More Voltage Not Always the Best Idea when Overclocking...

ajfink

Distinguished
Dec 3, 2006
1,150
0
19,280
Typically when I OC I only go as high as I can on stock volts or with very minor voltage increases. Voltage is bad for chips. I undervolt CPUs I plan to have at stock.
 
Same here, we typically test how high we can overclock from stock voltages as a true metric of the potential of a chip. So if a 3060 can clock higher than a E6600 equivalent on stock voltages, we know that the 3060 is truly a higher binned chip. But anyway, the article is still a pretty nice read for all technically minded, and for new overclockers hat crank up the volts just to get to clock.
 

m25

Distinguished
May 23, 2006
2,363
0
19,780
I always like to be a stock-voltage overclocker; have to use RMClock to get the Vcore to 1.35V because this stupid board only supplies the highest allowed voltage for a CPU abd sent my 4200+ to 1.40V by default and with the 3000+ @ 2.0V I could unervolt it to 1.25V.
 

tool_462

Distinguished
Jun 19, 2006
3,020
2
20,780
Very cool article. I've read some "technical spec sheets" and they are way to confusing for me. Never had any schooling in stuff like that.

If I understood the FSB thing, that somewhat explains having "FSB walls" like I do on my ABIT NI8. I can run 175 x 20 and 195 x 20 but anything in between is either unstable or wont even boot. I've heard of the DS3 having a wall somewhere around 330 too.
 
Very cool article. I've read some "technical spec sheets" and they are way to confusing for me. Never had any schooling in stuff like that.

If I understood the FSB thing, that somewhat explains having "FSB walls" like I do on my ABIT NI8. I can run 175 x 20 and 195 x 20 but anything in between is either unstable or wont even boot. I've heard of the DS3 having a wall somewhere around 330 too.
Yep. The tech specs can get a bit woobly woo.. about those walls.. what about adjusting the RAM to high latency to squeeze some stability?

@apt403 & gODJO
Fockin wow.
 

apt403

Distinguished
Oct 14, 2006
2,923
0
20,780
Yeah @ 5.7 vcore I think you'd need phase change or some crazy cooling.

I dont think a processor would even function with a 5.7v vcore, no matter what kind of cooler you have. Its like a toddler trying to snort a fist full of uncut coke, its just dead.
 

ajfink

Distinguished
Dec 3, 2006
1,150
0
19,280
I upped the volts a little on my overclock. I am kinda wary of adding all that much though. Went from the 1.35 to 1.4. Still a good deal less than what my 3000+ ran at stock. It ran 1.5 stock and 1.525 on overclock.

I think your OC is fine. Five hundredths of a volt increase for that dramatic of a clock gain seems...fair.
 

kwalker

Distinguished
May 3, 2006
856
0
18,980
This is a good article and points out the fact that most of us know from experience that the termination voltage at higher levels does little to the stabilization of the FSB frequencies in fact the north bridge can heat up to the point of degraded performance.
This is the point of the article that is of importance.
You can have a much higher FSB with less than 1.4 Volts Termination with less Vdroop or worse (extreme overshoot).
It is better on some boards to set this manually because auto configuration can increase the termination voltage above 1.4v causing an overclock failure.
 
That a high vCore can actually make a overclock unsuccessful and unstable. Contrary to popular belief, keeping the vCore a few points lower, such as at 1.35v instead of 1.41v can contribute to a more stable, and possibly higher clock. This also means that voltages can be lowered significantly at stock speed to further the lifespan of your chip. Now applying that to the high end, you can see a higher clock head room for Conroe/Allendale/Kentsfield chips.

Just imagine how high it will be when Penryn comes out.. (o_O)...
 

Eurasianman

Distinguished
Jul 20, 2006
883
0
19,010
So, are you saying that if you want to find a happy medium overclock and not harm the lifespan of your CPU, basically, only overclock your CPU until it requires an upped voltage.

Or, lower the voltage and see when it can run fully stable at stock speeds...

Sorry... I haven't had enough caffeine yet...

If so, why in the world didn't Intel do that in the first place with their Core 2 Duo? Wouldn't this show even more power consumption efficiency?
 

kwalker

Distinguished
May 3, 2006
856
0
18,980
Actually the article is talking about VTT (termination voltage) not Vcore.
Termination voltage increases the current flow through a given circuit.
Raising the Vcore to stabilize your overclock is acceptable as long as it stays within the tolerances values at 1.55 absolute maximum.
Raising the termination voltage can be the harmful aspect of the overclock setting the fluctuation of voltages in a given circuit too high or too low.
It all depends on the quality of the chip you’re trying to OC as to the amount of Vcore needed to run at an optimum FSB.
The article explains the effects of Termination circuitry not Vcore.
 

Major_Spittle

Distinguished
Nov 17, 2006
459
0
18,780
I started reading it, but quit after I realized there were no pictures of monkeys.

I like monkeys.

I took electronics 8 years ago, when electrons always flowed counter clockwise. :oops: