TaPaKaH

The old German guard is still in action That's either a monstrous SS or a monstrous CPU you got there ... or both

Added 3200C15 Tridents

How does one actually do that? SetFSB gives me a chipset error and EasyTune causes an instant system crash even if I try to change FSB by 1 MHz.

Added two Rampage Extreme boards.

Some weeks ago I decided to return to AM3 but wasn't sure which board to buy. In 2010-2011 I had good experience with ASUS M4A79T Deluxe, but following Infrared's advice, thought I'd give some Gigabyte 9x0 boards a try as well. So I ended up with the following selection: - ASUS M4A79T Deluxe - ASUS Crosshair III Formula - Gigabyte 970A-UD3 ver 1.0 - Gigabyte 970A-UD3 ver 1.2 All tests done using the same random Phenom 955 chip I got along with one of the boards, plus Corsair Hypers some of which got damaged along the way. Test #1: CPU overclocking - minimal voltage. Used 250x18 with same NB/RAM settings for reference. ASUS M4A79T => 1.48V ASUS C3F =====> 1.49V 970A-UD3 v1.0 => 1.47V 970A-UD3 v1.2 => 1.47V Test #2: Max CPU clocks. Used same preset as above, only with CPU multi upped to x18.5. Tried 1.5125, 1.5250, 1.5375 and 1.5500V set. ASUS M4A79T => instaBSOD at 1.5125 and 1.5250, crash after few sec at 1.5375, passed 32M initial at 1.5500 ASUS C3F =====> 1.5125 crash before initial, 1.5250-1.5500 crash before first loop 970A-UD3 v1.0 => 1.5125-1.5500 crash before first loop 970A-UD3 v1.2 => 1.5125 crash after loop 1, 1.5250 crash after loop 2, 1.5500 crash after 14 loops Test #3: Uncore. Used same preset as above with CPU clocks reduced to 250x16. ASUS M4A79T => 2750 pass at 1.20V set, 3000 can't enter OS at 1.30-1.50V ASUS C3F =====> 2750 pass at 1.24V read, 3000 can't enter OS at 1.30-1.50V 970A-UD3 v1.0 => 2750 pass at 1.21V set (mind the +0.2V offset), 3000 can't enter OS at 1.30-1.50V 970A-UD3 v1.2 => 2750 pass at 1.23V set (mind the +0.2V offset), 3000 can't enter OS at 1.30-1.50V Test #4: IMC using 2x2GB GTX2 or 2x2GB 2000C7 GT based on the kit that was most compatible / most alive at the time of testing ASUS M4A79T => 950MHz ASUS C3F =====> 953MHz 970A-UD3 v1.0 => 857MHz 970A-UD3 v1.2 => 863MHz I've spent some time trying to get Gigabyte boards to get anywhere near 900MHz but that wasn't to happen. It could be down to compatibility on particular CPU/RAM but the deficiency in clocks still counts against GA as it potentially adds additional constraints when binning CPU or buying Hypers Test #5: 32M efficiency. Used my CPU binning profile at 250x16 with memory settings as close as possible. Tested on two different OS (one with lots of stuff, one clean), straight run, no CW ASUS M4A79T => 16:45.031 on dirty OS, 16:42.047 on clean OS AUS C3F ======> 16:44.000 on dirty OS, 16:42.000 on clean OS 970A-UD3 v1.0 => 16:41.625 on dirty OS, 16:38.328 on clean OS 970A-UD3 v1.2 => 16:39.922 on dirty OS, 16:36.812 on clean OS If you look at other tests done at same settings, you'll confirm that the Gigabyte boards are ahead of ASUS on efficiency.

What can this CPU do on ambient?

A job well done. Someone most likely has invested time into testing all 18 cores individually and finding the best one. This fact is not hidden from you on validation, so why complain?

Raw CPU-Z clock (as a benchmark) is supposed to be all about 1-second stability irrespective of measures necessary. Although I understand your point about disabling cores frequently leading to misleading news articles, I would blame it on the messenger on failing to correctly interpret information, rather than a benchmark flaw or "unethical" behavior by an overclocker. Also, there is no need to create extra complications, such as splitting into multiple categories (1core vs all cores) or rewriting the rule books.

Both GTX2 sticks show code '55' when plugged into an M7I. This did not happen when I did a "seasonal" health check some weeks ago. One of 2000C7 sticks was known to have memtest errors ever since I bought it, but it never caused issues under benching. Now I can't even enter OS at JEDEC without explorer or svchost crashing. In the last month I spent a lot of time shuffling sticks since Hyper compatibility on AMD is poor, at best. Load-wise haven't done anything remotely dangerious: just binning / efficiency comparison tests at 800-833 6-6-6 with 1.7V. Of course, I ran 2V+ for extended periods of time before which might have causes some non-immediate damage that got exposed and worsened by running on AMD.

A few weeks ago I have (re)started playing with AM3 and AM3+. As a result (and please take it as a warning) I've killed or damaged my entire stock of 4 sticks of Elpida Hyper having never exceeded 1.7 Vmem. Therefore, I am looking for replacement Hypers to resume on 775, 1156 and 1366. My standards are high as my platforms can easily run 1050+ with 6-7-5. Ideally, I'm looking for some Corsair 2000C7 or GTX2 since I've been using these for years without any compatibility or reliability issues. If you have these and would rather have a pair for sentimental or collector purposes, I can also offer two damaged sticks of GTX2 and two damaged sticks of Corsair 2000C7 in exchange.

Did you try many or just a random bin? I tried two 9590s recently and both were worse than normal 83x0

+1 to what websmile said With Sandy Bridge the POST happens at CPU's default multi. The multi set in BIOS is applied during OS load. So your CPU simply can't do x54 at your setup. You might be "lucky" and be limited by the temperature. However, clockspeed/multi walls with Sandy Bridge are quite firm and the best thing you can attempt is to see how far the BCLK goes using x53.

You need to show a CPU-Z tab displaying your memory clockspeeds and timings, and not the tab displaying brand, model and SPD values.

No coldbug up until -40 at least. MHz/volt doesn't improve much. tRCD drops by about 1 value (but not lower than CAS). Voltage scaling stops later.

How is P5Q3 compared to other boards for raw clocks?