Quote Originally Posted by CryptiK View Post
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.