Those OCCT graphs look great but how do you change the sampling rate? Unless the rate is really, really small, you're going to have to be very lucky to see any overshoot and undershoot spikes / fluctuations.
Printable View
Those OCCT graphs look great but how do you change the sampling rate? Unless the rate is really, really small, you're going to have to be very lucky to see any overshoot and undershoot spikes / fluctuations.
no i wasn't, the cpu score wasn't even hitting the 4100's.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrcape
e8400 bottlenecks my 9800gx2, so i was aiming for a higher cpu score which the wolfdales cannot do.
Just for 3DMark? Or did you notice a difference when gaming as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by slugzkea
(Again, not being a smarta$$, but actually curious)
Thank you for persuading me to buy a quad. Priming 3.0GHz for a hr so far at stock voltage (VID = 1.2125). It was only $195 after tax so I said why not.Quote:
Originally Posted by dnottis
Yep, we are aware of that, but if your lucky you can catch one if you areQuote:
Originally Posted by Technophobe
patient enough, Hah actually I should say if your unlucky you'll catch one:rofl:
Also I have not seen a vcore spike since I wired in a couple 2200uf capacitors
in my ATX +12v CPU supply line, granted I could be missing
them because of the low sample rate, but I don't think so.
My spikes were caused by the +12v dropping down to 6v momentarily,
this caused the CPU vcore regulation circuitry to react by allowing more
current to flow, when the 12v rail came back up, the vcore regulation
circuitry was not able to react quickly enough to compensate for the new
(normal) voltage (it was still in "allow more current to flow" mode).
In other words vcore regulation circuitry overcompensated for the
supply voltage drop. With the 2 x 2200uf in the supply line this is less likely
to happen, since the caps act like a buffer, holding enough charge to
keep the supply line at the normal +12v even in the event of the supply
line dropping to 6v (for a very small amount of time of course).
Yep, I agree with Mrcape, you just need a little more vcore for that coreQuote:
Originally Posted by MosIncredible
to become stable. It's not unlikely for one core to be weaker than the other.
Also failing in the same exact spot is common when a core is unstable.
Just an update.
I'm still Orthos and OCCT stable. :up:
But my temp sensors are random.......:(
Curious too.Quote:
Originally Posted by zlojack
And if you mean real games: which ones?
Well any games really...Quote:
Originally Posted by RealTelstar
I would imagine that with the CPU at 4.0 GHz + and that card, you should be getting some pretty sweet gaming in pretty much any game you play.
Or is it just that it bottlenecks the card in 3DMark?
I found when I had my E8400 at 4 gigs I would get better SM 2.0 and 3.0 scores than when I had my quad at that same speed, but the CPU score would be lower. This was probably due to the 8x500 dual as opposed to 10x400 for the quad.
These results are both at 4 gigs and both with a single 3870 X2 (I can't test CrossfireX now because I sold my E8400)
E8400
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=5396645
QX9650
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=5770919
So the difference in total score for 3DMark is there, but the CPU is bumping that up because of the extra cores.
My theory is that for gaming, the E8400 would actually give a slightly better framrate (more smoothness *in theory) because the higher FSB allows the cards to open up more.
Imagine what the quad could do at 500 FSB!!!:eek: (mine doesn't go above 450)
Anyway, my point is, the fact that it's a dual core CPU lowers the 3DMark06 score, but I don't get how it bottlenecks the card.:shrug:
Well isnt 3dmark quad optimized? So you'll always get a higher score with a quad.
Its not like games are quad optimized, 3dmark is.
That's what I'm trying to say. Just showing some numbers to back it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by sfdmalex
Same thing I was thinking. Real games dont use 4 cores (except UT).
By XBIT Labs...am still torn 8500 or 9450! * but you did say real games :)Quote:
games that provide quality quad-core processors support has increased significantly and currently includes such popular titles as Supreme Commander, Lost Planet: Extreme Condition, Unreal Tournament 3, Microsoft Flight Simulator X, etc.
Assassin's Creed does too, and I think we'll see more and more start to utilize more than 2 cores. Even still gaming feels smoother on the quad, maybe because there is just more CPU to handle background apps and services.Quote:
Originally Posted by RealTelstar
You have to compare apples with apples, why didn't you run 9 x 450 and ram at the same speed... each 3dmark requires it's own tweaks and the 2 extra cores give a better score in the CPU with 2006... ya vidcard scores are influenced by the higher bandwith of the ram and mobo...Quote:
Originally Posted by zlojack
But to be honest I wouldn't run a gaming rig daily at 500FSB, I would back down to 450FSB and settle at the same CPU speed... with a higher multi...
But that's just my 2 cents...
I prefer a quad over a dual core anytime as my main rigs fold 24/7 and I do a lot of encoding on them too... if ya got apps that support it you will never look back dual core... but for todays gaming these E8400 are really good clockers... and for a gaming rig I wouldn't be torn at all between an Q9450 or E8400.. E8xxx is way easier to get up to 3.8-4Ghz... but like Dnottis stated a quad feels to me smoother in all that it runs ( comparing same CPU,FSB ram speed) than a dual core with the same settings...
Well, the real reason is because I didn't run those as a direct comparison (check the dates). I had the E8400 and sold it before I even got the quad. Oh, and it was fine and totally stable at 500 FSB for Prime95, Orthos for 12hrs + no problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeghoofd
Anyway, you're right, it's probably not an apples to apples in the sense that the FSB isn't exactly the same. But nonetheless, the simple fact that I could run 500FSB rock stable with the dual, while the quad won't is also worth considering in a general comparison of overall 3DMark performance chip to chip and trying to maximize bandwidth.
I also agree with you on preferring the quad.
I've been testing between my q6600 G0 SLACR, and my e8400 and right now i'm going to say my e8400 oc'ed is much faster for gaming since right now my Q is stuck at 3.7ghz
I have gone back to my Wolfdale. The q6600 G0 SLACR is a primitive processor in comparison, especially for gaming.
I was thinking, maybe the flunctuations of vdroop on certain boards is causing teh degration?
Coming from a p35 neo2-fr, and a ga-ep35-ds3p, both boards fluctuated horribly with or without loadline calibration.
However, I have not yet caught my rampage drop 0.01v during load.
I shall do further testing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by slugzkea
haha I went from a quad to an 8400 to a 3110 back to a G0 quad and now I'm wanting to play with another E3110 with my 9800 GX2. This is madness...
So what benchmarks are you seeing faster with the 8400 over the quad- I'm talking real world, not just 3dmark.
Well guys, I can confirm now that my CPU's did not actually degrade.
It is apparent now that the 45nm CPU's have a burn-in period of about
1 - 2 weeks, after this time the CPU's will need a small bump in vcore
(.024mv - .050mv) to regain initial prime stability.
My CPU's are rock solid stable now, and are not showing any other signs
of further degradation, I even had the vcore on one up close to 1.5v for
some suicide runs, and still did not hurt it:up:
So the question.. dual or quad still needs to be addressed lol. I ordered another E3110 from Tankguys to battle with my Q6600 G0... again. Madness I tell you!!Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyNutz
Something about 4.2Ghz just makes me light up like a little boy on christmas morn.
I'm thinking about doing the same thing...Quote:
Originally Posted by dnottis
I can also confirm that my e8400 is not degraded either.
I thought it was when I was using my previous motherboards, but the fluctuations and mad vdroops is what caused the instability in OC'ing.
Now that I am on my Rampage Formula, I have been able to achive 4ghz, 4.22ghz, and now 4.32ghz all prime stable.
I believe the 45nm wolfdales are super sensitive to vdroop when oc'ing.
Since now that I have 0.01vdroop or no droop at all, everything is stable!
I believe... the real degraded chips are that way because of VTT (FSB Termination voltage) being too high. Thread here:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=184710
Some reported that their chips degraded even when their vCore was at 1.34v, and I can't help but notice that a lot of others are running their QX9650 and E8400 at 1.4v or even above... but the chips are still alive and well. If VTT is to blame then it would make more sense, since some of us just believe that the higher our FSB goes, the higher VTT needs to be. Some have their VTT at 1.5 - 1.6v! And the Auto setting in BIOS may not be reliable either!
If we are still looking at vCore, and VTT is to blame (remember, Intel's specs specifically state that VTT should NEVER exceed 1.10v) then... we are putting all of our 45nm processors at risk! It's time to look into this, guys.
VTT killer is old news. Months old news. Still it's one off data and it would be nice to see some clear explanation of it or a really comprehensive test on a large number of chips. Now that intel confirmed this it's just more interesting.
Intel doesn't really confirm it. It's just that on their specs sheet, 1.10v is stated as the maximum. Just like how 1.45v would be max vCore (but then the recommended max vCore is 1.3625v anyway). If I understand that they are talking about BIOS settings or paper values, then a difference of 0.250v max (in real value) is expected, and then the range should be 1.34 - 1.39v recommended and 1.42 - 1.48v depending on the motherboard. That's true since there's no way to exactly engineer a motherboard that can transfer exact vCore or any other voltage values like that.
What I'm saying is... VTT is probably the only thing we are running that is out of Intel's specs, and with that, there should be risks for those who are taking VTT too high as well.
I know, I'm aware of that spec sheet. I was referring to the anand report, I thought you might be too. Intel told them directly that high VTT killed their chip.
On my second chip, VTT has never crossed 1.20v. Still had weirdo symptoms though.
Oh... yeah. I didn't read that article too thoroughly. And that reminds me... I am limited to 1.50v (maybe 1.52v real) on this board so maybe that's why my extreme clocks haven't killed my chips yet.
I'm planning to keep my new e3110 to <= 1.30
And I'm not :)
I like what crazy says :)
Specially when i started to use My premium X48 board, the VTT are very sensetive and wont boot the board if its just slightly to high.
keeping it 1.20, maybe i can go lower, will try.
Me to have this symptom, first bootup i was prime stable 4Ghz 1.26
4,3 rock stable 1.45, now its just about 0.02 higher that needs. strange though :) ... maybe this unaware of VTT before, many "degraded" their chips slightly, i didnt know this, before it was said not above 1.50. .. its only on x48 1.10 are STOCK i think.
ahh well :) cheers!
On my cpu/mobo combo I have not needed to go beyond the standard 1.10v
for VTT, even with FSB @ 500mhz, stable! However I very well doubt having
it set to 1.20, or 1.30v would cause any damage. The spec document says
1.10v +/- 5% is the norm, however 1.45v is the absolute max, just as it says
for vcore.
The burn-in is complete on this CPU, and it is solid!:up:
http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/n...tzz/stable.jpg
Well, just be careful. Auto settings on some boards really do set weird VTT when you're not at stock. Auto doesn't mean it'll stay at one value forever. The only real way to know is to get a multimeter and measure real VTT.
Tests Systems
E8400 Retail 1.64 Vcore
DFI P35 UT T2R
Silverstone Op 1000 WATT Psu
2X 512 MB DDR2 800 MHZ RAM
SINGLE STAGE -57C IDLE BLOK
E8400 1.64 Vcore 5244 MHZ FSB: 582
Validate: http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=346970
http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/3153/5244nk5.jpg
SP1M No Tweak
http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/5660/978sp1mfh1.jpg
How about a prime result? Super PI doesn't proove any stability sorry to say.
i required no burn in for my chip. 4.2ghz 24/7. E8400. Took some SS's of priming and messing around at 4.5ghz 500 x 9. I don't see any degradation. kept my Vcore under 1.42v @ 4.5g
1.36 @ 4.2
Wolfdale E8400
Q746A476
VID 1.125
Pack date: 07-01-2008
Period of usage until now - 3 months
Maximum voltage fed to the CPU:
vcore air - 1.75v
vcore LN2 - 2.05v
VTT - 1.55v
vPLL - 1.95v
Used for:
A number of air, dry ice and LN2 cooled sessions, for SuperPi 1M and 3D benchmarks, many hours each
Mobos:
-Asus Commando
-Asus Maximus Formula
-Asus Blitz Extreme
-Dfi Infinity P965
Initial behavior:
Orthos - 4000Mhz @ 1.28v (Maximus)
Behavior after high volts:
Orthos - 4000Mhz @ 1.33v (Commando)
Conclusion:
After applying extreme voltages (sometimes almost double than stock vcore)for a long period of time, going through temperatures between -150 and 65 degrees Celsius, the voltage needed to be Orthos stable at 4Ghz increased with 0.05v. This affects daily use, but until now I haven't noticed any changes in the behavior in extreme conditions, the CPU is still fit to run 3DMark at 5650Mhz with 1.9v at ~ -92/-100 degrees. The conclusion is logical and simple...If you care about 0.05v in daily use behavior, do not use the same CPU for extreme purposes. But if you bought the CPU for high end benchmarking, you shouldn't worry about this. This was always an issue, similar degradation happened to a lot of other CPU's that worked with extremely high volts in extreme conditions. We're not talking about something new, just that in the case of 45nm CPU's it happens earlier and it is easier to notice.
A few observations:
-vcore was measured with a voltmeter
-on Asus Commando at least, the voltage measured by in Hardware Monitor in bios (1605), the voltage shown by CpuZ 1.44.2 and the voltage measured with the meter are identical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monstru
These CPUs will require more vcore than the initial, even without applying extreme vcore. For example:
I had mine initially @ 1.32vcore @ 3960mhz 8 hours prime stable
After two weeks it needed 1.352vcore for 3960mhz to be prime stable
However, I say it's a burn-in period rather than degradation, a conditioning
of the cores if you will, that after a period of time results in needing a small
vcore bump. After I/We figured this out, I now run near extreme (I just have
water cooling) vcore (i.e. 1.5v -1.6v), without degrading any further,
and I know it's not because I've been hammering it now with p95 for
about a month now, It is just rock solid:up:
It's not all that great that it needs a small bump in vcore, but im still very
happy with it especially since it will not slip any further.
Isn't it interesting that all three of us found we need exactly .05v? That's just enough info for me to feel we've pinned this.
Whether we call it burn in or slight degradation doesn't matter to me.
Thank you guys a million for posting your findings!
Three similar findings from 3 different sources. Nice find guys! :up:
Yes it is. And I've read some articles about the burn-in theory, almost all state that cpu burn-in can make the cpu more stable at lower voltage,Quote:
Originally Posted by mrcape
and it can also do just the opposite, which seems to be the case with most
of our 45nm cpus. Anyhow 0.05mv is not that much so I say BFD! Im totally
ok with that. Im just happy that I can go about my business and pump some
hefty vcore in these things for some bad arse overclocking, and not
have to worry about crippling it any time soon:clap:
That;s ok, but remember that good cooling and inteligent overclocking is the key. If you keep it at 1.5 for daily use I don't think it will last long :)
Oh, I agree, I keep it @ 1.35 for daily use, I just crank it up sometimes toQuote:
Originally Posted by Monstru
do some benches, and it's on high-end water so temps are not much of a
issue for me.
Update:
Initially I though I might have degraded the CPU by benching @1.43 for an hour or so. I was Prime stable at 4200MHz @ only 1.33V, and when I re-tested Prime stability after the benching session (roughly 2 weeks later) it took 1.35V to be stable. Naturally I assumed that the 1 hour benching session caused it to degrade. Well, it has been close to 2 months since I even touched Prime or my BIOS, and the Vcore has been at a constant 1.35V with load temps in the high 40s, low 50s. I ran Prime today and it is not stable at 4200MHz even at 1.37V. What is up with that?? I am really confused, why does my stability continue to decline? No variables changed in the last 2 months and an Overclock which was Prime stable for over 16hours now fails in between 10-20minutes!!
You prolly need to go with an extra 0.05mv over your initial 1.33, which putsQuote:
Originally Posted by tranceaddict
your new vcore requirements at 1.38. I think it will make it stable at that vcore, and it should not decline any further, based off my findings.
Nice thread/initiativ CrazyNut :up:
I was a bit frustrated over my 1.gen E8400 after initially running stable 24/7 4.0Ghz (my goal) in a P5N-E SLI.
This required 1.47 (bios) which is 1.37 fully loaded OCCT with this "simple" motherboard.
Then suddenly later OCCT-session would fail (instant reboot) at previously verified settings (I have tried several combos clocks vs. volts to find "the golden middle") :)
Now I see I must feed my E8400 1.42 fully loaded for stable 4.0Ghz (which means 1.52 idle/bios).
And there it will be set.
If it "dies" it is a good exuse to buy a newer and hopefully better chip. :)
It seems that you are right, I bumped it up a notch to (1.376V IDLE 1.368V LOAD) and I just passed two sessions of around 12 hours each. Hopefully it will not decline any further. Do you think that this voltage is acceptable for 24/7 use? My temps are fine and the load voltage it a tad below 1.37V.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyNutz
P.S. Did you switch over to BIOS 1012 on your P5K-E or are you still on 1006? I am wondering if I should flash over to the newest BIOS?
P.S.S. Now that think of it, you were also right that these chips did not degrade due to voltage but rather a sort of break in period. I got it stable at 1.33V initially and 2 weeks later it needed 1.35V. I attributed that increase to a brief 45min or so session of benching at 1.43V. However, the chip probably would have lost that stabilty whether I ran that 1.43V short session or not. Since then stabilty decreased to where I need 1.376V and the voltage was never touched above 1.35V. Moreover, on other forums I remember comming across posts were people had their chips at 1.3V or so and never higher, and a little later then needed more volts to get the stabilty they once had.
Make that 4 guys!Quote:
Originally Posted by mrcape
Excellent, I'm glad to hear you are stable again:up: As for the voltage IQuote:
Originally Posted by tranceaddict
personally think it's fine for 24/7 use, as long as your temps are safe.
I have been running my vcore @ 1.37v and freq @ 4050mhz for about
a week, and it's just fine, I also have had it in the 1.45-1.50v range to
beat it up with some benches(just a few hours), and It has not done
any damage.:up:
Yes I did, and I like it. I had that issue where sometimes the pcie 16x slotQuote:
Originally Posted by tranceaddict
would get stuck at 1x, and after flashing 1012 I have not had it happen
once, so maybe that is actually fixed. I do recommend it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tranceaddict
Yep, It does seem very apparent. The second e8400 I bought I kept it @
1.32v and It eventually needed more volts, so it's obvious voltage was not
causing this. The good news here is once it completes burn-in it slips
no further.:clap:
Capacitors.... Cheap Chinese capacitors. I purchase GOOD 1000Mf 250V replacements for some of my PSU units. Most of them have 2 large capacitors that affect the performance the most. On larger wattage PSUs, the capacitors are usually rated fairly high so 1000Mf is a good replacement but certainly not a 1 size fits all. The over all difference in my CPU performance and system stability is night and day. If you are so inclined, go to digikey and replace every capacitor you find (in your PSU) with a decent one. As a rule of thumb, for replacements, same voltage (Meaning if it's a 250v - get 250v) but you can go roughly 50% either way (+/-) with the Mf rating.
I simply do this as a rule of thumb anymore. Obviously, it voids my warranty but I've found that you won't need to worry about it crapping out if you do it anyway. Besides, I've sent one back even after I replaced them because it had so many crappy parts (Bad Diodes, Capacitors, Resistors... etc.,) and they didn't notice. In reality, what I gave them back was still better than the crap they gave me. It had way better parts :)
Count me in whether people want to call it degradation or just not stable for the first week or two weeks either way I'm in the club.
I never exceeded 1.45v (bios) 1.40 (CPU-Z&Everest) I was able to do 4Ghz with 1.3v then 4.4Ghz with 1.45v stable (Small FFT for hours) after that I tweaked my ram etc and backed down to 1.41v @ 4.3Ghz, few days later I found I needed to back down to 4.28Ghz, then 4.25Ghz. Now I am failing again. Also CPU is running hotter than it used to.
Now I'm going to be testing 4.2Ghz @ 1.4v hopefully as temps are 47C idle, 77C load! too hot... However my laptop with Core2Duo 2.4Ghz T7700 stock will run 80C using Orthos and it is 55C idle, so they must be designed for these temps.
Yeah, but running hotter than it used to could be attributed to the change in seasons, no?
agreeQuote:
Originally Posted by slugzkea
ya 10 seconds is not stable anything...fire up a game and it will fall on its face fast :rolleyes: thats why im not into benchmarking etc.get a solid clock(prime 8hrs etc)and have some kind of piece of mind vs electrifying for it for 10 sec runs,means nothing except it survived another run and u didnt cook it that time around.guess some ppl could care less about the whole rma process..?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RealTelstar
cod4 does fully
cod4 does fully
Any more updates here, or is this pretty much the new agreed upon consensus?Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyNutz
i thought degradation was supposed to take a long time?... ie electromigration or whatever it is..?
how many have actually killed their chips with overvolts?
this sounds familiar to meQuote:
Yep, It does seem very apparent. The second e8400 I bought I kept it @
1.32v and It eventually needed more volts, so it's obvious voltage was not
causing this. The good news here is once it completes burn-in it slips
no further.
i've experienced something like this 'burn-in' (possibly) with the e4300 'L2' 65nm...i ran it for 3 days at 3.4GHz before it started to bsod @ very reasonable volts also..1.4vish :shrug:
back down to 3.1-3.2 now for the past year or so.
I would say so. It's still holding up for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by 003
I've seen peeps volting these things past 2.00v on extreme cooling forQuote:
Originally Posted by adamsleath
benching, and I have asked them if it they have noticed any damaged
to the CPU, and the general responce is No.
I would say that heat is more a factor in damaging CPU's than voltage.
Keep it cool, so you dont damage your Jewel...:rofl:
On a side note, I have a 4300, and now that you brought that up, I do
remember it too needed either a bump in vcore, or a drop in MHZ after a while.
I have been running that one for well over a year, still going
strong!
Just wanted to let you guys know my e8400 OC has degraded in the last 2 days. Random reboots and tonight I finally ran an Orthos Smal FFTs test and as I suspected the machine rebooted. So I took my OC down from 3.9 to 3.5 and took my voltage down from 1.35v to 1.16v. Sucks!
Any other CPUs that OC better than these damn e8400?!
Whenever it degraded, increase the voltage.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottFern
That's what I've done so far, when I got it first day, stable at 4.09Ghz for 1.35v. Now 1.406v for the same speed 4.09Ghz.
Until it blow the heck out of it
FYI I had that happen in the first month degrading slightly down .05v but then it settled in. I test every week or two and it's still just fine at 4.25ghz for hours with only 1.32v.
Today -
http://img361.imageshack.us/img361/9...loadee8.th.png
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottFern
It most likely just completed the burn-in period, and now it needs a small bump, +.025 to +.050 mv.
We were all freaking out about this, and now we know it's just need a little
more vcore after a inital period of time. After that it should stay rock solid.
When you increase the voltage, you increase the current as well (ohm's law).
So you'd be putting even more current through the processor interconnects.
So given that the metal is already really thin don't you risk blowing out some of the interconnects?
Can't you also risk blowing your gate oxide? A good SiO2 gate will breakdown at 5-10 MV/cm or 5-10 V across a 10-nm oxide. (Intro do microelectronic fabrication). They say that the equivalent thickness of the gate dielectric to SiO2 is 1 nm. That seems to be pushing the limit. How does that work then - you'd be having .5-1 V across a 1-nm oxide. Or is the voltage supplied to the gate no where near the vcore range.
Not sure how it works but my Q9450 at 1.475v (llc disabled) has shown absolutely no degradation -- and I have tested it over the last week or so with linpack 64-bit, 30,000 problem size. Passes with flying colors. What ever "burn in phase" exists, mine has passed it already.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuji
My 8400 keep degrading , never stop
now at 4.09Ghz 1.406v no longer stable, I'm getting rid of this bull$hit cpu.
What should I get without degrading ?? any recomendation ?
What was your initial stable votage @ 4.09ghz?Quote:
Originally Posted by icecpu
Also I'm curious, what multi & FSB did you use to get 4.09ghz?
First week 6hrs prime stable @ 4.09Ghz 1.35vQuote:
Originally Posted by CrazyNutz
Now it needs 1.406v and maybe more.
multi 9, 455FSB
0.056mv = 1.406 - 1.350, that's about on par. However for 24/7 use it would be best if you set your FSB @ 445 for 4005Mhz, and leave your vcore @ 1.35v. It will be better on your CPU, and your not gonna miss that extra 90mhzQuote:
Originally Posted by icecpu
in real apps or games.
My Q748A chip originally needed 1.344 vcore (load, cpuz) to be prime stable at 4.0 (1778 fsb). Now it requires 1.352 vcore at load to be stable at the same speed. I'll accept that but with my 790i board I idle at 1.387 vcore to acheive the 1.352. Is that safe for 24/7 use ?
My idle voltage with CPU-z is 1.440v with my Q9450 and I have had no ill effects. I would not worry about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkatom
I see, It's probably ok, but I understand It concerns you. Maybe you shouldQuote:
Originally Posted by Darkatom
consider a vdroop mod, If there is one for the 790i. I just did the vdroop
pencil mod on my p5k-e and it keeps my idle, and load @ 1.352
sigh! Finally, I can post. I caught wind of this thread after I followed the Official Gigabyte X38-DQ6/X38T-DQ6 Info/BIOS thread almost religiously for the past couple of weeks since I built my first Core 2 duo machine - been over two months now. There was something wrong with the image verification tool at registration - I might still have my E8400 but oh well. Live and learn.
I suppose I have satisfied the criteria in my mind for serious degredation, so much so I ended up buying an E8500 when my E8400 had issues maintaining a 3.6GHz overclock. I almost thought it was the motherboard, but it was more practical to get a processor on short notice in my calculated opinion. Even more damning than the high Vcores in excess of 1.4875V or thereabout I pushed through it, was the high Vtt I used to run a 4.25GHz OC which lasted a little over a week before my OS started hanging and rebooting on me - 1.55V if I got the default of 1.20 right. And as if that wasn't bad enough, I ran into some "stupid" luck when my water cooler's coolant gave out on me running one of the high OCs - I can only imagine how hot it ran before it kept its cycle of restarting every so often when it got hot enough. If I recall correctly, it was a Q740A batch. After getting Realtemp which reported temps about 10 lower than Coretemp's readings, I picked up on how the chips sensors were kinda whacked with more than 7 degrees difference between the cores' readings. The readings weren't that bad before; I'm supposing it got worse especially after that failed coolant incident.
Forgive the story-like nature of my post. I'm at work at the moment and I'm relying on memory for enough of the information I'm reporting here. Before I got to work about an hour late, I managed to put the E8400 back into my system. I couldn't boot into WinXP at a 4GHz OC until I was pumping about 1.6V through it - 1.552 idle in CPU-Z. For the life of me, I couldn't maintain 4GHz with this chip as well as I did today; I'm of the suspicion that my stable settings I used for the other chip, the E8500 are holding true for the E8400 despite it's beaten-up state - I have VTT aka FSB termination voltage at normal now all the time. Sadly though, my Norton Antivirus scanner subsystem encountered an error, but everything else kept running. Since I want to watch this thing like a hawk to see how it behaves, I decided to shut it down before I stormed out to work. I did manage to do an XS bench with Realtemp and it gave a score of 1323 in about 11s.
Let's recap. There was too much VTT, too much heat, and too much Vcore. I'm probably missing something. Oh well! I'm not one to throw blame at all, but those DTS readings were very misleading. Also, even though I understand Gigabyte's need for widespread support, I'm quite disappointed in them for not doing enough of their homework for the new Penryns before releasing this motherboard to the market with a normal VTT of 1.20V - E8x00 only needs 1.1V. I'll keep you updated on what I find.
VTT will damage 45nm chips in excess. That is the most likely culprit of your problems.
I've had mine at 4ghz 500 x 8 for 2 months now, no stability issues. Constant vcore of 1.288 load/idle in windows, actual in BIOS is 1.30625
Of all the things I mentioned, I firmly believe VTT did me in with that chip in particular.Quote:
Originally Posted by 003
Prime81, did you do a Vdroop mod or something to have your Vcore constant when both idle and under load in windows? It's very odd to see such especially with all the Vdrop values being reported - average of about 0.03V from supply voltage. You may have a gem of a motherboard there.
Well I'm running a Maximus Formula SE with the latest Rampage Formula BIOS. Loadline enabled creates this setting, the only catch with loadline is to turn off speedstep.Quote:
Originally Posted by tmatrix
I can add that air benching sessions with same e8400 going to >1.5vcore, 600fsb, 1.75pll etc have not caused any further signs of degradation. I am thoroughly convinced these chips are pretty tough. Next tests will be putting these under cold and really giving some juice.
Prime81, I had a feeling it was along the lines of Loadline calibration. I didn't want to assume since we have different motherboards. Still, even without that turned on, I wouldn't feel right about leaving speedstep on in the BIOS since I'm overclocking in the first place
Yowza Mrcape!!! I'm impressed. 600FSB?!!! What multiplier did you use, to get what speed? Cool! All this benching on air, no less. To support your findings, so to speak, I've been up all night feeding my "degraded" E8400 some high voltage: I managed to just post 4.5GHz with 1.8V on my WC kit. I'm figuring that was more than necessary. Anyway, I brought it back down to 1.472V CPUZ idle, running at 3.8GHz - it's stress voltage is 1.456. I was even able to run orthos blend stress tests for about 34 minutes before I stopped it; I was actually thinking 5 minutes would be enough considering how at 4GHz, no matter what fsb/multiplier combination I tried, not up to 10 seconds into the start of the test, my PC would hang and reboot.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrcape
That brings me to another observation I suspected before. With my new E8500, I was able to pull off 4GHz with ease, but I couldn't get anything higher than 4GHz stable. The E8500 would post and boot into windows, but it failed orthos small fft tests after a couple of seconds - it was a relief it didn't hang and reboot on me though as the E8400 was fond of doing. As I mentioned before, I managed to get the E8400 to get to 4GHz with about 1.6V, but it hangs and reboots the moment I start a stress test, be it small ffts or blend. However, now I'm using this E8400 chip stable as can be at 422x9, just as I was stable with my E8500 at 422x9.5. It would appear my motherboard has seen better days. It can't be the memory since I'm running it at the moment at 1125MHz, as opposed to its 1066 default...and I'm still using the extreme profile with a TRD of 7. I guess I can be glad I can use this motherboard at all. I would have seriously considered an RMA for this mobo, but I just had to go and remove that plate glued to the NB portion of the Crazycool heatsink assembly. I might look into the X48 offerings from Gigabyte later to test my theory of a faulty motherboard. For now, I'll leave the E8400 in here to avoid messing up my E8500 by accident.
Question related - yes, i believe in cpu degradation, but it depends on the operating temperature of the chip. E.g.: I never run more than 1.4-1.42V into a chip on aircooling, but under SS cold i feel safe to go to about 1.65-1.7V and under cascade up to 1.85-1.9V for extended benching period.
Well, mobo has a lot to do with the high fsb. This DFI/bios is just made for it. About you getting stable over 4ghz, you should be able to do that with way less vcore. You gotta set gtls manually.Quote:
Originally Posted by tmatrix
For example first try to get stable with manual gtls at 500x8 keeping ram ratio 1:1 to keep memory out of the equation. Try to set NB & fsb term relativeley low and use gtls between 58-62. For me a real sweet spot is 8x500, NB 1.4 with gtls 59/59/59. Toy around and you'll get it. Doing that, it should be stable and require less vcore too! So that buys you more headroom to try 8.5x500 with the same settings but maybe just a few core bumps. Over 4.3ghz and the wolfdales need for more juice scales up pretty quick.
You're so right about the kind of mobo playing a big part the success of overclocking. Yeah! I know I should be able to pull of 4GHz with a lot less than what I'm working with at the moment; heck, I recall pulling off a stable 4.25GHz OC at 500x8.5 on that E8400 for about 2 weeks before it started struggling. Damn "high VTT" penryn bully!!! I have noticed though about getting stable at lower NB overvoltage settings. I'm using about 1.525V for the NB right now for that 3.8GHz OC and "normal" for the FSB term, which should be about 1.2V for this Gigabyte board - I wonder whether anyone knows how to bring down that VTT some more in the BIOS.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrcape
After getting myself accustomed to how the different manufacturing components this board uses applies my settings, I have come to terms with how that 1.525V NB value is the minimum I've been able to stick with, without it suffering some kinda temperature spike instability penalty when I start running games and the like that stress the PC to a good enough degree. In the middle of a game, it would get to a point where my PC would hang without warning and reboot; I tend to blame the NB (aka motherboard) temp for getting an anxiety attack of sorts when it's doing its thing at up to 54C.
Did you forget manual gtl settings for a Gigabyte user don't translate the same for us as for other users of mobos by other manufacturers. The only thing(s) I've got to work with is the single-digit percentage variations setting: Auto, +3%, normal, -3%, -6%, and -9%. Is there some kinda conversion formula I could use for the manual gtl settings you mentioned. Ah! "Brings back memories...!" 1.4V NB was what I used to use before I bumped into that penalty I referred to earlier. Now not being able to safely rely on 1.4V NB is part of why I'm suspecting my motherboard might be crippled now that I can't stabilize a 34% or more OC. It was pretty wierd when I started taking 43C core temp readings from Realtemp as idle at what should be a relatively easy 4GHz OC for an E8500, my new chip. It did shock me though that I could pull it off using just 1.264V CPU-Z idle. As much as I'd like to believe Newegg sent me a faulty chip, the motherboard is still in question. Oh well!:shrug:
Nevertheless, I'll try to apply the settings you've suggested on that wacky E8400 I have in there now - save for the gtl ones - and report back here. I'll see how it goes and share what happens. Oh by the way, what speed did you pull off with 600MHz FSB on air?:shocked:
So I tried what I could with my E8400 to reach 4GHz stable with up to 1.58V for 500x8, but still no cigar. It would stay on for a while and hang and reboot either after a long stall while there was disk activity - that was some bad latency there - or right after I started an orthos stress test. Just goes to show either my motherboard and/or that chip can't handle it. I do remember one thing that may be a clue to when and how this started: after adding the first spot cooler for the NB, my formerly stable 4GHz OC was useless; this was back when my E8400 wasn't so beaten up as it is now. I'm now wondering whether that fan messed something up on my motherboard. I'll do more troubleshooting to get to the bottom of this.:shakes:
By the way, I'm still awaiting your reply about your 600MHz benchable OC on air.:shocked:
Hi, I was testing the max fsb capability of the board and chip. Just wanted to see how hi I could get it and still run 1m or validate with cpu-z. The multi, overall clock and temps were kept low, so I didn't need to beat on the chip too much during the process.
Didn't realize your bios had that type of gtl setting. Good luck and have fun!
Jeez Tmatrix and you wonder why your CPU's degraded ? 3.8GHz with over 1.47Volts... nothing can survice that punishment... buy another board now , seems ya giga is wasted...
Guys, I think I finally broke my e8400. I had my VTT at 1.37v for a long time and recently I have lost any OC ability. I am running my e8400 at 8X333=2.6Ghz because if I leave everything at default my PC will shutdown and I lose video during the Windows splash screen. Its quite bizarre. I am actually not sure if its my DFI BloodIron, or my e8400?
Also, what is the difference between VTT and vcore? On this mobo all I can find is VTT and CPU VID Special ADD?
VTT = FSB termination voltage. Default VTT for 45nm is 1.10vQuote:
Originally Posted by ScottFern
Well, its safe to say my last E8400 was toast. I am not laying blame to anyone specifically, but there was one post in a thread over at overclocker.net giving advice on certain settings, and I noticed it stated to have the VTT=1.45v when Intel states the max voltage for VTT to be 1.10v. I have done some research and it looks like anything over 1.15v is going to degrade your 45nm Intel cpu.
DO NOT, I REPEAT DO NOT set VTT to anything over 1.15v or else you CPU will degrade over time very rapidly.
Well I can state that some CPU 's prefer a very low setting in FSB Term or CPU VTT and even CPU PLL... most peeps think that more voltage is required to get a CPU stable, well with 45nm it can be totally the other way around...
My E8400 was before at 1.6PLL and 1.26 VTT and needed 1.26 Vcore to be stable at 4ghz, ow I used 1.52 PLL and 1.2 CPU VTT and now it only needs 1.22Vcore to be prime stable... all these voltages seem to be connected some way or the other... I have had other wolfdales and yorks where I needed to pump way more volts to get stable...
Till now I didn't need to go over 1.35 CPU VTT to get any CPU stable at 500FSB and I only had my first Qx degrade in a few weeks due to the 780i with it's underpowered circuitry.... there's a burn in period like also found out in this thread.. but I take it slow and don't push the CPU's direct up to 4Ghz and beyond anymore... first a fw weeks at moderte clocks and then see if she can hold it...
Think about it MORE isn't ALWAYS better...
Good post!:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeghoofd
Actually as stated in the intel docs VTT in spec. is: min=1.045v typ=1.10v max=1.155vQuote:
Originally Posted by ScottFern
however the absolute maximum is 1.45v same as VCC (vcore). But yes
Intel also says even within the absolute max the CPU will degrade.
My e8400 has definitely degraded over a period of 4 weeks. I have never gone over 1.360v, and that was idle, 1.32v load was the most vcore it was ever given.
At first it was stable at 4GHz at 1.29v. It passed 8 hours of small & also large FFT orthos, and 30 passes of linpack.
After 2 weeks, I noticed it would only pass 1 out of 5 linpack tests. I had not changed any settings at all, it just went from stable to unstable. I tried altering my vdimm, underclocking my ram, increasing vNB, loosening the PL, nothing worked. Then I remembered I had heard about this degradation, so I upped the vcore from 1.29v load to 1.304v load, and set everything else the way it had been originally. My system was now rock stable.
Another week passed, and I again noticed that I could only pass 1/5 linpack tests. I again changed everything but the vcore, to no avail. I changed eveything to it's original settings, and begrudgingly bumped up the vcore to 1.32v load. Once again it became rock stable.
After 5 days, it again became unstable. Again after trying everything else, I set the original settings for all components, and increased the vcore to 1.33v load. Yes, once again it became rock stable.
I am absolutely certain my e8400 has degraded from when I purchased it 4 weeks ago. I have had to raise the vcore 0.04v (1.29v load up to 1.33v load) in three steps over a 4 week period to remain stable. I have never gone over intel's maximum of 1.3625v, in fact I never went over 1.360v. It has also been cooled with a T.R.U.E since day one, and has never gone over 52*C at any time.
I am irritated at this situation. CPU's degrading in 4 weeks when kept under their rated maximum voltage and kept cool, is very poor, and has never to my knowledge occurred in the past. I'm not sure about basis for this, but I would guess electromigration and physical degradation of the transistors/gates/silicon wafer in the core to be occurring - perhaps intel rushed it's die shrink, and this rapid degradation is the result of poor engineering?
Looks like I might be keeping my E6600 after all, just in case.
You have a P5Q. If you used "AUTO" for any of the voltages, values can and WILL change with every boot. Never use AUTO for any of the voltages if you want a guaranteed OC on the asus boards.Quote:
Originally Posted by CryptiK
I set absolutely everything manually, and I have measured the voltages with a DMM and I am sure that none of them change. This is straight up CPU degradation, I'm certain of it.
@CryptiK
I don't get it. How come your CPU has degrade and you didn't even pass 1.3625V, while Intel states that as max safe voltage on their site, under processor specific finder? I found that pretty strange, especially while looking random setups of people with higher voltage than you for 24/7 usage... Maybe you just got defective processor?
All of this is crazy to me. While Intel states 1.3625V, other say 1.4V is max for 24/7, here are also test's of max voltages and Intel processors running under unbelivable voltages, than CPU degradations under 1.3V...
To who to belive anymore?
Sorry for my bed english...
I think I might sacrifice my e8400 just for this cause...
Yeah something else has to be going on. I keep my Q9450 at 1.425v 24/7 with LLC enabled, and it has been rock solid since day one. I have gone up to 1.55v for benching sessions as well.
I originally voted no to the poll, but it seems I jumped the gun, as my cpu has degraded twice.
First needed 1.36v for 4ghz, after 4 months needed 1.39v, and now after another 3-4months need 1.41v to be prime stable.
Just figured Id share my "results", and hope the E0s dont degrade like these chips. :p:
I'm still stable with 1.36v @ 4GHz. Been OK for several months now.