when i had asus i always got it ENABLEDQuote:
Originally Posted by lordmagnum
cheers :up:
Sergio
Printable View
when i had asus i always got it ENABLEDQuote:
Originally Posted by lordmagnum
cheers :up:
Sergio
Looks great, Nice oc.:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by nkresho
Thanks. This may be my 24/7, as temps are acceptable, but I still want to get it up to 4.4, maybe 4.5. We'll see. I may have to follow your route and get another chip as this 1.25vid is kinda sucking.Quote:
Looks great, Nice oc.
Congrats mate you are on the good way, not always vid 1,25 means bad...Quote:
Originally Posted by nkresho
Some SPI 1M run
535x8,5 at XPSP3 non moded for bench just as it is, its not that big score but feels good :D
booted from bios at 530 with 1,408 just was my first shot with 535 i gave a bump on vcore as im trying 540x8,5 let's see how it goes :rolleyes:
http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/1205/sinttuloyxr.png
Cheers :up:
Sergio
Damn, good job man.:up:
Thanks mate :up: too damn hot got 25,2 in my room today, when temps go low i will shoot againQuote:
Originally Posted by OC Nub
I used that same template to enter to W7x64 and shoot a SPI32 on crap memory timmings :rofl: just left auto to see
http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/1170/sinttulo.jpg
Cheers :up:
Sergop
What is the maximum voltage for these CPU's please?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hallryu
what you asking factory max or the max someone has had it in the Oc'd stage?
mean was 1.328v at 3.91ghz at over 4 i gotta go pass the factory volts of 1.362v
to even get 4.0..i gotta work that some more when i build my system back
Maximum voltage as recommended by Intel! I thought it was 1.45vQuote:
Originally Posted by bigwill68
Pumping some more fsb at 8,5 multi, damn i love this mem :D
http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/614/sinttulo1ugg.jpg
Cheers all :up:
Sergio
1.45 is the rated max according to intels data sheet. Im not sure where people are getting 1.3625 from, I havent seen anything from intel saying thats the max. The only thing I can think of is people see the max VID rating being 1.3625 and think that is Vcore. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by hallryu
If I am not mistaken on the early co chips 1.3625 was the max but on the eo's it is 1.45v. If I am wrong I will put my co e8400 back in for more testing lol. It was a very good chip.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoss331
Not sure about C0s but the data sheet just lists that for the Q9xxx and Q8xxx series in general.
so your saying the Total Max volts on the 45nm chips are 1.45v can you link me to a Intel data sheet to prove that by intel volt specs for me to see? i haveQuote:
Originally Posted by Hoss331
always seen the voltage limits between these numbers low 0.85V – 1.3625V limit high b4 it frys or be fryed after long time of over volting it...I wanna see that sheet your talking about...
Thanks
Try this, the site was acting up a while ago. Heres a ss if it doesnt load.
http://download.intel.com/design/pro...hts/318726.pdf
Unless im totally misinterpreting this, table 2-2 shows max and 2-3 shows 0.85v-1.3625v to be the min and max VID range.
http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p...apImage13x.jpg
There is a difference between 'max' and 'absolute max' vcore.
Max = 1.3625v
Absolute max = 1.45v
If you read the portion of the data sheet I have quoted below, it states that the max voltage is the functional limit of the processor. The absolute maximum voltage lies outside the functional limits of the processor, and long term reliability will be affected to some degree with the severity determined by the length of exposure to these voltages. If you go beyond the absolute max voltage, the processor may not function anymore, or will have it's reliability severely degraded.
We know the CPU's will still function after excursions above 1.45v, however we have no idea how badly they have been damaged. I have benched my E8600 at 1.56v on air for hours with no obvious ill effects.
It should be clear that 'safe' vcore = no more than 1.3625v
Quote:
2.6.1 Absolute Maximum and Minimum Ratings
Table 3 specifies absolute maximum and minimum ratings only and lie outside the
functional limits of the processor. Within functional operation limits, functionality and
long-term reliability can be expected.
At conditions outside functional operation condition limits, but within absolute
maximum and minimum ratings, neither functionality nor long-term reliability can be
expected. If a device is returned to conditions within functional operation limits after
having been subjected to conditions outside these limits, but within the absolute
maximum and minimum ratings, the device may be functional, but with its lifetime
degraded depending on exposure to conditions exceeding the functional operation
condition limits.
At conditions exceeding absolute maximum and minimum ratings, neither functionality
nor long-term reliability can be expected. Moreover, if a device is subjected to these
conditions for any length of time then, when returned to conditions within the
functional operating condition limits, it will either not function, or its reliability will be
severely degraded.
Thanks for clearing that up for me and others anything outside of 1.3625v is putting damage on the cpu if you hold it there for a certain length of time and even if it still passes the intelburntest and orthos stress tests it's even putting more hurt to it cause of the stress of heat build up dueing the tests bein done:shocked:Quote:
Originally Posted by CryptiK
Keep in mind Intel also doesn't advise overclocking :p: I'm not worried putting 1.425+v into 45nm chips 24/7 if the temps are under control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CryptiK
Ive read that before, but what gets me is that listed 1.3625 is the max VID, which is not vcore.
VID is the voltage identification register, which tells the motherboard what the voltage it is supposed to set for that chip. Every individual chip has a different VID. So in a way, Vid "IS" Vcore in a way. One Q9650 might have a 1.15 vid while another has a 1.3 vid. This is just what the motherboard should give the cpu at auto vcore, if the bios works correctly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoss331
Max vid is basically saying what the max possible vid can be for that particular chip range. And I think "manual" vcore settings override that.
But you're pretty much able to raise voltage up to the highest vid range for the processor line without risking any damage.
Yes, I know what VID is. :up:
Give your chips whatever you feel comfortable with, but I was just clearing that up for those who want to remain totally safe. Despite this being XS, there are some people who saved for their CPU's and don't feel comfortable running them out of spec.
Max safe vcore is 1.3625v no ifs or buts. That's what intel state. The fact max VID is also 1.3625v does not change anything, or invalidate what they describe clearly in the data sheet.
How long a chip will be 'ok' for at voltages above 1.3625v is another topic completely, and depends on many factors. That's not what was asked though.
Care to validate your points above? Especially where I highlighted.Quote:
Originally Posted by CryptiK
From your quoted datasheet above, exactly at which point does Intel relate the "functional limits" to your claimed safety range bounded by the max VID?
Was it your own guesstimation, or is there any other statement or table from Intel missing from this quote? And do you have a link to the datasheet which covers that missing validation?
Here:
Intel states the absolute maximum and minimum ratings as -0.3 - 1.45v. What voltage range lies within this range? The max and min range (0.85v - 1.3625v).Quote:
At conditions outside functional operation condition limits, but within absolute
maximum and minimum ratings
Therefore functional limits = 0.85v - 1.3625v
Absolute max and min = -0.3v - 1.45v
EDIT - The tables posted above by Hoss331 show both max and min and absolute ratings. The data sheet is freely available on intels site.
Hmm... That's exactly the gray area (the *functional operation limit*) where Intel fails to clear up in the datasheet, isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by CryptiK
I understand that the Intel's quote implies the functional range lies within the absolute max/min range. It's what and how Intel defines the functional limit begs the clarification, but not by personal guesstimation.
That's the min & max VID range. There's simply no correlation of such VID range to the "functional limit" (or your claimed safety range) whatsoever through the quoted datasheet.Quote:
EDIT - The tables posted above by Hoss331 show both max and min and absolute ratings. The data sheet is freely available on intels site.
Max and min anything is the 'functional range'. Max and min temp = functional temp range. Max and min time = functional time range. They don't directly say "functional operating limits = 0.85v - 1.3625v" but they don't have to.
They describe two voltage ranges, and relate one to the other, and they refer to one in two different ways. They do not mention any voltage between 1.3625v and 1.45v. That doesn't leave any room for interpretation.
The question is where in Intel's datasheet and by what reasons do you stand by your statements?Quote:
Originally Posted by CryptiK
Hey, if you have a strong personal will to interpret Intel's datasheet in your own words, it's perfectly ok as you're always entitled to your own opinion. But don't say that's what Intel means to say in the public without solid proof, please. Rumors always come up this way.
I don't really want to derail the thread any further, and this is becoming a little tedious.
Where in intels data sheet what? Relate one voltage range to the other? If that's indeed what you mean, in the section I quoted.
By what reasons do I stand by my statement? Not sure what you mean by that.
I don't have a strong personal will to interpret the data sheet in any way at all. Everyone I have spoken to regarding it or seen referring to it interprets it the same way I do.
Ok, say you are right, and the functional limits intel refer to are not 0.85v - 1.3625v. What are they then?
It's clear that 1.45v is the absolute max correct? They state that in the range outside the functional range but within the absolute maximum will somewhat damage the processor. So the upper limit of the functional range you seem to believe is above the maximum VID of 1.3625v must be below 1.45v. So what is it? Why is there no mention of another voltage between 1.3625v and 1.45v if this is an important design specification?
Instead of attempting to get me to explain what I and many others see as an obvious statement, why don't you explain the reasoning for your opinion? Why is 0.85 - 1.3625v not the functional range they refer to?
I don't want to derail the thread any further than you do. Sorry, but you seem to have started a rumor and I'm just doing a public service to try and clear the rumor from spreading any further.Quote:
Originally Posted by CryptiK
I'll say this one more time: There's simply no correlation of such VID range to the 'functional limits' (or your claimed 'safety range') whatsoever throughout the quoted datasheet. You obviously chose to believe there exists such correlation, but you have failed to offer any factual proof to back up your personal belief.Quote:
Where in intels data sheet what? Relate one voltage range to the other? If that's indeed what you mean, in the section I quoted.
You just did. And it's quite worthless when a bunch of people enjoy exchanging rumors so much it might even form a superstition at some point.Quote:
I don't have a strong personal will to interpret the data sheet in any way at all. Everyone I have spoken to regarding it or seen referring to it interprets it the same way I do.
I do not have my own set of voltage values for that. I will know when I see Intel clearly specify the range.Quote:
Ok, say you are right, and the functional limits intel refer to are not 0.85v - 1.3625v. What are they then?
What makes you decide what I believe? Well get this: I believe in cold hard facts and nothing else. Oh wait, does it just show how you automatically decided for Intel's undefined 'functional limits' in the same baseless way?Quote:
So the upper limit of the functional range you seem to believe is above the maximum VID of 1.3625v must be below 1.45v. So what is it?
I don't prejudice whether it is a hard value above or below 1.3625v, as it could well be a dynamic range chip to chip, just like VID. If you really want to find out, ask Intel and let us know. But I suspect Intel would just give you a very conservative answer for their business interests.Quote:
Why is there no mention of another voltage between 1.3625v and 1.45v if this is an important design specification?
Intel doesn't specify down a set of hard values, or explain clearly how they define or formulate their 'functional limits' on C2Qs in the datasheet. That much of fact is what I know and my only opinion for now. Though, I do hate rumor makers who enjoy fabricating things with unproven belief.Quote:
Instead of attempting to get me to explain what I and many others see as an obvious statement, why don't you explain the reasoning for your opinion? Why is 0.85 - 1.3625v not the functional range they refer to?
i havnt been here for quite some time, i was catching up on the 20+ pages i missed and took a few things on and decided to push mine a little bit more, couldnt get it to post with the 2.0d @ 1200 so i tried the 2.0b @ 1250 and got it stable off the bat!(i might be wrong with the setting as they are off my head) i'd like to tighten the ram up a bit more but so far no problems.
Regards Andrew
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/298...k200625793.jpghttp://img525.imageshack.us/img525/8134/screeniek.jpg
No one's "enjoying spreading rumors" there's no need to get overly personal. Through my questions I was trying to get you to explain what the situation here really is, but it appears you aren't able to, and that you will criticize others for giving someone a rough guideline, as it's not perfectly accurate, but you can't offer a better explanation or guideline yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by vws
I was trying to avoid getting quite technical, but I'll have to. From my understanding of the data sheet it appears that there is no absolute maximum functional limit regarding vcc that applies to all processors. However, 1.3625v is a generally accepted 'safe' maximum (and that is a very generous maximum, in fact much higher than what appear to be the functional Vcc limits of the processors when under load), and that's all someone reading my initial post should take away.
The guideline (Figure 1, Page 20, Electrical Specifications) defines the static and transient load tolerance of the E8000 series processors. When we consider Vcc, typically we are referring to the static load (The transients are spikes created when during load to idle and idle to load transitions, as well as during variations in load. These transients should also of course be considered, but I'll leave that out for simplicities sake).
The figure explanation states "Adherence to this loadline specification is required to ensure reliable processor operation", so in my opinion, the figure is describing the 'functional limits' regarding Vcc. It shows that max vcc (V) = VID - 0.xxx v at various Icc (A) levels. This figure shows that the max Vcc is really the processor VID at 0A load, and the processor VID - ~0.105v at 75A load. That is assuming a standard operating speed.
Basically the lower the processor VID, the lower the maximum Vcc.
However we have no way of measuring how many watts or amps our processors are drawing at any given time, we can just roughly approximate it.
In summary, from the information in the data sheet, it appears that intel define the 'functional limits' regarding Vcc of the processors in the figure I referred to.
From that, my opinion is that to be within 'functional limits' of Vcc, the Vcc must not exceed the processor VID at 0A load, and must droop to VID - ~1.05v at 75A load. This very roughly means at idle, a processor should not see a Vcc greater than its VID, and at a 75A load, should not be exposed to a Vcc greater than VID - ~0.105v.
That's what it appears to mean to me, anyway.
Sorry for stirring up a bit on argument there folks!:(
I think what we are saying is that the max safe Vcore differs from the absolute max VCore. So I could run my CPU at around 4.3 to 4.4GHz but my VCore would be around the 1.45v level.
IT sounds to me like I should keep my CPU at its present level. However, I then see others who are running at similar VCores to 1.45v and have had no adverse effects.
Any thoughts?
If this CPU was damaged by overclocking and pumping hi vcore into it I would be a little PO'd but I would go right back out and grab another and torture it in the same manner. There will always be risks to hardware when overclocking. The more extreme your oc the larger the risk, but along with that comes a whole lot more fun. If it weren't for the enjoyment of overclocking I would probably just buy a laptop and call it a day.
What VCore are you running for that OC please?Quote:
Originally Posted by OC Nub
1.392vcore CPUZ 1.425vbios.Quote:
Originally Posted by hallryu
The kind of voltage I dream of! lol Thanks;)Quote:
Originally Posted by OC Nub
Found some more time to play, so I did some benchmarking. Still trying for 4.7... I get to the desktop and POW!!! BSOD!!! Got some PI 9600 coming on Tuesday... so maybe that'll help. Anyways............
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...ason/poof1.jpg
I'm glad that you finally see the lack of clear definition about the 'functional limits' in Intel's datasheet. But please, if Intel doesn't specify what it really means don't impose your own belief on it and call that what Intel states, like ths quote:Quote:
Originally Posted by CryptiK
Quote:
Originally Posted by CryptiK
The situation here is you have actively created a rumor and I have been trying to stop it as soon as it is being created. At this point, I'm glad to see that you finally begin to change your tone through my objective inquiries. Earlier you made a claim of your self-invented 'safety range' as stated by Intel (without any proof), now you back down and imply that's your own approximate guideline. That's a progress. Looks like my job is almost done here. After all, nobody is opposed to personal opinion in a public forum as long as the poster doesn't mislead the public by strongly suggesting the unproven opinion is as good as cold hard fact.Quote:
Through my questions I was trying to get you to explain what the situation here really is, but it appears you aren't able to, and that you will criticize others for giving someone a rough guideline, as it's not perfectly accurate, but you can't offer a better explanation or guideline yourself.
Getting technical is quite welcome here. But please don't elude the conversation to other irrelevant subjects any more than you have done, especially since you appeared so guilty of derailing the thread. The functional range in question is not about Vcc and its transient load tolerance, and your illustrated figure along with the quoted footnote under table 2-4 are in fact telling the motherboard designers how to supply and maintain proper Vcc level according to each chip's VID within the specified tolerance in the table/figure. It says nothing about a chip's functional limits so stop distorting Intel's statements. Just because you can copy down a few technical terms here doesn't mean you really understand what you are posting, so I suggest you stop embarrassing yourself any further than you already did. And I am saying this in your interest.Quote:
I was trying to avoid getting quite technical, but I'll have to. From my understanding of the data sheet it appears that there is no absolute maximum functional limit regarding vcc that applies to all processors. However, 1.3625v is a generally accepted 'safe' maximum (and that is a very generous maximum, in fact much higher than what appear to be the functional Vcc limits of the processors when under load), and that's all someone reading my initial post should take away.
The guideline (Figure 1, Page 20, Electrical Specifications) defines the static and transient load tolerance of the E8000 series processors. When we consider Vcc, typically we are referring to the static load (The transients are spikes created when during load to idle and idle to load transitions, as well as during variations in load. These transients should also of course be considered, but I'll leave that out for simplicities sake).
The figure explanation states "Adherence to this loadline specification is required to ensure reliable processor operation", so in my opinion, the figure is describing the 'functional limits' regarding Vcc. It shows that max vcc (V) = VID - 0.xxx v at various Icc (A) levels. This figure shows that the max Vcc is really the processor VID at 0A load, and the processor VID - ~0.105v at 75A load. That is assuming a standard operating speed.
Sigh. You're so helplessly clueless. :rofl:Quote:
In summary, from the information in the data sheet, it appears that intel define the 'functional limits' regarding Vcc of the processors in the figure I referred to.
Seriously, if you're so interested in silicon technology go take some fundamental EE courses in your local college. It will help give you some credibility next time you speak. Oh wait, I'm not so sure......
Okay, I finally get you to admit that all is but your own opinion. Good. :up:Quote:
From that, my opinion is that to be within 'functional limits' of Vcc, the Vcc must not exceed the processor VID at 0A load, and must droop to VID - ~1.05v at 75A load. This very roughly means at idle, a processor should not see a Vcc greater than its VID, and at a 75A load, should not be exposed to a Vcc greater than VID - ~0.105v.
That's what it appears to mean to me, anyway.
But then, what happens to your previous claim, that the functional limit is a hard "1.3625v no ifs or buts"? So now you're saying, the functional limit is bounded by each chip's VID, which are typically 1.250v, 1.225v, and 1.200v, etc.? Wow, what a change of your opinion a day makes! Ok just so you're not confused, this is actually not a question for you to "clarify" (i.e. confuse) anymore, as it proves that there's absolutely no need to, but a question for the public to see what kind of poster you are. :down:
I know its not the 9650 but close enough. :up: Im still playing with it but this is what I have so far, ambient is 24-25c.
http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p...pImage6x-1.jpg
Code:******Motherboard Intelligent Tweaker (M.I.T.)******
Robust Graphics Booster.........................[ Auto ]
CPU Clock Ratio.................................[ 9 ]
Fine CPU Clock Ratio............................[ + 0.5 ]
CPU Frequency 4.5GHz............................[ 485 x 9.5]
******Clock Chip Control******
CPU Host Clock Control..........................[ Enabled ]
CPU Host Frequency (Mhz)........................[ 485 ]
PCI Express Frequency (Mhz).....................[ 100 ]
C.I.A 2.........................................[ Disabled ]
******Advanced Clock Control******
CPU Clock Drive.................................[ 800mv ]
PCI Express Clock Drive.........................[ 900mv ]
CPU Clock Skew..................................[ 50ps ]
MCH Clock Skew..................................[ 50ps ]
******DRAM Performance Control******
Performance Enhance.............................[ Standard ]
(G) MCH Frequency Latch.........................[ 266 ]
System Memory Multipler.........................[ 2.50A ]
Memory Frequency 1066...........................[ 1213 ]
DRAM Timing Selectable..........................[ Manual ]
CAS Latency Time................................[ 5 ]
tRCD............................................[ 5 ]
tRP.............................................[ 5 ]
tRAS............................................[ 15 ]
******Advanced Timing Control******
tRRD[3].........................................[ 3 ]
tWTR[3].........................................[ 3 ]
tWR[6]..........................................[ 6 ]
tRFC[54]........................................[ 54 ]
tRTP[3].........................................[ 3 ]
Command Rate (cmd)[0]...........................[ 2T ]
******Channel A Timing Settings******
Static tRead Value [ 8 ] ................[ 8 ]
tRD Phase0 Adjustment [ 0 ] ................[ Auto ]
tRD Phase1 Adjustment [ 0 ] ................[ Auto ]
tRD Phase2 Adjustment [ 0 ] ................[ Auto ]
tRD Phase3 Adjustment [ 0 ] ................[ Auto ]
tRD 2rd (Differnt Rank) [ 6 ] ................[ Auto ]
tWR 2wr (Differnt Rank) [ 6 ] ................[ Auto ]
tWR 2rd (Differnt Rank) [ 5 ] ................[ Auto ]
tRD 2wr (Same/Difft Rank) [ 8 ] ................[ Auto ]
Dimm 1 Clock Skew Control.......................[ Auto ]
Dimm 2 Clock Skew Control.......................[ Auto ]
DDR Write Training..............................[ Auto ]
******Channel A Driving Settings******
Drive Strength Profile..........................[ 1200 ]
Data Driving Pull Up Level......................[ Auto ]
cmd Driving Pull Up Level.......................[ Auto ]
ctrl Driving Pull Up Level......................[ Auto ]
clk Driving Pull Up Level.......................[ Auto ]
Data Driving Pull Down Level....................[ Auto ]
cmd Driving Pull Down Level.....................[ Auto ]
ctrl Driving Pull Down Level....................[ Auto ]
clk Driving Pull Down Level.....................[ Auto ]
******Channel B Timing Settings******
Static tRead Value [ 8 ] ................[ 8 ]
tRD Phase0 Adjustment [ 0 ] ................[ Auto ]
tRD Phase1 Adjustment [ 0 ] ................[ Auto ]
tRD Phase2 Adjustment [ 0 ] ................[ Auto ]
tRD Phase3 Adjustment [ 0 ] ................[ Auto ]
tRD 2rd (Differnt Rank) [ 6 ] ................[ Auto ]
tWR 2wr (Differnt Rank) [ 6 ] ................[ Auto ]
tWR 2rd (Differnt Rank) [ 5 ] ................[ Auto ]
tRD 2wr (Same/Difft Rank) [ 8 ] ................[ Auto ]
Dimm 1 Clock Skew Control.......................[ Auto ]
Dimm 2 Clock Skew Control.......................[ Auto ]
DDR Write Training..............................[ Auto ]
******Channel B Driving Settings******
Drive Strength Profile..........................[ 1200 ]
Data Driving Pull Up Level......................[ Auto ]
cmd Driving Pull Up Level.......................[ Auto ]
ctrl Driving Pull Up Level......................[ Auto ]
clk Driving Pull Up Level.......................[ Auto ]
Data Driving Pull Down Level....................[ Auto ]
cmd Driving Pull Down Level.....................[ Auto ]
ctrl Driving Pull Down Level....................[ Auto ]
clk Driving Pull Down Level.....................[ Auto ]
******Motherboard Voltage Control******
Load-Line Calibration...........................[ Enabled ]
CPU Vcore [ 1.15 ]...................[ 1.48125 ]
CPU Termination [ 1.20 ]...................[ 1.280 ]
CPU PLL [ 1.50 ]...................[ 1.570 ]
CPU Reference [ 0.760 ]...................[ 0.850 ]
MCH Core [ 1.100 ]...................[ 1.400 ]
MCH Reference [ 0.760 ]...................[ 0.850 ]
MCH/DRAM Refernce [ 0.900 ]...................[ 0.920 ]
ICH I/O [ 1.500 ]...................[ 1.500 ]
ICH Core [ 1.100 ]...................[ 1.100 ]
DRAM Voltage [ 1.800 ]...................[ 1.840 ]
DRAM Termination [ 0.900 ]...................[ 0.920 ]
Channel A Ref [ 0.900 ]...................[ 0.920 ]
Channel B Ref [ 0.900 ]...................[ 0.920 ]
******Advanced BIOS Features******
Limit CPUID Max to 3............................[ Disabled ]
No-Execute memory Protect.......................[ Disabled ]
CPU Enhance Halt (CIE)..........................[ Disabled ]
C2/C2E State Support............................[ Disabled ]
C4/C4E State Support............................[ Disabled ]
CPU Thermal Monitor.............................[ Disabled ]
CPU EIST Function...............................[ Disabled ]
Virtualization Technology.......................[ Disabled ]
Ok fair enough, I shouldn't have said "that's what intel state". I should have said "that's what it appears to mean in my opinion".Quote:
Originally Posted by vws
So it's your 'job' to quash 'rumors'? Interesting reason to frequent a forum. No, I have not created a rumor. A rumor is not a rumor until misinformation has been passed between multiple individuals/circulates from person to person. I made a statement that you disagree with. If you are going to be descriptive at least be accurate. Hypocrisy and exaggeration will not help you here. While I'm taking my basic EE classes, you might like to take some classes of your own, after which you may be able to communicate more clearly.Quote:
Originally Posted by vws
"So please don't elude the conversation to other relevant subjects" doesn't quite make sense. If you do mean "elude" then no, I did not escape the conversation to other topics (I actually drew a relevant topic into the conversation), and if you mean "allude", which makes somewhat more sense, what I referenced was relevant and I am well within my rights to do so. If you want to avoid embarrassment yourself, speaking properly and making sense whilst making criticisms would be a start.Quote:
Originally Posted by vws
The Vcc vs Icc figure note "Adherence to this loadline specification is required to ensure reliable processor operation", to me, appears to echo the earlier statement of "Within functional operation limits, functionality and long-term reliability can be expected". I didn't say that was a fact, I said it was my opinion, which I believe you said earlier was welcome. So what, before it was, and now it's not?
Again, I made those statements for which you call me "helplessly clueless" and clearly said they were my opinion, which in your own words, I'm entitled to have. What a difference to your opinion 2 minutes makes.Quote:
Originally Posted by vws
As I said earlier, I made that statement as a short answer to give a guideline (made with interpretation or not) to a guy asking for an approximate safe upper limit.
I think it's in everyone's best interests if we leave this here. There is nothing more to be gained from further discussion.
forget vcore.. ive been shoving 1.6-1.7vtt (1.8 occasionally) since last year into my air cooled q9650
what the max vtt again ? :rofl: :D
That is a joke, isn't it ? Get ready to say "farewell" to your CPU.
Probably not, he seems to like running crazy voltages. :up:
Up to 1.5vtt should be really safe imo. Unless you plan to use your CPU like that for more than 5-10 years... Dunno about pushing more. If you can afford replacing it, heck, why not?! :D
lol i got ready to say farewell almost a year ago.. this thing dont wanna die!
what 1.8vtt do: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=206237
what 1.66vtt do: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvBKB2NndbI
thermalright ifx14 cooled
Seriously, have tried using less vtt? Neither of my chips need anywhere near that to run those speeds and adding more doesnt make any difference in stability.
seriously, have you guys tried high load ??
if im just booting into windows with a weaky video card sure i dont need much voltages
video card
sound card
raid card
all that requires higher voltages to run the system stable @ high load on air
Im not here to argue with you, just wondering if youve made a real attempt to run lower. Generally I would think priming is going to pull more load, sustained load at that, than some benchmarks and loading apps. Sure a raid and sound card may add more system load but I wouldnt think enough to need that kind of voltage, air or not, may be wrong though. :shrug:
Here's mine. Batch L847C159 VID 1.1875V.
Q9650@4.05GHz - G.SKILL F2-9600CL5D-4GBPI@DDR1199MHz - tRD 6.
http://i431.photobucket.com/albums/q...D6-BIOS090.jpg
A CPU Voltage of 1.20V is as low as I can go on my Rampage Formula to run it stable at 4.05GHz with LinX under these conditions. It should run fine with lower CPU Voltage on a different board.
Hey NapalmQuote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
I also used hight vtt to achieve 4860 to shoot some SPI, can you post a template of some of your high OC's so to try...if its not problem for you of course
Thank you
Cheers :up:
Sergio
template?? this whole thread is plastered with my results/voltages
4.6ghz @ extreme: 1.62vcore/1.64vpll/1.66vtt/1.80vmch/2.66vdimm fsb:mem 4:5
4.8ghz @ dq6: 1.6vcore/1.6vpll/1.8vtt/1.8vmch/2.6vdimm fsb:mem 1:1
note: much higher load on the extreme than on the dq6
you guys are water/freezing water/phase/whatnot cooling and then youre telling me if i ever tried lower vtt :shakes:
for air cooling higher vtt is what keeps it going
then again i guess im just a retard maxing voltages for no reason :up:
I guess that means no template lol? I like seeing posts from people that push it to extreme for months or even years. It lets me know that these chips are a lot more durable than people think. Eventually Im sure they will degrade and die but if I can get a year or even 2 years out of it and enjoy seeing how far it can be pushed then I got my moneys worth. At least that's how I see it.
^ ud3: 1.7-1.8vpll applies ^
always:
CPU Clock Drive................................[ 1000mv ]
PCI Express Clock Drive......................[ 1000mv ]
CPU Clock Skew.................................[ 0ps ]
MCH Clock Skew.................................[ 0ps ]
as for ref voltages.. always @ default
Why would vtt make a bigger difference for air cooling rather than water cooling? I'm asking out of genuine intrigue as I can't understand the logic behind the statement. Thanks!
genuine indeed.. cause you/some of you since last year are still confused on what it takes to oc q9650
better cooling > lower voltages than air
you guys dont push your q9650 hard enough thats the issue
thats your problem not mine cant help there
well, even with a TRUE with 2*1800rpm fans, plus another 120mm blowing air towards it and another pulling it out of the case at the back, I'm still pushing my Q9650 to 80C or more. I don't think any more vtt would help the situation... I've seen the right side of 4.5GHz but I won't see it stable. It's 35C outside and about 26C in my room. Too hot to do battle...
yes napalm i pushed it till 4860 you can see it also on my posts, but i also prime and ibt and i really don't think you can prime on air at those voltages for 8 or 9 hours unless you live on the North Pole lol, even if you can i can't as my chip is 1,1875 vid wich is hell at half of those voltsQuote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
thank you for your answers :up:
Sergio
Just because I use water now doesnt mean its always been on water, ive just seen the light. :up: You seem pretty defensive over what was a simple question.Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
Maybe thats part of your problem there, default ref. voltages and skews are for low clocks. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
Napalm this is dedicated to you Jor3LBR and OC nub, my first BOOT from BIOS at 535x9 = 4815 :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
NOT using ET6
using auto timmings just to try
http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/4116/481510702.png
Cheers all :up:
Sergio
Nice Amigo :)
Can U Submit Some 3D Banch Testing? With That Frquenc 4800MHZ
I Sell DFI And Give UD3R Next Week
I Just Know This Frquency What Can Give CPU Score In 3D 06?
Tanx M8
Gracias amigo :)Quote:
Originally Posted by ViViD
That was my first boot at that frequency, will keep making in stable for bench and tweaking volts, as its a very low vid chip its hell at those volts but either way i will push it :yepp:
either way as an advance here's a ss for you at 4707 3DM06 also booted from bios
http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/8674/47073dm06.jpg
Cheers :up:
Sergio
thanks mate :toast: but dont have to dedicate to meQuote:
Originally Posted by andressergio
thats just 4.8 foreplay right there^ at such low voltages
set vtt to 1.7 max
set vmch to ~1.8
set vpll @ 1.74/1.8 whichever boots up
set vcore @ 1.55-1.575
set vdimm @ 2.5 trust me i got the same kit and runs ~2.7 on a daily basis :up:
ram timmings: set 5-5-5-15 and the rest of the timmings set to what the bios shows
try both 1:1 4:5
you havent seen what your setup can do yet mate.. give it hell and you shall reap new oc clocks :toast:
thank you napalm will try :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
Nice job Sergio :up:. Very hard to boot above 530.
very hard to boot over 530 ??
2x q9650 545fsb windows booted + validation @ 4.9ghz on air.. no easytune
http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/5507/4905od4.jpg
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=422821
http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/4319/4905zr0.jpg
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=434280
1.2125vid: lower vcore @ higher temps
1.2500vid: higher vcore @ lower temps
both air cooled by the same ifx14
havent checked but i think its still the wr on air
No napalm Tom said that referring to our vids..he got Q9650 vid 1,17 and mine is 1,1875 so we both can push it but in the end temp is a factorQuote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
Very nice clocks as always mate :up:
Cheers
Sergio
dont worry mate im not attacking oc nub
just wanted to show that a good mobo/right voltages and settings.. high clocks can be booted even on air.. thats all
---
i just checked the q9650 wrs: http://www.ripping.org/database.php?cpuid=851
so mr. hoss331 here claims that his best clock 4958.98 is on air ??
http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=509199
lying lamearse bastard.. you water/freezing water cooling (you said it yourself) and then you claim "air" :shakes:
good luck with your bulls{}t
Managed to hit 4914mhz on the Q9650 today, can't boot close to that or run it stable close to that though...
I'm just running 1.62v CPU and 1.54v MCH.
1.8v on the MCH core? Seems like a lot, what cooling is your mobo on?Quote:
set vtt to 1.7 max
set vmch to ~1.8
set vpll @ 1.74/1.8 whichever boots up
set vcore @ 1.55-1.575
set vdimm @ 2.5 trust me i got the same kit and runs ~2.7 on a daily basis
every ep45 can run @ 1.8vmch air cooled
if it seems like a lot to you.. dont run/set it @ 1.8
you guys keep comparing ud3 vs my dq6/extreme while none of you got the same components i do.. not all ep45s are the same.. you guys went against everything (components/voltages) ive suggested.. dont expect the same results.. if one cant afford the same components i dont hold it against and never did
Awesome!:up: The DQ6 can do this? Does it have LLC? Would like to try it but didn't know it was as good for quads. This is the p45 and not the x48 correct? If this is the case I may have to try one.Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
Are you kidding me, your getting worked up over nothing. :down: Calm down killer.Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
Maybe you didnt understand this well but it means, yes I currently use water now, but I DID NOT a few months ago. I switched over to water in mid MAY and if your so concerned about it I can probably find the receipts for you. That validation WAS done on air (S1283 w/FM123 fan) on February 16th, 3 months before I had any water parts. I havent even tried for a higher clock on the 9650 or 3380 for that matter since the water setup has been put on. Again, you need to calm down. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoss331
Anyone know why I get a rejection from CPUZ? I submit a 4851mhz oc and get this email:
http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/7576/rejected.png
I cannot boot in w7-64 at these clocks so i use et6 to go up.
Ok so I boot up at normal 4500mhz, try and validate and get another reject. WTF am I doing wrong? Prime blend 10hrs 4500mhz but fail CPUZ lol?
CPU-Z 1.52 tried ?
Ive heard sometimes win7 will cause it so try it in vista or xp if you have them. My xeon always got rejected no matter what clock it was at in vista and win7, havent tried in xp yet though.
Don't have an install of xp or vista. May have to install to get validated. In version 1.52 the "Validation" Is grayed out. I guess it is w7 causing the problem.
If you get the final 1.52 "validate" is not greyed out. :up: Maybe its not win7 or atleast not 7600, just tried the xeon and it validated for the first time. :shrug:
Thanks guys :up:, works now.
Your air cooling kicks my water "coolings" A**.:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
4.9Ghz idle will be around 60C and with any load it goes straight to 80-90C+.
:rofl: same here but just managed to boot at 4815 not more, idles at 50+ you can see it on my screen i posted lolQuote:
Originally Posted by thebluemeanie1
Whoa there! I already quashed your false statements down one after another on technical ground and also got you to admit your mistake, so what's the yapping about?Quote:
Originally Posted by CryptiK
Having trouble handling the truth? I described precisely what you're doing: fleeing from one defeated subject to another. Can't tell what you pulled was all irrelevant? Well finish your EE classes first by listening and learning than yapping! And now you want to pick up yet another fight after having lost all the technical debates, but c'mon, in English writing? How relevant is that to this topic and this thread? You just added more evidence to my precise description above.
So what's next after your English writing fight? Are you gonna argue "My dad is better than your dad"? How far off-topic do you want to drag this thread down? Looks like you're not only a rumor maker, you're a troll! You see, you just repeatedly proved you're helplessly clueless as you don't even know what forum you're trolling around yet you troll no matter what. :down:
A rumor is a rumor. You showed that you loved fabricating it and enjoyed sharing it among your circle. Now, you don't see your baby rumor circulating anymore that's probably because I have effectively killed it at its early stage. Feeling disappointed? Don't worry, with your special talent I'm sure you will have no problem fabricating tons more for the rest of your life. Keep up the good work.
And geez, do you even have an iota of idea of what a datasheet is? Datasheet and Specs are the type of documents written to offer clear-cut and unquestionable info for the targeted designers to directly follow or comply, with the least possible amount of confusion or room for interpretation. They are not meant for open debate, as you either understand these documents or you don't! Since you've shown much trouble "interpreting" statements from such document, that only means you don't have the required knowledge to understand the datasheet at all!
Now, the fact that you don't have the knowledge to understand the Intel datasheet, and yet you still brazenly made false assertion which you claimed coming directly from Intel, constitutes lying and that makes you an impostor as well. Liar or impostor's opinion is not welcome here. And they are not entitled to misinforming or misleading the public, either. :down:
No wonder you can't tell what's relevant and what's irrelevant to this subject, as you essentially can't read the datasheet. As an impostor who would do whatever just so you can "sound smart" on a technical board, you have been exposed miserably. Stop wasting everyone's time and the forum resource here. You're pissing a lot of people off when they just learned what they took from you was all but false info - an apology is overdue for them. It's in everyone's best interest if you stop posting baseless crap and stop trolling. And you'd better hope that you won't die of quack doctor seeing what you have done in life.
:shocked::shocked::eek::eek: deep breath! geeee, well written.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vws
Highest I have been able to boot is 535x9 in w7-64, but managed to get up to 540x9 4860mhz using et6. Anything higher causes me to lockup in a few seconds. If I get time I will install vista 32 or xp pro this weekend and go for higher. I think 4900mhz+ is very doable with this chip.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebluemeanie1
yeh what you guys do on water i do on air :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by andressergio
thus all my results/claims are BS :up:
:toast:
I doubt ANYONE thinks your claims/results are BS, most have not been able to achieve what you have on air for whatever reason, be it skills, hardware or both.Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
The settings you posted sure help with my max oc. Thanks :up:
i know its not great but tough gettin rex to pass 500fsb stable
CryptiK and vws, since you two can't agree each other's statement, can you guys just get moving on? Thanks.
If I didn't believe you I would be living a boring 400FSB/1.35VTT life instead of a rockin' 546FSB life.:cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
Hey Guys Got UD3R Today :up:
Finnaly Sold Old Dirty DFI:rolleyes:
Some Test Few Next Day:yepp:
congrats mate :up: wellcome to the giga world you will enjoy :DQuote:
Originally Posted by ViViD
Congrats Vivid :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by ViViD
that's the same for the 65nm chips also right? even they max out at a higher voltage of 1.5v not 1.362v like the 45nm do... i'm just asking everybody knows more voltage comes more heat and that's what kills a cpu it's like running a engine in a car with no antifreeze or bad thermostat the block willQuote:
Originally Posted by Falkentyne
crack and lockup the same with these cpu's and heat produces wear and that produces short life...:yepp:
Congrats...I wish I could sell some old parts and mb's and whole computers i got laying for some new things..I needQuote:
Originally Posted by ViViD
what's the trick to do that ViViD?
finally got the w/c set up and running. got a quick and easy bump to 4400mhz, need suggestions to get 4500+
this is my setup:
ga ep45 ud3r f9
q9650 vid 1.1875
g.skill lv 9600 4x2g
corsair tx750
4870x2
cpu and nb water cooled now, and at the current settings below I run 52/53c prime and 66/67c intelburn- over 20c cooler than hsf before
here are my current settings:
******Motherboard Intelligent Tweaker (M.I.T.)******
Robust Graphics Booster.........................[ Auto ]
CPU Clock Ratio.................................[ 9 ]
Fine CPU Clock Ratio...........................[0]
CPU Frequency ...........................[ 489x9 ]
******Clock Chip Control******
CPU Host Clock Control..........................[ Enabled ]
CPU Host Frequency (Mhz)........................[ 489 ]
PCI Express Frequency (Mhz).....................[ 100 ]
C.I.A 2.........................................[ Disabled ]
******Advanced Clock Control******
CPU Clock Drive.................................[ 1000mv ]
PCI Express Clock Drive.........................[1000mv ]
CPU Clock Skew..................................[ 0ps ]
MCH Clock Skew..................................[ 50ps ]
******DRAM Performance Control******
Performance Enhance.............................[ Turbo ]
Extreme Memory Profile (X.M.P)..................[ Disabled ]
(G) MCH Frequency Latch.........................[ 333 ]
System Memory Multipler.........................[ 2.40B ]
Memory Frequency 1066...........................[ 1174 ]
DRAM Timing Selectable..........................[ Manual ]
CAS Latency Time................................[5]
tRCD............................................[5]
tRP.............................................[5]
tRAS............................................[15]
******Advanced Timing Control******
tRRD[4]......................................... auto
tWTR[4].........................................auto
tWR[8]...........................................auto
tRFC[72].........................................(54)
tRTP[4]..........................................auto
Command Rate (cmd)[0]....................auto
******Channel A Timing Settings******
Static tRead Value [ 8 ] ......................auto
tRD Phase0 Adjustment [ 0 ] ................[ Auto ]
tRD Phase1 Adjustment [ 0 ] ................[ Auto ]
tRD Phase2 Adjustment [ 0 ] ................[ Auto ]
tRD Phase3 Adjustment [ 0 ] ................[ Auto ]
tRD 2rd (Differnt Rank) [ 8 ] ................[ Auto ]
tWR 2wr (Differnt Rank) [ 8 ] ................[ Auto ]
tWR 2rd (Differnt Rank) [ 7 ] ................[ Auto ]
tRD 2wr (Same/Difft Rank) [ 9 ] ................[ Auto ]
Dimm 1 Clock Skew Control.......................[ Auto ]
Dimm 2 Clock Skew Control.......................[ Auto ]
DDR Write Training..............................[ Auto ]
******Channel A Driving Settings******
Drive Strength Profile..........................[ auto ]
Data Driving Pull Up Level......................[ Auto ]
cmd Driving Pull Up Level.......................[ Auto ]
ctrl Driving Pull Up Level......................[ Auto ]
clk Driving Pull Up Level.......................[ Auto ]
Data Driving Pull Down Level....................[ Auto ]
cmd Driving Pull Down Level.....................[ Auto ]
ctrl Driving Pull Down Level....................[ Auto ]
clk Driving Pull Down Level.....................[ Auto ]
******Channel B Timing Settings******
Static tRead Value [ 8 ] .......................auto
tRD Phase0 Adjustment [ 0 ] ................[ Auto ]
tRD Phase1 Adjustment [ 0 ] ................[ Auto ]
tRD Phase2 Adjustment [ 0 ] ................[ Auto ]
tRD Phase3 Adjustment [ 0 ] ................[ Auto ]
tRD 2rd (Differnt Rank) [ 8 ] ................[ Auto ]
tWR 2wr (Differnt Rank) [ 8 ] ................[ Auto ]
tWR 2rd (Differnt Rank) [ 7 ] ................[ Auto ]
tRD 2wr (Same/Difft Rank) [ 9 ] ................[ Auto ]
Dimm 1 Clock Skew Control.......................[ Auto ]
Dimm 2 Clock Skew Control.......................[ Auto ]
DDR Write Training..............................[ Auto ]
******Channel B Driving Settings******
Drive Strength Profile..........................[ auto ]
Data Driving Pull Up Level......................[ Auto ]
cmd Driving Pull Up Level.......................[ Auto ]
ctrl Driving Pull Up Level......................[ Auto ]
clk Driving Pull Up Level.......................[ Auto ]
Data Driving Pull Down Level....................[ Auto ]
cmd Driving Pull Down Level.....................[ Auto ]
ctrl Driving Pull Down Level....................[ Auto ]
clk Driving Pull Down Level.....................[ Auto ]
******Motherboard Voltage Control******
Load-Line Calibration...........................[ Enabled ]
CPU Vcore [ 1.2500 ]..........................[ 1.35625 ]
CPU Termination [ 1.200 ]....................[ 1.28 ]
CPU PLL [ 1.500 ]...............................[ 1.50 ]
CPU Reference [ 0.760 ]......................[ 0.863 ]
MCH Core [ 1.100 ].............................[ 1.34 ]
MCH Reference [ 0.760 ]......................[ 0.810 ]
MCH/DRAM Refernce [ 0.900 ]...............[ auto ]
ICH I/O [ 1.500 ].................................[ auto ]
ICH Core [ 1.100 ]...............................[ auto ]
DRAM Voltage [ 1.800 ]........................[ 1.80 ]
DRAM Termination [ 0.900 ]...................[ .90 ]
Channel A Ref [ 0.900 ].......................[ auto ]
Channel B Ref [ 0.900 ]........................[ auto ]
******Advanced BIOS Features******
Limit CPUID Max to 3............................[ Disabled ]
No-Execute memory Protect.......................[ Disabled ]
CPU Enhance Halt (CIE)..........................[ Disabled ]
CPU Thermal Monitor.............................[ Enabled ]
CPU EIST Function...............................[ Disabled ]
Virtualization Technology.......................[ Enabled ]
I have tried to get more the past few days, using several different settings and what little I know from reading forums and observing what works and doesn't work in my system. I know the cpu seems to requie less volts than many of you. I spent several weeks testing different bios settings with th hsf, and hit the wall at 4.3g. Frankly, all I know to do is guess and keep trying. Windows 7 doesnt seem to like bios crashes, and I have had to do a complete reinstall from my server several times. If anyone has advise or could point me to a thread that tell the relationship between settings and how to intelligebtly overclock it would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks
Well guys finally made it :up:
Q9650 vid 1.1875 @ 4905 :D
http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/5637/49051.png
http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/1695/validacion.png
http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=670319
Cheers :up:
Sergio
Well done Sergio, now it's time to join the big boys on the 5Ghz club :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by andressergio
Thank you mate :up: poor lower vid quad burns :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jor3lBR
Cheers :up:
Sergio
here you go mate, you have same vid as me should be the sameQuote:
Originally Posted by kahuna321
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...197802&page=96
i posted the template there
Cheers :up:
Sergio
Well DONE. Getting close to 5GhzQuote:
Originally Posted by andressergio
I wish i had a lower VID (Maybe 1.2) . My Chip has a 1,3V VID !!!
Then i could trade some heat for a little less Voltage.
I need 1.45V(in bios) Vcore and 1.38V VTT Just to run 4.25Ghz Stable!!!! But my Max temps are 50 when loading with prime
http://i30.tinypic.com/hsurg9.jpg
How much Vcore do you think these Q9650 can handle on Water?
.
I have a question. What mb should i get for a q9650? The EP45-UD3P or the EP45T-UD3P. Witch will be best for oc the cpu? Or should i go for a core I7 instead.
Is a I7 worth the extra cash compared to the performance you get from the q9650 at say 4,5ghz.? Just wondering what to go for inn a new build. Going to build inn a lian-li b70, with eighter EP45-UD3P or EP45T-UD3P and q9650.
Or I7 something on a good mb. 2 wc loops and 2 HD 4870x2 cards i think. 2 MCP655 pumps, 2x240 rads or one 2x120 and one 360 rad. Hope it's not to OT..