less VCORE for more stability??

[therudyq3]

I have the latest BIOS...just released last week...BIOS 15...

so it makes it even more puzzling.

I can't seem to be able to run it higher than 195 fsb stable. Itll only last about 2 1/2 hour prime95.

I can run it at 198 fsb but not stable...it actually does better if I drop the vcore from 1.6 to 1.575 then it'll do prime95 longer.

Maybe I set lower mem timing...I rather not. Mem timing is very aggressive right now 2 2 2 5, but it's hardly running at its rated speed PC3700.... 195 fsb X 2 = DDR390...not yet close to DDR466

So maybe this is just the limit of my cpu...at a very low vcore. This is similar to other people's situation here as well.

Overall, I can't really complain. I'm pushing a 2.4B to run at 3.52 stable at a very low/cool vcore. 1.575 vcore and max load temp at 41C to 43C

 

[schismspeak]

Ok I I have seen this in the "SL6RZ Rocks" thread, they usually did there 3.2-3.5ghz @ stock voltage or slightly lower, it had nothing to do with power supplies in the there case. The new Chips for somereason like lower voltages, if it is prime stable at a lower voltage who cares it is stable that is that, im certain it is not heat, cause if so, lowering the voltage and keeping the OC the SAME wouldnt work.

 

[therudyq3]

Ok I I have seen this in the "SL6RZ Rocks" thread, they usually did there 3.2-3.5ghz @ stock voltage or slightly lower, it had nothing to do with power supplies in the there case. The new Chips for somereason like lower voltages, if it is prime stable at a lower voltage who cares it is stable that is that, im certain it is not heat, cause if so, lowering the voltage and keeping the OC the SAME wouldnt work.

RIGHT!! I don't care if it's stable at lower vcore ...actually it would just be a plus..

But it leads me to think that perhaps I can OC more because I'm at sucha low vcore for such a high OC...what an anomaly