E8400/E3110 what's your VID?

[Markfw]

well, You are in the ballpark. I told everybody the new 45nm's were not as easy to OC, and from what I have seen its true. go down a little (440)x9) and see how long it goes.

 

[Gillbot]

vcore 1.3875v
mem 2.1v
vtt fsb 1.325v
nb 1.425v
sb io pwr 1.7v
sb core pwr 1.15v

core temp reads rather high on these but with the bump in vcore it's alive at 445x9 running 4004Ghz. idles at 52°C, loaded at 66°C so far.

 

[Gillbot]

20 mins on orthos, so far so good but core temp is reading 70°c on both cores

EDIT, now 72°c

 

[aigomorla]

Gill the chips are good to about 1.4Vcore if you can keep the heat in check.


I actually tortured a E8400 to death by pushing it 1.57Vcore for long periods of loads. It only lasted 1 month and that was under water.

Voltage is like crack to these chips, they love it, they get high off it, and like crack it kills them in the end.

Gill see if increasing your NB voltage 1.45 or 1.475 allows you to decrease vcore voltage. Sometimes they work against each other, so you need to fine tune your voltages.

Also if you dont have any, an antec spot cool over your nb is really recomended once you tip into 400+ fsb. :]

 

[Gillbot]

I have a plethora of case fans blowing over my heat pipes on the mobo and the board has zero issues at 500 fsb. I just wasn't sure since this chip seems to love the voltage! My E6550 took just a small nudge to hit 500fsb, I was dreaming of the same for this chip but alas it doesn't seem to want to be a friendly player. That's ok, so far so good at 4G using 1.3875v at 445fsb x 9.

I was really hoping to hit 4G using 500fsb and a lower multi but it hasn't agreed with that yet no matter what i've thrown at it.

 

[Markfw]

I can;t do more than 447 on my X3350. I say get an Ultra 120 Extreme cooler to get the temps down, and be happy at 4 ghz !

 

[Gillbot]

the 120 extreme won't fit into my case. I'd like to try an ultima-90 but alas, I'm a cheap ass. The only reason I got a Freezer 7 Pro is I got it on clearance from newegg for $16 shipped. Show me another cooler that has a bang-for-buck like that and i'll buy it! I just can't see shelling out $50+ for a cooler that MIGHT net me what, 200 to MAYBE 500 more Mhz at most?

 

[Markfw]

Well, 70c isn;t great, but if you don't run @100% load all the time like I do, then you are fine right now. I have several cpu;s running over 70c all day, but they aren;t 45nm parts.

 

[Gillbot]

Nah, it's chugging through orthos to be sure it'll live at 4g for now. After that it will probably spend most of it's life between 56 and 66°C

 

[Don66]

VID on my E3110 is 1.0875v under load

My E3110 is rolling @ 4.1GHz watercooled 1.33v

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Gillbot
the 120 extreme won't fit into my case. I'd like to try an ultima-90 but alas, I'm a cheap ass. The only reason I got a Freezer 7 Pro is I got it on clearance from newegg for $16 shipped. Show me another cooler that has a bang-for-buck like that and i'll buy it! I just can't see shelling out $50+ for a cooler that MIGHT net me what, 200 to MAYBE 500 more Mhz at most?

Gill the freezer will do okey on the wolfdale. Dualcores cant provide the neccessary heat output for the TRUE to shine.

You wont see that big of a difference on a wolfdale @ your voltage is what i mean. Maybe at best 3-4C lower if you have nice ambients.

Also the U90 would give you less of a benefit. Save yourself the cash, and upgrade the sink when you grab a quadcore if you do.

And heres one that is pretty good and should fit in your case. Make sure you orientate the sink properly. I believe the sink should be pointing upwards.

Ximatec Cooler

 

[Gillbot]

I shoulda skipped this E3110 and went for the Q6600 like I originally planned to. I just thought I'd see more benefit from a dual core @ ~4Ghz than a quad at ~3Ghz or whatever it would hit.

Since my PC is mainly used for email/internet and misc garbage, I was thinking raw MHZ over extra cores. The only thing I do that would utilize multi cores is Supreme Commander and even then I think my 7900GS vid card is hoding me back more than anything else.

EDIT: Ran for ~3 hours last night 445x9 with 1.3875vcore so I guess i'm semi happy with that though I would have preferred 500x8 and a lower vcore.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: Gillbot
I shoulda skipped this E3110 and went for the Q6600 like I originally planned to. I just thought I'd see more benefit from a dual core @ ~4Ghz than a quad at ~3Ghz or whatever it would hit.

Since my PC is mainly used for email/internet and misc garbage, I was thinking raw MHZ over extra cores. The only thing I do that would utilize multi cores is Supreme Commander and even then I think my 7900GS vid card is hoding me back more than anything else.

EDIT: Ran for ~3 hours last night 445x9 with 1.3875vcore so I guess i'm semi happy with that though I would have preferred 500x8 and a lower vcore.

Just curious, are you saying you don't like the performance of your 3110? Or just that you thought you would see a bigger difference and thus should have gone with the quad?

 

[Gillbot]

I was hoping to hit a higher OC than what I got. If I would have known that this one would only get to around 4Ghz with a large amount of volts, I would have opted to get a Q6600 and shot for the same 4GHz and had 4 cores instead of two.

IMHO, 3.6-3.8GHz and quad core would have been better than 4GHz and dual core.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Gillbot
I was hoping to hit a higher OC than what I got. If I would have known that this one would only get to around 4Ghz with a large amount of volts, I would have opted to get a Q6600 and shot for the same 4GHz and had 4 cores instead of two.

IMHO, 3.6-3.8GHz and quad core would have been better than 4GHz and dual core.

Gill honestly i dont think you would see any difference.

The E3110 will actually be better once/if they impliement SSE4. The Wolfdale will also draw less power, so you can save about 10-20 dollars /yr running a wolfdale.

The Wolfdale is also easier to cool with a cheapo sink.

 

[Gillbot]

I've seen better performance in Supreme Commander from the quads though and SSE4 means little to me. I was willing to take a small hit in Sup Com performance by picking the Dual Core over the Quad if I made up for it elsewhere in raw MHz but the minor step from a E6550 @ 3.5G to the E3110 @ 4G wasn't worth the expenditure IMHO. I'm half tempted to put my E6550 back in and resell the E3110 or try and trade it for a Q6600. It's not a BAD chip at all, It just wasn't what I had hoped for and my cheap-ness is making the purchase feel that much worse since to me it feels like I wasted $190.

 

[Tempered81]

sell your 3110 for a q6600.

 

[Gillbot]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
sell your 3110 for a q6600.

Originally posted by: Gillbot
I'm half tempted to put my E6550 back in and resell the E3110 or try and trade it for a Q6600.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Gillbot
I've seen better performance in Supreme Commander from the quads

Oh dayam your an SC player.

Okey i have no comment then being another SC player. Quadcores matter heavily on this game expecially when your map is blown out to the full 80kmx80km and you have 1000 unit cap on a 8 player map.


However if you get hit by the mavor, cybrin rapid fire artilery, or a nuke, your GPU's will scream.

 

[Gillbot]

1.3875v, 4.005GHz, 445x9

I could probably tweak it more but it's running so i'll leave it. I am disappointed though as I was hoping for 500x8 at a minimum + maybe a lower vcore. Had I known this I would have definately gone for the 3.6-3.8+ oc on a quad core.

 

[bfdd]

Aigamorla, I'm moving to a Noctua NH-U12P mostly because they've converted me to a hardcore fan with their 120mm's ( the new ones they're just amazing ) and the fact that I just noticed a reason I'm getting high temps with my Scythe Ninja Rev B, is cause I guess I didn't notice when I put it on but I broke one of the push downs on it and it's not securely on it in 1 corner causing lift =( So when I get this Noctua HSF I should notice a difference maybe I'll be able to OC a bit more =)

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Gillbot
1.3875v, 4.005GHz, 445x9

I could probably tweak it more but it's running so i'll leave it. I am disappointed though as I was hoping for 500x8 at a minimum + maybe a lower vcore. Had I known this I would have definately gone for the 3.6-3.8+ oc on a quad core.

You are dissapointed getting a cutting-edge 4ghz Dual-core on air, that is within a safe Vcore range and temp for $190????? Holy smokes we are getting spoiled by Intel.

The FPS gain in Supcom is extremely minimal with a quad-core. As of this moment, quads are worthless for gamers. Id take a 4.0ghz dual over a 3.2 quad any day.

That video card is bottlenecking you more than anything. With good cards so cheap right now, I would handle that.

 

[Gillbot]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Gillbot
1.3875v, 4.005GHz, 445x9

I could probably tweak it more but it's running so i'll leave it. I am disappointed though as I was hoping for 500x8 at a minimum + maybe a lower vcore. Had I known this I would have definately gone for the 3.6-3.8+ oc on a quad core.

You are dissapointed getting a cutting-edge 4ghz Dual-core on air, that is within a safe Vcore range and temp for $190????? Holy smokes we are getting spoiled by Intel.

The FPS gain in Supcom is extremely minimal with a quad-core. As of this moment, quads are worthless for gamers. Id take a 4.0ghz dual over a 3.2 quad any day.

That video card is bottlenecking you more than anything. With good cards so cheap right now, I would handle that.

Yes, I am spoiled. I am less disappointed in the 4G number and more with the FSB limitation. I would have preferred the 4Ghz come in at 500x8 as opposed to the 445x9.

I disagree with the quad statement though. I had a chance to play with one and the gains were better with quad cores though I do know the video card is the primary bottleneck.

 

[bfdd]

Originally posted by: Gillbot

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Gillbot
1.3875v, 4.005GHz, 445x9

I could probably tweak it more but it's running so i'll leave it. I am disappointed though as I was hoping for 500x8 at a minimum + maybe a lower vcore. Had I known this I would have definately gone for the 3.6-3.8+ oc on a quad core.

You are dissapointed getting a cutting-edge 4ghz Dual-core on air, that is within a safe Vcore range and temp for $190????? Holy smokes we are getting spoiled by Intel.

The FPS gain in Supcom is extremely minimal with a quad-core. As of this moment, quads are worthless for gamers. Id take a 4.0ghz dual over a 3.2 quad any day.

That video card is bottlenecking you more than anything. With good cards so cheap right now, I would handle that.

Yes, I am spoiled. I am less disappointed in the 4G number and more with the FSB limitation. I would have preferred the 4Ghz come in at 500x8 as opposed to the 445x9.

I disagree with the quad statement though. I had a chance to play with one and the gains were better with quad cores though I do know the video card is the primary bottleneck.

Mine does 500x8, maybe it's your mobo?

 

[Tempered81]

i hit 500 x 9 on mine