My Q9400 Overclocking Adventure

[Gillbot]

Originally posted by: n7
3.7 GHz is really good IMO.

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

I think with a bit more knowledge and time to tweak settings, I can get this chip higher. With a 7.5 month old, time to play is hard to come by.

 

[Thor86]

Originally posted by: 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.

Agreed, but the time will come when 4-cores will be the minimum, soon enough.

 

[Tempered81]

when SMT is in every program wont nehalem take old games like crysis/cod4 and multithread them, while penryn generation won't?

Or do we have to wait for games & apps to actually be authored to use multiple cores?

 

[Gillbot]

Originally posted by: Thor86

Originally posted by: 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.

Agreed, but the time will come when 4-cores will be the minimum, soon enough.

Soon enough != right now though. If you are one like me who upgrades often, there is no reason to NOT enjoy the raw speed of a higher clocked C2D while you wait for the prices of the higher Quads to fall.

 

[bryanW1995]

great job on 3.7 with your quad. I couldn't get higher than 3.64 stable and ended up backing down to 3.6 for everyday use on my x3350. the q9450 has a stupid zalman cooler so it's crippled.

 

[Foxery]

Originally posted by: Gillbot
Realistically though, browsing anandtech and checking email doesn't need 4 cores.

You should join a distributed computing project

3.7 is very impressive. Grats!

Originally posted by: 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

What's your actual Vcore setting in the BIOS? And the VTT? I had to back mine all the way down to 3.15 to remain completely stable.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Gillbot
Realistically though, browsing anandtech and checking email doesn't need 4 cores.

IE Explorer = 1 core
WC3 TFT = 1 core

AIM/MSN with Gillbot = "sorry windows has run out of virtual memory*





I hate duals. Sorry but i really hate them. I hate them almost as much as.. well Gill you know what that ends on. Hint, something to do with your OEM board maker.

 

[Gillbot]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: Gillbot
Realistically though, browsing anandtech and checking email doesn't need 4 cores.

IE Explorer = 1 core
WC3 TFT = 1 core

AIM/MSN with Gillbot = "sorry windows has run out of virtual memory*





I hate duals. Sorry but i really hate them. I hate them almost as much as.. well Gill you know what that ends on. Hint, something to do with your OEM board maker.

My MSI did better than your DFI so STFU!

For the time being, I still prefer the raw speed of the C2D's over the Q's. When apps become more multi threaded, that may change. Though i'm not done trying to push this Q up, I'm hoping for 3.8 stable and 4.0 in windows but a 7 month old daughter doesn't allow much tweaking time.

 

[aigomorla]

Gill you need to downclock your daughter so she doesnt grow up too fast.

 

[Gillbot]

Originally posted by: aigomorla
Gill you need to downclock your daughter so she doesnt grow up too fast.

or overclock her so she grows up faster and gets a job to support DADDY's PC habit!

 

[Big Lar]

Originally posted by: Gillbot

Originally posted by: aigomorla
Gill you need to downclock your daughter so she doesnt grow up too fast.

or overclock her so she grows up faster and gets a job to support DADDY's PC habit!

There ya go

I get bored easy with computer parts, which is why I tend to swap out cpu's etc quite often. I think I'll enjoy the challenge of a quad. I Need something to keep my old brain focused. I Am bored with the E3110, no way do I need to go that fast in games etc, thats for you young guys.

Larry

 

[aigomorla]

ROFL..

you only say that until you walk her down the isle.

Then you wish there was an off switch and a rewind button.

 

[Drsignguy]

Originally posted by: Gillbot

Originally posted by: aigomorla
Gill you need to downclock your daughter so she doesnt grow up too fast.

or overclock her so she grows up faster and gets a job to support DADDY's PC habit!

Now thats fricken funny right there, I don't care who you are........thats funny! :laugh:

 

[Thor86]

Originally posted by: Gillbot

Originally posted by: Thor86

Originally posted by: 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.

Agreed, but the time will come when 4-cores will be the minimum, soon enough.

Soon enough != right now though. If you are one like me who upgrades often, there is no reason to NOT enjoy the raw speed of a higher clocked C2D while you wait for the prices of the higher Quads to fall.

Gill, when you start recording DVRs of your daughter growing up, you'll appreciate the quad cores when you start encoding video.

 

[Gillbot]

I already do video editing on my rig. I notice ZERO difference between the C2Q and the C2D. Takes nearly the same time to crunch through, generate and burn to disk as it did before.

Trust me, I've went through every angle I can think of and as I said before...

Originally posted by: Gillbot
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.

I threw everything that most quad users praise at both the C2D and the C2Q and I see ZERO gains with the C2Q. Am I using the wrong apps? Quite possibly but that leads further into my point. Why should the average joe have to upgrade all his software just to utilize and run a quad when the duals are cheaper and faster with what they already own.

 

[Big Lar]

Originally posted by: Gillbot
I already do video editing on my rig. I notice ZERO difference between the C2Q and the C2D. Takes nearly the same time to crunch through, generate and burn to disk as it did before.

Trust me, I've went through every angle I can think of and as I said before...

Originally posted by: Gillbot
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.

I threw everything that most quad users praise at both the C2D and the C2Q and I see ZERO gains with the C2Q. Am I using the wrong apps? Quite possibly but that leads further into my point. Why should the average joe have to upgrade all his software just to utilize and run a quad when the duals are cheaper and faster with what they already own.

Question, What are you running your GTL's at? Just curious, I am slowly climbing the OC ladder right now, testing Prime at 3400. Temps are good, voltage is low, friggin GTL's would make a Same man cry, imagine what they are doing to me!

Larry

 

[Gillbot]

Mine doesn't have GTL settings unless it's in a hidden bios screen.

 

[Big Lar]

Well, these chips are a tad finicky, but I am enjoying the challenge so far. GTL's are really a major setting for these quads, unlike the dually's, of which when you are "Close" you are good to go. For instance; in testing I had my vtt set to 1.25v,( of which it still remains) at 415fsb I got 1 core dropout in Prime at 90/85/90. So I tried 90/85/80 to get a range on them and lost 2 cores in Prime.

Seems the NB GTL is the finicky one, I changed to 90/85/95 of which took me up to 425fsb,( bumping up 5fsb per run with 1 hour Prime runs).
I adjusted a tad more and got 90/87/93 which brings me up to 435fsb which is where i left off last night due to lack of sleep.

I'm having more fun with this chip than anything since I ran my 939 opty. I'll be testing more tonight and tommorow as I only have the chip at 1.28v and feel there's still life left in her without going crazy on the voltage. I'm "hoping" to get up to where your at Gillbot or maybe a tad more The DFI is holding its own So Far. I did try my old settings in the 63/63/67 range for GTL's but that was a no go big time and am going the 63% route.

Larry

 

[Gillbot]

I love how people bashed me buying the MSI, IMHO it has treated me VERY well. Over 450fsb stable, into windows at over 470fsb and nearly into windows at 500 on a QUAD! No GTL settings, only messed with Vcore and VTT. Not too shabby at all!

Good luck with your OC adventure. I learned the hard way that OCing a quad is a boatloaddifferent than simple C2D overclocking. The C2D's are much easier and more forgiving.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Gillbot

I learned the hard way that OCing a quad is a boatloaddifferent than simple C2D overclocking.

which is why i gave up and told you to get a dual.

But you got cursed all over again with that Q9400.

 

[Gillbot]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: Gillbot

I learned the hard way that OCing a quad is a boatloaddifferent than simple C2D overclocking.

which is why i gave up and told you to get a dual.

But you got cursed all over again with that Q9400.

I think I came out ahead on thus Q though @ 3.7GHz with a "crappy" mobo!

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Gillbot

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: Gillbot

I learned the hard way that OCing a quad is a boatloaddifferent than simple C2D overclocking.

which is why i gave up and told you to get a dual.

But you got cursed all over again with that Q9400.

I think I came out ahead on thus Q though @ 3.7GHz with a "crappy" mobo!

you did which is why its scaring me cuz now your eyeballing a QX.

 

[Big Lar]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: Gillbot

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: Gillbot

I learned the hard way that OCing a quad is a boatloaddifferent than simple C2D overclocking.

which is why i gave up and told you to get a dual.

But you got cursed all over again with that Q9400.

I think I came out ahead on thus Q though @ 3.7GHz with a "crappy" mobo!

you did which is why its scaring me cuz now your eyeballing a QX.

LOL! Sounds like somebody got the itch Good for you with that Q9400, I am Very happy you got a decent 1. MSI IMHO, is on/off. Some are good boards, some are absolute Crap. I had the MSI Neo2-F when I first went socket 939, the board contrary to what most said treated me Very well.

Larry

 

[Gillbot]

My P35 Neo2-FR and this P45 Neo3-FR have treated me very well. Thinking back, I don't think I've ever had a "bad" MSI mobo. Some didn't perform as I'd hoped but I can't fully blame the mobo if I knowingly stock it with sub-par accessories. I think that's where most people get into trouble, they put in junk ram and accessories then blame the mobo for bad OC's.

 

[Big Lar]

Couldn't agree more.

Larry