My Q9400 Overclocking Adventure

[Gillbot]

http://img513.imageshack.us/im...450esonloan3734yj2.jpg
Q9400
1.4v core
1.38v VTT
MCH voltage on Auto
ICH voltage on Auto

I have a loaned Q9400 ES to play with after I departed with my Q6600 Retail. After struggling with Quad core overclocking since my Q6600 Retail was purchased, I thought I was QuadCursed and doomed to C2D's for the remainder of my Intel days. No matter what I've tried with quads, I can never get them to really run worthwhile and they are normally very unstable in my systems. I've tried upgrading hardware, cooling and running various settings that others have used with success. I've gone through most of the settings in my mobo one tick up and down at a time in many combinations fighting for stability with nearly ZERO success.

After torchering aigomorla for a while via PM and email, I finally got this chip to run somewhat! It seems my luck MAY be turning if I can dial these settings in. (Ahem Aigo!) It's only Prime95 stable for about 30 minutes but I think with some further tweaking, it'll make it further!! This is MUCH farther than i've gotten with any other Quad thus far. Finally something over 3.4GHz!!!

EDIT: changed to Q9400

 

[Markfw]

good luck. I can't even get mine to post over 450 on a DQ6. What motherboard are you using ? And memory ?

Specs damit !

 

[Gillbot]

MSI P45 Neo3-FR
Buffalo Firestix PC2-8000 (2x1GB)
Watercooled with Swiftech Apogee GT, MCR220 & Radbox, MCP655-B and two Sunon fans @ 108CFM 7.0W pushing.

 

[GundamF91]

Nice...ES may overclock better. That's definitely a low VID.

 

[Drsignguy]

Nice job Gillbot! Glad to see that you are having fun with that special chip.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

9450 or 9400? i see it has 2x3m L2 cache so i'm assuming a 9400 not 9450 as a 9450 would have 12mb l2 cache ???

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: BTRY B 529th FA BN
9450 or 9400? i see it has 2x3m L2 cache so i'm assuming a 9400 not 9450 as a 9450 would have 12mb l2 cache ???

Definitely looks to be a Q9400, not a Q9450.

 

[Gillbot]

Says Q9450 on CPU-z so Shrug to me.

 

[Big Lar]

Great Job!

Larry

 

[Gillbot]

Well, Q9400 or Q9450 doesn't matter to me either way, still having fun messing with it. I've gotten it to nearly load windows at 4.0 but haven't dialed it in enough to load all the way yet. I think it MIGHT do 4.0, only time will tell!

 

[n7]

You're not going to get 500 MHz FSB actually stable with a quad...that would take a miracle of proportions similar to Jesus rising from the grave

Anything over 450 MHz is actually very good.

Seems you're doing very well actually.

 

[Gillbot]

Originally posted by: n7
You're not going to get 500 MHz FSB actually stable with a quad...that would take a miracle of proportions similar to Jesus rising from the grave

Anything over 450 MHz is actually very good.

Seems you're doing very well actually.

I never claimed stable!

I'm having fun with it though as ALL of my previous quad OC's have been a horrible nightmare. Ask aigo, he's tired of talking to me!!!!!!

 

[OCGuy]

Ive now benched at 465 on my P5KC, but never tried to get it stable. Nice chip!

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

454 fsb on my Q9300 @ 3.4Ghz aint bad - yes, its stable; just wish I had that 12mb L2 cache

 

[Drsignguy]

Originally posted by: Gillbot

Originally posted by: n7
You're not going to get 500 MHz FSB actually stable with a quad...that would take a miracle of proportions similar to Jesus rising from the grave

Anything over 450 MHz is actually very good.

Seems you're doing very well actually.

I never claimed stable!

I'm having fun with it though as ALL of my previous quad OC's have been a horrible nightmare. Ask aigo, he's tired of talking to me!!!!!!

Oh, I am pretty sure he enjoys every minute of it.....................

 

[Gillbot]

Originally posted by: Drsignguy

Originally posted by: Gillbot

Originally posted by: n7
You're not going to get 500 MHz FSB actually stable with a quad...that would take a miracle of proportions similar to Jesus rising from the grave

Anything over 450 MHz is actually very good.

Seems you're doing very well actually.

I never claimed stable!

I'm having fun with it though as ALL of my previous quad OC's have been a horrible nightmare. Ask aigo, he's tired of talking to me!!!!!!

Oh, I am pretty sure he enjoys every minute of it.....................

I think I give him too much crap for him to enjoy it that much! :laugh:

Sad thing is, as soon as I get this thing stable here I'm going for higher!! :beer:

 

[Gillbot]

I can't get 3.75GHz Prime95 or OCCT stable but all my normal tasks and games are fine at 3.75GHz. I'm in now at 3.8GHz but I haven't tried stability testing at all since I can't even get it stable at 3.75GHz, there's no point in trying to test at 3.8GHz. I just want to see where the wall is for getting into windows.

On a side note, I think I got a little overaggressive with my attempts at 4.0GHz. It started to load windows but froze so I kept bumping the Vcore and VTT up in an attempt to get into windows. I stopped upping Vcore and VTT at 1.45 so I added a shade of MCH voltage. As soon as I touched the MCH voltage, it all went to hell. Would no longer even POST and it took me nearly an hour to get it into BIOS to turn everything back down far enough it would run again. Looks like my Quad curse is trying to let gremlins loose on me!

EDIT: 3.9GHz is a no go at up to 1.4Vcore/VTT so I guess ~3.8GHz is my windows limit. I decided to back the speed down to 3.6GHz and test OCCT stable for now. We'll see if I can get 3.6GHz stable before I try to push higher.

 

[Gillbot]

VICTORY!!!!!

Left off last night at 3.7GHz OCCT stable!!! Funny that I dropped the vcore/vtt and only lowered the speed 50MHz to get it OCCT stable! I'll take a 3.7GHz stable quad core as a victory over my Quad Curse!!

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

Q9650 is right around the corner

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Gillbot
VICTORY!!!!!

Left off last night at 3.7GHz OCCT stable!!! Funny that I dropped the vcore/vtt and only lowered the speed 50MHz to get it OCCT stable! I'll take a 3.7GHz stable quad core as a victory over my Quad Curse!!

Muahaha i still beat you with my X3220! (although not in actual performance for most apps)

Nice to see the FSBs that the P45 is hitting are a bit better... even 500x6 is a no go with the rig in sig.

 

[Big Lar]

So, How is gaming with the 9400 versus the 8500? I am thinking about borrowing a 9400 today and just want to make sure it isn't a dud at say 3600 compared to say 4200 with a 8500/8400/etc... Nice job Gillbot

Larry

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

Originally posted by: Big Lar
So, How is gaming with the 9400 versus the 8500? I am thinking about buying a 9400 today and just want to make sure it isn't a dud at say 3600 compared to say 4200 with a 8500/8400/etc... Nice job Gillbot

Larry

the Q9650 is here for a few more dollars

 

[Big Lar]

Originally posted by: BTRY B 529th FA BN

Originally posted by: Big Lar
So, How is gaming with the 9400 versus the 8500? I am thinking about buying a 9400 today and just want to make sure it isn't a dud at say 3600 compared to say 4200 with a 8500/8400/etc... Nice job Gillbot

Larry

the Q9650 is here for a few more dollars

Heh, nice, but that just costs too much.

Larry

 

[n7]

3.7 GHz is really good IMO.

P45 is definitely looking like a great cheaper option for high FSB quads.

 

[Gillbot]

Originally posted by: Big Lar
So, How is gaming with the 9400 versus the 8500? I am thinking about buying a 9400 today and just want to make sure it isn't a dud at say 3600 compared to say 4200 with a 8500/8400/etc... Nice job Gillbot

Larry

Honestly... I'm gonna get flamed for this but here goes...

For everything I PERSONALLY have tested on my PC, the raw MHz on the dual core has yielded better results over the slightly lower clocked Quad. Yes, even in supreme commander on my rig, it plays faster with the raw MHz of the dual. I guess I just haven't loaded up the map enough to really gain from the quad.

I get into it with Aigo all the time over dual vs. quad and I still say ONE 4.25GHz core on a dual core chip is still faster in windows over ONE 3.7GHz core on a quad core chip since most apps today do not support multiple processors anyway.

Until apps are better multicore threaded, the raw MHz of the dual core is hard to top for MOST applications. That's why when people ask what is better, dual vs. quad I laugh when they say the rig is for gaming. IMHO, unless you have a game (or multicore supported app) running 100% of the time your rig is on and the game/app you use supports multiple cores, I fail to see the benefit of the extra cost of the quad. Most people only game an hour or so per day which means approximately 1/24th of the day, you are not utilizing all 4 cores. With that said, if you do run applications where you can fully utilize all 4 cores, the quad will of course trash the dual core. Realistically though, browsing anandtech and checking email doesn't need 4 cores.