Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Core i7-870 Overclocking And Fixing Blown P55-Based Boards

Tags:
  • Overclocking
  • Intel i7
  • Motherboards
Last response: in Reviews comments
Share
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
November 3, 2009 5:01:06 AM

Last month, we discovered that many budget P55-based motherboards simply weren't designed to stand up to the rigors of overclocking--bad news for intrepid value-based enthusiasts. Today we revisit the topic with revised boards and a Core i7-870.

Core i7-870 Overclocking And Fixing Blown P55-Based Boards : Read more

More about : core 870 overclocking fixing blown p55 based boards

November 3, 2009 6:19:12 AM

but some of us would rather give some extra beans and go 920 , and have dual pcie2.0 x16 . a few extra watts doesn't matter too .
Score
6
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
November 3, 2009 7:02:17 AM

FYI: Power consumption of switching cmos silicon increases with the square of voltage, and linear with frequency. The increases shown here seem to be in line with that, rather than the stated decrease in voltage regulator efficiency (which certainly does decrease, but probably much less).
Score
1
Related resources
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
November 3, 2009 8:01:24 AM

dan__gFYI: Power consumption of switching cmos silicon increases with the square of voltage, and linear with frequency. The increases shown here seem to be in line with that, rather than the stated decrease in voltage regulator efficiency (which certainly does decrease, but probably much less).


Can you turn that into a more accurate estimate than 200W to 240W, where all that can be proven is that it's "high, but less than 240W"?
Score
-5
November 3, 2009 11:32:16 AM

Are your power consumption measurements of the cpu, dc power or wall socket power? If they are the latter, which I suspect they are, then you have to factor in the power supply efficiency, as 150w socket, means 150w DC.
Score
-8
November 3, 2009 11:50:09 AM

I would be great to see how the more popular i7 860 or at least i5 750 scale with the voltage.
I don't think i7 870 is a popular choice because of it's price (people would go for socket 1336)
Score
13
November 3, 2009 12:32:58 PM

Thanks for article.
For me - This and previous articles have convinced me to game at stock, w/ tb+ settings on, and a high end GPU card and the i5 is most appropriate for my usage. I need to condition myself to turn off the computer esp. when noone is home.
Score
0
November 3, 2009 2:40:18 PM

Although Thomas labels Asrock as "succeeds" I will not buy their motherboards, you'll never know what else this company ignores in the bios, and do you think they would fix that issue if it weren't for THG? After how many failing boards?
Score
0
a b K Overclocking
a c 236 V Motherboard
November 3, 2009 2:52:18 PM

cyberkuberiahbut some of us would rather give some extra beans and go 920 , and have dual pcie2.0 x16 . a few extra watts doesn't matter too .

I agree with you 110%... :D 

Also, I would like to see the voltage scaling using the i5 750, as mentioned by bucifer
Score
2
a b K Overclocking
a c 150 V Motherboard
November 3, 2009 3:10:50 PM

A few extra watts being "used" is fine. A few extra watts being "wasted" is something else entirely.
I don't see a howling difference on these overclocks either. If I bought an i7, that probably means I'd have little reason to OC it.

While ASRock seems to be taking a "successive approximations" approach to improving their products, the ones I've bought so far have all been solid, but any OC has been mild.
And, once again (even if it isn't quite epic), MSI = FAIL.
Score
2
November 3, 2009 3:49:19 PM

I was glad to see this article. I was just thinking about this whole debacle this morning. :) 
Score
0
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
November 3, 2009 3:54:39 PM

"The result of huge power losses with moderate performance gains is a decrease in efficiency of over one third at our highest settings"

The first thing i care about when over clocking is being "green"
Why is this even in the report?
Score
-3
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
November 3, 2009 4:02:36 PM

Antigreen"The result of huge power losses with moderate performance gains is a decrease in efficiency of over one third at our highest settings"The first thing i care about when over clocking is being "green" Why is this even in the report?


Sometimes you can acgtually gain efficiency when overclocking: This is especially true when voltage levels aren't altered.
Score
5
November 3, 2009 4:53:08 PM

avatar_raqAlthough Thomas labels Asrock as "succeeds" I will not buy their motherboards, you'll never know what else this company ignores in the bios, and do you think they would fix that issue if it weren't for THG? After how many failing boards?


i'd go with evga/asus ,and for amd , gigabyte or asus . the crosshair 3 formula is top end at just 200 dollars .
Score
2
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
November 3, 2009 6:05:51 PM

Can some one please make a list of what motherboards use the problamatic Foxconn socket?
Score
2
November 3, 2009 6:13:22 PM

Whats wrong with 3.8Ghz? Its good overclock, with minimal stress on all your junk. Why folks have to push their stuff to 4Ghz or higher stressing the hell out of the hardware just for a couple more lousy FPS. I have an X58 that can push voltage and run at 4.2Ghz but voltage and heat requirements go up way to much and only give me a few more FPS. Its not really worth it.
Score
2
November 3, 2009 6:55:41 PM

CrashmanCan you turn that into a more accurate estimate than 200W to 240W, where all that can be proven is that it's "high, but less than 240W"?


I'm not sure how to interpret the results, but the best fit I get for trying to get a constant W / (GHz * V^2) is a base load of only 7W plus a draw of 36.63-36.72W * frequency in GHz * voltage squared. The fit is fairly accurate; there's a 0,26% difference between the min and the max.

Obviously stuff other than the CPU draws more than 7W, but I don't know enough about the hardware to give an explanation. I'd assume that you get fairly close to 7W + (voltage^2 * GHz * 36,7W) if you measure the draw at other speeds and voltages though.
Score
0
a b V Motherboard
November 3, 2009 7:21:22 PM

Thanks Crashman, this goes towards a resolution and at least we have a few lower budget boards now that look to be relatively safe.

Didn't you use a different PSU last time? Playing it safe with the higher quality 850HX maybe?
Score
0
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
November 3, 2009 7:21:45 PM

Shadow703793Can some one please make a list of what motherboards use the problamatic Foxconn socket?


ASRock, Asus, Biostar, ECS, Foxconn, Gigabyte, and MSI use Foxconn sockets. Jetway and EVGA use the cheaper Lotes sockets.
Score
-1
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
November 3, 2009 7:38:41 PM

warezmeWhats wrong with 3.8Ghz? Its good overclock, with minimal stress on all your junk. Why folks have to push their stuff to 4Ghz or higher stressing the hell out of the hardware just for a couple more lousy FPS. I have an X58 that can push voltage and run at 4.2Ghz but voltage and heat requirements go up way to much and only give me a few more FPS. Its not really worth it.


Uh, d00d, let me see if I can explain this in terms you can understand: 1.45V has been used for 45nm Intel processors long enough that it's now a standardized OC test voltage. There are many reasons for it having become this standardized test voltage, including the fact that it's considered the maximum safe voltage in some Intel documentation, that it's the maximum voltage most processors can run using above-ambient cooling, that it's the spot just before power consumption spikes, etc. It makes sense, and because it's NOT extreme, was never extreme, was never intended to be extreme, and is in no way extreme, it's something that any overclocking motherboard should tollerate.

We understand that cheap boards exist. If you're going to market a cheap board towards low-cost overclocking, you need to put in over-current protection. If you're going to market an even cheaper board with no protection, you need to disable the overclocking features.

It's one way or the other, when it comes to overclocking either do it right or don't do it at all. Half-fast solutions aren't acceptable in the overclocking market. It's a quality issue, and Tom's Hardware has tested MANY high-quality budget parts in the past.

There's no excuse to cut quality when you can instead cut features to produce a cheap product. IE, if you really really really wanted to make a board that could only do 1.35V before blowing the VRM, and really wanted to sell it without overcurrent protection, you'd really really really want to limit the BIOS settings to 1.35V. Because when you didn't, you'd get caught with your pants down by a site such as this one.

To not report such a finding would be proof of a lack of integrity. To give up testing at this setting would be to cave in for low-quality products at the expense of not revealing the superiority of high-quality products. The reader isn't served, the industry is disserviced, everyone loses.


ProximonThanks Crashman, this goes towards a resolution and at least we have a few lower budget boards now that look to be relatively safe.Didn't you use a different PSU last time? Playing it safe with the higher quality 850HX maybe?


Nah, same power supply since September, might have forgotten to change the model in the setup table.
Score
5
November 3, 2009 8:01:57 PM

cyberkuberiahbut some of us would rather give some extra beans and go 920 , and have dual pcie2.0 x16 . a few extra watts doesn't matter too .


Why do you want dual x16 slot when it offers no extra benefit? You might want to give this a read before you start clicking that thumbs down button, and if you do disagree please tell me why I'm wrong.

Even the most powerful card in the world can't saturate an x8 slot according to that source.
Score
-1
November 4, 2009 5:43:05 AM

Quote:
Thermalright’s MUX-120 cooler is barely big enough to cool our fully-overclocked i7-870 processor at 1.45V under the stress of eight Prime95 threads, even with an ambient temperature of 22 degrees Celsius.


1. If you changed out the stock cooler for a better one (say a Thermalright’s IFX-14) allow your system to last longer while running at the 1.45V setting over the long term?

2. Is there any reason to believe that reducing the ambient air temperature to 0 C would reduce power consumption and increase the performance gains realized?

Your articles provide great information.
Score
-1
November 4, 2009 6:13:57 AM

For Silicon, the leakage current will be increased by higher voltage and temperature. For deep sub-micron process like 45nm, there is the serious BJT effect. The MOS leakage current will increase exponatially and near to avalache breakdown. So if power consumption is out of control like over 150W or above, 1156-pin CPU spec. is 95W, the CPU is very dangerous. What ASRock P55 Pro do is not only protecting their M/B but also protecting 1156-pin CPU & CPU socket.
Score
0
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
November 4, 2009 6:17:00 AM

KenZen2B1. If you changed out the stock cooler for a better one (say a Thermalright’s IFX-14) allow your system to last longer while running at the 1.45V setting over the long term?2. Is there any reason to believe that reducing the ambient air temperature to 0 C would reduce power consumption and increase the performance gains realized?Your articles provide great information.


1.) 1.45V should be possible over several months, but it would probably take something larger than the IFX-14. A dual-fan radiator with good water pump and block would probably handle the job. Of course, none of those address the VRM problem.

2.) There's no reason to believe computational performance would improve, though power consumption should go down.
Score
0
November 4, 2009 7:12:37 AM

Great article!

I am glad Asus still delivers quality. Been 5 years since I did last upgrade. I felt my choice was between Asus or Gigabyte.

It would be nice if you could do the same test with the i5-750 and i7-860 cpu also. I think most people who choose the 1156 platform will go for a more affordable cpu.
Score
2
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
November 4, 2009 7:17:23 AM

:shock: lower efficiency at higher temperatures, who would-a thought ;) 
Score
0
November 4, 2009 7:41:56 AM

JeanLucWhy do you want dual x16 slot when it offers no extra benefit? You might want to give this a read before you start clicking that thumbs down button, and if you do disagree please tell me why I'm wrong.Even the most powerful card in the world can't saturate an x8 slot according to that source.

i am talking multi gpu . look at how far cry loses 11 fps(ouch) http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3649&p=2
Score
-1
November 4, 2009 8:01:40 AM

"We’ll never know how much power the motherboard could potentially provide, simply because thermal protection kicks in long before over-current protection would be needed."

Why not trying to mount a heatsink/fan on top of the voltage regulator so that we'll know the quality of vrm's and see if an overcurrent protection such as ASRock's exists?
Score
-1
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
November 4, 2009 8:11:19 AM

doron"We’ll never know how much power the motherboard could potentially provide, simply because thermal protection kicks in long before over-current protection would be needed."Why not trying to mount a heatsink/fan on top of the voltage regulator so that we'll know the quality of vrm's and see if an overcurrent protection such as ASRock's exists?


It has a tiny sink, and the space is so tight that another sink would have to be stacked atop that one. Sounds like a lot of effort to make a mediocre board good, when a good overclocking board costs only a few dollars more.
Score
1
November 4, 2009 8:15:07 AM

I'm sure I can't filter search engine choices to "Maximum VRM Wattage" on our local price comparison database. Is there a way to differenciate between those that can and those that can't sustain 200W for the cpu?

Might have to order an i5 system for someone later today, so might want to know (only going to consider gigabyte boards)
Score
0
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
November 4, 2009 9:17:28 AM

neiroatopelccI'm sure I can't filter search engine choices to "Maximum VRM Wattage" on our local price comparison database. Is there a way to differenciate between those that can and those that can't sustain 200W for the cpu? Might have to order an i5 system for someone later today, so might want to know (only going to consider gigabyte boards)


Look at the original review, Gigabyte did well.
Score
0
November 4, 2009 11:31:54 AM

Hi, Crashman,
P55 On A Budget: Five Core i5/i7 Motherboards For $100-$150
What's your recommendation?
Score
0
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
November 4, 2009 1:00:19 PM

blacksunHi, Crashman,P55 On A Budget: Five Core i5/i7 Motherboards For $100-$150 What's your recommendation?


My recommendation is to wait a few days for the next roundup :p 
Score
0
November 4, 2009 7:30:09 PM

The boards tested were Intel boards in the $100-$150 range.. how about MSI, Gigabyte, Asus, etc? how do they hold up to the stress tests in 1156, I'd be intersted to know.. because I'm considering buying one of those, and if they don't hold up well.. maybe the manufacturers can be embarassed enough to lower some prices? (I hope, but not holding my breath :) 
Score
0
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
November 4, 2009 9:23:52 PM

tmcThe boards tested were Intel boards in the $100-$150 range.. how about MSI, Gigabyte, Asus, etc? how do they hold up to the stress tests in 1156, I'd be intersted to know.. because I'm considering buying one of those, and if they don't hold up well.. maybe the manufacturers can be embarassed enough to lower some prices? (I hope, but not holding my breath


I think you're lost. The boards tested were MSI, Gigabyte, Asus, etc.
Score
0
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
November 4, 2009 11:03:20 PM

ASRock survives by the skin of their teeth. A BIOS update to turn on protection that should have been on to begin with. Now here's hoping all the manufacturer's can keep cranking out stable BIOS updates to correct other, albeit smaller, glitches. Come on Gigabyte!
Score
1
November 5, 2009 12:15:10 AM

Good article, and reminds me of why we never use low end boards in our systems. :) 
Score
0
November 5, 2009 8:14:41 AM

dan__gFYI: Power consumption of switching cmos silicon increases with the square of voltage, and linear with frequency. The increases shown here seem to be in line with that, rather than the stated decrease in voltage regulator efficiency (which certainly does decrease, but probably much less).

Right, that's correct for a CMOS gate, but it's also a good approximation for a fully loaded CPU, when a very large portion of the gates are switching. At idle, leakage currents are taking a much higher portion of power consumption, and there also areas of the CPU, which never get idle, and the P/V curve is tending to more approach a linear rise with voltage increase (rather than squared at full load).
SMPS losses are composed of the switching losses part, which is mostly constant (eventually rises with the number of phases in use) with loading, and the conduction losses, which rise squared with loading, and linear with temperature (RdsON raises with t).
CrashmanEfficiency is usually inversely proportional to heat

The reason why PSU efficiency is lowering a bit with increased temperatures, but nothing spectacular, is explained above.
CrashmanTwo important numbers are needed to get a reasonably-accurate estimate of the CPU power draw when given the above global wattage numbers. The first is Intel’s 95W maximum TDP for the stock Core i7-870 processor and the second is power-supply efficiency, which has been independently rated at 90%.

Just a suggestion: Why do you try to theorize about PSU efficiency, TDP, and other unaccounted for factors, and heavily guesstimate, when there is a much simpler and much more accurate way to measure CPU (including VRM losses) power consumption?
Just take a clamp wattmeter (preferably the one which has a transducer capable to measure DC, e.g. Hall)... on the 12V wires supplying the CPU VRM.
The rest of the "power consumption and efficiency" blurb is even more hilarious...
CrashmanCan you turn that into a more accurate estimate than 200W to 240W, where all that can be proven is that it's "high, but less than 240W"?

Crashboy, if such technical details are way over your benchmark beancounter level, at least don't make fun of more knowledgeable persons.
Score
0
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
November 5, 2009 10:39:01 AM

ossieWhy do you try to theorize about PSU efficiency


Either you're wrong or 80plus.org is. The efficiency chart for the power supply is relatively flat, so we know that most of that 240W is going into the CPU voltage regulator.

So the question remains, how much power is coming out of the voltage regulator? Why don't you give it a shot?

A clamp meter could tell us that only 220W of that 240W is going into the VRM, but we still don't have a clue what's coming out.
Score
0
November 5, 2009 10:47:22 AM

CrashmanEither you're wrong or 80plus.org is. The efficiency chart for the power supply is relatively flat, so we know that most of that 240W is going into the CPU voltage regulator.So the question remains, how much power is coming out of the voltage regulator? Why don't you give it a shot?


When do you grow up crashie? A serious argument isn't this onesided! You post your views: Someone else disagrees, and instead of trying to argue with the person you just try to make him look incompetent. Don't you realize that it doesn't work in a civilized enviroment? I might've in elementry school, but out here in the real world most of your readers actually use their brains for something. Time you should start doing that too to be honest. You're always just trying to bully your way around the forums if someone disagrees with you.
Score
0
November 5, 2009 12:22:34 PM

buciferI would be great to see how the more popular i7 860 or at least i5 750 scale with the voltage. I don't think i7 870 is a popular choice because of it's price (people would go for socket 1336)

I agree 100%. I guess lots of people want a stable, fast and long lasting new system with 64 bit Windows 7 these days. I just bought a system with Asus Sabertooth, i7 860 and a Noctua NH-U12P SE2 cooler. I'm expecting 3.4 to 3.6 GHz for years. Graphics, memory and drives are easily replaced, but the base platform will remain.
Score
2
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
November 5, 2009 4:17:47 PM

neiroatopelccWhen do you grow up crashie? A serious argument isn't this onesided! You post your views: Someone else disagrees, and instead of trying to argue with the person you just try to make him look incompetent. Don't you realize that it doesn't work in a civilized enviroment? I might've in elementry school, but out here in the real world most of your readers actually use their brains for something. Time you should start doing that too to be honest. You're always just trying to bully your way around the forums if someone disagrees with you.


Actually, I'm simply looking for any information that could make the estimate better. A clamp meter gets a little closer, but I'm hoping someone has "the magic bullet".
Score
0
November 9, 2009 8:07:48 AM

I'm not an expert on power stuff, but what's holding someone back from plugging a voltmeter and an ampere meter between psu and the atx and cpu power plugs? I know the ampere meter must be quite good to sustain the wattage, but I don't think it's unreasonable for someone like thg to solder one between. Especially on the cpu power it should be easy as it's just 2 wires - the atx plug might become a bit of a mess with serveral meters on it. Anyway that's how I'd do it if something like it doesn't already exist - except I'd ask someone with an education in electricity to do it for me.
Score
0
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
November 9, 2009 9:56:18 AM

neiroatopelccI'm not an expert on power stuff, but what's holding someone back from plugging a voltmeter and an ampere meter between psu and the atx and cpu power plugs? I know the ampere meter must be quite good to sustain the wattage, but I don't think it's unreasonable for someone like thg to solder one between. Especially on the cpu power it should be easy as it's just 2 wires - the atx plug might become a bit of a mess with serveral meters on it. Anyway that's how I'd do it if something like it doesn't already exist - except I'd ask someone with an education in electricity to do it for me.


Yes, it would be great to know the current on every line, but the clamp meter or standard ameter on the CPU line is a great idea too (less information overload). I'd still love it if someone could find a way to measure actual CPU amperage rather than CPU+VRM amperage.

There's a rumor Core i7's have built-in current detection, it would be GREAT if it were a readable sensor.
Score
0
November 29, 2009 3:08:30 AM

you'd be retarded if you think that i didn't already get that increasing voltage increases the used power.
Score
-3
December 20, 2009 2:08:24 AM

WTF, why would you chose not to include 1920x1200 for these benchmarks.
Score
0
a b K Overclocking
a b V Motherboard
December 20, 2009 3:34:40 AM

xpslover007WTF, why would you chose not to include 1920x1200 for these benchmarks.


Why would any site need 1920 for a motherboard review? All they really need is an ultra-low resolution to test CPU performance, and an ultra-high resoltion to test PCIe bandwidth. That's two settings: 1024 super-low details and 2560 ultra-high details. Everything between those two settings is a waste of time.
Score
1
!