OC dilemma

After using the setting of 333 x 10.5 for a week, I further proceed my OC to 400 x 9 to obtain FSB:RAM 1:1 ratio..

Let me do a simple comparison between all core clocks I used.

Processor: Intel C2D E7400 E0 (stock 2.8Ghz, 266Mhz FSB, 1.20Vcore)
Mobo: Gigabyte EP45-UD3L
Ram: KVR-PC6400 CL5 2Gb x 2 (800Mhz)


1st setting - 300 x 10.5
Clock: 3.15Ghz
Vcore: Auto (stock)
LLC: disabled

2nd setting - 333 x 10.5
Clock: 3.5Ghz
Vcore: 1.28750V (bios)
Vcore: 1.232 ~ 1.252V (cpu-z)
LLC: disbabled

3rd setting - 333 x 10.5
Clock: 3.5Ghz
Vcore: 1.26875V (bios)
Vcore: 1.232V (cpu-z)
LLC: enabled

4th setting - 400 x 9
Clock: 3.6Ghz
Vcore: 1.310xV (bios)
Vcore: 1.264V (cpu-z)
LLC: enabled

Tried 400 x 9.5 @ 3.8Ghz but failed to boot using 4th profile's setting, I refuse to raise my Vcore furthermore as 3.6Ghz is more than enough for my daily usage. I will further OC for benchmark and self satisfaction purpose only. As for 24/7 usage, I will prefer 3rd or 4th profile settings.

However, the performance difference between 333x10.5 and 400x9 is insignificant. After running Everest quick benchmark, the only advantage gained from the higher FSB is higher ram performance.

RAM: increased about 6~9%
CPU: increased about 2~4%
Vcore increased about 0.04125V in bios, 0.032V in cpu-z.
Temperature increased about 5~6°C on 100% load LinX stress.

So, the question is, is it worth for me to run 400x9 at higher temperature and Vcore or play safe at 333x10.5? the difference in performance is minimum unless I go for 3.8Ghz or higher.. Hmm..