Jump to content

stealthgeek

Members
  • Content Count

    57
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About stealthgeek

  • Rank
    Member
  1. I think my stepping is CBBWE, but Im not sure of the full stepping without rifling through me emails... Its strange, it was sold on the premise that it could do 2.7 easy on air (and that was with a Zalman 7000, I have a Zalman 9000 LED). I was never able to get above 295 on the FSB, even with a multi of 6 and setting the RAM to a divider of 1/2 (100)! Does that mean my nforce board is maxing out at 295? I had wondered about updating the BIOS to see if it would go higher, Im pretty sure the BIOS I have is dated late 2005
  2. Hi there 1st post back at the new forums! Glad to see the old DFI community alive again! I recently returned to overclocking after a good 10 month haitus. After a weekend of stressing each component, I found the following max values: HTT/FSB: 295 RAM: 260 CPU: 2650 After putting these vaules into Gogars optimizer, I noticed 2 entries in particular: 294 9 x 294 = 2646 5:6, 166, DDR333 = 240.54 (DDR481) 3 x 294 = 882 0.5826 and 288 9 x 288 = 2592 11:12,183,DDR366 = 259.2 (DDR518) 3 x 288 = 864 4.7912 I have set the first one and it has been prime95 stable for 3 hours so far. My question is, would I notice better performance if I sacrificed 50Mhz from the first setup for an extra 20Mhz (40Mhz) on the RAM and a higher divider? I havent tested the second setup so havent got any first hand evidence. Realise CPU is king, but wondered if the sacrifice was worth it... Thanks!
  3. but 370?? Surely thats too much?? I havent push it further tho - should I have lowered the HTT multi? I thought that if i didnt, as soon as I start pushing 1050Mhz on the HTT, it will stop booting and not represent the true maximum of the HTT/FSB - is this correct??
  4. Im just going through the process of finding the max of each component - at the moment, I am pushing the HTT/FSB. I set the CPU mutli to 6, set my chipset voltage up a notch and put the RAM on the 1/2 divider. I progressed from 200 all the way up to 370 last night, something I didnt expect to be able to do. I have heard that 320 is about right for the max, so im thinking I did something wrong (e.g. when I lowered the HTT multi to 3). The guide I am following says for this section, you only need to be able to boot - no priming etc is neccessary. Later on, when Im pushing the RAM and CPU, then I will need to prime, but not for the HTT/FSB Is all this OK??
  5. more details about he error you posted: It sounds like a problem with RAM, but I would also give your drives the once over with scandisk. Pay special attention to the drive you use for the page file (usually C if you havent changed it). Also, what hard disk configuration do you have? SCSI/SATA/PATA? RAID? Do you use the onbaord RAID controllers? If so, which ones?
  6. you can if you want, you probably wont need to tho. I still have whatever BIOS was put on there in the factory!
  7. I got these, havent arrived yet though.
  8. my 2 pence - RAID 5 on ANY chip is useless. Sustained read speeds are OK, but any random write speeds, as you found out, are terrible. Its just the nature of RAID 5 - it has to calculate parity information and write it on the parity disk on the fly. This causes the slowdown. In terms of redundancy, RAID 5 is a cost effective solution, but I wouldnt want to use it in anything except a web server or some other application that requires little writes. A good alternative would be RAID 10 - this requires a minimum of 4 drives (best with 6) however. But the benefit is, you can lose up to 2 drives and still recover your data! Plus, you get close to RAID 0 performance for writes and reads.
  9. hit Delete as soon as you turn it on - keep bashing it un til the bios screen appears From here, check the PC Health status screen for clues (look at fan RPM, temps of your CPU, power rails etc)
  10. meh, I dont think theres anything advantageous about RAID 5, it sucks big time. RAID 10 is the way to go, unfortunately not supported on the NF4 boards
  11. I used to be an Nvidia boy, back when the TNT2 Riva cards were all the rage! I upgraded through the Grforce range, up to the ti4200 and then I switched to ATi because of the performance and also their ability to run AA and AF with a small performance hit. ATI have historically been able to run AA and AF better than Nvidia and while they continue to do so, I will remian with them
×
×
  • Create New...