Zacate E350 owners - what is your vcore?

[VirtualLarry]

I'm testing temps on my ASRock E350M1 board, and in this Rosewill mini-ITX case, temps are now at 68C under prime95 load.

More worrysome, is the fact that CPU-Z lists my vcore as 1.304v. Isn't that kind of high for a low-power CPU?

Edit: vcore at idle (800Mhz) is 1.032.

Seems like a very large difference, for only 800Mhz.

Are Zacate chips "factory overclocked" to run at stock speeds? Or at the very least, factory overvolted?

 

[RyanGreener]

I'm testing temps on my ASRock E350M1 board, and in this Rosewill mini-ITX case, temps are now at 68C under prime95 load.

More worrysome, is the fact that CPU-Z lists my vcore as 1.304v. Isn't that kind of high for a low-power CPU?

Edit: vcore at idle (800Mhz) is 1.032.

Seems like a very large difference, for only 800Mhz.

Are Zacate chips "factory overclocked" to run at stock speeds? Or at the very least, factory overvolted?

I read somewhere that the absolute max temperature for the E-350 is around 80-90 Deg C on another forum....but check out the specifications to be sure.

Also, the E-350 is an overclocked version of the C-50 (which doesn't seem to be offered in desktop motherboards. It's the 1.0 GHz/slower GPU clocked version)

 

[fffblackmage]

1.3V seems to be normal. The wiki page lists the operating voltage as 1.25-1.35V.

Seems like a very large difference, for only 800Mhz.

I would guess it's probably normal for Zacate, since it's not quite the same as a desktop processor.

 

[Zap]

Are Zacate chips "factory overclocked" to run at stock speeds? Or at the very least, factory overvolted?

This is a ridiculous statement because following the same logic, EVERY single chip out there is "factory overclocked/overvolted."

 

[CTho9305]

I've looked at the reported voltages for a few different E350 laptops, and they were all different. I wouldn't worry too much about voltage for a "low power" CPU... as long as you aren't switching much capacitance and your transistors aren't too leaky, you can still achieve low power at relatively high voltages.

 

[mrcmtl]

1.35V on ASUS E35M1-I

 

[VirtualLarry]

I've thought about this a bit more, and come up with this explanation:
These chips are built on TSMC's 40nm bulk process, not GF's SOI process like AMD's other CPUs. So they cannot be compared directly.

But if you look at GPUs build on TSMC's 40nm bulk process, none of them clock to 1.6Ghz. Some of them do 1.0Ghz. Most of them are around 800Mhz, at 1.0v. So requiring a voltage bump to 1.3v, to reach 1.6Ghz, isn't out of the question.

 

[Tuna-Fish]

But if you look at GPUs build on TSMC's 40nm bulk process, none of them clock to 1.6Ghz. Some of them do 1.0Ghz. Most of them are around 800Mhz, at 1.0v. So requiring a voltage bump to 1.3v, to reach 1.6Ghz, isn't out of the question.

The clocks of a GPU can not be directly compared to the clocks of a CPU -- a GPU does more per clock, and thus the clocks are slower.

Also, the highest-clocked chip on the TSMC 40nm is nVidia GTX 550Ti, which has a clock of 1.8GHz for it's shaders.

 

[fffblackmage]

The clocks of a GPU can not be directly compared to the clocks of a CPU -- a GPU does more per clock, and thus the clocks are slower.

The first half is true - you cannot compare a GPU to a CPU, but after saying that, you went ahead and did it anyways. A GPU is an entirely different architecture than a CPU.