# AMD Phenom II X6 1055T 2.80 GHz



## Omega (Jun 9, 2010)

After AMD'S Phenom II X6 1090T flagship processor, we take a look at the first mainstream six core processor Phenom II X6 1055T. Clocked at 2.80 GHz and with Turbo Core technology it can reach up to 3.30 GHz, and at prices of just under $200 AMD aims to create some serious alternative to Intel's Core i5 750.

*Show full review*


----------



## DanTheMan (Jul 1, 2010)

Great review Omega, looks like very little differences between the 1055 and 1090 when overclocked - yet $100 cheaper. Great for people who just want to get that extra little boost from a older setup. The review was very fair in terms of explaining what your main focus and applications are depends on the final CPU to buy. Thanks!


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jul 1, 2010)

Damn, this is a good chip for $100 less!


----------



## Melvis (Jul 1, 2010)

WhiteLotus said:


> Damn, this is a good chip for $100 less!



Thats why i got me one


----------



## mechtech (Jul 1, 2010)

Nice review Omega.

Do you think you could so an under-volting test to see what is the lowest voltage it can run at stock speeds and what the power difference is under idle and load at that low voltage.

Thanks Omega!!


----------



## Lionheart (Jul 1, 2010)

Very nice review, was expecting a better score TBH great processor though for the money


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 1, 2010)

Omega said:


> many buyers could be easily mislead with Phenom II *X6* 965's magical 3.40 GHz speed, and opt for faster clock rather than more cores.



I think you mean X4 there.


----------



## VulkanBros (Jul 1, 2010)

Yes nice review.....the 965 BE is still a better choice  IMO


----------



## Omega (Jul 2, 2010)

mechtech said:


> Nice review Omega.
> 
> Do you think you could so an under-volting test to see what is the lowest voltage it can run at stock speeds and what the power difference is under idle and load at that low voltage.
> 
> Thanks Omega!!



http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=1902394&postcount=68

It's the same chip so I think it's safe to say results would be pretty much the same. Maybe few mV lower due to lower stock speed, but that would have little effect on how much you can save in power consumption.

Thanks for comments guys.


----------



## Formula350 (Jul 2, 2010)

BTW Omega, the "FSB" on these is called HTT, not HT  HT is the HyperTransport we all know and love, where as HTT (not to be confused with HyperThreading Tech) is the reference clock for the CPU, HT, CPU-NB, and memory as well actually.

Good review though, I still would like to nab me one at some point in the future


----------



## crow1001 (Jul 2, 2010)

Great review, will stick with Intel for gaming for now.


----------



## Omega (Jul 2, 2010)

Formula350 said:


> BTW Omega, the "FSB" on these is called HTT, not HT  HT is the HyperTransport we all know and love, where as HTT (not to be confused with HyperThreading Tech) is the reference clock for the CPU, HT, CPU-NB, and memory as well actually.



You are correct, my mistake.

I was referring to HyperTransport Technology off-course when mentioning overclocking in article, not the HyperTransport Link 

I'll keep in mind to use correct abbreviation's in future.


----------



## PanzerIV (Jul 2, 2010)

Just received today my 1055T which I bought for 200$CAD. I'll try it out tonight and OC the **** out of it hehe. I currently have a E8400 that I've raised from 3.0 to 4.32Ghz but even thought it's a monstruous overclock on air cooling, I would still be better with a 6 cores in newer games. I seen more than 2 people with E8400/HD4870 like I have thought obviously not as much overclocked and they said it went from laggy to much more playable in Bad Company 2 so instead of wasting 300$+ on a new videocard I upgraded my cpu until the HD5000 price drop. I'll be happy if I reach at least 3.8Ghz on this 1055T.

*Edit:* Strange the 95w edition is still not out yet. I wonder if OC would had been better on it. Too late however even if it's out tomorow..


----------



## Formula350 (Jul 2, 2010)

Omega said:


> You are correct, my mistake.
> 
> I was referring to HyperTransport Technology off-course when mentioning overclocking in article, not the HyperTransport Link
> 
> I'll keep in mind to use correct abbreviation's in future.



And if I came across slightly like a jerk, it wasn't my intention heh 

I suppose it would just be easier to call it FSB, since it seems (or from what I can tell) quite a few people don't even know it's called HTT  My Gigabyte 890GX board labels it "CPU Base Clock", which is right to a degree. I actually think my S939 Gigabyte called it FSB still heh




PanzerIV said:


> *Edit:* Strange the 95w edition is still not out yet. I wonder if OC would had been better on it. Too late however even if it's out tomorow..



It was out a month or so ago when I noticed they had a new version on AMD's site. I even found it at a few etailers, because I had mentioned it to Kantastic which he was kinda bumming over since he had just got his


----------



## Kantastic (Jul 2, 2010)

Formula350 said:


> And if I came across slightly like a jerk, it wasn't my intention heh
> 
> I suppose it would just be easier to call it FSB, since it seems (or from what I can tell) quite a few people don't even know it's called HTT  My Gigabyte 890GX board labels it "CPU Base Clock", which is right to a degree. I actually think my S939 Gigabyte called it FSB still heh
> 
> ...



Hey I wasn't bumming out. I actually didn't care for it 'cause I see no benefits really.


----------



## Gameslove (Jul 2, 2010)

AMD Phenom II X6 1055T 2.80 GHz is better choice for 5 years gaming and using for all task as well, including to change you graphics card only. I notice that X4 core will be not enough later.(We know Ubisoft company, they like to add more CPU cores support a new games) The price INTEL CORE I5-750 is higher then Phenom II X6 1055T 125W in Latvian stock, the cheapest prices 03.06.2010:
Phenom II X6 1055T - 231$
INTEL CORE I5-750 - 256$

---------------------
AMD:
Motherboard MSI 870A-G54 109$ (Support SATA III, USB 3.0, 2 GPU ATI Crossfire) + Phenom II X6 1055T 231$ = 340$

Intel:
Intel MATX H55 S1156 DDR3 GBLAN BULK 109$ (No Support SATA III, USB 3.0, 2 GPU ATI Crossfire) + INTEL CORE I5-750 256$ = 365$

AMD is better choise for 5 years here or the best of best choise will be Phenom X4 960T 3.0 GHz "Zosma" (4-core to 6-core CPU unlock). When it is planning to release?


----------



## Formula350 (Jul 3, 2010)

Kantastic said:


> Hey I wasn't bumming out. I actually didn't care for it 'cause I see no benefits really.



LIAR!!!!!  I could _see_ it in your keystrokes that you were bummed out


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jul 3, 2010)

6 cores will not be a requirement for games for a long time.  Hell, even the latest games have trouble using more than 3 cores.  This is why the old AMD 720 Triple core and several of the current gen. triple cores still hold their own when compared to their older brothers.

Hell I have seen reviews here and other places that show if you have the choice between a 4th core and the L3 cache, the L3 cache helps more in games.

While it is more future proof for possible trend in gaming becoming more threads, I don't think you need more than 4 cores for at least the next few years.

This is a great chip for the price and would be great for people on a budget who do a lot of Photoshop work, 3-D rendering, Virtualization, or a nice single processor home server that runs a lot of tasks at once.


----------



## inmytaxi (Jul 3, 2010)

*Crossfire?*

I ditched my old q9550 set up so I could crossfire my 4890, which is a better result dollar for dollar than the new cards, fps wise.

The main consideration for my new setup came down the availability of full 2x 2 PCIe x 16 lanes in the motherboard.  The 930 x58 set up was too pricey, about to be replaced and without proper usb3 sata3 support ... I wanted to limit my new purchase to the net price or at least sale price of my old set up.  ($390/$320).

With the i5 750 outta the running due to the limitations for crossfire of the p55 chipset's lanes, I ended up with a 890fx/2x 2gb 1333 ddr3 setup for $200 combo at the egg and will likely buy the 1055t to fill it -- though i may roll dice on a PII 550 black edition for the $80 PII 950 quad core.

Mostly this is for gaming the rest of my use doesn't stress the system at all.

Isn't the 1055t set up for nearly the same price a better way to go than i5 750 for people who want to xfire?  given the narrow margins in fps in your results, isn't the advantage of full x16 lanes the difference maker here?


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jul 3, 2010)

inmytaxi said:


> I ditched my old q9550 set up so I could crossfire my 4890, which is a better result dollar for dollar than the new cards, fps wise.
> 
> The main consideration for my new setup came down the availability of full 2x 2 PCIe x 16 lanes in the motherboard.  The 930 x58 set up was too pricey, about to be replaced and without proper usb3 sata3 support ... I wanted to limit my new purchase to the net price or at least sale price of my old set up.  ($390/$320).
> 
> ...



Actually, no.  There have been several reviews that show you don't take a realistic performance drop a card until you hit 4x on the PCIe lane.  The difference between 8x and 16x for SLI/Crossfire is non-existant unless you have 2 $400 plus cards.

For gaming, i5 750, P II 955, i7 860 are all about the same in performance and your GPU's power is the primary deciding factor.  I would not go with the P II 550.  While it can hold its own, it will limit the Crossfire/SLI setup.  If you are on a budget, get the Athlon X4 620 and OC it a bit or Phenom II X3 720.  If you can spend a little more, the Phenom II 955 and i5 750 are the best bang for your buck offers for gaming hands down.


----------



## Kantastic (Jul 3, 2010)

Formula350 said:


> LIAR!!!!!  I could _see_ it in your keystrokes that you were bummed out



I still don't see what the benefits are.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jul 3, 2010)

Nice to finally see a review up on this, I'm loving my 1055t. I understand that you guys do reviews based on stock clocks, and while you do do a OC the rest of the review and conclusions are based on the stock clocks. But in the end, this thing is a 1090t. Even though it OC's through FSB, they clock exactly the same, it's a great proc for the cash, and even at stock clocks it will get 99% usage out of my 2x 5850's. I'm happy I spent the cash on it, it's great.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 3, 2010)

Well I got a 1090t. Kinda wish I didn't now. However I am running 3.9Ghz (19.5 multi) with 100% 24/7 stability. I'm willing to bet with a better mobo I could go much higher.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jul 3, 2010)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Well I got a 1090t. Kinda wish I didn't now. However I am running 3.9Ghz (19.5 multi) with 100% 24/7 stability. I'm willing to bet with a better mobo I could go much higher.



The 1090t is a great chip too, even if you had to pay a bit more. With a better mobo 4ghz shouldn't be a problem, heck I had my 1055t at 4.2ghz on the stock AMD cooler, granted wasn't stable, but I have it stable and running 24/7 at 3.9ghz on the stock cooler, I need to get off my ass and finish my new waterloop, shouldn't have a problem running 4ghz+ all day then.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 3, 2010)

1Kurgan1 said:


> The 1090t is a great chip too, even if you had to pay a bit more. With a better mobo 4ghz shouldn't be a problem, heck I had my 1055t at 4.2ghz on the stock AMD cooler, granted wasn't stable, but I have it stable and running 24/7 at 3.9ghz on the stock cooler, I need to get off my ass and finish my new waterloop, shouldn't have a problem running 4ghz+ all day then.



Mine is on an H50.


----------



## inmytaxi (Jul 3, 2010)

TheLaughingMan said:


> Actually, no.  There have been several reviews that show you don't take a realistic performance drop a card until you hit 4x on the PCIe lane.  The difference between 8x and 16x for SLI/Crossfire is non-existant unless you have 2 $400 plus cards.



I see.  I have a difficult time finding benchmarks on line that show my card, usually older cards or better cards.  I guess my conclusion that the difference was > i5 750 vs. 1055t was mostly inference.



TheLaughingMan said:


> For gaming, i5 750, P II 955, i7 860 are all about the same in performance and your GPU's power is the primary deciding factor.  I would not go with the P II 550.  While it can hold its own, it will limit the Crossfire/SLI setup.  If you are on a budget, get the Athlon X4 620 and OC it a bit or Phenom II X3 720.  If you can spend a little more, the Phenom II 955 and i5 750 are the best bang for your buck offers for gaming hands down.



Two reasons for the $80 550 ... a. it can possibly turn into a B50 x4 and b. for the $100 + savings I could get my second 4890 right away.

Do you think 2x 4890 + 550 dual core < 1x 4890 + 965 quad core in terms of fps?

Of course if I get the 635 I could probably get both as it's close in price to the 550 ... 

Thanks.

Funny thing is, when I'm actually playing the game, I'm less worried about high resolution etc. and more into the action...I could just turn down the resolution and increase the fps that way ....


----------



## WarEagleAU (Jul 3, 2010)

Not bad on air, Im guessing you could get close to 5Ghz on liquid??


----------



## Formula350 (Jul 3, 2010)

I think you'll see only a few FPS boost from a quad core. Some of that will be with in the margin or error, and then I figure the other part is that you will take any background (OS) load and pass it to the unused core/s. 

A game that uses up to 8 cores would be GRID and DiRT 2, in case anyone is curious.

Another thing that sucks is the X3s fail to be fully utilized in the majority of multithreaded programs and games due to a thing called "Power of 2". Which also makes me wonder if the X6 (AMD or Intel) will be fully utilized in programs since it isn't a Power of 2...  2, 4, 8, 16, 32, etc are however, and SMP systems (Istanbul would be excluded) or the "X8" Magny-Cours would be used fully, provided an app or game is coded for that many threads. Now that isn't to say an X3 won't benefit over an X2, since like I said before it could alleviate some of the background load. I'm also open to being proven wrong if someone has a few reviews of the X3 vs X2 and X4, since I haven't really read many recently. I had been planning on an X2 from the start since I wouldn't have the money and the only time I considered the 720 was when it was on sale for $99, which I missed out on.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jul 3, 2010)

inmytaxi said:


> Two reasons for the $80 550 ... a. it can possibly turn into a B50 x4 and b. for the $100 + savings I could get my second 4890 right away.
> 
> Do you think 2x 4890 + 550 dual core < 1x 4890 + 965 quad core in terms of fps?
> 
> Of course if I get the 635 I could probably get both as it's close in price to the 550 ...



Could and will are 2 different things. I had a perfect batch of a 720BE and that never unlocked. The 550 is a great proc, but I would just go for the sure thing and either get a 720BE or a 635. Those are both gonna be close in price and you will for sure get the extra core or 2.



Formula350 said:


> Another thing that sucks is the X3s fail to be fully utilized in the majority of multithreaded programs and games due to a thing called "Power of 2". Which also makes me wonder if the X6 (AMD or Intel) will be fully utilized in programs since it isn't a Power of 2...  2, 4, 8, 16, 32, etc are however, and SMP systems (Istanbul would be excluded) or the "X8" Magny-Cours would be used fully, provided an app or game is coded for that many threads. Now that isn't to say an X3 won't benefit over an X2, since like I said before it could alleviate some of the background load. I'm also open to being proven wrong if someone has a few reviews of the X3 vs X2 and X4, since I haven't really read many recently. I had been planning on an X2 from the start since I wouldn't have the money and the only time I considered the 720 was when it was on sale for $99, which I missed out on.



Your missing the complete point of 3 cores with your first sentence. Yes most games only use 2 cores, but when you start a game you also have a lot of background processes running. With a dual core it has to manage those and the game, with a tri-core it can drop the game on 2 cores and the background processes on another. I know you do mention that, but it definitely helps and is worth the small price increase, because background processes can start to get taxing. 

Also even if a game isn't meant to run on we'll say 6 cores, it still will usually stress them to around 20%, so there is a gain, nothing huge, but it really doesn't matter, having 4 extra cores to do whatever is nice, and it's nice beyond gaming, I'm not sure I would pay for a more expensive 6 core, but for the $150 I got mine for, it's just flat out awesome, 3.9ghz on the out of box heatsink and crushes games, even if they only use 2 cores, 2 cores from it is plenty enough.


----------



## inmytaxi (Jul 3, 2010)

What about the benefit of the extra 2 cores with a game like GTA IV that uses 4 cores?  In the real world I'll have raid which is processed I believe by the cpu, anti virus in the background, and a million other processses that you probably shut down during a benchmark.

I'd be interested to see if the 1055t suffers less of a fps hit in 4 core games from this "noise" than the 860/930/750/965 from the off loading space you mentioned in the 720 ... and while I'm at it, does crossfire have a cpu hit too?


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jul 3, 2010)

While most games only need 2 cores or so, when you do run across a game that uses more than one like Bad Company 2, Dirt 2, Far Cry 2, a dual core setup will suffer.  Since you want an article about it, here is a resent one that fits right into what you are looking to do.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-processor-core-i3-athlon-ii,2666.html

So remember that this Phenom II X6 is a Phenom and has full use of its L3 cache.  Even when it only needs a few cores to handle business so to speak, Turbo mode will kick in, up the clock of 3 cores, giving you the power of an OCed Phenom II X3 720.  And when it needs more cores, it has 6 of them to throw at it.  This is great for most things, it is just overkill for gaming.  4 cores has proven to be more than enough to handle the truly multithreaded games and your computers background tasks without breaking a sweat.

Simple truth.  My roommate, most here know him as killer rubber ducky has a P II 550.  At stock with a 5850, his system performed like crap.  Aftermarket cooler and a 800 Mhz OC, it now plays as smooth as butter.  To make sure his card was defective, we tested it in my system with my P II 955.  At stock I could run BFBC2 at max everything in DX10 and nearly max in DX11.  With the recent driver update, I probably can get DX11 maxed.  So his 2 cores at 3.1 vs. my 4 cores at 3.2 proved to be a major difference for that game.


----------



## HossHuge (Jul 6, 2010)

TheLaughingMan,

Thanks for that website.  It gives some good info.  I wished they used a PII 550/555 to see what effect a big cache has with 2 cores vs the rest in the bunch.  Right now I'm debating on selling my PII550 or my triple-core 425.


----------



## inmytaxi (Jul 6, 2010)

Thanks for your reply.  I've already ordered the new 4890, found one used on ebay for 125 inclusive.  Maybe I'll buy the 1055t and do the review I want myself.  I assume you can disable the cores in it?  I could do a 555 vs. 955 vs. 1055t with xfire vs. one 4890 in my polluted, non fresh Windows 7.  

Is there anyway to limit the lanes in a 890  FX to simulate a GX xfire situation?


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jul 6, 2010)

HossHuge said:


> TheLaughingMan,
> 
> Thanks for that website.  It gives some good info.  I wished they used a PII 550/555 to see what effect a big cache has with 2 cores vs the rest in the bunch.  Right now I'm debating on selling my PII550 or my triple-core 425.



There is an article on that very thing, but it was done some time ago.  I think it was in reaction the release of the Athlon 620 and how it stood up against the P II 550 and 720.

Try searching their site for "cores vs. cache" or something like that.  I will look myself and post the article if I can find it.


----------



## Formula350 (Jul 7, 2010)

inmytaxi said:


> Thanks for your reply.  I've already ordered the new 4890, found one used on ebay for 125 inclusive.  Maybe I'll buy the 1055t and do the review I want myself.  I assume you can disable the cores in it?  I could do a 555 vs. 955 vs. 1055t with xfire vs. one 4890 in my polluted, non fresh Windows 7.
> 
> Is there anyway to limit the lanes in a 890  FX to simulate a GX xfire situation?



Put it in the third PCIe slot I would say. Or if you have 2 older generation cards you can plug in the first 2 slots to run in CF, that would ensure the third and fourth are running x8. I think that the third and fourth are always x8 though, since most (but not all) GXs are that way.



As for that Tom's link, I was actually _very_ surprised at the game performance boost from L3!


----------



## ragejg (Jul 7, 2010)

Nice review.  

It's nice to see the x3 chips still getting some love.  

It is amazing, however, how large the selection is right now for three or more core AM2+/AM3 chips, and how well pretty much ALL of them can game.  I'm not talking chart-topping performance, I'm talking bang-for-the-buck-d@mn-I-got-my-money's-worth performance.  

Right now an Athlon II x3 3ghz can be had for as low as $60.  This reminds me of when TBredB Athlon XP 1700s hit this price, as well as the A64 939 3000+s... good times to be a hardware enthusiast indeed.

I have two 720BEs right now, one's in my 720p media PC (my main gaming rig) with an HD 5830... it's an AMD 770 setup so it can't unlock, but I have it at 3.5ghz.  The other 720 is in my desk gaming rig, running @ x4, 3.1ghz with a GTX 465.  It seems that the x3 @ 3.5 rig might be a bit quicker in some games for some reason that's not just the video cards.  The clockspeed plus the fact that all of that cache is allocated to fewer cores (more cache per core) may be helping make up for the lack of a core... I can't be completely certain though.

I wrote NV News' GTX 465 vs HD 5830 review using the x3 @ 3.5 rig, and have one more upcoming review using this setup as well.  After that's over with, though, I'm going x6 so I can remain within the realm of common real-world gaming performance while going a little bit bleeding edge at the same time.  

Also FWIW I just scored an old Phenom x3 8600B for a friend's rig (I'll probably OC it to 2.5 or so), and it'll be trying out Bad Company 2 (@ 1280x720, DX9 using XP and an OCed HD 4830) in the coming months.  I'm interested to see what this older chip can do in that game, especially since it has L3 cache and three cores.  I think as games + OS start to utilize more than what they used to around 2008, those old x3 chips might climb up a few pegs on the benchmark results charts.


----------



## inmytaxi (Jul 7, 2010)

The 2nd 4890 was purchased for 125 inclusive of shipping and fees, I'm thrilled.  For $125 I get to upgrade my old 4890 I paid $150 for into something that outperforms a $400 5870, 295, and beats 5830s ($440 on sale) in crossfire.

The six core 1055T is in house/chosen for it's abililty to morph into dual/tri and quad configurations.  I'll use my 890FX to mimic 8x8 GX by using the 1st and 3 lanes, the latter borrows its only eight lanes from the 16 of the lane one, so it'll give us a way to compare performance between the first and second 16x lanes.  I don't expect to see much difference, but I want to shame myself for wasting money on a the FX board and this will do it certainly.

I just suck.


----------



## PanzerIV (Jul 7, 2010)

inmytaxi said:


> The 2nd 4890 was purchased for 125 inclusive of shipping and fees, I'm thrilled.  For $125 I get to upgrade my old 4890 I paid $150 for into something that outperforms a $400 5870, 295, and beats 5830s ($440 on sale) in crossfire.


I would have got a second HD4870 used for about 120$ in order to crossfire but it would lack DX11 and it's so much more power hungry than a HD5770 so that's why I'm not doing it but yea it would be as good as a HD5850 for much cheaper.

I just installed my 1055T yesterday to replace my E8400 4.32Ghz. I tryed BC2 in 1920x1080, all on maximum HBAO off 0xAA 16xAF just like before.. and wow I couldn't believe it that even at stock speed of 2.8Ghz, the game got suddently 5x smoother than before. No more lag at all even thought I'm still using 1 HD4870 512Mb card. I would never have expected such a performance boost.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 7, 2010)

TheLaughingMan said:


> While most games only need 2 cores or so, when you do run across a game that uses more than one like Bad Company 2, Dirt 2, Far Cry 2, a dual core setup will suffer.  Since you want an article about it, here is a resent one that fits right into what you are looking to do.
> 
> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-processor-core-i3-athlon-ii,2666.html
> 
> ...



You should try 6 cores at 3.9  

While I agree 6 cores are useless for gaming I will say when I went from a 955 to a 1090T my load times were reduced dramatically in BC2.


----------



## inmytaxi (Jul 7, 2010)

Waiting for the Brown Man ... waiting waiting waiting ...


----------



## Formula350 (Jul 7, 2010)

inmytaxi said:


> Waiting for the Brown Man ... waiting waiting waiting ...



*cough* I'll uh... assume you are referring to the UPS guy and _not_ your daily BM 


BTW everyone, I saw the Phenom II 10*35*T is available in China! They had listing placeholders for the (remored to be canceled) X4 960T, and also the 1075T  The only ones with a price and that showed stock was the 1035T, 1055T and 1090T.


----------



## ragejg (Jul 7, 2010)

Might the 960T be the Quad with turbo mode?


----------



## Formula350 (Jul 7, 2010)

ragejg said:


> Might the 960T be the Quad with turbo mode?



That would be the one. Sozma or some such core, which is X6 with 2 cores disabled heh


----------



## DishD (Aug 8, 2010)

Best mate and i have just finished 24/7 stable overclock on his 1055t with S1283-red scorpion cpu cooler, X-fired (2x) HIS iceq 5670 1gb's, gigabite 880 mobo, ripjaw ram and 680w psu, idle temp is 19*c 100% load occt test after 2hrs was 44*c CnQ enabled and its winter here












For giggles top stable has been 4.15Ghz runs fine at 4.2ghz but occt test bsod after 15 mins, One  Very  Good cpu.

http://www.ts3krew.com/index.php?topic=104.0


----------



## inmytaxi (Aug 8, 2010)

*1055t oc only to 3.4*

oh well.  that's what i get fer being fancy.

it could be the gigabyte mb rearranges my memory timings and that's what's causing problems.  won't even boot higher.

and at that speed i get system freezes during gaming.


----------



## PanzerIV (Aug 9, 2010)

inmytaxi said:


> it could be the gigabyte mb rearranges my memory timings and that's what's causing problems.  won't even boot higher. and at that speed i get system freezes during gaming.


Yes I don't know wtf is wrong with the memory settings from Gigabyte motherboards... I got their mobo with the 890GX chipset and my ram is rated at DDR3-1600 7-8-7-24 1,35v. The bios sets the voltage to 1.50 which I don't mind however the SPD column isn't even the optimised one it's the terrible Jedec which gives like 9-9-9. 

Anyway so I don't think I had the "can't boot issue" at stock speed but at about 275x14=3850Mhz even if the ram is underclock, if I set the SAME value as the auto column but manualy instead of keeping it on (Auto) then the system won't boot but ffs it's the same numbers that (Auto) gives me. That's really weird.. so I could only boot by keeping it on Auto as even if I'd put very slack timing it wouldn't boot for no reasons. Now I've managed to boot in auto at 6-6-6-15 but at only DDR3-1100 because of the memory multiplier :shadedshu I just don't get it why it wasn't 100% stable at 1450 7-7-7

I thought my cpu was being unstable at 3.85Ghz with 1.50v but looks like it was a weird memory issue I had. I'll see if I can push the cpu further, else I'll stay there and lower as much the voltage as I can.

Is it useful to raise these voltages?
- CPU PLL (2.50v stock)
- DDR VTT (0.75v stock)
- NB/PCIE/PLL Voltage (1.80v stock)


----------

