Max CPU BCLK and MHz

We used a 750 CPU for this part of the test, comparing maximum attainable BCLK using a 17x multiplier, maximum overall CPU clock validation using the same multiplier and finally the maximum Super Pi 1M pass frequency. The reason for using an i750, well, our two 870s did not survive due to the socket burn problem and before we torture our replacement processors we would like some assurances it will not happen again. As such, i750 results for the ASUS board are missing until we receive a replacement board.


Max
BCLK i5 750 CPU


Super Pi 1M - i5 750 CPU

Note that using a lower CPU multiplier of 17X the Gigabyte board manages to beat the EVGA boards by 2 BCLK for outright CPU-Z validation and the EVGA P55 FTW by around 8 BCLK for Super PI 1M. At 21X however, that initial promise of higher ‘validation stable’ frequencies does not translate into higher overall overclocks even in light load benchmarks like Super Pi 1M.


MAX
CPU Validation i5 750 CPU


Max
Super Pi 1M - i5 750 CPU

Although we managed to get a 1M to pass at 233x21 on the Gigabyte board, every time we tried to open CPU-Z to capture a screenshot, the system would crash. In the end we had to step down to 229X21 at 9-9-9-24 memory timings in order to get a screenshot with all relevant CPU tabs shown. This left us scratching our heads because at higher BCLKs using the lower CPU multipliers, the Gigabyte board showed better overall stability for validation and Super Pi 1M when pushed over 245 BCLK than the EVGA P55 FTW.

The EVGA E659 was a disappointment in this section of our testing too. Our maximum Super Pi 1M came in at 21X228 BCLK, while max validation stopped at 231 BCLK, trailing both the cheaper EVGA 657 and Gigabyte P55 UD6. This leaves the E659 as a board capable of lower stable memory speeds than the other boards in our testing with its one strength being 8-thread non-memory intensive system loads like WPrime 1024M.






What is RTL? Gigabyte GA-P55-UD6
Comments Locked

52 Comments

View All Comments

  • michael19 - Friday, November 6, 2009 - link

    "Our test sample arrived with the revised Foxconn socket.."

    how can we tell if we have the revised foxconn socket as opposed to the defective version?
  • Rajinder Gill - Friday, November 6, 2009 - link

    No idea at this point. Only Foxconn seem to know what it is they changed in the June revision.
  • michael19 - Friday, November 6, 2009 - link

    Or perhaps a side by side picture would show us some noticeable visual differences, possibly..
  • cmdrdredd - Friday, November 6, 2009 - link

    How come the Asus board is left out of the final few notes and tests? It's in the 3DMark and SuperPi scores etc, but there's individual pages dedicated to the other boards...
  • Samus - Monday, November 9, 2009 - link

    probably because it failed mid-testing
  • AstroGuardian - Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - link

    It's socket burned as a result of not so extreme overclock. It's not ASUS fault, it's Foxconn's faulty socket
  • Rajinder Gill - Friday, November 6, 2009 - link

    Hi,

    The ASUS board died before I could complete the 750 retail CPU testing. We just got a new board last week so I will possibly update when that arrives here.

    later
    Raja
  • cmdrdredd - Friday, November 6, 2009 - link

    lol well, a dead board spells trouble anyway IMO. Unless something drastic was done to it (extreme overclock for example).
  • michael19 - Friday, November 6, 2009 - link

    OK, thank you. Would the numbers on the backplate give us any indication? Is there any consistent difference in the numbers printed on the backplate from the old burnt out sockets to the new ones you have now?
  • Corsairs - Friday, November 6, 2009 - link

    I'd love to see this board compared to the group reviewed here.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now