# Is this 2500k overclock acceptable for 24/7?



## mrw1986 (Feb 9, 2012)

Hey guys,

So I finally had the time to overclock my 2500k. I was able to push it to 5ghz (50x100) @ 1.45v (under load in CPU-Z) at only 60C after an hour of Prime95 Blend. Is this acceptable for a 24/7 overclock? I don't fold or anything so it won't be under stress unless I'm gaming or transcoding a movie to my PS3. I also passed 10 rounds of IntelBurnTest and OCCT for an hour. I believe the max volts for a 2500k is 1.52v so I feel pretty comfortable. My PLL voltage is 1.709v.

What is everyone's opinion on this? Is this safe for 24/7 usage?

Thanks again,
Matt


----------



## brandonwh64 (Feb 9, 2012)

Do you have Speedstep enabled so when its idle its at 1.6Ghz? If so then this OC should not be a issue since it wont run that voltage and speed 24/7


----------



## cadaveca (Feb 9, 2012)

I tell ya what...for me, your voltage is too high. 1.41 max, please! Sure Intel says 1.52v, but that's not for Full-core load, nor for OC!

But, buy a OC warranty from Intel, and your chip will be replaced. SO give'er the gusto, man(note that you must wait 30 days after buying the warranty online before you many submit a claim...so buy NOW!)


----------



## PaulieG (Feb 9, 2012)

I won't put more than 1.38v through a SB chip 24/7. I know that Intel says 1.52v is max, but I've heard many accounts of degrading chips over 1.4v. So, I will clock the hell out of a chip, bench it up to 1.52v to see what it's capable at the top end, then down to 1.38v. Whatever I can get at 1.38v is my stable 24/7 clock. After more than a dozen chips, this has been the best course of action.


----------



## mrw1986 (Feb 9, 2012)

brandonwh64 said:


> Do you have Speedstep enabled so when its idle its at 1.6Ghz? If so then this OC should not be a issue since it wont run that voltage and speed 24/7





cadaveca said:


> I tell ya what...for me, your voltage is too high. 1.41 max, please! Sure Intel says 1.52v, but that's not for Full-core load, nor for OC!
> 
> But, buy a OC warranty from Intel, and your chip will be replaced. SO give'er the gusto, man(note that you must wait 30 days after buying the warranty online before you many submit a claim...so buy NOW!)



@brandonwh64: Yes, SpeedStep is enable and it downclocks and goes to like 1.06v.

@cadaveca: I've considered buying it, but I've done a little more research and there's people that have been running their chip at 1.5v for 6+ months 24/7. I think my cooling is adequate enough to handle the voltage and I don't think the chip will suffer too much.


----------



## cadaveca (Feb 9, 2012)

So then why ask? 




Like really?

Have I personally seen chips degrade with just a hair over 1.4v YES!!! Were they hot? NO!!!


Do what you will though. It's NOT about cooling. I dunno why everyone thinks it is. Unless you are running @ -40 or lower, this whole idea is invalid.


----------



## PaulieG (Feb 9, 2012)

mrw1986 said:


> @brandonwh64: Yes, SpeedStep is enable and it downclocks and goes to like 1.06v.
> 
> @cadaveca: I've considered buying it, but I've done a little more research and there's people that have been running their chip at 1.5v for 6+ months 24/7. I think my cooling is adequate enough to handle the voltage and I don't think the chip will suffer too much.



Degradation does not always come from heat.


----------



## mrw1986 (Feb 9, 2012)

Paulieg said:


> Degradation does not always come from heat.



Oh, I understand that. Trust me


----------



## mrw1986 (Feb 9, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> So then why ask?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I know that it's not about heat, been overclocking for a long time. I'm basically asking opinions because they seem to vary everywhere I look. Overclock.net users say 1.45v is safe for 24/7 usage. Here people seem a little less lenient.


----------



## cadaveca (Feb 9, 2012)

mrw1986 said:


> Oh, I understand that. Trust me



I don't think you do. These chips barely eat 150W. It's nearly NEVER about cooling with these chips. 200W of cooling, to get sub-zero, is a cakewalk. And yes, that's all it takes tp go negative with these CPUs.


----------



## mrw1986 (Feb 9, 2012)

Maybe I will play with it more when I get home from work and try for my highest clock at 1.4v.


----------



## mrw1986 (Feb 9, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> I don't think you do. These chips barely eat 150W. It's nearly NEVER about cooling with these chips. 200W of cooling, to get sub-zero, is a cakewalk. And yes, that's all it takes tp go negative with these CPUs.



Oh, I really do. Been overclocking since Socket A days. So please, don't try to insult me. I've never had a chip die on me no matter what I pumped through it.


----------



## cadaveca (Feb 9, 2012)

It's not an inslut. I'm sorry if you think so. Really.

But fact of the matter is that it's $20 bucks for the warranty. If you're gonna go over the 1.38 that Paulie recommends, buy it, and forget worrying about it. There have been CPUs that have degraded or outright died with less than 1.45v.

It just doesn't jive with me that you'd claim to know what was up, but then ask the question you did, and hence my comment. It wasn't meant as an insult at all. If ya wanna take that angle, if you know, then ask the question, then what are you asking for? As a troll?



I mena, I've been clocking just as long(longer, actually), but I don't know nothing. Tech changes too fast for me to keep up.


----------



## mrw1986 (Feb 9, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> It's not an inslut. I'm sorry if you think so.
> 
> But fact of the matter is that it's $20 bucks for the warranty. If you're gona go over the 1.38 that Paulie recommends, buy it, and forget worrying about it.
> 
> It just doesn't jive with me that you'd claim to know what was up, but then ask the question you did.



It might not jive with you, but professionals in every field like to get more than one opinion other than their own even if they've been doing something their whole life. Asking for opinions does not mean someone has no idea what they are doing.


----------



## cadaveca (Feb 9, 2012)

It does when you immediately denouce those opinions because they do not agree with your own.


Like don't take this the worng way at all...just having a discussion here.


But tell me something..do you think these chip clock at all like anything that has been released before?


----------



## mrw1986 (Feb 9, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> It does when you immediately denouce those opinions.



I wasn't denouncing anything, just stating that other people have said 1.45v, 1.5v, etc. Why should I value any one person's opinion over another's? I'd much rather have a ton of opinions and average them out.


----------



## cadaveca (Feb 9, 2012)

I know, and that's what Paulie and I have been doing...and many others. There's no way any one person without the help of others, can make any of these conclusions.


Because these chips act so differntly than previous chips, you bet I personally have been paying even more attention. I've already gone through over 30 chips myself. Over 1.4v CAN be dangerous, and of course, there are some outliers that are perfectly fine with more...but not every chip will be.

Hence my suggstion of buying the warranty. If ya didn't get some luck with your chip, then i think it's better to be prepared for the worst, but expect the best.


I don't really think you'll killyour chip..but yes, these is a good chance you could, so I advise with safety in mind.


----------



## mrw1986 (Feb 9, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> But tell me something..do you think these chip clock at all like anything that has been released before?



These chips easily reach speeds that would take previous generations much more work to reach, if they were even attainable with those chips. I remember getting 4ghz on my Q6600 and that was an accomplishment. 

However, these chips also have a higher starting clock than older generations (pre P4 era). If you're asking about a percentage based overclock, then yes. A lot of chips could reach 50% overclocks, etc.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Feb 9, 2012)

M

Trying to help you bro. Don't go above 1.4v.


----------



## mrw1986 (Feb 9, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> I know, and that's what Paulie and I have been doing...and many others. There's no way any one person without the help of others, can make any of these conclusions.
> 
> 
> Because these chips act so differntly than previous chips, you bet I personally have been paying even more attention. I've already gone through over 30 chips myself. Over 1.4v CAN be dangerous, and of course, there are some outliers that are perfectly fine with more...but not every chip will be.
> ...



This has been the most helpful post here. Thank you for this.  I'm not trying to be confrontational, I just like a good discussion


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Feb 9, 2012)

5+Ghz is the holy grail and all but I too wouldn't go over 1.4 and think Paulie's initial advice is the best.


----------



## cadaveca (Feb 9, 2012)

mrw1986 said:


> These chips easily reach speeds that would take previous generations much more work to reach, if they were even attainable with those chips. I remember getting 4ghz on my Q6600 and that was an accomplishment.
> 
> However, these chips also have a higher starting clock than older generations (pre P4 era). If you're asking about a percentage based overclock, then yes. A lot of chips could reach 50% overclocks, etc.



NO, what i mean is that these chips have multiple power planes, and different types of transistors that have much different tolerances...in the same silicon. Parts of the chip can take 1.4v, others can blow if you give more than 1.25v. And these parts are on the same die...



mrw1986 said:


> This has been the most helpful post here. Thank you for this.  I'm not trying to be confrontational, I just like a good discussion




And yeah, Likewise. Not confrontational at all on my part.


----------



## mrw1986 (Feb 9, 2012)

JrRacinFan said:


> M
> 
> Trying to help you bro. Don't go above 1.4v.



When I get off work tonight I will see what my highest stable overclock is at 1.4v since that seems to be more a reasonable voltage.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Feb 9, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> And yeah, Likewise. Not confrontational at all on my part.



Yeah don't mind Dave. Poor guy needs to get out of the house more.


----------



## mrw1986 (Feb 9, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> NO, what i mean is that these chips have multiple power planes, and different types of transistors that have much diferent tolerances...in the same silicon. parts of the chip can take 1.4v, others can blow if you give more than 1.25v.
> 
> 
> And yeah, Likewise. Not confrontational at all on my part.



Ah ok, I was confused by the question. You're talking about the double-gate transistors and what not. Yeah, I know they are completely different and have different internal power requirements.

Ivy bridge is tri-gate. Confused myself for a second.


----------



## mrw1986 (Feb 9, 2012)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> Yeah don't mind Dave. Poor guy needs to get out of the house more.



Haha, I appreciate his dwelling inside. He can give me more solid advice that way lol.


----------



## mrw1986 (Feb 9, 2012)

Alright, well here's a question. With these chips, is there a HUGE difference between say 4.5ghz and 5ghz? Would I notice anything with my system specs? I game and transcode movies. The way I look at it is that I did all that stuff fine on my Q6600 @ 3.6ghz.

I'm not crazy familiar with the difference 500mhz will make with these chips.

I figure if I run 4.5ghz at a lower voltage it will be better overall considering what Paulie and dave have said.


----------



## cadaveca (Feb 9, 2012)

mrw1986 said:


> Haha, I appreciate his dwelling inside. He can give me more solid advice that way lol.


Heh. All i do is clock stuff for reviews and take care of my kids. I do tend to have a bit more experience than the avg joe.


Not that i think that's something to brag about. I'm TPU's board/memory reviewer, so knowing about this stuff is just something I need to do my job right.

To me, there is a very perceptible difference between 4.5 GHz and 5 GHz. The question is whether it's really nessecary. 

When you OC CPU, L3 and such gets clocked up too(L3 matches speed with CPU speed), so you get a healthy memory bandwdith boost with the CPU speed increase as well. This makes for a larger overall impact that can be noticed from just CPU multi jumps. Most apps aren't going to take advantage of the extra speed, but encoding will, for sure.


----------



## mrw1986 (Feb 9, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> Heh. All i do is clock stuff for reviews and take care of my kids. I do tend to have a bit more experience than the avg joe.
> 
> 
> Not that i think that's something to brag about. I'm TPU's board/memory reviewer, so knowing about this stuff is just something I need to do my job right.
> ...



Hmm, well I guess it's all up to what I can be stable at 1.4v. Does upping the VTT/PLL still make a difference? I couldn't get this chip stable at 5ghz 1.45v with my PLL raised past 1.709v (go figure). Would raising my VTT perhaps let me obtain 5ghz at 1.4v? Also, I'll have to toy with my LLC settings. 

I'm using offset mode right now so I can take advantage of SpeedStep. Maybe I'll see what my highest clock is at 1.4v fixed and then translate that to my offset value.


----------



## PaulieG (Feb 9, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> Heh. All i do is clock stuff for reviews and take care of my kids. I do tend to have a bit more experience than the avg joe.
> 
> 
> Not that i think that's something to brag about. I'm TPU's board/memory reviewer, so knowing about this stuff is just something I need to do my job right.
> ...



I find that 4.8ghz on water is a sweet spot, and a good chip will do this on 1.38v. Almost every chip I've had needs significantly more than that to gety stable at 5.0. I can tell a difference in performance b/t 4.5 and 4.8, but not really b/t 4.8 and 5.0.



mrw1986 said:


> Hmm, well I guess it's all up to what I can be stable at 1.4v. Does upping the VTT/PLL still make a difference? I couldn't get this chip stable at 5ghz 1.45v with my PLL raised past 1.709v (go figure). Would raising my VTT perhaps let me obtain 5ghz at 1.4v? Also, I'll have to toy with my LLC settings.
> 
> I'm using offset mode right now so I can take advantage of SpeedStep. Maybe I'll see what my highest clock is at 1.4v fixed and then translate that to my offset value.



I've also found many chips to clock better with lower PLL. I have better luck clocking with fixed voltage rather than offset...but I think that most people prefer offset.


----------



## mrw1986 (Feb 9, 2012)

Paulieg said:


> I find that 4.8ghz on water is a sweet spot, and a good chip will do this on 1.38v. Almost every chip I've had needs significantly more than that to gety stable at 5.0. I can tell a difference in performance b/t 4.5 and 4.8, but not really b/t 4.8 and 5.0.



Now that you mention it I have seen 4.8ghz thrown around multiple forums as a "sweet spot" for these chips.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Feb 9, 2012)

Some good information in this thread. Thanks guys for giving me some even more useful insight as well. Good to know once I finally make the jump also up to Sandy.


----------



## PaulieG (Feb 9, 2012)

mrw1986 said:


> Now that you mention it I have seen 4.8ghz thrown around multiple forums as a "sweet spot" for these chips.



Yup. However, if you crunch or keep a heavy load on the chip, it's only a sweet spot for a chip on water. I prefer 4.6 on air, but I'm really OCD about my temps, and I don't like to see higher than 65c, even with stability testing.


----------



## cadaveca (Feb 9, 2012)

Paulieg said:


> I've also found many chips to clock better with lower PLL. I have better luck clocking with fixed voltage rather than offset...but I think that most people prefer offset.



PLL = CHECK!!! I run 1.65v PLL on my personal chip. helps keep temps a bit lower, and also let me use less CPU voltage.



Offset vs manual...dependso n the board. Gigabyte..use offset. ASUS, use manual. At first i tohught that this was due to AWARD/AMI BIOS implementations, but now that Gigabyte is also on AMI, the same is still true, so it's jsut the way the BIOS is programmed that dictates which is best. However, if you go on ASUS ROG forums, you'll find ASUS "Staff" recommending that you use Offset, and no CPU PLL Overvoltage. I haz a confuse there...


Sweetspots...generally, yes, but there will be chips that jsut plain ol don't support those multis. Crazyeyesreaper has a chip that is stuck on 43x multi. I doubt he'd even hit 4.8 GHz on that chip. And it's not his board, as I was pushing 5 GHz on his obard(which i sent to him)without any problems.

Anyway, Paulie and I agree on most of this stuff.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Feb 9, 2012)

I wouldn't run that high voltage 24/7. Electron migration will eat a chip up low temps or not.

FYI I didn't read the entire thread so forgive me if I missed you guys covering that.


----------



## InnocentCriminal (Feb 9, 2012)

Again, backing up the don't go over 1.4 vCore....



			
				bit-tech.net said:
			
		

> *CPU Voltage:* Obviously this is the daddy that really gives you the MHz. However, remember that LGA1155 Sandy Bridge CPUs are made with a 32nm manufacturing process, so don't need as much juice as your last 45nm, 65nm or older CPU did.
> 
> Up to 1.3V is completely fine for an everyday overclock, whereas at some way between 1.3V and 1.4V you'll see the heat output increase quite notably even if you can push the CPU a little bit higher. We wouldn't recommend using more than 1.3V unless you have a powerful cooler, and using a vcore of 1.4V or more isn't advisable unless you're just planning a quick Kamikaze benchmark run. Professional overclockers might use a vcore of 1.5V or above even, but bear in mind that these guys and gals get CPUs by the tray load from sponsors!



... I look forward to your results M.

Source


----------



## ERazer (Feb 9, 2012)

imo dont go over 1.4, i like to volt around 1.37-.39 around 4.8ghz


----------



## mrw1986 (Feb 9, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> PLL = CHECK!!! I run 1.65v PLL on my personal chip. helps keep temps a bit lower, and also let me use less CPU voltage.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have an ASRock and from what I've been reading offset is the way to go. Most people find a more stable overclock at a lower voltage that way. I'm not sure if I want to go lower on my PLL. From what I've seen they said going lower than 1.709 on my board isn't a good idea. They don't really explain why, though. Also, with Sandy I understand every chip has a Multi wall now.


----------



## cadaveca (Feb 9, 2012)

I've not been able to get an Asrock contact as of yet, so haven't had a chance to play with their products, ergo i don't have any advice there. There have been a few boards that I have played with that don't even allow you to lower PLL votlage from the stock setting, anyway.


My 2600K gets 1.65v PLL, but my 3960X...it needs only 1.45v PLL.  Sadly, my 3960X isn't a very good clocker, and I think it might have degraded a bit too. PLL more comes into play with BClk scaling, anyway, and beucase PCI and BClk are tied together, there's not a lto of wiggle room there.

I've heard many users happy with ASRock, but there are quite a few that aren't happy as well, so I really want to see for myself what's what with them.


----------



## mrw1986 (Feb 9, 2012)

So I've had several people on oc.net tell me my OC is fine for 24/7 use. However, I think I value your opinion more since you seem to have more experience...definitely trying 1.4v


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Feb 9, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> I've heard many users happy with ASRock, but there are quite a few that aren't happy as well, so I really want to see for myself what's what with them.



As would we all like you to see for yourself. Why can't you just get your hands on an Asrock board or three some other way? A trade or something, idk.


----------



## cadaveca (Feb 9, 2012)

mrw1986 said:


> So I've had several people on oc.net tell me my OC is fine for 24/7 use. However, I think I value your opinion more since you seem to have more experience...definitely trying 1.4v



Yeah, I have found that often OCN opinions differ. I go with the angle of 100% 24/7 stable OCs, with trying to make sure that stabilty, and not benchmark scores, are the first priority. I mean, I can run my 2600K @ 5.0 GHz easily...but I run 4.6 GHz or even stock, because I like to save a bit on the power bill. I think most users in OCN would run the 5 GHz speed 24/7.

Which is not to say their opinion is wrong, but it's clear that the end goals do differ, so the perspective differs. 



Wrigleyvillain said:


> As would we all like you to see for yourself. Why can''t you just get your hands on an Asrock board or three some other way? A trade or something, idk.



You know, I have considered this, but that would not be fair to the other companies that sponsor me with products. In order for a company to have a review posted, they MSUT supply the part that is being reviewed. I really want to play with AsRock, but I must stick within those guidelines, mainly becuase I like to have the ability to test extensively outside of the testing done for reviews, and I like to update review numbers at my leisure. I've already OK'ed with W1zz my reviewing AsRock products, but finding a rep that can get me parts seems like trying to get blood from a stone.


----------



## qubit (Feb 9, 2012)

Paulieg said:


> I won't put more than 1.38v through a SB chip 24/7. I know that Intel says 1.52v is max, but I've heard many accounts of degrading chips over 1.4v. So, I will clock the hell out of a chip, bench it up to 1.52v to see what it's capable at the top end, then down to 1.38v. Whatever I can get at 1.38v is my stable 24/7 clock. After more than a dozen chips, this has been the best course of action.



This will be handy to know for when I come to overclock my 2700K.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Feb 9, 2012)

mrw1986 said:


> So I've had several people on oc.net tell me my OC is fine for 24/7 use. However, I think I value your opinion more since you seem to have more experience...definitely trying 1.4v



Listen I get you wanna push limits but keep it in perspective....

1. Do you need such an OC? Are you running something so taxing it needs it?
2. Is it worth the risk? The problems?
3. If so buy the OC insurance.

Im still arguing with myself to OC or not. This 2600K eats everything.


----------



## PaulieG (Feb 9, 2012)

mrw1986 said:


> I have an ASRock and from what I've been reading offset is the way to go. Most people find a more stable overclock at a lower voltage that way. I'm not sure if I want to go lower on my PLL. From what I've seen they said going lower than 1.709 on my board isn't a good idea. They don't really explain why, though. Also, with Sandy I understand every chip has a Multi wall now.





mrw1986 said:


> So I've had several people on oc.net tell me my OC is fine for 24/7 use. However, I think I value your opinion more since you seem to have more experience...definitely trying 1.4v



I'm running an Asrock Z68 E4 Gen3. I tend to find more long term stability with fixed voltage, but better suicide runs (or as close as I get to one) with offset. The difference is minimal though. As far as opinions at OC.net, to each their own. Experience tells me that there is very low performace gain to potential cost going from 4.8 to 5.0 24/7. The chips do not scale well enough with voltage over 4.8 to justify 200mhz.


----------



## erocker (Feb 9, 2012)

Use as much voltage as you want. Ivy Bridge will be out in a month or so and you'll just buy one of those anyways.  Even if it starts to degrade... so what. It not like SB chips aren't capable if you have to run at a lower clock eventually. It's just computer hardware, I say abuse the sh*t out of it.


----------



## cadaveca (Feb 9, 2012)

erocker said:


> Use as much voltage as you want. Ivy Bridge will be out in a month or so and you'll just buy one of those anyways.  Even if it starts to degrade... so what. It not like SB chips aren't capable if you have to run at a lower clock eventually. It's just computer hardware, I say abuse the sh*t out of it.



You belong on OCN.


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 9, 2012)

1.4-1.45, with proper cooling, hasnt seen to shown any degradation at this point in time. It could take the usuable life to 10 years instead fo 15, but who the hell, that overclocks, keeps a chip that long?

Once you start getting over that, and especially to 1.5v+ that is when the degradation can occur. Under 1.4v is nothing. 



> You belong on OCN.


  They have a pair over there I guess...vs n00bfest here!


----------



## erocker (Feb 9, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> You belong on OCN.



You should stick to buying prebuilts.  Make sure it has a nice locked bios and run as stock as possible. 

There's two sides to this coin.


----------



## cadaveca (Feb 9, 2012)

EarthDog said:


> 1.4-1.45, with proper cooling, hasnt seen to shown any degradation at this point in time. It could take the usuable life to 10 years instead fo 15, but who the hell, that overclocks, keeps a chip that long?
> 
> Once you start getting over that, and especially to 1.5v+ that is when the degradation can occur. Under 1.4v is nothing.
> 
> They have a pair over there I guess...vs n00bfest here!



Different crowds have different needs and wants. You can call it a noobfest, that's fine. But if we count the number of watercooled rigs here vs there, I'm sure it paints a very different picture. Just because a user has different requirements from their PC doesn't make them a noob..unless you think knowing more and pushing more makes you smarter, and somehow superior.



erocker said:


> You should stick to buying prebuilts.  Make sure it has a nice locked bios and run as stock as possible.
> 
> There's two sides to this coin.



Sure. Some don't care about hardware longevity. But we've got an increasing number of users *here* that tend to keep their machines for long stretches, and don't upgrade on every release.

I don't need the top performance my rig can give me..when stock is fine. I find no need to OC and give performance boosts I have no use for.

Not every situation is going to suit every user. I choose the recommend what will work for everyone, and those that need more..will get it on their own.


----------



## PaulieG (Feb 9, 2012)

It's all a preference. I love to overclock, but I don't see the need to run 5.0+ all of the time. What's the benefit, other than e-penis? I look at longevity so that I can be honest when I sell. I can actuallly tell potential buyers that voltages were conservative except for benches.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Feb 9, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Im still arguing with myself to OC or not. This 2600K eats everything.



Yeah...it's hard to say don't do it but I hear you. If you were running MultiGPU on the other hand...


----------



## mrw1986 (Feb 9, 2012)

Now I'm not sure what to do, lol! I'm more confused now if I should stay at 1.45v or see what my stable OC at 1.4v is. I think I'd be happy with a 4.8ghz OC at 1.4v or lower.


----------



## Darkleoco (Feb 9, 2012)

Paulieg said:


> I won't put more than 1.38v through a SB chip 24/7. I know that Intel says 1.52v is max, but I've heard many accounts of degrading chips over 1.4v. So, I will clock the hell out of a chip, bench it up to 1.52v to see what it's capable at the top end, then down to 1.38v. Whatever I can get at 1.38v is my stable 24/7 clock. After more than a dozen chips, this has been the best course of action.



You saying that reminded me that my 2600K is still at 1.38v >.> been meaning to try and lower that for my current OC.


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 9, 2012)

mrw1986 said:


> Now I'm not sure what to do, lol! I'm more confused now if I should stay at 1.45v or see what my stable OC at 1.4v is. I think I'd be happy with a 4.8ghz OC at 1.4v or lower.


1.45 is the most I would go for 24/7. Its really up to you. But so long as temps are in check, I wouldnt worry about 1.45.




Paulieg said:


> It's all a preference. I love to overclock, but I don't see the need to run 5.0+ all of the time. What's the benefit, other than e-penis? I look at longevity so that I can be honest when I sell. I can actuallly tell potential buyers that voltages were conservative except for benches.


This.


----------



## LDNL (Feb 9, 2012)

I had a core i7 920 c0 running at 3.8 with 1.38 volts. Now at stock it needs 1.28 to get into windows and 1.3 to be prime/ibt stable. Stock voltage used to be around 1.2. It also was watercooled never going over 60c and I had the OC for about a year and a half.


----------



## mrw1986 (Feb 9, 2012)

Update: I went home on my lunch break and fiddled with my OC. I have it running 5ghz @ 1.4v now. Its been Prime95 Blending for over an hour and hasn't broken 55C.


----------



## cadaveca (Feb 9, 2012)

5GHz @ 1.4 is a damn good chip.


----------



## mrw1986 (Feb 9, 2012)

Damn, just logged in via TeamViewer and had an error  I set it to -.015 offset which gives me 1.38v. I'm trying 4.8ghz at that voltage. When I get home I'm confident I can do 5ghz @ 1.4v with some other voltage adjustments.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Feb 9, 2012)

mrw1986 said:


> I have an ASRock and from what I've been reading offset is the way to go. Most people find a more stable overclock at a lower voltage that way. I'm not sure if I want to go lower on my PLL. From what I've seen they said going lower than 1.709 on my board isn't a good idea. They don't really explain why, though. Also, with Sandy I understand every chip has a Multi wall now.



Haven't used that board, but I've run 1.65v on a few Asrocks with no problem. No harm in trying it out.


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 9, 2012)

We have a thread at my home site about offset vs. fixed voltage and there wasnt anything more than anecdotal evidence in regards to what is better. Some claim to be able to run lower voltages with offset, others claim better stability...the points listed though are talking points from BOTH sides of the discussion.

Personally, I have no clue why it would be any different with either.

+1 on 1.4v being great for 5Ghz...



> Haven't used that board, but I've run 1.65v on a few Asrocks with no problem. No harm in trying it out.


There is no way I would run this voltage on anything but extreme cooling. Some chips have instantly degraded or died at that voltage with ambient cooling. :shadedshu


----------



## mrw1986 (Feb 9, 2012)

Hmm. I'll try fixed voltage too then


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Feb 9, 2012)

EarthDog said:


> There is no way I would run this voltage on anything but extreme cooling. Some chips have instantly degraded or died at that voltage with ambient cooling. :shadedshu



PLL man.


----------



## cadaveca (Feb 9, 2012)

EarthDog said:


> Personally, I have no clue why it would be any different with either.



Like I said earlier, it depends on what the BIOS does for what works better.

For example, Gigabyte boards experience a fair bit of droop in manual mode, but offset includes it's own form of loadline, and lets voltage vary from idle/load states, where as in manual mode, what you set is what you get 24/7. For example, you set 1.35v manually, it stays at 1.35v, even when CPU goes to 800 MHz. Offset allows the voltage to drop to 0.80v when CPU speed drops

On ASUS boards, manual with a bit of loadline gives very consistent voltages, and offset can sometimes set a VID that gives far more voltage than you expect. For example, you may set an offset that leads to 1.4v on laod, but under certain conditions, the VID that is used is not the same as at "stock", and actually quite higher, and you can end up with 1.5v instead of 1.4v.

This is all tested by myself, rather than asking other people are getting, so I have faith that my conclusions are sound. I've seeded hardware to several people and they've received the same results, and also verified with other users of the same hardware.

BTW, EarthDog, did MSI ever tell you what the header by the VRM was for?


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 9, 2012)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> PLL man.


 my bad!

@ Cad - No. He didnt respond to that and I never pushed it.


----------



## mrw1986 (Feb 9, 2012)

I have noticed with fixed my voltage sticks even at idle. However, I need to adjust my C3/6 settings and other power settings. There's an OC guide for my mobo that explains which ones to use when using offset and fixed.


----------



## cadaveca (Feb 9, 2012)

Oh, and as another note, although Intel rates the maximum *VID* as 1.52v for 2000-series SB chips., that does not mean that the processor actually receives that voltage when that VID is requested.


----------



## mrw1986 (Feb 9, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> Oh, and as another note, although Intel rates the maximum *VID* as 1.52v for 2000-series SB chips., that does not mean that the processor actually receives that voltage when that VID is requested.



Yeah, that I understand.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Feb 9, 2012)

Yo Dave feel free to "seed" me anything, anytime.


----------



## qubit (Feb 9, 2012)

erocker said:


> Use as much voltage as you want. Ivy Bridge will be out in a month or so and you'll just buy one of those anyways.  Even if it starts to degrade... so what. It not like SB chips aren't capable if you have to run at a lower clock eventually. It's just computer hardware, I say abuse the sh*t out of it.



Think short term, I love it.  

I did that with these older processors and they're still working fine:

P4 2.8GHz Northwood with HT overclocked to 3.5GHz rock solid stable

Athlon X2 3800 2GHz overclocked to 2.6GHz rock solid stable

E8500 3.16GHz overclocked to 4.11GHz rock solid stable (not quite true towards the end before I got my Sandy Bridge upgrade. Works fine at stock though and I can't be bothered to overclock it now)

and they are all working fine to this day. In the end, chances are it'll get upgraded before it burns out and if it does die, it makes for the perfect excuse to get that upgrade...


----------



## Outback Bronze (Feb 9, 2012)

I know the sb cpus might b diffrent but my mate runs his i7 920 @ 4ghz with 1.6 volts. Its been over a year now and its still going strong. Although im still waiting to see what happens to his cpu. Only time will tell.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Feb 9, 2012)

4.8GHZ and 5GHZ wont see much of a difference.


----------



## LightningJR (Feb 9, 2012)

I have my 2500K @ 4.5Ghz 1.25V, if I feel the need for more I go to 4.8Ghz 1.35V. I can get 4.9Ghz 1.4V and 5.0Ghz 1.45V but for the extra 100 - 200Mhz I don't feel the extra voltage, temps or the "POSSIBILITY" of degradation is worth it. Even if some people may think it's ok to run it like that.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Feb 9, 2012)

LightningJR said:


> I have my 2500K @ 4.5Ghz 1.25V, if I feel the need for more I go to 4.8Ghz 1.35V. I can get 4.9Ghz 1.4V and 5.0Ghz 1.45V but for the extra 100 - 200Mhz I don't feel the extra voltage, temps or the "POSSIBILITY" of degradation is worth it. Even if some people may think it's ok to run it like that.



I have my 2600K at 4.3ghz 1.27V (1.24V 100% load)


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Feb 9, 2012)

qubit said:


> chances are it'll get upgraded before it burns out and if it does die, it makes for the perfect excuse to get that upgrade...



and if it does die, then thats minus £100-80 that could have went towards paying for IB if you managed to sell it.


----------



## mrw1986 (Feb 9, 2012)

Another update: Just TeamView'd into my home PC and it's been well over an hour now and it's still blending perfectly fine with 4.8ghz @ 1.38v  I'm definitely going to toy with it more and get it stable at 5ghz w/ 1.4v. Temps haven't gone over 51C yet on any core.

Edit: If I can't get it stable at 5ghz 1.4v then I'm just going to stick with my 4.8ghz OC. I feel like that is more than enough. I just like a nice rounded up number like 5ghz, that's all


----------



## cadaveca (Feb 9, 2012)

Now of course you know we expect ya to keep us updated on how the rig is over time, and whether you experience any issues...


----------



## mrw1986 (Feb 9, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> Now of course you know we expect ya to keep us updated on how the rig is over time, and whether you experience any issues...



Haha, you bet


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Feb 9, 2012)

Hey mrw1986 I don't wanna be called a noob so I just OC my 2600k to 6ghz @ 10.38v. Am I 1337 now?

All joking aside what are your clocks on your 570? I have the same one.....but nicer.


----------



## mrw1986 (Feb 9, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Hey mrw1986 I don't wanna be called a noob so I just OC my 2600k to 6ghz @ 10.38v. Am I 1337 now?
> 
> All joking aside what are your clocks on your 570? I have the same one.....but nicer.



You bet! I would run 11v though, it's more stable that way.

I run a pretty modest OC on my 570. 850@1100mv core and 3800 mem (haven't OC'd that yet).

Edit: I pushed 900 core, but I didn't see a huge difference from 850 so I clocked it back down for stability.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Feb 9, 2012)

mrw1986 said:


> You bet! I would run 11v though, it's more stable that way.
> 
> I run a pretty modest OC on my 570. 850@1100mv core and 3800 mem (haven't OC'd that yet).
> 
> Edit: I pushed 900 core, but I didn't see a huge difference from 850 so I clocked it back down for stability.



Stock volts? Also what program did you use and what gains did you have?


----------



## mrw1986 (Feb 9, 2012)

I'm using the latest beta of Asus GPU Tweak. I just upped my memory to 4000 and its testing fine in furmark.

I saw like a 3-5fps gain in BF3 @ 1080p all settings ultra...so roughly 10%


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Feb 9, 2012)

mrw1986 said:


> I'm using the latest beta of Asus GPU Tweak. I just upped my memory to 4000 and its testing fine in furmark.
> 
> I saw like a 3-5fps gain in BF3 @ 1080p all settings ultra...so roughly 10%



Bah I was hoping for like 10+fps with a good OC. Sucks 100mhz only brings like 5 frames.


----------



## mrw1986 (Feb 9, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Bah I was hoping for like 10+fps with a good OC. Sucks 100mhz only brings like 5 frames.



I agree, but sometimes those are the 5 you need to make it playable


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Feb 9, 2012)

mrw1986 said:


> You bet! I would run 11v though, it's more stable that way.



Yeah. Put it on 11!


----------



## Yo_Wattup (Feb 10, 2012)

So is there any comprehensive guide to overclocking 2500k/2600k? I overclocked mine a while ago and just left it but the volts are a little high, and I'm wondering if I could mess with the 'C3', 'C1E', 'Vdroop' and whatever else to make it more effiecient. Mine needs 1.408V to get 4.7ghz.  

And unlike some guys, every little 100mhz or whatever overclock is very appreciated to me, coz I do audio recording, and without going into it, that shit needs A LOT of cpu power to run the way I want it to. 

Any suggestions?


----------



## OneMoar (Feb 10, 2012)

1.5v LOLNO ....
 keep the voltage under 1.4 .... unless you enjoy melted hardware .....
-unless you can afford to replace a proc every other year ..


----------



## InnocentCriminal (Feb 10, 2012)

Yo_Wattup said:


> So is there any comprehensive guide to overclocking 2500k/2600k?



I referred to one in my post.


----------



## Yo_Wattup (Feb 11, 2012)

InnocentCriminal said:


> I referred to one in my post.



Thanks but that is not comprehensive at all. I'd call that brief.


----------



## InnocentCriminal (Feb 11, 2012)

Good luck finding another.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Feb 11, 2012)

Yo_Wattup said:


> Thanks but that is not comprehensive at all. I'd call that brief.



If youre savvy enough to make it work then that guide is fine. I used the same guide myself to get 4.9Ghz.


----------



## Yo_Wattup (Feb 11, 2012)

FreedomEclipse said:


> If youre savvy enough to make it work then that guide is fine. I used the same guide myself to get 4.9Ghz.



Yeah, my overlclock works, I just think I _might_ be missing something coz I need alot more volts than everyone else seems to. I'm just looking for a comprehensive guide to verify I'm doing/not doing something wrong.


----------



## mrw1986 (Feb 11, 2012)

Been running 4.8ghz @ 1.38v perfectly steady  decided to stick with offset voltage to take advantage of power saving features.


----------



## repsol23 (Feb 11, 2012)

mrw1986 said:


> Another update: Just TeamView'd into my home PC and it's been well over an hour now and it's still blending perfectly fine with 4.8ghz @ 1.38v  I'm definitely going to toy with it more and get it stable at 5ghz w/ 1.4v. Temps haven't gone over 51C yet on any core.
> 
> Edit: If I can't get it stable at 5ghz 1.4v then I'm just going to stick with my 4.8ghz OC. I feel like that is more than enough. I just like a nice rounded up number like 5ghz, that's all



I know the feeling about the 5ghz mark.  I gave up trying to get there when even 1.4v wouldnt get me there.  I can run 4.8 all day with 1.32v so I decided that would have to do.  Cant complain since my my setup has been really good to me.


----------

