PDA

View Full Version : Buying a new graphic card...help!


expert87
07-29-09, 01:32 PM
Hi;
I recenlty tried the resident evil 5 benchamrk which turned horribly for my pc
the specifications are in my sugnature...
The 8800 GTS OC is running at:
675MHZ GPU
980 MHZ MEMORY
1200 MHZ shadder
The cpu is running at 3ghz...6mb cache
my pc got about 45-49 fps (B)on the benchmark

I oced a little...
got cpu up to 3.8ghz
gpu at 813mhz (more that that will make black squares appear on the screen)
Memory at 1250MHZ
Shadder at 2150MHZ

and all I got is about 8-10 fps difference...my pc barely got an (A)

Now...to the questions:
1)Do u advise me to get another 8800 gts and make an SLI? or would it be more economically to get one of the new x series?

2)Would the CPU be a problem after updating the graphic card (as the next bottleneck)? and how can I be sure the low fps is not caused by my cpu?

3) I noticed that the new cards have about double memory speed of the one Iam using....does it really differ? does it mean I have to concentrate on ocing the graphic memory only??

4) What else to expect as a cause of the low fps?

Thanks

Bon3thugz43v3r
07-29-09, 01:43 PM
Okay well your card is a bit older now so that is why it is getting lower fps than you would like to see. You can pick up a GTX260 Core 216 for cheap to hold you off until you upgrade your whole system and get much better frames than you are now with your current cpu at 3.8ghz. I say go for it. SLI will only work in certain games, so you may not see an increase in all your games.

expert87
07-29-09, 02:02 PM
Unfortunately I know nothing of the new graphic cards...which one are the best? and which ones are the worst?

jobrien2001
07-29-09, 02:04 PM
1) Buy a new card. 260 216, 4870 are good and cheap. If you want more buy a 4890 or 275.
2) At 3.8ghz no CPU bottleneck.
3) Dont worry about clock speeds on graphics cards too much, if its a different generation chip you cant compare both... thats like saying a P4 @ 3.0 ghz is just as good as your e8400.
4) Crappy coded game? Most likely a port. In any case ~50 FPS with that card is nothing to complain about considering Resident evil 5 is a recent title.

EarthDog
07-29-09, 02:11 PM
This ^^.

expert87
07-29-09, 02:14 PM
Unfortunately I know nothing of the new graphic cards...which one are the best? and which ones are the worst?

More Details Please :D

EarthDog
07-29-09, 02:16 PM
Details can be found everywhere. Its easiest for us to help if you listed a budget you would like to spend on a new card. The GTX260 216 is a great card. If you want a top to bottom listing here it is

GTX295
GTX285
GTX275
GTX260 216
GTX250

HD4870x2
HD4890
HD4870
DH4850

I hope that helps.

expert87
07-29-09, 02:19 PM
excellent....thanks :)
my budget is about 400-600 $
and I hate ATI cards :-/

EarthDog
07-29-09, 02:27 PM
No reason to hate on ATI really.

What resolution is your monitor that you play games on?

expert87
07-29-09, 02:31 PM
I take it simple :)
1024 * 768

one question though...my rams are ocz 2pc*2gb @ 800MHZ
can I oc them to 900 or 1000mhz?
what voltage do i have to set them on? and what timing??
can it inflect any damage if it goes wrong?

jobrien2001
07-29-09, 02:35 PM
Cards dont cost as much anymore lol...

I would recommend buying 1 HD4890 or 1 GTX275 and then evaluate if its enough for you or not... if not buy another...

Here is a nice deal on a GTX275 $185 AMIR

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127429&nm_mc=EMC-IGNEFL072809&cm_mmc=EMC-IGNEFL072809-_-VideoCards-_-LC2A-_-14127429

Now that I think about it, your MOBO does SLI so stick with NVIDIA.

Archer0915
07-29-09, 02:37 PM
It is OKAY to hate ATI I hate nVidia but I am running one of their cards because it suits my needs. Dont let your hatred cause your decisions to be rash. Point is both are good but if you FOLD or do other DC or CUDA apps then nVidia is your choice.

You are running a slichipset so I would stay away from the ATi unless you go for an x2. Personally I would go 2x 260 216 cards for the money.

EarthDog
07-29-09, 02:40 PM
1024x768 is more CPU heavy then anything. That is a TINY resolution to pump anything more through it then you already have really. I would say nothing more then a HD4850 512MB or GTX250 would suffice. At that res you should be overclocking your CPU to help out.

expert87
07-29-09, 02:42 PM
they do cost more than that where I live...unfortunately :(
my current card is less than 1 year old and it cost me about 250$
and unfortunately newegg can't get to where I live :(
at this rate....a 275 might cost 300 or 350$ "I'll be lucky if it does"


so I guess I'll try to buy what ever my bidget can get
what about the ram clocking?

EarthDog
07-29-09, 02:43 PM
can I oc them to 900 or 1000mhz?

what voltage do i have to set them on? and what timing??
can it inflect any damage if it goes wrong?As far as your overclocking, I would suggest you read the guide by GRASKY. That will help you out tremendously.

But some quick answers..

1. You may be able to get to 900Mhz, doubtful on 1k. You didnt list timings or stock voltages so that is purely a guess.
2. See last part of #1
2a. See
3. Yes.

EarthDog
07-29-09, 02:45 PM
It is OKAY to hate ATI I hate nVidia but I am running one of their cards because it suits my needs. Dont let your hatred cause your decisions to be rash. Point is both are good but if you FOLD or do other DC or CUDA apps then nVidia is your choice.

You are running a slichipset so I would stay away from the ATi unless you go for an x2. Personally I would go 2x 260 216 cards for the money.Did you see the meager res he plays on? SLI/Crossfire would be a monumental waste of money at 1024x768.

Also, Nvida on ATI/Intel chipsets and ATI on Nvidia chipsets work just fine. You just dont have the option of SLI/Crossfire. :thup:

expert87
07-29-09, 02:46 PM
Mr. EarthDog
the link you gave me is an msi card!!
I thought good cards come only from evga or bfg...am I correct?

EarthDog
07-29-09, 02:47 PM
First, I didnt give you the link, second MSI is fine.

Bon3thugz43v3r
07-29-09, 02:48 PM
No good cards come from all different companies.

zbo
07-29-09, 02:50 PM
At such a low res your better off overclocking your CPU as much as possible to see how much that improves your performance.

expert87
07-29-09, 02:54 PM
ops sorry :)
here are pics from cpu-z for Ram stuff...I don't know much about them so I keep them default
http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/4655/2321d.jpg
http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/887/2322j.jpg

about the resolution thing....is it smaller the resolution higher cpu load & lower gpu load or what?

jason4207
07-29-09, 02:56 PM
All the cards are the same. Main difference is warranty/customer service which eVGA and BFG excel at.


For 1024x768 I wouldn't bother getting a new card until you get a higher rez monitor. The 8800GTS-512 is plenty of power for that rez. I run an 8800GTS-512 in my HTPC at stock clocks w/ an E5200 @ 3.6GHz and it chews threw GRID pinned at 60fps (vsync) w/ all settings maxed and 8xQCSAA.

Don't spend hundreds of dollars b/c of some benchmark. Play some actual games and see what happens.

jason4207
07-29-09, 03:02 PM
about the resolution thing....is it smaller the resolution higher cpu load & lower gpu load or what?

Lower rez means the GPU doesn't have to do as much. It doesn't mean the CPU is doing any more work than at a higher rez. It's just that the GPU is no longer the bottleneck.

Higher CPU speed might help some, but honestly you should do what I said above and try to play some actual games before you pass any kind of judgement on your system and start trying to throw money at a problem that doesn't exist.

expert87
07-29-09, 03:03 PM
aha....and what specifications should I look for in an LCD then?? how to know this lcd is good and that one is bad? -Iam on a 17inch CRT :P -

jason4207
07-29-09, 03:07 PM
Depends on your budget, and what's available to you out there. I would go for a 1920x1200 panel, but you may have to settle on a 1680x1050 panel which is also very nice.

If you can provide a list of what you have available we might be able to help narrow it down. Also let us know how picky you are about black levels, contrast, color shift, etc.

expert87
07-29-09, 03:08 PM
I did try lost planet...which goes 20-30fps at full screen 1024*768...maxed settings
when I used a smaller resolution with lines above and below the game -like movies screen- it gets uoto 50-60fps

expert87
07-29-09, 03:09 PM
I'll wait for ur next reply to sum all conversations in one :)

EarthDog
07-29-09, 03:10 PM
Lost Planet doesnt play well with first gen DX10 cards like you essentially have.

jobrien2001
07-29-09, 03:16 PM
Yep, didnt notice the resolution you were playing at... a 275GTX would be a waste of cash.

As a matter of fact you should stick with your 8800 if you plan to game at that resolution.

CRT are actually better than LCD but no1 makes widescreen CRTs :P

-How do you know which LCD is good?
Well you want one that can do at least 1600x1050 and a 60Hz refresh.
You look at the monitor black tones, brightness, viewing angle, and check for dead pixels.

If your budget is around $400, buying at middle east prices... pick up a 22inch LCD and a 260GTX 216... should be enough?

Do not buy a new video card if you are going to game at 1024x768.

MonkeyMhz
07-29-09, 03:17 PM
What the, am I the only one to think its absurd to get a new GPU for a 1024x768 resolution. Common if your over 30-40FPS you have no problem.

1024x768 is tiny, I havent ran that resolution since my Windows 98 computer.
I'd really suggest running in a higher resolution and getting a new GPU or just leaving that GPU. Whats wrong with 50fps?

And I agree, its ok to hate a company but get something that fits your need.

expert87
07-29-09, 03:21 PM
and I didn't know that :S
I though it was my graphic card fault
most games play well actually...with full settings at 1024*768...but since I am planning to get an LCD i might go to higher resolutions...and the B rank with RE5 benchmark is turning me mad :(...In crysis I get fast black lines when the screen moves around as the frames updates -60hz-.

about the LCD...I don't really care about the black level but my eyes are highly sensitive to irregular color shifting even if it is small..and I don't think I want to go over 19inch.

and still need help for the ram oc...

here are pics from cpu-z for Ram stuff...I don't know much about them so I keep them default
http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/4655/2321d.jpg http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/887/2322j.jpg


I know I am asking too much guys but I feel like I am in heavens here :)

EarthDog
07-29-09, 03:24 PM
Read the overclocking guide I suggested Expert. I already stated you may get 900Mhz out of it. I cant see the screenshots at work so I cant help much more, so read the guide and see what those sticks can do on your own in the meantime. Just dont add more then .1 volts to stock and you will be safe.

jason4207
07-29-09, 03:28 PM
You can try to OC your RAM more, but it will do little to nothing to help in gaming.

From that ss it looks like you're running stock again (333FSB). Go back to your OC settings and then let's see what it says. CPU speed > RAM speed.

19" would be a wasted effort as it is still below 1680x1050 afaik. Go for at least a good 22" 1680x1050 LCD.

expert87
07-29-09, 03:31 PM
22inch will blind me :)
but seriously I see a lot of stock LCDs around and I don't know which is better...they all look the same!

5min. I will re-oc again

Archer0915
07-29-09, 03:34 PM
Did you see the meager res he plays on? SLI/Crossfire would be a monumental waste of money at 1024x768.

Also, Nvida on ATI/Intel chipsets and ATI on Nvidia chipsets work just fine. You just dont have the option of SLI/Crossfire. :thup:

I know the SLI/X-fire thing the reason I pointed that out was that you are limited crossing chipset/vid and the most powerful ATI option would be an X2 card but going nVidia allows dual card solutions.

I dont game as much as I used to so nVidia at this point is moving in until ATi gets their crap together.

And I did miss the playing res.

jason4207
07-29-09, 03:37 PM
Most LCDs have a TN panel and suffer from mediocre black levels. They're fine for most folks, and work well for me. They are also very cheap.

The others such as S-IPS, H-IPS, S-PVA, & MVA panels are better but will cost you more. Google is your friend. Read some reviews.

Here's a link I just found discussing the different panel types:

http://www.pchardwarehelp.com/guides/lcd-panel-types.php

Do your research. Go to a store and see them...play w/ the settings. Then pick what you like!

Edit: 19" blind you! LOL! I sit right in front of a 28"!

expert87
07-29-09, 03:42 PM
28 is a disaster for me :)
here are the ram settings after ocing....cpu is up to 4027mhz
http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/5769/71490137.jpghttp://img195.imageshack.us/img195/1985/57630633.jpg

I know there is some problem with core 2 duo bios heat readings...I get CPU temp 32-36 and core 1 temp 44...core 2 temp 44...after ocing...which one is true?

jason4207
07-29-09, 03:44 PM
Use RealTemp to monitor your CPU temps. Then report back your Prime95 small-fft load temps after 15mins.

expert87
07-29-09, 03:49 PM
it is going high
64-65 degrees

jobrien2001
07-29-09, 03:59 PM
Those temps will not hinder performance.

Buy another case fan next time you go to a tech shop, they are cheap.

expert87
07-29-09, 04:10 PM
here is a picture...18 minutes passed
it was 64-66 till a screen saver loaded :mad:
http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/6200/tempk.jpg

are these temps ok?
I stopped the test...the cpu is resting at 43 degrees...weird thing I touched the heat sink when it reached 67 and it was cool

EarthDog
07-29-09, 04:12 PM
70C and under is fine. You wont hit those temps doing anything else unless you F@H or something of the like which from what it appears, I doubt you do that.

expert87
07-29-09, 04:12 PM
I do rip some movies on my pc....
now to the ram ocing...waiting for jason4207..
so the final word is to drop the new graphic plans till I get to bigger res...

expert87
07-29-09, 04:23 PM
turns out the cpu does have something to do with it...the benchmark is getting to 70fps "barely, but it didn't do that before"..gpu not oced
average is 54fps with a grade of B :(

EarthDog
07-29-09, 04:23 PM
Im sorry to come off rude here, but there isnt a way I can think of not to.....

Can you start the process on your own? You are already at 422FSB. You already know that you can raise that memory voltage by .1. Have you tried that? Have you tried loosening the timings? Have you read that guide I told you about? None of us are going to fly to the middle east to help you. Take the training wheels off my friend and go for a ride. Read that guide! :)

expert87
07-29-09, 04:26 PM
not much difference after gpu ocing....only 3fps...white dots starting to appears

expert87
07-29-09, 04:31 PM
I absolutely have no clue about ram ocing....I am reading the thread now...
you are not rude or anything....its good enough that you guys are helping me in learning all these things

EarthDog
07-29-09, 04:35 PM
Reading that guide should help you out a lot. We will all contonue to help, but you have to learn and not be afraid to try things yourself within reason. Again, finish reading that guide.

As far as the white dots, thats called artificating and something (core/memory/shader) is too high so back it off a bit.

expert87
07-29-09, 04:40 PM
I lowered mem speed by 50mhz and everything is fine...thanks
back after ram experimenting finishes
and by the way...the guide was written by Cluster...if I got it right

expert87
07-29-09, 05:12 PM
no luck so far...
reducing CAS by 1 causes the pc to peep
increasing ram speed by 50mhz gets BSODs and scary stuff
gotta change the chipsets timings :S
still trying

EarthDog
07-29-09, 06:34 PM
you need to raise the cas not lower it to make it more loose and stable.

expert87
07-29-09, 06:37 PM
ok...I found the following
1-Default voltage my pc detects for ram is 1.9 not 1.8
so I increased voltage up to 2.050

2- I tried to increase speed upto 850 and it gave me only 840...cycle times become bigger

3-tried to increase speed to 900 and increase voltage...still speed is 840mhz...with larger cycles times

the default cycle time for my rams is 5-6-6-12
now it is
http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/4466/81828108.jpg

4- tried to use everest benchmark memory tests....found out that there is a difference...got my pc before core2 duo extreme in Everest's list :
http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/8743/50899751.jpg


should I roll back to defaults and wait for expert opinion??

expert87
07-29-09, 06:40 PM
i will try to loose it more...be back

EarthDog
07-29-09, 06:42 PM
post a pic of the spd tab please.

expert87
07-29-09, 06:57 PM
here it is
this is as far as it can go
6-7-7-20 voltage 2.050 speed 840MHZ (I wrote 900 but thats all it gave me :( )
note:tras can go up to 40!
note: everest benchmark readings got worse
http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/2491/677201.jpghttp://img268.imageshack.us/img268/4013/677202.jpg

Rich'[ard]
07-29-09, 07:00 PM
why do you want to increase your ram's speed?
higher 'mhz' on your ram will only give you better benchmarking scores...especially benchmarks like Pi test etc.
overclocking your ram doesn't give you much beneift FPS wise. although, it'l help you reah a higher FSB when you oc your CPU...but i still doubt you need 900 or 1000mhz.

also, i saw that your ram is running at 800mhz, 5-5-5-18 stock. there's little chance you'll be able to oc your RAM as the timings are already considered loose. :(
on the other hand, if the stock timings were 4-4-4-12 you'd have more chance.

btw, why dyou hate ATi! i love ATi lol.

regarding your GPU-monitor problem...if you're going to get a bigger monitor, get a new/faster GPU as at higher resolutions the load is going to be put on your GPU. however if you're going to keep using your CRT at 10*x7*, keep overclocking that CPU until you reach 4ghz+.

:beer:

Rich'[ard]
07-29-09, 07:07 PM
here it is
this is as far as it can go
6-7-7-20 voltage 2.050 speed 840MHZ (I wrote 900 but thats all it gave me :( )
note:tras can go up to 40!
note: everest benchmark readings got worse
http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/2491/677201.jpghttp://img268.imageshack.us/img268/4013/677202.jpg
yeh...i was gonna say, you won't get very far with such loose timings.

the looser your timings (the bigger the number) means the longer it takes for RAM to communicate with other parts of your system. the cas setting of 6 you have right now means it takes 6ms for you to access a colmun of memory on a module.
as opposed to 5ms when you were running at 800mhz.
play around a bit and see waht the best speed/timings combo is :thup:

also, i should say, running your RAM faster than youro FSB is useless for your CPU...and useless for everybody else running C2Ds. you'll get very very very little performance increase in real life situations. so just run your RAM and w/e your FSB is set on...i'm guessing 400mhz? sucks eh lol.

so maybe go back down to 400mhz and see how tight you can get the timings to.
just my $.02

expert87
07-29-09, 07:21 PM
hmmm....i found it a lot faster while loading startup programs and while booting...
the setup was 850mhz...6-7-7-20

I usually don't like over clocking setups because my past experiments ended up frying something -usually the mainboard- but i found it much better now...at 4ghz

next step is water cooling..how lower can temp get if I use a water cooling system?
a chasis with a wc system here costs about 250-300$...will it be worth it? and will i be able to overclock my cpu further "current is 4.06ghz"

jason4207
07-29-09, 08:46 PM
;6176076"]yeh...i was gonna say, you won't get very far with such loose timings.

the looser your timings (the bigger the number) means the longer it takes for RAM to communicate with other parts of your system. the cas setting of 6 you have right now means it takes 6ms for you to access a colmun of memory on a module.
as opposed to 5ms when you were running at 800mhz.
play around a bit and see waht the best speed/timings combo is :thup:

also, i should say, running your RAM faster than youro FSB is useless for your CPU...and useless for everybody else running C2Ds. you'll get very very very little performance increase in real life situations. so just run your RAM and w/e your FSB is set on...i'm guessing 400mhz? sucks eh lol.

so maybe go back down to 400mhz and see how tight you can get the timings to.
just my $.02

Not 5ms or 6ms. It's 5 cycles or 6 cycles. In this case a cycle is [1/840,000,000]s or 1.19ns/cycle. If he could get the RAM running 1GHz then a cycle would be 1ns.

Also, hes' not running the RAM faster than the FSB. He's running it slower...something that you can't do on an intel chipset, but is possible on the nVidia chipset boards.

hmmm....i found it a lot faster while loading startup programs and while booting...
the setup was 850mhz...6-7-7-20

I usually don't like over clocking setups because my past experiments ended up frying something -usually the mainboard- but i found it much better now...at 4ghz

next step is water cooling..how lower can temp get if I use a water cooling system?
a chasis with a wc system here costs about 250-300$...will it be worth it? and will i be able to overclock my cpu further "current is 4.06ghz"

Do you see the FSB:RAM ratio in CPU-Z? You keep picking odd ratios, and the board won't work well (or at all) w/ every ratio. That might be why it keeps reverting back to 840 when you select 900.

Since your RAM isn't that great I would just try to run it 1:1 if you can. This might still be hard since you're going to be pushing your RAM pretty hard, but I would at least try. There should be some 'sync' and/or 'linked' settings on your board. I'm not that familiar w/ nVidia chipsets so you'll just have to experiment to see what works right, but try to get 1:1 to show up in CPU-Z. Start w/ timings loose at like 6-7-7-20 like you have it, and then try for 5-6-6-18 or something in between...you might need to try 1 timing at a time. Give it a little more RAM voltage if you feel comfortable. Basically if giving it a little more voltage helps it run better at the tighter timings then roll w/ it. If not then put it back.

I wouldn't jump into water cooling just yet. Baby steps...baby steps. Your temps are fine, and 4GHz shouldn't hold you back at all.

Is the PC still not performing well? In your situation I would get a new monitor first, then gfx card, then better RAM, then P45 or X48 mobo. And then H20 if that's how you want to roll...I'd stay w/ air, personally.

expert87
07-30-09, 05:36 AM
the raito i got is 16:15
its not the chipset fault and I don't pick any ratios...the ram and fsb speed are set on unlinked...in order to get cpu upto 4ghz without getting my pc to peep due to high ram frequency.....at 4ghz the linked option give me about 1066 ram speed which is way far from my ram's capabilities...here is what the ram settings screen looks like:
http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/4176/cmos1.jpg
and here is the voltage screen:
http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/3603/cmos2.jpg
I don't think I will change mobo for long time....Iam happy with the nvidia chipset..

if i get better rams....say a 1066 or 1333 mhz with less timings (5-5-5-15 for example) and get a better fsb:ram ratio,would that help improve my pc ratings at games?

see it is either I get a new gfx card "a good one" and a better ram...or I get a good LCD instead..

EarthDog
07-30-09, 08:44 AM
Yeah 5-5-5-18 is about as loose as I would go (finally saw your screenshots from home last night).

Being on a 750i, you can and should be for now running at a 1:1 ratio at 1.8v. Maybe 1.9v. But I wouldnt go over that.

expert87
07-30-09, 09:10 AM
as I was saying...I can't get to 1:1....my fsb is running at 1810MHZ....can't get my rams over 840mhz :bang head:bang head

EarthDog
07-30-09, 10:10 AM
I cant see your SS again since Im at work but the 750i bios is similar to the 780i which I owned and you can set 1:1 in teh bios. In fact you can set ANY speed the memory if I remember correctly.

go to this link and see - http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/mainboards/evga-nf750i-sli-ftw/bios_fsb-mem.jpg

expert87
07-30-09, 10:32 AM
ok... I linked both the fsb and ram... I lowered the fsb so I get 900MHZ on my ram...but when I restarted nothing was oced....not the cpu niether ram...ram was on 2.050V

I tried to get equal speeds at both fsb and ram but that seems impossible since ram max is 800MHZ and fsb min is 1500

I think I won't be able to oc ram as long as Iam using these slow ones...but what effects does it have on perfformance/games if Iam using these odds ratios "like 16:15"?
and should I make getting faster ram as a priority??

jason4207
07-30-09, 10:33 AM
With 1810FSB you'd need your RAM running at 905 to get 1:1. If it can't do it then just run what you're running now, and try to tighten up timings by giving it some juice.

Edit: You'll be fine where you're at. The RAM isn't going to limit you too much for gaming.

EarthDog
07-30-09, 10:39 AM
Exactly.. ^^.

But to run 1:1 you need can UNLINK and manually set the timings. But at this point, its best to stop until you get better ram. But really, run 1:1 until your ram cant take it and back off a bit. I wouldnt run your ram at 2.05v either. Its stock rating is 1.8v according to CPUz.

expert87
07-30-09, 10:45 AM
strange thing.... ocz does say 1.8v as stock
but my pc detects it automatically as 1.9....so 2.050 is like +.105

jason4207 thanks for the hint...I will try one more time to get up by 100mhz....but before that, do I need to oc the timings?..cause I kind of reset the timings back to defaults...and should I increase the cycle #'s or decrease it to get to 900mhz?

EarthDog
07-30-09, 10:46 AM
I wouldnt increase (loosen) your timings (you dont overclock ram timings, its loose or tight timings) to get to 900Mhz. I would raise it .1 to 1.9v and see how high it goes with its stock timings. Thats it. Jason may have other, just as valid thoughts as well. :)

expert87
07-30-09, 10:54 AM
I tried to push as far as it can go...no more than 848MHZ
went upto 2.1v....no good
timings were detected automatically by pc as 5-7-7-20
ratio is 15:16

EarthDog
07-30-09, 11:14 AM
Manually set timings @ 5-5-5-18, default (the guide says to set stuff manually!!!). And see if it will boot at 840Mhz or 420FSB or 3.7Ghz on the CPU if all is 1:1.

expert87
07-30-09, 11:41 AM
stabled at 848MHZ timings 5-5-5-18
I wrote 900mhz in bios but that is all Iam getting
got alot of errors and BSOD's first....increased voltage to 2.05 and now stable

NOTE1: even though mu cpu-z results show 1.8volts....my bios says it is 1.9v

NOTE2: the pc seems to reduce what ever speed I write....if is ask for 840 it gives me 837 and so....tell I reach 450 where it doesn't go over 848MHZ
EDIT:I noticed the difference btw the speed I write and the speed I get after getting fsb oced.

I guess if I get more voltage into it I might be able to get 900mhz....
one thing...does windows need to readjust at new speeds? everytime I change ram speeds it goes sloooow and after sometime it gets used to it!

jason4207
07-30-09, 11:46 AM
Note1: CPU-Z doesn't detect actual RAM voltages. It only reads the SPD info programmed into the RAM. In the BIOS you do have a place to set the RAM voltage. There may also be a place that reads it. Go by the reading, and adjust your BIOS setting as necesary to compensate.

expert87
07-30-09, 11:53 AM
I know that but NOTE1 was a response to this reply:
I wouldnt run your ram at 2.05v either. Its stock rating is 1.8v according to CPUz.

current voltage is 2.05v...what voltage limit should I put in mind, considering my pc gives it 1.9 as default?

EarthDog
07-30-09, 11:56 AM
You dont seem to understand.....What your mobo sets it up as it NOT its default, its 1.8v as the MFG says and CPUz (they agree in this case). I said dont go over .1 for daily operation or without active cooling (fan) on them.

EDIT: Jason has it...

expert87
07-30-09, 12:00 PM
Iam really sorry if I got you angry...
:)

so that's it for my ram?
any other advises?

EarthDog
07-30-09, 12:05 PM
naa, not angry. Just mentioned that stuff before man. Keep on keeping on! :)

Enjoy waht you have as you are about maxed out without killing parts. Hell you can even set the ram manually at 800Mhz and try pushing the processor.....

expert87
07-30-09, 12:17 PM
Thanks to all and special thanks to EarthDog & jason4207 for their continuous support :)

I got 79ns memory latency now...I will try to torture the pc with some tests now :santa: , and lets see what benchmark I'll get now.

I will leave the idea of buying a new gfx aside for now, tell I get a big eye-blinding LCD....

This was the fastest thread I had in less than 24hours...3 pages 350 views...all thanks to the support team here...you should get paid for this work :santa:

cheers :beer:

expert87
07-30-09, 05:31 PM
back ^_^
done some benchmarking...Iam getting 50-70 frames now in resident evil 5 benchmarking which is an A
I still have a question...ocing the gfx didn't give me that much...but after ocing the cpu the pc is on fire :)
I still wonder what is stopping the pc from giving more...is it the gfx or the cpu, how can I determine?
and lets say I want to oc the cpu more but with safe temps...like getting a better cooler...etc would I be able to get more from the cpu...lets say 4.5-5ghz? I am not talking about using liquid N for cooling...maybe a water cooling system?

Archer0915
07-30-09, 08:22 PM
Stupid question, why cant the memory be knocked back to 667 with the 800 timings and ramp up from there I do it all the time on my AMD setup to get a higher oc than ram will allow?

http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/4025/ramf.png

My memory is set at 667 and clocked back up to ~840

jason4207
07-30-09, 10:40 PM
Setting it to 667 is just affecting the FSB:RAM ratio afaik (no AMD experience).

Some boards are laid out like that. More of the recent Intel chipset boards let you pick the FSB:RAM ratio more directly by seeing the resulting RAM speed immediately. And the nVidia chipset boards are even stranger (too me) w/ the almost unlimited FSB:RAM ratios available...allowing you to select almost any RAM speed irregardless of the FSB speed (not guaranteed that every ratio will be stable, though)

expert87
07-31-09, 02:05 AM
back ^_^
done some benchmarking...Iam getting 50-70 frames now in resident evil 5 benchmarking which is an A
I still have a question...ocing the gfx didn't give me that much...but after ocing the cpu the pc is on fire :)
I still wonder what is stopping the pc from giving more...is it the gfx or the cpu, how can I determine?
and lets say I want to oc the cpu more but with safe temps...like getting a better cooler...etc would I be able to get more from the cpu...lets say 4.5-5ghz? I am not talking about using liquid N for cooling...maybe a water cooling system?

jason4207
07-31-09, 11:36 AM
I wouldn't jump into water cooling just yet. Baby steps...baby steps. Your temps are fine, and 4GHz shouldn't hold you back at all.


The 1 thing that will add the most to your gaming experience at this point is a bigger monitor.

expert87
08-02-09, 09:32 PM
Hi Again;
I succeeded in ocing cpu upto 4.5ghz...Idle temp is 45...testing temp is about 73
What is making me worry....the system didn't stablised until I got all voltages excpet the ram one (cpu voltage , SPP voltage , Chipset ,FSB) in the first valus of the red zone voltages,,,and I am scared that I might burn something...am I ok? or should I slow down?
Iam allowing the mulitplier to change so that the cpu can cool down when not busy.

EarthDog
08-04-09, 02:38 PM
I dont know what "red" is for that board. Can you list the major voltages please?

LufbraDan23
08-04-09, 02:47 PM
I know this is the nvidia thread but i was converted to Ati for the simple fact that i got a 4890 for the price of a GTX260 216.

ImSpartacus
08-04-09, 03:00 PM
At such a low res your better off overclocking your CPU as much as possible to see how much that improves your performance.

I agree. That resolution is too small to warrant a 4890 or 275. I got a 4890 for my 1080p + 1280x1024 dual displays and it works great. I can't imagine needing more than what you have for the resolution you use. My old 8800GT did fine on my old 1280x1024 panel.

Save you money for a rebuild and overclock that sucker!

expert87
08-06-09, 05:54 PM
Hi Again
I got a 22" and Iam working on it
I have the following 2 quesiotn:

1) I am having troubles getting my cpu upto 4.5ghz cause it keeps restarting irregularly...sometimes during windows startup sometimes windows starts but when loading something it just restarts....no BSODS just sudden restarts
I kept trying different setting....I maxed out the fsb voltage (1.45v) and got the cpu up to 1.64v it worked for a while but restarted while stress testing....temps are 51 and 54 after restarting
My ram's are still at the same settings....no ocing...but a little extra voltage.
I noticed irregular temps reading during the stress test and before it restarted...it jumps 6-8 degrees then goes back and so on
I need a hint about what voltage I'll need to get my pc stabled.

2) My gpu oc fine...I can raise the core speed from 675 upto 813mhz, after that artifacts will appear....what is annoying me is the mem speed...all I got is 1100mhz after that artifacts will appear
I found a pincle voltage mod for my 8800 GTS and Iam kind of scared to apply it
Please note that my gfx is factory oced....but I need to get more out of it
I will not do the soldering mod...only the pencil for mem
here is the mod
http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/5034/8800gtg92gtgtsvgpuvmemm.jpg

jason4207
08-06-09, 06:17 PM
1.64v!!! You're gonna kill that chip man. Is that a BIOS voltage setting or what you're reading in CPU-Z? Go by the CPU-Z reported voltage. Are you just trying to run benches or are you after 24/7 stability? What are you're temps under load?

Only you can determine what voltage you need to be stable, but it sounds like you're just throwing max volts and hoping for the best. You need to be systematic, and do very fine adjustments as needed.

I suggest you back down the vcore and speed to something more reasonable if you want to have that chip much longer. Also remember that you may encounter FSB holes if you're RAM:FSB ratio is too funky.

Go back to 4GHz, and do some testing to find out how low you can go on each voltage setting. Then start going back up a little bit at a time while testing for stability. Once you fail a test record how long you lasted and take note of the fft size. Small fft sizes usually point to the cpu, and large-fft sizes point towards FSB or RAM.

Adjust each BIOS setting 1 at a time, and see if you can increase the time before it fails. You shouldn't need to make any drastic changes if you move up slowly. Don't forget to try GTLs and different RAM divider options to narrow down the problem. Just throwing vcore at it won't always help and can actually make things worse in some cases or do permanent damage to your chip.

Try to keep your vcore below 1.45v max (as seen in CPU-Z).




Sounds like you have Qimonda RAM on your gfx card. That stuff actually responds better w/ less voltage, but you'll only get 20-50 more MHz out of it if you do the reverse vmem mod...and you'll need a soldering iron. Some cards have Samsung RAM and they go much higher, and respond to more voltage well.

expert87
08-06-09, 07:19 PM
since I wasn't able to get the pc stable...I tried to max it out to see if it will ever be stable at that speed..seems like it will not
1.64v was bios setting...couldn't even get to windows to get cpu-z
now Iam running at 4.21ghz...fsb at 1870mhz in bios....problem is cannot get ram higher which seems to make big difference btw ram and fsb...I think I will change the ram to get better ratio..until then, I will keep on 4.21...current voltage according to cpu-z is 1.416 goes to 1.39 under pressure...bios voltage is 1.45 or 1.46
Do you agree on the ram stuff? It finally was able to get it above 850mhz but the pc resets to default -failure boot-...If I link the fsb and ram at current speeds,ram will be set around 1200mhz which can be easily achieved with better ram...can the ratio make my ocing fail?

about the gfx I really don't know what mem it has....Iam afraid that an over voltage will occur if I pencil mod it and it will fry....is that possible?
the gpu is G92 as the graph suggests.

jason4207
08-06-09, 09:14 PM
You could try a lower RAM speed. Try to use a divider that you know works well.

expert87
08-26-09, 09:18 PM
Back!! :)
I upgraded the rams to ocz professional with 1066mhz and timings 5-5-5-15
now the ratio Iam getting (FSB:RAM) is (8:9)
I can't get more than 4.24 from my E8400
I tried adding extra voltage....not much results
I was able to get to 4.4 but windows had some errors....prime95 failed testing it
I don't know what is stopping it?
don't know if it will help....but here is the log from prime94
[Thu Aug 27 02:06:23 2009]
FATAL ERROR: Rounding was 0.5, expected less than 0.4
Hardware failure detected, consult stress.txt file.
FATAL ERROR: Rounding was 0.5, expected less than 0.4
Hardware failure detected, consult stress.txt file.
[Thu Aug 27 02:07:47 2009]
FATAL ERROR: Rounding was 0.5, expected less than 0.4
Hardware failure detected, consult stress.txt file.
FATAL ERROR: Rounding was 0.5, expected less than 0.4
Hardware failure detected, consult stress.txt file.

If i try to reach 4.5 ablue screen will pop at windows boot screen and the pc will restart no matter what voltages I use

current voltages are 1.375 cpu 2.2 Ram 1.4 FSB 1.35 north chipset 1.4 south chipset
all at the end of the safe-green cloloured voltage...any extra will result in red colour

temps are all ok with all speeds...doesn't exceed 45....Iam using a heavy duty AC to cool it down