Conroes degrading on higher vcores

[nealh]

what are people's experiences here

I have an e6600@1.525v 12hrs blend Prime stable at 3500(I stopped it)

there is ongoing discussion at XS forums with a few reports of conroes degrading with 1.5V+

Intel reports a max vccore of 1.55v..but no indication for how long this is safe

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=132728&page=2

so the issue is what are people experiencing as safe vcore and any degrading or failing cpus

it seems the conventional max increased vcore of 20% maybe too extreme and what I always thought was slam dunk safe of 15% maybe be excessive...

10% maybe the new max????

 

[sanitydc]

Originally posted by: nealh
what are people's experiences here

I have an e6600@1.525v 12hrs blend Prime stable at 3500(I stopped it)

there is ongoing discussion at XS forums with a few reports of conroes degrading with 1.5V+

Intel reports a max vccore of 1.55v..but no indication for how long this is safe

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=132728&page=2

so the issue is what are people experiencing as safe vcore and any degrading or failing cpus

it seems the conventional max increased vcore of 20% maybe too extreme and what I always thought was slam dunk safe of 15% maybe be excessive...

10% maybe the new max????

FUD.

I read every post there and nothing points in the direction you're trying to spin it.

 

[Zap]

I do think this is a valid concern. Anyone remember SNDS? Sudden Northwood Death Syndrome? Northwoods were the first common desktop 130nm chips. People were running huge overclocks on them using voltages they were accustomed to on 180nm chips. After a few months of glory, CPUs started dying.

My rule of thumb is that 10% overvolt is safe, because often the CPU manufacturer rates chips at X.XX volts +/- 10%. Well, if Intel reports 1.55v as max, then I would be okay in running at that, maybe. Otherwise, I'd just go with the 10%.

 

[lookin4dlz]

Huh, been running my Northwood oc'd for years - I just try to keep it below 1.7v

 

[StopSign]

I still don't get why E6600s need such a huge voltage to overclock whereas the E6300s can get to 3.2 while undervolted.

 

[Roguestar]

I've never ran mine over 1.4v, personally. I second what stopsign says. It is intriguing.

 

[A554SS1N]

Maybe it's the extra cache that means the CPU die needs extra voltage to reach the same clocks?

 

[thilanliyan]

I had to up the voltage to 1.38125v from 1.375v recently on my 6400 to get Orthos stable. This overclock to 3.4GHz has run continuously since September of last year with only a couple of days of off time. It has never crashed on me in normal usage but it wasn't Orthos stable lately.

I personally think they will degrade with even a little bit of added voltage, considering it is on a smaller process and so it would be sensitive to added voltage.

 

[child of wonder]

I try not to up the voltage when overclocking. So far I've been able to do the following:

AMD Athlon XP 2500+ @ 2.2GHz stock voltage
AMD Athlon 64 3500+ @ 2.4GHz stock voltage
AMD Opteron 170 @ 2.4GHz stock voltage
Conroe e6600 @ 3.0GHz 1.4V

Basically I'm able to turn a couple hundred dollar CPU into the equivalent of the best available ($1000 CPU). I'm happy with that and content knowing that I'm not risking the CPU very much.

 

[nealh]

Originally posted by: sanitydc

Originally posted by: nealh
what are people's experiences here

I have an e6600@1.525v 12hrs blend Prime stable at 3500(I stopped it)

there is ongoing discussion at XS forums with a few reports of conroes degrading with 1.5V+

Intel reports a max vccore of 1.55v..but no indication for how long this is safe

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=132728&page=2

so the issue is what are people experiencing as safe vcore and any degrading or failing cpus

it seems the conventional max increased vcore of 20% maybe too extreme and what I always thought was slam dunk safe of 15% maybe be excessive...

10% maybe the new max????

FUD.

I read every post there and nothing points in the direction you're trying to spin it.

Personally I hope I am wrong...but there are scattered reports that are very nondescript but ?? suggestive of an issue....

1.525v is within "safe" but maybe too close and this maybe an issue..or any extra voltage maybe....
I realize even though 1.325v is stock..many mobos undervolt/overvolt so Intel has to take this into account so some extra vcore is probably not an issue or many system would become unstable

Any food for thought..I could be very wrong

 

[Shimmishim]

I think we need to wait a bit. It appears the incidences have been pretty isolated so far.

I have a 6700 that i've been running between 1.48 to 1.56 volts and the o/c has not degraded. I currently run 3.7 @ 1.48 and have no degradation in my o/c and I've had this chip since about September.... but who knwos... maybe this chip will degrade in a few more months... hopefully not.

 

[nealh]

Originally posted by: Shimmishim
I think we need to wait a bit. It appears the incidences have been pretty isolated so far.

I have a 6700 that i've been running between 1.48 to 1.56 volts and the o/c has not degraded. I currently run 3.7 @ 1.48 and have no degradation in my o/c and I've had this chip since about September.... but who knwos... maybe this chip will degrade in a few more months... hopefully not.

1.48v...seems much safer as it is close to 10%...long term 1.56v would be more interesting, if there is no degradation

 

[Rio Rebel]

Originally posted by: child of wonder
I try not to up the voltage when overclocking. So far I've been able to do the following:

AMD Athlon XP 2500+ @ 2.2GHz stock voltage
AMD Athlon 64 3500+ @ 2.4GHz stock voltage
AMD Opteron 170 @ 2.4GHz stock voltage
Conroe e6600 @ 3.0GHz 1.4V

Basically I'm able to turn a couple hundred dollar CPU into the equivalent of the best available ($1000 CPU). I'm happy with that and content knowing that I'm not risking the CPU very much.

I follow the exact same approach, with similar results. To me, any overclock I can achieve without increasing voltage or significantly increasing temps is "free". If I have to increase voltage, there's a risk I don't feel like taking (I know the advantages, this is simply my own philosophy.)

My E6300 is happily chugging at 3.0ghz with stock voltage. I see no reason to up voltage just to try for a couple hundred mhz higher, and the only way I'd notice is in benchmarks.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Shimmishim
I think we need to wait a bit. It appears the incidences have been pretty isolated so far.

I have a 6700 that i've been running between 1.48 to 1.56 volts and the o/c has not degraded. I currently run 3.7 @ 1.48 and have no degradation in my o/c and I've had this chip since about September.... but who knwos... maybe this chip will degrade in a few more months... hopefully not.

I agree...

plus what we and sometiumes others are not taking into question and why nothing is really good empirical data yet is...It could be degradation of the mobo and its chipsets. many of us running at high fsb needs to bump mobo voltages...

It could be added heats, stressed power supply and power modulation of the board...

Too many factors. Many likely were nt stable to begin with or have changed something that may have made an issue arise....

I too only do 10% max rule....I liek to find max OC at 10% and then still may bring it down to a more compfortable 24/7 running. I mean what is te poit often times with that last .025-.05v...It may only be 50-70mhz and what big diff is that going to make....

All of my chips will do 3.2ghz at 1.4125v set for 1.33 (quad) to 1.37v actual....That is the seet spots...to get 3.3ghz prime stable most of them need 1.4-1.44v actual...

 

[Shimmishim]

I agree with what you say...

that's why i backed down from 3.8 to 3.7. the voltage difference is .08 volts to gain that last 100 mhz but it's nice to say you're running something at 3.8 ghz

 

[lopri]

I support the OP's concern regarding the SCDS (Sudden Conroe Death Syndrome).

My first E6600 last September

It was one of the first E6600s available, and did 3.60GHz @1.60V. And it was stable for a few days then I could never get it stable at 3.60GHz again. Improved cooling (I literally turned the air all the way up in my condo so it was like an igloo), relaxed memory configuration, etc. didn't help stablizing the chip @3.60GHz. At that time I blamed my motherboard (We rarely accuse CPUs of instability, and for good reasons), but the sysmptom I experienced was very unique in that I never experienced anything like that before or after. Sometimes it passed torture test but next minute it failed, well, in minutes. And since then it just went downhill.

Eventually I ended up replacing both the CPU and the motherboard, but it remains one of the most bitter overclocking experiences in my memory. I still don't know what exactly was going on, but I think the situation is worth paying attention to. If nothing at all, it's infinitely better to be careful than to be sorry.

 

[lopri]

Originally posted by: StopSign
I still don't get why E6600s need such a huge voltage to overclock whereas the E6300s can get to 3.2 while undervolted.

Many Conroe/Allendales will do ~3.20GHz @default vCore. It's past 3.20GHz where you start having to up'ing voltages.

 

[cbuchach]

I am interested in this too and have been hesitant to push my E6600 too far. I have it at 1.5V at 3550 with no problems so far though have been worried about pushing it too much further. My temps are good, but remembering from the Sudden Northwood Death Syndrome it wasn't temps but long term increased voltage that was the problem.

 

[Markfw]

Well, my systems are all OC'ed (except my Opteron 248's) and all of them are down a little from the first OC that was stable. 2.55 down to 2.45, 3.5 down to 3.4 and the like.

HOWEVER, my latest experience today , was my oldest C2D that started at 3.5, was at 3.43 for months 24/7, and all of a sudden, I couldn;t get over 3.15, and the video card was running 90c under full load (F@H GPU client). I blew all the dust out, after messing with setting for days, now I am back to 3.4, and the GPU is at 70c.

Dust really does have a big effect over time, and this isn;t the longest running system I have without shutting down, and I have seen way more dust in some systems, that weren;t even having a problem, but the more OC, the more they seem to be affected by small changes (like dust buildup)

 

[nealh]

I understand the risk of overclocking...I was very surprised to see a report of this "maybe" at XS

I agree with Duvie..regarding mobo voltages and issue of stability. Many at XS will use super pi and very short term orthos/prime..so I have my questions as to whether this is a real issue or not

I have an ICFX3200-T2R/G ie RD600 mobo...I have NB vcore at 1.42v and SB at 1.34..couple of others bumped but nothing extreme....I asked Tony and Rgone about "safe values" figuring DFI would tell them what was reasonable..Rgone is using similar settings to mine ..close to Tony's recommendation(though I am slightly lower)..they were unsure of what was truly safe but felt mine were ok

I am going to try lower more of the mobo voltages...and I want to see if I can lower ram vdimm as well...10th anniversary crucial @2.2v DDR800 4-4-4-18-1T

I just finished 24 hrs of blend Prime95v251 without a failure at 3420 w/1.4625 volts(1.45v failed) in bios(I cant eaily get DMM to my vcore to check it and I never believe SG except to show a relative value)

I can run 12hrs blen at 3500 w/ 1.525v ..I stopped the execution..no failure, I am sure it would have gone longer

I always thought 1.55v was max safe..but I am not sure about this now

I am looking to remain stable and be reasonable....overclocking is fine killing stuff becasue I want too much is pure stupidty IMHO...so if 1.525v is too close..no 3500..I stick with 3420

I have to safe I am very happy with how smooth prime95 ran..I was surprised..I usually used Large fft for 12-15hrs..

FYI:
my cpu is idling 38-40C max load 55C(general load temps were low 50s..50-53)
NB idle 44-45 load max was 51

I am watercooling both my gpu and cpu....

 

[saidmhusni]

still on ds3 and 6300@3.1Ghz.. stick on vcore 1.325v dunno want more..

enough fast for me.., waiting for heavy s/w to do more oc..

 

[Brunnis]

Originally posted by: StopSign
I still don't get why E6600s need such a huge voltage to overclock whereas the E6300s can get to 3.2 while undervolted.

My E6600 does 3GHz on 1.18V reported and 3.2GHz on approximately 1.25V reported, so not all of them are bad.

I personally thought it was best to stop at 3GHz, since it's a very safe overclock (due to being undervolted) and also quite cool running. Heat starts to rise very quickly when going further. Current temps are 46C under Orthos load with a 1200RPM fan and that seems pretty good to me.

 

[Diogenes2]

Originally posted by: Brunnis

Originally posted by: StopSign
I still don't get why E6600s need such a huge voltage to overclock whereas the E6300s can get to 3.2 while undervolted.

My E6600 does 3GHz on 1.18V reported and 3.2GHz on approximately 1.25V reported, so not all of them are bad.

Reported by what ? What are you setting the voltage to in the BIOS ?

When I bump my volts to 1.45, CPUZ reports it as 1.21 ...

 

[Brunnis]

Originally posted by: Diogenes2

Originally posted by: Brunnis

Originally posted by: StopSign
I still don't get why E6600s need such a huge voltage to overclock whereas the E6300s can get to 3.2 while undervolted.

My E6600 does 3GHz on 1.18V reported and 3.2GHz on approximately 1.25V reported, so not all of them are bad.

Reported by what ? What are you setting the voltage to in the BIOS ?

When I bump my volts to 1.45, CPUZ reports it as 1.21 ...

Reported by motherboard sensors. I have used this CPU in two motherboards, a Gigabyte DS3 and an Asus P5B. Both boards ran the CPU stable at the same reported voltage, but the P5B needs much higher voltage set in BIOS because of a serious vdroop issue. This is the reason that I trust the reported voltage more than what I've set in BIOS. It's not very likely that the CPU would need almost 0.1V higher voltage in the P5B compared to the DS3 if it wasn't for the fact that the P5B didn't deliver what it should.

Under load, the P5B delivers about 0.1V less than what's been set in BIOS. The DS3 delivers approximately 0.03V less compared to what's been set in BIOS.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Brunnis

Originally posted by: Diogenes2

Originally posted by: Brunnis

Originally posted by: StopSign
I still don't get why E6600s need such a huge voltage to overclock whereas the E6300s can get to 3.2 while undervolted.

My E6600 does 3GHz on 1.18V reported and 3.2GHz on approximately 1.25V reported, so not all of them are bad.

Reported by what ? What are you setting the voltage to in the BIOS ?

When I bump my volts to 1.45, CPUZ reports it as 1.21 ...

Reported by motherboard sensors. I have used this CPU in two motherboards, a Gigabyte DS3 and an Asus P5B. Both boards ran the CPU stable at the same reported voltage, but the P5B needs much higher voltage set in BIOS because of a serious vdroop issue. This is the reason that I trust the reported voltage more than what I've set in BIOS. It's not very likely that the CPU would need almost 0.1V higher voltage in the P5B compared to the DS3 if it wasn't for the fact that the P5B didn't deliver what it should.

Under load, the P5B delivers about 0.1V less than what's been set in BIOS. The DS3 delivers approximately 0.03V less compared to what's been set in BIOS.

I see about same thing...only difference is once I put a Quad in the DS3 it started having a .09v droop under load...that is what I am getting out of the Asus p5b deluxe with the quad....