Q6600 owners... what is your VID?

[jason4207]

I see the trend. You have to look at G0 and B3 separately, but you can see how the G0's seem to be centered around the 1.2625, and the B3's seem to be more offset on the high end. You would think that both would a a center and fade off in either direction, but that isn't the case w/ the B3's so far.

 

[shirker]

I see the trend. You have to look at G0 and B3 separately, but you can see how the G0's seem to be centered around the 1.2625, and the B3's seem to be more offset on the high end. You would think that both would a a center and fade off in either direction, but that isn't the case w/ the B3's so far.

I mean sure, I can see the trend too, but I'm just saying (and being nitpicky here), that displaying raw data on a bar graph for two different steppings with such a vast difference in total data values can be a bit misleading. IMO, a graph that showed what percentage G0 and B3 chips were a certain VID would clearly show that G0s tend to have a lower VID. but hey, I'm not asking anyone to do this

 

[SaCkS]

VID: 1.2750
1.280 @ 9 x 333

 

[Sorin]

Q6600
G0
L724A
VID = 1.3125v in CoreTemp 0.95
Idle is 33/33/31/31 (stock, 9x266)
Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme
120mm Scythe S-Flex SFF21F

Will start overclocking it later tonight.

 

[treatmentx]

Shirker's correct.

Yes, it appears there's some "trend", but anything represented by graphs or anything to be taken seriously is you have to understand the principles of data presentation.

The population generation is not enough, and the only way to get a "more accurate" representation is by percentage as Shirker has said, and even THEN, it may or may not be statistically significant (p value less than .001).

For example, if there's only 3 processors, 2 happen to be 1.215v, and 1 is 1.325v, then in bar form it would "appear" that there's a centralization, a "trend" that appears over 1.215.

Now if you had 3,000,000 processors, and most of it is centered around 1.325v, with only 1 processor over 1.215, then you can conclude that there's alot smaller chance by statistical means of you receiving a 1.215v processor.

Given the recent release of B3 and even more recent release of G0, there's not enough data. The only way to calculate an actual significant value behind it all is to use calculus and pronounce a p value, which I'm not gonna sit here and do but just based on the mere 80 processors, it would retain a non-viable p value, and thus the data is purely just raw form and have no indication of a trend. The p value would only indicate that this "could possibly" be a trend, but unlikely.

I hope that clarifies it. It's just a nice bar graph, of the data we currently have, that's all.

 

[reneki]

bios cpu voltage = 1.3125v

 

[graysky]

Just updated the first post of the thread with the data collected... I counted 113 replies so far.

 

[M Diddy]

Another G0...

 

[shirker]

Another G0...

*pic*

spiffy, really low VID you got there. is that the L723A841 batch?

edit: 3.4GHz at those temps? that must be idle readings

 

[Sorin]

spiffy, really low VID you got there. is that the L723A841 batch?

edit: 3.4GHz at those temps? that must be idle readings

Seriously. Mine's !#*$&@# 1.3125. L724A760. Wouldn't have minded one of those 1.2xxx chips.

 

[dfonda]

Another G0...

What makes the 2 report different bus speeds M Diddy?

 

[Maverick0984]

I have a G0 version and its VID is 1.25V

 

[Sorin]

What makes the 2 report different bus speeds M Diddy?

I've been wondering that myself for months. My E6600 and Q6600 both do it. I've asked this question twice and it's been asked several times by several people, never with any answer. Just a mystery of the universe I guess.

Unless the multiplier is set to its rated setting, Windows and Core Temp just won't read my core 2s correctly. CPUz is always right on the money though.

 

[bing]

Coretemp has a lot of bugs, especially for new gen. CPUs.

 

[Sorin]

Coretemp has a lot of bugs, especially for new gen. CPUs.

Windows does the same thing though. Whether Core Temp is right or wrong, Windows always reads the same thing that Core Temp does on my Core 2s.

 

[treatmentx]

It has been answered, but I can't remember exactly the reason...

I remember the gist of the reasoning was because Coretemp reads the "default" multiplier, in the case of Q6600 would be 9x. And it would count that final speed FSB (which would be 425FSB real), and multiply with the factory default (which is 9), to give you a final speed. However, once it gets the final speed, it takes THAT speed, and then divides by the multi SET IN BIOS, which is 8. And then from that it gives you the FSB of 478 (not real).

SO, the example is this

425FSB set in BIOS, 8 multi set in BIOS

Run Coretemp, Coretemp takes 425FSB x 9x (factory) to give first reading, which is 3825MHZ.

Then it reads the Multi set in Bios (8x), takes 3825MHZ / 8x, ==> 478.125FSB

So the second part of coretemp reads (478.125MHZ x 8)

 

[shirker]

I remember the gist of the reasoning was because Coretemp reads the "default" multiplier, in the case of Q6600 would be 9x. And it would count that final speed FSB (which would be 425FSB real), and multiply with the factory default (which is 9), to give you a final speed. However, once it gets the final speed, it takes THAT speed, and then divides by the multi SET IN BIOS, which is 8. And then from that it gives you the FSB of 478 (not real).

thanks for that explanation, I've always wondered about that as well but never cared enough to bring it to light. That's a pretty wonky way of calculating your clock speed and fsb, but honestly, who uses coretemp for anything besides core temperature readings and cpu VIDs anyways

 

[Sorin]

SO, the example is this

425FSB set in BIOS, 8 multi set in BIOS

Run Coretemp, Coretemp takes 425FSB x 9x (factory) to give first reading, which is 3825MHZ.

Then it reads the Multi set in Bios (8x), takes 3825MHZ / 8x, ==> 478.125FSB

So the second part of coretemp reads (478.125MHZ x 8)

Yeah, that much I figured out. But what gets me is why Windows also does it, and why it's only with Core 2s. Core Temp and Windows have both always read my Athlons and Opertons right, regardless of multiplier. They only get confuzzled when it's a Core 2 and the multiplier isn't default.

 

[graysky]

Updated the first post of the thread with the data collected (123 replies now) and added some histograms and basic statics to help visualize the data set.

 

[davekusa]

B3 1.285

max oc 3.15 @ 1.43