SpeedTester
Senior member
- Mar 18, 2001
- 995
- 1
- 81
Well this is the Above posted Chart by Sin0822 who has a Degree in engineering and is now back at Georgia Tech Getting his Masters in Engineering.
It is not from some 3rd Party web site or some joe blow.. It is from the Most respected " Engineering guy on OCN " and on the Ivy Bridge overclocking Guide Thread in the OP.
Would you let a cardiologist student give you a heart transplant if his freinds says he is a genius? I think not.
http://www.intel.com/content/dam/ww...eets/3rd-gen-core-desktop-vol-1-datasheet.pdf
Type in "VID range" in Find on page. It goes up to 1.52V within specifications apparently.
Edit: Could possibly be due to the new transistor structure.
Type in "VID range" in Find on page. It goes up to 1.52V within specifications apparently.
Edit: Could possibly be due to the new transistor structure.
Vid register range =/= Vcc range
Please stop equating the two. The max value for a register has nothing to do with the max safe core voltage.
Please stop equating the two. The max value for a register has nothing to do with the max safe core voltage.
<- has BS in Materials Science Engineering and PhD in Chemical Physics, directly worked on process node development spanning 0.5um to 32nm at Texas Instruments
And? What does any of that have to do with the fact it is not Intel's official spec as falsely claimed?
Well this is the Above posted Chart by Sin0822 who has a Degree in engineering and is now back at Georgia Tech Getting his Masters in Engineering.
It is not from some 3rd Party web site or some joe blow.. It is from the Most respected " Engineering guy on OCN " and on the Ivy Bridge overclocking Guide Thread in the OP.
And? What does any of that have to do with the fact it is not Intel's official spec as falsely claimed?
People, the VID range simply identifies what voltages can be set/measured. It has no bearing on what is safe.
For the non-technical or uninitiated, the VID is represented by 8 bits, which means a total range of 256 values (convenient, as this is also exactly 2 hexadecimal digits for a shorter representation). It goes up to 1.52 simply because of the range these bits can express and the size of the vcc steps per byte value (one of the 256 possible combinations).
The small size is necessary for better resolution (accurate representation of an analog phenomenon using digital means). Using steps of. 005, had Intel skimped on the VID transistors and only allotted 7 bits to the task, they will only be able to set/measure up to 0.88v (.005 x 126 + 0.25; all low bits are used for zero voltage, 000001 is the starting "lowest" vcore measured, hence we subtract 2 from 2^7 or 128, which is how we got 126). So they used one more bit to be able to set/measure more values, seeing as to how it would be useful to measure stuff like 1.0v and 1.2v. Of course, the addition of that one bit doubles the possible combinations, from 128 to 256, so you end up with values that are retarded but measurable simply by nature of having bits enough to represent them.
That is why the VID range goes up to 1.52v, which does not seem at all like a round figure. It's simply the value when all available bits get used up.
"Vcc_max" in the table also does not mean what some think it means. It does not mean "this is the maximum vcore ivy can take." It means "this is the max vcore that these set of bits will represent" - remember, we are trying to digitally represent something analog, so the best you can do is set bounday, unless you plan on implementing infinite resolution using an infinite number of bits (I am exaggerating a bit, but it is very impractical to say the least).
1.52v is not safe. It is not within any safe operating voltages prescribed by Intel. That doc you guys are referring to, as posted by Haserath, does not mean what you think it means. If that supposed masters student interpreted it like that, then he is wrong and I would probably flunk him had he been my student.
For the non-technical or uninitiated, the VID is represented by 8 bits, which means a total range of 256 values (convenient, as this is also exactly 2 hexadecimal digits for a shorter representation). It goes up to 1.52 simply because of the range these bits can express and the size of the vcc steps per byte value (one of the 256 possible combinations).
The small size is necessary for better resolution (accurate representation of an analog phenomenon using digital means). Using steps of. 005, had Intel skimped on the VID transistors and only allotted 7 bits to the task, they will only be able to set/measure up to 0.88v (.005 x 126 + 0.25; all low bits are used for zero voltage, 000001 is the starting "lowest" vcore measured, hence we subtract 2 from 2^7 or 128, which is how we got 126). So they used one more bit to be able to set/measure more values, seeing as to how it would be useful to measure stuff like 1.0v and 1.2v. Of course, the addition of that one bit doubles the possible combinations, from 128 to 256, so you end up with values that are retarded but measurable simply by nature of having bits enough to represent them.
That is why the VID range goes up to 1.52v, which does not seem at all like a round figure. It's simply the value when all available bits get used up.
"Vcc_max" in the table also does not mean what some think it means. It does not mean "this is the maximum vcore ivy can take." It means "this is the max vcore that these set of bits will represent" - remember, we are trying to digitally represent something analog, so the best you can do is set bounday, unless you plan on implementing infinite resolution using an infinite number of bits (I am exaggerating a bit, but it is very impractical to say the least).
1.52v is not safe. It is not within any safe operating voltages prescribed by Intel. That doc you guys are referring to, as posted by Haserath, does not mean what you think it means. If that supposed masters student interpreted it like that, then he is wrong and I would probably flunk him had he been my student.
Last edited:
hokies83
Senior member
- Oct 3, 2010
- 837
- 2
- 76
I run 1.55v Safe 27/7 With 0 issues.. And if i could get another 100mhz out of 1.6v id run that 24/7 to.
Ivy is built like a tank and takes no prob.
For People who hold onto there chips 3 years + maybe not for you.. But i do not..
This chip wil be for sale At Haswell Release as a 5.2ghz 24/7 chip.
Ivy is built like a tank and takes no prob.
For People who hold onto there chips 3 years + maybe not for you.. But i do not..
This chip wil be for sale At Haswell Release as a 5.2ghz 24/7 chip.
To be fare 1.65v's plus is pretty extreme for only a 5ghz overclock. I figure if it won't do it with less than 1.45v's then it's not meant to be
Be on the safe side and just tell everybody to keep under 1.3v's
Like others have stated load temps are what matters the most. If you wanna play it safe stay where your at currently. You might be able to get another 100mhz or so staying under 1.3v's but you'd have to try and see as long as temps are inline.
Last edited:
Right... I think when I was beginning a few years ago, somebody equated max VID to max vcore and I stuck with that. Guess it's wrong.
utahraptor
Golden Member
- Apr 26, 2004
- 1,078
- 282
- 136
Sorry to necro, but I have been fighting my Ivy Bridge 3770k over the years and just today I was able to get a new bios for my Gigabyte Z77X-UP5TH from late 2014 that has finally fixed the bugs that was keeping mine from overclocking correctly. I have been wanting to match mine to the 4790 frequency wise or at least close and I could never get the turbo bins to actually behave as described in the bios. With this new 2014 bios it finally works. Now I am able to get:
The temps with the Corsair H100 set to "low" seem to be acceptable and stability tests pass. Using the Prime 95 balanced mode with all 8 threads yields temps that hover at or under 80 C for the most part with 85 F room temperature. Games don't take it past 70.
- 1 or 2 Core Loads at 4.2 GHz
- 3 Core Loads at 4.1 GHz
- 4 or more at 4.0 GHz
The temps with the Corsair H100 set to "low" seem to be acceptable and stability tests pass. Using the Prime 95 balanced mode with all 8 threads yields temps that hover at or under 80 C for the most part with 85 F room temperature. Games don't take it past 70.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 347
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter