Well, Budman, the 'burn-in' descripted in that guide is different from this method. The method you posted allows higher voltages to be ran in the processor on stock speed (for example, 1.8 GHz not at 1.3V but at 1.5V). The method BarboBot uses allows only lower voltages (for example, 1.8 GHz not at 1.3V but at >1.1V).
i'm not a big fan of cool n quiet seeing as to how i couldn't lower the voltages any lower then 1.375 with it on and i've heard its not good for overclocking in its present state
rise
Diamond Member
- Dec 13, 2004
- 9,116
- 46
- 91
well, cool n quiet with rmclock is a better solution than the regular method. at least from what i've seen. my idles cool to 1.1v. anyway, thats not what this is about. i'm interested to see the reults and i'll try getting back to mine next week probably
and thanks for the linkage vegitto, i was tired.
and thanks for the linkage vegitto, i was tired.
Me too.
And you all can say that it doesn't work, but if you have seen Sentential's results using this method, you'll know better
.omg all you have to do is read the threads that i've posted i'm not saying it 100% does work, but i find it highly unprobable that that many people can be equally decieved by that method (most of which are far more or as knowledgeable as the 70% of the people in this forum)
ohhh and here is some even better proof for ya (yeah you got it screenies!)
http://pics.apartment808.com/users/Barbobot/Snap1.gif - 1.2v CPU-Z, 1.36 Asus Probe with temp read out there for ya. and by the way that article you guys are priding yourselves with as the be all end all to cpu burn in being a myth is talking about running your cpu at higher than stock voltages which isn't what cpu burn in is about at all and further more i've never heard of anyone doing that and basically it seem pretty moronic in nature for someone to do that anyway seeing as to how it will fry your cpu and definitely take away from the life and the efficiency of your cpu and components. but anyways here ya go
http://pics.apartment808.com/users/Barbobot/Snap1.gif - 1.2v CPU-Z, 1.36 Asus Probe with temp read out there for ya. and by the way that article you guys are priding yourselves with as the be all end all to cpu burn in being a myth is talking about running your cpu at higher than stock voltages which isn't what cpu burn in is about at all and further more i've never heard of anyone doing that and basically it seem pretty moronic in nature for someone to do that anyway seeing as to how it will fry your cpu and definitely take away from the life and the efficiency of your cpu and components. but anyways here ya go
here is another pic for ya
http://pics.apartment808.com/users/Barbobot/Snap2.gif - initial load temp 35c
http://pics.apartment808.com/users/Barbobot/Snap2.gif - initial load temp 35c
here we idle temps at 1.10v! http://pics.apartment808.com/users/Barbobot/Snap3.gif . booted up totally stable once again i think i'm gonna run prime95 and cpu burn in at the same time for added stress (prime95's torture test doesn't really torture too much imo)
What's wrong with a lower vcore? I would think that it would be a good thing, since going over the stock vcore takes years off your CPU's lifespan. And if he can get a stable boot, why not.
Btw, Barbobot...that 3200+ Venice has a lot of OC potential. Put it back up to stock vcore, and you should be able to get to 2.4ghz easily.
Btw, Barbobot...that 3200+ Venice has a lot of OC potential. Put it back up to stock vcore, and you should be able to get to 2.4ghz easily.
fool. why don't you just drop it all the way down at once to see if it worked. then we would know if there was a difference or not.
cause this method is allowing me to go lower more stabily and i'm aiming for stability so i'm trying to get the most results from a stock voltage or less this process is aimed at letting me get a stable burn in at less than 1v from the results i'm getting thus far. but what you're trying to critize me about is the general method for burning in a cpu (i'm choosing not to do that and this is a test for my approach to the burn in which is slightly different so thats why i'm not going straight to the lowest voltage possible and honestly i don't think it would be as low of a voltage as what i will get with this method but we'll see this is a test)
How about you aim for >1V, and then overclock until you're back stable at stock voltage (or slightly under it)?
Sorry for not posting sooner the test is over and the results are in (I hit rock bottom for the test at 1.10v no matter what i set it at the cpu wouldn't run on anything less than 1.10v, it would be set in bios to .05v it would be running at 1.10v so with that said here they are).
Stability - There was a noticable increase in stability once the cpu was set back to stock voltage (1.4v). mainly in the smoothness of running applications and running multiple applications (which is partly why i got a 64bit proc on this gaming build TS running with game running and possibly windows media player)
Temp changes - here is were the noticable change was the cpu was idling at 37c-39c under load now its running at a solid 33c under load it was idling around 35c now its idling at 30c or lower. Case temp had also dropped with the falling cpu temps which was expected.
Conclusion - I'm gonna have to say that with the results shown here there was a drop
in temps and running stability that are too defined to pass up or write off. In this case with this method i'm gonna have to say this experiment was a total sucess. I'll will be going through and pulling out the data to make a definitive guide for this burn in method. I would like to thank everyone who gave input (good and bad
) it offered me motivation to go through with this. I will be starting another thread once i get my setting right for an over clock and possibly a memory burn in experiment along these lines to see what results i can get :beer:Was there any change in the stock temps/stability before and after the voltage lowering session? Or was the difference only between 1.1v and 1.4v?
I'm not going to argue with temp changes, but I question how "stability" can be better - how the system can be "smoother" after burn-in - at the same speed as before. I'm convinced that there's something else at work there, and unless you can prove it with benchmarks, I'm also convinced that it's mostly or entirely psychological. The temperature change, whatever the cause, does however look convincing.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter