Core 3 error detected

[stahlhart]

Counting from 1, cores 2 & 3 run up to 10c hotter than 1 & 4 on my 2600K ...

Third core is the hottest on mine, fourth is the coolest, first and second are in between (about 6C spread on the temps overall at idle).

 

[Borealis7]

it's morning and i'm not quite focused right now, but hasn't anyone told the OP to check his cooler? maybe he just needs a reseating because one corner of the cooler isn't tight enough...

 

[Ben90]

I understand people can sometimes feel far too entitled to things these days, but paying extra for a product that advertises the ability to overclock (we're talking about the CPU, NOT the motherboard) and then fails to do so (of course, technically it IS unlocked) is not a false sense of entitlement. The manufacturer has IMPLIED you will be able to do something (up until the point where they'd actually be legally obligated to provide that level of performance) in the hopes you'll pretend their implication is as good as a guarantee. I agree with you that people shouldn't actually expect the implied levels of performance -- but I believe it is dishonest marketing.

The don't forget the HD3000. Overclocking has never been directly endorsed. Not even by AMD's TWKR CPUs. There are just too many variables out of the manufactures hands.

What speed do you personally feel Intel should guarantee all K chips to overclock? Also who is going to support the customer when they fail miserably at using correct BIOS settings or fry their processor with 1.7v? These are actual questions. What speed should the 2500k be officially guaranteed to run on any setup?

 

[Seero]

Shin-Etsu is the TIM I'm using. I started out using a "pea" sized dollop in the center of the cpu & when I saw the inconsistent temps I reapplied & tried again, but the temps were still inconsistent. I then applied using the "X" instead of the pea, but that didn't help either.
For my overclock, the vcore was set @ 1.28v & the multiplier was at 45. Highest temp was core 3 with 77c, lowest was core 1 with 71c. I ran 100 passes with IBT successfully.
This morning I raised the vcore to 1.285 & the multiplier to 46 & attempted to run OCCT when I got the error message.
If it's normal for one core to be 6c warmer than the coolest core, then fine...I'll deal with it. But if it's not normal for a chip to have a core running 6c than the coolest core, even at stock settings, then I want to do something about it.
Throw overclocking out the window for a moment. If I installed this new, left everything stock & checked the temps & one core was 6c hotter than the coolest core, would that be "normal"?

It is normal because the surface of the HS and the surface of the IHS is not perfectly even. That means, it is actually not normal to have same temp over all cores. Even if the surface is perfectly flat, having one core hotter than the rest is still common, the only question is, by how much. If it isn't over 10c, then it is fine. Check out the lapping thread for more information about this.

45@1.28 volt shows that your CPU is shows that your CPU is fine, at maximum temp of 77 with IBT indicating you have headroom for further OC. Don't go over 1.5volt and temp no higher than 90c with IBT.

 

[Rvenger]

Shin-Etsu is the TIM I'm using. I started out using a "pea" sized dollop in the center of the cpu & when I saw the inconsistent temps I reapplied & tried again, but the temps were still inconsistent. I then applied using the "X" instead of the pea, but that didn't help either.
For my overclock, the vcore was set @ 1.28v & the multiplier was at 45. Highest temp was core 3 with 77c, lowest was core 1 with 71c. I ran 100 passes with IBT successfully.
This morning I raised the vcore to 1.285 & the multiplier to 46 & attempted to run OCCT when I got the error message.
If it's normal for one core to be 6c warmer than the coolest core, then fine...I'll deal with it. But if it's not normal for a chip to have a core running 6c than the coolest core, even at stock settings, then I want to do something about it.
Throw overclocking out the window for a moment. If I installed this new, left everything stock & checked the temps & one core was 6c hotter than the coolest core, would that be "normal"?

That is better than my chip! I only get 4.2ghz at 1.28v

 

[podspi]

The don't forget the HD3000. Overclocking has never been directly endorsed. Not even by AMD's TWKR CPUs. There are just too many variables out of the manufactures hands.

What speed do you personally feel Intel should guarantee all K chips to overclock? Also who is going to support the customer when they fail miserably at using correct BIOS settings or fry their processor with 1.7v? These are actual questions. What speed should the 2500k be officially guaranteed to run on any setup?

I think a 2500K should be officially guaranteed to operate at the same speed (I presume) you do, stock.

My problem is with marketing material such as this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GR5_X1CfUA

Which I believe implies the 'K' products can and will overclock (as opposed to just having an unlocked multiplier, as well as the HD3000 as you noted). My original issue was NOT with Intel, it was that people were complaining about OP's sense of entitlement, which I personally believe is not unfounded for people who are new to overclocking, and have seen some of the marketing material from Intel. (OP: I realize this doesn't actually even apply to you and was a misunderstanding).

For people who spend their extra (or not so extra ) time on forums, we understand that unlocked multiplier = overclocking = running CPU out of specs. For people who don't, all they see is that Intel has "Unlocked The Power of Overclocking" which "Gets extra performance". To the layperson, this implies more performance (from the overclocking, whatever that is!).


IMHO, it isn't unreasonable for people to be disappointed when their 'K' CPU doesn't overclock well if they aren't familiar with what it is. That's theo nly point I was trying to make. I don't think Intel should have an anything goes warranty, that would just be silly.

 

[Tullphan]

I decided not to push it over 1.29v just to get 100 extra mhz...not really worth the higher temps, etc.
Currently i'm testing it at 4.5ghz w/1.26v.
I guess that one core running a little hotter @ stock even after reseating & reapplying kinda got under my skin.

 

[Seero]

I decided not to push it over 1.29v just to get 100 extra mhz...not really worth the higher temps, etc.
Currently i'm testing it at 4.5ghz w/1.26v.
I guess that one core running a little hotter @ stock even after reseating & reapplying kinda got under my skin.

Check out the thread about lapping the IHS if that gets in your nerves. It's effect however is irreversible. You lap once, you are hooked.

BTW, in between multiplier and voltage, it isn't perfectly proportional, that is known as holes. It may take 1.29 to get 46x stable, but then 47x may not need more voltage. Some odd times, 46x isn't stable at 1.285, but 47x is. Note that sometimes slightly OV ensures stability in a long run. Many overclockers reduce multiplier from its max just to make sure it will remind stable after parts degrade.

That is, leave some room for tolerance on voltage. It will come in handy.

 

[Tullphan]

I can't even remember what the stock core voltage was.

 

[Rvenger]

Two of my cores run hotter. I actually think you have a decent CPU. Wanna trade?

 

[Minerva]

Two of my cores run hotter. I actually think you have a decent CPU. Wanna trade?

Idle temps don't count. However that split at idle is very good. Load it up with LinX/Wprime/etc. and tell us what it is!

 

[Rvenger]

Idle temps don't count. However that split at idle is very good. Load it up with LinX/Wprime/etc. and tell us what it is!

Fan was spinning below 1200 rpm the whole time. (CM212 +) Exact opposite of Tullphan.

 

[Tullphan]

 

[Ben90]

Fair enough podspi, I must have misunderstood your position. The 4890 I purchased was heavily advertised to be a stellar overclocker, but it crashes when just a few Mhz out of spec. If I was the type to really care about video performance, I could see how I might have been disappointed despite knowing YMMV.

The same could be true for a 2500k that can't get past 3.7ghz. With Intel advertising overclocking as it hard as it has been, I would be very disappointed if my processor couldn't get past that without any PEBKAC errors. Technically nothing would be wrong with my processor, it would just be lame.

Obviously this doesn't really apply for the OP.

 

[Idontcare]

Technically nothing would be wrong with my processor, it would just be lame.

And that's the nuts of it. It would be lame, and just cause IMO to return the item to the reseller provided the reseller's return policy allows such and returning it to that specific reseller would not be an act of fraud.

Not all resellers have the same return policy, some are non-conditional, which means you are good to buy-try-return as you see fit, paying a restocking fee for the privilege.

Alternatively you could sell it and go buy another one to try. I don't see anything legally or ethically wrong with that solution.