c90s OCing with e6600, not all the way to 2.93

Hi all, I need a little assurance or some help. I've been using my c90s on OC to see how well it overclocks, but I don't get one thing. When I put my c90s into OC mode, the CPU only hits to about 2.75, not even close to the 2.93 it could hit. I was wondering if there's something wrong or does the c90s only let the e6600 go up to 2.7 in OC mode. Oh, btw, in gaming, it's at 2.63. Sorry if this doesn't make sense, but I'm in a hurry while I'm writing this, any help or feedback is welcome, thank you.

 

I'm guessing the OC mode is just some typical auto-OC function.

The key words here are "close to the 2.93 it could hit".

Some C2D are made more equal than others. OC isn't a guaranteed thing; some chips will OC better than others. If 2.75 is as high as your auto-OC function thinks its safe to run the processor, then 2.75 is as high as your auto-OC will run the processor.

I don't know if there are manual OC functions in your BIOS, but I doubt you'll be able to get the auto-OC function to squeeze anymore from the chip.

 

Seriously, this needs to be in the ASUS forum where people know what they are talking about.

The C90S's OC mode is a mathematical 15% increase on the FSB/clockspeed of your processor. Gaming mode is a 10% increase. So in other words, the OC mode that your getting at 15% increase on your E6600 @ 2.4Ghz = 2.75Ghz is correct, I don't know where you're getting that 2.93 number from.

 

But isn't it that the problem between the e6600 and the e6700 is that the e6700 goes up to about 2.9 in gaming mode and thus many people complain when the the people with the e6700 can't put their notebook in OC mode or it'll lock up. That's the main reason I opted for the e6600, from what people said, or from what I remember, that the e6600 would go into OC mode without locking up and still reach the 2.9 threshold. I do get the 10 to 15 to twenty percent increase is by mathematical computation, but from testimonials of others, I still believe that it should reach 2.9 (the maximum that the c90s will allow you)

 

Unfortunately no, I think you misinterpreted. The 3.0Ghz maximum limit was addressed as the thermal limit of the notebook cooler, which is why for the E6700, OC mode is disabled. What some posters have mentioned is that with OC mode and gaming mode you have have the E6600 running at the same threshold of a stock E6700 (2.66ghz) and not imply on it running at 2.93Ghz. Besides, that 200mhz I doubt would make a huge difference. If you indeed want to try and push it to the 3.0Ghz range you can try using ClockGen as some users have had success with the same processor as yours.

BTW, The e6700 (which I have) is completely stable at 2.93. I think some of the users were having problems with RAM compatibility in OC mode rather than the e6700 being the limiting factor.

 

Okay, wow, thanks, that helps a lot, +rep for you!

 

I started a threat some time ago concerning your exact problem. Here's the link: http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=155347

I am able to overclock my e6600 to 2.93Ghz only with ClockGen. I've read in another thread that the e6600 can overclock up to 4.5Ghz in a desktop easily so it shouldn't be a processor problem. It also shouldn't depend on the RAM used since it will just run at 667Mhz when overclocked to 2.93Ghz and it is definitely not a thermal issue since the C90S is designed to use the e6600 at 2.93Ghz.

 

This will depend on the particular CPU that you have. If they did it it doesn't mean you can do it. Every CPU is different.

 

Also, can the C90S actually ouput power until 4.5?
It might also be bios-locked

 

Wish someone would start coming out with some real hacked C90S bios, the thermal threshold is going to be raised so much when the all copper sinks are released, we're talking about q6600 possible and higher clocks. If Asus has anything to say about it we're gonna get some crappy version of 901 that will support the q6600 or we're going get completely forgotten when the C90P comes out (maybe some hand down upgrades like video cards and heatsinks). I would love to have my C90S pushing 8000 in 3DMark06.

 

Yeah, noone should try OCing to 4.5GHz in a notebook But we were discussing more the characteristics of the CPU itself.

Though chrisvolker is right, if a typical CPU will go to 4.5 then 2.93 should hardly be expected to give problems.

 

That's tough to say, on desktop motherboards there are a ton of options in the BIOS that allows you to achieve stability that often not associated with frontside bus only. Infact, I'm positively sure that the 4.5 overclock relied heavily on voltage settings, RAM brand and speed, latency issues as well as PCI-E bridge dividers that pretty much all Notebooks lack control over.

This is likely why the C90s is having so much difficulty with RAM compatibility due to the nature of notebook RAM availability as well as the inability to adjust them.

 

Well... yeah, you're very right. My view of the problem was overly simplistic (perhaps it can be justified by the fact that I haven't done much overclocking, I never felt the need )

Technically though, it's unlikely that the problem is because of the CPU frequency limitations, so what I was saying is still correct (if unclear). It's more likely that it's because of some of the other factors you mention.

 

Right. Agreed. Although the stock c90s CPU heatsink is probably worst than the stock Intel cooler in general, so that's also a limiting factor. FSB overclocking creates dramatic heat increases over stock, exponentially if voltage increase is required. For example, the heat generated from a E6600 running at 2.66 could be only equal or more than a E6700 running stock.

So in other words, it's generally misleading to compare overclocking results from a desktop platform(although it's very tempting to think that way) simply because of the amount of space, cooling options and peripherals available that is not even an option within a Notebook. The c90s is a different beast from other notebooks, but it's still within physical and technology limitations.

I guess I'm beating a dead bush here and sounding long winded....