Yup, here. 3.6ghz without touching a thing. 3.8ghz/ 2600 mhz HTT with a few tweaks. All on the stock cooler.

This was real long ago- like 3 years so you'll have to bear with my memory. @ 3.6ghz, vcore left on auto which with my Asus board was 1.36v if not mistaken. Idle temp 40c, load < 55c. @3.8ghz, can't remember.  I'd recommend just aiming for 3.6ghz, which every 955 should be able to do just by setting the multi at 18x.  Beyond that takes much effort and time- depends on each individual chip and motherboard, so very much a case of YMMV.

Nice oc! I could never get mine prime stable at 4ghz, though I benched it a few times. You have two advantages over my old setup though- first, a better mobo, and second WC. Makes all the difference in the world.

on aircon room? 4.3Ghz looks more than enough even for benching only. 
+ 1.45Vcore for such clock is quite good for me since Deneb eat a lot voltage above 4.2Ghz iinm...

at such clock, what is your ram and cpu-nb speed? voltage for both?

superpi 1M?8M? mine tu post your result? 
but still, 4.3Ghz @ 1.45V is very tempting for me since my 960T need 1.5V for the same clock 

Thanks, HSF need to be change la I think.

What difference between core temp and cpu temp? And which I should monitor? Because core temp difference with cpu temp about -10C.

My noob submission.

Phenom II X4 955 BE 'Deneb' (4 cores active)

P/S : This was done on 790FX from MSI. If u compare it with 990FX mobo then, the greater version the better.

That is rather high voltage for 3.6GHz overclock, I managed 3.6GHz with mere 1.25V on my 955BE. Your voltage already high and your temperature is alarmingly high for Phenom, its maximum temperature you wanted to reach for Phenom II is 62C, and ideally below 55C because I find that anything higher than that it started to develop weird behavior. Cooler is better as it can scales well with low temperatures.

Disable CnQ in BIOS, set everything in BIOS to stock value (voltages and such) and use k10stats or AMD pscheck to control P-states and voltages in Windows. Much better than BIOS overclocking IMO because it could do both overclocking when you demands it and undervolt and underclock when you don't.

i tot you can do 3.9GHz with 1.39vcore?

Is there a temperature change in your room? Or more dust collected on the fan?

Hahaha..then its ur PSU..better check your rails..+12...

thuban X6 or FX6? now you really addicted to OC, congrates bro. 

Well many benchmark/review site use Intel, so i didnt know either.
here is another proof http://www.anandtech.com/show/2973/6gbps-s...s-intel-x58-p55
about the benchmark i posted, the 4kQD32 bandwidth should be always higher than 4k without QD. and read speed should be near 500mb/s, but not if you are using AMD chipset, the 990X/FX is just a rebrand of older 7xx/8xx chipset with some newer features.

I just need other bros who use AMD mobo with high performance SSD to post some benchies here, me alone isnt enough to backup my claims lol

ATTO, Crystalmark, AS SSD, all benchmark shows the  same problem
my mobo is Asus m5a99x evo, everything is latest, bios and driver, but im using raid though, all my sata ports are populated, dual 7970 ect 

---

Added on December 14, 2012, 12:12 pm
Thanks a lot for that
im still unable to rectify the problem. going to remove some of sata drive and running minimal setup without oc.
I got the SSD poor performance problem since Windows 7 days, i though i was just unlucky untill i bough the second SSD, which shows the same problem

Just ran a test on Windows XP 32bit, guess what? surprisingly the SSD perform normally, benchmark result close to number as advertised by SSD maker
now i have to wonder whats wrong with the Windows 7/8 as i've tried using old RAID driver, but it does not make any difference, still the same poor performance.

I downloaded a few distro but i still dont know which one to install never actually used linux before, lack of drivers is one of the reason why i'm reluctant to use linux.

---

Added on December 15, 2012, 4:53 pm
IF you are indeed using SSD raid0, well, you should be worry as the benchmark result lower than expected (just saw that SSD capacity is 120gb so it isnt raid0 lol)
edit: well Sandisk SSD isnt good compare to other, but its cheap