Retail Q9650 Overclocking Thread

[bigwill68]

What is the maximum voltage for these CPU's please?

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

[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 1.45v

[andressergio]

Pumping some more fsb at 8,5 multi, damn i love this mem



Cheers all
Sergio

[Hoss331]

Maximum voltage as recommended by Intel! I thought it was 1.45v

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.

[OC Nub]

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.

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.

[Hoss331]

Not sure about C0s but the data sheet just lists that for the Q9xxx and Q8xxx series in general.

[bigwill68]

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.

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 have
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

[Hoss331]

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.

[CryptiK]

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

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.

[bigwill68]

There is a difference between 'max' and 'absolute max' vcore.

Max = 1.3625v

Absolute max = 1.45v
.

It should be clear that 'safe' vcore = no more than 1.3625v

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

[tool_462]

Keep in mind Intel also doesn't advise overclocking I'm not worried putting 1.425+v into 45nm chips 24/7 if the temps are under control.

[Hoss331]

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

Ive read that before, but what gets me is that listed 1.3625 is the max VID, which is not vcore.

[Falkentyne]

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.

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.

[Hoss331]

Yes, I know what VID is.

[CryptiK]

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.

[vws]

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.

......

It should be clear that 'safe' vcore = no more than 1.3625v

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.

Care to validate your points above? Especially where I highlighted.

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?

[CryptiK]

Here:

At conditions outside functional operation condition limits, but within absolute
maximum and minimum ratings

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).

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.

[vws]

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).

Therefore functional limits = 0.85v - 1.3625v

Absolute max and min = -0.3v - 1.45v

Hmm... That's exactly the gray area (the *functional operation limit*) where Intel fails to clear up in the datasheet, isn't it?

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.

EDIT - The tables posted above by Hoss331 show both max and min and absolute ratings. The data sheet is freely available on intels site.

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.

[CryptiK]

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.

[vws]

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?

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.

[CryptiK]

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?

[vws]

I don't really want to derail the thread any further, and this is becoming a little tedious.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ok, say you are right, and the functional limits intel refer to are not 0.85v - 1.3625v. What are they then?

I do not have my own set of voltage values for that. I will know when I see Intel clearly specify the range.

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?

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?

Why is there no mention of another voltage between 1.3625v and 1.45v if this is an important design specification?

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.

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?

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.

[terroristone]

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

[CryptiK]

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.

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.

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.

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.


I do not have my own set of voltage values for that. I will know when I see Intel clearly specify the range.


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?


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.


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.

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.

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.

[hallryu]

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?