New Computer Specs

Skrying said:
This link should do it. Its really a nice tool. Don't be alarmed if the temperatures when using TAT are upwards of 10C higher than any other program. Mine in TAT are 55C~ compared to about 45C~ in my most demanding games and other software for testing.
Click to expand...

Tried to run that application under Vista x64 but it wouldn't run. Compatibility issue I s'pose. I'll try to find another one.

That said, Q6600 is now at 3.51Ghz/390Mhz FSB, Mem 1:1@780Mhz. Ran 3hrs of Prime95 without error and FightAIDS@Home has been flawless.

I'll give 3.6Ghz a whirl and hope it goes on by without a hitch.
 
WOW - I just Ran TAT on my Q6700 at stock speeds.
I've never seen over 55 degrees, and I commonly have what I consider pretty heavy workloads. Running TAT on the 100% 2 CPU test my processor hit 68 degrees, and two of the processors were still idle.....
 
ERP said:
WOW - I just Ran TAT on my Q6700 at stock speeds.
I've never seen over 55 degrees, and I commonly have what I consider pretty heavy workloads. Running TAT on the 100% 2 CPU test my processor hit 68 degrees, and two of the processors were still idle.....
Click to expand...

ouch! It's impressive how high Natoma got with his Q6600 then I guess, with some help from the recent stepping.
 
ERP said:
WOW - I just Ran TAT on my Q6700 at stock speeds.
I've never seen over 55 degrees, and I commonly have what I consider pretty heavy workloads. Running TAT on the 100% 2 CPU test my processor hit 68 degrees, and two of the processors were still idle.....
Click to expand...

Yep, that's TAT for you... if you really want to see how good your cooling is then you can run it. Of course don't let it shock you so much, as you said nothing comes even close to the load temperature it'll put on the processor.
 
Your chip probably can do 3.51Ghz, or higher. You just need to get rid of that Zalman. :)

Take a look at the Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme (what I have) vs the Zalman CNPS9700: http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2943&p=4

Look how much farther the chip overclocked with the Thermalright vs the Zalman CPNS9700, as well as the temperature differential. The Thermalright topped out at 3.96Ghz at an idle temp of 36C while the Zalman you've got topped out at 3.83Ghz at an idle temp of 40C.

Under load, the Thermalright topped out at 3.96Ghz at a temp of 47C while the Zalman topped out at 3.83Ghz at 58C

Hotter at lower speeds? :)

This test was on a dual core, but you get the idea.
 
John Reynolds said:
http://www.frostytech.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=2001&page=5

Very nice, I might have to upgrade my Zalman 9500 cooler.
Click to expand...

Just know that there are two Thermalright Ultra 120's. One is the regular variant, used by FrostyTech, and the other is the Extreme variant. The regular variant has 4 heatpipes in its design while the extreme has 6. They're both identical dimensions. According to the tests that have been done between the two, there is definitely a cooling difference with the two extra heatpipes.

I got the extreme and I haven't regretted it.

From the Anandtech review:

AT said:
The Tuniq Tower 120 has solidly maintained the top position in our heatpipe tower tests until our recent review of the Thermalright Ultra 120 with a Scythe S-Flex fan. The Ultra 120 did not really pass the excellent Tuniq in cooling ability, but it did impress us with its ability to match the results achieved with the Tuniq Tower 120. Cooling with the Scythe S-Flex fan also achieved the same cooling with lower noise levels, but we are confident the Tuniq would perform similarly if the S-Flex was used for cooling the Tuniq.

With the Ultra 120 and the Tuniq we were comfortable that air cooling was about as good as you could get. It was with that skepticism that we began a closer look at Thermalright's upgrade to the Ultra 120, which they dub the Ultra 120 Extreme. Two more heatpipes are fine, we supposed, but could they really make that much difference in performance? More is often not better, and the simplicity of an effective design is often the better choice.

With the Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme, the extra heatpipes do work, and they work very well. The improvements in cooling efficiency with the Ultra 120 Extreme over the Tuniq and Ultra 120 are nothing short of amazing. One glance at the Stress performance scaling chart on page four will show you all you need to know about the Ultra 120 Extreme. Instead of a "me-too" results curve mirroring the Tuniq and Ultra 120, the Ultra Extreme sets a whole new performance level. A 6C improvement in cooling at 3.90GHz is nothing to sneeze at, and these are typical Extreme performance results.
Click to expand...
 
That Ultra-90 looks great for a clipin. Any recommendations on a 92mm fan to go with it?
 
Natoma said:
No idea on 92mm fans from me. I only use 120mm. Nice and quiet, tons of airflow.
Click to expand...

Yeah but the Ultra-120 is massive, and there is no way in hell I'm ripping out my motherboard, pull off half of the 3-stage heatpipe and heatsink system on the motherboard to remove the existing DQ6 backplate, just to put on the backplate for the 120.

Not sure I'll really bother anyway, I'm running a E6750 @ 3.55Ghz with stock cooler and 59c max in Orthos.
 
Malo said:
Yeah but the Ultra-120 is massive, and there is no way in hell I'm ripping out my motherboard, pull off half of the 3-stage heatpipe and heatsink system on the motherboard to remove the existing DQ6 backplate, just to put on the backplate for the 120.

Not sure I'll really bother anyway, I'm running a E6750 @ 3.55Ghz with stock cooler and 59c max in Orthos.
Click to expand...

I didn't have to remove the 3-stage heatpipe at all. I just unscrewed the backplate. It came off in a minute. :)

That said, if you're at 3.55Ghz with the stock cooler and 59C, you can probably get to 3.9Ghz with the same temps and the Ultra 120 Extreme. ;)
 
Well I've finally come to the end of the line with this system. It will not clock to 3.6Ghz/400Mhz FSB in a stable fashion. Tried overvolting a little more on the FSB and CPU, but no dice. Random program errors, reboots, stalls during booting, etc. The system responded best to overvolting the FSB at 400Mhz, but unfortunately 0.35v is where the Gigabyte GA-P35-DQ6 stops. Maybe if I'd had another 0.05v left, I could've got this system stable at 400Mhz. hehe.

So I guess I'm "stuck" at 3.51Ghz. :)

http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=229445

I wonder if this Patriot Memory can stand being overclocked. I've been overclocking with the intent of only stressing the CPU first, memory later if possible.... Other than 2:1, the lowest ratio is 2.4:1, which would put it to 936Mhz. The memory is currently cozy at 780Mhz.
 
Natoma said:
Your chip probably can do 3.51Ghz, or higher. You just need to get rid of that Zalman. :)
Click to expand...

I don't think the problem was the heat when I did test to 3.5Ghz .. the problem was my PC was not stable. I think it might be that CPU voltage. I had increased it to 1.4850v but it would not complete 3DMark06 without failing. In windows though, 3.5Ghz worked without any issues. Mobo FSB was set at 389Mhz x 9.

At 3.4Ghz my FSB is 378Mhz and this was ok .. 1.4250v or something like that. Heat was a small issue but didn't reach anything critical(60 Degrees celsius) but rather sitting at around 36.

US
 
Natoma said:
Well I've finally come to the end of the line with this system. It will not clock to 3.6Ghz/400Mhz FSB in a stable fashion. Tried overvolting a little more on the FSB and CPU, but no dice. Random program errors, reboots, stalls during booting, etc. The system responded best to overvolting the FSB at 400Mhz, but unfortunately 0.35v is where the Gigabyte GA-P35-DQ6 stops. Maybe if I'd had another 0.05v left, I could've got this system stable at 400Mhz. hehe.
Click to expand...

That shouldn't be the limit of the FSB on the motherboard though. Personally I've had my DQ6 running at 426Mhz FSB with only raising CPU and memory voltage (memory runs +0.4v to spec). That was without pushing anything, Reviews have pushed the DQ6 to 470ish.
 
There's an extra load on the bus from quad-core, which might be what's in the way for Natoma. Generally bus overclocks are less with a quad-core processor anyway.
 
Malo said:
Yeah but the Ultra-120 is massive, and there is no way in hell I'm ripping out my motherboard, pull off half of the 3-stage heatpipe and heatsink system on the motherboard to remove the existing DQ6 backplate, just to put on the backplate for the 120.

Not sure I'll really bother anyway, I'm running a E6750 @ 3.55Ghz with stock cooler and 59c max in Orthos.
Click to expand...

Thermalright Ultima-90 has been reviewed by AT. It's the same 6-heatpipe design as the Ultra 120-Extreme, but it's smaller and can accomodate 92mm and 120mm fans.

Looks like it performs rather well: http://www.anandtech.com/casecoolingpsus/showdoc.aspx?i=3068

AnandTech Conclusion said:
The Ultima-90 is ideal wherever you want to use a high-performance cooler. Its smaller size and weight make it particularly well-suited to tight cases and motherboards with limited clearance around the CPU. It is also shorter than most top coolers, with a height of just 139mm. However, this is still not small enough for thin rack cases, a very small HTPC case, or a case that places the power supply above the CPU socket. The lower cost of the Ultima-90 will also be attractive to many buyers, with a retail price of $50 compared to other top coolers in the $65 to $80 range. You will still have to add a fan, but that can be as little as $5 to as much as $20 or more depending on your choice.

Thermalright advertises the Ultima-90 as a 90mm body with 120mm cooling power. That is certainly a fair description, because the Ultima-90 is designed to mount a 120mm or 92mm fan. It certainly performs best with a 120mm fan, but if you want to keep the cooler very compact it performs nearly as well with a quiet, high-output 92mm fan like the Panaflo H1A. If you choose the 92mm you will only give up a small amount of headroom at the top, and cooling in the overlap speeds is almost identical.

The Ultima-90 is not the best air cooler we have tested. That distinction still belongs to big brother Thermalright Ultra-120 eXtreme. Where the Ultima-90 carries our CPU to a stable 3.90 GHz, the eXtreme pushes it to 3.94 GHz. The eXtreme also manages a few degrees better cooling than the Ultima-90 at higher overclocks. However, in all other respects the performance of both coolers is all but the same. The Ultra-120 eXtreme is bigger, heavier and costs about $65 retail, where Ultima-90 costs about $50. However, the Ultra-120 eXtreme remains the better performer. You will need to decide which attributes are most important to you. Beyond the Ultra-120 eXtreme, we do not know of an air cooler that outperforms the Ultima-90. Several other top models match its performance, but they don't outperform it.

We asked in the beginning of this review if the smaller and lighter Thermalright Ultima-120 might be too compromised compared to other top coolers from Thermalright, Tuniq, Scythe, and others. After running it though our cooling tests we can only conclude that Thermalright made the right choices in the design of the Ultima-90 to make it the smallest and lightest air cooler we have tested that is still able to deliver top-of-the-line performance. At a price of $50 or less you even get some savings compared to the very best Ultra-120 eXtreme. We are pleased to have the smaller, lighter Thermalright Ultima-90 as a new choice for air cooling. Choice is good, even at the top, and the Ultima-90 will not disappoint you with its performance.
Click to expand...
 
Just a quick post to say I grabbed a Q6600 a few days ago (mostly because of this thread), and I'm using it with a 680i SLI board and Zalman 9700 cooler. Overclocking with the P27 BIOS on my mainboard was a fairly horrible experience, but the latest P30 BIOS is a marvel.

Currently running 8 x 425 at 1.325V (bit higher than that in the BIOS though, there's some Vcore drooping) at good reported temps (although I don't put too much stock in them in being 100% correct), memory unsync'd with the front side bus currently (although I could reasonably run it at 425MHz, will try that later).

I get the feeling the overclock would stop ~3.6GHz or so given my cooling, but 3.4 will probably do until the Yorkfield/Phenom showdown later in the year that'll drive my next chip/system upgrade. I'm enjoying all the fiddling with the overclock though, so I might see where the real limit lies, since the current 3.4GHz is a piece of cake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top