2500k @ 4.5ghz

[shoda]

Hello,

I am currently running my 2500k @ 4.5ghz. I have it OC with an offset of -.100 which gives me a Vcore of 1.18 when running Prime95. I am cooling it with a H100 (push with stock fans) on medium setting.

Temps:
Max Load - 56°c, 53°c, 61°c, 61°c
Idle - 25°c, 29°c, 27°c, 31°c

I was wondering since my temps and vcore is still very low, if I should just push it even more since it seems like I still have a lot of headroom? So, I want some opinions! I'll do an extreme to see just how far I can get, but I think I am going to leave it as is for my everyday use.

I am about to head to work, so I'll post screen shots once I get back from work, hopefully, since I still have some homework to do as well.

 

[SushiDragon]

That is an amazing OC with that kind of voltage.

Run CPU-Z and check to see if those voltages are correct.

 

[bidoof01]

I doubt you are able to stay stable with that core. Run a 12 hr prime test and a 20 run test of IBT at max and see what happens.

 

[shoda]

I doubt you are able to stay stable with that core. Run a 12 hr prime test and a 20 run test of IBT at max and see what happens.

Here is a finished 20 iteration run of Intel Burn Test.

Max Vcore - 1.2v (However, it was pulling 1.184v most of the time)
** I know that HWMonitor says max Vcore is 1.23v, but that was there even before I started the test. Should have cleared the min/max values first.

[/img]

 

[computadoro]

I doubt you are able to stay stable with that core. Run a 12 hr prime test and a 20 run test of IBT at max and see what happens.

someone sounds jealous.

To OP, highfive! i got the same motherboard, cpu, at the same voltages, just OC to 4ghz tho. I never tried anything past 4ghz. did you ever have BSOD, or did you just settle at this as a decent enough setting and say thats that?

 

[shoda]

someone sounds jealous.

To OP, highfive! i got the same motherboard, cpu, at the same voltages, just OC to 4ghz tho. I never tried anything past 4ghz. did you ever have BSOD, or did you just settle at this as a decent enough setting and say thats that?

haha! I appreciate his skepticism. This is my first time overclocking so I was really nervous that I had done something wrong, or that I was really messing up my system because the voltages just did not match up most people's voltages at that level of OC.

Nope, never had a BSOD (yet... haha). The most I had was when I had my offset set to -.120 and ran Prime95 overnight one of the cores had failed. The other three cores were still running when I woke up. It was an 8 hour run.

I am going to keep at 4.5ghz for my everyday use, but I am going turn down the offset even more to see if I can bring down the temperatures even more and see where it stops being stable. Then, I'll see what offset I want to stay at. I also want to do an extreme OC just to see how fast it goes. I am hoping at least 5ghz without getting too hot.

 

[shoda]

That is an amazing OC with that kind of voltage.

Run CPU-Z and check to see if those voltages are correct.

I posted pictures of my CPU-Z with HWMonitor showing. You can see the voltages there. I was not able to get a screen shot of the voltage it was using while it was under load though. I'll run another test again tomorrow and get the screen shot for you then. However, if you take my word for it, the average Vcore it was using was around 1.184v. It would spike up to 1.2 (max I saw) but it did not stay there for long.

 

[manu 11]

very very nice oc, i would advice you not go farther than this, the vcore is just perfect and it will not degrade the life of the cpu that much.

 

[shoda]

very very nice oc, i would advice you not go farther than this, the vcore is just perfect and it will not degrade the life of the cpu that much.

Isn't the stock Vcore of a 2500k 1.2v? That means, I am a little under stock voltages?

 

[crisan_tiberiu]

i have the 2600k, and i am really struggling with 4,4 Ghz and 4,5 Ghz. With 1,32 V Vcore the system wont boot ...i only get stable scores with 1,35 -1,38 v as Vcore...

 

[shoda]

i have the 2600k, and i am really struggling with 4,4 Ghz and 4,5 Ghz. With 1,32 V Vcore the system wont boot ...i only get stable scores with 1,35 -1,38 v as Vcore...

How are you overclocking it? I tried both at a fixed Vcore and with an offset Vcore. I ran tests on both and the fixed Vcore produced more heat.

Fixed Vcore of 1.250v:
- The temperatures were quite higher than the offset voltages, so in the end I decided to go with an offset OC. However, I did not play with the fixed Vcore very much. I set it to 1.3v and then tested and saw that it ran fine at that speed so I took the shortcut and jumped down to 1.25v. It was still running stable but I was also comparing it with my offset voltages which according to CPU-Z was using only 1.18v so I concentrated on my offset OC settings more. Once I have some time and I stabilize my offset OC settings I'll get to work on my fixed Vcore settings. I'll try and let you know what I am able to bring it down to?

To me, offset Vcore was a much more easier OC option than using a fixed Vcore.

 

[ebalong]

Hello,

I am new to all this stuff, but from what I know, that looks like one damn efficient processor, voltage-wise, you have there, congratulations. So, if I understand correctly, you raised the mulitplier to OC, and then you applied an "offset" to the vcore? What exactly does that do, lower the maximum voltage? How does lowering the vcore, but still getting that amount of "work" from the processor affect the other electrical parameters; is the chip running at the same wattage output that it would under "stock" vcore? It seems it would have to draw more current if the voltage were lowered, but maybe the simple voltage-current-power relationship doesn't work the same way with this kind of complicated process.

 

[overfocused]

hasn't cpuz and those other voltage reading programs been known to read a little bit under what the actual voltage is? Not much, but 1/10 a volt or so

very very nice oc, i would advice you not go farther than this, the vcore is just perfect and it will not degrade the life of the cpu that much.

The lower vcore won't decrease it at all. It will increase it. That's the whole point of undervolting. The chip is good and if it runs with less heat it will last longer.

 

[overfocused]

OK this whole conversation has lead me to a question of my own... I am running IntelBurnTest with HWMPro and my CPU VCORE voltage never goes above 1.06v according to the program, running max RAM @ 4.1GHz.

Is this correct? And if this is correct, I have a ton of headway voltage wise, right?

 

[shoda]

OK this whole conversation has lead me to a question of my own... I am running IntelBurnTest with HWMPro and my CPU VCORE voltage never goes above 1.06v according to the program, running max RAM @ 4.1GHz.

Is this correct? And if this is correct, I have a ton of headway voltage wise, right?

I am new to this Overclocking business, but from my 3-4 months of researching before actually building my system I would say: Yeah, you still have a lot of headroom in terms of our Vcore. Your VCore should not top 1.45v from what I've read, but then again, according to intel the max Vcore is 1.5v I'll post a link to the data sheet saying so. Look at the top VID row for the information.

http://assets.overclock.net.s3.amazonaws.com/a/a5/a53bcb4d_vbattach190182.jpeg

 

[4Ryan6]

Here is a finished 20 iteration run of Intel Burn Test.

Max Vcore - 1.2v (However, it was pulling 1.184v most of the time)
** I know that HWMonitor says max Vcore is 1.23v, but that was there even before I started the test. Should have cleared the min/max values first.

Your 4.5ghz overclock is actually an illusion, look at your Core Speed in your CPU-Z picture.

Your 4.5ghz is throttling down because of the Intel features you have left enabled, so even though you think you're running a 4.5ghz clock you're not, re-run your load testing and watch what happens to your Core Speed and Multiplier, in CPU-Z and you can see what's actually happening.

And remove the url brackets for your picture to post properly, you only need the img brackets.

 

[overfocused]

Your 4.5ghz overclock is actually an illusion, look at your Core Speed in your CPU-Z picture.

Your 4.5ghz is throttling down because of the Intel features you have left enabled, so even though you think you're running a 4.5ghz clock you're not, re-run your load testing and watch what happens to your Core Speed and Multiplier, in CPU-Z and you can see what's actually happening.

And remove the url brackets for your picture to post properly, you only need the img brackets.

Well it's certainly not running at 1600MHz either, under load. That's the 2500k's clock speed at idle.

 

[shoda]

Your 4.5ghz overclock is actually an illusion, look at your Core Speed in your CPU-Z picture.

Your 4.5ghz is throttling down because of the Intel features you have left enabled, so even though you think you're running a 4.5ghz clock you're not, re-run your load testing and watch what happens to your Core Speed and Multiplier, in CPU-Z and you can see what's actually happening.

And remove the url brackets for your picture to post properly, you only need the img brackets.

That picture was taken after IBT had finished. I took that photo to show that it indeed did pass the IBT, but I forgot to show it running at full load so I took another picture with it running at full load to show the 4.5ghz OC. I have a thread about this on Anandtech as well, so I guess I must have not posted the screen shot with it running on full load, sorry.

Here it is:

 

[4Ryan6]

Well it's certainly not running at 1600MHz either, under load. That's the 2500k's clock speed at idle.

I depends on how he has setup his overclock if I run all 4 cores at 4500mhz, then 4500mhz is my idle.

My 2500K is idling right now while I'm typing this at 4500mhz.

 

[4Ryan6]

@shoda Not bad for the voltage you're running, not bad at all!

 

[shoda]

I depends on how he has setup his overclock if I run all 4 cores at 4500mhz, then 4500mhz is my idle.

My 2500K is idling right now while I'm typing this at 4500mhz.

How do I check to see if all cores are overclocked? I did not know that you can overclock only one core...


**EDIT***

Okay, I saw your link to the overclocking all cores. Read through it. Thanks!

However, I have a question. What is the benefit of overclocking all cores? What is the difference between having Turbo on and off?

 

[Sonny73N]

Hey shoda, stop fooling people and especially fooling yourself. You CAN'T possibly OC he i5 to 4.5GHz with just 1.2v. At 1.2v you're more like at stock speed. Anyway if you can prove this is true by telling us about your system specs firstly and taking pictures of your BIOS settings, I'll cut your grass free for 1 year.

 

[Sonny73N]

Here is a finished 20 iteration run of Intel Burn Test.

Max Vcore - 1.2v (However, it was pulling 1.184v most of the time)
** I know that HWMonitor says max Vcore is 1.23v, but that was there even before I started the test. Should have cleared the min/max values first.

Geez, take the picture while P95 is running with your phone or a camera or something. I think you disabled TurboBoost and just entered 45 in 1 core. Otherwise, you would be running at 1.380v under load.

 

[king_maliken]

Well I'm very impressed at that OC.
On an other note I'm being very skeptical about this, with the 2500k's I've overclocked I never managed to get it that low voltage for 4.5ghz; and with that I agree with Sonny73N, I would like to see a pic of your BIOS settings.

 

[Sonny73N]

1.3volts for 4.5ghz and 1.4875 for 5.1ghz here.
This seems shopped somehow.

1.3 = 1.300 volts exactly? Now that would be an impressive OCing at x45, it's also believable.