# Thermal paste



## prescient (Feb 9, 2011)

hi i want to test my cpu at 4Ghz but am afraid of damaging my thermal paste on the 
stock fan . dose thermal paste gets worn off because of heat ? even if it was a test ?


----------



## dchrsf (Feb 9, 2011)

It wont get worn off, it will conduct heat all the way up to the melting point, which I'm sure for a material ment to transfer heat, is VERY high!.

 I wouldn't worry abut it melting off!

Now a stock HSF + the 4ghz is where u need to rethink things ( of coarse depending on the temps your getting)


----------



## de.das.dude (Feb 9, 2011)

i think CPU will shut off before it starts to even slightly damage the thermal paste


----------



## BondExtreme (Feb 9, 2011)

Baha. An E8500 at 4 with stock? No no no no..


----------



## de.das.dude (Feb 9, 2011)

BondExtreme said:


> Baha. An E8500 at 4 with stock? No no no no..



come on. let em dream. no pun intended


----------



## BondExtreme (Feb 9, 2011)

de.das.dude said:


> come on. let em dream. no pun intended



And that dream may turn into a nightmare


----------



## n-ster (Feb 9, 2011)

PLEASE buy a cheaper cooler at least, a Hyper 212+ + extra fan and some OCZ Freeze or MX-2


----------



## mlee49 (Feb 9, 2011)

anas said:


> hi i want to test my cpu at 4Ghz but am afraid of damaging my thermal paste on the
> stock fan . dose thermal paste gets worn off because of heat ? even if it was a test ?



Even a test run at 4Ghz would not damage the thermal paste, like DDD said the cpu will shut down before damage occurs.

You should know that the stock cooler comes with the worst thermal paste manufactured. I would strongly suggest ordering some MX-2 and an inexpensive heatsink(like the CM 212+~$25). 

Also make sure your case's airflow is decent, add an additional fan if you need.


----------



## prescient (Feb 9, 2011)

yes i know what you all mean i only want to test the settings without doing cpu burn tests
i did some testing with real temp load test and hit 95c but did not passed that temp like some
here expected .

thanks but btw dont be so sure about your negative opinions about the stock cooler look what 
i am doing with with my 3.8 oc 






but apparently 4 ghz is different story but this guy did it somehow 


http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/intel_e8500/16.htm


----------



## PaulieG (Feb 9, 2011)

anas said:


> yes i know what you all mean i only want to test the settings without doing cpu burn tests
> i did some testing with real temp load test and hit 95c but did not passed that temp like some
> here expected .
> 
> ...



When I try to check the pic I get an "image not found" error. That 95c is getting dangerously close to TJmax. I'm not surprised that you can boot into windows and run some simple tests with the stock cooler. Thing is, you will not be able to test for anything close to real stability unless you get a decent cooler. Then it should be a breeze since an e8500 does 4.0 easily.


----------



## mlee49 (Feb 9, 2011)

It's all about how much voltage you push through your chip for the overclock. I knew alot of 775 chips could do an easy mild overclock(3.8GHz in your case) but to reach even 200Mhz more required significant voltage increases which simply are not worthwhile.

Your running a 45nm dual core rated at 65W TDP, think about an i7 900 series running quad cores at 125W TDP. Dont be pretensious and say "Stock is good, here's one example."


----------



## brandonwh64 (Feb 9, 2011)




----------



## prescient (Feb 9, 2011)

i have  matrix cooler  titanium 





there it is  but with blue cover  is it any good?


----------



## Velvet Wafer (Feb 9, 2011)

anas said:


> i have  matrix cooler  titanium
> 
> [url]http://img01.imagecanon.com/thumbs/10831/img9433b.jpg[/url]
> 
> there it is  but with blue cover  is it any good?



thats about as good as a stock aluminium cooler, yeah. 
But these Guys tell you, you need a cooler like this:




in order for the 4 Ghz to be stable on your processor


----------



## prescient (Feb 9, 2011)

i see , i just recall that this matrix fan is twice rpm as my stock fan


----------



## REDDLINE (Feb 9, 2011)

Well, Titanium isn't that special, my fathers a machinist, and he works with it a lot, he says the one thing special about it is that its pretty much strong as steel, but lighter, like aluminum.

And titanium doesn't transfer heat as well as other metals like copper or aluminum.

I'd say get the ZALMAN CNPS9500 (may be a bit more expensive) or the CM Hyper 212+

And get some new thermal paste, stock thermal paste isn't too good, (my last stock thermal paste on a Dual Core turned into what felt like cement/glue and ruined the processor)

Get Antec Silver 5 or Arctic Cooling MX-2, both are very good.


----------



## Velvet Wafer (Feb 9, 2011)

SpeedsticK said:


> Get Antec Silver 5 or Arctic Cooling MX-2, both are very good.



both are from arctic cooling, MX2 and AS5


----------



## n-ster (Feb 9, 2011)

IMO AS5 sucks... sucks big sweaty balls

MX-2 or MX-3 or OCZ Freeze


----------



## prescient (Feb 9, 2011)

the hardware shop is more than 50 miles away from my home out side the city . i dont have a car and he wont come here just to install an aftermarket cooler . lets say i need to carry my sumo case 18+ kilos get a cab . pay the cab more than 50$ . i dont even know if they have a decent cooler. so you see i am quite stuck with the stock cooler . is the matrix better ?


----------



## REDDLINE (Feb 9, 2011)

Velvet Wafer said:


> both are from arctic cooling, MX2 and AS5



Woops meant Antec Silver Formula 5


----------



## REDDLINE (Feb 9, 2011)

anas said:


> the hardware shop is more than 50 miles away from my home out side the city . i dont have a car and he wont come here just to install an aftermarket cooler . lets say i need to carry my sumo case 18+ kilos get a cab . pay the cab more than 50$ . i dont even know if they have a decent cooler. so you see i am quite stuck with the stock cooler . is the matrix better ?



Order it online, and just wait to do it, 
Its better to wait than risk rushing it and breaking something.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 9, 2011)

Velvet Wafer said:


> both are from arctic cooling, MX2 and AS5



No they aren't.  Arctic Silver 5 is made by Arctic Silver Inc. and MX-2 is made by Arctic Cooling Incorporated.  Two difference companies.

And as for the stock Intel paste, it is actually very good.  It is actually Shin-Etsu, IIRC.

You don't need some expensive thermal paste, people over-estimate how much of a difference it makes.  You can buy a gigantic $8 tube of Arctic Alumina, and it performs within 1° of MX2.



anas said:


> the hardware shop is more than 50 miles away from my home out side the city . i dont have a car and he wont come here just to install an aftermarket cooler . lets say i need to carry my sumo case 18  kilos get a cab . pay the cab more than 50$ . i dont even know if they have a decent cooler. so you see i am quite stuck with the stock cooler . is the matrix better ?



No, the Matix cooler is worse, don't waste your time.

If you can do 4GHz and keep Prime95/OCCT/Linpack load temps under 80°C, then do it.  However, if you can't keep load temps below that then just settle for a lower clock speed until you get a better cooler.  There isn't a whole lot of good testing a 4GHz config if you can't stress test it for stability anyway.


----------



## Velvet Wafer (Feb 9, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> No they aren't.  Arctic Silver 5 is made by Arctic Silver Inc. and MX-2 is made by Arctic Cooling Incorporated.  Two difference companies.
> 
> And as for the stock Intel paste, it is actually very good.  It is actually Shin-Etsu, IIRC.
> 
> You don't need some expensive thermal paste, people over-estimate how much of a difference it makes.  You can buy a gigantic $8 tube of Arctic Alumina, and it performs within 1° of MX2.



hey, youre right! my error, thanks for adding knowledge to my repository, and correcting me.
i never knew they were actually 2 different companies


----------



## prescient (Feb 9, 2011)

i dont have a credit card plus were i live there is no online market .
its ok 3.8 will do


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 9, 2011)

anas said:


> i dont have a credit card plus were i live there is no online market .
> its ok 3.8 will do



After reading the thread a little more, it sounds like you are leaving the voltage to auto, is that correct?  I only say that because you are running at decent temps at 3.8GHz in your screen shot, and then you say it jumps up to 90°C at 4.0GHz, that sounds like the motherboard is giving the processor way too much voltage.  Like I said, you might be able to get 4.0GHz on the stock cooler with acceptable temps, you just are going to have to adjust the voltage manually.

And the guy a Overclockersclub in the review that you linked to was not using the stock cooler, he didn't even recieve a stock cooler with the chip, so he had to be using something aftermarket even though he never mentions it.


----------



## REDDLINE (Feb 9, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> You can buy a gigantic $8 tube of Arctic Alumina, and it performs within 1° of MX2.



Will this be good, because that would save me a ton of money lol. I just don't want it turning into a 'glue' and never coming off of my processor.

Also the Shin Etsu is very good, i didn't know Intel used it as a stock thermal paste for their dual cores back in 2005, Corsair uses Shin Etsu thermal paste on their Corsair H50, and it's pretty good.


----------



## prescient (Feb 9, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> After reading the thread a little more, it sounds like you are leaving the voltage to auto, is that correct?  I only say that because you are running at decent temps at 3.8GHz in your screen shot, and then you say it jumps up to 90°C at 4.0GHz, that sounds like the motherboard is giving the processor way too much voltage.  Like I said, you might be able to get 4.0GHz on the stock cooler with acceptable temps, you just are going to have to adjust the voltage manually.
> 
> And the guy a Overclockersclub in the review that you linked to was not using the stock cooler, he didn't even recieve a stock cooler with the chip, so he had to be using something aftermarket even though he never mentions it.



i changed the voltage manually to 1.3 at 4Ghz while its 1.175 at 3.8 

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/intel_e8500/16.htm

quote :

All of the tests were on a stock Intel heatsink and never got above 70 degrees Celsius


----------



## PaulieG (Feb 9, 2011)

anas said:


> i changed the voltage manually to 1.3 at 4Ghz while its 1.175 at 3.8
> 
> http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/intel_e8500/16.htm
> 
> ...



I think at the very least, he had a really cool running chip and he switch out the thermal paste.


----------



## prescient (Feb 9, 2011)

well at least your right . it wasnt the case with me at all i went to 95c


----------



## prescient (Feb 10, 2011)

BondExtreme said:


> Baha. An E8500 at 4 with stock? No no no no..



 i cleaned up the stock heat sink and there was loads of dust in it , i moved to vcore 1.3
tested with 15 min full load with real temp load test and everything is fine here : 76c max





http://img01.imagecanon.com/img.php?view=9f71832e899ec97fd2da06a687ce10e0

with normal benchmark 3dmark11  max temp 67c






http://img01.imagecanon.com/img.php?view=ab2b113be8cf96979314d603ce3cbf83

so you underestimated that stock heat-sink  ?


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 10, 2011)

SpeedsticK said:


> Will this be good, because that would save me a ton of money lol. I just don't want it turning into a 'glue' and never coming off of my processor.
> 
> Also the Shin Etsu is very good, i didn't know Intel used it as a stock thermal paste for their dual cores back in 2005, Corsair uses Shin Etsu thermal paste on their Corsair H50, and it's pretty good.



Yes, I've switched to using Artic Alumina entirely now that I've run out of MX2.  It is really good paste, and doesn't turn to cement after a few months of use.



anas said:


> i changed the voltage manually to 1.3 at 4Ghz while its 1.175 at 3.8
> 
> http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/intel_e8500/16.htm
> 
> ...



Ah, sorry, I missed that.  None the less, he just said he was using _a_ stock Intel heatsink, not _the_ stock Intel heatsink.

Thre is a big difference between the older style stock Intel heatsinks with the copper core and taller design and the shitty low profile all aluminum things they include with the processors today.  I would say it is possible to hit 4GHz+ with a 45nm Core 2 Duo using a stock heatsink from a Pentium D.  Because the stock heatsink from the Pentium D was a beast.



anas said:


> i cleaned up the stock heat sink and there was loads of dust in it , i moved to vcore 1.3
> tested with 15 min full load with real temp load test and everything is fine here : 76c max
> 
> [url]http://img01.imagecanon.com/thumbs/10916/picture001-3.jpg[/url]
> ...



Lets see some OCCT Linpack tests and then we'll see how temps are.  But that looks good.


----------



## 20mmrain (Feb 10, 2011)

STOOOPPPP Don't do it!!! You Stock CPU Cooler won't be enough...... Try looking at something like the Cooler Master Hyper 212+ at very least. That is a CPU cooler on the cheaper end but it is one of the best ones. 
If you want better and a little more expensive a Zerotherm ZT-10D would do the trick too. Also of course you got your normals of Prolimatech Megahalems or Thermalright True 120's.
As far as the thermal paster don't worry about. It can handle temps way higher then you CPU can put out!!!
If you are looking for a good Thermal paste I would look for maybe The Artic cooling MX2/MX3 maybe the Gelid GC-Extreme (What I use found it to work best for me) or just good old Artic silver 5 (which is not as good... but it was one time the best)

Maybe also do a little more research on overclocking too.  Just for safety sake it sounds like your possible first time.


----------



## prescient (Feb 10, 2011)

i dont want to use cpu burn s/w  . i think benchmarks and real temp are enough at this time .
if i had crashes i will come back here and ask for help . ok ?


----------



## Bo$$ (Feb 10, 2011)

temps are alright, as long as it wont hit 80c over like 3-6 hours you will be fine


----------



## prescient (Feb 10, 2011)

after 40 on real temp ut wont pass 76c  so its not gonna go higher .
 but if i crash because of other settings u will ask here . i dont think it will be 
vcore issue right ? maybe ram voltage or something ,


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 10, 2011)

anas said:


> i dont want to use cpu burn s/w  . i think benchmarks and real temp are enough at this time .
> if i had crashes i will come back here and ask for help . ok ?



I wouldn't bank on that.  It isn't a good idea to not load the CPU to the max and make sure the heatsink can handle the load.  If you are going to be running these settings 24/7 then you want to make sure the heatsink can handle it.  Otherwise the CPU could overheat.


----------



## prescient (Feb 10, 2011)

but in that screen i opened 4 load tester screens and ran it for 15 min like you see and 
the load was 100%  so ? ill make another real temp 1 hour test . but not burn tests


----------



## erocker (Feb 10, 2011)

FYI tjmax for e8400 is 95c, not 100c.


----------



## prescient (Feb 10, 2011)

but i have 8500 and my tjmax is 100c i dont get ure point


----------



## erocker (Feb 10, 2011)

e8500 is 95c as well. My point is, you need to change it in RealTemp or just add 5c to your current temperatures. 

As a past e8400, e8500 and e8600 owner I would not recommend using the cooler you are using for the clocks you are trying to achieve. You are just degrading your CPU.


----------



## n-ster (Feb 10, 2011)

used to be 95C and they put it to 100C after


----------



## prescient (Feb 10, 2011)

so i went to 97 c  yesterday , that means i passed tjmax??? what then? the thermal might be waned off? ,  what about max temp in bios ?
should that work also?  

am under 75c with stock fan i know its not recommended but its working so...


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 10, 2011)

anas said:


> but in that screen i opened 4 load tester screens and ran it for 15 min like you see and
> the load was 100%  so ? ill make another real temp 1 hour test . but not burn tests



Yes, but my point is that you need a burn test to make sure 1.) that your overclock is actually stable and 2.) that your heatsink can actually handle the heat in a high stress situation.


----------



## erocker (Feb 10, 2011)

anas said:


> am under 75c with stock fan i know its not recommended but its working so...



...you may be slowly damaging your CPU. Maybe. It's your hardware, have fun with it and do as you please.


----------



## prescient (Feb 10, 2011)

ok its an old boot anyway , am getting a new upgrade next summer .

all i want is to be stable at my current settings ,if i crashed and it wasnt a heat issue i would
appreciate  further help from you guys ,thanks


----------



## prescient (Feb 10, 2011)

btw isnt real temp made by this web ? why dont u guys update the tjmax to 95c ?? 
so that your software would not damage any hardware , right ?


----------



## erocker (Feb 10, 2011)

anas said:


> btw isnt real temp made by this web ? why dont u guys update the tjmax to 95c ??
> so that your software would not damage any hardware , right ?



One individual makes RealTemp. There is a RealTemp section where this question would be more appropriate. Besides, you have the option to change it yourself. Also, wrong. The software doesn't damage the hardware, the end-user does.


----------



## Velvet Wafer (Feb 10, 2011)

> "The greatest danger for a rig, is the User in front of it"


----------



## prescient (Feb 10, 2011)

yes i will post there , but what if the user truted the tjmax of the s/w ? and didnt ask at 
the forum? i did that and am not such a newbie .


----------



## erocker (Feb 10, 2011)

n-ster said:


> used to be 95C and they put it to 100C after



I may have been wrong and it's a 5c difference. Doesn't matter. I would be more concerned about using a stock-ish cooler at the frequencies you are running. Either way it's your hardware, I don't care.


----------



## n-ster (Feb 10, 2011)

erocker said:


> I may have been wrong and it's a 5c difference. Doesn't matter. I would be more concerned about using a stock-ish cooler at the frequencies you are running. Either way it's your hardware, I don't care.



^

He's right, 95C or 100C doesn't matter, if you care at all about your hardware, DONT run it at those temps.

If I were you, I'd even buy a Hyper 212+, add an extra fan, get some good TIM like MX-2 or OCZ Freeze, and run it at 3.8GHz


----------



## prescient (Feb 10, 2011)

looks safe to me , plus my cpu is an old boot , next summer ill be getting upgrades .
i was just suggesting to make real temp default settings  a safer s/w to use for normal users 
like me who might not ask and trust the default tjmax 
i thanks u anyway . and might need ure help if i crashed again for reasons other than temp .
i hop i wont tho .


----------



## prescient (Feb 11, 2011)

looks like my memory crashed


----------



## Bo$$ (Feb 11, 2011)

n-ster said:


> ^
> 
> He's right, 95C or 100C doesn't matter, if you care at all about your hardware, DONT run it at those temps.
> 
> If I were you, I'd even buy a Hyper 212+, add an extra fan, get some good TIM like MX-2 or OCZ Freeze, and run it at 3.8GHz



well if i were you (im in a very simlar situation) buy a cheapo aftermarket cooler, and take that thing as far as it will go. aslong as it is stable and not TOO hot, it will see you through till summer. 


Try loosening your memory timings slightly, then stress test it for at least 4hrs NO LESS

Use OCCT for stress testing, it is better


----------



## fullinfusion (Feb 11, 2011)

Use this stuff if you can afford it! The best by far IMO, I use the pad and it works out to a -6c drop in temp for what i use it for... Check THIS OUT


----------



## prescient (Feb 11, 2011)

ure all talking about heat now and i dont have a temp problem as i showed above .
i need to solve the memory issue you say ? what losing memory means ?
my kvr memory  is at 5 5 5 15  at stock its 6 6 6 18   1.8v  i made it 2v  why did my mem crash ?


----------



## de.das.dude (Feb 11, 2011)

anas said:


> ure all talking about heat now and i dont have a temp problem as i showed above .
> i need to solve the memory issue you say ? what losing memory means ?
> my kvr memory  is at 5 5 5 15  at stock its 6 6 6 18   1.8v  i made it 2v  why did my mem crash ?



dude you have a lot to learn! take it slow!!!


----------



## Velvet Wafer (Feb 11, 2011)

de.das.dude said:


> dude you have a lot to learn! take it slow!!!



listen to this dude, he tells you the truth not to embarass or patronize you... but to keep yourself from making you very unhappy.


----------



## prescient (Feb 11, 2011)

Velvet Wafer said:


> listen to this dude, he tells you the truth not to embarass or patronize you... but to keep yourself from making you very unhappy.




am gonna leave this thread with an ocing  badge , my intelligence level is way more than you think .





i  got it stable on 1.2v temp is 65c and i will do any test you ask me to do . but dont tell me wait 24hours .


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 11, 2011)

Any test?  Download OCCT and run the linpack test.


----------



## prescient (Feb 11, 2011)

ok give me the link plz and tell me for haw long to run the test thanks


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 11, 2011)

http://www.ocbase.com/download.php?fileext=zip

30-40 minutes should be good, and remember to select the linpack test.  As I said before, if you temps stay under 75°C with that, you are good to go.


----------



## prescient (Feb 11, 2011)

well seeing those red hammers scared me ill be ok with prime95 i dont want to hammer that
thing yet


----------



## Velvet Wafer (Feb 11, 2011)

anas said:


> well seeing those red hammers scared me ill be ok with prime95 i dont want to hammer that
> thing yet



then use Linx please *sigh*


----------



## prescient (Feb 11, 2011)

whats wrong with prime95???  its been on for hours now max temp 65c


----------



## twilyth (Feb 11, 2011)

I searched through the thread and didn't see anyone mention IBT (Intel Burn Test) - download from 3d guru

It has multiple setting so you don't have to worry.  However on 'max', it will beat the shit out of any cpu.  If you can go 10 rounds on max (free up as much memory as possible first) with IBT, you are rock solid stable at whatever your current ambient temps are.


----------



## prescient (Feb 11, 2011)

thats is all ure getting from me , you cpu beasts lol :





30 min of cpu torture test 





0 errors 0 warnings 20  tests in 26 min


----------



## erocker (Feb 11, 2011)

anas said:


> thats is all ure getting from me , you cpu beasts lol :
> 
> [url]http://img01.imagecanon.com/thumbs/11105/picture001-1.jpg[/url]
> 
> ...



Not too bad! Now go enjoy your computer.


----------



## prescient (Feb 11, 2011)

cool , dead space 2 here i come .


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 11, 2011)

twilyth said:


> I searched through the thread and didn't see anyone mention IBT (Intel Burn Test) - download from 3d guru
> 
> It has multiple setting so you don't have to worry.  However on 'max', it will beat the shit out of any cpu.  If you can go 10 rounds on max (free up as much memory as possible first) with IBT, you are rock solid stable at whatever your current ambient temps are.



That is what OCCT LinPack is.


----------



## twilyth (Feb 11, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> That is what OCCT LinPack is.



Maybe they have the same code at the core, but I've used all 3 and OCCT doesn't even come close to IBT on max.  IIRC, IBT consistently makes my CPU's hit temps that are a minimum of 5C hotter than OCCT.

You have to see it for yourself to believe it.  OCCT will kick your CPU in the nuts, but IBT cuts them off and feeds them to you.


----------



## n-ster (Feb 12, 2011)

twilyth said:


> Maybe they have the same code at the core, but I've used all 3 and OCCT doesn't even come close to IBT on max.  IIRC, IBT consistently makes my CPU's hit temps that are a minimum of 5C hotter than OCCT.
> 
> You have to see it for yourself to believe it.  OCCT will kick your CPU in the nuts, but IBT cuts them off and feeds them to you.



I use OCCT for memory a bit, but usually just use IBT, definitively awesome


----------



## Bo$$ (Feb 12, 2011)

twilyth said:


> I searched through the thread and didn't see anyone mention IBT (Intel Burn Test) - download from 3d guru
> 
> It has multiple setting so you don't have to worry.  However on 'max', it will beat the shit out of any cpu.  If you can go 10 rounds on max (free up as much memory as possible first) with IBT, you are rock solid stable at whatever your current ambient temps are.



read, about 3-4 people including me mentioned a linpack tester...


----------



## prescient (Feb 12, 2011)

twilyth said:


> but IBT cuts them off and feeds them to you.



thanks but i plan to keep this cpu for some more time .


----------



## n-ster (Feb 12, 2011)

anas said:


> thanks but i plan to keep this cpu for some more time .



it's won't kill the CPU. If it does, you weren't supposed to run it at that speed/voltage anyways


----------



## erocker (Feb 12, 2011)

I say let Dead Space 2 be the judge of that.


----------



## prescient (Feb 12, 2011)

yes hop it wont be dead cpu 2 hehe  you want a screeny with fraps when i install it tomorrow ?


----------



## Velvet Wafer (Feb 12, 2011)

anas said:


> yes hop it wont be dead cpu 2 hehe  you want a screeny with fraps when i install it tomorrow ?



its not the matter of death, but instability erocker played on i guess.


----------



## twilyth (Feb 12, 2011)

Bo$$ said:


> read, about 3-4 people including me mentioned a linpack tester...



I did a search for IBT specifically - and as I've already said if you read my post, this is not your ordinary linpack tester.


----------



## prescient (Feb 12, 2011)

Velvet Wafer said:


> its not the matter of death, but instability erocker played on i guess.



time will tell , i will not be shy to speak about my failure but this stock fan aint bad at all .

one thing i found tho i wounder if its true or its just my ignorance :

someone told me that raising fsb is like raising
multiplier = same cpu freq

but with my tests i found that raising fsb needs more vcore than raising
in multiplier

ex : i get to 4ghz with 421x9.5 at vcore 1.216 and a bit of ram increase 

 but i need 1.3 vcore for 450x9 + more ram speed = crashes , more heat and power use, and also degrading hardware . can i be so wrong ?


----------



## Velvet Wafer (Feb 12, 2011)

anas said:


> time will tell , i will not be shy to speak about my failure but this stock fan aint bad at all .
> 
> one thing i found tho i wounder if its true or its just my ignorance :
> 
> ...



you could start by lowering the memory divider, so a higher FSB will produce not as much memory clock. adding voltage should be the last thing to do, when you overclock


----------



## fullinfusion (Feb 12, 2011)

Like Velvet said... +1 on that.

You taking one thing and turning it into 2 things and trying to control both with problems.

Take one step at a time my friend


----------



## de.das.dude (Feb 12, 2011)

oh and as to answer your first queston if your thermal paste will be damaged, and also to test a chipset cooler 's efficiency,
i took my 35W soldering iron. put a dab of TIM on the chipset cooler and touched the soldering irons tip to it. soldering iron was completely heated up beforehand.

so?? nothing happened, the cooler worked perfectly, dissipating the 35W and keeping the itself cool.
as for the TIM, it kinda got dry after a couple of mins. 

also, there is a temperature range already provided by the manufacturer on the TIMs package, stick to it (its impossible not to  )

oh i should mention i tried without the fan on the cooler to check taht thermal paste was actually working... and it went to 60C in 10 secs without the fan. temp sensor?? nerves on my finger tips


----------



## prescient (Feb 12, 2011)

450 fsb means 900 mem divder as minimum .plus you didnt get the main quiestin ,its about 
fsb and multiplier  :

someone told me that raising fsb is like raising
multiplier = same cpu freq

but i found that lower fsb +higher multiplier = less voltage needed and more heat 
and the other way around . is that true or its my imagination ?


----------



## de.das.dude (Feb 12, 2011)

anas said:


> 450 fsb means 900 mem divder as minimum .plus you didnt get the main quiestin ,its about
> fsb and multiplier  :
> 
> someone told me that raising fsb is like raising
> ...



well.... FSB kinda craps your mem settings, so you need to set memory timings and speed everytime you OC with FSB. i use fsb to OC cuz i dont have and upward unlocked multiplier.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 12, 2011)

twilyth said:


> I did a search for IBT specifically - and as I've already said if you read my post, this is not your ordinary linpack tester.



Nah:










Linpack is Linpack, IntelBurnTest on Max doesn't heat up the CPU any more than OCCT Linpack on Max.  I'd agree with you if you were talking about the normal OCCT stress test, but not talking about OCCT Linpack.  It doesn't matter if it is IBT, or Linx, or OCCT they all heat up the CPU the same because they are all doing the same calculations.


----------



## twilyth (Feb 12, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Nah:
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/newtekie1/IBT.png
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/newtekie1/occt-1.png
> 
> Linpack is Linpack, IntelBurnTest on Max doesn't heat up the CPU any more than OCCT Linpack on Max.  I'd agree with you if you were talking about the normal OCCT stress test, but not talking about OCCT Linpack.  It doesn't matter if it is IBT, or Linx, or OCCT they all heat up the CPU the same because they are all doing the same calculations.


You're simply wrong.  I've seen it on several machines.  If you think I'm lying fine.  I don't really give a shit what you think.

edit - sorry being defensive but I stopped posting here (outside of WCG) partly because I got tired of the snarky-ass comments I had to put up with.  Having said that, I'm not inclined to prove anything to anybody.  If you don't want to take my word for something then you don't know me very well.  However that fact alone does not incline me to waste the time necessary to prove my point.  If I have absolutely nothing better to do tomorrow, I will think about running tests with OCCT and IBT.

I would also point out that your scn prt show you didn't even complete one IBT run, so it's not like your prts amount to anything even resembling "evidence".


----------



## Laurijan (Feb 12, 2011)

twilyth said:


> You're simply wrong.  I've seen it on several machines.  If you think I'm lying fine.  I don't really give a shit what you think.
> 
> edit - sorry being defensive but I stopped posting here (outside of WCG) partly because I got tired of the snarky-ass comments I had to put up with.  Having said that, I'm not inclined to prove anything to anybody.  If you don't want to take my word for something then you don't know me very well.  However that fact alone does not incline me to waste the time necessary to prove my point.  If I have absolutely nothing better to do tomorrow, I will think about running tests with OCCT and IBT.
> 
> I would also point out that your scn prt show you didn't even complete one IBT run, so it's not like your prts amount to anything even resembling "evidence".



How´s about meeting outside of the Saloon at 12am?


----------



## twilyth (Feb 12, 2011)

Laurijan said:


> How´s about meeting outside of the Saloon at 12am?



Hey dude.  How's it going.  Check your god damned pm's and vistor messages once in a while.  

Yeah, I must be a little wound up.  4:23am EST and I'm still wired.  You'd think the tranks, anti-psychotics and the rest of my nightly cocktail would have SOME affect.  But my neurons just keep partying at my mental redline.


----------



## prescient (Feb 12, 2011)

Velvet Wafer said:


> you could start by lowering the memory divider, so a higher FSB will produce not as much memory clock. adding voltage should be the last thing to do, when you overclock



lowest mem divider for 450 fsb is 900mhz  and my poor kingston kvrs dosnt like that .
at 421 fsb they go like 840 and 1.9v dram so they are more stable


----------



## prescient (Feb 12, 2011)

a stress test , why you didnt say that from the start .here you go :





i will not hammer my cpu with the other stuff , live and let die


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 12, 2011)

twilyth said:


> You're simply wrong.  I've seen it on several machines.  If you think I'm lying fine.  I don't really give a shit what you think.
> 
> edit - sorry being defensive but I stopped posting here (outside of WCG) partly because I got tired of the snarky-ass comments I had to put up with.  Having said that, I'm not inclined to prove anything to anybody.  If you don't want to take my word for something then you don't know me very well.  However that fact alone does not incline me to waste the time necessary to prove my point.  If I have absolutely nothing better to do tomorrow, I will think about running tests with OCCT and IBT.
> 
> I would also point out that your scn prt show you didn't even complete one IBT run, so it's not like your prts amount to anything even resembling "evidence".



Yes, and yet IBT had been running longer than OCCT had been.  When set on maximum it takes forever to complete a run of IBT, you should know that if you're so experienced with it, and being 3AM and needing to be up at 7AM I didn't much feel like sitting there for another hour+ letting both run.  I've had plenty of experience with IBT, and OCCT heats up the CPU just as much.  Sorry if I don't take your word for it, but my evidence and experience says otherwise.  I'll gladdy take some evidence from you though showing differently.  And the reason I prefer OCCT is that it has a built in thermal stop, so I can set it to run and walk away without worrying about it, unlike IBT.

And there was nothing snarky-ass about my response.  If you take every post that disagrees with you as snarky-ass, then I'll be glad to see you leave again.


----------



## twilyth (Feb 12, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Yes, and yet IBT had been running longer than OCCT had been.  When set on maximum it takes forever to complete a run of IBT, you should know that if you're so experienced with it, and being 3AM and needing to be up at 7AM I didn't much feel like sitting there for another hour+ letting both run.  I've had plenty of experience with IBT, and OCCT heats up the CPU just as much.  Sorry if I don't take your word for it, but my evidence and experience says otherwise.  I'll gladdy take some evidence from you though showing differently.  And the reason I prefer OCCT is that it has a built in thermal stop, so I can set it to run and walk away without worrying about it, unlike IBT.
> 
> And there was nothing snarky-ass about my response.  If you take every post that disagrees with you as snarky-ass, then I'll be glad to see you leave again.


Yes, IBT does take quite a long time - that's sort of the point.  If you watch OCCT, it cycles up and down during each run so you never really stress the chip in the same way.  IBT goes full throttle and stays there.  THAT is why you get much higher temps with IBT than OCCT.  Only towards the very end of each run with IBT do you see the temps drop - and even then, not by a huge amount.  As soon as you see that, within a minute or two you're off on the next run, again at full throttle.

I'll make you a deal.  Run IBT on max and free up as much memory as possible before hand.  Watch the temps continuously for the second or third run and get a feel for when you hit the max.  Then, on the next run, when you hit the high temp, THEN do your screen shot.

Do at least 5 runs, but preferably 10 - and yes, it does take a long time.

Then run OCCT and use any screen shot you like.  If the highest IBT temp is not at least 5C hotter than any OCCT temp, I'll waste the time to do the same test myself on one of my 1090T's and prove that you're wrong.

I think that's a fair deal.  We can even make a wager if you like.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Feb 12, 2011)

n-ster said:


> IMO AS5 sucks... sucks big sweaty balls
> 
> MX-2 or MX-3 or OCZ Freeze



MX-4 is better then all three of those. I hated MX-3 it didnt not spread well. OCZ and MX-2 spread easily cuz they are thinner but i like MX-4 a lot its just the right consistency

Also stress test your CPU with Prime95 and or 50 rounds a IBT/LinX like mentioned above


----------



## micropage7 (Feb 12, 2011)

yap, just remember thermal paste has warm up time so after it applied it may not show its best performance, after warm up time the thermal paste would show you the real performance so to take objective verdict do the test after warm up time


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 12, 2011)

twilyth said:


> Yes, IBT does take quite a long time - that's sort of the point.  If you watch OCCT, it cycles up and down during each run so you never really stress the chip in the same way.  IBT goes full throttle and stays there.  THAT is why you get much higher temps with IBT than OCCT.  Only towards the very end of each run with IBT do you see the temps drop - and even then, not by a huge amount.  As soon as you see that, within a minute or two you're off on the next run, again at full throttle.
> 
> I'll make you a deal.  Run IBT on max and free up as much memory as possible before hand.  Watch the temps continuously for the second or third run and get a feel for when you hit the max.  Then, on the next run, when you hit the high temp, THEN do your screen shot.
> 
> ...



IBT cycles the same way.  You've never noticed that?  When it finishes a run, it cycles down and back up again, just like OCCT Linkpack(because their the same test...).

No need to take a screen shot at the exact moment of the maximum temp, luckily Realtemp records that already and shows it to you.

IBT:





OCCT:





OCCT gives the same temps after 7 minutes of testing, and I let IBT run for 30 minutes after 7 runs gives the same temps.  I'm waiting for your evidence.  Start wasting your time, and I do mean wasting you time, because I doubt you will be able to show any different.



micropage7 said:


> yap, just remember thermal paste has warm up time so after it applied it may not show its best performance, after warm up time the thermal paste would show you the real performance so to take objective verdict do the test after warm up time



AS5 is really the only paste that still has a cure time, all the other pastes don't require any cure time.


----------



## twilyth (Feb 12, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> IBT cycles the same way.  You've never noticed that?  When it finishes a run, it cycles down and back up again, just like OCCT Linkpack(because their the same test...).
> 
> No need to take a screen shot at the exact moment of the maximum temp, luckily Realtemp records that already and shows it to you.
> 
> ...



As I said - 5C difference. **edit** well, 4 and change I guess.

It's not my fault you don't know how to use these utilities.


----------



## n-ster (Feb 12, 2011)

twilyth said:


> You're simply wrong.  I've seen it on several machines.  If you think I'm lying fine.  I don't really give a shit what you think.
> 
> edit - sorry being defensive but I stopped posting here (outside of WCG) partly because I got tired of the snarky-ass comments I had to put up with.  Having said that, I'm not inclined to prove anything to anybody.  If you don't want to take my word for something then you don't know me very well.  However that fact alone does not incline me to waste the time necessary to prove my point.  If I have absolutely nothing better to do tomorrow, I will think about running tests with OCCT and IBT.
> 
> I would also point out that your scn prt show you didn't even complete one IBT run, so it's not like your prts amount to anything even resembling "evidence".



blame tpu members who like proof and evidence over believing some random guy on internet. ofc you shouldn't justify yourself all the time as ppl should do their own research by trying it themselves or even google, but in this case, proof can be asked without it being snarky assed

however I myself have always wonder which is true. but to me, I've never heard of OCCT beating IBT, only matching it, so I just chose IBT logically


----------



## twilyth (Feb 12, 2011)

n-ster said:


> blame tpu members who like proof and evidence over believing some random guy on internet. ofc you shouldn't justify yourself all the time as ppl should do their own research by trying it themselves or even google, but in this case, proof can be asked without it being snarky assed
> 
> however I myself have always wonder which is true. but to me, I've never heard of OCCT beating IBT, only matching it, so I just chose IBT logically



To show how out of touch I tend to be, I thought it was common knowledge that IBT was the harshest stability tester. I only started using it about a year ago after years of using prime95.  I was shocked at the temps it produced.  After a while, I just assumed that anyone who tried it would see how much it could stress a system and automatically pick it over whatever else they were using.  So when I got to this thread and didn't even see it mentioned, I couldn't belief it and had to double check.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 13, 2011)

twilyth said:


> As I said - 5C difference. **edit** well, 4 and change I guess.
> 
> *It's not my fault you don't know how to use these utilities.*
> 
> ...



And you want to say _I'm_ the one making snarky-ass comments?  Sorry for asking for some evidence, I'm sure you'll think this was a snarky-ass comment as well, because I'm sure every comment that doesn't agree with you entirely is considered snarky-ass, right?  Let me break it to you, you'll find a lot of snarky-ass comments if that is your standard, so you might as well leave again, you won't be missed.

Yeah, lets see some Realtemp numbers, not speedfan that doesn't keep track of what the actual max was.  Because the temps can jump 3-5° in a matter of a second with both tests, which is why I use realtemp to tell me what the actual max reached was.


----------



## twilyth (Feb 13, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> And you want to say _I'm_ the one making snarky-ass comments?  Sorry for asking for some evidence, I'm sure you'll think this was a snarky-ass comment as well, because I'm sure every comment that doesn't agree with you entirely is considered snarky-ass, right?  Let me break it to you, you'll find a lot of snarky-ass comments if that is your standard, so you might as well leave again, you won't be missed.
> 
> Yeah, lets see some Realtemp numbers, not speedfan that doesn't keep track of what the actual max was.  Because the temps can jump 3-5° in a matter of a second with both tests, which is why I use realtemp to tell me what the actual max reached was.


This is why I didn't want to waste the time.  I knew that no matter what I did you would find some way to discount it.  Well, if you had certain standards you expected me to observe, you should have made that clear from the start, not after I present evidence that doesn't agree with you.  

I watched OCCT and IBT every second for a couple of runs so I could do the screen print at the moment each hit the highest temp.  If you don't want to believe that, tough.  I'm not doing these tests again just satisfy you.  You think there's no difference?  Fine, there's no difference.  You win.  Later.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 13, 2011)

twilyth said:


> This is why I didn't want to waste the time.  I knew that no matter what I did you would find some way to discount it.  Well, if you had certain standards you expected me to observe, you should have made that clear from the start, not after I present evidence that doesn't agree with you.
> 
> I watched OCCT and IBT every second for a couple of runs so I could do the screen print at the moment each hit the highest temp.  If you don't want to believe that, tough.  I'm not doing these tests again just satisfy you.  You think there's no difference?  Fine, there's no difference.  You win.  Later.



Yeah, sorry I ask you to actually prove the max temps hit and not just post random screenshots that you _say_ were taken at the maximum temps.  See, when you are trying to disprove someone elses evidence, generally you want to provide evidence of your own that is of equal quality.  I shouldn't have to spoon feed you how to do that.  You come in here talking like you are some big expert on the subject, telling people they are wrong left and right without showing one shred of proof, but you need me to tell you how to give a proper screenshot showing maximum temperature?

You want to get ignorant and insulting and act like the big man without backing up your comments, thats fine.  My evidence shows I'm right, your "evidence" shows you don't know what you are doing or talking about.   And don't give me this BS about you won't do it right because you don't want to, we all know you won't do it right because it will prove yourself wrong.:shadedshu

You want to say you left because of snarky-ass comments, but the only one making snarky-ass comments here is you.  So leave again, because of your own snarky-ass comments.


----------



## twilyth (Feb 13, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Yeah, sorry I ask you to actually prove the max temps hit and not just post random screenshots that you _say_ were taken at the maximum temps.  See, when you are trying to disprove someone elses evidence, generally you want to provide evidence of your own that is of equal quality.  I shouldn't have to spoon feed you how to do that.  You come in here talking like you are some big expert on the subject, telling people they are wrong left and right without showing one shred of proof, but you need me to tell you how to give a proper screenshot showing maximum temperature?
> 
> You want to get ignorant and insulting and act like the big man without backing up your comments, thats fine.  My evidence shows I'm right, your "evidence" shows you don't know what you are doing or talking about.   And don't give me this BS about you won't do it right because you don't want to, we all know you won't do it right because it will prove yourself wrong.:shadedshu



Those are the utilities I use when I build a new rig and they're perfectly adequate to my needs.  I use them maybe 5 or 6 times a year.  I don't bench and I can't even be considered a serious overclocker since I do it mainly to generate more points per machine rather than to really try to max my rigs out.

The point is, I used what I always use.  At this point you're basically calling me a liar and a fraud.  If I gave a shit about your opinion I might be offended, but since I couldn't possibly care less, feel free to bite me.

Since you are making every effort to act like a child, I'm going to humor you and let you have the last word.  Say whatever you want about me and my inferior, primitive methods.  Like I said, I would have to respect your opinion in order to be offended by it.


----------



## n-ster (Feb 13, 2011)

twilyth said:


> Those are the utilities I use when I build a new rig and they're perfectly adequate to my needs.  I use them maybe 5 or 6 times a year.  I don't bench and I can't even be considered a serious overclocker since I do it mainly to generate more points per machine rather than to really try to max my rigs out.
> 
> The point is, I used what I always use.  At this point you're basically calling me a liar and a fraud.  If I gave a shit about your opinion I might be offended, but since I couldn't possibly care less, feel free to bite me.
> 
> Since you are making every effort to act like a child, I'm going to humor you and let you have the last word.  Say whatever you want about me and my inferior, primitive methods.  Like I said, I would have to respect your opinion in order to be offended by it.











			
				Official OCCT Website said:
			
		

> CPU:LINPACK
> 
> - The very same as IntelBurnTest, based on a test provided by Intel



Source

I'm sorry twilyth, but even the OCCT website states it is exactly the same as IBT


----------



## twilyth (Feb 13, 2011)

n-ster said:


> http://img.techpowerup.org/110212/Capture034.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I've already said that I don't doubt the core logic is the same, but the behavior of the 2 programs is clearly different - well, it's clear to me anyway.  Maybe I've been hallucinating everytime I've used it and maybe I was hallucinating today.  I'm pretty sure I wasn't, but I get the feeling that would be regarded as a more acceptable explanation for my first hand observations.  Fine.  You can base your decisions on your observations and I'll base my decisions on mine.  It is after all a free country.


----------



## n-ster (Feb 13, 2011)

twilyth said:


> I've already said that I don't doubt the core logic is the same, but the behavior of the 2 programs is clearly different - well, it's clear to me anyway.  Maybe I've been hallucinating everytime I've used it and maybe I was hallucinating today.  I'm pretty sure I wasn't, but I get the feeling that would be regarded as a more acceptable explanation for my first hand observations.  Fine.  You can base your decisions on your observations and I'll base my decisions on mine.  It is after all a free country.



I haven't done any observations yet. this topic interests me and I will do my own observations in time, I'm just trying to go logically here.

both programs put a constant 100% load with the same core logic... I'm trying to understand HOW they could possibly handle it differently, it seems illogical to me. Hopefully tomorrow morning I can do these tests and put in my own experience


----------



## twilyth (Feb 13, 2011)

n-ster said:


> I haven't done any observations yet. this topic interests me and I will do my own observations in time, I'm just trying to go logically here.
> 
> both programs put a constant 100% load with the same core logic... I'm trying to understand HOW they could possibly handle it differently, it seems illogical to me. Hopefully tomorrow morning I can do these tests and put in my own experience



FYI:  I'm running OCCT v 3.1.0 and IBT v. 2.5.  I have no idea if they are current.  Like I said, I used what I always use.

There are some very clear differences between the programs.  OCCT cycles up and down rather than doing enumerated runs like IBT.  I've never timed either of them, but I'm pretty sure that the OCCT cycle is shorter than one IBT run.  So that might be part of why you get significantly higher temps with IBT.  IDK though.  That's just a guess.

I've also noticed that when running IBT on max, system responsiveness becomes almost non-existent.  With OCCT running, I can use the machine almost normally.  Maybe that has to do with more demanding CPU activity under IBT or maybe IBT just uses a lot more memory.  I would guess the latter, but again that's just a guess.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 13, 2011)

twilyth said:


> Those are the utilities I use when I build a new rig and they're perfectly adequate to my needs.  I use them maybe 5 or 6 times a year.  I don't bench and I can't even be considered a serious overclocker since I do it mainly to generate more points per machine rather than to really try to max my rigs out.
> 
> The point is, I used what I always use.  At this point you're basically calling me a liar and a fraud.  If I gave a shit about your opinion I might be offended, but since I couldn't possibly care less, feel free to bite me.
> 
> Since you are making every effort to act like a child, I'm going to humor you and let you have the last word.  Say whatever you want about me and my inferior, primitive methods.  Like I said, I would have to respect your opinion in order to be offended by it.



I'm making every effort to act like a child?  Have you even listened to yourself?  From the the beginning you have basically called me a liar, or more specifically you flat out called me wrong while showing no proof on the contrary to my statements.  Sort of like trolling...

Then you called my comments "snarky-ass" when there was nothing even remotely like that in the comment other than me disagreeing with your statement(and mind you I actually would have had some reason to make a snarky remark since you flat out insulted me in your previous post).  But, yeah, _I'm_ the one acting like a child...


----------



## Laurijan (Feb 13, 2011)

I really would like to know which TIM to get myself so stop slapping each other even though there would be a reason for it...

So MX2 MX3 are not as good as MX4? I wonder how can Arctic Cooling make some of the best TIM when all their coolers are low budged stuff? 

AS5 had is outdated right? OCZ Freeze not as good as MX4?


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 13, 2011)

Laurijan said:


> I really would like to know which TIM to get myself so stop slapping each other even though there would be a reason for it...
> 
> So MX2 MX3 are not as good as MX4? I wonder how can Arctic Cooling make some of the best TIM when all their coolers are low budged stuff?
> 
> AS5 had is outdated right? OCZ Freeze not as good as MX4?



Simple, get a huge tube of Artic Alumina.  It is cheap, and is within 1-2°C of the best stuff available.


----------



## n-ster (Feb 13, 2011)

Or get wtv pleases you. idk about you, but I  rarely use TIM. My tube of OCZ Freeze is still near full. I liked MX-2 alot also. MX-4 I've never tried

I bought OCZ Freeze cuz I was at Microcenter and not only do you save on shipping, no hassle or time lost  convenience sells


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 13, 2011)

n-ster said:


> Or get wtv pleases you. idk about you, but I  rarely use TIM. My tube of OCZ Freeze is still near full. I liked MX-2 alot also. MX-4 I've never tried
> 
> I bought OCZ Freeze cuz I was at Microcenter and not only do you save on shipping, no hassle or time lost  convenience sells



Yeah, pretty much, there is no real difference between the TIMs.  One TIM isn't going to give you a better overclock over the other.  There is at most 5°C difference between the best and worst.


----------



## jpierce55 (Feb 13, 2011)

mlee is right anyway. I need very little voltage increase to hit 3.9ghz on my e8200, but to go to 4.0 take it at the border of the oem rated "safe" range, and the drop in my ram performance made up for the extra 100mhz. It is faster at 3.9.


----------



## Laurijan (Feb 14, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Yeah, pretty much, there is no real difference between the TIMs.  One TIM isn't going to give you a better overclock over the other.  There is at most 5°C difference between the best and worst.



Still there are people that are willing to pay for the "best" performing TIM - and there might be even cases where 5C difference is making a CPU stable or unstable. 

To satisfy my curiosity - what is the best stuff in your opinion?


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 14, 2011)

Laurijan said:


> Still there are people that are willing to pay for the "best" performing TIM - and there might be even cases where 5C difference is making a CPU stable or unstable.
> 
> To satisfy my curiosity - what is the best stuff in your opinion?



Shin-Etsu G751 is the best there is IMO, but at $5 per 1Gram tube, it isn't worth paying for.  Not when Arctic Alumina sells for $7 per 14Gram tube and is within 1°.


----------



## Laurijan (Feb 14, 2011)

Nice to know now. 
One guy on TPU once posted a link to a huge test of TIMs - there where like 50+ different ones in it.
Anyone who could post it again?


----------



## n-ster (Feb 14, 2011)

Laurijan said:


> Nice to know now.
> One guy on TPU once posted a link to a huge test of TIMs - there where like 50+ different ones in it.
> Anyone who could post it again?



That's where the Shin Etsu G etv newtekie said won... OCZ Freeze and MX-2 were in the top tier too, and I think so was Artic alumina or wtv, which is why newtekie keeps on recommending it, at 50cents per gram vs 500cents per gram for the sin etsu, that's a 10x price increase


----------



## twilyth (Feb 14, 2011)

Laurijan said:


> Nice to know now.
> One guy on TPU once posted a link to a huge test of TIMs - there where like 50+ different ones in it.
> Anyone who could post it again?



Here is an 80-way comparison from 2009.


----------



## n-ster (Feb 14, 2011)

twilyth said:


> Here is an 80-way comparison from 2009.



wrong link? http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.p...k=view&id=150&Itemid=62&limit=1&limitstart=12


----------



## twilyth (Feb 14, 2011)

n-ster said:


> wrong link? http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.p...k=view&id=150&Itemid=62&limit=1&limitstart=12



Oh damn.  That was the first link I found.  Thanks a lot n-ster.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 14, 2011)

n-ster said:


> which is why newtekie keeps on recommending it



I don't recommend it because of the review, I recommend it because I've used them all and Arctic Alumina definitely performs on par with them for an extremely cheap price.


----------



## prescient (Feb 16, 2011)

i have been playing two world 2 for few days now on max settings , runs flawlessly
no more craches final settings :

 fsb 421x 9,5(auto) = 4ghz  vcore 1.216v  temp  at load never passed 55c during hours of playing

 memory dram 1,9v  timing manual at 5.5.5 15  

DRAM STATIC READ CONTROL = DISABLED
DRAM READ TRAINING = DISABLED

CPU & PCIE Spread spectrum=Disable

i left these voltages on auto :

PLL=
FSB voltage=
NBv=
SBv=
PCIE/SATA voltage=

do i need any other manual settings considering these voltages ? or any other  things ?
or we are done here ? thanks


----------

