Is your overclocking accurate? (Core 2 Duo E4600 running at 2.4 GHz to 3.0 GHz)
Is your overclocking accurate? (Core 2 Duo E4600 running at 2.4 GHz to 3.0 GHz)
I'm new to overclocking so I don't know much. I want to get the maximum performance possible out of my (low-end) computer as I'm currently too broke for a serious upgrade and I use my PC for gaming and animation mostly. I'm seeking your help because I don't want to seriously damage my computer.
My computer has been running at 2.40 GHz with a FSB : DRAM ratio of 3:5 since I bought it probably more than 8 years ago.
I've read a few guides online on overclocking and I've followed the steps.
I played around in the BIOS settings without touching the voltages and got it up to 3.00 GHz with a FSB : DRAM ratio of 1:1 after several failed attempts.
I'm running Windows 7 64-bit, with a total of 4GB RAM (2GB + 2GB Transcend DDR2 dual channel).
My motherboard is a Gigabyte 945GCM-S2L with BIOS Award Software International which I updated to version F8d (beta). And if you need to know, my GPU is a Geforce GT 730 2GB DDR5.
Here is a link to my processor's page on the Intel website.
http://ark.intel.com/products/32242/Inte...00-MHz-FSB
It says the processor's operating voltage is 0.8500V - 1.5V but I was too scared to play with the voltages so I just overclocked without touching it.
My computer seems to be running well right now, I used Prime95 to put it under load and watched the temperature with HW Monitor. It idles at around 47 degrees celsius and under load it goes up to 85 degrees celsius and stays there until I stop the test. I've heard Intel processors throttle down their clocks or shut down to avoid damage at around 100 degrees celsius.
My Processor which showed a 5.9 on the Windows Experience Index now shows a 6.4.
(on a scale of 1.0 to 7.9)
I just wanted to know if what I've done is alright?
Here are some images I took for your information.
Thank you for your help in advance
LuigiXGames
04-14-2021, 10:29 PM #1Hey guys,
I'm new to overclocking so I don't know much. I want to get the maximum performance possible out of my (low-end) computer as I'm currently too broke for a serious upgrade and I use my PC for gaming and animation mostly. I'm seeking your help because I don't want to seriously damage my computer.
My computer has been running at 2.40 GHz with a FSB : DRAM ratio of 3:5 since I bought it probably more than 8 years ago.
I've read a few guides online on overclocking and I've followed the steps.
I played around in the BIOS settings without touching the voltages and got it up to 3.00 GHz with a FSB : DRAM ratio of 1:1 after several failed attempts.
I'm running Windows 7 64-bit, with a total of 4GB RAM (2GB + 2GB Transcend DDR2 dual channel).
My motherboard is a Gigabyte 945GCM-S2L with BIOS Award Software International which I updated to version F8d (beta). And if you need to know, my GPU is a Geforce GT 730 2GB DDR5.
Here is a link to my processor's page on the Intel website.
http://ark.intel.com/products/32242/Inte...00-MHz-FSB
It says the processor's operating voltage is 0.8500V - 1.5V but I was too scared to play with the voltages so I just overclocked without touching it.
My computer seems to be running well right now, I used Prime95 to put it under load and watched the temperature with HW Monitor. It idles at around 47 degrees celsius and under load it goes up to 85 degrees celsius and stays there until I stop the test. I've heard Intel processors throttle down their clocks or shut down to avoid damage at around 100 degrees celsius.
My Processor which showed a 5.9 on the Windows Experience Index now shows a 6.4.
(on a scale of 1.0 to 7.9)
I just wanted to know if what I've done is alright?
Here are some images I took for your information.
Thank you for your help in advance
SCLazyCherry
05-04-2021, 01:32 AM #2Voltage still seems quite low. Given they sold 2.4GHz chips at 1.3250v VID, and never produced a 65nm chip running faster than 3.0GHz, not even the $1000 Extreme Editions with higher TDP, Intel likely assigned your chip a 2.4GHz @ stock voltage. You probably won't see an 800MHz boost unless you push it further. Try at least 1.4v and see if stability improves.
Mr_Wheeper_
05-04-2021, 02:51 AM #3The details about CPU-Z when the stock settings are active are provided.
Memory settings at stock
200MHz FSB x 5/3 memory multiplier (3.33 in BIOS) = 333MHz or 667MHz DDR.
Currently you're running
250MHz FSB x 1 memory multiplier (2.00 in BIOS) = 250MHz or 500MHz DDR.
If your memory modules are indeed rated for 667MHz, examine the memory multipliers and try to approach that speed. In your screenshot, the BIOS will indicate the actual memory speed your settings produce. If a 2.66 memory multiplier is available, it would allow your memory to operate at its maximum capacity.
Usually, if it functions then it's acceptable. Core 2 processors are relatively easy to overclock. Are you using the original cooler? The 85C is quite hot, but it doesn't cause significant throttling, so I'm not worried. The main thing to check is whether your memory performance lags behind its stock performance.
Memory settings at stock
200MHz FSB x 5/3 memory multiplier (3.33 in BIOS) = 333MHz or 667MHz DDR.
Currently you're running
250MHz FSB x 1 memory multiplier (2.00 in BIOS) = 250MHz or 500MHz DDR.
If your memory modules are indeed rated for 667MHz, examine the memory multipliers and try to approach that speed. In your screenshot, the BIOS will indicate the actual memory speed your settings produce. If a 2.66 memory multiplier is available, it would allow your memory to operate at its maximum capacity.
There's no advantage to running memory faster than 1:1 because the FSB is the bottleneck and you aren't using any IGP that could use the excess bandwidth.
I would get a better cooler and clock it much faster than that. 65nm chips are good up to 1.55v (people often recommend 1.50 for quads only because they get too hot otherwise but a dual should be fine). 10 x 333 = 3.33GHz and 11 x 333 = 3.67GHz. You want to have that CPU run as fast as possible because with only 2MB cache, it's only equivalent to a 4MB chip running ~200MHz slower.
In general, Core 2 Duo should be run at the fastest FSB you can. 9 x 333 would give you the same CPU speed you have now and would let you run the DDR2-667 RAM at stock speed 1:1.
There's no advantage to running memory faster than 1:1 because the FSB is the bottleneck and you aren't using any IGP that could use the excess bandwidth.
I would get a better cooler and clock it much faster than that. 65nm chips are good up to 1.55v (people often recommend 1.50 for quads only because they get too hot otherwise but a dual should be fine). 10 x 333 = 3.33GHz and 11 x 333 = 3.67GHz. You want to have that CPU run as fast as possible because with only 2MB cache, it's only equivalent to a 4MB chip running ~200MHz slower.
Memory settings at stock
200MHz FSB x 5/3 memory multiplier (3.33 in BIOS) = 333MHz or 667MHz DDR.
Currently you’re running
250MHz FSB x 1 memory multiplier (2.00 in BIOS) = 250MHz or 500MHz DDR
Assuming your memory modules are indeed rated for 667MHz, take a look at the memory multipliers and see if you can approach that speed (in your screenshot, the BIOS will indicate the actual memory speed your settings produce. If a 2.66 memory multiplier is available, it would allow your memory to run at full capacity).
Thanks for the reply.
I’m currently using an aftermarket cooler, a large heatsink with a powerful fan. With a stock cooler the temperature would have reached around 95°C, I’m sure. I’ve also noticed that my FSB speed has increased from 200 MHz to 250 MHz and my DRAM speed has dropped to 250 MHz from 333 MHz.
Yes, there is a 2.66 memory multiplier available, but using it lowers the FSB
RAM ratio to 3:4. It should ideally be 1:1, which it currently is. Should I still use it? It’s been running at 3:5 for over eight years, lol.
In general, if it functions properly then it’s acceptable. Core 2 processors are relatively easy to overclock. Are you using the original cooler? The stock cooler is quite hot, but it’s still well above throttling limits, so I wouldn’t worry much. The only aspect to check is whether your memory performance is slower than it should be at stock speeds.
Memory settings at stock
200MHz FSB x 5/3 memory multiplier (3.33 in BIOS) = 333MHz or 667MHz DDR.
Currently you’re running
250MHz FSB x 1 memory multiplier (2.00 in BIOS) = 250MHz or 500MHz DDR
Assuming your memory modules are indeed rated for 667MHz, take a look at the memory multipliers and see if you can approach that speed (in your screenshot, the BIOS will indicate the actual memory speed your settings produce. If a 2.66 memory multiplier is available, it would allow your memory to run at full capacity).
Thanks for the reply.
I’m currently using an aftermarket cooler, a large heatsink with a powerful fan. With a stock cooler the temperature would have reached around 95°C, I’m sure. I’ve also noticed that my FSB speed has increased from 200 MHz to 250 MHz and my DRAM speed has dropped to 250 MHz from 333 MHz.
Yes, there is a 2.66 memory multiplier available, but using it lowers the FSBRAM ratio to 3:4. It should ideally be 1:1, which it currently is. Should I still use it? It’s been running at 3:5 for over eight years, lol.
In general, Core 2 Duo should be run at the fastest FSB you can. 9 x 333 would give you the same CPU speed you have now and would let you run the DDR2-667 RAM at stock speed 1:1.
There's no advantage to running memory faster than 1:1 because the FSB is the bottleneck and you aren't using any IGP that could use the excess bandwidth.
I would get a better cooler and clock it much faster than that. 65nm chips are good up to 1.55v (people often recommend 1.50 for quads only because they get too hot otherwise but a dual should be fine). 10 x 333 = 3.33GHz and 11 x 333 = 3.67GHz. You want to have that CPU run as fast as possible because with only 2MB cache, it's only equivalent to a 4MB chip running ~200MHz slower.
Hey thanks for your reply,
If I'm running 9 x 333 then what memory multiplier should I use? 2.00, 2.66 or higher?
What is an IGP? I'm sorry I'm pretty noob.
As for overvoltage I've heard some really bad stories of people frying their CPUs by doing that, and this is the only computer I have to use currently so I want to play it safe. The Intel website says the processor's operating voltage is 0.8500V - 1.5V.
BFG-9000 :
In general, Core 2 Duo should be run at the fastest FSB you can. 9 x 333 would give you the same CPU speed you have now and would let you run the DDR2-667 RAM at stock speed 1:1.
There's no advantage to running memory faster than 1:1 because the FSB is the bottleneck and you aren't using any IGP that could use the excess bandwidth.
I would get a better cooler and clock it much faster than that. 65nm chips are good up to 1.55v (people often recommend 1.50 for quads only because they get too hot otherwise but a dual should be fine). 10 x 333 = 3.33GHz and 11 x 333 = 3.67GHz. You want to have that CPU run as fast as possible because with only 2MB cache, it's only equivalent to a 4MB chip running ~200MHz slower.
Hey thanks for your reply,
If I'm running 9 x 333 then what memory multiplier should I use? 2.00, 2.66 or higher?
What is an IGP? I'm sorry I'm pretty noob.
As for overvoltage I've heard some really bad stories of people frying their CPUs by doing that, and this is the only computer I have to use currently so I want to play it safe. The Intel website says the processor's operating voltage is 0.8500V - 1.5V.
In practice, I recommend:
- Current setup: 250FSB x 2.00 = DDR500
- If your board can’t reach 333MHz, try 250FSB x 2.66 = DDR667
- Ideal configuration: 333FSB x 2.00 = DDR667
- Only considered cooling if you have a high-end CPU like the Xeon E5450 with a decent cooler
Regarding overclocking, it’s wise not to push anything beyond safe limits, as it carries risks. As long as you stay within Intel’s recommended voltage range, you should be fine. I’ve experienced Core 2 Duos surviving at 1.6V, but I’ve also damaged a Core 2 Quad under similar conditions.
IGP
=
Integrated graphics processor – the built-in graphics chip on your motherboard.
Joewinter23
05-17-2021, 07:50 AM #8This means that for optimal memory performance, your FSB speed needs to match your memory clock. With a 333MHz memory, you should set the FSB to 333MHz and run the RAM at the same rate. Running it slower won’t improve performance, even if it matches the FSB frequency. If your board supports it (though I’m not certain about the maximum FSB for a 945G), increasing the FSB to 333MHz while lowering the CPU clock ratio to 9x would still yield the same 3GHz speed and allow you to run memory at full speed. However, this change likely won’t significantly boost memory performance—it’s only a minor adjustment.
In practice, I recommend:
- Current setup: 250FSB x 2.00 = DDR500
- If your board can’t reach 333MHz, try 250FSB x 2.66 = DDR667
- Ideal configuration: 333FSB x 2.00 = DDR667
- Only considered cooling if you have a high-end CPU like the Xeon E5450 with a decent cooler
Regarding overclocking, it’s wise not to push anything beyond safe limits, as it carries risks. As long as you stay within Intel’s recommended voltage range, you should be fine. I’ve experienced Core 2 Duos surviving at 1.6V, but I’ve also damaged a Core 2 Quad under similar conditions.
IGP
=
Integrated graphics processor – the built-in graphics chip on your motherboard.
In practice, I recommend these settings:
- Current configuration: 250FSB x 2.00 = DDR500
- If your board can't reach 333MHz, try 250FSB x 2.66 = DDR667
- Ideal setting: 333FSB x 2.00 = DDR667
Regarding cooling, since I use a Xeon E5450 (a C2Q Q9650) that operates around 4.1GHz and stays cool at 75-80°C with a Hyper 212, an 85°C temperature felt too high for dual-core performance at 3GHz with a decent cooler.
The general advice is to avoid overclocking anything you can't afford to lose, as it carries some risk. As long as you stay within Intel's safe voltage limits, you should be fine. I've experienced Core 2 Duos surviving at 1.6V, but I’ve also seen Core 2 Quad fail under similar conditions.
IGP
Integrated graphics processor – the built-in graphics chip on the motherboard.
This is the information available on my motherboard’s documentation:
http://www.gigabyte.in/Motherboard/GA-94...-rev-10#ov
Intel® Core™2 Extreme / Core™2 Duo FSB 1066 Processor
Dual Channel DDR2 667 for enhanced system performance
* GA-945GCM-S2L supports up to *FSB1333MHz* via overclocking
Thus, the FSB could reach up to 1.3GHz, but I haven’t achieved those speeds yet.
I followed your suggestions:
- "In order of what I'd suggest:"
- 250FSB x 2.00 = DDR500
- If your motherboard can't go higher, try 250FSB x 2.66 = DDR667
- This is the best configuration, though it causes a reboot and disables CPU Host Clock Control when saving.
- The BIOS warns that setting FSB above 250MHz may not work, and it blocks PCIe frequency adjustments during overclocking.
What should I do?
The goal is to achieve optimal memory performance, meaning your FSB speed should match your memory clock. With a 333MHz memory, you should configure the FSB at 333MHz and let the RAM run at a 1:1 ratio. Running it slower won’t improve performance, even if it matches the FSB frequency. If your system supports it, increasing the FSB to 333MHz while lowering the CPU clock ratio to 9x will maintain 3GHz speed while allowing 1:1 memory operation. However, this may not significantly boost memory speed.
In practice, I recommend these settings:
- Current configuration: 250FSB x 2.00 = DDR500
- If your board can't reach 333MHz, try 250FSB x 2.66 = DDR667
- Ideal setting: 333FSB x 2.00 = DDR667
Regarding cooling, since I use a Xeon E5450 (a C2Q Q9650) that operates around 4.1GHz and stays cool at 75-80°C with a Hyper 212, an 85°C temperature felt too high for dual-core performance at 3GHz with a decent cooler.
The general advice is to avoid overclocking anything you can't afford to lose, as it carries some risk. As long as you stay within Intel's safe voltage limits, you should be fine. I've experienced Core 2 Duos surviving at 1.6V, but I’ve also seen Core 2 Quad fail under similar conditions.
IGP
Integrated graphics processor – the built-in graphics chip on the motherboard.
This is the information available on my motherboard’s documentation:
http://www.gigabyte.in/Motherboard/GA-94...-rev-10#ov
Intel® Core™2 Extreme / Core™2 Duo FSB 1066 Processor
Dual Channel DDR2 667 for enhanced system performance
* GA-945GCM-S2L supports up to *FSB1333MHz* via overclocking
Thus, the FSB could reach up to 1.3GHz, but I haven’t achieved those speeds yet.
I followed your suggestions:
- "In order of what I'd suggest:"
- 250FSB x 2.00 = DDR500
- If your motherboard can't go higher, try 250FSB x 2.66 = DDR667
- This is the best configuration, though it causes a reboot and disables CPU Host Clock Control when saving.
- The BIOS warns that setting FSB above 250MHz may not work, and it blocks PCIe frequency adjustments during overclocking.
What should I do?
The lowest chip I've seen in 65nm form factor had a VID of 1.3250v. The range from 0.8500V to 1.5V is just the voltages Intel considered possible, and it's likely they pushed up to 1.5v for better yields. If AMD had offered any real competition at that time (which they didn't), then the spec sheet would probably state a maximum safe voltage of 1.55V for longevity, though this doesn't ensure proper performance at that level.
It's possible you can safely go up to 1.5625v if necessary, but doing so will likely reduce efficiency significantly. However, with sufficient voltage, stability above 90°C is achievable—especially in laptops where they often run hot.
I recommend checking the cooler setup, as the chip draws less than 50W under load (even though its TDP is listed as 65W), so it shouldn't be overheating at just 3.0.
GoPatriots1
05-20-2021, 12:52 AM #10Yes, a multiplier above 1:1 which is shown as 2.00 in your BIOS isn't beneficial. Remember your chipset is only officially approved by Intel for 533 or 800 FSB (the 133 and 200 options in your BIOS), which is why you'll likely need higher MCH/Northbridge voltages than the default to achieve 1333. Since your image doesn't show any adjustment for that, it's possible you're limited by FSB speed, so I suggest testing a 12 x 267 = 3.2GHz configuration at a 2.00 memory multiplier. You might need to increase the CPU voltage slightly.
The lowest chip I've seen in 65nm form factor had a VID of 1.3250v. The range from 0.8500V to 1.5V is just the voltages Intel considered possible, and it's likely they pushed up to 1.5v for better yields. If AMD had offered any real competition at that time (which they didn't), then the spec sheet would probably state a maximum safe voltage of 1.55V for longevity, though this doesn't ensure proper performance at that level.
It's possible you can safely go up to 1.5625v if necessary, but doing so will likely reduce efficiency significantly. However, with sufficient voltage, stability above 90°C is achievable—especially in laptops where they often run hot.
I recommend checking the cooler setup, as the chip draws less than 50W under load (even though its TDP is listed as 65W), so it shouldn't be overheating at just 3.0.