Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Can only keep E8400 above 4ghz if I go past 1.4v

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Zalman
Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 5, 2009 9:25:03 AM

Hey people,

Just like the title says, I have my E8400 @ 4ghz right now (FSB 445x9) @ 1.36v (1.33 CPU-Z).

However, to go anywhere past 4ghz, the CPU requires a significant bump in voltage... for example, I have it now @ 4.1 ghz @ 1.4v (1.384v in CPU-Z)...

My question is... how suicidal is this? Am I risking the life of my CPU? Would you guys accept 1.4v as a 24/7 voltage?

Temps are nice, i guess. On a Zalman CNPS9500, idle temps are around 38ºC and load temps are around 58-60ºC.

What do you guys think? Am I risking too much? Is 100 extra mhz worth this increase in Vcore?

I know most people will probably say no... but it's kind of a psychological mark you know, to actually have it above 4ghz... :ange: 

Cheers!

More about : e8400 4ghz past

a b à CPUs
June 5, 2009 10:21:51 AM

1.4V will work, but I wouldn't bother for that small of an increase in speed. 100MHz is probably unnoticeable as far as any normal operation is concerned.
a b à CPUs
June 5, 2009 10:55:44 AM

+1
June 5, 2009 10:56:54 AM

What are your temps at 1.36? If there is significant temp increase at 1.4 i'd say it is not worth the 0.04 incease for just 100mhz - which wont matter in any real application anw-
I wouldnt say you are risking the life of your chip but when higher ambient temps occur you might have much higher temps and throttlebacks.
At 1.4v you are usually more prone to damage from power flactuations aswell.
June 5, 2009 12:04:15 PM

If it makes you feel any better, you are going a little bit over 4 ghz.

For me 4 ghz is the milestone. However, if you want 4+, for whatever reason, then use 1.4. It's a little high, but you are not going to fry your chip. So, screw whether it is worth it or not in a strictly performance sense. If it makes you happy, then just do it. (And make sure you have good case ventilation as well.)
a b à CPUs
June 5, 2009 1:16:34 PM

i'd have to say that anything past 3.6 is not too much of a benefit anyway.

I tested many different games/apps @ stock/3.6/4.0 on my E8400 and the jump from 3.0 to 3.6 is quite substantial in comparison to the little gain i got from 3.6 to 4.0.

In fact, some apps/games ran worse @ 4.0 than 3.6.
a b à CPUs
June 5, 2009 8:45:36 PM

its all theoretical as far as bumping up voltages and the life of the cpu. i really doubt it will do anything - i had my e8500 at 1.5 volts for a week solid just to test it and nothing happened.
a b à CPUs
June 5, 2009 11:26:42 PM

jonpaul37 said:
i'd have to say that anything past 3.6 is not too much of a benefit anyway.

I tested many different games/apps @ stock/3.6/4.0 on my E8400 and the jump from 3.0 to 3.6 is quite substantial in comparison to the little gain i got from 3.6 to 4.0.

In fact, some apps/games ran worse @ 4.0 than 3.6.

I agree, 4ghz is only good for bungholio runs and little else.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 6, 2009 11:41:56 AM

The 45nm C2D chips seem to have a sweet spot at 3.6Ghz around 1.29/1.31 v (Chip dependant) when it comes to performance against power use and heat production, but then this is always the case with overclocking your Cpu, the higher end of overclocks always create much more heat and use more power than the speed you get from it in return, To be fair though, I personally think 3.8Ghz is the best balance if you want the speed but want to stay within the 1.36v limit set by intel, I am happy with that and also know that it will run stable even on the hottest summer day! (Although I will probably be outside enjoying that day instead of sitting in front of my PC)

Loads of peeps run 1.4/1.45v on 45nm C2d Chips and not many fail, so it should be a safe enough practice, but cooling is essential at that speed and really, why? Ive long learnt that it matters not the speed of your processor, but the way you use it!
!