Hey Raistmer, just throwing an idea out there for you;
If the mobo itself is not OCable, how about a BSEL mod then to fool it to run at a higher FSB? (asuming your CPU isn't already at 1600)

/Anton

Hey Raistmer, just throwing an idea out there for you;
If the mobo itself is not OCable, how about a BSEL mod then to fool it to run at a higher FSB? (asuming your CPU isn't already at 1600)

/Anton

Could you give some more description of what BSEL mod is? I'm not familiar with this abbreviature.

It involves covering one or two pads underneath the CPU with a small piece of electrical tape, specifically the pads that tell the motherboard at witch FSB the cpu is supposed to operate.


Something along these lines.

Edit:link

It involves covering one or two pads underneath the CPU with a small piece of electrical tape, specifically the pads that tell the motherboard at witch FSB the cpu is supposed to operate.


Something along these lines.

Edit:link

I see, thanks.
My CPU is Q9450, not included in list of supported CPUs for this modding.

As long as you have a motherboard and memory that can handle an FSB of 1600, you should be golden. Do this and your Q9450 should act as a locked XQ9770 (that is 1600FSB and 3.2GHz).

I looked at the specs for your motherboard at the gigabyte site, and it seems the board has 800-1333 FSB support. It MAY still support FSB1600, but it's not certain to work...

As long as you have a motherboard and memory that can handle an FSB of 1600, you should be golden. Do this and your Q9450 should act as a locked XQ9770 (that is 1600FSB and 3.2GHz).

I looked at the specs for your motherboard at the gigabyte site, and it seems the board has 800-1333 FSB support. It MAY still support FSB1600, but it's not certain to work...

"tape the contacts " - what he proposed to do?
short circuit these 2 contacts or cut them away or what?

"tape the contacts " - what he proposed to do?
short circuit these 2 contacts or cut them away or what?

IMHO, cover contacts with isolation tape "izolenta" ;)

As long as you have a motherboard and memory that can handle an FSB of 1600, you should be golden. Do this and your Q9450 should act as a locked XQ9770 (that is 1600FSB and 3.2GHz).

I looked at the specs for your motherboard at the gigabyte site, and it seems the board has 800-1333 FSB support. It MAY still support FSB1600, but it's not certain to work...

Uh-oh.

The mod page says the BSEL mod will not work on GIGABYTE motherboards.

relevent text:

"Read the Following Before Doing the Mod:

snip..

The mods won't work on gigabyte motherboards as they use the CPU ID to determine the FSB, not the pins on the CPU."

Martin

The mod page says the BSEL mod will not work on GIGABYTE motherboards.

snip
Martin

Too bad...What can I say, sorry but I'm an Asus guy. When it works the BSEL mod is great. Easy, non destructable and reversible.

Pity that Gigabyte board doesn't support this.
But from other side - maybe this fact just saved life for my CPU... :))))))))

Maybe there are some other ways? ...

try "ctrl+f1" in the BIOS

and you will see "advanced seetings" option or something like that

:-)

try "ctrl+f1" in the BIOS

and you will see "advanced seetings" option or something like that

:-)

Done already - many memory tuning options but no FSB-related ones.

try "ctrl+f1" in the BIOS

and you will see "advanced seetings" option or something like that

:-)

Done already - many memory tuning options but no FSB-related ones.

......that is really strange......

try upgrade BIOS?

---

try "ctrl+f1" in the BIOS

and you will see "advanced seetings" option or something like that

:-)

Done already - many memory tuning options but no FSB-related ones.

......that is really strange......

try upgrade BIOS?

Probably it's the nature of Gigabyte motherboard based on Q35 chip. As was stated in this thread they are positioned as corporate-stable ones, that is, w/o OCing abilities easely available to users. That's why I looking for software-related ways for OCing.

BTW, there is another "hard question" about the same motherboard.
I chose it because it has embedded GPU chip. The reason was to use embedded chip for video output while leaving PCI-E nVidia board for CUDA-only computations.
But I can't configure Vista to use both devices. IT refuses to see both GPUs.
IS it possible? (to run intel's ebmedded GPU andnVidia 9600GSO GPU simultaneously?

Have you plugged monitor into both ports? With Vista have to do that & reboot. Extend desktop onto both. Then Boinc should see them.

I have always been under the impression you cannot use onboard+card for multiple monitor. So never tried. XP might handle it because will recognize card without need for extend desktop.

---

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not Eureka! (I found it!) but rather, 'hmm... that's funny...'" -- Isaac Asimov

BTW, there is another "hard question" about the same motherboard.
I chose it because it has embedded GPU chip. The reason was to use embedded chip for video output while leaving PCI-E nVidia board for CUDA-only computations.
But I can't configure Vista to use both devices. IT refuses to see both GPUs.
IS it possible? (to run intel's ebmedded GPU andnVidia 9600GSO GPU simultaneously?

It really depends on the implementation. Most older onboard Intel video chipsets would automatically get disabled as soon as you plugged the card into the AGP slot. I know that some newer onboard graphics chipsets from nVidia and ATi allow you to use both, but I'm not certain about newer onboard Intel video chipsets. All I can suggest is to read teh manual and see if it mentions a way to do it. If not, then Gigabyte probably did not implement this feature into that motherboard, or Intel graphics still do not support this feature.

---

The way I see it:

1) reflash to another BIOS. BIOS that has overclocking features.

2) open the case and see if they installed FSB selector. FSB selector could be a set of jumpers or it could be a DIP switch.

---

1) reflash to another BIOS. BIOS that has overclocking features.

Highly dangerous if the BIOS wasn't tailored to the motherboard. Being that this is a "corporate stable" model, I would expect all BIOSes designed for this board to have no overclocking options in any version of the firmware.

2) open the case and see if they installed FSB selector. FSB selector could be a set of jumpers or it could be a DIP switch.

Also unlikely again, due to this being a "corporate stable" motherboard. A determined corporate user would also think of this and try overclocking that way, which would defeat the purpose of preventing users from overclocking their machines at work.

I also have a "corporate stable" board from Asus and there is absolutely no way to overclock (its an AM2 board) via jumpers or BIOS.

---

BTW, there is another "hard question" about the same motherboard.
I chose it because it has embedded GPU chip. The reason was to use embedded chip for video output while leaving PCI-E nVidia board for CUDA-only computations.
But I can't configure Vista to use both devices. IT refuses to see both GPUs.
IS it possible? (to run intel's ebmedded GPU andnVidia 9600GSO GPU simultaneously?

Theoretically it is possible. The key is to find out how Vista treats intel's IGP. Look up in device properties how Vista list intel IGP. Is it PCI device?

---

1) reflash to another BIOS. BIOS that has overclocking features.

Highly dangerous if the BIOS wasn't tailored to the motherboard. Being that this is a "corporate stable" model, I would expect all BIOSes designed for this board to have no overclocking options in any version of the firmware.

2) open the case and see if they installed FSB selector. FSB selector could be a set of jumpers or it could be a DIP switch.

Also unlikely again, due to this being a "corporate stable" motherboard. A determined corporate user would also think of this and try overclocking that way, which would defeat the purpose of preventing users from overclocking their machines at work.

I also have a "corporate stable" board from Asus and there is absolutely no way to overclock (its an AM2 board) via jumpers or BIOS.

I definitely agree with all of your points. Just wanted to list the most common available options. Frankly, I am too much of a wuss to even think of trying BSEL mod :-)

---