Alan, I think you are really on to something. I notice that on my rock solid dual-core AMD, running at 2.4 gig and not overclocked, I can use the mouse as much as I want while Rybka is running.
But on my Intel quad system, overclocked from 2.4 gig stock to 3.51 gig, most crashs occur when I use the mouse while Rybka is still running, especially after hours of use.
But on my Intel quad system, overclocked from 2.4 gig stock to 3.51 gig, most crashs occur when I use the mouse while Rybka is still running, especially after hours of use.
Just personal experience. I'm running an over-clock of 3.3 GHz with my Q6600 on a GB motherboard with the stock cooler (too lazy so far to transfer over the watercooling system). Everything is perfectly stable when I'm not using the mouse. With heavy mouse usage, I'll get a BSOD every few hours.
Alan
Alan
Alan, this is very interesting! When you say, "with heavy mouse usage", do you mean while Rybka is running; or do you even get a BSOD if you have temporarily stopped the engine to move the pieces?
I only get crashes during heavy usage when core temps are at or above 70C. No problems at idle.
Alan
Alan
![[gb]](/mwf/v12/flags/gb.png "United Kingdom")
The video card is very unlikely to be the cause. The voltage to the card is set in the bios, so unless you changed it it will be getting it's default voltage.
I would imagine that you may be just on the edge of stability, and that as Alan says, a mouse movement at the wrong moment just pushes it over the edge. I would try slightly increasing the voltage to the CPU, just a notch. Watch the effect it has on temps, just to be sure. That might well resolve the problem.
I would imagine that you may be just on the edge of stability, and that as Alan says, a mouse movement at the wrong moment just pushes it over the edge. I would try slightly increasing the voltage to the CPU, just a notch. Watch the effect it has on temps, just to be sure. That might well resolve the problem.
dude, your running your CPU with 50% increase in speed and over voltaging it. The probability of your CPU will be damage will be getting higher. I just wonder if your CPU will even last a year or two if you run it 24/7. But surely your CPU lifespan will decrease one way or another.
I have not yet heard of anyone damaging a Quad CPU through heat or voltage, even though I have read of people getting 90+centigrade at 1.6 volts.
A CPU will last around 10 years in normal circumstances, even if you were to halve the life, most people would have upgraded long before then.
For me overclocking makes sense, the alternative is to go and buy a CPU, run it at stock speed so I am slower than everyone else, but at least know I will be getting slower and slower reliably for some years? Sorry but I don't see the point in that.
A CPU will last around 10 years in normal circumstances, even if you were to halve the life, most people would have upgraded long before then.
For me overclocking makes sense, the alternative is to go and buy a CPU, run it at stock speed so I am slower than everyone else, but at least know I will be getting slower and slower reliably for some years? Sorry but I don't see the point in that.
Thanks as always, Phil, for the benefit of your expertise. Would it be fair to say that temps up to 70 degrees C should not be a problem then?
I would suggest aiming for a maximum of 65c, that would certainly be within safety limits and should be stable once you fine tune the voltages and RAM settings.
Phil, I am close to my goal of stable O/C but not quite there. Here are my key X38 BIOS settings to see if you or any of the other experts have suggestions, especially with regard to the memory timings.
9 X multiplier (fixed), 405 FSB, showing 1077 Mem Frequency. (My OCZ RAM is rated at 1150 MHz). I would like to get Mem Frequency closer to 1150, but the next step up from 2.66D for the System Memory Multiplier is 3.00A. That gives Mem Frequency of 1215 (too high?)
My Standard memory timing controls: 5,5,5,12.
Advanced Timing controls: Auto, Auto, Auto, 35, Auto, 8 for Static tRead, 5, and 2T. The CPU/PCIEX Clock Driving Control at 900 mV.
The System Voltage controls: DDR2 OV =.40 (I can't change it--would prefer + .35), PCI-E OV +.20; FSB OV + .20; (G)MCH OV + .175.
The key CPU Voltage control is currently at 1.50625 where I can keep my water-cooled temps to a self-imposed limit of 65 degrees C, but unfortunately not 100% stable at 405 FSB: can use Rybka for hours but then it (though not Windows) shuts down.
On the other hand, if I increase CPU Voltage to 1.5125 (and certainly to 1.5187), I am stable at 405 FSB but eventually get temps up to 67 degrees C. Perhaps I can live with 67 degrees as a peak? If I stop Rybka from time to time, which I often do, then temp. drops in 3 minutes from 67 to 45.
Thanks, CMA
9 X multiplier (fixed), 405 FSB, showing 1077 Mem Frequency. (My OCZ RAM is rated at 1150 MHz). I would like to get Mem Frequency closer to 1150, but the next step up from 2.66D for the System Memory Multiplier is 3.00A. That gives Mem Frequency of 1215 (too high?)
My Standard memory timing controls: 5,5,5,12.
Advanced Timing controls: Auto, Auto, Auto, 35, Auto, 8 for Static tRead, 5, and 2T. The CPU/PCIEX Clock Driving Control at 900 mV.
The System Voltage controls: DDR2 OV =.40 (I can't change it--would prefer + .35), PCI-E OV +.20; FSB OV + .20; (G)MCH OV + .175.
The key CPU Voltage control is currently at 1.50625 where I can keep my water-cooled temps to a self-imposed limit of 65 degrees C, but unfortunately not 100% stable at 405 FSB: can use Rybka for hours but then it (though not Windows) shuts down.
On the other hand, if I increase CPU Voltage to 1.5125 (and certainly to 1.5187), I am stable at 405 FSB but eventually get temps up to 67 degrees C. Perhaps I can live with 67 degrees as a peak? If I stop Rybka from time to time, which I often do, then temp. drops in 3 minutes from 67 to 45.
Thanks, CMA
Not sure why you would want to lower the voltage on your RAM. It's specified by the manufacturers to run at 2.3v, at the moment you have it at 1.8v + 0.4v= 2.2v.
The RAM voltage can significantly affect the performance of the memory, so I think you could try a couple of things. First I would raise the DRAM volts to +0.5v and try the multiplier at 3.00. There is a reasonable chance it will work, I have heard of that RAM running at 1300mHz although that was on a 680i chipset.
The other thing worth trying is to lower the timings a little. This will also result in significantly improved performance. Raising the volts to 2.3v as before, leave the multiplier at 2.66 but try manually setting the timings to 4-4-4-12. The remaining timings can be left on auto. Also don't forget you have two options under the High Speed DRAM DLL settings. If you have stability issues with one setting, try the other before giving up on it.
http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=2885
That review of the RAM you have might give you an idea of it's capabilities.
I would hope that you could achieve that FSB speed at 1.5v or a little less on the CPU, although as has been said before, every chip is slightly different. I am not sure why Rybka would shut down and not windows, a system crash due to instability usually takes windows out with it.
The only way to fine tune is patient experimentation, you have got pretty good results so far, and I hope you are pleased overall with your computer
Phil.
The RAM voltage can significantly affect the performance of the memory, so I think you could try a couple of things. First I would raise the DRAM volts to +0.5v and try the multiplier at 3.00. There is a reasonable chance it will work, I have heard of that RAM running at 1300mHz although that was on a 680i chipset.
The other thing worth trying is to lower the timings a little. This will also result in significantly improved performance. Raising the volts to 2.3v as before, leave the multiplier at 2.66 but try manually setting the timings to 4-4-4-12. The remaining timings can be left on auto. Also don't forget you have two options under the High Speed DRAM DLL settings. If you have stability issues with one setting, try the other before giving up on it.
http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=2885
That review of the RAM you have might give you an idea of it's capabilities.
I would hope that you could achieve that FSB speed at 1.5v or a little less on the CPU, although as has been said before, every chip is slightly different. I am not sure why Rybka would shut down and not windows, a system crash due to instability usually takes windows out with it.
The only way to fine tune is patient experimentation, you have got pretty good results so far, and I hope you are pleased overall with your computer
Phil.
Hi Phil:
That is a fantastically impressive review of the OCZ 1150 RAM that I bought on your recommendation. It looks like that RAM can run up to 1300 mem frequency safely, or certainly in the low-mid 1200s. I will try your two ideas.
However, I could not find "the High Speed Dram DLL settings." Are they also in the M.I.T. submenu?
Thanks, CMA
That is a fantastically impressive review of the OCZ 1150 RAM that I bought on your recommendation. It looks like that RAM can run up to 1300 mem frequency safely, or certainly in the low-mid 1200s. I will try your two ideas.
However, I could not find "the High Speed Dram DLL settings." Are they also in the M.I.T. submenu?
Thanks, CMA
It's just above where you start to set the DRAM timings
Phil:
Are you referring to "DRAM Timing Selectable"? The two choices are Manual and Auto.
CMA
Are you referring to "DRAM Timing Selectable"? The two choices are Manual and Auto.
CMA
According to the X38 manual I have here, it should be the one just above that. I haven't installed the board yet so I haven't seen the actual BIOS, but the manuals are usually right.
![[no]](/mwf/v12/flags/no.png "Norway")
I sort of wonder how Rybka would do on a 2048-core machine... something tells me it would not fare very well. :-)
/* Steinar */
/* Steinar */
Are there any 8-core machines? If so, how much would it cost to build one and which chips would you use?
![[us]](/mwf/v12/flags/us.png "United States")
I think most 8 core machines are workstations and can cost some cash.
Sure. I had access to two 16-core machines last year (eight dual-core Opterons), and I wouldn't be surprised if there are 32-way x86-compatibles already.
/* Steinar */
/* Steinar */
![[de]](/mwf/v12/flags/de.png "Germany")
Yes, there are - in fact i've got 4 of them. They all have 2 quad core Xeons each.
What you need is:
2 x Xeon X5355 2x800$
Mainboard e.g. Tyan Tempest i5000XT 400$
4 x 1 GB FB-DIMM 4x 80$
PSU min. 550W 100$
any graphics adapter - from 40$ up
case for EATX e.g. Chieftech Mesh 100$
harddisk 100$
optical drive 40$
makes 2700$
What you need is:
2 x Xeon X5355 2x800$
Mainboard e.g. Tyan Tempest i5000XT 400$
4 x 1 GB FB-DIMM 4x 80$
PSU min. 550W 100$
any graphics adapter - from 40$ up
case for EATX e.g. Chieftech Mesh 100$
harddisk 100$
optical drive 40$
makes 2700$
Hi Kullberg
Are there any 2 socket boards that (or does this board) allow overclocking of the less expensive xeons?
i.e. for a quad I would buy a q6600 g0 and overclock to 3-3.2ghz rather than buy the more expensive q6700 etc.
Thanks
Shaun
Are there any 2 socket boards that (or does this board) allow overclocking of the less expensive xeons?
i.e. for a quad I would buy a q6600 g0 and overclock to 3-3.2ghz rather than buy the more expensive q6700 etc.
Thanks
Shaun
![[sy]](/mwf/v12/flags/sy.png "Syrian Arab Republic")
As far as I know there is no way to run a Q6600 on a Xeon board. They have different pin sets .... a Xeon chip might work on a normal board though. Xeon chips are not much more expensive than their normal counterparts ... not anymore. There was a time where Xeon chips would be dramatically more expensive. Also Dual socket motherboards that support Xeon chips are not easily overclocked. There is definetely a multiplier lock ... and they run on FBDIMMS which are very difficult to overclock. Ofcourse there are many ways to get around this but it is really only for someone with a lot of patience and knowledge of hardware and overclocking in general. I think you might be able to shield some pins (by putting small pieces of insulating tape) and get a change in multiplier ... also if you know the clock generator of your motherboard, you can get software applications that increase the speed of your FSB ... but this again needs some experience in what you are doing.
I am looking at the possibility of having an easy overclock of Xeon chips if 800 Mhz FBDIMMS become commonplace. At the moment I think the Xeon chips run at a memory of 667 Mhz .... if a motherboard comes out that can support 800 Mhz then you have a quick and simple overclock by simply using a faster memory on a chip that is rated for lesser memory. In theory a 3 Ghz Xeon would then be able to run at 3.6 Ghz if the CPU can handle it ... and I am almost positive it can with proper cooling.
I am looking at the possibility of having an easy overclock of Xeon chips if 800 Mhz FBDIMMS become commonplace. At the moment I think the Xeon chips run at a memory of 667 Mhz .... if a motherboard comes out that can support 800 Mhz then you have a quick and simple overclock by simply using a faster memory on a chip that is rated for lesser memory. In theory a 3 Ghz Xeon would then be able to run at 3.6 Ghz if the CPU can handle it ... and I am almost positive it can with proper cooling.
Hi Ansari,
yes I know the q6600 will not go in these Xeon boards but the chip above is 771 socket the E5310 or similar are also 771 I just wonder if these can be overclocked in a similar way to the q6600 on the 775 socket.
i.e. are there any overclocker friendly Xeon boards - I am looking for bios options not hardware mods - my days of painting bridges on chips is over - I just don't have the time.
If I find anything I will post however I am not seriously looking at the moment as any more PC purchases and I might be divorced....
All the best
Shaun
yes I know the q6600 will not go in these Xeon boards but the chip above is 771 socket the E5310 or similar are also 771 I just wonder if these can be overclocked in a similar way to the q6600 on the 775 socket.
i.e. are there any overclocker friendly Xeon boards - I am looking for bios options not hardware mods - my days of painting bridges on chips is over - I just don't have the time.
If I find anything I will post however I am not seriously looking at the moment as any more PC purchases and I might be divorced....
All the best
Shaun
There is only one way to overclock some of the slower 5300 processors: you have to make a pinmod on both sockets. It only works with processors that have a FSB of 266 MHz - it raises the FSB to 333 MHz. So you can overclock a E5320 from 1.86 to 2.33 GHz
Regards,
Lukas
Regards,
Lukas
Lukas,
thank you for the reply - sad news
Shaun
thank you for the reply - sad news
Shaun
![[se]](/mwf/v12/flags/se.png "Sweden")
@ Shaun: Theres also one way to o/c xeon boards for intels 53xx series i have done it on 2 of my intel 5345 8 way boards. Just install systool and choose the correct ICS clock and then play with the FSB. I have raised my boards from 2333 Mhz to 2600 Mhz 100% stable for chess. This you do from windows and not bios.
And thanks M ansari and phil for making this thread more interesting.
@ M Ansari:
4,6 Ghz o/c sounds nice to me :-) I will run my beforementioned setup with Vapochill and that x38 asus board on DDR3 - ths cpu:s will either be QX6850 or a brand new engineer sample of yourkfield quad with 12MB cashe. Any ideas if this yorkfield is o/c able in any interesting way?
regards
Bjorn
And thanks M ansari and phil for making this thread more interesting.
@ M Ansari:
4,6 Ghz o/c sounds nice to me :-) I will run my beforementioned setup with Vapochill and that x38 asus board on DDR3 - ths cpu:s will either be QX6850 or a brand new engineer sample of yourkfield quad with 12MB cashe. Any ideas if this yorkfield is o/c able in any interesting way?
regards
Bjorn
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3101&p=4
I would say extremely promising....
I would say extremely promising....
Thanks Phil. Next week we will be getting crushed by a Swedish account with a name like "still Bjorn" running at 5+ GHz!
Regards,
Alan
Regards,
Alan
Wow!! thanks for that link Phil. Yes thats awesome. But lets see.. this yorkfield is a 2,33 ghz and has "confidential ES a4" printed at the top. I have no mobo and ddr3 mem yet, still waiting from all resellers..
Hi Alan. Always nice to see you here. Well that statement forces me to use the King Crusher account :-) I dont know how many kn/s a 5ghz yorkfield setup will generate, but it should be stronger than thoose intel 8 way 5345 that I've been running for a long time now. 500-650 kn/s on 8 way and thats almost like a quad thats o/c as i understand it. I tested the 232a on an opteron 16 way some months ago and it was higher but not that much, kn/s was between 700 and 900. If this new system would reach 800 kn/s as an average then i would be satisfied :-)
I will come back asap with benches and results and also many new problems to solve, i suppose..
:-)
Regards
Bjorn
Hi Alan. Always nice to see you here. Well that statement forces me to use the King Crusher account :-) I dont know how many kn/s a 5ghz yorkfield setup will generate, but it should be stronger than thoose intel 8 way 5345 that I've been running for a long time now. 500-650 kn/s on 8 way and thats almost like a quad thats o/c as i understand it. I tested the 232a on an opteron 16 way some months ago and it was higher but not that much, kn/s was between 700 and 900. If this new system would reach 800 kn/s as an average then i would be satisfied :-)
I will come back asap with benches and results and also many new problems to solve, i suppose..
:-)
Regards
Bjorn
![[kw]](/mwf/v12/flags/kw.png "Kuwait")
Hi Bjorn ... my next project is overclocking a dual socket Penryn. There is a window of opportunity here ... that is that FBDIMMS will come out at 800 Mhz. At the moment they are at 667 Mhz. Once a motherboard is designed for that speed it would have to be backward compatible with CPU's that run at 667 Mhz ... so by upping the memory to 800 Mhz it should be an automatic speed up providing your CPU can handle it. I am sure that the Penryn CPU's will be able to handle 4Ghz no problem if adequate cooling is in place. The current speed for the fastest Xeon is 9 x 333Mhz = 3Ghz ... what I will shoot for is 9 x 400Mhz which will give 3.6Ghz. That should be an easy overclock even on air since Penryn will be a 45nm chip and thus would have much less heat. Personally I think that 4Ghz x 8 cores will be possible by pushing the memory above spec a little ... that would make one nice little Rybka machine.
Hi M Ansari.
Yes if we are lucky they will become much more easy to o/c. In 1-2 weeks i will also have a pair of harpertown to play with on a Supermicro board(so far the best o/c abilitys from all socket 771 boards that I've tested). Lets hope this will be the real killer setup for us chess comp freaks :-)
See this link:
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=42423
Very promising.
Updates about my vapochill system:
To reach o/c like 5-6 Ghz on that new QX6950 or my ES sample we will need at least ability to deliver 250 to 300 watts vapocooling during full cpu load and overvoltage. Original vapos just delivers 180-200 watts wich is between +-0 and -25 C. So today i contacted a compamy that will mod my xe II from 180 w to around 300 i hope. We need at least -100 degreeds C to be stable @5,5 ghz and the vapochill systems can in no way deliver that.
Pros is that the new 45nm process will be much better to o/c our o/c guru "Fugger" (the new world record owner in 10 diff fields) said this after the new record:
"10x reduction in gate leakage = more speed with less volts
we will soon see 6ghz 45nm overclocked parts"
Thats soo niiice :-)
Yes if we are lucky they will become much more easy to o/c. In 1-2 weeks i will also have a pair of harpertown to play with on a Supermicro board(so far the best o/c abilitys from all socket 771 boards that I've tested). Lets hope this will be the real killer setup for us chess comp freaks :-)
See this link:
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=42423
Very promising.
Updates about my vapochill system:
To reach o/c like 5-6 Ghz on that new QX6950 or my ES sample we will need at least ability to deliver 250 to 300 watts vapocooling during full cpu load and overvoltage. Original vapos just delivers 180-200 watts wich is between +-0 and -25 C. So today i contacted a compamy that will mod my xe II from 180 w to around 300 i hope. We need at least -100 degreeds C to be stable @5,5 ghz and the vapochill systems can in no way deliver that.
Pros is that the new 45nm process will be much better to o/c our o/c guru "Fugger" (the new world record owner in 10 diff fields) said this after the new record:
"10x reduction in gate leakage = more speed with less volts
we will soon see 6ghz 45nm overclocked parts"
Thats soo niiice :-)
Hi Bjorn,
Yes the Vapochill LS only holds 200 watts the other version is rated 180 watts. I figure you need around 250 watts to 300 watts on a QX6850 to be stable at 4.6 Ghz to 4.7 Ghz. I can get my Vapochill (200watt) to speed up my 6850 to around 4.6 Ghz but it is not stable with chess. The CPU at that oclock simply generates too much heat for the rating of the LS compressor to handle. It runs very well if a high cpu cycle application is not thrown at it which means that the only problem to those high oclocks is controlling the heat. Obviously the new 45nm chips will be dramatically better because they generated much less heat ... times are looking good. But you know ... I think that after watching Zappa vs Rybka ... and seeing how much of an advantage it is to have efficient scaling ... I think that Vas will be on a heavy duty work effort in getting Rybka to be efficient at MP. This is maybe the incentive that is needed for that. So probably going for a high oclock on single sockets will no longer be necessary since with efficient scaling more cores are more important than more Ghz.
Yes the Vapochill LS only holds 200 watts the other version is rated 180 watts. I figure you need around 250 watts to 300 watts on a QX6850 to be stable at 4.6 Ghz to 4.7 Ghz. I can get my Vapochill (200watt) to speed up my 6850 to around 4.6 Ghz but it is not stable with chess. The CPU at that oclock simply generates too much heat for the rating of the LS compressor to handle. It runs very well if a high cpu cycle application is not thrown at it which means that the only problem to those high oclocks is controlling the heat. Obviously the new 45nm chips will be dramatically better because they generated much less heat ... times are looking good. But you know ... I think that after watching Zappa vs Rybka ... and seeing how much of an advantage it is to have efficient scaling ... I think that Vas will be on a heavy duty work effort in getting Rybka to be efficient at MP. This is maybe the incentive that is needed for that. So probably going for a high oclock on single sockets will no longer be necessary since with efficient scaling more cores are more important than more Ghz.
Hi M Ansari.
When i looked deeper in to it i realized that all Vapochill products is out of date, they are designed for single and dual cpu:s. They cant just deliver whats required for extreme o/c:s of intel quad systems. Yes, at least 250 w @-40C on a full cpu load of 4 cores is needed for 4,5ghz+ stable. The LS just delivers around 100watts on -40C and when temps are going up to -25 and higher we have to decrease the speed dramatically :-( Good is that i realized that before paying my XEII its now canceled :-)
I will order a private solution built in a Lian LI 2000 case wich will deliver at least 250watts @-40C. And the pricetag forces me to win the next freestyle :-)
About future:
Intel Nehalem will have 8 cores and 16 threads and will be able in 2008 for socket 775 - its just 1 cpu.. so lets see about if this setup will not be a good investment still.. :-)
I know that there are some guys out there that easily could mod your LS to more then double perfomance and that pricetag does not force u to win the next freestyle - but.. you could do it just for fun :-)
regards
Bjorn
When i looked deeper in to it i realized that all Vapochill products is out of date, they are designed for single and dual cpu:s. They cant just deliver whats required for extreme o/c:s of intel quad systems. Yes, at least 250 w @-40C on a full cpu load of 4 cores is needed for 4,5ghz+ stable. The LS just delivers around 100watts on -40C and when temps are going up to -25 and higher we have to decrease the speed dramatically :-( Good is that i realized that before paying my XEII its now canceled :-)
I will order a private solution built in a Lian LI 2000 case wich will deliver at least 250watts @-40C. And the pricetag forces me to win the next freestyle :-)
About future:
Intel Nehalem will have 8 cores and 16 threads and will be able in 2008 for socket 775 - its just 1 cpu.. so lets see about if this setup will not be a good investment still.. :-)
I know that there are some guys out there that easily could mod your LS to more then double perfomance and that pricetag does not force u to win the next freestyle - but.. you could do it just for fun :-)
regards
Bjorn
Definetely the XEII is only rated 180 watts and that is not enough for the Quad. The LS is a little bit more (200 watts) but still not enough ... my QX6850 can run 100% stable only at 4.3 Ghz. I think Vapochill modified its design to better suit single and dual core users and thus their system cools much lower but at a lower wattage ... apparently that was due to the request of the majority of the users that were using a max of dual core. The modification of the LS is quite simple ... in a place like Kuwait ... we have compressor cooling for everything due to the heat so the guys here have a lot of experience with that kind of stuff. Even our tap water has to be chilled in the summer so that we can use it :). After showing the Vapochill to a few AC engineers here they tell me it is a piece of cake to make such a build ... and even much more powerful. What the other builders might not have though is the nice case with LCD output the heating pads and special operation board and the LGA 775 kit that comes with the LS unit. Hopefully that can be purchased seperately. If not I would buy the LS unit and then modify it just to have these accessories. If your goal is simply to better cool the Quad then maybe a simple gas modification of the LS might be enough ... you could go on the Vapochill forum and you will get a lot of good information. If you want much cooler temperature as was shown on the internet with a Harpertown processor at 5.5 Ghz ... then you really need a special system that uses a cascade of compressors where one compressor cools to a certain temperature and then the others cascade the cooling lower and lower. I think on the 5.5 Ghz they had 3 compressors with a cooling temperature of -160 C. That is pretty extreme ... one compressor already sounds like a small fridge :)
Hi M Ansari.
Been away for a while and my x38 things has been delayed. But thats good, meanwhile I've discovered that the p35 chip will give at least the same o/c results. Ok there are some theorethical advantages with X38 but thats more interesting for traditional benchmarkers running 3dmark, superpi etc. For us compchess freaks the p35 with native support for 1333 FSB will give the same enhancements for new QX series cpu:s. Also the X38 DDR3 requires much more power.
I've changed my order to a Gigabyte GA p35 Qd6 and its seems to be the oveclockers dream board as far as intel quads are concerned. The cpu will be a QX6950. I will come back with results if its interesting.
Been away for a while and my x38 things has been delayed. But thats good, meanwhile I've discovered that the p35 chip will give at least the same o/c results. Ok there are some theorethical advantages with X38 but thats more interesting for traditional benchmarkers running 3dmark, superpi etc. For us compchess freaks the p35 with native support for 1333 FSB will give the same enhancements for new QX series cpu:s. Also the X38 DDR3 requires much more power.
I've changed my order to a Gigabyte GA p35 Qd6 and its seems to be the oveclockers dream board as far as intel quads are concerned. The cpu will be a QX6950. I will come back with results if its interesting.
Yes the Gigabyte Q6 board seems to be a great motherboard. I know I have 3 of them. Some do have a problem with a random reboot cycle that seems to go on forever ... I did actually have one motherboard that had that problem ... but it mysteriously vanished after I removed the entire system and changed the CPU and rebooted. It seems that some G0 cpu's will have a problem unless you upgrade the BIOS. There is a new revision of those boards ... so make sure you have the latest version. As for the QX6950 cpu's ... I have yet to see one. I would expect they would easily reach 4.6 to 5 Ghz with a normal 200 watt LS Vapochill and probably around 4.3 to 4.6 with good quality watercooling. I can give you advice regarding performance on Rybka ... and that is it seems strongest with a low muliplier with fast memory. So I would guess if you could get a hold of some fast latency DDR3 ... and get a FSB to around 1500 Mhz or higher ... it will most likely outperform an 8 way at 3 Ghz. Presently I have a QX6850 where I have it running at 9 x 480 Mhz = 4.32 Ghz ... it scores around 25 X a PIII 1Ghz on the Fritzmark. Although the Fritzmark is not a perfect benchmark for how Rybka plays ... it is the best benchmark I can think off assessing chess strength of Rybka. I am not sure what an 8 core running at 3 Ghz will get ... but I imagine it is around 27 X PIII 1Ghz .... so a 5 Ghz Quad running memories of 1500 Mhz and higher should easily outperform the 8 core. I personally am taking a good long look at the 16 core Intel ... and might skip the 8 core generation. I need some more input from Vas regarding how Rybka scales ... if efficient scaling has been achieved with the latest Rybka ... then it could be that a 32 core Opteron will crush everything in sight ... but today I would think the strongest Rybka would be a souped up 5 to 5.5 Ghz Penryn Quad.
Here you can find Fritzmark results of some computers: http://www.jens.tauchclub-krems.at/diverses/schach/fritz9_benchmarks.html
My computer is in this list, too.
But Fritzmark doesn't tell much about Rybka's performance on a computer.
So i think, your 4x4.32 GHz computer is a bit faster than my 8x3 GHz computer when using Rybka 2.3.2a.
Regards,
Lukas
My computer is in this list, too.
But Fritzmark doesn't tell much about Rybka's performance on a computer.
So i think, your 4x4.32 GHz computer is a bit faster than my 8x3 GHz computer when using Rybka 2.3.2a.
Regards,
Lukas
I built a 8 core machine 8gb of RAM for $1800.
Just wanted to align this thread for you! It's an interesting thread.
![[in]](/mwf/v12/flags/in.png "India")
Found this 16 core machine (Intel Caneland 2.93GHz x 16 cores)...
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=730
how good is it for chess?
Apparently Deep Junior is using the same machine at Leiden.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=730
how good is it for chess?
Apparently Deep Junior is using the same machine at Leiden.
Hi Ankan,
I have no idea weather that is over kill for Junior or just what he needs to give him a competitive edge. It certainly isn't giving him a sterling showing.
I have no idea weather that is over kill for Junior or just what he needs to give him a competitive edge. It certainly isn't giving him a sterling showing.
Junior team used a machine like that some months ago against Deep Fritz before the official release of that computer. It looks like they have some special connection to Intel. That computer should be good for chess, depending on the engine used. But Deep Junior probably isn't very effective on it - it doesn't even use 8 cores properly.
Regards,
Lukas
Regards,
Lukas
thanks for your help earlier, you are educateing me fast on what i will buy next year
Hi fellows,
in past I've been following the truly worthy hints put by Phil Harris and Co. regarding sticking together an individual quad system. :-)
But getting into the very details of overclocking I'm missing some background information.
Some experienced bud advised as follwing:
"Also you have to know that running a fast FSB provides much higher performance than a similar Ghz with lower FSB ... for example a CPU running 8x400 = 3.2 Ghz will perform much better than a 9.5x337 = 3.2Ghz [...]"
Please, what is the background? Is that regarded to the RAM frequency? What had I to pay attention to in this way? And what about the
"Static tRead Value" in this context?
In the GigaByte forum I got only one answer: set the cpu clock multiplier as high as possible?!
Thank you so much.
in past I've been following the truly worthy hints put by Phil Harris and Co. regarding sticking together an individual quad system. :-)
But getting into the very details of overclocking I'm missing some background information.
Some experienced bud advised as follwing:
"Also you have to know that running a fast FSB provides much higher performance than a similar Ghz with lower FSB ... for example a CPU running 8x400 = 3.2 Ghz will perform much better than a 9.5x337 = 3.2Ghz [...]"
Please, what is the background? Is that regarded to the RAM frequency? What had I to pay attention to in this way? And what about the
"Static tRead Value" in this context?
In the GigaByte forum I got only one answer: set the cpu clock multiplier as high as possible?!
Thank you so much.
Having the FSB running faster gives slightly lower memory latencies. I would hesitate to say that it is a great deal quicker, but it should suit Rybkas preference for fast memory processes.
So it's certainly true that if the CPU speeds match, the 8x400 would offer a slight edge over 9.5x337. The only thing to bear in mind is that some motherboards are less stable than others at high FSB's so I would try to balance memory performance against CPU performance. So for example, if your motherboard allows up to 400 FSB at x8 (3.2gHz) but will go to 360 at x9.5 (3.42gHz), then the higher CPU speed would negate any memory latency advantage.
Adjusting Trd requires a little bit of trial and error, unless you really know what you are doing. I would suggest using Memset, which at least allows you to test RAM settings without rebooting every time. In Memset Trd is known as "performance level" and in general should be set as low as your system will allow. If you go too low your system will simply crash, so then you need to start again. As a rough guide on your type of setup, a setting of 6 or 7 is usually stable, 5 can be a little edgy...
http://www.tweakers.fr/memset.html
So it's certainly true that if the CPU speeds match, the 8x400 would offer a slight edge over 9.5x337. The only thing to bear in mind is that some motherboards are less stable than others at high FSB's so I would try to balance memory performance against CPU performance. So for example, if your motherboard allows up to 400 FSB at x8 (3.2gHz) but will go to 360 at x9.5 (3.42gHz), then the higher CPU speed would negate any memory latency advantage.
Adjusting Trd requires a little bit of trial and error, unless you really know what you are doing. I would suggest using Memset, which at least allows you to test RAM settings without rebooting every time. In Memset Trd is known as "performance level" and in general should be set as low as your system will allow. If you go too low your system will simply crash, so then you need to start again. As a rough guide on your type of setup, a setting of 6 or 7 is usually stable, 5 can be a little edgy...
http://www.tweakers.fr/memset.html
... thank you so much - a step onwards! :-)
It's the GA P35-DS3 v1.0 with 2x Mushkin 2 GB with 5-5-5-15 at 2.1V. CPU is running with 9 x 366 MHz = 3.33 GHz (running stable for many hours under ful load). What could you advise here?
I do know but wish to avoid many trials and errors.
Does that mean I was able to set different RAM latencies under Windows? :-o
Thank you again! :-)
> The only thing to bear in mind is that some motherboards are less stable than others at high FSB's...
It's the GA P35-DS3 v1.0 with 2x Mushkin 2 GB with 5-5-5-15 at 2.1V. CPU is running with 9 x 366 MHz = 3.33 GHz (running stable for many hours under ful load). What could you advise here?
> Adjusting Trd requires a little bit of trial and error,
I do know but wish to avoid many trials and errors.
> I would suggest using Memset, which at least allows you to test RAM settings without rebooting every time.
Does that mean I was able to set different RAM latencies under Windows? :-o
Thank you again! :-)
There are so many factors at work in a good stable over clocked system, that it's impossible to give a perfect list of settings. Even the same components from the same manufacturer can vary a great deal in performance from one to the other.
Assuming you have a Q6600 G0 on good air cooling, your result is pretty good. Remember to keep your CPU temperatures at a max of about 65c or a little less if possible. The P35 chipset is very good for over clocking, at very high CPU volts (over 1.525v), the DS3 might not have quite the stability in power delivery that you get from the DQ6 version, though I am pretty sure it will be fine up to that point.
You don't mention the specification of your RAM, or what speed it's running at. Assuming it's running well and within it's specified speed, it's worth trying to lower the latencies, aim for 4-4-4-12. Do this in memset first, if it proves stable, you can transfer the settings to the BIOS. If it doesn't work first time, try increasing the DDR volts to 2.2v. Not all RAM responds well to lower latencies, but it's certainly worth a shot.
Assuming you have a Q6600 G0 on good air cooling, your result is pretty good. Remember to keep your CPU temperatures at a max of about 65c or a little less if possible. The P35 chipset is very good for over clocking, at very high CPU volts (over 1.525v), the DS3 might not have quite the stability in power delivery that you get from the DQ6 version, though I am pretty sure it will be fine up to that point.
You don't mention the specification of your RAM, or what speed it's running at. Assuming it's running well and within it's specified speed, it's worth trying to lower the latencies, aim for 4-4-4-12. Do this in memset first, if it proves stable, you can transfer the settings to the BIOS. If it doesn't work first time, try increasing the DDR volts to 2.2v. Not all RAM responds well to lower latencies, but it's certainly worth a shot.
Hi,
When OCing with the newer motherboards there is a big difference to how fast you can run the FSB between quad and dual cores. As a guide dual cores can be run at 500Mhz plus (some 600+) where as quad cores usually run in the 400-500mhz FSB range although there are always exceptions to the rules. From my own experience getting passed 475mhz on the FSB has proved tricky for my quads ie: On this simple air cooled machine I run 10x420 (will do 10x440 but not chess stable) where as our benchmarking tweaked machine with all its cooling runs 11x470 ... If you do not set the memory yourself in the BIOS or by memset on the fly then as you ramp up the FSB the BIOS automatically tends to slow the memory down by raising the latency :(
I get better memory OCing results from the P35C chipset compared to the much newer X48 (more tweaking needed I guess) as it looks like the memory internal settings have been lowered and Rybka loves fast memory (Rybka 3 will prob be the same)
Regards
When OCing with the newer motherboards there is a big difference to how fast you can run the FSB between quad and dual cores. As a guide dual cores can be run at 500Mhz plus (some 600+) where as quad cores usually run in the 400-500mhz FSB range although there are always exceptions to the rules. From my own experience getting passed 475mhz on the FSB has proved tricky for my quads ie: On this simple air cooled machine I run 10x420 (will do 10x440 but not chess stable) where as our benchmarking tweaked machine with all its cooling runs 11x470 ... If you do not set the memory yourself in the BIOS or by memset on the fly then as you ramp up the FSB the BIOS automatically tends to slow the memory down by raising the latency :(
I get better memory OCing results from the P35C chipset compared to the much newer X48 (more tweaking needed I guess) as it looks like the memory internal settings have been lowered and Rybka loves fast memory (Rybka 3 will prob be the same)
Regards
Rybka loves fast memory (Rybka 3 will prob be the same)
I think that Vas said that one of the differences between Rybka 3 and Rybka 2.3.2a is that fast memory will not make a difference anymore.
I think that Vas said that one of the differences between Rybka 3 and Rybka 2.3.2a is that fast memory will not make a difference anymore.
>I think that Vas said that one of the differences between Rybka 3 and Rybka 2.3.2a is that fast memory will not make a difference anymore.
Hi,
I must have missed that and wonder what has changed? .... Anyway the faster latency will give you more bandwidth which can make the system fell snappier overall but faster benchmarks does not always mean stronger chess ie: An 8 core Skulltrail with Rybka is no better in the real world than the quad at 10x420 even though the Fritz benchmark may well be a lot higher, Zappa Mexico 2 on the other hand scales really well on the Skulltrail in comparison, that said in tests skulltrail it is well behind Nehalem :) which is where Intel have been meaning to get to be able to match AMD in the memory controller department etc
Regards
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill