M17 overclocking with SetFSB?

I want to push my Q9000's speed up a little (to ~2.4GHz) however I've got no idea how to use SetFSB.

Could someone give me some advice on how to use it with the M17? Thanks.

 

hre you go

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=325944

 

Thanks Moo.

 

DAAAARRRRNNNN you Mooo lol you beat me to it

 

butters watch the language ... or you will get the banhammer

 

child please. infraction comes first.

in related news, what's the highest the X9100 has been OC'ed to?

 

hmmm whats the difference between working through your BIOS... or SET FSB... ease?

 

it does not change your voltage it only overclocks the FSB which OC's the CPU

if he already has 9 infraction points it doesn't (active points)

I am looking For them

Rob is the highest i have found

 

Rob41 has his successfully OCed to 3.57Ghz with setFSB

 

Isn't it 3.8GHz? I think I saw that somewhere.

Anyways, success! I bumped up the FSB to 1,249MHz and now I've got my Q9000 running at 2.34GHz with no idle heat increase. I'm about to run Prime to test its stability and temps.

 

Run Orthos to

download here
http://tinyurl.com/naj2lr

 

Donda thinks E-Wrecked got to 3.9ish for benchmarking purposes.

 

Hey Moo I was trying to stress test my quad... W prime isn't working right with windows 7, is there known issues?


Hey Moo BTW Central Brain only works with AMD

 

o lol I wasn't sure with central brain its why i asked to test

their should be no issues and use Orthos to stress not Wprime

 

I'll run it after I'm done with my Prime95 run.

Considering this idles at 44C at low fan speed and my desktop Q6600 idles at 47C at max fan speed, where the Q6600 never goes above 60C, I doubt my temps will turn out to be a problem.

Been running Prime95 a minute or two now and it's at 47C.

I'm running Prime more for a temp test than a stress test anyway. It seems to be 100% stable so far. (I left it on when I went for my shower)

 

Well bump it up slowly and test out your max

 

Yea but remember it is a quad and Orthos is for dual... I would have to run 2 orthos at a time and set the cores for either test.... I would rather simply run a Quad core supported stress test

 

True i forget because i am a Dual kinda guy

Run OCCT

 

What do you mean? Bump up my FSB slowly? Nty, I'm fine with it as it is now

Prime running for a while now and it's at 49C. Processor usage has been ~30-50% constant so I'm not sure if it's my max though. Fan's on full blast though.

 

You won't find the Max OC for us?

 

sweet! that's what I actually decided to do after I couldn't get prime to work.... sorry for hijacking you thread Evil , and thanks Moo

 

I don't want to risk burning out my CPU. And I can't be doing with constant crashing to test it. I'm too lazy

Kay I've got OCCT running now and it's blasting my CPu at 100%, so I'll find out how hot it gets.

 

if you increase in small steps and stress-test each new level sufficiently, it should be perfectly safe, and you'll experience only one single BSOD - the one telling you you're too high

 

I may do so in the summer when I've got nothing better to do.

I'm getting slightly worried now. Not about my processor-that seems to have capped at 51C after 5 mins @ 100% load. However my northbridge is running at 80C

I'm gonna run 3DMark06 in a second to get what is pretty much from what I see, the first overclocked Q9000 3DMark06 benchmark so far on this forum.
I've actually already ran it a few days ago at stock, and it got a lowly 10,500 or so if I remember rightly...proof that 3DMark06 is now pretty much a CPU benchmark?

My individual CPU cores hit the low 70s but that's nothing to worry about right?

 

Wow lol I was about to say ahh whatever I must be doing something wrong OCCT is only taxing my Quad at 20% and then it went up up up lol to 100%

actually 100.5% at least that's what it said lol

 

your NB is fine

 

the FSB runs "through" the northbridge - what do you expect?

 

Good point I'm running 3dMark06 now. Should I post the results in a new thread for all to see?

 

No we dont need more threads ... here is fine

 

says the guy who has links to 12 different threads in his sig

 

Moo, whizzo has a point

Anyways. It scored 10,921. SM 2.0 Score 3911, SM 3.0 Score 6388 and CPU Score 2349. (@1280x900)

I'm probably going to download Vantage as it's a much better comparison...

 

well that's a letdown.

 

How did shader model 2 score so low?

 

Indeed but we all know how 3dMark06 is defunct as a benchmark now.

I'm running a PS2 emulator and I can see a massive difference.

 

Yea considering i scored 14,9xx.....on my dual.....

 

o.0 what's the clock speed?!?

anyways I'm going to play Warhead now and see if it makes any difference.

 

3.08

(ten)

 

i don't think 2x3.08ghz would be 4000 points faster than 4x2.34ghz...

 

trust me

it is

rob scores 15,8xx
E scored 15,8xx

i scored 14,9xx
don't believe me then look it up

ATI cards LOVE MHZ and so does 3dmark 06

 

i actually wanted to point out that there might be something wrong with evilcorsair's system.

 

It's true lol, High clock speeds are always a +... but ATI is the king of synthetic Benchmarks....

But whizzo is probably correct on some plane... are we sure Evil has all the right drivers and such?

 

Well it appears fine...maybe as it's the very first Q9000 benchmark it seems out. What are benchmarks on the 2.26GHz duo?

Maybe I'll run Vantage and see if that comes up with better results in comparison to others.

I'm playing Warhead at 1440x900 Gamer at 30+fps...so I don't THINK there's something wrong with it. But I've been wrong before.

All the drivers are standard EXCEPT the Catalyst drivers. I'm running 9.6. If you guys would like to suggest other chipset drivers and the such then I'd be happy to try them out.

 

No their is not ..... the low clocked Quads All score that

 

hey Moo, weren't we discussing the fact that ATIs are only good at synthetic benchmarks yesterday?

 

that architecture was

wait till 4870's

Besides those 3870's are no slouch when it comes to gaming either

 

Hey Wouldn't the score be 12, 648 in reality? Which would be more reasonable and explain why the clock speed would make the difference?

 

ATI HD3870 < Nvidia 8800M-GTX

empirically proven.

 

I noticed that too. On the older benchmark I ran which got 10,500 or so, it added up to something like 12,000 instead.

Is there a strange way it works or something? Or maybe I got a retarded edition that can't add up.

 

no doubt its better but they still are not bad for gaming .....i don't want to get off topic in here ...

3870's are great
4850's on par with 280's
4870's= PWN

 

Ya I'm probably wrong, I don't know alot about Futuremark.... we'll seee though