Q8400 or E8400?

[Mad]

Well i currently have an Intel E5200, stock speed. Bought a bufallo cooler to OC a little, but never actually did it.

Now i'm wondering, if OC'ing would be enough, or if i should by a new CPU.
I wanna stick with 775, so i won't need to buy a new mobo + ram.
So those 2 processors are my options to buy. The price difference between the is R$25 reais only, around U$12.

But you may ask, what do you use your PC for?
I don't use any heavy thread program, only surf on the web, watch some movies.
Well i mostly play games from the Source engine, like cs:source, TF2 and L4D1/2. Sometimes i pick a different game like Batman or prototype, but after i finish them i go back to Source.

Emulation wise, i'm not much into it as i was before, i just wanna play a couple of PS2 games, and some from GC/Wii if possible, but not the main reason.

If you don't know already, i'm from Brazil, and the hot part of it, so OC isn't easy on Temps, that's why i was so reluctant to do it. I think maybe i could reach 3.2Ghz on my current CPU.

And please don't comparece prices in the USA, i know it's damn cheap there, but it's damn expensive here...

[cooliscool]

I'd recommend an E8400 if you plan to stick to LGA775 but don't need the extra cores the Q series offer. Most E8400s hit 4GHz, but I've never seen one that didn't hit 3.8GHz (with an apt motherboard and RAM). At either speed you'd be able to run most things in Dolphin/PCSX2 well.

[SCHUMI_4EVER]

How much is the Q9505 there?

Anyways out of those 2 the E8400 would definitely be the better choice considering your usage patterns. The Lower clocks of the Q8400 would hurt you (and the low Multiplier) and considering overclocking it would produce far more heat than overclocking the E8400 it's just really not an option.

[Mad]

There's no Q9505 here, just the 9550, but it's the same price as i7, so no go.
Thanks will stick with the E8400 then.
Just need to find someone to buy my old processor.

On a note, i found someone selling an used Core 2 Quad 2.66ghz for half price of a new one. R$230 against R$415. It's probably the Q8400, or the Q6700. Waiting for his response.
I think it's a great deal, isn't?

[SCHUMI_4EVER]

Actually it's quite possibly an old Q9450 or a Q9400 which is definitely better than a Q8400 (since the Q8400 is essentially a butchered eco version of the Q9400 which is a butchered eco version of the Q9450..monstrous 12MB cache ftw)...but you don't know how ragged it's been run. And definitely don't go with an old Q6700, 65nm and hot brazilian temps are not the best of matches plus it will have seen plenty of use.

A new E8400 is still your best option.

[Mad]

Well the guy is also selling 2x 2gb ddr2, and a simple onboard intel board. I don't think he ever OC'ed the cpu. And why the 9400 would be better than the Q8400?
EDIT: oh the extra 2mb cache. Well i'll have to wait for his answer on the model of CPU.
EDIT2: Ok then ran from Q6xxx series.

[SCHUMI_4EVER]

They kept on cutting the Q9450's monstrous L2 12MB cache down. First to the Q9400 which has 6MB and then to the Q8400 which has just 4MB.

[runawayprisoner]

I'd say E8400 as well. Overclocking or not, it'll still be a very decent CPU, and aside from helping with games, it'll also be a good match for PCSX2, at least better than the Q8400 in my opinions.

[SCHUMI_4EVER]

Hey RAP you had a Q9450 as far as I remember? would you say the old Q9450 would be a better choice over the new Q8400?

[runawayprisoner]

Yeah, I had a Q9450.

I'd say the more cache you have the better... honestly. More cache means larger programs/applications will execute faster. And it seems to help with emulation as well.

[Cid Highwind]

In my humble opinion the only reason NOT to go for the Q8400 would be PCSX2. In all games two of those cores from the Q CPU will be more than enough, but in modern gaming there's been a transition from dual core towards quad for some time. Besides, the Q8000 series is so cool, OC'ing won't be a problem at all. I have my Q8200 undervolted while at 2.8GHz, while default is 2.33. So just setting the FSB at 400 will give you a 3.2 GHz Quad if I'm not mistaken. But well, for PCSX2 that might not cut it.

[Mad]

Well as i stated before, emulation is not the main reason for the CPU upgrade.
Besides i can always borrow my bro PS2.

[Princess Garnet]

In my humble opinion the only reason NOT to go for the Q8400 would be PCSX2. In all games two of those cores from the Q CPU will be more than enough, but in modern gaming there's been a transition from dual core towards quad for some time. Besides, the Q8000 series is so cool, OC'ing won't be a problem at all. I have my Q8200 undervolted while at 2.8GHz, while default is 2.33. So just setting the FSB at 400 will give you a 3.2 GHz Quad if I'm not mistaken. But well, for PCSX2 that might not cut it.You can easily turn that around and say the opposite, to where unless you need something for heavy use, two faster cores is better. Sure, you get two more cores, but all else isn't equal. It'll have less cache (also remember, 6MB is 3MB per core, where as with a Q8400, 4MB is 1MB per core), be slower at stock, have a smaller multiplier, not overclock as high, run warmer, use more power, all things that matter in this case, and for a user that doesn't even need the two extra cores, so it's unneeded waste and lost gains. Less can sometimes still be more.

As for this games using more cores business, there are some noted games that like more cores (Battlefield bad Company 2 comes to mind), but I have had no problem playing games on my CPU, and the transition is far from global on the newest games, let alone the current gaming range of those released up to the last two or three years. A faster dual core will still do better over 90% of the time. My GPU is more a limiting factor, and with games, this is often the case. Looking at Mad's GPU, I'd say the GPU will be the weakest factor too.

In this case, the E8400 is a much smarter choice.

[Cid Highwind]

Point taken, in the end it's his call. I was up for the same decision one and a half year ago and never really regretted it at all. Especially when seeing reports how some console ports really appreciated a Quad. I do wonder how much of a limiting factor his motherboard will be. Overclocking can put a lot of strain on the northbridge after all, and my P35 doesn't really like the Quad to go over 400FSB I think. With a G31 chipset, this is likely to be the case as well. A dual core is easier to overclock.

[Mad]

Well thanks for the ideas. Food for thought.
I'll try to contact the guy selling the used Quad, since it's a lot cheaper.
If not, i'll go with the E8400.

And about my GPU, my monitor is a 19´, so i run games @ 1440x900, and i hardly turn on any filters like Aniso or AntiAliasing...

[Mad]

Me again.
On the store, they're selling the E8400 for R$449, and the E7500 for R$315.
If i don't OC any of them, the E7500 is really much slower than E8400?

[SCHUMI_4EVER]

Considering the price difference I'd say the E7500 would be a great bang for buck choice.
The cache is gonna hurt you in gaming though.
Bench - CPU - AnandTech :: Your Source for Hardware Analysis and News (http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/87?vs=56)

[Mad]

Reading some forums, i'm afraid the E8400 will be limited by my GPU.
And i don't plan on chaging the GPU soon, as i would have to get a new PSU also.

I'd rather get only a new CPU now, as next year i'll probably change my laptop.

EDIT: this is roughtly the upgrade will get: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/87?vs=98
In games seems good enough.

[SCHUMI_4EVER]

I meant eventhough the E8400 and the E7500 have almost identical clocks the butchered cache on the E7500 shows itself in gaming VS the E8400.

[Princess Garnet]

While the E7500 is great in bang for the buck, if you already have an E5x00, not so much worth it anymore. Either get the E8400 or save your money and stay with what you have. That's my take.

Edit: Ha, just noticed your motherboard. I have the same one in my secondary PC, also paired with an E8400. It had an E2160, which I took to 3.0GHz (didn't try higher, might have gone higher) easily, but the E8400 is stock in it. Haven't really "tried" to overclock it since it has a high FSB and the RAM ratio control is very limited, but perhaps I really should. With that board though, I wager either of the two CPUs will be at, or near, stock, since it seems to like 65nm and lower FSB CPUs more for overclocking farther.

As for the GPU, yes, but may hold you back most in games, but if that's a reason to intentionally get a CPU that be slower most of the time with your needs, so be it I guess.

[Mad]

Thanks.
I'll probably get the E8400 this week.
And i might get a new PSU in the next couple of months, and a new GPU next year.

[Mad]

Well my friends are saying that buying an E8400 isn't worth the money spent, that i won't see big improvements on FPS in games.

Are they right? I mean if the difference wasn't really big, why would even the E8400 exists? The cut-down cpu's like E5xxx and E6xxx series would be everyone best buy options...

Now i'm more confuse.

[SCHUMI_4EVER]

Keep in mind your'e also looking at emulation though and with PCSX2 and Dolphin every little extra Mhz helps. Plus they could be thinking in terms over an overclocked E5200 or alternatively coupled with a weak graphics card.

[Cid Highwind]

Well my friends are saying that buying an E8400 isn't worth the money spent, that i won't see big improvements on FPS in games.

Are they right? I mean if the difference wasn't really big, why would even the E8400 exists? The cut-down cpu's like E5xxx and E6xxx series would be everyone best buy options...

Now i'm more confuse.E5xxx series is the budget version of the E8xxx series, just how the E4xxx series was for the E6xxx series. They don't support Intel Virtualization techniques and have less cache, which may or may not have a big influence depending on the type of application you're running. I think the Wolfdale series and others of the same generation (E8xxx, E5xxx, Q8xxx and Q9xxx) support a newer version of SSE, SSE 4.1.

In the end it all comes down to the "speed" you get per MHz. That's where the E8xxx series are king. Also because of their lower heat output due to being newer, they are easier to overclock, provided your motherboard can handle the high FSB (which in its turn also means your RAM is running at faster speeds, thus having an even bigger increase in overall performance). Still, we're talking about relatively minor increases when you compare it to the amount of money you'd invest in it. It's not like you're going from a Pentium D to a similarly clocked Core 2 Duo. It's still the same architecture, just more refined.

[Mad]

@Zedeck: did you noticed a big performance difference?

Thanks for the tips.
The thing is, if i try to save to buy a whole new pc(mobo, cpu, ram, psu, vga), it'll take too long!
I currently saved R$600, and it'd took me like R$2500 to buy a decent pc, something like i5, mobo, 250GTS, 550w Corsair and 4GB DDR3...
Thus upgrading only the CPU i could stand with my system until next year.

And i still have to help my parents pay my UNI. I only make R$740 a month. But maybe next year i'll go look for a full-time job, so i'll be able to afford more expensive parts.

I'll dust off a gigabyte case i bought sometime ago and never used, and aim the upgrade for next saturday.

[SCHUMI_4EVER]

What don't you like about your current system? Where do you most feel performance is lacking?

[Princess Garnet]

From the E2160 @2.7GHz (where it usually was) to the E8400 @3.0GHz, yes, although I didn't use the system extensively. I used to use it to LAN with my current PC in some games (Command & Conquer games come to mind offhand, but some others), and the E8400 keeps up with the E8600 in my primary system much better than the E2160 did. Was the E2160 slow? No. Was it night or day? No. Was it minuscule improvements? I wouldn't say so. I imagine the E5200 is a bit faster than the E2160 overclocked at 2.7GHz though, so it's hard to say how much difference you'd see, as use and your own perception of feel come into play. Overall, it's hard to say. I answered that the E8400 is more worthwhile to you than the Q8400, and it is. When asked "is it worth upgrading for the cost versus just staying put", then it gets even less definitive I'd say.

[Mad]

@Schumi mostly when playing FPS games, the frame rate really drop sometimes, even below 30~35, which is a no go for me.

Yeah i'm starting to think to give OC a go. The max it would happen, i don't like the results, and go buy the E8400, or i don't like the results, push the OC further...and go buy the E8400 lol.

[SCHUMI_4EVER]

That's pretty much all your graphics card.


So now what Power Supply do you have?

[Mad]

How can i measure what's the bottleneck in my system?
GPU-z and task manager would do the trick?

I know in pcsx2, the gs plugin stays around 88~92%.

I have an Akasa 350w.

[SCHUMI_4EVER]

Well in PCSX2 I reckon it's your processor...but in FPS game it's definitely our graphics card...and you need a new Power Supply...I'd say a quality Power Supply would be your starting point, then a new graphics card, then a hell of a lot of saving and a new processor motherboard and RAM all in one go.

[runawayprisoner]

Cheap PSU, Schumi. Cheap... and effective PSU. :p

On that note, I'd add that you could just get a 9600GT and forget all about an upgrade for the next 5 years or so. It doesn't get a whole lot better on budget gaming. In fact, if you could live with low details and 20fps, I think your current setup is already good enough.

[SCHUMI_4EVER]

9600GT? you did see he had a 4670 right? that's hardly a big jump...

[runawayprisoner]

Yep, I did. And I know... that's hardly a big jump, but it's still one of the few options out there that are affordable and still be good enough. I mean... if you really don't have to play all of your games maxed out.

I know this sounds crazy... but there's hardly anything worth maxing out for anyways.

[Mad]

Cheap PSU, Schumi. Cheap... and effective PSU. :p

On that note, I'd add that you could just get a 9600GT and forget all about an upgrade for the next 5 years or so. It doesn't get a whole lot better on budget gaming. In fact, if you could live with low details and 20fps, I think your current setup is already good enough.

That's why i wanna upgrade. I can't live iwth low details and yet get 20fps...
I either get high fps on low details, or low fps on high details.

And with the 9600GT i think the benefit would be even less than a new CPU.

[SCHUMI_4EVER]

He'd need at least a GTS250 for it to be worth it or he should stick with what he has but in order to get that he needs either a quality 550W PSU or a cheap 600-700W PSU first.

[runawayprisoner]

Nah, not really. He can just reuse his current PSU. The GTS 250 doesn't draw that much power.

But it's not that big a leap from the 9600GT or the HD4670, either. I think he's better off going for the HD4770 if he needs that big a leap. Though the 4770 is also a bit more expensive than the 9600GT...

[SCHUMI_4EVER]

Hmm true the 4770 would be better...but seriously there's no 350W PSU that can take it.

[runawayprisoner]

Well, my 350W PSU can take it. :p Actually, I shoved a HD4870 and a Q9450 together on some Antec 450W PSU before. Totally flawless for multiple months afterwards until someone offered to buy the whole thing. I kept the 450W PSU because it's a rare gem.

There are some 300-400W PSUs that are actually capable of up to 500W, but they are only rated at 300 or 400 because that's the average... and the manufacturer was feeling modest...

[SCHUMI_4EVER]

There are some 300-400W PSUs that are actually capable of up to 500W, but they are only rated at 300 or 400 because that's the average... and the manufacturer was feeling modest...

Yes perhaps...but they cost as much as the el cheapo 600-700Ws which are capable of outputting more despite not achieving 600-700W...so they're pointless.

[Mad]

What can happen if i try to OC with my current PSU, and the damn thing can't take it?

[n_w95482]

What'll likely happen is instability at modest speed increases, even with decent temperatures and voltage changes, or random reboots/shutdowns.

As for the processor, I say just stick with your current one and overclock it a bit. Save your money for a more substantial upgrade. What I'd do is push the CPU about as far as it'll go on stock voltage. Power draw increases from overclocking are pretty small until you start playing with voltage increases.

[Cid Highwind]

HD5k series will come down in price without a doubt. If he's considering any sort of upgrade, wait for the release of the 6k series, and grab a 5770 or something of that range. Last time I've seen a 4670 in action it performed quite well in modern games if you don't push the resolution and forget about AA. An obsolete cut down 8800 card would be the last thing you want. (except for a secondary card for physx :p)

[Mad]

Thanks guys i'm going to save my money and see how much i can OC with my current PSU.
According to this site eXtreme Outer Vision - eXtreme tools for computer enthusiasts (http://extreme.outervision.com/PSUEngine) , i still have some room.

And the resolution i use here is 1440x900, and never use AA or AF.
Here's what an user said in other forum:

I actually had a E5200 paired with a HD4650 and overclocked both of them, as i moved to a Athlon x4 II 630 I haven't noticed much difference in terms of fps while playing source games. My opinion is to just overclock the E5200 and use the money for a better graphics card.

I'll stick to OC and keep the money for something better.

Strangely enough, yesterday i was playing TF2 to measure and record some demos to bench the before/after OC, and my fps ingame only dropped to 55!?!?
The last update has any impact on performance for you?

[runawayprisoner]

Why does fps matter so much when it's already close to 60? If you don't mind me asking. :)

That aside, nope, I didn't notice any drop. Then again, I don't even play the game that often anymore...

[Princess Garnet]

As an update to what I said earlier, I just tried messing about with the G31 and E8400 and I got an overclock to 3.6GHz. Note that I have not tried higher. I don't have time to mess about for the highest maximum with the most tweaked and lowest yet stable values, but, it did do this relatively easy. I say relatively since I had to look some stuff up to get it working. If you're having troubles overclocking on this board in general (so many of these may apply to get your current CPU going), here's some keys I found.

Set the PCI-E frequency to auto, not manually to 100. I think this is why it kept resetting and not saving (rumored to be due to nVidia cards, but not sure). This was what I had to do to get it working.

Hit Ctrl+F1 once in the BIOS menu to access advanced BIOS options (the list should flash, and the new options will be within the M.I.T. section).

Try setting the "Refresh to ACT Delay" to 55 (mine was at something like 32 by default, this may have also helped me).

Try loosening timings (5-5-5-15 worked for my 667MHz RAM running at 800MHz, and they're rated for 5-5-5-15 at 667MHz).

I set the FSB (MCH) voltage and DRAM voltage to +.1, though I'm not sure if it was necessary.

Some users recommend disabling a legacy USB option (not sure which one, something with bootable devices I think). I did not have to do this.

Some also recommend disabling speed step, and all of those CPU options. Again, I did not have to.

That being said, this CPU with this board will most likely do 3.6GHz at least. My E2160 also went from 1.8GHz to 2.7GHz easy, and also 3.0GHz too on the stock cooler (though started running a bit warmer). Your RAM may change things though.

[Mad]

Thanks for the info Zedeck.
Actually i think i have the same RAM as you.
Saturday i'll start the process, during weekdays i barely have time to study...

[Princess Garnet]

My Corsair XMS2 RAM isn't the DHX RAM. However, either way, that RAM you're seeing in my signature is the RAM used in that system (different motherboard, different CPU), and not the RAM I used in this one. They're two different PCs. This is the RAM in that system.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v469/Lord_Zedeck/IMG_0156.jpg

P.S. Not sure why physical address extension is enabled when I only have 2GB in that PC. Windows must have done it by default, because I didn't. I thought that was only useful with above 2GB.

If you want a screenshot of the BIOS setup used, I can get that too.

[n_w95482]

Why didn't you just printscreen it? :p

And yeah, Windows turns on PAE automatically if it's available.

[Princess Garnet]

I was lazy? That might seem ironic, but that's the answer. That PC is hooked up to my television, and it wasn't yet connected to the internet or fully set up with all drivers and such stuff yet. I just installed the operating system, service pack 3, and some other stuff (such as Everest pictured). I have it connected now and am updating it, tweaking settings, etc. I originally took the picture last night to post in my post two posts up from last night to show it running at 3.60GHz, but then forget to add it when I made the post, funnily enough. Since it was so easy to get 3.6GHz, I might shoot for 4.0GHz, but the RAM might not cope. It's 667MHz RAm doing 800MHz at loose timings already.

[Mad]

Screenshots of the Bios would be great!
And i don't plan on OC the RAM also. I'll set the multi lower for the RAM.

Why go XP? With that pc i would install Win7 already.

[Princess Garnet]

Windows 7 is on my primary PC. I do not have two copies of Windows 7, and will not spend the money for it when the PC isn't used for many hours every day. I also want to give a use to my copy of Windows XP.

As for not overclocking the RAM, you kind of have to to overclock the system (usually, unless the FSB is already lower than the RAM's rated speed, as it is your case, but this board has very limited ratio control, so you'll have to with this board).

I'll get screenshots of the BIOS soon. I'll also try and guess as a setup that may work with that CPU. It all really depends on the RAM (and CPU combination). That's how it is with this board.

[Mad]

Right now i'm in the process of cleaning and setuping everything back into the new case, and new cooler. Typing this from my laptop.
Tomorrow i'll try to post some screens.

[Mad]

Looks like tomorrow never arrives uh?

Finally got some free time(my girlfriend is really pissed ) to start messing with the pc.

I set the pci-e to 100Mhz, voltages to manual/normal, FSB to 220, memory ratio to 3.33(733Mhz) and CPU to 2750Mhz.
Ran orthos for about 30mins, max temp was 57ºC, 1st pic attached.

Then i increased the FSB to 240, ram ratio still 3.33(800Mhz), and CPU to 3000Mhz. So far it's been running for around 43min, max temp 58ºC, 2nd pic.
I'm gonna let it run the rest of the night, around 7 hours.

After that, can i call it stable? If any error happen, what's orthos behavior? Does it stop running?

If it keeps stable and this cool, i'm going to try 3200Mhz tomorrow.

[Princess Garnet]

The ratio you can use for the FSB and RAM depends on the CPU FSB and RAM speed combination, so the trick with that board is making sure RAM doesn't limit you. I couldn't get 4GHz, but didn't try anything between that and 3.6GHz. For 4GHz with an E8400, you need a FSB of 445MHz. I can do 400MHz to get 3.6GHz. It seems many others report the chipset having a wall at ~420MHz-430MHz (less if you're using the IGP, which you're not). It's officially specified for 45nm and 1333MHz FSB (333MHz) though, so if you're still under that, know that you have at least until that where the chipset shouldn't stop you. For 400MHz, I did make the voltage to the chipset and RAM both +1V. You're at 420MHz now, so with a higher multiplier, you don't have to worry about the chipset limiting you as much. Essentially, with the chipset rated for 1333MHz (333MHz), if it's equal to or less than that, you probably won't have to raise the voltage.

Also, beware. I found the chipset (motherboard Northbridge) to get hot, like, very hot (not very very hot, but okay, pretty hot). It's pretty much like this at stock too, but the point is, keep an eye (hand) on it. Touch it your finger. If it's too hot too touch right away and keep it there, it's hot enough to worry about, and the motherboard has no temperature sensors for it. I know it feels hotter than my Maximus Formula's Northbridge, which itself runs 45C-50C and is warm/moderate hot, but not too or very hot. Try using the back of your fingers/hand too (they're more sensitive). You might want to invest in some cooling. I doubt those small 40mm fans would do much (have one on my Southbridge now and it drops it maybe 1C-2C, pretty much not worth it). Don't know. It might be fine as is since it runs warm anyway. Just keep a watch on it. The chipset can very well be unstable and cause issues/crashes/errors/lock ups/etc. to make you think the RAM or CPU is at fault when they may not be.

[n_w95482]

You'll know if Orthos errors out. The big green bar turns red :p.

Edit: It's up to you on how long you want to run it. 8 hours is fine for most people, others do 24. I do 48 hour tests, plus I get my room as hot as possible (30+ C) :p.

[Mad]

@n_w95482 well here it's +-30C everyday.

@Zedeck Good to know i still have some room before messing with voltages. And yeah i heard this chipset runs pretty hot, gonna try to find some better cooling solution for it.
And why you said i'm running @ 420Mhz now?

EDIT: Oh you mean 420Mhz is probably the max FSB i can reach?
Well as you said, this board/chipset is designed to work with 45nm 1333Mhz processors, which uses 333Mhz FSB.(i know it multiplies that value by 4, thus getting 1333Mhz)

So if i'm running @ 240 or even 266, won't i be stressing only the CPU itself, not the chipset?
The ram is fine, since i lower the ratio so it won't go past 800Mhz.

http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=1369600 @3000Mhz

[Mad]

Well just tried FSB 266, it rebooted at Windows loading screen.
Went back to FSB 240. Will try later with 250, and build up from there.

[SCHUMI_4EVER]

That doesn't necessarily indicate a RAM wall since I haven't seen you mention that you've upped the vCore a little yet so it could be that's what's holding you back rather than the RAM.

[Mad]

My ram is running @ 800Mhz(240 x 3.33), and when i set it to 266, i changed the ratio to 2.66(2.66 x 266 = 711).
So no i don't think it's ram.
I haven't messed with VCore yet.

[Princess Garnet]

And why you said i'm running @ 420Mhz now?That was a typo. I meant to say you are running at 240MHz.Well just tried FSB 266, it rebooted at Windows loading screen.Try raising the CPU voltage. That's usually why a failed overclock will reboot when loading into Windows.

[Mad]

Done some research. I'm at work right now, but IIRC the current VCore is 1.200v.
Looks like i need 1.29v or 1.33v to achieve 3.6Ghz.

Considering i manage to get to that speed stable, what would be the bottleneck on my system? The OC'ed CPU or my GPU?

[SCHUMI_4EVER]

definitely the GPU

[Mad]

Here's the deal. I'm on Uni the whole day, so i'm barely using my pc right now, mostly my notebook.
So i turned on my pc today and it was back to default FSB settings. All the changes i made were back to normal.

I thought ok, it might have rebooted or locked up.
Went to BIOS and set FSB to 240 again, booted windows, fired up cpu-z, realtemp and orthos. After like 1min, orthos gave an error.

So i decided to up a little the VCore. Now it's running at FSB 240, and VCore 1.29V @Bios and 1.248V with the VDrop. 1 hour of orthos and everything's fine. The max temp only raised 1ºC with the VCore change.

I guess i got a bad chip for OC. It's revision M0, and it already needed more VCore to get 3.0Ghz...
I'll do a full +6hrs orthos test, only then i'll raise the FSB and VCore to 1.33v if needed.

[Mad]

Got 3.25Ghz stable with VCore of 1.31v.

But i can't set 3.5Ghz(12.5 x 280FSB) stable. Already raised the VCore to 1.37v, but orthos always gives me error. How much can i raise the VCore?
Or do i need to change anything else?

[SCHUMI_4EVER]

1.35v is the safety limit though so people still feel pusing to 1.4v won't damage their system too much.

[Mad]

I've been testing my fps in TF2 with a custom demo i made.
1st run 2.5Ghz High settings w/out filters 1440x900
2nd run 2.5Ghz Medium settings w/out filters 1440x900
3rd run 3.0Ghz High settings w/out filters 1440x900
4th run 3.25Ghz High settings w/out filters 1440x900
5th run 3.25Ghz Medium settings w/out filters 1440x900
6th run 3.25Ghz High settings w/ filters 1440x900 AA 2x AF 2x
demofile fps framerate variability totaltime
bench1.dem 62.1 7.8 48.1
bench1.dem 69.6 9.2 43
bench1.dem 70 9.5 42.7
bench1.dem 73.9 10.2 40.4
bench1.dem 74.5 10.8 40.1
bench1.dem 76 12.3 39.3

That makes me wonder, the fps is going up as it should or my VGA is holding it down?
If i gained no FPS from changing from High to Medium, it means my VGA is not the bottleneck?
EDIT: i turned on the filters @2x and my fps increase by 2?

[Princess Garnet]

Try a multiplier of 10 with a FSB of 333MHz (1333MHz). This will give 3.33GHz. This is a better setup than your current 3.25GHz, not so much because of the small extra frequency, but the extra bandwidth. I'm guessing to try a CPU voltage 1.35V (in the BIOS).

Note that you may be able to go higher, but I'm suggesting this because were you to settle on 3.25GHz, this setup would be better for the extra bandwidth alone (let alone the slight speed bump in frequency), and I'm guessing it should be possible.

[StriderVM]

Have you checked your RAM? It might be your RAM that's reaching it's limit and not your processor.

[Mad]

Well i always lower the RAM multi, so it never runs above 800Mhz. Right now it's running @ 744Mhz(280 x 2.66).
Maybe i should loose the timmings?

[Beatrix]

The looser timings will offset the small increase in speed i think.

[Princess Garnet]

If your RAM is running stock voltage, stock timings, and lower than stock speeds, it's not likely that you have to touch it (that RAM should be good for well over 800MHz though, as mine is a similar but lower grade XMS memory, and it does ~960MHz before it gives in).

Ditto for the motherboard chipset.

That's why I suggesting the CPU setup. It's likely the CPU.

[Mad]

Well that's just strange then. I've seen this CPU reach 4.0Ghz, and i can't even reach 3.5Ghz.
When i get back home, i'll list all the Voltages options in Bios.

Another thing i need to know. When you say 1.35v is a safe limit, it's the VCore set on Bios, not considering VDrop right?

[Princess Garnet]

Most people say up to 1.4V is okay, but 1.35V should be fine. This is the "real" voltage after vdrop/vdroop, so you can try higher. I am recommending setting 1.35V in the BIOS for my setup, which would likely end up a bit lower in reality for you.

Also, just because some can get 4.0GHz doesn't mean you will. The motherboard, and even specific CPU, play a big part, and so does RAM, etc.

[Phil]

I ran my e8400 under 1.45v with no ill effects. Still can't compare with my old e4500 running like a train at 1.52 on air. but for that chip 1.35-1.38 should be fine. And as Zedeck stated, you won't be guaranteed 4ghz, especially on that chip. The Pentium architecture is rather limiting in that aspect. I would go for pumping up the bus (you have decent memory) rather then raw clocks.

[StriderVM]

A lot of people suggest going lower than 1.4v especially on 45nm processors because it increases electromigration, which will kill all processors in the near future, and adding more voltage increases the chance of it killing the processor.

Anyway back to topic, there's a minor chance it's your northbridge that's giving up on the overclock as well, do you have a software that can monitor your mobos temps? Or maybe try putting some sort of fan on the NB.

[Mad]

Well the NB is supposed to go up to 333Mhz with no problems.

So lemme get this straight.
I should try to get my VCore at 1.35v, on CPU-z, not on Bios. I can go higher than 1.35v on Bios, and with the VDrop it should be 1.35v on cpu-z right? Sorry if i'm being repetitive, just wanna be sure other than screw things over.

[Princess Garnet]

no, I am suggesting to try setting it at 1.35V in the BIOS and see if that works. That should (you're at 3.25GHz with 1.28V, so hopefully the small jump to 3.33GHz won't need much more), but it may not be enough. If not, you can still try a little more. I'm guessing ~3.4GHz-3.5GHz would be your limit before ~1.4V comes up. That's good though. It means you were limited by voltage, not temperatures, cooling, or your other parts.

As for the Northbridge, no temperature sensor on this motherboard. It WILL do up to 3.33GHz, as that's what it was made/rated for at stock, so if you're at or below that, I would not even second guess that's a factor. That being said, my particular motherboard (same as yours) does at least 400MHz (1600MHz) for 3.6GHz with my Core 2 Duo E8400, but it run it stock since it's fast enough at stock for this PC's use, and I was concerned about Northbridge temperatures. It runs warm, so I'd keep it at stock 333MHz or lower, but reports say it usually goes up to ~420MHz before it hits an infamous FSB wall.

[Mad]

When i was aiming 3.5Ghz, i set the VCore in Bios to 1.37v, and in cpu-z it reported 1.344v.
I'll try to reach 3.33Ghz tonight.
So i shouldn't run with VCore @ ~1.4v on Bios, that's the safe limit, right?

[Princess Garnet]

Most people say a "real" limit of ~1.4V is okay. I personally say a "real" limit of about 1.35V is ideal.

[Mad]

Another failed run.
Tried 280 x 12.5 = 3.5Ghz again, with a VCore of 1.392v on Bios.
Booted windows fine, launched cpu-z and it reported 1.36v idle.
But as soon as i launched orthos, the core voltage dropped to 1.344v.

I've seen many owners of this mobo saying it's VDrop is ~0.036v. But mine under load is dropping even more! Almost 0.05v.

Sunday i'll try again, with the case open and big fan towards the cpu cooler. Maybe the mobo itself is overheating...

[Princess Garnet]

I doubt the motherboard or MCH is overheating at ~290MHz FSB. Though possible, I suppose, I doubt that's the culprit.

As for the CPU, what are it's temperatures (and cooling)?

Searching Google, someone got 3.6GHz with ~1.22V, and another needed ~.135V for 3.5GHz and couldn't get 3.6GHz, so I'm not sure what is the ballpark range for that CPU. Someone else got 3.5GHz with a lower voltage, but had to up it alot for 3.6GHz, so maybe around there is where they start to exponentially need more voltage (and for you, it might be a bit lower).

Did you try my setup? For goodness sake, whatever speed you aim for, use as close to a 333MHz FSB (1333MHz FSB) as you can since you already know the motherboard and RAM are good for it, and drop the multiplier. Forget it being at 12.5. There is nothing "good" or "cool" about it if you're using less of a FSB than you can get (the motherboard does 333MHz for sure, and likely up to 400MHz, which your RAM will also do). That bandwidth does matter. For real use, I'd probably even take my suggested setup over the 3.5GHz you're trying to achieve with a lower FSB any day, or at least I'd see them as somewhat even. Or you can try 10.5x333 for a few MHz short of 3.5GHz.

Heck, the motherboard does 400MHz (not sure of reliability over time with MCH temperatures, but...), so you could try 400x8.5 (for 3.4GHz). That's much more bandwidth (over a third extra), plus a bit more speed over what you have now (and not far off the 3.5GHz you're trying for). Of course, I say that as an option, but personally, I don't think I'd run it at that full time, and not because of the CPU or RAM, but the motherboard. My secondary PC with this motherboard has it's CPU at stock for that reason. At stock, it has a 333MHz FSB. The CPU and RAM easily cope with what they need to to do 3.6GHz/400MHz FSB, but the MCH runs hot as-is even at stock, so I don't know about taking it higher and leaving it there without cooling (with the Freezer 7 Pro on this motherboard, pretty much no room for a Northbridge fan).

[Mad]

Thanks Zedeck, i'll try that setup tomorrow.
Those are the temps i get under full load with 3.25Ghz(260 x 12.5): http://forums.ngemu.com/hardware-discussion/137735-q8400-e8400-2.html#post1901196

I don't have much space left on my case to add an extra NB Fan.
I'll try to take some pics with my bro's cam.

[Princess Garnet]

Oh, I forgot you posted that.

Honestly, all things considered, it sounds like you're already very near the limit with voltage and heat. You probably have very little room. I'd try a 333x10 setup and see if you can settle at 3.33GHz. You'll get the most FSB you can, and that's about the limit you CPU will probably want to go with voltage and heat.

With lower temperatures (I'm assuming a better cooler would do and that you're using a stock one now) and closer to ~1.4V, you might be able to do ~3.5GHz.

[Mad]

Actually i'm using this aftermarket cooler: ::EVERCOOL Thermal Co., Ltd. :: (http://www.evercool.com.tw/products/hpf.htm)
It's not the best i know, but just wanted a cheap one to try some OC.
And the results are pretty good for me so far.

[Mad]

Ok found this pic of my MOBO Bios on the net, but he was using a Q6600. My current settings are:
DDR2 OverVoltage: normal
FSB OverVoltage: normal
FSB DeOverVoltage: normal
CPU GTLREF: 0.636
CPU Voltage: 1.32
Normal CPU VCore: 1.23

Do i need to change anything else besides the CPU Voltage?

[Princess Garnet]

No, those are the same settings I use. As long as your RAM it at or below stock values (yours and mine are), and your Northbridge is at or below 1333MHz FSB (yours and mines are), you shouldn't need to touch much besides the CPU voltage.

[Mad]

Well talked to a friend, he has the same VGA as mine, but has a PII x4 955 BE, and he ran the demo i posted, here he's results:
2990 frames 29.661 seconds 100.81 fps ( 9.92 ms/f) 15.218 fps variability
Using this config on TF2:
http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/7305/tf2config.png (http://img831.imageshack.us/i/tf2config.png/)

So looks like the CPU still my bottleneck. Gonna start bumping that FSB and lowering the multi.

[SCHUMI_4EVER]

Could be lack of cores rather than clock-speed holding you back then though considering you friend's system is a quad.

[makotech222]

i get about 90 fps on TF2 with max graphics and AA x4, IIRC

[StriderVM]

Yeah, TF2 likes more cores in general and isn't too reliant on the video cards power.

[Mad]

Zedeck, do you know if this mobo has the option to disable spread spectrum?
I can't seem to find that option in the Bios.