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

Overclocking - 3000+ 939 and K8N Neo 2 - Advice please

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

nahKli

Registered
Joined
Jan 3, 2005
Hello,

I am trying to overclock my processor and have had moderate success so far but I want to push it more. My goal is to get my processor running close the 2600 mhz mark.

My setup:
3000+ Winchester 939
K8N Neo2 Plat
2x512 Kingston HyperX DDR 466
2x256 Kingston HyperX DDR 400
Antec NeoPower 480 Watts
Thermalright XP-90 Heatsink

Here are my current bios settings:

DRAM Configuration -
Max Memclock - 166 mhz
1T/2T timing - 2T
CAS Latency - 3.0
RAS# to CAS# (trcd) - 4
Min Ras# (tras) - 10
Row Precharge (trp) - 4

High Performance - disabled
aggressive timing - disabled
dynamic OC - disabled
Spread spectrum - disabled
HT Frequency - 4X
Cool'nquiet - disabled
CPU Ratio - 9X
CPU FSB - 250
AGP Frequency - 66 (default)
CPU VID - 1.50
CPU Volt - System/Startup (the only options are +3.3% of CPU VID or +5%)
Memory Voltage - 2.8
AGP Voltage - System (startup)

Summary:

Currenty -
9x250
HT = 4X
CPU 1.5 Volts
Memory 2.8 Volts
DDR - 166

Goal -
9x289
HT = 3X
CPU volts ??? (help here)
Memory 2.8 volts
DDR 133

Attempts:
I have gotten the machine to boot using the following:
9x270 Default CPU voltage
HT - 3X
2.8 Memory

Windows loaded, but 3dmark05 locked up.

Running higher FSB's I can sometimes get the machine to post, but when it gets to where it would normally load windows it just restarts. At other times I either get no video or the bios appears "corrupt" (gybberish and symbols appear on the screen).

Another part I have found some confusion is the CPU voltage. I'm seeing the bios show 1.5 as the default voltage, when I have read posts by useres that they are using 1.4, 1.425, 1.45 up to 1.55

CPUID shows my voltage as being 1.408-1.44. Does that CPU Voltage bios setting need to be adjusted? It's options are +3.3% CPU VID or +5%.

Also do the AGP voltage/frequencies need to be changed at all?

Any help, tips, and advice is appreciated!
 
Last edited:
Actually after resetting the CMOS the voltage core was set at 1.5V by default inside the bios.

When i manually "Restore Safe" settings, it sets the default vaue to "Startup" which should be the 1.4 v


*** Edit ***
Just tried changing my CPU VId to 1.42 and the cpu voltage to +5%

FSB at 270 and ran 3dmark05 like a champ.
 
Last edited:
OK, I still can't hit 280 FSB or 289 and get windows to boot or the machine to post. Not sure why, but maybe it just can't handle that high.

So far I think my best bet is this:

bios settings
4X HT
250 FSB

that gets me 2250 Mhz
1000 HTT
and 208 Mhz on my memory in dual channel

No matter what I've tried though I cannot get my memory to run in 1T mode, it will only boot in 2T.



*edit**

Tried for going higher than 270 FSB again, but the highest i can get is 273. Anything higher than that as soon as it gets to where the windows flash screen is that shows its loading it just reboots. I have tried upping the voltage to 1.62 volts ~ but that didn't seem to help anything. Any ideas on this? Could it be memory related?
When I try 1T it says I need to repair my windows installations.

Any ideas on that?
DDR 166
 
Last edited:
Your problem is this:
2x512 Kingston HyperX DDR 466
2x256 Kingston HyperX DDR 400

Four memory sticks? Be glad if you can run it with stock settings
 
OK thanks zebb.

I'll try it later with only two sticks and see what happens.
 
This is what I was reading elsewhere. MSI's site mentions a reduction in maximum memory speed to 333 when 8 banks of memory are utilized, but says nada about the cmd rate being lowered to 2T. I cannot recall where I was reading this, but I believe this is what you are running into just as Zebbo said.
 
Cool. I took out the 2x256 chips and that was my bottleneck

I have gotten it up to 288 FSB and I'm currently running at that right now.

Next question: To get windows to boot, I set my voltage to 1.45 +10%
CPU VID = 1.45
CPU Voltage = +10% of CPU VID

CPU-Z reads my voltage as 1.6 -1.648

Am I running it too close to 1.65 volts?

My temps are fine, 40C idle and maxed out just now at 48 under load.
 
OK. Well running at 288 isn't stable. I can't even get the first test to load on 3dmark05

I've backed it down to 284, and it gets into the middle of the first test on 3dmark05 and then my computer locks up.

Do I need more voltage, or am I just pushing the limit and I need to lower my FSB?
 
nahKli said:
OK. Well running at 288 isn't stable. I can't even get the first test to load on 3dmark05

I've backed it down to 284, and it gets into the middle of the first test on 3dmark05 and then my computer locks up.

Do I need more voltage, or am I just pushing the limit and I need to lower my FSB?
going for 2.6ghz is on default voltage is asking for a bit much, 1.45v + 8.3% or 5%, 3.3% if you are lucky, BTW anything above 1.45v setting doesn't do anything and is the same as 1.45v check out this thread for more on vcore http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=351720, if i were you i would just up the vcore to 1.45v + 10% and find the max it will run at because any more voltage than that does nothing but add heat, you should be able to do 2.6-2.7ghz easy
 
Right now I have voltage set like this:

VPU Vid 1.475
CPU Volt +10%

CPU-Z reads my voltage as being: 1.6 currently

Right now i'm running 279x9 = 2511 mhz

Was able to run 3dmark05 right now without locking up

thanks for that link, I've been referencing that thread a lot already :)

Does anyone have an opinion on using 8X as the multiplier instead of 9X?

With that you could get your HTT up higher....
 
To bobmanfoo, if you say any more V+ just adds heat, you sig says 1.6V....kinda contradictory for the noob, isnt it?
 
thephoneguy said:
To bobmanfoo, if you say any more V+ just adds heat, you sig says 1.6V....kinda contradictory for the noob, isnt it?

Uh he said anymore voltage than 1.45+10% does nothing but add heat. There's nothing contradictory in that statement and I tend to agree.
 
Back