Q9550@3.4 GHz

The following problem solved itself ... is now running at 3.4 GHz and 444-12 1:1.

Run Prime (small fft) now, stay below 50 degrees, but the CPU fan of 1700 rpm (50%).

Real Temp 42 40 40 41 and HW monitor 47 45 45 46

Nice, right?

Have problems getting to where I run the memories (which is ratade 444-12 800MHz@2.1 V) in just the setting.

Got up to 3.4 GHz by changing the FSB to 400 in principle. Turned off automatically STUFF ever before, pci to 100, CPU core voltage but not auto 1.25 v etc etc.

Has not changed any tension.

Result in windows 29 29 34 34 (Real Temp 2.7)
Result in windows 34 34 39 39 (CPUID Hardware monitor)

I drive Prime95, small fft after 2 tests (5 min ~) ->
Real Temp 44 42 41 42
HWmon 49 47 46 48

I started Stalker ClearSky tex and run a few minutes and then check the temp so is Real Temp around 40 ... barely more.

BUT I change the BIOS FOR 444-12 as the computer is not running. Must be missed at large ... what type MCH Freq Latch and SPD should be set to, I suspect :shifty: or should I be wasting on the clock SKEW tex?

Now running memories under cpuz 555-18 CR on 2T. FSB: DRAM 1:1 and 400MHz DRAM.

Some tips?

PS. Gigabyte ep45-DS3 and Q9550 E0 and Corsair in 6400 C4DHX (2 * 2 Gig).

What a funny man you are, how will you know if its stable if you only test in 5 minutes?

Now I drive several hours of prime at 3.4GHz, memories of 444-12. But I am trying to run with 433 FSB (3.68 GHz), I can not make it work. Windows starts up, but prime crashed almost immediately. Tested to increase the CPU to 1.3, memories to 2.2 and MCH to 1.3 to see if it needed more excitement, but it is not better.

Tested also relaxation memory timing to 555-18, it did not help either.

Someone who can help me with tips?

Sounds like you need more memory or perhaps a network that provides properly with power. My Xms2 800 work splendidly in 450fsb.

Oh .. check the heat on North Bridge. I made a mistake when I tried to raise up the bus, that you can run different moments. They can depend on the heat ratio... just speculation...

Prioritize higher clock / bus before the latency if you must choose. What I have read myself to give it Much more performance (should have link / reference here but cant find)

Try first to clock memories as much as possible without having to clock up the processor speed, then, do the contrary. Then you'll know where you got your limit of both memory and processor.