i5-2500K/2600K batch number and o/c results

[namegt]

X53 @ 1.45v? What the hell?

That's gota be a record...
Is HT on or off at X53?

Can be good for low voltage overclocking
But i can not reach higher clock.
HT on

[Falkentyne]

Thank you.
NameGT: Do you know the default VID for that CPU (at 3.4 ghz?), and the default VID (when set to 100x50)?

[namegt]

Thank you.
NameGT: Do you know the default VID for that CPU (at 3.4 ghz?), and the default VID (when set to 100x50)?

CPU VID : 1.15v

[Falkentyne]

1.15v? I Think this is not the VID, but the voltage monitoring? No one has had a VID this low on a 2600k (at 3.4 ghz).

The VID is the "target" voltage shown in the BIOS, next to your "Auto" or "manual" voltage selection. This is not the "current voltage reading" actually going into the CPU, but the "target VID." The current actual vcore the CPU is using (power wise) will ALWAYS be lower than the VID, unless you are using loadline calibration (at high levels).

You can also see the VID by starting the computer into windows and using realtemp 3.67 (EIST/speedstep/C3/C6 must be disabled).

For example, in the BIOS, to the left of where you can choose your manual voltage, you will see a VID (might be labeled "Voltage" or just "Target").

1.15v is too low of a VID for 3.4 ghz for a 2600k. There was a survey of VIDs at 3.4 ghz, and the lowest possible one shown was 1.21v. I think the lowest possible VID for 3.4 ghz is 1.20v, and the highest is 1.27v. 2500k's I think may have lower VID than 2600k's.

In case I'm wrong, then this is the first 2600k I've ever seen that has a VID of 1.15v.
If the VID is really 1.15v at 3.4 ghz, then the vcore in health monitoring should be almost 1.13v or lower, and in windows, if you run prime 95, it should be 1.0v or lower.

[l0ud_sil3nc3]

1.15v? I Think this is not the VID, but the voltage monitoring? No one has had a VID this low on a 2600k (at 3.4 ghz).

The VID is the "target" voltage shown in the BIOS, next to your "Auto" or "manual" voltage selection. This is not the "current voltage reading" actually going into the CPU, but the "target VID." The current actual vcore the CPU is using (power wise) will ALWAYS be lower than the VID, unless you are using loadline calibration (at high levels).

You can also see the VID by starting the computer into windows and using realtemp 3.67 (EIST/speedstep/C3/C6 must be disabled).

For example, in the BIOS, to the left of where you can choose your manual voltage, you will see a VID (might be labeled "Voltage" or just "Target").

1.15v is too low of a VID for 3.4 ghz for a 2600k. There was a survey of VIDs at 3.4 ghz, and the lowest possible one shown was 1.21v. I think the lowest possible VID for 3.4 ghz is 1.20v, and the highest is 1.27v. 2500k's I think may have lower VID than 2600k's.

In case I'm wrong, then this is the first 2600k I've ever seen that has a VID of 1.15v.
If the VID is really 1.15v at 3.4 ghz, then the vcore in health monitoring should be almost 1.13v or lower, and in windows, if you run prime 95, it should be 1.0v or lower.

If you don't turn off EIST, C1, C3 and C6 save settings and reboot then it shows low vid voltages like that, however once you boot back in to the bios you will see the true VID.

[Falkentyne]

Good point.

Try that and check the VID again for me. I know it won't be 1.15v...that's a 2500k VID (for 3.4 ghz)....