Quote:
Originally Posted by
CryptiK
Sure, the data sheet does not outright state "the functional limits are x.xx - x.xx v", but it is plainly inferred by first giving a maximum and minimum vid range. As I said before, a max and min range defines the functional limits of something. They then state the absolute max value which lies above the max vid range.
I can see where you are coming from though, but I feel it's of no use to split hairs over an apparent lack direct clarification.
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
Max safe vcore is 1.3625v no ifs or buts. That's what intel state.
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
Sigh. You're so helplessly clueless. :rofl:
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......
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.
Okay, I finally get you to admit that all is but your own opinion. Good. :up:
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:
