Lower the CPU Multiplier?

G

glenlivet17

n00b
Joined
Dec 4, 2006
Messages
52
My setup is as follows: Asus P5N32-E SLI, E6600, G.Skill 800 HZ's.

My question is if it is best for me to lower my CPU multiplier to 6x from 9x. Therefore allowing me to up my FSB to 400 to match my RAM and then start upping my FSB speeds from there. Is this a recommended way to start overclocking or is there any reaason I should leave my multiplier at 9x?
 
ive read review after review when the conroe's were first coming out about people messing with the multiplier. unless your computer is extremely CPU limited for some reason, with these chips you should be using the max multi.
 
So with the stock cooler on the E6600 is there somewhere I should be shooting for with a 9x multiplier? I doubt I would get up to 400MHz (which is ideal I assume with 800MHz RAM) with the stock cooler.
 
If you can't reach 400 mhz, you can lower the latencies to compensate since when the speed is lower, latencies is usually tighter.
 
if you are asking how far you can overclock this chip on a stock HSF, most people can get 3.2ghz from a 6600 fairly easily. as you up the speed, just watch your temps when you increase voltage as necessary to maintain a stable system
 
8x400 should be doable, with hopefully no more than 1.375v. that should be all you'd want to push on stock hsf though.. it gets into the 60's there already
 
Would an E6600 require a change in vCore (or any voltage for that matter) when changing from 8x400 to 9x400 since the FSB remains the same?
 
I lowered my multiplier to 8 and increased my FSB to 401 for the same reason you are describing. I've ran Orthos and FEAR at the same time. It's pretty stable, but the temps were in the 60's. It didn't crash though. So if this is the route which you want to go, it should work. At least it did for me.
 
jbweldon04 said:
I lowered my multiplier to 8 and increased my FSB to 401 for the same reason you are describing. I've ran Orthos and FEAR at the same time. It's pretty stable, but the temps were in the 60's. It didn't crash though. So if this is the route which you want to go, it should work. At least it did for me.
Click to expand...

jbweldon04, have you tried increasing your multi to 9 with the same settings. I'm curious as to whether it will require a step up in vcore etc.?
 
the 6600 should be run on multiplier of 9 and ram at 1:1 ratio for the best overclock, there has been many many many people including myself trying to get a better OC with different settings, and all to my knowledge have failed. also remember when you change the fsb from 400 to 401 atleast with my p5w dh the NB strap changes from 1066 to 1333 and causes all sorts of latency headaches, so although it doesnt make a ton of sense; 9x400 is faster then 9x401. 8x450 = 9x400 so unless the CPU is the bottleneck (which the 6600 is definately not) you would always go with 9 to get more from your ram.

to answer Mansize_tissue questions, if you are running 8x400 you would probably need more volts to get another 800mhz when you change to 9, however if it were stable and all you did was lower the multiplier, you wouldnt have to raise the vcore in order to put it back at 9. voltage all depends on if the system is stable/bootable. if it isnt, you can always try giving it more juice, but the answer to your question "does it require more voltage" is not a yes or no answer.
 
Thank you ghost6303. If i was aiming at a moderate overclock of 3.2Ghz with an E6600 and dd2-800 RAM would having an 8x multi and 400Mhz FSB be a better solution, then the RAM can run at its rated settings.

My knowledge about vCore settings is still a little blurry, however. If i was stable with an overclock of 8x400 at its optimum voltage, would it require an increase in voltage to step the multi up to 9x?

Basically, do you have to change voltages in correlation to the FSB or final clock speed?

Thanks for your help so far!
 
final clock speed. and yes, if your goal is 3.2, then 8x400 is the way to go 1:1 with ram.
 
if you keep the ram at 1:1 a multi of 9 and fsb of 355 will give you 3.2ghz. i dont know why you keep saying 8 unless you meant 9. it should be on 9. you should be able to get here with a small (2-4 steps) increase in vcore


9x400 is what I am running 24/7 stable which gives you just under 3.6ghz @1.475 vcore
you should be able to hit 3.2 with a little less then 1.4 vcore, i would try around 1.375 to start

and you dont change the voltage in corelation with anything, you increase the speed untill it becomes unstable (wont run normaly, crashes, wont POST, blue screens, etc) when this happens, increase the voltage a small amount and try again, repeat untill it works or the temps get out of control. remember getting to the desktop doesnt mean it is stable, make sure you have some benchmarking programs (orthos, prime95) to stress it to see if it will break and where
 
ghost6303 said:
if you keep the ram at 1:1 a multi of 9 and fsb of 355 will give you 3.2ghz. i dont know why you keep saying 8 unless you meant 9. it should be on 9. you should be able to get here with a small (2-4 steps) increase in vcore
Click to expand...

I think he's saying "8" because that would allow for Perfect DDR800 RAM speeds when overclocking, making a full 1:1 ratio.

We're not back in the P4 era though... Clockspeed and overall RAM frequency are more important than matching 1:1 FSB to RAM ratios...

The end result should be to get the highest clockspeed possible, while getting the fastest RAM speed too... going 7 x 460 would "probably" get you the best theoretical performance, although tests have shown that, as long as the RAM is operating over DDR2-667 speeds you won't notice any real difference...
 
I think 8 is the best, i'm running 8 @ 425 1:1 3.33 GHZ. I can run 3d Mark, Orthos and stream Live TV to two other TVs. I've run that for a few days with no problems. I did try 7 and it worked fine but went with the more reliable FSB speed.
 
I'm not interested in getting as much out of my system as possible, i just want a nice stable overclock with a low vCore to keep my temps. low. So in this case wouldn't it be best to have a 1:1 ratio with a 400Mhz FSB and have the RAM at its rated speed and latencies. I would rather have the RAM running at its rated speed, than increasing the speed (i.e. not having a 1:1 ratio) and loosening the timings. Running 9x400 would give a higher clockspeed than 8x400, however it would require higher voltages and possibly instability and i'm perfectly happy with a total clock speed of 3.2Ghz.

So, on order to get a modest overclock of 3.2Ghz would 8x400 be better than 9x355?
 
Mansize_tissue said:
I'm not interested in getting as much out of my system as possible, i just want a nice stable overclock with a low vCore to keep my temps. low. So in this case wouldn't it be best to have a 1:1 ratio with a 400Mhz FSB and have the RAM at its rated speed and latencies. I would rather have the RAM running at its rated speed, than increasing the speed (i.e. not having a 1:1 ratio) and loosening the timings. Running 9x400 would give a higher clockspeed than 8x400, however it would require higher voltages and possibly instability and i'm perfectly happy with a total clock speed of 3.2Ghz.

So, on order to get a modest overclock of 3.2Ghz would 8x400 be better than 9x355?
Click to expand...

I am interested in this as well. Also, is a better than stock cooler needed (suggested) for this?
 
I would say that the stock cooler would be fine since it's not an extreme overclock. Just ensure that the case as adequate airflow and vcore is as low as possible. I plan on getting an after market cooler, probably zalman 9500, just to be on the safe side.
 
I thought I said it was fine in every post I've made in this topic?? Yes, 8x400 is the way to go.
 
Thank you for the confirmation, it's just that some people think different. How difficult would it be to get 8x400 from an E6600, average DDR2 800 RAM and an eVGA 680i? I'm hoping it'll be a breeze, but i could be very, very wrong.
 
The reason I don't have my FSB in the high 300's is because of strap issues with this motherboard. Somewhere between 350-400 there are issues. To avoid them I just dropped the multiplier down and increased the FSB to 401. Seemed to work better than what I was at, 365 with a multiplier of 9. I ran orthos on blend for over 12 hours.
 
Mansize_tissue said:
Thank you for the confirmation, it's just that some people think different. How difficult would it be to get 8x400 from an E6600, average DDR2 800 RAM and an eVGA 680i? I'm hoping it'll be a breeze, but i could be very, very wrong.
Click to expand...

real easy, even with stock cooler. you may need to bump vcore up to around 1.375v, but it shouldn't require more than that unless you have some of the older weeks or possibly some of the very new ones
 
Okay then. That's what i was hoping for. I have another question, though. If i have a stock E6600 with DDR2 800 RAM, what speed will the RAM be running at. Will it be in a 1:1 ratio with FSB speed, so at 533Mhz?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top