Xeon X3350 OC and Review (WIP)

Thanatos421

Distinguished
Mar 26, 2007
549
0
18,990
This was requested by a few people wanting to see what the Xeon 45nms could do vs the Q9450. While I can't give you the Q side of it, I will do what I can to comprehensively review the Xeon.

First off, BIOS flash to 1004 was necessary on the Maximus Formula SE X38 Mobo, so be ready Asus owners.

On to the OC! For the first test, I just went to 3.2. FSB to 400(x8). Vcore at 1.2 in BIOS, 1.136 under Prime load. I left NB voltage to auto for the moment. Cores are between 65 and 72c during Prime 95 Small FFT. CoreTemp reports that in Vista finally, but I hope it's wrong.


XeonOCbeginning.jpg


As you can see, the cores are already pretty toasty. I think I have a little more room to play due to the higher Tjunction Max, but it just makes me nervous :( I hope I have been bitten by the faulty sensor bug :p I may download RealTemp and compare, Comp says it is the one to trust now.

I will update this as I go, and post the Review portion after locking in the final OC.

Update: I'm retarded and had my fan mounted backwards on my TRUE.....that OC failed anyway, not due to temps.
I'll wait until I get a stable OC to post progress :)

Update: Can't get 3.6 to load Windows with as much as 1.4 vcore in BIOS.... Sticking with 3.4, which seems stable at 1.3125 in BIOS.

8:24PM - CoreTemp shows a +10c difference to Real Temp. There is no way Core Temp is correct, because as of right now, it's showing cores over 85c. Surely, that would at least throttle the CPU, if not shutdown. I know the shutoff Tcase temp on the 6750 was 72c. I don't know what it is for the Penryn series.

Real Temp seems to be very accurate. Idle temps in the 40s seems possible with a quad at 3.4. Core Temp shows idles in high 50s, can't be true.

I am kind of dissapointed with this chip as far as a great OC'er. I didn't necessarily expect it to be, but I thought I could get at least 3.6 with all of the 3.8s and 4.0s you see everywhere on the QX9650. I wil continue to attempt 3.6 after I make sure 3.4 is stable at lowest voltage needed. I don't wanna have to do this twice if I somehow can't get 3.6.

Interesting side note.. I fail POST at 3.4 with my RAM set to 1066 (EPP Profile stock speed) and stock timings, with proper voltage. I had to slightly underclock the RAM for it to pass POST. Possibly the rumored 4 x 1GB stick is bad for overclocking (on a quad)?

Update in the morning. Stressing overnight.
 

Thanatos421

Distinguished
Mar 26, 2007
549
0
18,990
Looks like 3.4 is going to be the limit, but not due to overvoltage. If Real Temp is accurate, which I believe it is, at 3.4 my hottest core seems to have peaked at 72c. Pretty warm, but it should come down a bit as the AS5 sets up. We all know that everyday use and most gaming will never heat all 4 cores that warm.

I believe that I'll just stick to 3.4 until I confirm with an IR thermometer the temps I'm seeing.

I'll run 3dMark in the morning and post results. Any other benchies you guys want?
 

Thanatos421

Distinguished
Mar 26, 2007
549
0
18,990
Just tried everything I know, aside from jacking the voltage over 1.45 to get 3.6 to load Vista and no joy.

Oh well, on to the Benchmarks! I'll have to reinstall Crysis, but I'll give it a whirl :)

I can't believe I can't get 3.6 out of this thing with reasonable voltage. Oh well, a 3.4 quad should still be more than enough :)

Benchmarks soon.
 

Thanatos421

Distinguished
Mar 26, 2007
549
0
18,990
3.4 is looking more and more like max for this particular chip. I had some strange problems, getting them all sorted, then I'll run benches. This OC was a little more tricky than the dual core...

Update soon.
 

Thanatos421

Distinguished
Mar 26, 2007
549
0
18,990
For the sake of others who ordered this same Xeon, I hope mine is a lemon. I knew anything over 3.6 would be difficult with the 8x multi, but 450 isn't all that high of an FSB.
 

Thanatos421

Distinguished
Mar 26, 2007
549
0
18,990
13863 3dMark 06 Default Benchmark

Link was only temporary.... I'll post a screenie when I get home.

Not all that much better than my 6750. It got 13.2k.

Didn't expect CPU to cause that much of a jump tho.

Installing Crysis soon.
 

Lupiron

Distinguished
Feb 9, 2008
1,711
0
19,780
LOL, thanks! It will be a while before I move on to see if VID matters, but it more than likely will. I know you've been reading the posts about it! And you are right, thats interesting that it cant overclock to good. That doesnt bode well, hehe.

I will be eyeing this to see what else you come up with! What kind of lil things have been going on that you can attribute to the processors' OC?

--Lupi!
 

Thanatos421

Distinguished
Mar 26, 2007
549
0
18,990
Nothing that I can attribute directly to the proc. I know that with a quad it is harder to push the FSB, and supposedly with 4 1 gig sticks of RAM. I can only guess those are my main limiting factors if they are indeed true.

Weird problem #1 was the RAM not allowing me to run it at stock when OC'd to 3.4. It may have just been some strange ratio that the mobo didn't like or something, but I've never seen an OC that wouldn't run RAM at the rated speed.

Wierd problem #2 would be Ntune. It worked fine on the 6750 allowing me to change fan speeds for my 8800 GT. When I installed the Xeon, it would blue screen me upon launching it. I removed and reinstalled everything I could think of that would have some residual CPU information that could be fouling it up, but to no avail. I have to use RivaTuner now, which is no big deal, but just another process hogging system resources.

Weird problem #3 would be not being able to load Vista at 3.6 with as much as 1.45 vcore. That really freaked me out. I might send my chip to Cnu to see what he can do with it. Maybe I'm missing some obscure setting that I've never had to change before.
 

Lupiron

Distinguished
Feb 9, 2008
1,711
0
19,780
I agree with you there. Who knows what new settings the new chips will like. I just thought I would mention this, but maybe those chips hit their wall sooner? Thats just blabbing. No real info, but I did notice that in the q6x00 series needed a huge voltage jump to go from 3.6 to 3.8

I was amazed at the amount of VCore to reach 3.8 fully prime stable. It was like 15 notches outside my worse case guess! So from 2.66 to 3.6 was like 8 notches. From 3.6 to 3.8 (prime stable, daily stable is way less than prime stable!) was 26-29 bios VCore notches.

That is one hell of alot! Just a thought!

Hey, do you know if there is just a "standard" test for vid cards? I mean, something that test them to make sure they comply with their settings, and the performance you should get? As in, my Ultra seems a bit slow to me. Is there a way to test it to make sure its even living up to their stock performance?

--Lupi
 

Thanatos421

Distinguished
Mar 26, 2007
549
0
18,990
Well... Basically, 3dMark will tell you these things. However, finding systems identical to yours is the key to comparison in that case. Luckily, a single 8800 GT is pretty common on the Orb.
 

Thanatos421

Distinguished
Mar 26, 2007
549
0
18,990
I didn't try for 3.5 or anything really. If the core temps at 3.4 are accurate according to RealTemp, then 3.6 probably wouldn't be a good idea anyway. I didn't try to remove any RAM, because I wouldn't run this machine with 2 gig so why even bother :)

RAM is set at 5-5-5-18.
 

Thanatos421

Distinguished
Mar 26, 2007
549
0
18,990
Running CPU benchmark 1
Results will depend on current system settings
Press any key to continue . . .
Running...
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 1500, Recorded Time: 44.62s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 50.87s, Average FPS: 29.49
Min FPS: 14.82 at frame 196, Max FPS: 40.93 at frame 105
Average Tri/Sec: -38446408, Tri/Frame: -1303844
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -0.55
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 47.68s, Average FPS: 31.46
Min FPS: 14.82 at frame 196, Max FPS: 40.93 at frame 105
Average Tri/Sec: -40857908, Tri/Frame: -1298800
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -0.55
Press any key to continue . . .

Not sure how to tell which res/AA that was...I'm guessing 1680x1050 No AA, but not sure about quality.
 

Thanatos421

Distinguished
Mar 26, 2007
549
0
18,990
This is Benchmark_CPU2.bat

I noticed it's at 1680x1050, but still not sure how to tell AA and quality levels.

Running CPU benchmark 1
Results will depend on current system settings
Press any key to continue . . .
Running...
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 1500, Recorded Time: 127.52s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 73.09s, Average FPS: 20.52
Min FPS: 11.68 at frame 453, Max FPS: 26.46 at frame 104
Average Tri/Sec: -3448770, Tri/Frame: -168050
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 4.97
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 1500, Recorded Time: 127.52s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 73.47s, Average FPS: 20.42
Min FPS: 9.75 at frame 477, Max FPS: 26.48 at frame 105
Average Tri/Sec: -3532312, Tri/Frame: -173020
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 4.83
Press any key to continue . . .

GPU Benchmark is irrelevant unless you just wanna see what an 8800 GT can do :p

I did notice that in the upper right, it read "VeryHighSpec HDR Devmode Streaming" Not sure if that means anything, but I guess those could be "Very High" settings, No AA.

Also, this was 32-bit DX10 mode. 64-bit DX10 would freeze on load screen. 64-bit DX10 never worked for me on the dual core either tho....can't fault the Xeon for that one.
 

Thanatos421

Distinguished
Mar 26, 2007
549
0
18,990
I found mine to be FSB wall. Tried 450x6 with as much as 1.65v on the NB. No dice. Dual core was able to push higher FSB, so I have to blame this on the additional cores. I knew this was the case, but didn't expect it to give up so early. I'm done tryin to get anything higher. 3.4 screams thru whatever I toss at it. Even if I could get 3.6+, I wouldn't leave it there except to run a few benchmarks for comparison.
 

TRENDING THREADS