Ad
News

Quad-cores for all, Intel price cut

Published on July 24, 2007

Santa Clara (CA) – Intel’s not-so-secret price cut has been officially announced. The company slashed prices of its entry-level quad-core processors by 50% and also released six new processors in the Core 2 Extreme, Core 2 Quad and Core 2 Duo lines. The Read more

Alienware announces desktop PC with Intel's latest quad-core processor

Published on January 11, 2007

Alienware said it "will" launch Intel's second quad-core desktop processor, the 2.4 GHz Core 2 Quad Q6600, on its Area-51 7500 desktop system. Read more

Intel to launch pricing campaign in Q2 2007

Published on December 21, 2006

Intel will launch a pricing campaign in the second quarter of 2007, with the price for the Core 2 Quad Q6600 processor falling to $530, according to industry sources. Read more

Micron introduces 78 nm-made DDR2-1066

Published on May 05, 2007

... Read more

Last Reviews & Articles

Four GeForce 9600 GT Cards Compared

Published on September 26, 2008

Manufacturers really love the first Geforce 9. The graphic chip is fast, the cards are inexpensive, and some retailers offer more than ten variations. Read more

Maxtor's Shared Storage Does NAS At Home

Published on September 25, 2008

What do you do with all the data you collect at home? Network attached storage is the solution. We test Maxtor's Shared Storage II and find that it is also suitable for use in small businesses. Read more

SLI & Centrino 2: Gaming Laptops Battle

Published on September 24, 2008

Take four gaming laptops. Arm two of them with SLI and make the others Centrino 2-compatible. You're looking at a high-end collection of the latest mobile technology battling it out for benchmark supremacy and your hard-earned dollars. Read more

1,000 GB: Three Samsung TB Drives

Published on September 23, 2008

Storage vendors split the desktop hard drive market into performance, mainstream, and energy-efficient products. We looked at Samsung’s Spinpoint F, the RAID version and the EcoGreen F to discover how a 1,000 GB drive differs from another. Read more

  Tom's Hardware UK and Ireland Forums » Motherboards & Memory » Memory » Q6600 Overclocking (1066 or 800 RAM)
 

Q6600 Overclocking (1066 or 800 RAM)

Advanced Search

There are 335 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here



Word :   Username :  
 
 Page : 1 2
Next
Author
 Thread : Q6600 Overclocking (1066 or 800 RAM)
 
Profile: stranger
More Information

Last message on previous page:

dashbarron wrote :

Why use 1066 instead of 800 RAM?


Did you read the thread befoe asking this question?

Memory choice is all about how hard you want to overclock and how good is your CPU and whether you are really bothered or not about a second or 2 on superpi 1MB test. If you are not overclocking then DDR2 6400 memory will meet your requirements. No need to buy higher spec if you are not going to use its full capabilities.
lHigher FSB will give you higher bus speed and and run the memory to its best capability at 1:1 . If you run a q6600 say at 450x8 (or 9 if you are so lucky) then running DDR800 memory slightly o/c to DDR900 with tight timming will give good performance/speed. That said I have Ballistix 1066 memory that I run at 1128 on good timming to get a slightly higher bandwidth -depends on what you are looking for. If you run FSB above 450 your 6400 memory may not be capable of o/c to run 1:1 opr higher so you get 1066 memory - its all so cheap now why not just get the 1066 which you know is going to clock higher than the 6400 mermory. If its good quality o/c chips it will also run tight timmings at lower speeds.
Check the article I posted in a previus post re the techrepository o/c quide . It gives a detailed expanation on maximising FSB/BUS etc and a o/c speadsheet where you cen see what the actual speed /CAS response gains would be or not.

Message quoted 1 times
Message edited by sesdave on 11-26-2007 at 04:56:16 PM
Related Product

Register or log in to remove.

Profile: stranger
More Information

wonder if a zalmen 9700 ultra quite would do well at 3.6 .

Profile: stranger
More Information

calebMaster wrote :

wonder if a zalmen 9700 ultra quite would do well at 3.6 .


Iy should be good for that - its a good HSF. Not as good as the thermalright 120 extreme or the ultima with good fans but good enough to o/c the q6600 to 3.6 .

Profile: member
More Information

sesdave wrote :

Did you read the thread befoe asking this question?

Memory choice is all about how hard you want to overclock and how good is your CPU and whether you are really bothered or not about a second or 2 on superpi 1MB test. If you are not overclocking then DDR2 6400 memory will meet your requirements. No need to buy higher spec if you are not going to use its full capabilities.
lHigher FSB will give you higher bus speed and and run the memory to its best capability at 1:1 . If you run a q6600 say at 450x8 (or 9 if you are so lucky) then running DDR800 memory slightly o/c to DDR900 with tight timming will give good performance/speed. That said I have Ballistix 1066 memory that I run at 1128 on good timming to get a slightly higher bandwidth -depends on what you are looking for. If you run FSB above 450 your 6400 memory may not be capable of o/c to run 1:1 opr higher so you get 1066 memory - its all so cheap now why not just get the 1066 which you know is going to clock higher than the 6400 mermory. If its good quality o/c chips it will also run tight timmings at lower speeds.
Check the article I posted in a previus post re the techrepository o/c quide . It gives a detailed expanation on maximising FSB/BUS etc and a o/c speadsheet where you cen see what the actual speed /CAS response gains would be or not.




Thanks, this timing and clock speed stuff is a new concept to me.

Overclocked and Undervolted
Profile: Honorary Poster
More Information

It looks like detailed explanations have been given already, so I will throw my vote in for DDR2-800. There's no practical need for DDR2-1066, even when overclocking.

If you want 3.6GHz (unlikely unless you get a GREAT G0 stepping) you will need an FSB speed of 400MHz. This equates to DDR2-800 at a 1:1 ratio.

Realistically you will need to lower the multiplier on your Q6600 to 8 for a final clockspeed of 3.2GHz. Don't sweat it, you'll never be able to tell the difference.

Profile: stranger
More Information

homerdog wrote :

It looks like detailed explanations have been given already, so I will throw my vote in for DDR2-800. There's no practical need for DDR2-1066, even when overclocking.

If you want 3.6GHz (unlikely unless you get a GREAT G0 stepping) you will need an FSB speed of 400MHz. This equates to DDR2-800 at a 1:1 ratio.

Realistically you will need to lower the multiplier on your Q6600 to 8 for a final clockspeed of 3.2GHz. Don't sweat it, you'll never be able to tell the difference.


A lot of q6600 GO reach 3.6 or more on air with relatively low volts. The latest batches with VID of 1.2 are getting even higher on air- with water 4.0Ghz plus. . The one I have will run 3.8 (475x8)3dmark06 stable on 1.45v but not prime. So if you run a lower multiplier and can run higher FSB (say anything above 450 upward) you may be better with 1066 ram to run 1:1 cos not all 6400 ram o/c that well. 8500s will also give you a more or less guaranteed option of o/c to running on higher ratios e.g 2:3/4:5 etc to gain higher bandwidth. If you dont want to push it hard then buy good 6400 RAM like ballistix and its no problem - 8500 are after all only cherry picked 6400 chips in alot of cases..

Overclocked and Undervolted
Profile: Honorary Poster
More Information

Okay, maybe the G0 steppings are better than I thought they were. I still don't think a FSB of over 400MHz is necessary. Seriously, can you really tell the difference between 3.6 and 3.8GHz?

As a side note, I just realized that it is incorrect to say "an FSB." It sounds wierd, but it should be "a FSB." I won't be going back and editing my posts though :kaola:

Profile: stranger
More Information

homerdog wrote :

Okay, maybe the G0 steppings are better than I thought they were. I still don't think a FSB of over 400MHz is necessary. Seriously, can you really tell the difference between 3.6 and 3.8GHz?

As a side note, I just realized that it is incorrect to say "an FSB." It sounds wierd, but it should be "a FSB." I won't be going back and editing my posts though :kaola:


Any ncreases makes a difference to scores in Superpi and 3dmark etc which are important to overclockers trying to get highest scores and squeezing the last out of the system or just the fun of seeing what it can be pushed to as a rule. The system performance on mine is a lot zippier and responsive with 3.8 - faster bus speed ,memory running slightly higher etc. unfortunately not fully stable though -lol!. So I run 3.6 quite happily 24/7 and its pretty good for all games out at full maxed settings(except crysis which eats PCs) - I have a decent graphic card which helps a lot as games now tend to be re GPU restricted . At 3.6 itw great for video editing, Burning CD performance etc. So unless your in it to see what you can get it maxed to stable - 3.6 is great.

If you havent read it already check this overclocking guide for optimum performance setting re what you actually gain or dont from increasing FSB etc. http://www.thetechrepository.com/showthread.php?t=195
Very interesting and informative


---------------
Q6600 L729A959 SLACR @3.6 (450x8) - 1.425v| P5K Premium| Ultima-90|Gainward 8800GTS 640MB 630/2100| 4x1GB Ballistix 8500C5-DDR1128 - 5,5,4,9 2.2v| 2x Hitachi T7K500 SATA -Matrix RAID 0/1| Hiper 580R
Profile: journeyman
More Information

Guys, if I may ask, how does ram mhz effect cpu overclocking? I'm planning to get an Q6600 as well and overclocking to 3.0, and I didn't know that I have to pick the rams carefully until now.

Nuke it, Nuke it good!
Profile: Eternal Poster
More Information

Normally it is best to run the ram @ 1:1 timings with the cpu.

 

So even a Q6600 @ 3.0 only needs ram that runs at 667.

 

Thats why many say just get 800.

 

You can even drop the multiplier 1 notch and run 3.2 @ 800...

 

For extreme memory over clocking you can drop the multi further...so you get moderate CPU speeds(still over 3.0 and fast ram)


Message edited by nukemaster on 11-29-2007 at 07:30:00 PM

---------------
http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/4269/inukexz9.png
http://tinyurl.com/26uxxb - Core2 Temp Guide? http://tinyurl.com/cj3pw - VGA power use?
http://tinyurl.com/5v55wk - Core2 Memory performance? http://tinyurl.com/6pmbke - SLI/Xfire?
Overclocked and Undervolted
Profile: Honorary Poster
More Information

@ sesdave: So in gaming and every day use you can really tell the difference between 3.6 and 3.8GHz? I don't have the right to doubt you because I have never even seen a Q6600, much less been able to use one, but jeez that's hard to believe. I can't even tell the difference between 2.0 and 2.5GHz on my x2 3800+ unless I'm benching.

Profile: stranger
More Information

homerdog wrote :

@ sesdave: So in gaming and every day use you can really tell the difference between 3.6 and 3.8GHz? I don't have the right to doubt you because I have never even seen a Q6600, much less been able to use one, but jeez that's hard to believe. I can't even tell the difference between 2.0 and 2.5GHz on my x2 3800+ unless I'm benching.


Not quite - I said the PC seemed zippier. I was refering to the operating system(I run Vista x64 so I need all the help I can get-lol) You get slight increases in benches etc but no real gain in games and real day apps. Thats mainly due to the fact the are not optimised to use mutithreading. The only real advantage a Q6600 give you over dual core at present is improved scores on 3dmark06 and times on video rendering and burning CD. But the are the furture as games and apps will be moving in the direction of multithreading. But they are cheap and overlcok relatively easily with a decent motherboard. But that said penryn,x48 and DDR3 are round the corner. Another expensive adventure for no real purpose apart from fun - its as bad as when I used to play with cars to make them go faster and look flashier- lol!


Message edited by sesdave on 11-30-2007 at 01:27:06 PM
Profile: journeyman
More Information

Ok, help! Im on a 680i and i have the ultra tec cooling system, but for the life of me i cant get any better than 315, not even 315.25 ( vista doesnt even start then) and a stable one of 305 resulting in a horrible OC of 2.745 MAX.

Now, I haven't messed with any voltages as im not sure whats safe and how they effect the clocking ability. Am I doing something wrong or did i just get a complete dud?

Message quoted 1 times
Message edited by Jixz on 12-31-2007 at 08:23:44 AM
Nuke it, Nuke it good!
Profile: Eternal Poster
More Information