If this CPU was damaged by overclocking and pumping hi vcore into it I would be a little PO'd but I would go right back out and grab another and torture it in the same manner. There will always be risks to hardware when overclocking. The more extreme your oc the larger the risk, but along with that comes a whole lot more fun. If it weren't for the enjoyment of overclocking I would probably just buy a laptop and call it a day.
What VCore are you running for that OC please?Originally Posted by OC Nub
- 3770k delid 4.6GHz
- Swiftech H320 6x NF-F12's
- Gigabyte GA-Z77X-UP7 (Bios: F5)
- Corsair Dominator GT 2x4GB @2133 9-11-10-27
- 2x Asus HD7970 @ 1150/1600
- OCZ RevoDrive X2 PCIe SSD 160GB (Boot)
- 5.5TB HDD's
- Be Quiet! Dark Power Pro 1200w
- Corsair 900D
1.392vcore CPUZ 1.425vbios.
The kind of voltage I dream of! lol Thanks
- 3770k delid 4.6GHz
- Swiftech H320 6x NF-F12's
- Gigabyte GA-Z77X-UP7 (Bios: F5)
- Corsair Dominator GT 2x4GB @2133 9-11-10-27
- 2x Asus HD7970 @ 1150/1600
- OCZ RevoDrive X2 PCIe SSD 160GB (Boot)
- 5.5TB HDD's
- Be Quiet! Dark Power Pro 1200w
- Corsair 900D
Found some more time to play, so I did some benchmarking. Still trying for 4.7... I get to the desktop and POW!!! BSOD!!! Got some PI 9600 coming on Tuesday... so maybe that'll help. Anyways............
Gigabyte GA-Z68X-UD7-B3
2600K on water @ 5GHz
MSI R9670 TwinFroz CrossFire
8GB Mushkin Redline 1600
PC P&C 1250
SB X-Fi Gamer Pro
Pair of 600 GB Raptors
5 x 750GB Baracudas in RAID
"Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
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:
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.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.
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.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.
Sigh. You're so helplessly clueless.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.
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......
Okay, I finally get you to admit that all is but your own opinion. Good.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.
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.
I know its not the 9650 but close enough.Im still playing with it but this is what I have so far, ambient is 24-25c.
Code:******Motherboard Intelligent Tweaker (M.I.T.)****** Robust Graphics Booster.........................[ Auto ] CPU Clock Ratio.................................[ 9 ] Fine CPU Clock Ratio............................[ + 0.5 ] CPU Frequency 4.5GHz............................[ 485 x 9.5] ******Clock Chip Control****** CPU Host Clock Control..........................[ Enabled ] CPU Host Frequency (Mhz)........................[ 485 ] PCI Express Frequency (Mhz).....................[ 100 ] C.I.A 2.........................................[ Disabled ] ******Advanced Clock Control****** CPU Clock Drive.................................[ 800mv ] PCI Express Clock Drive.........................[ 900mv ] CPU Clock Skew..................................[ 50ps ] MCH Clock Skew..................................[ 50ps ] ******DRAM Performance Control****** Performance Enhance.............................[ Standard ] (G) MCH Frequency Latch.........................[ 266 ] System Memory Multipler.........................[ 2.50A ] Memory Frequency 1066...........................[ 1213 ] DRAM Timing Selectable..........................[ Manual ] CAS Latency Time................................[ 5 ] tRCD............................................[ 5 ] tRP.............................................[ 5 ] tRAS............................................[ 15 ] ******Advanced Timing Control****** tRRD[3].........................................[ 3 ] tWTR[3].........................................[ 3 ] tWR[6]..........................................[ 6 ] tRFC[54]........................................[ 54 ] tRTP[3].........................................[ 3 ] Command Rate (cmd)[0]...........................[ 2T ] ******Channel A Timing Settings****** Static tRead Value [ 8 ] ................[ 8 ] tRD Phase0 Adjustment [ 0 ] ................[ Auto ] tRD Phase1 Adjustment [ 0 ] ................[ Auto ] tRD Phase2 Adjustment [ 0 ] ................[ Auto ] tRD Phase3 Adjustment [ 0 ] ................[ Auto ] tRD 2rd (Differnt Rank) [ 6 ] ................[ Auto ] tWR 2wr (Differnt Rank) [ 6 ] ................[ Auto ] tWR 2rd (Differnt Rank) [ 5 ] ................[ Auto ] tRD 2wr (Same/Difft Rank) [ 8 ] ................[ Auto ] Dimm 1 Clock Skew Control.......................[ Auto ] Dimm 2 Clock Skew Control.......................[ Auto ] DDR Write Training..............................[ Auto ] ******Channel A Driving Settings****** Drive Strength Profile..........................[ 1200 ] Data Driving Pull Up Level......................[ Auto ] cmd Driving Pull Up Level.......................[ Auto ] ctrl Driving Pull Up Level......................[ Auto ] clk Driving Pull Up Level.......................[ Auto ] Data Driving Pull Down Level....................[ Auto ] cmd Driving Pull Down Level.....................[ Auto ] ctrl Driving Pull Down Level....................[ Auto ] clk Driving Pull Down Level.....................[ Auto ] ******Channel B Timing Settings****** Static tRead Value [ 8 ] ................[ 8 ] tRD Phase0 Adjustment [ 0 ] ................[ Auto ] tRD Phase1 Adjustment [ 0 ] ................[ Auto ] tRD Phase2 Adjustment [ 0 ] ................[ Auto ] tRD Phase3 Adjustment [ 0 ] ................[ Auto ] tRD 2rd (Differnt Rank) [ 6 ] ................[ Auto ] tWR 2wr (Differnt Rank) [ 6 ] ................[ Auto ] tWR 2rd (Differnt Rank) [ 5 ] ................[ Auto ] tRD 2wr (Same/Difft Rank) [ 8 ] ................[ Auto ] Dimm 1 Clock Skew Control.......................[ Auto ] Dimm 2 Clock Skew Control.......................[ Auto ] DDR Write Training..............................[ Auto ] ******Channel B Driving Settings****** Drive Strength Profile..........................[ 1200 ] Data Driving Pull Up Level......................[ Auto ] cmd Driving Pull Up Level.......................[ Auto ] ctrl Driving Pull Up Level......................[ Auto ] clk Driving Pull Up Level.......................[ Auto ] Data Driving Pull Down Level....................[ Auto ] cmd Driving Pull Down Level.....................[ Auto ] ctrl Driving Pull Down Level....................[ Auto ] clk Driving Pull Down Level.....................[ Auto ] ******Motherboard Voltage Control****** Load-Line Calibration...........................[ Enabled ] CPU Vcore [ 1.15 ]...................[ 1.48125 ] CPU Termination [ 1.20 ]...................[ 1.280 ] CPU PLL [ 1.50 ]...................[ 1.570 ] CPU Reference [ 0.760 ]...................[ 0.850 ] MCH Core [ 1.100 ]...................[ 1.400 ] MCH Reference [ 0.760 ]...................[ 0.850 ] MCH/DRAM Refernce [ 0.900 ]...................[ 0.920 ] ICH I/O [ 1.500 ]...................[ 1.500 ] ICH Core [ 1.100 ]...................[ 1.100 ] DRAM Voltage [ 1.800 ]...................[ 1.840 ] DRAM Termination [ 0.900 ]...................[ 0.920 ] Channel A Ref [ 0.900 ]...................[ 0.920 ] Channel B Ref [ 0.900 ]...................[ 0.920 ] ******Advanced BIOS Features****** Limit CPUID Max to 3............................[ Disabled ] No-Execute memory Protect.......................[ Disabled ] CPU Enhance Halt (CIE)..........................[ Disabled ] C2/C2E State Support............................[ Disabled ] C4/C4E State Support............................[ Disabled ] CPU Thermal Monitor.............................[ Disabled ] CPU EIST Function...............................[ Disabled ] Virtualization Technology.......................[ Disabled ]
Q9650
2600k
Ok fair enough, I shouldn't have said "that's what intel state". I should have said "that's what it appears to mean in my opinion".
So it's your 'job' to quash 'rumors'? Interesting reason to frequent a forum. No, I have not created a rumor. A rumor is not a rumor until misinformation has been passed between multiple individuals/circulates from person to person. I made a statement that you disagree with. If you are going to be descriptive at least be accurate. Hypocrisy and exaggeration will not help you here. While I'm taking my basic EE classes, you might like to take some classes of your own, after which you may be able to communicate more clearly.
"So please don't elude the conversation to other relevant subjects" doesn't quite make sense. If you do mean "elude" then no, I did not escape the conversation to other topics (I actually drew a relevant topic into the conversation), and if you mean "allude", which makes somewhat more sense, what I referenced was relevant and I am well within my rights to do so. If you want to avoid embarrassment yourself, speaking properly and making sense whilst making criticisms would be a start.
The Vcc vs Icc figure note "Adherence to this loadline specification is required to ensure reliable processor operation", to me, appears to echo the earlier statement of "Within functional operation limits, functionality and long-term reliability can be expected". I didn't say that was a fact, I said it was my opinion, which I believe you said earlier was welcome. So what, before it was, and now it's not?
Again, I made those statements for which you call me "helplessly clueless" and clearly said they were my opinion, which in your own words, I'm entitled to have. What a difference to your opinion 2 minutes makes.Sigh. You're so helplessly clueless.
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......
Okay, I finally get you to admit that all is but your own opinion. Good.
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.
As I said earlier, I made that statement as a short answer to give a guideline (made with interpretation or not) to a guy asking for an approximate safe upper limit.
I think it's in everyone's best interests if we leave this here. There is nothing more to be gained from further discussion.
Ci7 990X::Rampage III Extreme::12GB Corsair Dominator 1866C7GT::2 x EVGA SC Titans in SLI::Corsair AX1200::TJ07::Watercooled
Ci7 920 3849B018::Rampage II Extreme::6GB GSKILL Trident 2000C9 BBSE::EVGA GTX580::Antec Signature SG850::TJ09::Aircooled w/TRUE 120X
forget vcore.. ive been shoving 1.6-1.7vtt (1.8 occasionally) since last year into my air cooled q9650
what the max vtt again ?
That is a joke, isn't it ? Get ready to say "farewell" to your CPU.
Probably not, he seems to like running crazy voltages.
Q9650
2600k
Up to 1.5vtt should be really safe imo. Unless you plan to use your CPU like that for more than 5-10 years... Dunno about pushing more. If you can afford replacing it, heck, why not?!
Donate to XS forums
lol i got ready to say farewell almost a year ago.. this thing dont wanna die!
what 1.8vtt do: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=206237
what 1.66vtt do: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvBKB2NndbI
thermalright ifx14 cooled
Seriously, have tried using less vtt? Neither of my chips need anywhere near that to run those speeds and adding more doesnt make any difference in stability.
Q9650
2600k
seriously, have you guys tried high load ??
if im just booting into windows with a weaky video card sure i dont need much voltages
video card
sound card
raid card
all that requires higher voltages to run the system stable @ high load on air
Last edited by NapalmV5; 08-17-2009 at 11:01 AM.
Im not here to argue with you, just wondering if youve made a real attempt to run lower. Generally I would think priming is going to pull more load, sustained load at that, than some benchmarks and loading apps. Sure a raid and sound card may add more system load but I wouldnt think enough to need that kind of voltage, air or not, may be wrong though.
Q9650
2600k
Here's mine. Batch L847C159 VID 1.1875V.
Q9650@4.05GHz - G.SKILL F2-9600CL5D-4GBPI@DDR1199MHz - tRD 6.
A CPU Voltage of 1.20V is as low as I can go on my Rampage Formula to run it stable at 4.05GHz with LinX under these conditions. It should run fine with lower CPU Voltage on a different board.
Hey Napalm
I also used hight vtt to achieve 4860 to shoot some SPI, can you post a template of some of your high OC's so to try...if its not problem for you of course
Thank you
Cheers
Sergio
Intel Core i9-7980XE@ 4.8GHz 18C/18TH (Direct Die Contact)
ASRock X299 OC Formula
ADATA XPG SPECTRIX D80 (4x8GB) DDR4-3800C17 B-Die
1x Intel Optane SSD 905P 480GB
4x HP EX950 NVMe 2TB on ASRock ULTRA M.2 CARD
EVGA RTX 2080TI KINGPIN 2190/8000 Stock Cooling AIO 240
SilverStone ST1500W-TI TITANIUM
Alphacool Custom Water Cooling
template?? this whole thread is plastered with my results/voltages
4.6ghz @ extreme: 1.62vcore/1.64vpll/1.66vtt/1.80vmch/2.66vdimm fsb:mem 4:5
4.8ghz @ dq6: 1.6vcore/1.6vpll/1.8vtt/1.8vmch/2.6vdimm fsb:mem 1:1
note: much higher load on the extreme than on the dq6
you guys are water/freezing water/phase/whatnot cooling and then youre telling me if i ever tried lower vtt
for air cooling higher vtt is what keeps it going
then again i guess im just a retard maxing voltages for no reason
Last edited by NapalmV5; 08-19-2009 at 12:09 PM.
I guess that means no template lol? I like seeing posts from people that push it to extreme for months or even years. It lets me know that these chips are a lot more durable than people think. Eventually Im sure they will degrade and die but if I can get a year or even 2 years out of it and enjoy seeing how far it can be pushed then I got my moneys worth. At least that's how I see it.
^ ud3: 1.7-1.8vpll applies ^
always:
CPU Clock Drive................................[ 1000mv ]
PCI Express Clock Drive......................[ 1000mv ]
CPU Clock Skew.................................[ 0ps ]
MCH Clock Skew.................................[ 0ps ]
as for ref voltages.. always @ default
Why would vtt make a bigger difference for air cooling rather than water cooling? I'm asking out of genuine intrigue as I can't understand the logic behind the statement. Thanks!
The New; Q9650 at 4.3GHz (505*8.5) 1.39V (True -Lapped - Modified - push/pull)
OLD - Asus P5Q-E NEW - GA UD3P
2*2GB OCZ Flex XLC 9600 @ 1210MHz
4TB Storage
Asus 7950gt 512mb w/ Thermalright HR-03
X-fi extreme music
Thermaltake Eureka (Black)
Corsair TX 750
genuine indeed.. cause you/some of you since last year are still confused on what it takes to oc q9650
better cooling > lower voltages than air
you guys dont push your q9650 hard enough thats the issue
thats your problem not mine cant help there
well, even with a TRUE with 2*1800rpm fans, plus another 120mm blowing air towards it and another pulling it out of the case at the back, I'm still pushing my Q9650 to 80C or more. I don't think any more vtt would help the situation... I've seen the right side of 4.5GHz but I won't see it stable. It's 35C outside and about 26C in my room. Too hot to do battle...
The New; Q9650 at 4.3GHz (505*8.5) 1.39V (True -Lapped - Modified - push/pull)
OLD - Asus P5Q-E NEW - GA UD3P
2*2GB OCZ Flex XLC 9600 @ 1210MHz
4TB Storage
Asus 7950gt 512mb w/ Thermalright HR-03
X-fi extreme music
Thermaltake Eureka (Black)
Corsair TX 750
yes napalm i pushed it till 4860 you can see it also on my posts, but i also prime and ibt and i really don't think you can prime on air at those voltages for 8 or 9 hours unless you live on the North Pole lol, even if you can i can't as my chip is 1,1875 vid wich is hell at half of those volts
thank you for your answers
Sergio
Last edited by andressergio; 08-19-2009 at 02:39 PM.
Intel Core i9-7980XE@ 4.8GHz 18C/18TH (Direct Die Contact)
ASRock X299 OC Formula
ADATA XPG SPECTRIX D80 (4x8GB) DDR4-3800C17 B-Die
1x Intel Optane SSD 905P 480GB
4x HP EX950 NVMe 2TB on ASRock ULTRA M.2 CARD
EVGA RTX 2080TI KINGPIN 2190/8000 Stock Cooling AIO 240
SilverStone ST1500W-TI TITANIUM
Alphacool Custom Water Cooling
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks