Misleading Q6600 voltage from CPU-Z... Did the seller cheat to sell his high VID CPU?

Guys I would really value your opinions on this. Look at the voltage vs. frequency in this CPU-Z screen from an ebay listing which caught my eye - its said to be in a Gigabyte X48 DQ6 board:

http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/m...nyRhys/hmm.jpg

I looked and thought, yeah that thing must have a really low VID if it is running at 2.4GHz with 1.120v (I'm sure anybody would think the same), so I bought the thing only to find that it has a 1.3125 VID. Even at 1600MHz with C1E it drops no lower than 1.168v when I run CPU-Z.

Basically what I'm asking is this: is it possible that BIOS set this voltage on auto, or must this voltage have been set manually (at quite some trouble too)?

Or is it most likely that this is a different chip altogether, not the chip that the seller had in his posession?

If someone with a 1.2000 VID could check CPU-Z voltage at 2.4GHz that'd be great. :up:

CPU-Z is not reliable as a voltage checker.

Granted, but generally speaking it's not far off the mark, certainly in most cases it's pretty good. The difference here is between 1.288, which I get, and 1.120, which is a little too big a mistake for my liking.

If he didnt specify the VID then the seller did nothing wrong. You should have asked if it matters enough to be pissed about it. He could have just lowered the BIOS vcore for running 24/7.

that version used in the screenshot never accurately reported vcore. Only the later versions (1.44 and newer) came close.

And I still hold my opinions that CPU-Z does not report the right vCore in some cases on certain motherboards.

http://www.overclock.net/attachments...5nm-4.0-2-.jpg

There's proof, although... it's not really relevant to Intel... hmm... meh.

The VID is far more important to me than the CPU-Z vcore reading, so yes that was the first question I asked him. And as for him doing something wrong - Q6600s on ebay sell based on their voltage requirement: new ones sell for £85; used ones with great VIDs sell for up to £150. If you want to get good money for an otherwise crap chip, especially the Q6600 which most people buy for overclocking, make people think it has a great stock voltage and voila: sold. Had that CPU-Z voltage reading been 1.288 as it is at stock, nobody would have bid anywhere near £100 for it, far les £130, which is what it sold for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eldonko

If he didnt specify the VID then the seller did nothing wrong. You should have asked if it matters enough to be pissed about it. He could have just lowered the BIOS vcore for running 24/7.

---

exactly...not to mention that every motherboard/BIOS/CPU can potentially set a different default vCORE. it isn't entirely out of the question that the system was on all AUTOs anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LennyRhys

The VID is far more important to me than the CPU-Z vcore reading, so yes that was the first question I asked him.

---

and did he lie to you with his answer? if so, what does the screenshot have to do with anything?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LennyRhys

The VID is far more important to me than the CPU-Z vcore reading, so yes that was the first question I asked him. And as for him doing something wrong - Q6600s on ebay sell based on their voltage requirement: new ones sell for £85; used ones with great VIDs sell for up to £150. If you want to get good money for an otherwise crap chip, especially the Q6600 which most people buy for overclocking, make people think it has a great stock voltage and voila: sold. Had that CPU-Z voltage reading been 1.288 as it is at stock, nobody would have bid anywhere near £100 for it, far les £130, which is what it sold for.

---

VID check should be done with CoreTemp, and not with CPU-Z. CPU-Z is only to check intermediate voltages, and it's still not very reliable at that.

He told me that he didn't know the VID of the chip, but of course he'll say that if he wants to make good money. If you want to sell a Q6600 for $260, which picture would you choose: CPU-Z, showing vcore of 1.12v, or Core Temp, showing VID of 1.3125v? Had he put the VID in his listing, the thing would have sold for £85 just like all the others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LennyRhys

He told me that he didn't know the VID of the chip

---

lesson learned.

98% of people dont have a clue what VID is nor where to find out what it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2oh6

and did he lie to you with his answer?

---

To be honest, I'm pretty sure he did lie with his answer. Like I said, most people in the market for a Q6600 are after low VID/good overclocking capability, and naturally most sellers want to make as much as they can from their used components, by hook or by crook, it would appear. If you wanted to fool people into buying a high VID chip, would you use a screenshot of CPU-Z displaying 1.120 vcore? Probably.

Quote:

---

if so, what does the screenshot have to do with anything?

---

This guy posts a picture of software which, to the layman, reports the vcore of the processor. It could be construed that this picture gives a FALSE impression of the processor's main selling feature - its voltage - and therefore the chip has been falsely advertised.

Quote:

---

lesson learned.

---

Absolutely. Now I just need to get my money back, because I think his listing was misleading - whether intentionally so or not, I want me money back. :)

The guy did nothing wrong. Whats the problem here?

1.3250 VID dosent mean that much. I have a Q6600 that will do 4Ghz on 1.5v, with a 1.3000 VID. And if you hope to get beyond 4ghz, you are insane. Even 3.8Ghz is unlikely with the large quantity of poor clocking Q6600's out there recently. My 1.3000 VID Q6600 takes 1.113V at stock clocks to be stable, measured using a volt meter.

If i was the seller, and you sent me a angry email saying i sold you a bad chip due to it having a higher than what you wanted it to be VID, i would flip out on you.

And alot of people auctually run processors at stock clocks. Crazy, I know, but it happens...

It won't work, because it could be true that he had no idea what VID meant. A screenshot of CPU-Z can say a lot. It could be that he just wanted to show that it's truly a Q6600 he has. In case it's a lapped chip, or in case the pictures are too blurry.

Plus you should know that almost any Q6600 with low VID are pushed to death on bench beds, or they are already in F@H fields. If he explicitly said that the Q6600 had low VID, and he knew what VID was, then maybe you can accuse him of inaccuracy of information. In this case, I don't think he did anything wrong. You are the one who assumed that the chip had a low VID, and when it doesn't. you are "assuming" that he lied to you just to get your money. Oh well...

Really sorry about this, mate, but it's really your side of the table that messed it up this time.

so you read too much into what someone posts in their for sale thread.

you say that someone would post a misleading screenshot to get more money for their processor.

you ask about the information you want to know...he doesn't provide the information.

then you proceed to bid on the processor and want your money back when you find out what you suspected, and knew all along.

i repeat...lesson learned ;)

It's more complicated than that. To the average buyer on ebay, his listing gives a false impression of the CPU's stock voltage and he should have taken more care to give accurate information about his CPU, including the VID. And, admittedly, I shouldn't have bought the damn thing, but, as said above, lesson learned. My quip isn't about the guy selling me a bad chip; it's about him selling me an average chip that looked very good, quite possibly infringing ebay's listing poilcy.

It's ebay after all, not a tech forum where everybody knows which voltages are accurate etc.

How did it infringe eBay's policy?

Because it gives misleading information about the CPU voltage requirement. People buying the item based on the information provided by the seller are within their rights to request a refund if the item does not perform as it is advertised to. He clearly showed this CPU to function with 1.120v at 2399MHz, which, besides other things, is allusive to a very low VID.

Do you think a 1.3125 VID chip will run Prime95 for 12 hours at stock speeds with 1.165v in BIOS (1.128v CPU-Z)? LOL as if.

Nope. It only shows the processor running at 2.4GHz with 1.120v without anything else in the background. So... idle clock, much? No idea. But why don't you try turning off SpeedStep, and C1E, then manually adjust the voltage to 1.200v, or even 1.175v, and see if you can get the same screenshot? If you can, then the processor works "as advertised."

This is why i dont like selling these types of things on ebay...

I already have tried to manually lower the vcore - it needs to be below 1.165v in BIOS, at which voltage the PC doesn't boot, so the CPU doesn't work "as advertised." The lowest I can get it is 1.128v in CPU-Z at 1.165v BIOS, and at that voltage my system is on the brink of failure. :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RunawayPrisoner

How did it infringe eBay's policy?

---

lol... it didn't! The guy had it running at that voltage on whatever board it happened to be. That doesn't imply anything. He clearly said he didn't know the vid. I can take a screen of a cpu running stupid low voltage and it means nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LennyRhys

I already have tried to manually lower the vcore - it needs to be below 1.165v in BIOS, at which voltage the PC doesn't boot, so the CPU doesn't work "as advertised." The lowest I can get it is 1.128v in CPU-Z at 1.165v BIOS, and at that voltage my system is on the brink of failure. :up:

---

Obviously he wasn't using whatever board you are. Different boards different bios, still means nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loonym

lol... it didn't! The guy had it running at that voltage on whatever board it happened to be. That doesn't imply anything. He clearly said he didn't know the vid. I can take a screen of a cpu running stupid low voltage and it means nothing.

---

I agree. The seller did nothing wrong. You should have asked him to send you a pic of CoreTemp so you would know what the VID was for sure.:cool: