The Official Q9450/X3350 Overclocking Thread

[Trigger5521]

Hey, I was wondering if I could get some advice on getting my system up to par with some of the overclocking speeds that y'all have attained. My system is listed below in my signature, but for some reason I can't even get 400FSB to be really stable.

My temps at idle are usually around 45 and even at full load they never get past 60.

These are the settings that I used to boot at 400 FSB, but when I run OCCT it usually tends to fail the RAM test (the one designed to produce errors) in about 10 minutes.

FSB Strap:400MHZ
PCIE Frequency:100MHZ
VCORE:1.3V
DRAM Command Rate:2T
DRAM Timings:4-4-4-12 (Everything else on auto)
CPU and PCIE Spread Spectrum Disabled
CPU Voltage Reference:0.63X
NB Voltage Reference:0.67X
PLL Voltage:1.5V
DRAM Voltage:2.15V
FSB Termination:1.3V
NB:1.55V
SB:1.05V
Loadline Calibration:Enabled

I didn't want to go too much higher on any voltages that I didn't know how to really control, but I don't really understand why my stuff can't handle the clocks. I was thinking it might be because of the 8GB of ram, but I'm a lot lower than everyone else.

Try this site and find the thread for your mother board

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=59

 

[PortCitySlim]

So the problem that most people are having is getting their mobo's to handle high FSB speeds like 450+mhz? If I bought the new ASUS P5Q Deluxe P45 or even with my GA-X48-DS4(500mhz stable) could I hit 4.0 with a Q9450 on air? I will be using a Zalman 9700 with my case that is in my sig.

 

[orion456]

FSB Strap:400MHZ
PCIE Frequency:100MHZ
VCORE:1.3V
DRAM Command Rate:2T
DRAM Timings:4-4-4-12 (Everything else on auto)
CPU and PCIE Spread Spectrum Disabled
CPU Voltage Reference:0.63X
NB Voltage Reference:0.67X
PLL Voltage:1.5V
DRAM Voltage:2.15V
FSB Termination:1.3V
NB:1.55V
SB:1.05V
Loadline Calibration:Enabled

FSB strap = 333
vcore = 1.35v
Memory timing = auto
FSB termination = 1.4v
NB = 1.7v
Loadline = Disable

You should be able to get FSB = 440 or 450 with those settings. If so, then try the NB down one notch, if that works, then next the vcore = 1.325v. See how low your settings can be and still be stable.

 

[orion456]

So the problem that most people are having is getting their mobo's to handle high FSB speeds like 450+mhz? If I bought the new ASUS P5Q Deluxe P45 or even with my GA-X48-DS4(500mhz stable) could I hit 4.0 with a Q9450 on air? I will be using a Zalman 9700 with my case that is in my sig.

It seems to be a problem with the mobo's north bridge rather than CPU temperature or voltage. 440 mhz is doable, 450 is unusual, and above that is luck of the draw. I certainly wouldn't count on anything over 440, and even that may require unusually high voltage settings on the NB.

If you haven't bought the Q9450 yet, I would stick with your Q6700 and wait for the next generation.

 

[n3xu5]

It looks like the X3350 is the better overclocker here, well to me at least. I've never used a Xeon in a desktop setup, is there an substantial difference between the Xeon and the Wolfdale technology wise? Don't get me wrong, I know the Xeon is a server chip and all, but what's that mean in layman's terms?

Wait! I know, "It slices, It dices, and it even makes french fries!" Seriously though ...

So with a 450 FSB & a 8x Multi ... 3.6 is easier on the X3350 than it is on the Q9450? I'm only asking cause I'm slowly changing my mind from a E8400 to a Q6600 and now I'm considering this because its 45nm and runs cooler, which would be nice in the water setup I'm planning. Plus I upgrade at like 3+ year intervals, it's been 5 years since I've built a new machine for myself and I'm running a 3.2 P4C Northwood still...

 

[PortCitySlim]

It looks like the X3350 is the better overclocker here, well to me at least. I've never used a Xeon in a desktop setup, is there an substantial difference between the Xeon and the Wolfdale technology wise? Don't get me wrong, I know the Xeon is a server chip and all, but what's that mean in layman's terms?

Wait! I know, "It slices, It dices, and it even makes french fries!" Seriously though ...

So with a 450 FSB & a 8x Multi ... 3.6 is easier on the X3350 than it is on the Q9450? I'm only asking cause I'm slowly changing my mind from a E8400 to a Q6600 and now I'm considering this because its 45nm and runs cooler, which would be nice in the water setup I'm planning. Plus I upgrade at like 3+ year intervals, it's been 5 years since I've built a new machine for myself and I'm running a 3.2 P4C Northwood still...

I would like to know the answer to that too, I would also like to know if when paired with an X48 or P45 motherboard will these chips hit 4.0 reliably. I am planning to build another quad and if these chips can not do what the Q6700 does then I will get another 6700.

 

[satandole666]

I've never used a Xeon in a desktop setup, is there an substantial difference between the Xeon and the Wolfdale technology wise? Don't get me wrong, I know the Xeon is a server chip and all, but what's that mean in layman's terms?

It means relatively little in this generation of chips. Some claim the Xeons are binned better. Some say they generate less heat. Either way it is all speculation. As far as we know they are identical chips.

So with a 450 FSB & a 8x Multi ... 3.6 is easier on the X3350 than it is on the Q9450?

All things being equal (and they are not) they would be exactly the same. Since no two chips are guaranteed to be the same. If both chips are breaking 450fsb fairly easily then there should be no discernible difference in difficulty between the two.

'm only asking cause I'm slowly changing my mind from a E8400 to a Q6600 and now I'm considering this because its 45nm and runs cooler, which would be nice in the water setup I'm planning.

Of all three of those chips I would go for the E8400. The higher clock speeds and SSE4 instructions make it the best choice for the average day to day user and/or gamer. There are very few applications non-power users use that benefit from the increase in 2->4 cores.

However, if you have your mind made up on a quad I'd look for a cherry picked Q6600. The good chips can do near to 4ghz stable on water. I wouldn't expect the Q9450/X3350 to hit above 3.8ghz, but they will perform cooler with less energy used. The Q6600 overclocked should win most benchmarks over the Q9450/X3350 if you can keep the clockspeed 2-300mhz higher. In addition to that you might be able to get a cherry picked one for over $100 cheaper than a 45nm quad.

So...my order of preference:

E8400->Q6600->X3350->Q9450.

Hope this helps.

 

[n3xu5]

However, if you have your mind made up on a quad I'd look for a cherry picked Q6600. The good chips can do near to 4ghz stable on water. I wouldn't expect the Q9450/X3350 to hit above 3.8ghz, but they will perform cooler with less energy used. The Q6600 overclocked should win most benchmarks over the Q9450/X3350 if you can keep the clockspeed 2-300mhz higher. In addition to that you might be able to get a cherry picked one for over $100 cheaper than a 45nm quad.

So...my order of preference:

E8400->Q6600->X3350->Q9450.

Hope this helps.

If price & gaming was not an issue, and for most people it is ... between the E8400->Q6600->X3350->Q9450 which one would you grab first?

Dont get me wrong, I'm leaning towards a Quad personally, and the reason is this.

Source

Seeing that the differences are there but literally negligible at best, I am having a hard time seeing why everyone keeps yelling dual core for gaming. Other than the fact that most games dont even support quads yet and I can count a few on one hand that do, the point is that there's hardly a difference. The difference you can see in benchmarking is not able to be seen by the human eye anyhow, so what's the point?

Anyhow for me, its not a matter of gaming. Sure I'd game here and there, but these days I'm doing a bit more productive things rather than gaming every chance I get during my free time.

 

[MonkeyBoy00]

Hi, new to this website and overclocking i've currently got my Q9450 at 3.2 stable but wanting to push it to 3.6 maximum for 24/7 use would anyone know what settings i could use.

i recently postaed a thread the other day asking for help but no-one resonded, till today i've looked through this thread but still havn't found reliable settings can anyone help, link to my thread about it all with current bios settings.
http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=565410

 

[orion456]

I'm not convinced that Intel has done any such "hard wiring" -- can you show me an AMD Quad that is doing a 33% bus overclock on stock volts without cryogenic cooling? Are you telling me that AMD is hardwriring even BIGGER limits into their own chips?

Let's apply Occam's Razor to this problem: the simplest explanation is most likely the truth. As the processor becomes more complex, we expect these issues to crop up. You have four cores to synchronize all your data clocks, things get out of whack sooner when you have 2x more signal traces for clock propogation. Especially when considering how many transistors must carry that signal from end-to-end.

So, we can make up unsubstantiated, scientifically unprovable stories about how every chip ever made has an artifical FSB wall programmed in, or we can relatively and scientifically hypothesize that the complexity of these chips is prohibiting them from being overclocked as far.

I don't think its a question of hard wiring a FSB wall. I think its more a nice happenstance where Intel discovered that higher FSB combined with lower a multiplier results in a natural wall while still allowing safe CPU speeds.

All the evidence shows that a higher FSB doesn't result in better performance. But still Intel has raised the FSB to 333 and now to 400 on the qx9770. Why raise the FSB if there is no perceptable performance gains? Why cripple a CPU for no reason? Yet it makes the mobos cost more to deal with the higher FSB and gives nothing in return; except naturally making unlocked multipliers more desirable. Sometimes you don't need a conspiracy to accomplish goals. Sometimes mother nature just happens to provide a convenient smoke screen.

How else explain the jump to FSB 400 on a soon to be obsolete chipset? In fact, I think at the time of the qx9770's release, no mobo officially supported FSB 400, rather strange for conservative Intel.

 

[PortCitySlim]

I want to build another quad and am considering a P45 mobo with a 9450. Will I get a higher clock going with the 9450/P45 vs my 6700/X48? I got 3.6 with my 6700 and I want to hit 4.0 with the 9450, is this possible on air?

 

[satandole666]

I want to build another quad and am considering a P45 mobo with a 9450. Will I get a higher clock going with the 9450/P45 vs my 6700/X48? I got 3.6 with my 6700 and I want to hit 4.0 with the 9450, is this possible on air?

I don't think it is possible with water or phase. You might get 3.8 if you are really lucky, but these things have a very hard FSB wall that really slows them down.

And to the guy above who posted all of the benches comparing quads to duallies, I agree with your point.

My counterpoint is simply the ease and cost of a dually compared to a quad. When you have a quad you need a more competent cooling system to hit 3.6ghz than you do to hit 4+ ghz with an E8400. They will use more power and generate more heat. Also, depending on your motherboard and various components quads can be more difficult to overclock as well.

Also, quads are better in 3d benches then dual cores. I'd like to have a quad for benching but I had a choice and I went with the E8400.

There is really no bad choice between an Q6600 and an E8400. Back when I made my decision there was a $70 price difference too.

 

[PortCitySlim]

I don't think it is possible with water or phase. You might get 3.8 if you are really lucky, but these things have a very hard FSB wall that really slows them down.

So even with a good P45 mobo like the P5Q Deluxe these things can't do what the Q6700 does just a little hotter. Looks like the Q6700 is still the fastest chip under $350. When the 9550 or 9650 price drops under $350 I will plug one of them into a P45 and hope to get 4.0 or better

 

[n3xu5]

So even with a good P45 mobo like the P5Q Deluxe these things can't do what the Q6700 does just a little hotter. Looks like the Q6700 is still the fastest chip under $350. When the 9550 or 9650 price drops under $350 I will plug one of them into a P45 and hope to get 4.0 or better

The Asus P5Q Deluxe can hit 500 FSB pretty easy on a dual core, but we're talking quads. You should be able to hit 3.6 on a quad with that board i'd think.

 

[thajollyman]

hey fellas!

Im kind of a newbie OCer. I just got a whole new system: q9450, xfx 780i mobo , 9800gtx, 2x2gb hpc reaper 1066mhz

Got ita ll setup yesterday night and tried to OC the cpu. Went into the bios, raised the FSB, just to see what would happen, restarted and when it posted it gave me a message saying "system is in safe mode. Reset cpu and memory". When it posted it was not posting a higher speed than stock even though i raised the fsb. Mind you guys, i am upgrading from a p4 3.0ghz, which was a bit easier to overclock. Is there a bios setting restricting me from OCing?

 

[GhettoCham]

Hey everyone. I'm a noob when it comes OCing, so please bear with me. I've finally gotten around to buying the parts for my new rig after some serious, SERIOUS research. i settled on.....

- Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450
- ASUS P5E3 Premium WiFi-AP@n Motherboard
- 4GB OCZ Platinum DDR3-1600 Ram
- Thermalright Ultra 120 eXtreme Heatsink
- Antec TPQ 850W PSU
- Antec 900 Case

Just so you guys know, I have no idea where to start when it comes to overclocking, especially on this board. the bios on this one looks completely different from what I'm used to. here's some sites with screens of the bios.....

Bios #1 - http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/asus_p5e3_premium_x48/3.html

Bios #2 - http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/asus_p5e3_premium_x48/4.html

Bios #3 - http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/asus_p5e3_premium/5.htm

Bios #4 - http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/asus_p5e3_premium/6.htm

One thing I've notice that people are not pleased about is the Q9450's 8X multiplier. Should I be worried or won't it prove much of a problem with such a high end board. I'm hoping to get a 3.4 GHz overclock with this one (I don't want to push it too far seeing as it coast me an arm and a leg to buy it) and an OC of 1850-1900 MHz with the RAM (comes at 1600). What steps should I take to achieve my desired results? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

 

[Badbonji]

For my Q9450 to hit 3.6Ghz I used:
Vcore - 1.35V
NB - 1.4V
SB - 1.55V
FSB - 1.4V
NB<->SB 1.3V

 

[PearlJammzz]

Those who say games don't use quads are retarded. Any multi-threaded game (which has been every game that has come out in the last yr or so that I've played) will use all those cores and perform VERY well over a dual-core. Dual-cores are budget chips ONLY. If you're encoding, or playing games, do yerself a favor and get a quad. Anything less sucks balls!

 

[wingman99]

what is the highest multiplier on a Q9450 and how come are they so hard to overclock

 

[Badbonji]

8x multiplier, and I have had no trouble with mine. So my FSB is 450Mhz, I will see where the wall is tonight and find my highest OC (hope it is 3.8Ghz )