I immediately replaced my P4 560 with it, and overclocked it to 3.2 GHz on stock voltage (I tried 3.33, it booted, but just after log on, windows froze, 3.2 worked, and I did not have patience to play with intermidiate frequencies). Everything worked great. I ran burnin test for 12 hours with error checking enabled, it passed.
Then I started Adobe Premiere Elements, and started encoding a file. Three minutes into the process, and boom, video driver crashed. Tried again, and the same thing happened. I have ATI Radeon 600 w/256 MB onboard memory (I am not a gamer). The video driver for that card used to crash quite freuquently, but since I had updated it to their July release, it was running without quite solidly. I have another Radeon at work, though I don't know the model (it has 512 MB memory), and the display driver there also keeps crashing. Upgrading the driver hasn't helped me there.
Now I am running the E6700 back at 2.66 GHz. It is still pretty fast. But since I have tasted what 3.2 GHz looks like, it kind of feels slow now...
Why would overclocking the CPU cause display driver (and only display driver) crash? I tried locking PCIe speed at 100MHz, that didn't help either. If anyone has any suggestions, I am open to try.
The sad part is, I need the speed for video processing, and the darn driver crashes only when I start encoding with Adobe PE + a couple other programs.
At 2.66, I have encoded 3 DVDs so far, and everything seems rock solid. I am tempted to try an NVIDIA card, but what is the guarantee that that thing won't crash on me? Has anyone experienced something like this before? My previous NVIDIA card was very stable, but then, it was AGP and I was not trying to overclock. And as I have mentioned before, I am not rich, and hence I cannot spend 100 dollars on a card just to try it out...
Turns out, this was a north bridge problem afterall. Raising the VCore on NB solved the problem. The system is rock stable again. However, the max I am able to reach with 1.45v on NB is 3.1 GHz. I don't want to raise the voltage any further, and 3.1 is not that far off from 3.2.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Sell your E6700;)
E6700 is for those that want guaranteed performance over FX62(E6600 is better gamer, loses others). X6800 is for crazy rich that can do all kinds of fancy overclocks.
E6600 is guaranteed #3 desktop CPU. And overclocks around the same as E6700.
This is the first time I am trying an overclock. I am really afraid of raising the voltages because I don't want to fry the chipset or something. So I thought E6700 might not be a bad choice, since even at stock speed it will be fast. Have you seen any problems with graphics cards when you overclock? Are Nvidia cards/drivers generally more stable than ATI ones?
I have always been an integrated graphics guy (and would have gone for that if ASUS had a C2D mobo with integrated graphics.
http://yahoo.reuters.com/news/articlehybrid.aspx?type=comktNews&storyID=urn:newsml:reuters.com:20060927:MTFH30630_2006-09-27_03-37-43_N26231575&pageNumber=1&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=HybArt-C1-ArticlePage1
Score Intel:D
Hey, C2D, tell me why Intel is better than AMD, since you seem to have such a huge preference to them.
2000, who was better? -- AMD
2001, who was better? -- AMD
2002, who was better? -- AMD
2003, who was better? -- AMD
2004, who was better? -- AMD
2005, who was better? -- AMD
2006, who IS better? -- Some Say Intel
Going by that, I have to conclude you are an angry Intel fanboy who was mad the Athlon beat the P3, Athlon XP beat the P4, Athlon64 beat the Pentium-D, and now that Core2Duo FINALLY beats the 3-yr-old K8, you have something to gloat about. Is this making sense to you now?
Salsa dude is anything but angry, fanboy definitely. You Mike, are definitely pissy, also fanboy:)
*yawn* 6 years ago, Intel was generally ahead. Athlon XP, good, though Intel was still competitive. A64 was when they took a good lead with faster/cooler chips. Intel has the better chips now. Go piss some more on your own blog:)
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/5/54/200px-Carlb-sockpuppet-01.jpg
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34433
The Q4/07 part is called Budapest, and it is the Barcelona core with HT3.0 in 12xx Opteron and A64 guise
http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/news.php?tid=675864&starttime=0&endtime=0
"The model is codenamed Yorkfield and expected to release in the second half of 2007. Similar to Conroe, Yorkfield will be a hybrid Quad-Core processor which shares the same L2 Cache, such that it can increase the cache hit and lower the loading of FSB.
Yokrfield features 1333MHz FSB, DDR3-1333/DDR2-800 and dual PCI-Express 2.0 interface. Coupled with Bearlake X chipset, Yokrfield perhaps is the strongest CPU in 2007. Intel is now co-operating with software developer to optimize Quad-Core products.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3830
Bearlake-X coming Q307. Intel has pulled up products 1-2 quarters early lately.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2768&p=3
AMD quads are designated for 'performance'[FX($999)] only.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20060919051744.html
Intel plans on 'mainstream' quad.
---
Summarization, Intel has desktop native quads by[since they've released early recently] Q307, AMD at earliest[since they delayed Socket F] Q407.
Post a Comment