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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CPU-Z is not reliable as a voltage checker.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eldonko

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LennyRhys

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LennyRhys

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LennyRhys

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

---

lesson learned.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2oh6

and did he lie to you with his answer?

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

lesson learned.

---

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

The guy did nothing wrong. Whats the problem here?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i repeat...lesson learned ;)

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

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

How did it infringe eBay's policy?

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RunawayPrisoner

How did it infringe eBay's policy?

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LennyRhys

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loonym

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

---

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

Remind me not to let you buy anything I ever sell.. Seller's friggin nightmare.

That was unnecessarily personal, dude.

VID doesn't mean a thing anyway. And I'm sure the guy doesn't even have a clue what VID means, like 99% of the people. And even if he does it's your lack of knowledge about things rather than his 'smart' business practices. You build PCs yourself if you know what you want and know how to get what you need. If you can't comply to one of those two requirements you shouldn't do this stuff, or you can learn a lesson for better purchases in the future. Apparently you didn't know that CPUZ is inaccurate for reading vCORE (at least the version that he used).

It's just a lessson, and I'd consider it really bad practice if you claim your money back. You bought an Intel Q6600 CPU, and the seller didn't make any extra claims. If you take a look at the Intel website (in the tech. documents) you'll find that this CPU falls within officials specifications.

I probably sound like an ass, but that's only because you feel screwed over. But this is life right?

Yes I do feel screwed over and I completely acknowledge that this is largely my stupidity. What I don't need is people littering this thread with insults, thanks Eldonko - not constructive or helpful. I have 100% positive feedback on ebay after five years of activity and every seller, including the dodgy ones, has considered my conduct exemplary.

I knew full well that CPU-Z doesn't accurately read voltages; what I reasoned is that 1.12v in CPU-Z must be near enough 1.2v in BIOS, which is why I made the assumption that the VID was low after assuming that his picture showed the auto voltage.

Alexio, your post is probably the most constructive, insightful and helpful post in this entire thread and I really appreciate it, especially suggesting that I reconsider asking for my money back. I probably will. Lesson learned.

And like I said, you assumed that CPU-Z was right. In a practical case, CPU-Z CAN be right, but this is not one of them. Common practice is to use CoreTemp overall. And anyway, it's done. Everybody else has been telling you that it wasn't the seller's fault, and you just keep going on and on about it. I'm sorry for saying this, but you are already making yourself look bad in the eyes of some XS members here, and you should know that you could get really great deals out of this place, so please don't make yourself look any worse. Honest.

And if you had wanted a low VID Q6600 GO, you could just post on these forums. It's quite common for CPU's with low VIDs to appear here. And by the way, VID still doesn't mean anything at all. A low VID chip can still clock just as good as a high VID one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RunawayPrisoner

A low VID chip can still clock just as good as a high VID one.

---

Exactly :) I have a Xeon E3110 cip myself (E8400 equivalent) and it has a really high VID (can't remember exactly now) but it could be a WR chip. Not even the new E8600s are much better :)

I bet I can screenshot it at around 4.75GHz on air with insane vCORE.

The thread isn't littered with anything except what you asked for in your opening post, opinions. Even if they are opinions you don't like. I've gotten burned on ebay before. I remember this one supposedly killer ti4600 I got that had mem artifacting like you wouldn't believe. Lucky me it was an evga and they let me swap it for a new card. But it taught me to be very cautious when buying used stuff on ebay.

it's easier to blaim than to accept responsibility for poor/hasety decisions.

My old B3 was OCCT stable at like 1.08 vcore but the VID was 1.3 or so. It topped out at 3.6ghz. 3.6 is pretty quick if you ask me. I would do my best with what I got. Sorry for the bad buy though.

Fair points, guys. Anyway it's been a bad week - I spent about £650 on Q6600s hoping to find a golden and after five average (three of them poor) chips this particular one was my last and I was really hoping it would be a good one. Disappointingly it was by far the most expensive of the five chips, costing £137 - close to $300 for a used quad that is average, at best. That's gotta annoy.

Anyway first pic was taken this afternoon when I had the chips set up - at this stage I had tested four of the chips. Pictured are my Zalman heatsink, Zalman thermal paste, some coffee filters, q-tips and high-purity rubbing alcohol to clean the CPUs/cooler after each install. Second pic speaks for itself.

http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/m...Rhys/Chips.jpg

http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/m...s/S8301524.jpg

This particular picture I have reserved for the worst of the lot - an L811 which refused to do 3GHz at 1.35v:

http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/m...FailInside.png

It takes a whole lot more to make a chip run at its extremes than putting more voltage into the core...

What are you looking to achieve?

LOL I would hardly call 3GHz for a 2.4GHz chip an "extreme." Ever heard of a Maximus needing more NB voltage at 333MHz FSB? I know what I'm doing; that chip sucked.

RE hoping to achieve: I wanted a really good Q6600 and I didn't get one; end of story. I'll either splash out on a 9650 or get an 8400... whatever I choose, it has to last me at least a year. That's the only reason I'd be prepared to get an Extreme CPU, because I intend to keep it for a long time, and I suspect the QX9650 will have quite some time left on the market as a top end CPU.

Lol, I've never been able to find the golden chip :ROTF: I just make the best of what I get although I recently had a x3360 die. I rma to intel and the process was very good btw. Anyway the one they sent me back is as close to a cherry as I'll probably ever see. I didn't think there were any 500fsb air quads but this one loves it and runs 4250 quite easily with around 1.36-1.38... Good luck in your search :up:

edit: the funny thing is, when I saw the vid I initially thought it was kind of avg :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LennyRhys

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

---

He was running a different board, so it's possible that he was able to get the system booted long enough to take a screenshot with only .008v less than what you can get to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Most_people

VID doesn't mean a thing anyway.

---

If I have two Q6600s bought solely for overclocking, one 1.3250 VID and one 1.2125 VID, which would you suggest I keep? Remember, VID means nothing... :)

Hey, they should all do 3,2-3,4GHz at least anyways... get a bunch of cheap LGA775 mobos, and run a crunching farm ;).

You should be on Guiness Book of World Records for most improbable selection of poor chips.

Yes - I've had a total of seven Q6600s in my PC in the last week, four of them with 1.3250 VID.

I've sold three of them already however, and I'm feeling better about the whole thing now - I'll probably keep an eye out till a good Q6600 comes up on ebay, and having learned my lesson I'm never going to bid on one unless I'm certain it is what I'm after. :)

How is this VID determined and what does it really mean and how would it affect the CPU?

I get 1.1625v........but then it changes, so?



This VID is as pointless as when I heard about the performance difference in having a "strap".........yet, that quickly died and it certainly meant absolutely nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LennyRhys

If I have two Q6600s bought solely for overclocking, one 1.3250 VID and one 1.2125 VID, which would you suggest I keep? Remember, VID means nothing... :)

---

Find out which one clocks best. Then keep that one. Could very well be the higher VID one.

Mine is a 1.3125 VID, I'm at 3.45GHz with 1.45 volts, as set in my bios (not sure what the actual is, I don't know the spot on my IP35-E to measure vcore). May be able to go higher but I'm paranoid about adjusting volts, going over 0.1V increase is practically unheard of for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nasgul

How is this VID determined and what does it really mean and how would it affect the CPU?

I get 1.1625v........but then it changes, so?

This VID is as pointless as when I heard about the performance difference in having a "strap".........yet, that quickly died and it certainly meant absolutely nothing.

---

VID is determined by intel and it's regarded as the voltage required by the CPU for absolute stability at stock speed. Your motherboard reads the CPU's VID and sets it in BIOS unless you set voltage control to "manual."

The reason your VID fluctuates is that you are using SpeedStep and C1E which change the CPU multiplier and consequently the voltage requirement of the CPU.

Quote:

---

Find out which one clocks best. Then keep that one. Could very well be the higher VID one.

---

Anybody here want to second this - given a choice between two Q6600s, one 1.3250 VID and one 1.2125 VID, you'd test them both even though you knew which processor was which? You'd think there's a chance that the 1.3250 VID will clock better than the 1.2125 VID? :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LennyRhys

Anybody here want to second this - given a choice between two Q6600s, one 1.3250 VID and one 1.2125 VID, you'd test them both even though you knew which processor was which? You'd think there's a chance that the 1.3250 VID will clock better than the 1.2125 VID? :shrug:

---

Very low VID chips may require low Volts and heat a lot, very high VID may require high Volts and handle heat well. The best ones for aircooling are usually the mid ones, they have balance. But it's not a rule, it's more like a "higher possibility".

VID is an indicative of some characteristics, not a warranty that it will behave as all other chips with same VID.

You may have a golden chip no matter the VID and batch#.

If I were you, I would have tested all off then, before selling ;)

Just my 2 cents

What you say I agree with, because a lot of the 1.2375 and 1.25 VID chips clock very well with really nice voltages.

But the best performance I've ever seen from a Q6600 was from a 1.2000 VID chip. I know that there's no guarantee that low VID chips will be golden, but to my mind there is a guarantee that they will either overclock higher, or overclock moderately but with very low voltage. The heat thing is a non-issue, because if you have a good cooler that shouldn't be a problem.

And no I definitely didn't get a golden chip - I have tested all of them, and I decided to quote the worst which wouldn't do 3GHz with 1.35v. Currently I'm using the most recent one (which this thread is about) and it does 3.6GHz on 1.5v, no lower, and the temps are horrendous even with the CPU fan maxed out. My first chip was 1.3000 VID did 3.2GHz with 1.4v, and the temps were really nice, say 30/60, but it wasn't a particularly good chip.

And maybe I'm not after a golden chip to be honest; I guess it depends on your definition of golden. I see a lot of people getting 3.6GHz with roughly 1.35v and that's what I'm after. 1.35v isn't going to start a furnace in anybody's case. :p:

None of mine will do it. My best one uses 1.38v load @ 3600, the worst 1.44v load for same.

Perhaps 3.6GHz at 1.35v can be considered "golden" because not many chips can do it. There was a 1.2625 VID quad which just sold on ebay - I bet it was a good chip, but I was outbid so there's nothing I can do.

I've now got this thing 3.2GHz @ 1.4v bios, and across the four cores the temps range from 31 to 38C idle. Not consistent, and not very cool either. :shakes:

Wow, you really wanted a good clocker...sometimes you can't force good luck as you discovered.

My Q6700 does 3.5 GHz @ ~ 1.4v.
I can do 3.6ish or a little higher if i pump in tons of vcore, but it's the point of dimishing returns past 3.55 GHz really.

And P.S., sorry, but the seller didn't cheat.
You cannot expect everyone to know what VID is.
Why you got something based on CPU-Z's voltage readings, well, now you know better ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RunawayPrisoner

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

---

It's also an ES chip. May make a difference.

Jeez why didn't you get a QX straight away... really don't get the point in wasting so much cash for a 3.6Ghz OC... VID is nice to know but like said a zillion times before means absolutely nothing... only thing is a low VID usually means high temps (I stress usually) rest is test test test... and same counts for batches, they can give a good indication, but it's not certified to give you a good clocker...

and really : I too sell my CPU's mostly on Ebay, I no longer guarantee OC's , how can you in fact... eg sold an E8400 that did 4ghz at 1.3volts, nothing great, but average...the user complained it didn't even post on his mobo with 1.3 he needed 1.45 in the bios to get there (P35DS3)... now he swapped mobo's (on my advice ) and the CPU now happily runs at 1.3ish volts... If I tell users on Ebay the CPU has been overclocked or tested for max frequency... some might be turned down as they fear the CPU is broken...

Only thing I guarantuee is that the CPU works perfect at stock clocks and has warranty... nothing more...

I reply to all questions about batch and VID (if not included already in the desciption) but certified clocks is a lesson I learned as a seller... never ever again...

I can't afford a QX9650 so that's why I didn't buy it. I bought these quads knowing I could sell them off easily (already sold three of them, making a small profit); however if I was to spend £400 on a QX9650, I'd lose that money. I'd have an awesome CPU, but that's a lot of money - it scares me.

But yes you're right about the VID thing. Still, I'd love a good clocking Q6600 and will keep my eye out for one. Great CPU at a great price.