, DS3, and Patriot 667.

I can boot to Windows XP with 7*450=3150, but not that stable.

I am settled with 7*430=3010. I have RAM +0.4V. Is Partiot 667 running 1.8V + 0.4V = 2.2V safe? Vcore is 1.344V. FSB voltage +0.1V.

And did you update your DS3 bios to F6?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top