This section provides CPU voltage control options." (p. 46)
That's IT. It says NOTHING about SETTING it in the manual. (so...there goes THAT theory.) So contrary to SOMEONE'S belief, yes, I DID read the manual.
And as indicated, I was googling Vtt and PLL to try to understand what they do.
So there goes THAT theory. What else you got?
Great!...I don't really care if Gigabyte spent five seconds on their manual...
I AM asking you more questions. But then you'd call them as either nitpicking or irrelevant or you'd skim RIGHT over them. So...how could you dare say "ask more questions instead of calling me stupid" when I am ALREADY doing JUST that.
Heck, in fact, I think that after taking the CPU off auto Vcore, I was using 1.30, 1.32, 1.35, 1.38, 1.39, 1.40, and then finally 1.42 in that sequence, in that order to try and get the system stable.
From 1.30-1.38; that initial testing was done with IBT. Once IBT was stable at 1.38, that's when I started with the crash sims and it had further stability issues, so from 1.39 to 1.42 - that was the sequence taken to get the crash sim to be stable. And no, I didn't try 1.41.
From 1.30 to 1.38 - that was directly from the voltages that people were reporting/suggested range for me to try and so I started with that. So, again, contrary to your belief, the information that is presented here IS put to use and not ignored. (Yes, I AM assuming or reading that that's what your belief is based on the premise of your above statement.)
Now, if that's the Vcore@load, and given that we've already established that the Vcore@load does fluctuate with different programs and different loads, I would have had to calibrate that in with the program that they were using in order to get an agreement and getting the system to jive and the numbers to talk to each other. But that should also mean that along with that, a separate value should be presented as "this is what I set in the BIOS". Because you can't really control what the Vcore@load is directly. Nor am I aware of any method/procedure for predicting what the Vcore@load given x load is going to be. So...you work with what you've got - which is namely, the Vcore setting in the BIOS (@idle) and loadline control. (Which I'm sure YOU know, but for someone like me who's new to this - I didn't. Until now that is.)
It really isn't that big of a deal...this isn't rocket science.
And it is PRECISELY for this reason why I NEVER assume people know what I know unless they indicate otherwise. (The most telling sign for me typically is by the questions that they ask as a result of it.) Because if you assume people to know what you know, you run into this -- EXACTLY this type of a situation where you thought someone else knows what you know, the documentation didn't adequately cover the material, and you write someone off as asking idiotic questions (which you then considered irrelevant, nitpicking, idiotic, or you just skim right over them as if they weren't important. Well if they weren't important, why would someone be asking them in the first place??? Especially when that someone's already stated that that someone RARELY asks questions for the benefit of their own health or rhetoric?)
Okay, then don't assume...ask them nicely instead of saying things like "I can't help it if you can't xxxxxxxxx."[/QUOTE]
I got tired of splitting quotes. I don't even want to answer any more of these, I have a life to get to.