PDA

View Full Version : Q6600 G0 and P5b Deluxe=Me happy!


Pages : [1] 2 3

SILVEREGTS
09-11-07, 07:31 PM
Whats up guys, just wanted to drop a line for all you Asus P5b deluxe owners out there wondering how good this board is with the Quad. Well let me tell you that I am extremely impressed! I just got my Q6600 G0 from Clubit.com today and have been running some preliminary test, keep in mind the Arctic Silver 5 paste is not broken in yet as I just installed this CPU today.

I have been Quad Priming for a little more than 2hrs now at 3.4ghz using 8X425fsb. So far its only taking me 1.38vc to keep stability and Load temps are pretty good with my trusty Tuniq Tower at 55 55 53 54, thats not bad considering the temp threshold in the G0 steppings are 71c so I still have some room to play.

Im gonna leave it here for around a month and then pull the CPU out to lap it and Im gonna shoot for 3.6ghz which I dont think will be a problem at all.


http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa160/SLINROB/untitled.jpg

beardstroke
09-11-07, 07:34 PM
incredible!

SILVEREGTS
09-11-07, 07:48 PM
incredible!


Thanks man ;) I dont know if its incredible or not but im pretty darn happy with it. Looks like a got a decent chip.:)

$n][pErMan
09-11-07, 08:19 PM
Got some bench marks to compare with your old CPU? I am assuming you were C2D before :) Good to hear as I have been debating the move myself...

SILVEREGTS
09-11-07, 08:28 PM
[pErMan']Got some bench marks to compare with your old CPU? I am assuming you were C2D before :) Good to hear as I have been debating the move myself...

Yes I had an E6600@3.4ghz. So far I have only tested 2 games with the quad core and those are DiRT which is said to scale up to 8 cores and Bioshock which scales up to 4 cores.

The biggest difference I noticed in both games are that the minimum frame rates are up a pretty good bit. For example in DiRT when you have dust and crap flying everywhere and tons of cars on the screen its a smoother experience than it was with my E6600 as my minimum FPS is up by around 7 frames.


Same thing with bioshock, get the action heated up and with a couple of big daddies on the screen the minimum FPS is better than it was with the dual core.


I will be testing flight sim x tomorrow, thats the one Im really looking forwared to.

$n][pErMan
09-11-07, 09:41 PM
Yes I had an E6600@3.4ghz. So far I have only tested 2 games with the quad core and those are DiRT which is said to scale up to 8 cores and Bioshock which scales up to 4 cores.

The biggest difference I noticed in both games are that the minimum frame rates are up a pretty good bit. For example in DiRT when you have dust and crap flying everywhere and tons of cars on the screen its a smoother experience than it was with my E6600 as my minimum FPS is up by around 7 frames.


Same thing with bioshock, get the action heated up and with a couple of big daddies on the screen the minimum FPS is better than it was with the dual core.


I will be testing flight sim x tomorrow, thats the one Im really looking forwared to.
Cool... if you could at the very least... send me a PM and let me know how it goes if you don't care to post here. We proably have very similar systems and I have been debating for quite some time if its really worth the $300 after tax for the performance gain (as I would buy it from a local store knowing they have the SCLAR batch) :). Its important to note I currently have no slow downs as I assume you never had either so its good to see what someone on a similar level has to say.

gulizard
09-11-07, 10:19 PM
Whats with the small screen? Do you run your desktop like that dude? If so sorry but how can you stand that?


Sorry if thats off topic but nice processor dude considering one myself.

SILVEREGTS
09-11-07, 10:21 PM
Whats with the small screen?

Huh?

gulizard
09-11-07, 10:28 PM
Huh?

Your resolution, its incredibly small, unless you just shrunk the image for the forums?

SILVEREGTS
09-11-07, 10:29 PM
Your resolution, its incredibly small, unless you just shrunk the image for the forums?

I use 800X600 so im not sure why its showing up small.

gulizard
09-11-07, 10:32 PM
I use 800X600 so im not sure why its showing up small.


800 by 600 is small bro.. I guess its because im use to 1280x1024, and 1024 by 768 :/

SILVEREGTS
09-11-07, 10:45 PM
800 by 600 is small bro.. I guess its because im use to 1280x1024, and 1024 by 768 :/


Ok, I think you and I are just misunderstanding each other. 800X600 makes the images on my desktop bigger, not smaller. If I want the images on my desktop to be smaller then I increase the resolution.

nekrosoft13
09-11-07, 11:04 PM
I use 800X600 so im not sure why its showing up small.

JESUS CHRIST, WTF for :|

:headexplode:

SILVEREGTS
09-11-07, 11:10 PM
:headexplode:


I only use 800X600 when im surfing the net because it makes the text bigger thus easier to read. Good grief why are you guys making such a big deal over my preferable online screen resolution?! LOL.

And I like it because I dont have to squint my eyes as much when reading foul mouth trash such as-JESUS CHRIST, WTF for :|

This thread was about my New Quad anyway so how bout we keep it on track. Thanks.

Camp0rz
09-11-07, 11:32 PM
haha uh.. sounds like a good chip.


:rofl

DeusGear
09-11-07, 11:35 PM
I only use 800X600 when im surfing the net because it makes the text bigger thus easier to read. Good grief why are you guys making such a big deal over my preferable online screen resolution?! LOL.

And I like it because I dont have to squint my eyes as much when reading foul mouth trash such as-

This thread was about my New Quad anyway so how bout we keep it on track. Thanks.
You do know you can increase the DPI so that you have big text/images and a ton more room to work with?

gulizard
09-11-07, 11:41 PM
Wasn't trying to cause an uproar but your resolution is just insane, and as for the foul mouth trash he was just kidding. No one cares what you use, I was just curious as to why you'd choose 800 by 600 on your desktop. I personally use to run 1024 by 768 and swore i'd never go LCD then I got a 21" Samsung and I'll never go back. Run it at 1280 by 1024 (anything higher is unnecessary.

I will be grabbing me a quad to. Its to bad you haven't gotten in to the crysis beta, wanted to see how much more performance you grabbed... would of been nice to have been able to compare dual core to quad in it.

daforce
09-11-07, 11:52 PM
I only use 800X600 when im surfing the net because it makes the text bigger thus easier to read. Good grief why are you guys making such a big deal over my preferable online screen resolution?! LOL.

And I like it because I dont have to squint my eyes as much when reading foul mouth trash such as-

This thread was about my New Quad anyway so how bout we keep it on track. Thanks.

Hey Mate,

Wicked overclocks, I hope to get similar out of my G0 Q6600 when i get it later this week.

On a side note about viewing websites. Download the Opera browser, you can use the plus and minus keys on the keypad to zoom in the whole webpage not just increasing the text.
I use this ALL the time when its late and my eyes are too tired to read the fine text on my 30" Dell LCD.

Sycario
09-12-07, 12:56 AM
1.36v on the core seems a bit high for a g0 at 3.4ghz. Maybe I just have a good chip.... I could go higher but I don't really want to spend the time adjusting core volts for higher frequencies.

Slammin
09-12-07, 01:04 AM
[pErMan']Cool... if you could at the very least... send me a PM and let me know how it goes if you don't care to post here. We proably have very similar systems and I have been debating for quite some time if its really worth the $300 after tax for the performance gain (as I would buy it from a local store knowing they have the SCLAR batch) :). Its important to note I currently have no slow downs as I assume you never had either so its good to see what someone on a similar level has to say.


He has a Quad. You have a Dual. Similar?

No matter.

Though my last dual was a highly clocked Opteron, I can say without any doubt, Quad is better.

Really, anyone looking for more performance, regardless of what 'they' say is optimal for todays' games, will do better witha a Quad.

Sure, you can OC a dual higher, but does it matter at this point (3.0ghz+)??


Also, keep in mind, when we OC these quads, we can really start leaning on GPU.

I sort of wish I'd bought GTX cards and then OC'd them because my cards cannot keep up with my cpu.

Crazy, aint it?

I've flashed my cards to 648x999 (1512 Shader default) and some games max my cpu while letting my gfx cards run slow and cool (Flight SimX), but on the other hand, certain games that also just happen to max GPU temps, do so while cpu utilization is at 60% or so (MOHAA).

Sorry, no point here. We are still both GPU and CPU limited, but games that can take advantage of multiple cores can surely heat up your vid cards!

SILVEREGTS
09-12-07, 10:10 AM
Wasn't trying to cause an uproar but your resolution is just insane, and as for the foul mouth trash he was just kidding.

I was messing with him too.




No one cares what you use

O really? then why dont you guys leave it be? I have already told you why I use that resolution, I dont go around telling you guys what res you should use when you brows now do I? So leave it be and get back on topic please. You guys are not going to butcher my thread to death with stupid off topic BS like this.


I was just curious as to why you'd choose 800 by 600 on your desktop.

Thats cool bro but after I explained why I used it it should have been dropped instead of post like

(OMGOXERS!!! WHY!!!!!!)



I will be grabbing me a quad to. Its to bad you haven't gotten in to the crysis beta, wanted to see how much more performance you grabbed... would of been nice to have been able to compare dual core to quad in it.

Well the good thing is that we will all have a single player demo of Crysis in just a few days so I guess we can find out then.:)

SILVEREGTS
09-12-07, 10:11 AM
1.36v on the core seems a bit high for a g0 at 3.4ghz. Maybe I just have a good chip.... I could go higher but I don't really want to spend the time adjusting core volts for higher frequencies.


Are you kidding? I thought it was pretty darn good myself. I know its not the best but it sure aint the worst either.

It could be because my E6600 sucked at overclocking. 3.4ghz took 1.45vc to get it orthos stable for 10+hrs. LOL so of course this is an improvement for me.

SILVEREGTS
09-12-07, 01:11 PM
Well after some more tweaking I think 3.5ghz will be my 24/7 OC for a good while as I just dont see any need for it to be faster than that right now as a Quad core at 3.5ghz is already insane!

1.45vc has me P95 stable for 8+hrs and load temps for the CPU under P95 small fft's are 64 64 62 62 both the CPU and Tuniq Tower are unlapped at the moment.

Any of you Guys with a P5B deluxe considering going with the Q6600 will definitely want to consider doing the Pencil Vdroop mod. I did it with a number 2 lead pencil and it just took me all of 5 seconds to do. The results are amazing and definitely worth it.

http://fileshosts.com/intel/Asus/P5B_Deluxe/results/G4Storm/X6800_1/ocz/titaniumlaphavx2/pc8000/0804/11x/533/266-266_44412_6_42-def_1.325-1.2-1.25-2.1/pencilvdroop/vcore_droop_area_pencil_mod.jpg

Blacklash
09-12-07, 03:12 PM
Have a look at this:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2410961&postcount=2

A lot of folks are doing 3.6-3.8GHz with the Q6600 G-0. Those on quality water cooling or better are up to 4.0GHz and some beyond that.

SILVEREGTS
09-12-07, 03:19 PM
Have a look at this:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2410961&postcount=2

A lot of folks are doing 3.6-3.8GHz with the Q6600 G-0. Those on quality water cooling or better are up to 4.0GHz and some beyond that.


Thanks, I saw that thread. 3.4-3.8, anywhere in that range makes me happy.

And one more important thing is that most of those guys at 3.6+ghz on air do not even check for stability using tools such as P95 etc.

I could overclock my Q6600 to 3.8ghz as well but it would not be stable the way that I like for my CPU's to be stable.