Q6600 owners... what is your VID?

graysky

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2006
546
0
18,980
If you own a Q6600, please reply with your VID and the stepping of your chip. The VID can be found using coretemp. If you're using vista, coretemp will not display the stepping in some cases, so you can use CPU-Z (it's listed under "revision") to get the stepping.

Here is a shot of mine for reference:
getvidqp1.gif


If all else fails, look on the box your q6600 came in; the last 5 letters after the Q6600 in the production code will tell you the stepping. "SLACR" means it's a G0 while "SL9UM" means it's an older B3. Here an example shot taken by XtremeTiramisu to give you an idea:
dsc00009bo9hj9.jpg


So, I have a B3 w/ a VID of 1.2875v

EDIT: Here are the data as of 23-Sep-2007 at 7:30 AM based on people's replies to my VID thread here and elsewhere; just as a reminder, please do not post your VID from here on out as I won't be updating the data sets:

vidhistogramskp4.gif

*Histograms generated with SBHisto

Total replies: 208
102 replies so far for B3 stepping Q6600s:
(VID: # of replies)
1.1625: 3
1.2125: 1
1.2250: 1
1.2375: 1
1.2500: 5
1.2625: 2
1.2750: 13
1.2800: 1
1.2850: 1
1.2875: 12
1.3000: 14
1.3100: 1
1.3125: 15
1.3200: 1
1.3250: 31

158 replies so far for G0 stepping Q6600s:
(VID: # of replies)
1.1125: 1
1.1520: 1
1.1625: 5
1.2000: 5
1.2125: 9
1.2150: 1
1.2200: 1
1.2250: 8
1.2375: 10
1.2500: 16
1.2525: 1
1.2600: 1
1.2625: 17
1.2650: 1
1.2700: 1
1.2750: 25
1.2850: 1
1.2875: 23
1.3000: 17
1.3125: 10
1.3250: 5
 

graysky

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2006
546
0
18,980
@evilroot - damn dude, that's a lot of PCs! Have you noticed that your 1.2875 VID chips run @ a lower voltage when overclocked than your 1.3215 or 1.3250 chips do? Have you ever compared them in a pseudo-scientific fashion?
 

evilr00t

Distinguished
Aug 15, 2006
882
0
18,980


Still working on maximum prime95-largeinplacefft-stable stock voltage overclocks.

1.325 chip is definitely scorching hot compared to the 1.2875V ones. Haven't pushed the chips to the limit yet though (they're not mine, they're for my department's cluster... hence only stock voltage overclocks). I have played around with the 1.3125 and 1.325V chips and the temperature difference is startling. One other thing to note is that TAT/CoreTemp report a larger delta between the two core pairs on the 1.325V (T1-T2=5C) chip vs the 1.3125V (T1-T2=3C) chip. I won't claim that it is a trend, but that is quite interesting.
 

graysky

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2006
546
0
18,980
I don't quite know what to make of this whole lower VID = higher o/c potential thing. My chip for example, is a B3 stepping Q6600 w/ a reported VID of 1.2875V (coretemp), yet I can run 9x266 (stock) which is stable to 2x orthos for over 8 hours (I stopped it after 8 hours) @ 1.1375V in the BIOS which is 1.040V in CPU-Z under load. I can also run 9x327 @ 1.2275V in the BIOS or 1.208V in CPU-Z under load or a full 9x333 @ 1.2625V in the BIOS or 1.232 V in CPU-Z.

My point is that all these vcore values are under the VID reported in coretemp. In my case, the VID reported in coretemp doesn't seem to mean anything given that I can run my system up to a 25 % o/c well under this voltage.

Questions:

-What does the coretemp VID mean if anything?
-When comparing two identical stepping chips, does the one with the lower VID equate to anything meaningful?
 

evilr00t

Distinguished
Aug 15, 2006
882
0
18,980


Quote: @evilroot - damn dude, that's a lot of PCs! Have you noticed that your 1.2875 VID chips run @ a lower voltage when overclocked than your 1.3215 or 1.3250 chips do? Have you ever compared them in a pseudo-scientific fashion?

The 1.2875V chips *definitely* can run at a lower voltage at stock and overclocked. They also OC better than the 1.325V chip.

The VID that is given by CoreTemp is the voltage that Intel binned your processor at and what your motherboard will provide to the chip if you don't tell it to use a different voltage; I speculate that Intel tests the stability of the CPU with decreasing voltage at some constant clock speed until the CPU fails, then adds in a safety margin on top of the lowest stable voltage.

(More speculation) Therefore, a CPU with a lower VID should be able to overclock better than one with a higher VID because it can operate stably at some speed at or above stock speed at a lower voltage.

So your best bet to get an overclocking monster would be to buy 6-8 G0 Q6600s, and then pick the one with the lowest VID.
 

cory1234

Distinguished
Dec 26, 2005
628
0
19,010
Every time i try to load core temp it says driver failed to load...and then pop ups of the same thing happen over and over again until i go to the task manager and stop it. Does coretemp work with vista 64 bit? Anyone else have this problem?
 

evilr00t

Distinguished
Aug 15, 2006
882
0
18,980

Try "RM Clock Utility", that should support XP 64 (Vista 64 unknown). VID is harder to find though, should be under General->Maximal Req. Vcore
 

graysky

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2006
546
0
18,980
Updated the first post of the thread with the data collected (123 replies now) and added some histograms and basic statics to help visualize the data set.
 

cory1234

Distinguished
Dec 26, 2005
628
0
19,010


Already tried to load that one too. It says driver couldnt be found or something like that. I guess i dont get to see my vid until they release some drivers for vista 64bit. Is there anyway to check it in the bios or something?
 

mxsix

Distinguished
Aug 17, 2007
111
0
18,710
In Core Temp 0.94 I have a B3 Q6600 with a VID of 1.3250V

I could have sworn in 0.95 it said VID 1.1625

However, 0.95 crashed my system once so I downgraded.
 

evilr00t

Distinguished
Aug 15, 2006
882
0
18,980
1.275VID for my new Q6600 G0... unfortunately, I can't get it to run 3GHz at stock voltage. Scythe Ninja in push-pull configuration.

EDIT: Couldn't get 3GHz at 1.35V - instant BSOD upon entering windows. Seems like I'm far from stability.

EDIT: Max clock of 2.80 GHz found at 1.200V (1.136V CPU-Z), 2.9GHz at 1.275V (1.200 CPU-Z), 2.955GHz at 1.35V and *1.425V* (1.272, *1.344* CPU-Z). This chip refuses to run stably over 2.955GHz no matter what I do to it. Suggestions?