• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

o.c my system need some advise plz

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
upping the bus frequncy to 205 and volt to 0.071875 boots into windows but when i run prim95 core*5 worker stops it said hardware failure in the box.
 
volt to 0.071875 = It stands to reason to just RAISE that a little more and try.

YOU may be at the end of your cpu Mhz and that is what 'trents' was talking about back when you were asking about overclocking with the FSB/HT Freq/HT REF Freq. If some more Vcore does not make the worker quit failing then you are at the END of the cpu MHz road.
 
i read that people o.c 1090t up to 5ghz. allso could it be somthin to do with my ram why i get the hardware failer? beacuse when uppin the cpu bus from 200 to 205 it ups the ram and i remeber u guys saying somthing about the ram that i have might be a problem. just wondering. i will try and up the volt again and see what happens
 
hmm at 1.402 volts p95 crashed on testing.tryd again.core *6 stopt working. the next volt up on cpu offset is 0.078125.during this hole o.c process the cpu/nb offset has remaind at 1.257 0.100000. It has not been touched.is there a resson for this?is it safe to say that if i continue to increes the cpu offset volt i wont see any inprovment? thanks again
 
In bios what does it say your CPUNB current voltage is? I'm not asking about the offset I'm asking about the result of the offset you have made. Are we to assume that is 1.257?

What is your memory voltage set to? Again not the amount of the offset but the result of the offset.

Now would be a good time to give us new pics of the three CPU- z tabs.

Some people may have gotten the 1090T to 5.0 ghz but that may have been on a special cooling system and it may not have not been really stable or only stable enough to do some benchmarking. On this forum we get no end of people who brag about their high overclocks but when we ask them to run an extended stress test with Prime95 they repolrt back with their tail between their legs. That said, you should be able to get to 4.0 with the H100 on a 1090T.
 
Yeah, that old "they got X" and I want to also but I have never seen one of those do any stability testing for day in and day out use.

He made it to 4.0Ghz already, I was just going to see if it had another 100Mhz in it and it seems so far n0t.
 
domjam, the Thuban core CPUs like yours can benefit stability wise from increasing the HT Link frequency and the CPUNB frequency. Try this:

Put your main bus back to the stock 200 mhz.

Put your HT Link frequency to 2200 mhz.

Put your CPUNB frequency to 2600 mhz.

Put your CPU voltage to about 1.475.

Set you CPU ratio to 20.5

Retest with Prime95 for two hours and monitor temps with HWMonitor.
 
my dram volt has been at 1.55
not sure if i have don what u said correcty in ur post trent but beffor i made these changes my cpu/nb offset was at 1.257. the 3 cpuz bellow are from the changes you sujested .i have not run p95 yet though.please advise if i have don this correctly.
 

Attachments

  • cpuz 20.5.jpg
    cpuz 20.5.jpg
    152.9 KB · Views: 22
Last edited:
What was the highest the number in the red circle was before? When you were failing the Prime test at 4.1 ghz before? This is what I'm interested in, not knowing what the offset is. The changes to HT Link an CPUNB are just as I asked for. Thank you.
 

Attachments

  • CoreVoltage.JPG
    CoreVoltage.JPG
    38.2 KB · Views: 23
1.404 was what it was on when i passed the 2 hour test.when rgone told me to change the HT frequency(cpu bus) from 200 to 205 and raise the volt up once.that is what gave the problem
 
Last edited:
So now with the changes you made as reflected in post #188 try the two hour stress test again. Monitor temps.
 
so leaving the vcore volt at 1.465 is ok then..i will try this test tomorow and report back to u guys.but since i passed the test at 4ghz earlyer dose that meen that so far that is a safe setting for my system?
 
It's safe as long as temps remain acceptable, like I said at the outset. You want the core temps to go no higher than mid 50s C.
 
i took the p95 test stoped it 1 min early by mistake but it passed at 1h59mins
this is the result with the voltage at 1.464 les then what u told me to put it at. is it better to use les voltage? or is this ok?
 

Attachments

  • o.c 20.5 temps.jpg
    o.c 20.5 temps.jpg
    115.3 KB · Views: 20
Yes, better to use less voltage. Use the smallest amount that still gives stability.

Congrats! Looks like you made it to 4.1 ghz stable. Your max CPU core voltage is 1.5 under stress and I wouldn't want you to go much higher than that even though your CPU socket and core temps are quite acceptable. 1.55 under stress would be the ceiling IMOP. You might want to call it good.

Anyway, you're over 4.0 ghz now so I'm cutting you loose. This has been a hard one and I'm kind of burned out.
 
4.1 is good!but would it be a good idea to try lowering the voltage and run p95 again till it fails?.if so would a 20 min test be ok or would i have to keep doing a 2 hour test til i find the min volt that will work?and allso regarding the ram is it safe to change the dram frequncy from 1333 to 1666? or should i just leave everything the way it is..reely wana get the most out of my system.

thanks again for your time and pasients with me
 
The lowest possible voltage that would give you a stable overclock for two hours would be the best so lower it and retest for two hours, not 20 minutes, if you want to find out where the edge of stability voltage is. You didn't need to ask that question. You know that I advised moving up to two hour tests when you got toward the upper end of the overclock. Why would that change when you start to lower the voltage which would increase the likely hood of becoming unstable again? You know, most of us experienced overclockers like to think we are helping people learn the art of overclocking, not just taking them by the hand to do for them every little baby step. I would hope this has been a learning experience for you and that you can start doing some thinking for yourself now.
 
yes it has but im not gona lie and say i no how to do everything now. ther is still alot to learn but i have gaind a better understanding about how to o.c the cpu on my own but not the ram. take into acount that i have a learning disabilty so sometimes things you say beffor i may not allwaz remeber straight away. thank you for ur time though I reely apreshiat it. its been a learnign experince to say the least and i have enjoyd it.
 
yes it has but im not gona lie and say i no how to do everything now. ther is still alot to learn but i have gaind a better understanding about how to o.c the cpu on my own but not the ram. take into acount that i have a learning disabilty so sometimes things you say beffor i may not allwaz remeber straight away. thank you for ur time though I reely apreshiat it. its been a learnign experince to say the least and i have enjoyd it.

"take into acount that i have a learning disabilty"

Sorry, I forgot that. I should have been more patient. Just let me encourage you to trust your own judgment more. You are smarter and more capable than you believe you are, I'm sure of it. Believe in yourself and don't listen to all the voices that try to put you down.

God bless.
 
Hello guys I'm back with a few questions .thanks again for helping me overclock my system.

question 1 :I did a bit of research on the ht link and north-bridge frequencies and apparently the higher the frequencys the better performance you get..is there a danger in increasing the frequency?

question 2: i heard that lower numbers for ram timing gives better performance so keeping my speed at 1333mhz I tried lowering my ram timing from the default 9-9-9-24 to 7-7-7-22 and my system is running is it safe to lower timing even more?

last question: Since u guys told me previously that the ram i have is not ideal for my system. In your opinion what would be ideal?

thanks again
 
Back