Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I5 2500k @ 4.2ghz 1.288v

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
February 10, 2012 4:06:42 PM

Does that overclock sound normal?
I decided to downclock from 4.5ghz because I'd like to save the cpu's life time by as long as possible while still getting this 33% extra juice out of it. My temps stablised at 60/61*c (core 1) and others at 54-57 on prime95.

I havn't got that much time to be messing around with voltages so I tried at this and it seems to be stable for now. Don't know should I waste time on trying to run it at lower voltage..
Running a corsair h80 btw.

Thanks in advance to anyone that helps,

More about : 2500k 2ghz 288v

a b K Overclocking
February 10, 2012 5:41:55 PM

To me, that looks normal. If you've tested for 24 hours with no errors, safe to say you are good.
February 10, 2012 7:49:39 PM

im on 4.2oc but my max valtage is 1.2 ran prime95 for about 7hrs but i woke up :)  and no erros.wierd how u got a h80 and im using a evo 212 and my temps didnt go over 65c. but eya like steady said run prime95 for 24hrs to me im good with just 10-15hrs
Related resources
February 10, 2012 8:52:00 PM

Ain't got 24 hours to waste like that :p  I have a youtube channel which I've to render quite a big portion of my time at home for. I've set prime overnight but that was for only like 7 hours and it had a max temp of 61*c but usualy stable at 59/60.

@mrwil my pc is new so my thermal sh*t might not be settled properly yet :p  and the 212 is a very good air cooler so it shouldnt be far behind the h80, and having the slightly higher voltage gives me prob a few Cs too.
And even though I've a storm trooper case which is one of the top cases atm with awsome ventilation, the pc is kinda in a corner away from the window so my room temp rises slightly with hte pc on all the time. prob at around 20*c or so ambient
I'll try lower the voltage tonight again and put prime on overnight but being busy and all my nights usualy consist of around 8-9 hours only xD should be fine for testing stability though. I just hope it aint my chip being of bad quality, would be nice to lower the v and temps even further.

I think my pc idles a bit too hot too so i'd imagine its definately a slightly too high voltage. atm its at 38/27/26/36 on the cores which looks high on the 1st and 4th ones I think, though I am after rendering for about an hour a few mins ago but think it dosn't go lower then this anyways
February 10, 2012 9:09:12 PM

yea :)  also my pc is new 1 just got it about 4days ago i had some problems with it but it was just the drivers that needed to be updated
but yea atm just on youtube and fb and here my temps are
core 0,1,2,3 are 38C 38C 35C 37C and package 39C.when it was not oc package was 32C-35C my mobo is a asrock extreme4 gen 3. only thing that is overheating is my gpu and i havent even oc it 50C not playing games nothing lol but idk if it has to do with the tv screen 40" and its on 1360 by 768 was going to leave it at 1920by1080 but i didnt like the icons on my screen and yea im using a amd 6850. also yea my spelling sucks :)  more it to spanish.O yea my case is a Raidmax Aeolus Gaming Mid-Tower Case w/ Side-Panel Window, 5 fans i think 120mm.
February 10, 2012 11:10:13 PM

Looks kinda high
a c 139 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
February 10, 2012 11:52:21 PM

Did you lower voltage when you downclocked? It is pretty high for that speed. Either way such a small decrease in speed/volts makes no difference in cpu life. I'd say stick at 4.5 and whatever voltage you had then as long as it wasn't over 1.35.
February 10, 2012 11:56:09 PM

1.28 vCore, ~31-32 idle (core 1 @ 24, he's the overachiever of the family :p  )

Ambient around 20C winter or summer, small FFTs bring it to about 58C (1 core peaks at 61), which is well below max.

Been running this for nearly 3 months now without a single hitch.

What was your vCore when running 4.5GHz to stabilize? I basically copied my brother's settings and never even looked at dropping the vCore slowly to see how low I could go. Considering Intel states 1.52V being the "safe" maximum, I probably won't see this CPU die before I change it (probably another 3 years).

Unless your vCore for 4.5GHz was way too high and you want to keep the CPU for over 5 years, the difference between 4.2 & 4.5 on it's life will barely make a difference.
February 11, 2012 12:02:50 AM

i think he can easly get 4.5 with just 1.3 to 1.35v like i said im on 1.2v max and im running stable so far at 4.2oc
February 11, 2012 7:02:14 AM

Ran prime overnight and it seems 4.2ghz is stable @ 1.272v gonna try lower a bit further tonight and test again. Only thing I noticed is that either my pc is shutting down from me being idle or prime is shutting it down after a while of testing, but it seems its testing while theres no visual "life" in the computer. Is this normal? xD had 6 hours of testing done and windows didnt post for the first 2 times I tried to start it but when it got working afterwards Prime95 was still running so I think i was just supposed to wait a bit longer for it to start up oO
February 13, 2012 5:16:09 PM

Looks like its running stable at 1.248/1.256 according to cpuz(it keeps changing for some reason). We'll see how temps are gonna be after a while on prime95. so far it aint even going as high as 60. Usualy its sitting at 57/58. So i guess this means its a decent chip right?
February 13, 2012 6:20:33 PM

Another update for those that are trying to overlock too. especialy with a asus z68 l-vx board (which I've a feeling is a piece of trash because of its voltage control akwardness)
Removed the increase in vccio voltage from 1.100 to its original 1.050, drops average temps by 4 degrees and looks stable so far lol..
running at a ( - ) modifier on cpu of 0.015 atm which is giving me a 1.24v on cpuz (occasionally jumping to 1.248 but not often)
With my storm trooper and h80 I'm getting load temps (prime) to be sitting around 56*c (compared to the 61/62 I was getting at higher voltage/vccio)
So:
i5 2500k @ 4.2ghz 1.240v (negative modifier 0.015)
vccio at stock 1.050.

Looks to be running stable and cool in a fairly badly ventilated corner in my room xD
Core temps are as follows atm: 56/53/52/55.

Anyone know btw how reliable cpuz voltage is, and also if this 56*c on core 1 what is considered my vcore or if the actual vcore is higher then what cpuz normally sais?
February 14, 2012 1:16:44 AM

56 is not considered vcore as 56 is temperature not voltage. Also temp of ur cpu is 8-10 degrees less
February 14, 2012 9:32:16 AM

madchemist83 said:
56 is not considered vcore as 56 is temperature not voltage. Also temp of ur cpu is 8-10 degrees less

I know lol.. I'm asking if a 1.48vcore is decent for 4.2ghz xD
February 14, 2012 1:22:44 PM

1.48??? Is good enough for 5.2 ghz
February 14, 2012 2:08:41 PM

madchemist83 said:
1.48??? Is good enough for 5.2 ghz

ohh *** sry I meant 1.248 :D  forgot that 2 in there lol..
And als owas wondering if that 56*c is decent also for 4.2ghz under full load
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
February 17, 2012 1:24:44 PM

vaipogaming said:
Does that overclock sound normal?
I decided to downclock from 4.5ghz because I'd like to save the cpu's life time by as long as possible while still getting this 33% extra juice out of it. My temps stablised at 60/61*c (core 1) and others at 54-57 on prime95.

I havn't got that much time to be messing around with voltages so I tried at this and it seems to be stable for now. Don't know should I waste time on trying to run it at lower voltage..
Running a corsair h80 btw.

Thanks in advance to anyone that helps,


Go to this link and it will guide through the o'cing

http://www.clunk.org.uk/forums/ove [...] post110904

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1578110

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forum [...] p?t=264847

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/ [...] g#t1907892
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
February 17, 2012 9:00:06 PM

Temp has more to do with voltage than with the processor speed.

At that voltage, your temp seems a bit high for an H80 imo. Unless as you said, there are external influences. At any rate, 56'C temps are 'safe'.
February 17, 2012 10:20:25 PM

vollman1 said:
Temp has more to do with voltage than with the processor speed.

At that voltage, your temp seems a bit high for an H80 imo. Unless as you said, there are external influences. At any rate, 56'C temps are 'safe'.

Well some people are saying that this 56*c is not the actual temp of the processor or something. that the real temp is lower? this 56*c is the hotest core I've got, the others load at less
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
February 17, 2012 10:30:34 PM

56'C is not a problem for the cpu.

But, I think that the H80 should do better for you. Did you use the pre-applied thermal paste? Or, did you use your own?

If you use Realtemp, it will show you your core temps no problem:

http://www.techpowerup.com/realtemp/
February 17, 2012 10:41:57 PM

yeh I'm using realtemp. and ive some other one.
Cooler Master HTK-002-U1
Maybe its a bad quality thermal paste or something.. ah well. 56*c aint that bad either ways. I've heard of people going up to like 70*c like this when using a worse cooler and being "happy" with it.. so I'll take 56 any day :D 
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
February 17, 2012 10:44:20 PM

56'C is not bad :) 
February 18, 2012 1:03:24 AM

yes this is correct if ur hottest core is 56 that means ur cpu temp is 46-48
a c 139 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
February 18, 2012 1:59:55 AM

But when we refer to temps, we talk relative to core temps.
February 18, 2012 9:53:04 AM

madchemist83 said:
yes this is correct if ur hottest core is 56 that means ur cpu temp is 46-48

Then I guess 46-48*c is very good right? xD
February 19, 2012 2:08:39 AM

Who we? When intel says ur sb will burn at 72 c they mean cpu not core. So that's what we reffer to. Life is constant learning mate.
February 19, 2012 2:10:39 AM

Yes those are normal temps for ur voltage. Remember that voltage is important too don't go overboard. Keep it below 1.4
a c 139 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
February 19, 2012 3:35:14 AM

Why do you think realtemp and coretemp only show core temps? Why do people say going to 80s is still safe? Whenever you google and someone says a temp, that's core temps. Whenever someone says a temp in a thread or some guide, that's core temps. You can even google, should I look at core temps or package. Intel does state tcase for safe temp instead of core temps and they get the safe tcase temp from placing a sensor in the heat spreader but the package temp is most likely in the ihs. Does it seem weird to have a safe temp from a place no one will actually get a temp reading from? Life is constant learning and most of that is on your own.
February 19, 2012 5:05:10 AM

I didn't say it's ok to go to 80C on cores. Point of this post is to determine lowest possible voltage for highest reasonable oc. So ranting about which temps to use is pointless. temperatures should never go above 72 on cpu but cores run at different temps (5-10 C) so you want to pick highest. When I oced to 4.9 Ghz on small fft in Prime my hottest core was 71C and coldest 65, CPU temp was 57C. I think it might damage cpu in long term, that's why I sit on 4 Ghz now.
a c 139 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
February 20, 2012 12:08:12 AM

madchemist83 said:
Who we? When intel says ur sb will burn at 72 c they mean cpu not core. So that's what we reffer to. Life is constant learning mate.


:hello: 
November 18, 2012 6:27:59 AM

madchemist83 said:
Who we? When intel says ur sb will burn at 72 c they mean cpu not core. So that's what we reffer to. Life is constant learning mate.

The thing is, intel says nothing of the sort.

False info is spread all over the internet saying 72 C is the highest core temp you can go without burning the chip. The truth is that AMD chips burn...intel chips don't! I've had plenty AMDs catch fire but intel chips throttle and shut down before burning. That's one example of false info!

The other example is the 72 C thing. I guess people go on the intel site and look at specs by scolling down the list and finding a temp without bothering to see what that temp is. 72 C is the Tcase temp and it has no way describes the safe core temp limit. TjMax is the limit and it's a little higher than 72C. In fact, it's 26C higher at 98C!

That's right...all of you worrying about destroying your chip at 72C have lots more room to OC. If you want to push the limit then just crank it up and don't worry about it. The worst that will happen even in an overheating situation is that the chip's design will tell it to throttle down and eventually shut off if it keeps overheating.

It's pretty clear that most everyone posting info about the i series intel chips have lots of experience with AMD and relate their knowledge of that to intel. Get with it...intel puts a little better tech in their chips. I guess they don't like lawsuits from families with burning homes.
November 18, 2012 6:52:48 AM

It's late and I realized my mistake as soon as I posted it. Sorry, I don't want to be another one spreading false info.

The TjMax temp is the safe maximum temp of the CPU. This is the temp that CoreTemp and other CPU temp readers give us. The maximum TjMax temp for the i5-2500K is 98C.

The Tcase temp is the temp in the heat spreader. This is usually only measured by the factory because you would need to drill into the heat spreader and insert a thermometer to get it. This is the temp that intel's spec sheet on the site shows as 72C. It is absolutely not the safe max temp for the chip.

There's more explanation I could give but I'm too sleepy for it and going to bed instead. The basic gist of it is that 72C is the Tcase temp and is not the maximum recommended temp. The maximum recommended core temp (as is measured on most of the software we all have) is 98C.

Once the core temp gets around this number (give or take) the chip will begin throttling down to get the temp lower. Eventually it will shut off if you keep pushing it. Never worry though because even if it shuts down it will most certainly still be ready to go again once it cools down.

I've killed several intel chips in my life and it's actually a pretty tough thing to do. You really have to punish them over and over again. They will shut down from the safety feature many times before they die. I had a bad cooling system on an old PC I had (before I knew anything about repairs) and that chip overheated and shut down probably 100 times before it finally died. That was years ago, and a Celeron chip...I'm quite sure these Sandy Bridge chips will take even more punishment.

Right now I have an old laptop that's been overheating and shutting down for 2 years and still running. I'm experimenting with it since I've tried everything I can to keep it from overheating and nothing has worked. I'm gonna keep punishing it to see how long it takes before dying.

May 27, 2013 2:23:02 AM

Thank you for this thread, especially the clarification on the core temps. I have searched for days and days for this information clearly put.
!