Is 1.55V too high for AMD Venice 3000+?

[MobiusPizza]

The maximum voltge in specification quotes 1.45V... The default is 1.40V
Am I stressing it too high?

 

[exar333]

should be fine with good cooling...don't go much over 1.6v without water/phase cooling....

 

[bjc112]

1.55v is no problem for a Venice..

1.65 if its a NewCastle (130nm)

 

[uOpt]

Watch your temperature, that should have most of it covered.

You limit the lifespan of your CPU, though. How drastic is hard to say.

 

[MobiusPizza]

Thanks very much.
Just recently pushed it to 280FSB = ~2.53Ghz

The temperature is 37-45 range depending on weather and usage
Using Zalman's coolers so I think I am fine in that department

 

[theMan]

its fine. just make sure temps dont go above 57c

 

[BigCoolJesus]

Originally posted by: ExarKun333
don't go much over 1.6v without water/phase cooling....

WHY??

Honestly, why do people say this, please tell me?


my Venice is at 1.72 Vcore and im only using a XP-90C and guess what, my temps never go over 52C on high loads (4 hours of BF2)

So again, how is phase change going to help the Vcore be safer then air cooling (If temps are still under max with air cooling, whats the difference between 1.6 on air or 1.6 on phase???? NOTHING, THATS THE DIFFERENCE)

 

[MDE]

Originally posted by: BigCoolJesus

Originally posted by: ExarKun333
don't go much over 1.6v without water/phase cooling....

WHY??

Honestly, why do people say this, please tell me?


my Venice is at 1.72 Vcore and im only using a XP-90C and guess what, my temps never go over 52C on high loads (4 hours of BF2)

So again, how is phase change going to help the Vcore be safer then air cooling (If temps are still under max with air cooling, whats the difference between 1.6 on air or 1.6 on phase???? NOTHING, THATS THE DIFFERENCE)

1.72? I hope you're at least past 3GHz with that voltage.

 

[BigCoolJesus]

Originally posted by: MDE

Originally posted by: BigCoolJesus

Originally posted by: ExarKun333
don't go much over 1.6v without water/phase cooling....

WHY??

Honestly, why do people say this, please tell me?


my Venice is at 1.72 Vcore and im only using a XP-90C and guess what, my temps never go over 52C on high loads (4 hours of BF2)

So again, how is phase change going to help the Vcore be safer then air cooling (If temps are still under max with air cooling, whats the difference between 1.6 on air or 1.6 on phase???? NOTHING, THATS THE DIFFERENCE)

1.72? I hope you're at least past 3GHz with that voltage.

2.7GHz

 

[imported_Kensai]

Originally posted by: BigCoolJesus

Originally posted by: ExarKun333
don't go much over 1.6v without water/phase cooling....

WHY??

Honestly, why do people say this, please tell me?


my Venice is at 1.72 Vcore and im only using a XP-90C and guess what, my temps never go over 52C on high loads (4 hours of BF2)

So again, how is phase change going to help the Vcore be safer then air cooling (If temps are still under max with air cooling, whats the difference between 1.6 on air or 1.6 on phase???? NOTHING, THATS THE DIFFERENCE)

You're already beyong what I would call acceptable temperatures. <50C load is my limit with <45C being preffered on air.

 

[exar333]

so you are running 10 degrees warmer vs. my setup and having to use a whole.1v higher for what, 100mhz?

not worth it in my eyes....

and yes, i would still advise to have better than air cooling on more than 1.65v...

 

[BigCoolJesus]

Originally posted by: ExarKun333
so you are running 10 degrees warmer vs. my setup and having to use a whole.1v higher for what, 100mhz?

not worth it in my eyes....

and yes, i would still advise to have better than air cooling on more than 1.65v...

its either 2.7GHz, or 2.4GHz if i go by the "acceptable vcore" ( :roll: )

id rather get the most out of my processor, because by your way of looking at it, why go from 2.2GHz to 2.3, or 2.3 to 2.4, or 2.4 to 2.5, its only 100MHz?

cooling doesnt mean sh!t as long as the temps stay below the max, so since my chips max is 59C and ive never gone above 52C, theres absolutely no difference between running 1.72 on my air cooling, and running 1.72 on phase change, NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL.




and kensai, 50C is perfectly acceptable, considering 59C is the max for my CPU....



Dont want to start anything, but im sick of misconceptions......... phase change or water cooling doesnt make the vcore any safer, if you can reach 1.8 on air and still stay around 55C, thats the SAME EXACT THING as 1.8 with phase change, only your temps will be lower, but since your below the max anyways, it doesnt mean anything.

yes, i would still advise to have better than air cooling on more than 1.65v...

PLEASE, tell me why? temps are acceptable on air, so why is it any different then phase change or water cooling?

 

[imported_Kensai]

Originally posted by: BigCoolJesus

Originally posted by: ExarKun333
so you are running 10 degrees warmer vs. my setup and having to use a whole.1v higher for what, 100mhz?

not worth it in my eyes....

and yes, i would still advise to have better than air cooling on more than 1.65v...

its either 2.7GHz, or 2.4GHz if i go by the "acceptable vcore" ( :roll: )

id rather get the most out of my processor, because by your way of looking at it, why go from 2.2GHz to 2.3, or 2.3 to 2.4, or 2.4 to 2.5, its only 100MHz?

cooling doesnt mean sh!t as long as the temps stay below the max, so since my chips max is 59C and ive never gone above 52C, theres absolutely no difference between running 1.72 on my air cooling, and running 1.72 on phase change, NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL.




and kensai, 50C is perfectly acceptable, considering 59C is the max for my CPU....



Dont want to start anything, but im sick of misconceptions......... phase change or water cooling doesnt make the vcore any safer, if you can reach 1.8 on air and still stay around 55C, thats the SAME EXACT THING as 1.8 with phase change, only your temps will be lower, but since your below the max anyways, it doesnt mean anything.

yes, i would still advise to have better than air cooling on more than 1.65v...

PLEASE, tell me why? temps are acceptable on air, so why is it any different then phase change or water cooling?

English lesson one: "My limits". Me, not you. <50C are *MY* limits for air.

 

[BigCoolJesus]

Originally posted by: Kensai

Originally posted by: BigCoolJesus

Originally posted by: ExarKun333
so you are running 10 degrees warmer vs. my setup and having to use a whole.1v higher for what, 100mhz?

not worth it in my eyes....

and yes, i would still advise to have better than air cooling on more than 1.65v...

its either 2.7GHz, or 2.4GHz if i go by the "acceptable vcore" ( :roll: )

id rather get the most out of my processor, because by your way of looking at it, why go from 2.2GHz to 2.3, or 2.3 to 2.4, or 2.4 to 2.5, its only 100MHz?

cooling doesnt mean sh!t as long as the temps stay below the max, so since my chips max is 59C and ive never gone above 52C, theres absolutely no difference between running 1.72 on my air cooling, and running 1.72 on phase change, NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL.




and kensai, 50C is perfectly acceptable, considering 59C is the max for my CPU....



Dont want to start anything, but im sick of misconceptions......... phase change or water cooling doesnt make the vcore any safer, if you can reach 1.8 on air and still stay around 55C, thats the SAME EXACT THING as 1.8 with phase change, only your temps will be lower, but since your below the max anyways, it doesnt mean anything.

yes, i would still advise to have better than air cooling on more than 1.65v...

PLEASE, tell me why? temps are acceptable on air, so why is it any different then phase change or water cooling?

English lesson one: "My limits". Me, not you. <50C are *MY* limits for air.

Sorry, i was taking it on the broader scale of your reccomendations for everyone

You're already beyond

(ie, i thought you were speaking in broad terms )

 

[coomar]

i thought the higher voltages reduce the cpu life by a significant amount, guys using phase generally don't care cause they'll pick up a new cpu in 6 months

 

[BigCoolJesus]

Originally posted by: coomar
i thought the higher voltages reduce the cpu life by a significant amount, guys using phase generally don't care cause they'll pick up a new cpu in 6 months

it does

and i dont care because im going to be getting an X2 in less then a year

 

[Duvie]

1.55v is what you are setting or actual being reported in the bios hardware monitor or other software monitor???I set 1.55v and I am lucky to get 1.46v actual on my neo2 board...

 

[exar333]

Originally posted by: coomar
i thought the higher voltages reduce the cpu life by a significant amount, guys using phase generally don't care cause they'll pick up a new cpu in 6 months

exactly

 

[MobiusPizza]

Originally posted by: Duvie
1.55v is what you are setting or actual being reported in the bios hardware monitor or other software monitor???I set 1.55v and I am lucky to get 1.46v actual on my neo2 board...

Both
I set it to 1.55V in BIOS, and it report it having around 1.52-1.55V depending on usage

 

[AnImuS]

Originally posted by: theman
its fine. just make sure temps dont go above 57c

 

[exar333]

i know this is a little off topic, but DAMN, that is a nice OC for your 3800 X2 there AnImus...

 

[CaBoOse999]

Damn 1.71 volts. I've been away for a while and last I knew people were worried about frying the memory controller. Did it end up being an issue?

 

[BigCoolJesus]

Originally posted by: CaBoOse999
Damn 1.71 volts. I've been away for a while and last I knew people were worried about frying the memory controller. Did it end up being an issue?

who, me?


and if that question was directed at me, no i have not had any issues or complaints, and despite Prime95 failing within an hour, after 2 weeks of ACTUAL real world use i have had no crashes, freezes or lockups.

 

[smthmlk]

i had my venice 3000 at 1.475V, temps always below 50C, and it died recently

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: BigCoolJesus

Originally posted by: CaBoOse999
Damn 1.71 volts. I've been away for a while and last I knew people were worried about frying the memory controller. Did it end up being an issue?

who, me?


and if that question was directed at me, no i have not had any issues or complaints, and despite Prime95 failing within an hour, after 2 weeks of ACTUAL real world use i have had no crashes, freezes or lockups.

If P95 fails within an hour, that's a good indication that either:

A) You don't have enough voltage for that speed
B) Despite what your temp sensors tell you, your chip is actually running too warmly.

Since you're at 1.72v, I'm going to go with option B.