• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

2600K @ 5GHZ, How common is it really???

T-man

T-man

Diamond Member
I've hung onto my e8600 @ 4.5 Ghz. for years, and was toying w/ the idea of grabbing a 2600K setup,
but I would only do so if it can go 5GHz + on air.
I've read maybe only 2-3 out of 100 chips will do this.
How common is 5Ghz. really?
Anybody running 5Ghz?

Anyone got a 2600K/mobo combo one they want to sell?🙂 if so PM me

Should just wait for Socket 2011?
 
You will see huge diff, I say go for it pull the trigger buy the 2600k because non k version are multilocked, cant OC.. and they no HT.
 
Last edited:
5GHZ daily stable is not that common at any acceptable voltage (around 1.4v).

If you get one, it's probably going to have a 54/55/56 max multi, and will be a pretty damn good chip.
 
e8600 @ 4.5 Ghz. Man stick with that until 2012 at least I dont think you will see a HUGE difference. Wait for Ivybridge.
 
A 2600 stock will probably outperform a 4.5ghz e8600 even in single threaded tasks. Getting a 2600k to 4.6ghz+ would be pretty significant if your apps are demanding enough to need it. Not that you were interested in a 2600, but they can OC 4 bins if you have P67/Z68.

Only wait for socket 2011 if you want hexcore for apps use so many cores.
 
Ya a stock 2600k will def perform better than ur e8600... Even if u get a 2600k and it doesnt do 5ghz... U can bet itl do a minimum 4.5ghz... And at that point kill ur e8600 performance
 
I'd pull the trigger if you use your pc for gaming. I went from a E8400 at 4Ghz to a 920 at 4ghz and noticed a massive difference in some games. If you don't game or only play COD style console port shooters on rails then stick with the 8500.
Also I know 5Ghz is the 'magic' number but I'm pretty sure you'll get over 90% (more like 99%) of the performance at 4.6-4.8ghz
 
The lack of information on 2500k/2600k overclocking disturbs me. You can find countless people talking about 4.3-4.6GHz overclocks "at stock" or "just above stock," but there aren't many people talking about their overclocks with a decent voltage boost.
 
Nobody knows what the 'safe' voltage is for a Sandy Bridge chip yet - hence many people are pushing them hard, however many people are holding there OC's back.
 
T-man said:
I've hung onto my e8600 @ 4.5 Ghz. for years, and was toying w/ the idea of grabbing a 2600K setup,
but I would only do so if it can go 5GHz + on air.
I've read maybe only 2-3 out of 100 chips will do this.
How common is 5Ghz. really?
Anybody running 5Ghz?

Anyone got a 2600K/mobo combo one they want to sell?🙂 if so PM me

Should just wait for Socket 2011?
Click to expand...
Hertz is not the only thing about CPU. I beat 2600K can beat your OCed e8600 on most games and apps. No apps or games need 5 Ghz to run.

I hit 5.3Ghz with 1.41V by accident, followed by auto shutdown due to overheat.
 
5.0ghz with 1.47v 2500k ... was starting to run pretty hot so I scaled back. 7.4s in Super PI 1M. Its always fun to know the capabilities of the processor though.
 
pantsaregood said:
The lack of information on 2500k/2600k overclocking disturbs me. You can find countless people talking about 4.3-4.6GHz overclocks "at stock" or "just above stock," but there aren't many people talking about their overclocks with a decent voltage boost.
Click to expand...


You can call a 4.4GHz 2500K @ 1.25V at "stock voltage" because thats what the chip requests at 3.4GHz turbo, but you almost definitely have to use fixed volts or offsets which is clearly not the factory default mode.

I think the confusion arises because some people OCed their SBs at auto voltages and assume that their OCed chips use the same voltage at load as a non-OCed one.
 
StrangerGuy said:
You can call a 4.4GHz 2500K @ 1.25V at "stock voltage" because thats what the chip requests at 3.4GHz turbo, but you almost definitely have to use fixed volts or offsets which is clearly not the factory default mode.

I think the confusion arises because some people OCed their SBs at auto voltages and assume that their OCed chips use the same voltage at load as a non-OCed one.
Click to expand...

I would also like to add its still very early in SB's life.

From what i've seen on avg 4.4 to 4.8 are more common overclocks. I honestly would wait a few more months for more 5Ghz reports, because there are people pushing their chips hard now and you won't know if those chips will live or die because its just too soon to tell.
 
5Ghz stable is indeed possible, but most people trying to do it on air are bumping the thermal ceiling so it's much more feasible on water. I'd say most 2600k's would be good for 5Ghz, but i wouldn't run a 2600K @ 5Ghz 24/7 if you want to keep it for a while.

I own a 2600K capable of 5.5Ghz and 5.4Ghz benchmark stable and i've run all the benchmarks from Super Pi to 3DMark 11 and it yields great results. But i just leave the CPU @ stock 24/7 now.
 
Last edited:
azemsiB said:
I recall reading a post where Intel specified not to go past 1.35V.
Click to expand...

You sure it was Intel? Not trying to be wise, just wondering for truth. I'm running mine at 1.275 for a 4.5 OC. I'm content to leave it there, but it'd be nice to know that I'm comfortably under the ceiling.
 
s1njin said:
You sure it was Intel? Not trying to be wise, just wondering for truth. I'm running mine at 1.275 for a 4.5 OC. I'm content to leave it there, but it'd be nice to know that I'm comfortably under the ceiling.
Click to expand...

It wasn't Intel. I remember it being some shop in the UK who stated that, which went rampaging through the internet.

Either way i still wouldn't run my 2600K at over 1.35v 24/7, but with that being said running at 4.5Ghz with 1.26v to 1.32v (a common range) is still heaps of performance while still keeping the vcore low.
 
SLK said:
5.0ghz with 1.47v 2500k ... was starting to run pretty hot so I scaled back. 7.4s in Super PI 1M. Its always fun to know the capabilities of the processor though.
Click to expand...

Thats about the volts I was pulling @5ghz on my 2500k, the temps were no more then 80c at max load for over an hour which is fine by my own standards but thats just too much voltage to run daily all year then I'm comfortable with. I would run this at 4.8 if I wanted a max OC daily but I'm using this thing as a server so 4.5ghz is fine for me.
 
With the right mobo you will be unlucky to get a 2500k/2600k that wont hit 5ghz, the issue is NOBODY knows what is a "safe" 24/7 voltage. Hell a lot of people disagree at to what "safe" even means. I would class it as being very unlucky to fry your cpu where as some people would say "safe" means there is no added risk from stock.

Intel have recomended no higher than 1.52 and i have read the official SB document that states they take up to 1.7something. Anyone who wants to try and run at these sort of numbers without extreme cooling solutions is just asking for a puff of smoke though. The generally accepted number seems to be no higher than 1.35 and see what speeds you can get stable. I havent seen a single thread about a destroyed chip at these voltages yet but that isnt to say it is safe.
 
I would be very interesting in seem post from people running their chips at 1.5v and at 5ghz in a year after its launch date so see how they are holding up.
 
Puppies04 said:
...the issue is NOBODY knows what is a "safe" 24/7 voltage.
Click to expand...

Intel knows. The max VID for the SKU is not specified willy-nilly.

There is a physics-based reason, bounded by an economic one (minimizing infield fails that are covered by warranty), which is data-driven and empirically derived for the product.

The only voodoo involved is that there is a whole heap of people out there who know jack squat about device physics and lifetime reliability analysis, and the void of ignorance gets filled in with a whole lot of guessing compounded by arrogance.

The middle-ground comes in when people want to knowingly reduce their CPU's lifetime but only to the extent that the odds of it dieing within 2yrs is increased only a little tiny bit. People will say "I don't care if my CPU lasts 10yrs, I only need it to last me 2yrs...so how much more cowbell Vcc boost can I give it?".

That's when it helps to have some education and experience (industry experience, not enthusiast zuber-overclocker garage experience)
 
So, the published max VID of 1.52 should be no problem ?

Puppies04 said:
...The generally accepted number seems to be no higher than 1.35 and see what speeds you can get stable. I havent seen a single thread about a destroyed chip at these voltages yet but that isnt to say it is safe.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen a single thread about a chip that was destroyed by 1.5v either..
 
Last edited:
Diogenes2 said:
So, the published max VID of 1.52 should be no problem ?
Click to expand...
For the last time: Max VID is not the max safe Vcore!

VID is the number that the CPU reports to the motherboard based on the current operating frequency (and other factors). The 1.52V value is just the highest number that the CPU can report. VID has nothing to do with what the actual safe Vcore is. Intel has not published the max safe Vcore. They probably never will.

I haven't seen a single thread about a chip that was destroyed by 1.5v either..
Click to expand...
Not destroyed, but there have been several people who have degraded their chips already by running them at higher voltages. Granted they were generally running above 1.5V, but every chip is different. There may be some that will not show any signs of degradation above 1.5V, and there may be others that degrade at much lower voltages. It's up to you if you want to risk your chip.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top