Printable View
2-3yr. of use overclocked would be about the best I would expect, but what if its more like 6 mo. to a year if overvolted + a temp. of xC, there would be no way for us to know for sure what those values would be either which way which is kind've my point. We don't know so its best to be conservative unless you plan on doing suicide overclocks and don't care either which way if the chip lasts 3 years or 3 hours.
I understand what you are saying but that doesnt mean somone out of a handful wont run into a problem at that voltage. In all truth these CPUs havent been out that long for anyone to come to a conclusion on how far you can push a random core2 before it breaks. The only way you could know for sure is if you ask an Intel eng for that data because they are the only ones who know the tolerances based on internal stress testing.Quote:
Originally Posted by afireinside
My xbx2 is boxed up and ready to go back to the store. My board went from stable to flaky in less than a week. One minute it boots fine and the next it would not at the same settings. :fact:Quote:
Originally Posted by afireinside
Edit: Before I get flamed, I am not saying all of these boards are bad as a lot of members love them and have great results, but not me.
just to add my 2c, when i got my conroe i was running 100% stable at 3.5999999 Ghz, this was at about 1.55v on a triple 120 rad. I did notice over time the cpu drop, but blamed it in part on the weather and dust clogging up whatever - when i got to 3.5 at the same volts and it was still a bit unstable, i dropped the volts down to about 1.4 and the overclock to 3.3 hoping that if i did that it would not drop further. This was around xmas.
Nox
now this is very interesting and seems to support a degrading of the cpuQuote:
Originally Posted by nox_uk
was your overclock run 24/7? was it prime95 stable?
Do you suppose, as would make sense, that the problem, if there is one, would be more prevalent in the E6600 rather than the X 3060? I am inferring that it would be safer to get a Xeon 3060 (not to mention better OC's from some sources ... worse OC's from others... oh well).
I dont want to highjack the thread and start talking about badaxe2 but i was wondering how such a large range of feelings about the badaxe2 is possible.
There are people like me who think its the most stable/reliable board for overclocking ever (took me less than one day to get 3.8ghz air orthos stable) passed 8hr orthos at 3.8 and testing 3.86 for the moment...
It may depend on the revision or the bios maybe? Im using bios 2333.
Anyway, as for the life of your cpu, i think its technically possible that the 1.55vcore "killed" it but i think its hard to believe. There is so much people out there pushing over 1.6v with phase cooling 24/7 since conroe released... If your temp are not going over 70c i would believe the voltage killed it..
That was everquest 1 stable lol, let alone anything else. I could prime etc a bit higher. My overclock was run a lot, sometimes 24/7, sometimes *only* 12 hours a day, depended what I was using it for. It could also be something else degrading though, or it could just be bad luck, some electronic stuff does degrade when run at stock anyway. My CPU is also not the flatest, should of lapped it but was more interested in keeping the warranty intact-ish, but certainly no where near as bad as some pics i'd seen - could tell this from the pattern in the thermal paste when connecting the block. I've also switched back on that thing that drops the multiplier down when the cpu doesn't need it now, that was 2 weeks ago when I remembered it existed!Quote:
Originally Posted by nealh
i'm not too worried, if it dies i'll get a new one, if it doesn't i'm still happy with 3.3, though if it gets to 3 then i'll start thinking about replacing it!
Nox
i think this may be an issue in general with using a smaller process coupled with an etching medium like silicone.
i remember reading on something about the gates wearing out due to electrons missing the junction and creating damage.
a smaller process would account for increased wear with highoverclocks compared to older cpus using larger process.
might have be part of the reason why the tech is moving onto new materials?
who knows. only large scale long term testing would be conclusive and i'm sure only intel has attempted anyting close.
if the chip needed 1.65v just to do 3.7ghz then it was a weak chip to begin with. very weak.
i dont care who you are or where your from you go shoving 1.65v into a chip that uses 1.3v or less for standard operation all your doing is ask for the chip to die.
its just the simple facts and anyone who thinks they can just shove those kinds of volts into any cpu and expect it to survive needs to get real and wake up.
if all it takes is a few 1/10th's of a volt to kill ram dont you think the same thing is true for a cpu ? huh ? yes it is.
go buy a new cpu and get rid of that one or keep it around for emergency back up.
Thought this may have some bearing on this topic....I found this in a PDF from Intel titled :
"Conroe and allendale Electrical, mechanical, and thermal specifications"
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...maxvolts-1.jpg
Yea its called electromigration, the effect gets worse and worse the more they shrink the chips which is why they get more and more sensitive to voltage with smaller processes.Quote:
Originally Posted by exhausted mule
Overclocking alone shouldn't cause any extra wear and tear on the chip so long as you keep the voltage at default and temps within spec, so if you're paranoid about your chip dying on you or just want it to last a long time just see how high a clockspeed you can get at default volts with good cooling and you'll be fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by exhausted mule
No, they're switching materials and process tech to reduce leakage from the transistors which is becoming an overwhelming problem now.Quote:
Originally Posted by exhausted mule
No, they'd be equally susceptible to a degradation when over volting/over heated as they're both made on the same process, Xeons just go through a more rigorous validation process.Quote:
Originally Posted by L33T
Well of course they're going to make it sound like 1.55V is the ultimate voltage before yielding or failure.
Consider a mechanical engineering analogy. When we design something, we have a safety factor "X", which for typical non-aerospace apps is usually 2.0. That means we build something so that it is X times the yielding stress, or in this case, twice the yielding stress. That way we have plenty of leeway.
It is the same way here. 1.55V is not the electrical equivalent of the "yielding point", nor the ultimate point. However, there is no way to tell what the X value is. It could be something insignificant, such as 1.001, which would in turn mean 1.552V is the true yielding point.
Well think of it this way, Intel has to guarantee that their chips will work for a certain min.of time and you don't see Intel selling any C2D's with a default voltage over that do you?
thanks..1.55v max...Quote:
Originally Posted by new-b
I guess my 1.525v(bios setting) @3500 is ok....hmm...may just drop back to 3400..I prefer stability,afraid 1.5+ could lead to issues, not the life of the chip
I also saw my e6600 degrade a little.. it used to need 1.4500 in bios for 3.2ghz now it needs 1.475v bios (real volts are -0.05v)
Oh and by the way absolute max is the maximum voltage it is suppsoed to be able to take for for a short period time only. My old 7800gt has ddr3 with absolute max 2.5v.. did that mean 2.5v was fine 24/7, lol no.. however i did often bench with 2.45v..
I still find this an interesting topic....but I am not sure why we are not hearing more reports of issues given the vcore most are using
Well put.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lestat
Reminds me of some DSM owners (Eagle talons, Eclipse) just upping the turbo boost without a care in the world and then wondering why they cracked their block.
Am I safe?
E6600 running 3.6 @ 1.475v :slobber: :slobber: :slobber:
very true.Quote:
Originally Posted by lawrywild
I used to run 3.5 with 1.5V(in bios) now it needs 1.525(bios) to remain stable
My E6600 runs @ 3204 MHz, 1.33V speedfan / 1.36v ASUS Probe / 1.35v BIOS for about a month, 24/7, no degradation. In fact it looks like its upgrading itself, recently i've been able to push 3.6GHz at that voltage, orthos stable, but not for 24/7 use due to the temps.
I think it's more likely that the motherboards are wearing down (capacitors, mosfets).
I would think this well within reason..nice overclock..just a tad over 10%..remember amny mobos can overvolt a fair amount so I would expect Intel to take this into accountQuote:
Originally Posted by rmd2001
Ok..I just finished overclocking my e6600@3500(9x390) I need 1.525v stopped after 12hrs blend p95v251
after this topic..I dropped 3420(9x380) with 1.4625v....24hr P95v251 blend stable:woot:
I really like the way 3500 sound but not sure I want to push that vcore..1.525v...if 1.55v is at best a ?? long term max, at worst only ok for short times
There is no doubt if you are really pushing the mobo..high fsb and NB voltage, etc...this may very well be the problem
I for one will contine to try and lower my mobo voltages..NB@1.42v, SB 1.34v bios settings
If it is a voltage issue, maybe it has something to do with a specific set.
I ran my e6600 es at 3.6ghz, 1.55v for ~6months 24/7 under water and NEVER had a problem with it.
damn lestat, cool down. we're just talkin about this, not calling each other morons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lestat
Anyway, voltage overclocking is always a risk. You're pusing past the default. You can't guarantee any overclocking number can you? Not all conroes can hit 3.5 Ghz at certain voltages, we've all seen that. Quality won't be assured at higher voltages and higher clocks since Intel never pushed it that far. BUt that's not to say that all chips can't run at the higher clocks, as we've also seen.
And also, there is another reason for Intel to set the voltage lower: to lower temperatures and to lower power consumption. Intel's taken a lot of :banana::banana::banana::banana: for the Prescotts as being power whores.