over clocking q6600 2.4

2Air · Post by **2Air** » 07 Aug 2009, 14:34

hi

would i want to oc my cpu via bios like in this vid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mjz5h2yGJuc

or via some software, if this is possible

Post by **Paradigm Shifter** » 07 Aug 2009, 15:10

I haven't checked that link.

However:

There are lots of sites out there that will give you help with overclocking.

Best thing to do is find the maximum safe temperatures and voltages for your CPU (I think it's 75*C or so for a Q6600, and 1.5v) then have a go. If you've got a decent motherboard, it should be prettty easy. Don't go nuts, take it up a little at a time. Make sure to back up everything first, in case something goes wrong and you need to return to stock, format and reinstall. Good cooling is important. With the stock cooler, I wouldn't even bother.

If you've got an Asus motherboard, or any half-decent one really... there should be some sort of overclocking tool included on the driver CD, or available for download from the manufacturers website.

Take some time to research. Have a look on places like XtremeSystems to see how the good overclockers have done.

Most importantly: overclocking will void your warranty (except in some cases) so it's done purely at your own risk. If something goes wrong, we're not to blame.

...

I just had this nagging suspicion occur: the spammers are getting smarter all the time... is this spam?

Post by **MobsterOO7** » 07 Aug 2009, 17:45

Check out his other posts, I'm going with not spam.

2Air · Post by **2Air** » 08 Aug 2009, 09:24

i do have a P35 neo motherboard
but overclocking my cpu might also draw extra power from the psu, won't it?

in any case, i may not go for that option as i want to upgrade from 8800gtx to a gtx275 and with a 500watt psu, oc-ing wouldn't be too much i think

thx for the advice though

Post by **Paradigm Shifter** » 08 Aug 2009, 09:45

Yeah, I saw the others just after. ;)

P35 Neo. MSI board...

A Q6600 should make it to 3GHz very easily.

Change the FSB from 266MHz to 333MHz. Probably won't need to increase the voltage at all. I didn't.

Effectively a free 25% overclock. It'll run a bit hotter, and pull a little more power... it's worth a try, though if you feel that you need a little more juice. :)

I've looked at the manual for (what I think) is your board... there are lots and lots of 'P35 Neo' variants, I just went with the basic one...

You want 'Frequency/Voltage Control' in the BIOS. Change the value of 'Adjust CPU FSB Frequency' from 266 to 333. Make sure that it hasn't altered the speed that the RAM runs at upwards, or you'll have problems because the RAM is out of spec.

...

To be honest, unless you're video encoding on the CPU, you'll get more of a boost out of a GTX275 than you will an overclock.

2Air · Post by **2Air** » 08 Aug 2009, 12:18

it's not that i can't run games on the th2go
i can run them fine on 3072*768 but not smooth on *1024

i just figure upgrading to gtx275 would be the boost i need
although it's a newer card that has 896mb, that's "only" 128mb more than my 8800gtx

or is that comparison out of proportion, seeing a gtx275 has newer technologie implemented

what about an evga gtx275 FTW with 1792mb?
would that draw more power from my psu? i guess so.

so the safest option is a standard gtx275

Post by **Paradigm Shifter** » 08 Aug 2009, 12:25

Yeah, more VRAM will mean more power draw... but not that much more.

VRAM is important with TH most of all, due to sheer number of pixels that it needs to push... :)

whismerhill · Post by **whismerhill** » 08 Aug 2009, 13:42

what about an evga gtx275 FTW with 1792mb?
would that draw more power from my psu? i guess so.

so the safest option is a standard gtx275

memory draws an almost negligible amount of Watt compared to the total power consumption of the card

I advise 1792mb

did not find any better example but here : http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/2723/galaxy_geforce_gtx_285_2gb_tri_fan_graphics_card/index17.html
you can see that between a GTX275 896MB & a GTX285 2GB the difference at max load is 16W or so

so yes it will draw more power but not to the point of having a problem

whismerhill · Post by **whismerhill** » 08 Aug 2009, 13:52

i do have a P35 neo motherboard
but overclocking my cpu might also draw extra power from the psu, won't it?

yes it will
the basic processor consumption formulae is this :
CPUconsumption = constant * frequency * voltage * voltage

so this means that a higher frequency will multiply the consumption but not that much since quad cores @2.4Ghz don't really have a very high consumption..

though if you need to increase voltages that's a whole different matter, since as you can see in the formulae, any increase in voltage has a much more dramatic effect on consumption!

basically if you increase your quad core @3Ghz without touching the voltage, power consumption should be around what a real quad core of the same generation rated @3Ghz by intel would draw, so you might want to search the internet for what a QX6800 (2.93Ghz) would draw and increase the value a bit

2Air · Post by **2Air** » 08 Aug 2009, 17:55

can any of you comfort me :D with saying a GTX275 will sufice

although it's a newer card that has 896mb, that's "only" 128mb more than my 8800gtx :oops:

so will that give a noticable performance boost over my 8800gtx none the less?

thx

Post by **Paradigm Shifter** » 08 Aug 2009, 18:10

On paper, yes - it's got 240 shader's instead of 128, and the GT200 design is more efficient than G80, too. In practice, in scenarios where you aren't running out of VRAM it'll be significantly faster. In scenarios where you are running out of VRAM... it'll choke a bit. But it'll still be faster.

whismerhill · Post by **whismerhill** » 08 Aug 2009, 19:31

can any of you comfort me :D with saying a GTX275 will sufice

although it's a newer card that has 896mb, that's "only" 128mb more than my 8800gtx :oops:

so will that give a noticable performance boost over my 8800gtx none the less?

thx

memory ain't the one and only thing which makes the gfx card performance

it's quite the contrary in fact, one just need enough memory so that the game won't run out of it, then any additional amount is totally unnecessary

the main thing is the GPU itself and its speed, check out the reviews if you're still not convinced ;)

2Air · Post by **2Air** » 09 Aug 2009, 20:00

i'm seriously leaning toward the 1792 version now
because like you all advise i need the extra vram for my th2go

let hope my system can run the card

thank you all for your help, it was very very much appreciated!!!!!

Frag Maniac · Post by **Frag Maniac** » 09 Aug 2009, 23:26

I'm still wondering where that 2nd post was regarding your which brand GTX275 I should buy is. I was going to reply but the one thread I saw was locked.

Anyway, if you can wait until Oct, getting an EVGA GTX275 might leave you the possibility of upgrading to a GTX300 series DX11 GPU within their 90 day upgrade program window. The Dx 11 cards are supposed to be out Jan 2010.

2Air · Post by **2Air** » 10 Aug 2009, 10:03

allright people i have another tech question for you

i read on another forum that i would need a true 64bit OS in order for the gtx 275 1792mb to run at full potential

is this true or not?
i have a 32bit xp now, but could upgrade if need be

headaches included, installing evrything from scratch :?

Post by **Gilly** » 10 Aug 2009, 11:06

if you use a 32bit OS it can only address 3GB ram (talking about vista and XP here).

so the graphics card memory would take 1792 of the 3064 (or whatever it is)... leaving you like 1.3GB of ram. plus the page file.

2Air · Post by **2Air** » 10 Aug 2009, 11:41

so if i have 4 gig in my system
using xp 32 bit, games are played with only 3 gig?

best thing is to upgrade to 64bit os and the gtx will use all its and system memory?

Post by **Paradigm Shifter** » 10 Aug 2009, 12:23

if you use a 32bit OS it can only address 3GB ram (talking about vista and XP here).

so the graphics card memory would take 1792 of the 3064 (or whatever it is)... leaving you like 1.3GB of ram. plus the page file.

This is interesting. Partly because it's widely considered 100% accurate... and yet for some reason it isn't always.

I've got 4GB of RAM in an XP system. When I had a 512MB 8800GT installed, maximum available RAM was 3.25GB. I pulled the 8800GT and installed a 1GB Radeon 4850, maximum available RAM 3.25GB. Out of interest, I pulled that card too and stuffed in an old 2MB PCI Rage II card... maximum available RAM 3.25GB. PAE extensions are not enabled.

By the logic of subtracting RAM... I should not be seeing 3.25GB of RAM with the 1GB 4850 installed. It should be at most 3GB, and likely 2.25GB. And yet I am seeing 3.25GB - the same amount as with a 512MB card, or a 2MB card. The system is perfectly stable and happy...

so if i have 4 gig in my system
using xp 32 bit, games are played with only 3 gig?

best thing is to upgrade to 64bit os and the gtx will use all its and system memory?

On paper, a 32-bit OS can only address a maximum of 4GB of memory. That is system RAM and graphics RAM. Conventional wisdom is that running a 32-bit OS with 4GB of RAM means only 3GB is available. Because people were stupid, and couldn't understand this, Microsoft patched Windows Vista 32-bit SP1 to tell people that in 4GB systems there was 4GB installed but only 3GB was 'available'. It saves non-technical people from trying to return the systems they've bought because they "Don't have the right amount of memory" or whatever.

However, Microsoft never went back and did this with XP, so with 4GB of RAM in the system, XP will report anything from 3GB to 3.8GB of available RAM. There is a trick called "physical address extension" that is supposed to fake 48-bit support in a 32-bit OS so that all 4GB of RAM can be addressed separately to the graphics RAM... but it doesn't always work properly and some programs don't like it.

...

If you want to avoid potential headaches... yes, get a 64-bit OS. If you can use XP until October 22nd, or wait until then... you can move to Windows 7 x64.

2Air · Post by **2Air** » 10 Aug 2009, 12:40

i will try the 64bit first before windows 7
i had vista and ran into lots of compatibility issues with games

i want to avoid that with windows 7

Post by **Gilly** » 10 Aug 2009, 14:29

my GF's system has 4GB ram and a 512MB graphics card,

DXdiag shows 3326MB ram available...

Vista 32bit latest updates

so i guess my above statement is a bit wrong :P

Widescreen Gaming Forum