OT...I'm back

[Olham 164]

Von Paulus, I think we found the problem now.

A friend of mine had assembled the rig, and he had overclocked the CPU from 2,83 GHz to 3 GHz.

He had also adjusted the multiplicator for the memory according to this.

 

Now, I had recently decided for myself, to switch back to 2,83 GHz - but I hadn't known, that I would

have to re-adjust the multiplicator for the memory too.

 

Right now, we have gone back to 3 GHz, which made the memory show a value of 800 in BIOS.

But their label says, they are 1066 MHz. Do I need to adjust the multiplicator so now, that the second

number shows the right value (1066 MHz) or somewhere close to it?

Edited October 25, 2010 by Olham

[Olham 164]

Now I think I REALLY got it right.

When changing the multiplication factor for the memory sticks so, that they showed the right value of 1066 MHz,

the value of the CPU changed to it's default value of 2,83 GHz.

Both values are correct now, and I think I better leave it that way.

[Slartibartfast 153]

Sometimes leaving it as built does make your life so much easier... must admit I don't go in for overclocking generally only done it a few times to see what the differences would be. Most of the time my modifications are software based or changing out the Video card or Ram... Best advice I was given was buy the best motherboard you can because if there is a bottleneck its going to be there on a cheap motherboard.

[Von Paulus 8]

Now, I had recently decided for myself, to switch back to 2,83 GHz - but I hadn't known, that I would

have to re-adjust the multiplicator for the memory too.

When changing the bios settings, from stock to overclock, always keep note of the stock values, of everything, including memories..

But why did you decider yourself to switch back to 2.83Ghz? Was it not working well?

[Olham 164]

I did not do that, von Paulus - it switched over.

After restoring the friend's overclocking to 3 GHz, my memory showed a value of only 800 MHz, instead of it's 1066 MHz.

Now I needed to find the right multipl. factor to get to 1066 MHz. It was the factor 2.0, and when I clicked that, the right

value of 1066 MHz was shown for the memory. AND: the CPU value switched automatcally to it's default value 2,83 GHz.

 

I could go back to 3 GHz for the CPU, and then try all multipl.factors for the memory, to try to get it closest to 1066 MHZ.

But I'm not sure, if I should do that. Parky recently said, that even a 2,33 GHz CPU was not too weak for OFF.

What do you think?

[Parky 8]

Actually Olham, that's not what I said at all. What I said was I was confident that in Herr Prop Washe's case, his AMD X2 4200+ @ 2.33 Ghz wasn't the bottleneck in his system. The 8600GT graphics card is, and if he were to swap it for an ATI 5670 he'd see some significant performance gains. In answer to your question though, no....a 2.3 Ghz or 2.4Ghz CPU is not necessarily too weak to run OFF, although higher core speeds would certainly be beneficial. There are a number of factors that must be considered though. First of all, CPU architecture comes into play, the better the integrity of a CPU's chip architecture, how it handles instruction sets, the amount of cache memory and son on and so forth. Having said that, and assuming we're not dealing with a crappy CPU, memory or chipset, overclocking can indeed result in some serious performance increases. In your particular scenario, a 170 Mhz increase in core speed isn't going to get you any worthwhile performance benefits.....certainly none that would be noticeable anyway. In my case, I have an i7-920, which at stock speeds runs at about 2.66 Ghz......not all that much faster than 2.33Ghz when you think about it, but due to it's superior architecture will run OFF just fine when left at default speeds. Never satisfied with "just fine", I run it at 4.0 Ghz with no heat or stability issues whatsoever. That kind of substantial overclock results in some tangible performance increases.....it can also result in some fried hardware if you don't know what you're doing. Best to proceed with due caution when overclocking any hardware at all, particularly if you're relatively inexperienced. If an overclock results in instability or heat issues, it may be best to bite the bullet and start looking at upgrading some hardware. Sounds to me like you've got your stability issues sorted out, and as long as the performance levels you're seeing are reasonable enough for now, it might be best to leave well enough alone until Santa drops some new hardware down your chimney.....Cheers

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

I just got caught up on this thread. Olham, sorry to read about your computer OC issues. Sounds like you have it tuned back to stock settings and it is running good for now, yes? In my case I use the Asus OC utility for my mobo and it works very well for cranking up the CPU clock and the mem stick speeds while keeping everyone friendly with each other.

 

.

[Olham 164]

Sorry for misinterpreting you, Parky - didn't happen with any bad intention.

And thanks for the explanation.

I am running the INTEL Core2 Duo CPU E8300 at it's default 2,83 GHz now.

The memory are four CORSAIR Dominator sticks with 1 GB each, and a speed of 1066 MHz.

Do you know anything about how far my CPU could be overclocked without getting into the risky zone?

 

System seems to be running good now, Lou; need some more time (and flying) to be really sure.

Before I found the reason, it crashed quite often.

 

But if I can overclock this CPU to a rather safe extent, why not?

Edited October 26, 2010 by Olham

[Olham 164]

It ain't over yet! System crashed again.

If anyone knows to read the settings in MB Intelligent Tweaker, please tell me when you see a wrong thing.

Here are my values:

 

Robust Graphic Booster: Auto

CPU Clock Ratio: [8x]

Fine CPU Clock Ratio: [+0,5]

CPU Frequency: 2.83GHz(333x8.5)

CPU Host Clock Control: [disabled]

CPU Host Frequency(MHz): 353

PCI Express Frequency(MHz): [Auto]

C.I.A.2: [disabled]

Performance Enhance [standard]

System Memory Multiplayer(SPD): [Auto]

(all other settings on: Auto)

[Parky 8]

I don't see anything there that jumps right out as a possible cause of your crashes. If you're familiar with Event Viewer, there may be some valuable info there. That's the first place I'd start looking for clues. Also, I'd probably follow Von Paulus's advice with reference to eliminating your RAM as a possible cause. Running memtest with all dimm slots populated should tell you if it's a bad RAM stick or possibly even a bad dimm slot. The other way to go about it is to run on one single RAM stick. If the system crashes....pull that stick out, replace it with the next one. Rinse and repeat until you've tested all four sticks of RAM in the same slot. Then in order to eliminate the possibility of a bad dimm slot, you do the same thing all over again sequentially using different slots. Time consuming, but effective.

 

We can worry about overclockability of the e6300 once you get the system stable. If memory serves me correctly however, those chips will overclock quite nicely on the right platform as long as you have an okay Motherboard, decent cooling and fairly good RAM.

[Von Paulus 8]

I told you, Olahm, those random freezes, are the hell.

Everything that Parky said is right, as usual.

How many passes have you done with memtest, Olham?

There's one other thing, that I would do... I would reset the motherboard cmos and let it assume the default values for CPU, mem, etc.

[Olham 164]

Well, as I said, I have tested with the Windows Diagnose Tool - I didn't see through the endless README.txt with MemTest.

I tested two sticks in the red slots, the the other two in the red ones too.

Then the first tow in the yellow slots. Then the other two in the yellow ones.

I always got an "okay".

 

Then I have set CPU to it's default 2.83 GHz, and the memory clocked to the 1066MHz it should have.

Ran fine yesterday - crashed this morning.

Ran the Windows Diagnose Tool again, now with all four sticks in their slots.

And this time, it said, memory was faulty.

 

I red in a forum about this problem, that some motherboards don't run well with 4 fast sticks;

but better with two ones - even if the sum up to the same. Can that be?

 

I am already half convinced, that the best might be to get a better motherboard, CPU, and maybe

also new memory. The mobo is a Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3, by the way.

 

Thank you for your patience, guys!

[Von Paulus 8]

I red in a forum about this problem, that some motherboards don't run well with 4 fast sticks;

but better with two ones - even if the sum up to the same. Can that be?

 

That's why I asked before,just to run with three sticks. This seems to happen more often when there's a overcloking.

Try to reset your bios. And if even that doesn't work remove then one stick and work only with three to see if it's stable.

Edited October 27, 2010 by Von Paulus

[Olham 164]

Three sticks? My "advisor" said, I could only run 2 or 4 sticks - not impair?

The values are reset to default values now.

[Von Paulus 8]

Three sticks? My "advisor" said, I could only run 2 or 4 sticks - not impair?

The values are reset to default values now.

You'll loose in that way the dual channel mode, but you can run.

Don't think that you'll notice so much difference.

Besides tell me the motherboard revision and the bios version.

The revision is written somewhere in the motherboard.

Edited October 27, 2010 by Von Paulus

[Parky 8]

Olham......I wouldn't put too much faith in that Windows diagnostic tool. It's not all that reliable. We could simplify things somewhat here. As you did previously, run on two sticks only......for as long as it takes. If you get a system crash, put those sticks in the next two slots. If the system crashes again, take those two sticks out, put them in an anti-static sleeve and write a big question mark on it....lol. Now test the other two sticks exactly the same way. I'm sure you see where I'm going with this.....and yes, it's time consuming, but we really need to rule out bad RAM sticks as a possible cause of your problems. The problem (sometimes) with running with all four dimm slots occupied is the additional load it puts on the memory controller, which in your case is on the northbridge chip. Typically, that only becomes a problem when overclocking is involved as the northbridge will require a touch more voltage for the system to remain stable. The problem with that is the additiional heat that comes with increased voltages. That scenario really shouldn't apply here as you're running at default speeds right now. It is possible that your board just doesn't like having all four slots occupied even at default settings, but I seriously doubt that. I'm still inclined to believe you have ONE bad stick of RAM. Either that, or as Paulo has hinted, perhaps you'd benefit from a BIOS update that improves system stability. By the way.....those e8300 CPU's overclock quite nicely on the right platform.....just for future reference. For now though.....let's make sure you don't have any bad RAM ;-)

Edited October 27, 2010 by Parky

[Olham 164]

Okay, thank you, Parky, will do.

Perhaps we should later still come back to a BIOS update - if it can only improve things.

But for now, I will just begin like you said.

 

Edit/PS: the system did so far not crash today, although it was running the whole day,

and I did some intensive Photoshop work (needs a lot of memory usually).

Edited October 27, 2010 by Olham

[Von Paulus 8]

Yes, I saw yesterday, the BIOS updates for your board , Olham. And depending of the motherboard revision, one clear states an improvement in "Better compatibility for over DDR clock to 1066MHz".

[Olham 164]

Do I search the web and download such a BIOS update like any other, and install it then?

[Parky 8]

Not exactly......it's a wee bit more involved than that.....actually, a LOT more.

 

Paulo......you opened the BIOS can. I'm leaving this one to you........

[Olham 164]

Well, I have read some Forum posts about that; then I went to the GIGABYTE website,

found the download section, searched for my Mobo (I have checked the Rev.-Nr., it is

Rev. 2.1); and then I came to the result, that I need the update version F14 - whatever

that means; I have downloaded it now, but won't do anything before I consulted my

advisor/friend here in Berlin, and heard your oppinions to this.

I read, that the BIOS update may improve the memory management for 1066 sticks.

 

I still think, that one stick may be faulty, but if a BIOS update doesn't hurt, why not do it?

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

Not exactly......it's a wee bit more involved than that.....actually, a LOT more.

 

Paulo......you opened the BIOS can. I'm leaving this one to you........

 

Me too...never flashed a BIOS before personally...hope I never have to

[77Scout 3]

My Gigabyte EP45-DS3L board from 2008 came with an @BIOS utility that makes updating the BIOS a fairly painless one-click procedure. I don't know if that will apply to you Olham, but perhaps check your disks and manuals that came with your board and see what they have in the way of BIOS update utilites or other info.

Edited October 27, 2010 by 77Scout

[Olham 164]

I have made an appointment with "my computer ace" and friend, to bring the whole rig

to his place and check it out on weekend or early next week. Before I have the time for

that, I will follow Parky's advice with changing the memory sticks. My friend, by the way,

seemed not very keen on updating the BIOS; he said you can easily mess the whole

board up completely.

But if there should be an easy method, 77Scout, maybe we take it in account.

 

Thank you all for your help!

[Von Paulus 8]

Not exactly......it's a wee bit more involved than that.....actually, a LOT more.

 

Paulo......you opened the BIOS can. I'm leaving this one to you........

Actually, only with rev.1 and rev.2, you need to update the bios for better 1066 compatibility. With rev.2.1 none of the 2 updates mention in the GB site, aren't anything related with 1066 or with any memory probem. Rev. 2.1 it's the last build of that board, so the engineers solve some of the problems that came from the first builds. The process here is the same as with the car industry, or in fact, as with any other industry.

In face of your board rev. I wouldn't do an update to the BIOS, only as a last case. Do the Parky's test with memtest.

 

Yes I've already fried, in all my 23 years of professional life dedicated to micro computers, some boards due to the process of updating the BIOS. I've done it more than 1000 thousand times, and I've fried... 2 boards, 0 dvd players and 0 of any other card. The only firmware that I don't upgrade, is the graphic card. I don't know why, but I've never felt comfortable with the graphic cards, and to be honest, never need to do it.

As long you use the right BIOS and don't have the bad luck of having a shortage of electrical supply when doing the flash, there's no problem.

Just follow the procedures, stated by the manufacturer, and it's a relatively safe process. And the process is more easy today. No need of strange commands and boot the machine with DOS. Just use a pen drive and a the flash program in the CMOS. And yes, I've solved a lot of problems by upgrading the BIOS.

But, like I've said before, only do when it's needed or as a last resource. My own motherbaord, has already 5 upgrades out after my current BIOS. Some are interesting, but don't need them now. So I foresee in a near future that I'll do it.