AMD Phenom II X6 Overclocking and Ranking Thread

[Domokun]

Originally Posted by C-BuZz

I'm definitely going the 1090T BE as soon as I can find some stock in Melb... That way we don't have to worry about FSB issues.

I may be misunderstanding your post (or the AMD architecture) and this post could make me look very silly (so correct me if I'm wrong), but I thought that the HT reference clock (which you are referring to as front side bus) was of no other significance than to regulate the other components (i.e. CPU, HT link, NB, and RAM) frequencies via multipliers.

For example, the default setup for the X6 1055T would look something like this:

Reference Clock:	200MHz
CPU Multiplier:		14x [Locked]
CPU Frequency:		2800MHz
CPU NB Multiplier:	10x
CPU NB Frequency:	2000MHz
HT Link Multiplier:	10x
HT Link Frequency:	2000MHz
RAM Multiplier:		8x
RAM Frequency:		1600MHz

Overclocking the X6 1055T to 3.5GHz may look something like this:

Reference Clock:	250MHz
CPU Multiplier:		14x [Locked]
CPU Frequency:		3500MHz
CPU NB Multiplier:	8x
CPU NB Frequency:	2000MHz
HT Link Multiplier:	8x
HT Link Frequency:	2000MHz
RAM Multiplier:		6x
RAM Frequency:		1500MHz

Assuming the HT link and NB frequencies are kept as close to default (2000MHz) as possible by reducing the multipliers, wouldn't the barrier you are hitting be a result of the CPU and/or RAM frequencies, and not the HT reference clock?

[Mau1wurf1977]

Thats easy to find out!

All you need to do is lower the CPU mutli and Memory speed to the lowest settings and then you find out the max FSB.

The problem with this cpu is that it runs quite slow (2.8 GHz) and that gives you a low multi. So you need a high reference clock to reach 4 GHz.

I wouldn't buy that cpu if you want to OC that high. Buy the 1090

[Domokun]

Originally Posted by Mau1wurf1977

Thats easy to find out...

Maybe my previous post wasn't worded clearly. My question is essentially this: how can you hit a barrier on the HT reference clock when it is essentially just a number that is multiplied by the other components (i.e. CPU, HT link, NB, and RAM)?

[Mau1wurf1977]

Because it has a limit. Simple as that.

Changing the ref clock changes all these other clocks through mutlis. Or put another way all the other clocks (CPU, RAM, HT) are derived from the reference clock. These multis can be lowered to keep everything in check.

But the ref clock maxes out at some point. In the old days it was called FSB.

[bennyg]

as someone who's spent a fair bit of time buggerising around with my laptop's CPU which heavily uses TurboBoost (from 1.6GHz stock up to 2.8GHz) I can say from experience...

...there's no monitoring program out there yet that can give a full picture of what's going on.

Tmonitor64 gives an indication of "how" it's working but is unreliable as far as actual speeds go. CPUz reports the highest multi found in the CPU in that second, others like HWInfo report the highest multi in each core (multiple cores can have a turbo'ed multiplier across the same second but not simultaneously) i7turbo gives an "average multiplier" but that's of no help to you guys as not i7?

The number of people who don't understand TurboBoost and think their 45W i7-720qm is running at 2.8GHz on all 4 cores

[Mau1wurf1977]

AMD users have "AMD Overdrive" directly from AMD. It should tell you exactly what is going on. You can even lower Turbo ratios for each core, its really an amazing software.

[C-BuZz]

Originally Posted by Domokun

*snip*

The Cpu multi is not locked downwards. The FSB plays a one of the biggest roles on Overclocking. As you've just seen, if it tops out 260fsb there's not much you can do about it. Everything else ties in with it.

When I overclock, I usually like to keep everything 1:1 ratio with the FSB or as close to as possible.

So at 260fsb it looks like this:

Reference Clock: 260MHz
CPU Multiplier: 14x [Locked upwards]
CPU Frequency: 3640MHz
CPU NB Multiplier: 10x
CPU NB Frequency: 2600MHz
HT Link Multiplier: 10x
HT Link Frequency: 2600MHz
RAM Multiplier: 5x
RAM Frequency: 1300MHz (generic crap)

I've obviously reduced all these to well under that however in an attempt to overcome the 260fsb issue I'm having, to no avail. But on my mobo, these settings are rock solid. 1fsb over 260mhz on this mobo & its' game over, system wont even boot.

C-BuZz

[sanousie]

Originally Posted by C-BuZz

The Cpu multi is not locked downwards. The FSB plays a one of the biggest roles on Overclocking. As you've just seen, if it tops out 260fsb there's not much you can do about it. Everything else ties in with it.

When I overclock, I usually like to keep everything 1:1 ratio with the FSB or as close to as possible.

So at 260fsb it looks like this:

Reference Clock: 260MHz
CPU Multiplier: 14x [Locked upwards]
CPU Frequency: 3640MHz
CPU NB Multiplier: 10x
CPU NB Frequency: 2600MHz
HT Link Multiplier: 10x
HT Link Frequency: 2600MHz
RAM Multiplier: 5x
RAM Frequency: 1300MHz (generic crap)

I've obviously reduced all these to well under that however in an attempt to overcome the 260fsb issue I'm having, to no avail. But on my mobo, these settings are rock solid. 1fsb over 260mhz on this mobo & its' game over, system wont even boot.

C-BuZz

I had the exact same prob at 250fsb, But than i increased every voltage on the motherboard just a tad and i got 270 stable, give this a try, also try disabling CnQ and C1E support and you might be able to get a higher oc, I disabled them, now i have 301fsb linx stable.

[mAJORD]

Originally Posted by C-BuZz

The Cpu multi is not locked downwards. The FSB plays a one of the biggest roles on Overclocking. As you've just seen, if it tops out 260fsb there's not much you can do about it. Everything else ties in with it.

When I overclock, I usually like to keep everything 1:1 ratio with the FSB or as close to as possible.

So at 260fsb it looks like this:

Reference Clock: 260MHz
CPU Multiplier: 14x [Locked upwards]
CPU Frequency: 3640MHz
CPU NB Multiplier: 10x
CPU NB Frequency: 2600MHz
HT Link Multiplier: 10x
HT Link Frequency: 2600MHz
RAM Multiplier: 5x
RAM Frequency: 1300MHz (generic crap)

I've obviously reduced all these to well under that however in an attempt to overcome the 260fsb issue I'm having, to no avail. But on my mobo, these settings are rock solid. 1fsb over 260mhz on this mobo & its' game over, system wont even boot.

C-BuZz

Have you tried hard resetting a few times after it wont post?

[mAJORD]

Originally Posted by C-BuZz

The Cpu multi is not locked downwards. The FSB plays a one of the biggest roles on Overclocking. As you've just seen, if it tops out 260fsb there's not much you can do about it. Everything else ties in with it.

When I overclock, I usually like to keep everything 1:1 ratio with the FSB or as close to as possible.

So at 260fsb it looks like this:

Reference Clock: 260MHz
CPU Multiplier: 14x [Locked upwards]
CPU Frequency: 3640MHz
CPU NB Multiplier: 10x
CPU NB Frequency: 2600MHz
HT Link Multiplier: 10x
HT Link Frequency: 2600MHz
RAM Multiplier: 5x
RAM Frequency: 1300MHz (generic crap)

I've obviously reduced all these to well under that however in an attempt to overcome the 260fsb issue I'm having, to no avail. But on my mobo, these settings are rock solid. 1fsb over 260mhz on this mobo & its' game over, system wont even boot.

C-BuZz

Have you tried hard resetting a few times after it wont post?

[dmandn]

Originally Posted by bennyg

as someone who's spent a fair bit of time buggerising around with my laptop's CPU which heavily uses TurboBoost (from 1.6GHz stock up to 2.8GHz) I can say from experience...

...there's no monitoring program out there yet that can give a full picture of what's going on.

Tmonitor64 gives an indication of "how" it's working but is unreliable as far as actual speeds go. CPUz reports the highest multi found in the CPU in that second, others like HWInfo report the highest multi in each core (multiple cores can have a turbo'ed multiplier across the same second but not simultaneously) i7turbo gives an "average multiplier" but that's of no help to you guys as not i7?

The number of people who don't understand TurboBoost and think their 45W i7-720qm is running at 2.8GHz on all 4 cores

Since when is a i7 45W? I think I want one of those! Maybe you mean 45nm. Also as already said AMD have the covered.

[Apokalipse]

Originally Posted by m1one

Unfortunately , if it turns out to be the PS ?
I remember when I was using a 350W PS , my computer was doing strange things [ PS just could not handle OCing ]
So I got a 450W PS and all was well for a little while , but pushing higher GHZ and adding hardware stressed out the 450 and one day it blew up .

Thankfully all my hardware was OK , so I went out and got a 650 that lasted a long time . When these quads came out , I bumped it up to 830 , and now when I watch the voltage , I see the need for more .

If it's rated for 830W, it doesn't tell you
* if that's what it can output constantly 100% of the time, or just under ideal conditions for a couple of minutes
- a lot of cheap PSU's blow up if you actually try drawing the rated power from it (eg actually drawing 450W from a cheap "450W" PSU). Whereas a good 450W PSU might actually be able to output 550W for a while and remain stable.
* if it can keep the volts stable and clean under varying degrees of load

Not to mention, cheaper PSU's tend to be very inefficient, which means more heat, and can die much quicker as a result.

Originally Posted by m1one

This is just me , I like using a PS that is not strained in anyway what so ever . So if my computer draws 500W under heavy load , possibly more .. but just as an example , I would want a PS rated double that .

I would want a good PSU that can actually output what it's rated for, stably, 100% of the time.

Yeah it's generally good to get a PSU that can supply more power than is needed.
1000W is way higher than most systems would generally consume however (usually about 250-350W for most gaming systems)
So if it has problems with a PSU that's rated for 600W or 830W, then it would suggest that the PSU is not as good/powerful as it's labelled.

[Mau1wurf1977]

Originally Posted by dmandn

Since when is a i7 45W? I think I want one of those! Maybe you mean 45nm. Also as already said AMD have the covered.

He was talking about

laptop's CPU

[mAJORD]

Originally Posted by C-BuZz

The Cpu multi is not locked downwards. The FSB plays a one of the biggest roles on Overclocking. As you've just seen, if it tops out 260fsb there's not much you can do about it. Everything else ties in with it.

When I overclock, I usually like to keep everything 1:1 ratio with the FSB or as close to as possible.

So at 260fsb it looks like this:

Reference Clock: 260MHz
CPU Multiplier: 14x [Locked upwards]
CPU Frequency: 3640MHz
CPU NB Multiplier: 10x
CPU NB Frequency: 2600MHz
HT Link Multiplier: 10x
HT Link Frequency: 2600MHz
RAM Multiplier: 5x
RAM Frequency: 1300MHz (generic crap)

I've obviously reduced all these to well under that however in an attempt to overcome the 260fsb issue I'm having, to no avail. But on my mobo, these settings are rock solid. 1fsb over 260mhz on this mobo & its' game over, system wont even boot.

C-BuZz

Have you tried hard resetting a few times after it wont post?

[Domokun]

Originally Posted by C-BuZz

The FSB plays a one of the biggest roles on Overclocking. As you've just seen, if it tops out 260fsb there's not much you can do about it.

No worries, I thought the AMD architecture functioned differently in the sense that the HT reference clock was just a number to which others were multiplied. I didn't think that it could actually be limited, but thank you for informing me. Is the HT reference clock limited by the motherboard only?

Originally Posted by mAJORD

Have you tried hard resetting a few times after it wont post?

Originally Posted by mAJORD

Have you tried hard resetting a few times after it wont post?

Originally Posted by mAJORD

Have you tried hard resetting a few times after it wont post?

What are you trying to say?