The Official OC (OverClocking) Thread!

Run a stability test on it and see how long it's stable. Also the E4300 is an underclocked Core 2 duo with a rated FSB speed of 800 MHz that comes from a series of CPUs that were made to run at 1066 MHz and has a rated overclocking potential of 3.4 GHz. To extrapolate from that and make recommendations to someone preparing to overclock a Q6700 which is already running at 1066 MHz with two sets of unmatched dimms is reckless. Do a little web surfing to some serious overclock forums and find out what experienced overclockers have to say. This experienced overclocker says unless you want to give up performance and potential stick with two dimms.

Now what about that memory bench.

 

Memory benchmark, which, Sandra? Everest? I've only recently posted one of those...

Here it is again.
http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/4012/memoryreadcm8.jpg
I know this isn't a particularly good result, but in the real world it hasn't affected me in the slightest - I get the same performance in CPU intensive apps like winrar and high end games that other people do.

 

That's what brobear used to get on his Dell P4 system. Now you may not notice anything while using it but you are losing performance.

What I've been trying to say is that using 4 dimms for overclocking is antithetical. Most people who've tried it ended up running memory speeds quite low. Now provide a memory shot using CPU-Z.

 

Sam

Do one with Sisoft 2007, I think that's an old version of everest and it is probably not a good measure of a Core2 duo.

 

http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/5031/cpuzramrw4.jpg
http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/7755/sandraramnr1.jpg

 

Sam

You would have a better performing system if you were drop 2 of the dims and increase you memory speed. A 32 bit system can only address 4096 megabytes of memory. That includes all items in your system such as your graphics card so by the time it all adds up you're using about 3.25 Gigabytes fo the total. Your system is running at about DDR2 350.

 

as it stands right now, I gain more performance from not running out of memory than I do from getting rid of it. I used to run the exact same overclock with only two sticks of RAM and I really don't notice the difference at all, and on that basis I don't really care if my system is underperforming in synthetic tests, because in the real world it isn't.

 

Nice rationale but one that is unfortunately probably not true. your memory settings are bottlenecking your system, but it's your system. Just don't suggest that kind of performance off on someone else. If you've noticed I am also running 4 gigabytes of memory, but on two sticks instead of 4 and hence great performance and no bottlenecks.

 

thank you very much!
the voltages helped a looooooot
well, i can boot it at 350 x 6multi for 2100mhz (this was just to see where the motherboard's limits were
now i am stable at 337.6 x 10multi for 3375mhz! with 1.4v (CPU voltage)...
is this a good start? and can i take it higher or should i just live with this overclock? the CPU now idles at 18 degrees C instead of the 17 degrees C I was seeing before the overclock...
sorry for such a late response (i had summer school in the morning)
thanks,
-im1992

 

You should be able to take higher but you should test it for temperatures and stability along the way. If things get difficult to move higher then try it with only two sticks of memory.

 

this is with only one stick (1 gb of Platinum)
is it true that switching from Channel A to Channel B increases overclock?
i think i have reached the limits of my CPU cause 10 x 350 wouldn't boot...but 6 x 350 would....
9 x 350 also boots up...
could you tell me which voltages effect the CPU overclock directly? i don't need a higher FSB, all i need is for the CPU to run at 350 x 10 or 340 x10 and i would be happy...
thanks,
-im1992

 

Go ahead and add a second stick it won't make any difference unless one stick is bad.

I doubt it. LOL

 

well i just did 350 x 10 and it worked!!! with 1.5v (is this bad?)
will this hurt my CPU in the long run (1 year?)
as long as i keep it cool, i am good right?
thanks,
-im1992

 

Are you certain that you need 1.5v? At only 3.5 GHz I figure 1.4-1.44 should be enough.

 

well
it doesnt matter cause the moment i ran Orthos...it crashed....even restarted by it self (no BSOD or anything!)
-im1992

 

i think my cpu just sucks and its gonna stay at 3.3ghz...
i will keep trying but i doubt that it will run at anything above that...

 

You can take it higher, but if I were you I would take it higher only for a couple of hours, and make the 3.3Ghz my 24/7 speed.

BTW, what are your load temps(for the cores).

Oh and I DOUBT it's your CPU. Probably your motherboard holding you back.

 

That doesn't mean that it's your processor it could be one of the other settings below. Increase everything by the smallest allowed increment.

1.2v HT Voltage: 1.2v to 1.6v in 0.5v increments
NB Core Voltage: 1.2v to 2.0v in 0.5v increments
SB Core Voltage: 1.5v to 1.6v in 0.5v increments
CPU VTT Voltage: 1.2v to 1.55v in 0.5v increments

 

still gotta do testing on it
right now, i am feeling luck just cause it boots at the speed! i mean, before, it didn't want to go up even 50mhz!
the help Sophocles has provided is priceless
as soon as i get it tested, i will post the load temps...
-im1992

 

does the multiplier get affected by these other voltages?
i mean the motherboard can go to 350mhz and 6x multiplier just fine, the problem starts if i use 350mhz fsb and 10x multiplier...
-im1992