My new game machine...

[hansje]

Just installed my E8500...with Core Temp. I get IDLE 48C...to hot ??

Using Arctic silver 5

Hans

[ctal]

Originally Posted by hansje

Just installed my E8500...with Core Temp. I get IDLE 48C...to hot ??

Using Arctic silver 5

Hans

Re the temperatures, I suggest that you first read this excellent writeup, and then try Realtemp:

Real Temp - Documentation

Re the memory, what ratios of memory clock rate to fsb clock rate does your bios provide? If it does not provide low ratios (my Gigabyte GA-EX38DQ6 does not provide anything less than 1:1, for example, defining the fsb in non-quad pumped terms, meaning 333MHz for a "1333" fsb), DDR2-667 will severely limit your overclock. DDR2-1066 would be a much better match.

Your choice of memory will not greatly affect overall performance, if it is chosen so as to not limit your overclock. See these recent threads:

Memory bandwidth tests... any real differences (part 2)

Memory Doesn't Matter!

Regards,
-- Al

[hansje]

THANKS

Strange in my BIOS it looks fine...default setting, but in CPU-z I see this:

Core 2000.1
Multi X6

Must be wrong !!?? using the latest version.

I get some new settings too, also a ratio DISABLE/ENABLE setting.

With my E6600 I knew what to do, but with this..I feel like a NOOB again

With TAT-tool I get INVALID PROCESSOR !!!!????

Hans

[ctal]

That's due to the SpeedStep function that recent Intel cpu's have, which lowers the cpu clock rate and the multiplier when the cpu is lightly loaded. If you open a program that causes the cpu to have to work harder, you'll see the multiplier jump up to 9.5 and the clock rate jump to the rated value (I think 3.16 gHz).

Regards,
-- Al

[hansje]

Woow, sounds complicated in comparison with my E6600.

I had a overclock thread..to give you guys more info about my system:
results and suggestions E6600.

I need time to get started again

Hans

[hansje]

Realtemp:

Core 38C
MIN: 37C and MAX: 39C

ORTHOS 49C

Sounds a lot better

Hans

[TQ]

Interesting find, Real Temp.
There is a disparity of five degrees between Real Temp's core reading of 39c and my Intel Desktop Utility reading of 44c.

[TQ]

Well, we have all the parts in for the game machine now. Mrs. TQ and I are going to take next weekend to build it.

I've been looking at video cards recently, thinking that maybe it's time to downstream the 8800GTX to the workstation.
This all started when we promised a nephew (who's chomping at the bit for Age of Conan) my workstation's ATi card. I got to thinking that I could purchase a 9800GTX from eVGA and trade up when the new nVidia cards came out in the next thirty days or so.
I just couldn't get my mind around buying a card with less memory and a 256-bit memory controller, though.
Oh, sure, the SSC version of the card is probably faster than my 8800GTX, but not that much faster.

Since yesterday I've been scouring the 'net for info on the new ATi and nVidia cards and have come up with a bunch of rumors and speculation. There's certainly more concrete information on ATi's cards. While the price point is intriguing for the 4870-series cards the specs leave me a bit underwhelmed. Fill rates that only just match low end G92's, the 265-bit memory controller and only 512MB (at introduction) doesn't get me excited.

Can't seem to find find hard data on the nVidia cards. Will they be 55nm or 65nm? I've read both. Pricing speculation rumors are rife...will they be much more expensive than the ATi cards or will ATi's aggressive pricing force the green team to introduce at a lower price than they wanted?

I suppose these questions will be answered pretty soon.

[hansje]

I just did a test with 3Dmark 05...CPU 3.8 (mem >> 800) (linked and synced)

Videocard 636/1007 >> score 21360

Just to give you an idea...although its not a real game, I know

Going to clock it a little higher !!

Hansje

[ctal]

Originally Posted by hansje

I just did a test with 3Dmark 05...CPU 3.8 (mem >> 800) (linked and synced)

Videocard 636/1007 >> score 21360

Just to give you an idea...although its not a real game, I know

Going to clock it a little higher !!

Hansje

I'm sure you'll get much higher than 3.8, assuming your memory doesn't limit you. My E8400 runs completely stable at 3.8, with vcore of 1.35V. You'll want to look at Sharky Extreme's review of the E8500 (page 10 especially), to see what overclocking results they got and at what voltages:

Sharky Extreme

I wouldn't go as high as the 1.41V they used, however. The Intel datasheet indicates 1.45V as the absolute maximum rating for E8xxx cpu's, and I would want to allow some margin relative to that.

Based on my experience, your temps would be indicated as being even lower if you performed the calibration procedure described in the Realtemp writeup. I think that Realtemp is much more credible than the other programs, at least for 45nm cpu's, because it was designed based on actual measurement of an E8400 with an infrared thermometer. Their writeup explains why the other programs tend to indicate higher temps.

TQ -- What cpu did you see the 5 deg difference on? I assume you don't yet have the E8400 in place. If it is a cpu that provides a temperature monitoring function that is similar to the E8xxx (providing the program with the difference between the core temperature and an undocumented Tjmax value), then the reason for that difference would be different assumptions in the two programs as to the value of Tjmax (as explained in the Realtemp writeup).

Regards,

-- Al

[hansje]

Thanks, will have a closer look Ctal

Hans

[TQ]

Originally Posted by ctal

TQ -- What cpu did you see the 5 deg difference on? I assume you don't yet have the E8400 in place. If it is a cpu that provides a temperature monitoring function that is similar to the E8xxx (providing the program with the difference between the core temperature and an undocumented Tjmax value), then the reason for that difference would be different assumptions in the two programs as to the value of Tjmax (as explained in the Realtemp writeup).

The E6600 on my workstation. I just thought the "distance to TJ Max" was how far it was to the one in my neighborhood.

[ctal]

Originally Posted by TQ

The E6600 on my workstation. I just thought the "distance to TJ Max" was how far it was to the one in my neighborhood.

Best laugh of the week!

I looked at the Intel datasheet for the E6600. It uses the same kind of DTS sensor scheme as the E8xxx. So the reason for the 5 degC difference between the two programs is that their designers shop at different TJ Max's!

-- Al

[ctal]

Hans -- I looked at your overclock thread. It looks like you wound up running your DDR2-667 at an actual rate of DDR2-1167, with an fsb rate (non-quad pumped definition) of 389MHz, and a memory clock-to-fsb clock ratio of 1.5. I'm surprised, even with loosened timings and a voltage increase, that your memory could run at such a fast clock rate.

Assuming a target overclock for your E8500 of 4.2gHz, your fsb would be 4.2/9.5 = 442MHz. For a 1:1 memory-to-fsb clock ratio, that would mean the memory would be running at 442 x 2 = DDR2-884. If your bios provides a 5:4 memory-to-fsb ratio (= 4:5 fsb-to-memory), that would be just about perfect for DDR2-1066 (884 x 5/4 = 1105).

Regards,

-- Al

[TQ]

Originally Posted by ctal

I looked at the Intel datasheet for the E6600. It uses the same kind of DTS sensor scheme as the E8xxx. So the reason for the 5 degC difference between the two programs is that their designers shop at different TJ Max's!

Well, the stock does vary from store to store...