i5 2550k

[scr4wl]

So I wonder if that 72.6 degrees is there maximum "24/7" temperature, or just a "72.6 is really high but it won't cook your chip tooo quickly" lol

 

That's just the Tcase, so you can actually go a little bit hotter than that as well, but yeah. Once you start getting past that your chip will start to degrade pretty quickly.

[Gr4vitas]

Well I just booted at 5.5ghz but I had to step up to 1.6v haven't done any stress testing yet though, btw how do you turn off the auto underclocking crap? I thought it was the C1E junk. And if I turn off "turbo mode" I can't overclock...

[Waco]

Anything over 1.5 volts is likely to degrade your chip. I run mine at 1.45 volts to be safe - I've seen a lot of horror stories about "sudden SB death syndrome" where people were running over 1.5 volts and their chips just died out of nowhere.

[scr4wl]

Anything over 1.5 volts is likely to degrade your chip. I run mine at 1.45 volts to be safe - I've seen a lot of horror stories about "sudden SB death syndrome" where people were running over 1.5 volts and their chips just died out of nowhere.

 

This is false, a while ago some people made up that the chip couldn't go higher then 1.3something Volts.

 

I just looked around and according to Intel the max safe voltage is 1.52V.

 

Here is the Intel Spec sheet:

 

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/core/2nd-gen-core-desktop-vol-1-datasheet.html

 

[Waco]

This is false, a while ago some people made up that the chip couldn't go higher then 1.3something Volts.

 

I just looked around and according to Intel the max safe voltage is 1.52V.

 

Here is the Intel Spec sheet:

 

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/core/2nd-gen-core-desktop-vol-1-datasheet.html

 

That doesn't list the max safe voltage though - it only lists the maximum voltage you can reach using the standard VID codes.

 

 

First generation 32 nm chips (Westmere) weren't safe at much over 1.38 volts. I doubt Intel improved their process enough to handle in excess of 1.5 volts on the same process.

[scr4wl]

That doesn't list the max safe voltage though - it only lists the maximum voltage you can reach using the standard VID codes.

 

Here are some links of what people are saying about it.

 

First on the Intel Forums:

 

http://communities.intel.com/thread/23688?wapkw=2500k%20max%20voltage

 

And here are some from other forums:

 

http://www.overclock.net/t/913062/why-i-think-1-52v-and-sandy-bridge-is-safe-now-with-proof

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1578688&highlight=Sandy+Bridge+Max+Voltage

 

 

I've also personally been running my 2600K since I got it at 1.58V 24/7 (So that I can run it at 5.1GHz ), and so far haven't had any problems.

[Waco]

Here are some links of what people are saying about it.

 

First on the Intel Forums:

 

http://communities.intel.com/thread/23688?wapkw=2500k%20max%20voltage

 

And here are some from other forums:

 

http://www.overclock.net/t/913062/why-i-think-1-52v-and-sandy-bridge-is-safe-now-with-proof

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1578688&highlight=Sandy+Bridge+Max+Voltage

 

 

I've also personally been running my 2600K since I got it at 1.58V 24/7 (So that I can run it at 5.1GHz ), and so far haven't had any problems.

 

Read this:

 

Falkentyne Gawd, 11.6 Years

 

Status:

Here we go again...

 

1.52v is the maximum VID that is expressed in binary, that the CPU can accept a signal from, using the VRD 12 specification (possibly WRONG, see below). I believe someone said that the vcore the chip requests at auto voltage is the voltage it requests to run at at that frequency, based on that specification.

 

This has NOTHING to do with "Absolute maximum" voltage.

 

If you remember on the c2q 45nm chips, maximum VID was 1.3625 while absolute maximum voltage was 1.45v. Notice max VID is LESS than absolute max vcore.

 

On 45nm i7, maximum VID was 1.35v while absolute maximum voltage was 1.55v. (proof here: http://download.intel.com/design/pro...hts/320834.pdf )

 

Now on sandy bridge, maximum VID is 1.52v, while absolute maximum voltage is...(unknown).

 

Now I honestly don't know why the maximum VID is 1.52v here. This doesn't make sense. Both previous processor families (C2Q/wolf series and core i7) had max vid around 1.35v.

 

I suggest you guys look at this carefully.

 

Go back to the core i7 chart for 45nm.

Notice in the vid CHART (3 graphs), the maximum VID possible that is shown in binary is 1.600v ?

But the maximum VId allowed for the processor is 1.35v?

 

Now look at the SB chart here:

http://download.intel.com/design/pro...hts/324641.pdf

 

Both the CHART and the vid range ENDS at 1.52v. This does NOT happen with previous processors. Something doesn't match up correctly here. Almost seems like someone made a design error making the documents, and made the VID range match the chart, which is clearly not what is supposed to happen. For proof, look at the 45nm I7 vid range: it starts at 0.825v at minimum. A processor can actually RUN at this voltage. But Sandy Bridge starts at 0.250. Good luck making any processor operate at that voltage, even under LN2. Someone clearly just copied the Binary field for vid range from the chart, and no one actually put the VALID proper vid range for the processor. (Willing to bet its about 0.825v-1.35v).

 

I'll bet anyone hard cold money that 1.52v is NOT the "max vid" for this processor. Unless you want to prove to me that 1.60v was the max vid under valid vid range, for the i7 45nm. Anyone care to take me up on that?

 

Unlike some of you guys, I don't have higher ups over at Intel, so me contacting them may do nothing...

 

That's why I'm cautious. Intel hasn't stated a safe voltage but it's pretty safe to assume that the VID range does not represent the operating voltages for the chip. No transistor is going to operate at .25 volts. I highly doubt 1.52 volts is actually safe in the long-term. I don't want my chip to die but I have it at 1.45 volts and even that makes me uncomfortable.

[scr4wl]

I don't want my chip to die but I have it at 1.45 volts and even that makes me uncomfortable.

 

Fair enough, I've seen posts going both ways. In the past I've always had my chips running above "safe voltage", and as of now have only every killed two chips. One was that I5 that my socket fried (and then my dog ate) and one was an A8 3850, and I have no idea what was wrong with it. Bottom line is neither have been due to voltage, so until that happens I'll be running my chips at what keeps them under the Tcase.

 

However, what I quoted is the important part. Only run your chips at what you're comfortable running them at. After all, it is your money you're risking.

[Waco]

True.

 

I'm fairly sure my old Phenom II was degraded by running it at the maximum "safe" voltage from AMD - 1.55 volts. After a few months of that it became unstable and no matter what I did it wouldn't run at the same speed it did before.

[TheHostileGamer]

True.

 

I'm fairly sure my old Phenom II was degraded by running it at the maximum "safe" voltage from AMD - 1.55 volts. After a few months of that it became unstable and no matter what I did it wouldn't run at the same speed it did before.

 

So as an overclocker, do you one day just step back and ask yourself "Whats the point"?

[scr4wl]

So as an overclocker, do you one day just step back and ask yourself "Whats the point"?

 

No LOL!

 

You may end up with a chip that you care about more than others I suppose.

[Waco]

So as an overclocker, do you one day just step back and ask yourself "Whats the point"?

Nah. The free performance is certainly worth the slight risk when overclocking within reason. I just don't want to blow up a $300 chip a few months down the road for those last few MHz.