Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Confirmed Major Problems OC'ing Ivy Bridge - i7-3770K & i5-3570K

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
April 13, 2012 6:27:18 PM

I seen several Ivy Bridge articles by now, and I did notice some time ago odd and HIGH temperatures but the pattern is unmistakable and I'd say Confirmed - The IB has a major OC'ing problem. This is counter intuitive for the expected 'efficiency' of SB 32nm vs 22nm IB, I expected drops and higher obtainable OC's per both vCore and Temps?!

This is really bad, a 4.7GHz~4.8GHz @ 1.31v~1.36v vCore resulting in a near 100C on a Corsair H100 water loop! In comparison, my 6-core i7-3930K 4.8GHz @ 1.36v~1.40v is 70C on the hottest core using the same Corsair H100. That's at minimum 30C Hotter on the 4-Core/8-Thread Ivy Bridge vs 6-Core/12-Thread on Sandy Bridge Extreme.

The folks at EK, Koolance must be loving this and getting ready to count their money. Sure you can get a CrAzY high 7GHz+ on LN2 (Liquid Nitrogen), but I don't know too many if any Gamers playing BF3 running back and forth filling their LN2 pots??!!


ref - http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/4663/asrock_z77_extrem...
ref - http://wccftech.com/intel-ivy-bridge-worse-overclocker-...
April 14, 2012 10:54:27 AM

So is 1.31V the minimum voltage required for a stable 4.7GHz~4.8GHz for the 3770k?

Can't remember which forum it was but just yesterday I saw someone had overclocked his 3570k to a stable ~4.8GHz with just a little over 1.2V (CPU-Z validated). No hyperthreading of course but I've understood even with 2600k/2700k you don't need much higher volts with hyperthreading on versus off?
a b à CPUs
April 14, 2012 11:05:04 AM

Aren't those just engineering samples? The retail product shouldn't be something like that but who knows. Let's just wait for the true review around 2 weeks from now
Related resources
April 14, 2012 11:30:42 AM

EzioAs said:
Aren't those just engineering samples? The retail product shouldn't be something like that but who knows. Let's just wait for the true review around 2 weeks from now


The retail stepping is E1 which I believe was the one used in these latest benchmarks.

Don't know what the default voltage is but isn't it supposed to be something like 1.1V? So a jump to over 1.3V seems pretty high.

Edit: Here is the screenshot of the 3570k overclock (post #150): http://www.overclock.net/t/1242711/tweak-town-asrock-z7... .
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
April 14, 2012 12:27:37 PM

im not too surprised, even with sandybridge it was apparent that the cpu could heat up VERY quickly internally. even with a cold heatsink on it, the internal heat is still high.

seems this effect is only amplified for ivybridge. the days of heavy overclocking may be behind us.
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
April 14, 2012 1:58:09 PM

I simply hope Intel corrects the problem, Early Adopters be careful!
April 14, 2012 2:19:39 PM

I'm still wondering why such high volts on those 3770k benches if the 3570k could be overclocked for a stable 4.8GHz @1.225V? Surely hyperthreading doesn't require that much more or does it? :o 
April 14, 2012 2:42:40 PM

Given the lower 22 nanometer 1.3 volts may be an over voltage. As the walls separating paths in the CPU get thinner so must the voltage passing though those paths get lower. The old 8086 worked on 5 volts which would fry these lower nm thin wall cores today.

Instead of trying to fix a symptom like the heat though revisions. Intel may have a harder task of finding something to lower voltage needed for higher clocks. This said the higher voltage for stable operation could be a factor of the motherboards needing better voltage regulation.
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
April 14, 2012 2:51:29 PM

There's also a relevant discussion more less starting here -> http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/page-303971_28_3500.h... relevant statements I posted:

OC'ing 101 - you can set the vCore Fixed <or> Offset plus a variety of LLC & Current values depending on the BIOS. Therefore, unless the CPU is under full load you can 'show' e.g. 4.8GHz in CPU-z (C-States disabled) + Offset (close to stock vCore), or be 'real' about it and show the fixed vCore (C-States disabled or enabled) at a more realistic vCore....PLUS add another +0.01v~+0.04v depending on the LLC level/current.

4.7GHz @ 1.36v / 98C ; assumption = fixed - http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/4663/asrock_z77_extrem...
4.8GHz @ 1.176v / 97C ; assumption = offset - http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/4621/intel_ivy_bridge...


IB OC - here's my point and at least my deflated expectations of the IB CPU: I expected the IB vCore, regardless of how you played with your OC, to be considerably lower than the SB CPU. Frankly, just about all the Fixed vCores I've seen are (mid+) 1.3Xv for 4.6GHz~4.8GHz however my expectations were 1.1Xv or less with obtainable 'on air' OC's 5.5GHz~(lower)6.XGHz i.e. exceeding the current SB limits -- IB doesn't deliver (yet)! Instead, you are thermally limited on 'air' or 'water' to high 4GHz to very low 5GHz i.e. same as SB, but instead (unexpected) the IB produces much higher temps than the SB by minimum +15C to +30C for the same 4.5GHz+ OC which is a problem IMO Intel should fix.

'My' feeling is Intel rushed out the IB it's 22nm technology in attempt to combat AMD; Tick Tock.

Similarly, the SB-E had a plethora of similar screw-ups: CPU known errata C1/C2 VT-d, and Chipset X79 C0/C1 errata which I'm still trying to get a straight answer why the chipset required a revision, and lets not forget the most recent PCIe 3.0 compatibility from nVidia. Further, the SB-E upon release had known issues of high temps/higher vCore on non-ASUS MOBO's -- the best guess is 2%~5%+ with temp problems.

As I said, I noted high IB temps for some time but I needed to see more data and on different Z77's. I still recall the initial lack luster performance in the Gigabyte Z77's and my assumption was a BIOS issue; see - http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/329828-28-bridge-cpus... My assumption was BIOS, and it seemed I was correct since other Z77's showed no such problems.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, now while AMD is more less no longer a threat to Intel, Intel needs to cool their jets and make damn sure both their Chipsets AND CPU's are spot on before delivering them to the public.

Bottom-line, I truly want the IB to be a killer CPU, and further I expect IF the Consumer IB vCore's are high that Intel re-release an errata update with the IB. Again, this spells-out being an Early Adopter as a risky proposition! We all remember the B2 errata fiasco, those with SB-E double whammy SB-E & X79 errata -- therefore since day one with SB->SB-E->IB(?) has been a bumpy road. Intel right now is like a double-bagger with a killer body...
April 14, 2012 7:33:05 PM

jaquith said:
Chipset X79 C0/C1 errata which I'm still trying to get a straight answer why the chipset required a revision


Curious to know if you've managed to find out anything of interest regarding the revision? It's supposed to be "available to customers" in a few weeks time.

With this apparent IB heat issue, it's looking more and more like X79 is the way to go for me. But I want the revised chip.
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
April 14, 2012 8:14:00 PM

Regarding X79, no concrete info, two guys that know more than I do don't know. Before I 'guessed' virtualization and IMO I probably am guessing right. Virtualization on the X79 is like using a 'screwdriver as a hammer' and is really meant for the C60x series and therefore not fully tested. Another SB-E issue is PCIe 3.0 validation for the nVidia GTX 600 series; for now nVidia is turning off PCIe 3.0 on the SB-E/X79; somewhere I posted a registry (hack) to re-enable PCIe 3.0 on the GTX 680's.

Lately with Intel it's one 'foul-up' after the other, it's almost funny.
April 15, 2012 10:04:14 AM

jaquith said:
Regarding X79, no concrete info, two guys that know more than I do don't know. Before I 'guessed' virtualization and IMO I probably am guessing right.


Not meaning to stray off topic too much but do you think efficiency improvements could be coming too (to any significant degree)? I've read about the IOH being surprisingly inefficient (?) and the IOH is what Intel is supposedly been fine-tuning.

Myself, I know next to nothing about the technical side of it but - like with Ivy - what I'd like to see is... less heat! :sweat: 
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
April 15, 2012 1:31:35 PM

The X79 is fine, IMO the vast (98%+) majority of folks are incorrectly install Windows 7 on the X79/SB-E. Here's my ATTO on the same Corsair CSSD-F180GBGT-BK 180GB SSD, but keep in mind I have this as my primary boot drive, Intel RSTE monitored, and SMART enabled (both slow the R/W).

X79 Jaquith (not my best ATTO either; the 2nd ATTO was done just now):
http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af254/Jaquith/ATTO_...
http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af254/Jaquith/ATTO_...

P67 Legit Reviews (P67 is faster than Z68; the SSD below is a non-boot drive):
http://www.legitreviews.com/images/reviews/1804/atto-18...
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
April 15, 2012 3:23:37 PM

one thing to be mentioned is, its possible this is all hokum in order to help clear out SB stock before IB arrives. send out some hot cpus and watch the SB just fly off the shelfs.
a c 82 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
April 15, 2012 3:29:05 PM

there's some thoughts from overclock.net that these are 'oem' low bin chips that have been leaked, there's good ones and bad ones, good ones appear to be legitimate 'early release' as opposed to chinese early release.
I'm going IVB, don't want much of an OC, but do want PCI-E3.0 for my gpu upgrade which will be nvidia 7XX in late 2013 or whenever it is, long game its not so bad if not better than SB.
a c 103 à CPUs
a c 239 K Overclocking
April 15, 2012 4:22:35 PM

Seeing as how any overclocking is a blessing given from the CPU manufacturer, meaning both camps could simply lock the adjustable parameters to operate in specification range windows and overclocking would simply be a thing of the past.

Unless hardware modifications are possible returning us to the Lazer Locked AMD days, don't really want to return to those days!

Meaning the overclocking draw is a sales factor enticement to overclockers only.

It's obvious now to Intel that they have shot themselves in the foot, meaning their desire to trump over AMDs Black Edition established CPUs by releasing the Intel K editions was obvious to grab that unlocked multiplier simplicity of overclocking edge AMD had.

Unfortunately for Intels greed they put in place their on limitations, when a budget or mid range CPU can be overclocked to competitive levels with their new Crown Jewel, there's a problem to be resolved on Intels part.

Of course the Crown Jewel can be overclocked but it's heat limited from all that's crammed under the hood, so I would venture to say the future released lower end Ks will suddenly become crippled and not perform as well overclocked as what's on the market right now.

The only true safety factor Intel presently has is very few overclockers have even discovered how to get all the Sandy Bridge Ks can deliver, and additionally that the overclocking community is a very small minority percentage of the entire computer using majority of the world as a whole.

Otherwise why buy the big dog that's being whipped by the little dog on steroids! :lol: 

Note: This is my opinion and take on things, you may agree or disagree I don't care, you will not change my opinion, but it is your prerogative to try.
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
April 15, 2012 4:32:29 PM

To my understanding the initial IB ES were 77W but the shipping and latest IB ES are upped to 95W TDP. Story - http://www.nordichardware.com/news/69-cpu-chipset/45720... Saturday April 14, 2012.

*note their statement "At 4.6 - 4.7 Ghz the temperature gets so high the processor throttles, meaning it clocks down to protect the processor from permanent damage. Comparing with Core i7-2600k that in many cases can do 4.8 - 5.0 GHz stable with a good after-market cooler, Ivy Bridge looks to be 200 - 300 Mhz worse than Sandy Bridge."

As far as IB vs SB vs SB-E, for Gaming it's 6 of one half a dozen of the other. Most folks have absolutely no need for a 6-core/12-thread CPU i.e. SB-E/LGA 2011. In 'my' case the more cores the better, my 'business' is Enterprise SQL. However, folks who do other forms of 'rendering' will feel the same, and the SB-E/LGA 2011 platform does offer 32-lanes of PCIe 3.0 to the GPU or at least in theory.

Some LGA 1155/Z77 + IB will offer a PLX PCIe switch to get, as I recall, 32-lanes of PCIe 2.0 with 4-WAY SLI support (x8/x8/x8/x8) with some burden of latency.
April 16, 2012 7:36:04 PM

It's funny how after seeing one unofficial review with a IVY CPU they got in china from who knows where and it is confirmed that IVY bridge sucks. I will reserve judgement for the official release.
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
April 16, 2012 7:50:57 PM

No what's really fun is we are getting our info from China from an American based company. That's ROFL!
May 14, 2012 7:31:34 AM

jaquith said:
I seen several Ivy Bridge articles by now, and I did notice some time ago odd and HIGH temperatures but the pattern is unmistakable and I'd say Confirmed - The IB has a major OC'ing problem. This is counter intuitive for the expected 'efficiency' of SB 32nm vs 22nm IB, I expected drops and higher obtainable OC's per both vCore and Temps?!

This is really bad, a 4.7GHz~4.8GHz @ 1.31v~1.36v vCore resulting in a near 100C on a Corsair H100 water loop! In comparison, my 6-core i7-3930K 4.8GHz @ 1.36v~1.40v is 70C on the hottest core using the same Corsair H100. That's at minimum 30C Hotter on the 4-Core/8-Thread Ivy Bridge vs 6-Core/12-Thread on Sandy Bridge Extreme.

The folks at EK, Koolance must be loving this and getting ready to count their money. Sure you can get a CrAzY high 7GHz+ on LN2 (Liquid Nitrogen), but I don't know too many if any Gamers playing BF3 running back and forth filling their LN2 pots??!!

http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af254/Jaquith/IB_OC_Temps.png
ref - http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/4663/asrock_z77_extrem...
ref - http://wccftech.com/intel-ivy-bridge-worse-overclocker-...



hi, i 100% agree with u "Intel" officaly anonced IB to be a low thermal and excellent overclocking processor , however from the very first day i was in doubt with there statement i shared a common physics principle in tweektown in order 2 make people understand tht why Ivybridges will must have higher thermal values and they will be never cooler than old sandybridge processors at anycost in case of normal clockrates , and ultimately worse in case of overclocking . how it happens let me tell u guys by a simple experiment and general laws of thermodynamics .

1). sandybridge : 32 nm , Ivybridge : 22 nm (note that point)
u see that there is a remarkable decrease in the chipsize of Ivybridge .

2).now as all of us know that a tea or any thing which is hotter gets cooled easily if the surface area of the tea is increased e.g by pouring it in to some plate or saucer .

now if we have 2 same vessals e.g a pot. lets boil 2 cups of water put one cup in to a steel coffee mug and other one in to a steel saucer and plate now put these respectively in both pots and cover the pots with 2 similar lids leave them for a minute or 2 after that touch both lids

u will notice that the lid of pot in which saucer was placed will be hotter than the one in which coffee mug was placed .


why ?

no just read the point number "2" it all happens due to increase in surface area the more surface area the more heat will evaporate which will ultimately warm the lid more quickly and with higher temperature than that of "liquid poured in a steel mug" which means that the liquid inside of a steel mug will be hotter but its lid will be cooler and the liquid in the plate will be cooler but its lid will be hotter...

now if we relate it with the Ivybridge processor . read the point no (1)


Intel will have to put the circuits closer in order to decrease the chipsize which will result in conjustion which will lead to less hottness escape and higher core tempereatures.

sorry to say Intel has not done his home work well on the desighning.

conclusion:
sandybridge is better than Ivybridge.
a c 82 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
May 14, 2012 8:45:41 AM

dead_sincebirth said:
hi, i 100% agree with u "Intel" officaly anonced IB to be a low thermal and excellent overclocking processor , however from the very first day i was in doubt with there statement i shared a common physics principle in tweektown in order 2 make people understand tht why Ivybridges will must have higher thermal values and they will be never cooler than old sandybridge processors at anycost in case of normal clockrates , and ultimately worse in case of overclocking . how it happens let me tell u guys by a simple experiment and general laws of thermodynamics .

1). sandybridge : 32 nm , Ivybridge : 22 nm (note that point)
u see that there is a remarkable decrease in the chipsize of Ivybridge .

2).now as all of us know that a tea or any thing which is hotter gets cooled easily if the surface area of the tea is increased e.g by pouring it in to some plate or saucer .

now if we have 2 same vessals e.g a pot. lets boil 2 cups of water put one cup in to a steel coffee mug and other one in to a steel saucer and plate now put these respectively in both pots and cover the pots with 2 similar lids leave them for a minute or 2 after that touch both lids

u will notice that the lid of pot in which saucer was placed will be hotter than the one in which coffee mug was placed .


why ?

no just read the point number "2" it all happens due to increase in surface area the more surface area the more heat will evaporate which will ultimately warm the lid more quickly and with higher temperature than that of "liquid poured in a steel mug" which means that the liquid inside of a steel mug will be hotter but its lid will be cooler and the liquid in the plate will be cooler but its lid will be hotter...

now if we relate it with the Ivybridge processor . read the point no (1)


Intel will have to put the circuits closer in order to decrease the chipsize which will result in conjustion which will lead to less hottness escape and higher core tempereatures.

sorry to say Intel has not done his home work well on the desighning.

conclusion:
sandybridge is better than Ivybridge.


Surely your conclusion should read 'I am smarter than all of intel'

Yes the watts per mm2 are higher than in sandy, about 10% higher. However if the heat spreader was perfectly connected then the heat spreader becomes a part of that surface area and the watts per mm2 go down.

The heat spreader is unfortunately very far from being perfectly connected, its a comparatively higher thermally resistant connection, this is the root of the problem.

However I have gotten my 3570K to 4.3Ghz, peaking at 70C in IBT 62C in game, with only 10mins work. This is about the same as a 4.5-4.6 Sandy. Given that all this was meant to be was a die shrink then there is nothing to complain about.

If they ever go back and resolve the heat spreader contact issue it will be much better. There's a report linked to on tweaktown indicating a 15C drop in temp at OC load by changing the tim between the die and the heat spreader, this indicates that the process is sound and that haswell will be cool if they use a good tim.
a c 103 à CPUs
a c 239 K Overclocking
May 14, 2012 9:48:42 AM

This just makes My Water Cooling Solution much more appealing to those that have the room to accommodate it! :) 
a c 82 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
May 14, 2012 10:40:17 AM

4Ryan6 said:
This just makes My Water Cooling Solution much more appealing to those that have the room to accommodate it! :) 


water can soak up an awful out of heat energy, and love the huge res. Haven't gotten into water yet, last time I considered it was in the days of the resorator (that big finned tower reservoir) for quietening an XP3200+ system.

If someone had a paid service for delidding and re-applying the internal tim with decent stuff, i'd go for it.

Link for the tim issue evidence http://www.tweaktown.com/news/24059/ivy_bridge_s_heat_p...
a c 103 à CPUs
a c 239 K Overclocking
May 14, 2012 11:14:08 AM

Quote:
:pfff:  :lol: 


According to your own statements you don't clock past 4.0ghz, you could just mount a pin wheel and blow air inside your case occasionally to do that, can't you? :lol: 
a c 103 à CPUs
a c 239 K Overclocking
May 14, 2012 11:47:50 AM

Quote:
4.1GHz is it bro....
it's just you and your water-cooling brethren, you guys operate on another level..
you and moto especially with water loops that wrap around the house..
insane.


:pt1cable:  :lol: 
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
May 14, 2012 4:24:32 PM

13th, I got mine to 4.4 stable with stock voltage right at 60C. Maybe it's part of that processor lottery (only left it there for 15 minutes tho since I have no business case to operate at that speed in real life - went down to 3.8 to make Battlefield 3 happy).
a c 82 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
May 14, 2012 5:06:01 PM

mines at 4.3 at -0.015 V from stock. V simple.
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
May 15, 2012 12:31:11 AM

J_E_D_70 said:
13th, I got mine to 4.4 stable with stock voltage right at 60C. Maybe it's part of that processor lottery (only left it there for 15 minutes tho since I have no business case to operate at that speed in real life - went down to 3.8 to make Battlefield 3 happy).

13thmonkey said:
mines at 4.3 at -0.015 V from stock. V simple.

TRY 4.5GHZ~4.8GHz~5.0GHz then we will have something to talk about. 4.6GHz~5.0GHz is very doable on the SB, but not on the IB -- your temps will go through the roof whereas on the SB it won't!

That's the problem with IB.

Further, post your Validated CPU-z with 4.7GHz or higher then I'll pay attention.
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
May 15, 2012 3:06:40 AM

Jaq,

Overclock for the sake of overclock is useless except as an experiment. It's unnatural e-peen enhancement and nothing more. Most likely it's to compensate for something else, perhaps an ugly windowed gamer case with UV lighting, for example.

Battlefield 3 is very taxing on the CPU in multiplayer and even on 64-player maps I don't go to 100% utilization at 3.8GHz so I backed down to there. Anything more than that is irrelevant. How many games out there require 5GHz? None.

Thanks for your input though!
May 15, 2012 4:59:24 AM

I'm using a Phanteks PH-TC14PE on an i5-3570K running @ 4.6GHz, all power saving options left enabled, VCORE is offset with a 1.344v peak, CPU PLL is @ 1.5v. System stable on prime for 7 hours (terminated at this time by me, not crash), max temperature 81c, considering the 105c TJMAX, I thought that was pretty reasonable. I tried for 4.7, but it kept crashing under prime, with vcore up to 1.45v. I didn't feel comfortable giving it any more than that.

Stepping up from a Q6600, I am very much satisfied. However, had I upgraded from a 2500K, I'd feel a bit cheated. For anyone who's been reading reviews this should be already known.

By comparison, my chip's overclock capability seems mediocre. Some guys on the overclock.net forums have better, validated results can be seen here:

http://www.overclock.net/t/1247869/ivy-bridge-stable-su...

Ivy overclocking process is apparently very similar to Sandy, but for anyone unfamiliar whos looking to squeeze a little more out of your new Ivy Bridge chip, this thread taught me a lot:

http://www.overclock.net/t/1247413/ivy-bridge-overclock...
a c 82 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
May 15, 2012 6:37:57 AM

jaquith said:
TRY 4.5GHZ~4.8GHz~5.0GHz then we will have something to talk about. 4.6GHz~5.0GHz is very doable on the SB, but not on the IB -- your temps will go through the roof whereas on the SB it won't!

That's the problem with IB.

Further, post your Validated CPU-z with 4.7GHz or higher then I'll pay attention.


4.3IVB is about about 4.5-4.6SB, and I stopped at 4.3 because temps were too hot for my liking ~80C at 4.4.

I was comparing to the previous respondents comment on 4.4.

My stated aim prior to purchase was a 4.2-4.4 OC. anything more is unnecessary for 24/7 so i'm not interested in beyond that.

I've also been reading a lot about IVB (and I actually have one), and there are people reaching the clocks that you describe, prime stable, and they are recognising that not every SB reached 4.6-5.0.

a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
May 15, 2012 11:56:31 AM

13thmonkey said:
4.3IVB is about about 4.5-4.6SB, and I stopped at 4.3 because temps were too hot for my liking ~80C at 4.4.

Duh, you are only Confirming my Thread -- look @ the date of this thread -- it was BEFORE the IB 'Official Release.'
a c 82 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
May 15, 2012 12:05:35 PM

jaquith said:
Duh, you are only Confirming my Thread -- look @ the date of this thread -- it was BEFORE the IB 'Official Release.'

and your point is? those were my personal limits on medium-high end air.
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
May 15, 2012 12:14:02 PM


The first link shows from their data 1.3Xv is about the conventional cooling limit on the IB.

The second link - LN2 and a variety of CPU-z captures - there's no way under load on air or conventional water that 1.55v is in anyway stable - sure you might snag a CPU-z, but that's about it.

SB-E 4.8 @ 1.36v~1.40v (6-cores all energy savings enabled) rock solid 7/24/365 OC (SQL coding/testing + play); going to 4.9~5GHz+ required a >1.45v which I won't use on 'my' SB-E:
http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2320509
http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2261309

http://www.overclock.net/t/1167939/sandy-bridge-e-overc...
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
May 15, 2012 12:24:05 PM

13thmonkey said:
and your point is? those were my personal limits on medium-high end air.

My Point is as the Title reads = Confirmed Major Problems OC'ing Ivy Bridge - i7-3770K & i5-3570K

The IB is a very poor example of Intel's 'Tick' and is at best more of a tweaked 'Tock.' Further, IF the IB was a good 'Tick' then a lot more people would be trading-in their SB for an IB. Tri-Gate looked dynamite on paper, but in reality it's the Achilles Heel to the IB. I read the 'TIM' differences and IF and I mean IF that's the case then Intel is crazy not to go back ans release the IB v2 and IMO recall/exchange to folks who have them now e.g. IB v1.
a c 103 à CPUs
a c 239 K Overclocking
May 15, 2012 12:29:07 PM

jaquith said:
Duh, you are only Confirming my Thread -- look @ the date of this thread -- it was BEFORE the IB 'Official Release.'


That came across a little on the rude side.

Were you expecting your thread to be discredited?

Honestly it's not like it was breaking news in the first place was it?

Anything before the official release is mostly discounted anyway, they're engineering samples.

What matters to me is the actual results when those of us that go that route and overclock them attain.

Originally the Sandy Bridge Ks were limited for months until some of us actually figured out how to overclock all 4 cores to their fullest potential.

Which by the way some here at THGF still don't know they can do.
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
May 15, 2012 12:42:52 PM

4Ryan6 said:
That came across a little on the rude side.

Were you expecting your thread to be discredited?

Honestly it's not like it was breaking news in the first place was it?

No. By the time I posted it, there were a few reliable folks showing their OC temps and all were high plus they were all close. I took the stand of 'Confirmed' really early.

I also got a lot of crap though when I posted IB's with 95W TDP, and it took a week after the IB release for folks to accept that I was correct there as well.

The only thing that is stuck in my head is to avoid 'Crystal Ball' Threads -- even when you have the data. It riles up too many emotions with folks.

TDP:
Core i7-3770K (3.5GHz) 95W
Core i7-3770 (3.4GHz) 95W
Core i7-3770S (3.1GHz) 65W
Core i7-3770T (2.5GHz) 45W
Core i5-3570K (3.4GHz) 95W
Core i5-3750T (2.3GHz) 45W
Core i5-3550 (3.3GHz) 95W
Core i5-3550S (3.0GHz) 65W
Core i5-3450 (3.1GHz) 95W
Core i5-3450S (2.8GHz) 65W

Frankly, I assumed this thread already was old news...
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
May 15, 2012 12:45:23 PM

New breaking news - the GTX 670 'can' do 4-WAY in the near future with a driver update...confirmed last week.
a c 82 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
May 15, 2012 1:52:54 PM

jaquith said:
My Point is as the Title reads = Confirmed Major Problems OC'ing Ivy Bridge - i7-3770K & i5-3570K

The IB is a very poor example of Intel's 'Tick' and is at best more of a tweaked 'Tock.' Further, IF the IB was a good 'Tick' then a lot more people would be trading-in their SB for an IB. Tri-Gate looked dynamite on paper, but in reality it's the Achilles Heel to the IB. I read the 'TIM' differences and IF and I mean IF that's the case then Intel is crazy not to go back ans release the IB v2 and IMO recall/exchange to folks who have them now e.g. IB v1.


Its a die shrink, thats a tick, its a bit quicker per clock than sb, thats a bonus, there are a few extra features, they're bonuses, it was never meant to be a trade in part, this is meant to prove (or disprove) 22nm as a technology, thats all, so that they are not doing it on a new architecture as well. So thats all of those boxes ticked. its a bit warmer, thats a part of the learning. Haswell will next bring a new architecture (tock) on a proven (and hopefully improved upon) technology. I don't really what you are not excitable about.
a c 82 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
May 15, 2012 2:26:15 PM

Quote:
high horse much...?
;) 

(not you 13th...)


thanks for what I assume was the edit ;) 

If he looks back on the thread I was supplying supporting evidence of others with pre-released chips having the same trouble. Must be off his ritalin.
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
May 15, 2012 2:27:34 PM

13thmonkey said:
Its a die shrink, thats a tick...

In addition to a SB-E I also have a dozen i7-930's (45 nm) and an i7-980X (32 nm) -- they're considered the same and NOT a Tick - Tock so die size itself doesn't justify a 'Tick'....edit/the 'first' rendition of a lower nm is typically a Tick then the Tock is additional refinements.

My point is the IB is a very limited success and certainly not as good as it 'could of' or 'should of' been, the fault is on Intel's shoulders. The IB in much the same way of the 'Bulldozer' failed it's expectations - period.

The expected 'efficiency' from both a Thermal and vCore on the IB is IMO a step at best sideways and worst backwards.

Here's the Intel Tick Tock - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Tick-Tock

a c 82 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
May 15, 2012 3:21:20 PM

jaquith said:
In addition to a SB-E I also have a dozen i7-930's (45 nm) and an i7-980X (32 nm) -- they're considered the same and NOT a Tick - Tock so die size itself doesn't justify a 'Tick'....edit/the 'first' rendition of a lower nm is typically a Tick then the Tock is additional refinements.

My point is the IB is a very limited success and certainly not as good as it 'could of' or 'should of' been, the fault is on Intel's shoulders. The IB in much the same way of the 'Bulldozer' failed it's expectations - period.

The expected 'efficiency' from both a Thermal and vCore on the IB is IMO a step at best sideways and worst backwards.

Here's the Intel Tick Tock - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Tick-Tock

http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/images/diagrams/ticktock_infographic_web.jpg/_jcr_content/renditions/cq5dam.thumbnail.920.460.png


you said it IMO

they want to be sure they understand 22nm so they can concentrate on microarch for haswell.

who-else's shoulders would it be on?

the change from 45nm to 32nm is a tick, and so you have both in the 930 and 980X, same micro-arch different process, its all in your post.
a b à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
May 15, 2012 4:23:14 PM

I 'get' Intel's version of Tick-Tock -- what I'm 'trying' to say is the lower nm 'alone' is IMO a weird version of 'Tick' especially on the same socket; it 'seems' ass-backwards. The initial Haswell (22nm) is a Tock, but the second Haswell code name 'Broadwell' (14nm) will be a Tick. Clearly, I understand Intel's version of Tick-Tock, but I don't agree with it.

I get:
i7-930 (45nm)/LGA 1366 = Tock, i7-980X (32nm)/LGA 1366 = Tick, SB/SB-E (32nm)/LGA 1155 & 2011 = both Tock, and IB/IB-E (22nm)/LGA 1155 & 2011 = both Tick...

As far as the "same micro-arch different process" ditto arguments with the SB/IB.

Intel's version as I stated is "the 'first' rendition of a lower nm is typically a Tick then the Tock is additional refinements" though be it on totally different Sockets & Integration i.e. PCIe or iGPU from the SB -- expect the SB-E with no iGPU.
a c 103 à CPUs
a c 239 K Overclocking
May 16, 2012 10:27:23 AM

gmkos said:
I'm using a Phanteks PH-TC14PE on an i5-3570K running @ 4.6GHz, all power saving options left enabled, VCORE is offset with a 1.344v peak, CPU PLL is @ 1.5v. System stable on prime for 7 hours (terminated at this time by me, not crash), max temperature 81c, considering the 105c TJMAX, I thought that was pretty reasonable. I tried for 4.7, but it kept crashing under prime, with vcore up to 1.45v. I didn't feel comfortable giving it any more than that.

Stepping up from a Q6600, I am very much satisfied. However, had I upgraded from a 2500K, I'd feel a bit cheated. For anyone who's been reading reviews this should be already known.

By comparison, my chip's overclock capability seems mediocre. Some guys on the overclock.net forums have better, validated results can be seen here:

http://www.overclock.net/t/1247869/ivy-bridge-stable-su...

Ivy overclocking process is apparently very similar to Sandy, but for anyone unfamiliar whos looking to squeeze a little more out of your new Ivy Bridge chip, this thread taught me a lot:

http://www.overclock.net/t/1247413/ivy-bridge-overclock...



According to your 2nd link he was able to overclock to 5.3ghz on air cooling and you say you got your 3570 to 4.6ghz, what are the rest of your specs and would you mind running some benches at 4.6ghz, or even better 4.5ghz, like say 3DM11 and 3DMVantage?

Overclock.net is well know for throwing the caution playbook out of the window but they are also a good litmus test to see what is actually possible with the proper cooling, but in comparative results what happens in benches when comparing a 2500K to the 3570K at the 4.5ghz clock.

Personally I'm not as concerned with how high can it be clocked as to when does the performance begin to fall off, because then there is really no gain in overclocking past that point.

I would really love to see what's attainable from the CPU using fixed voltage with all the Intel features disabled, which is how I overclock my 2500K, but that's probably past your comfort zone, so I'm not asking you to do that.

You might find this interesting.
a b à CPUs
May 16, 2012 10:34:09 AM

A tick is a shrink to a smaller nm size using a mature architecture typically bringing lower power consumption. Ie 22nm + the same sandybridge arch = Ivy,

Tock is when they update the architecture using a now matured manufacturing node. ie 22nm + new Haswell arch.

So they are effectively only taking half the amount of risk each year rather then risking both new arch and die shrink goes wrong at the same time and end up with a product thats a lot worse.

One must wonder if they purposely made ivy perform worse then it can so they can claim a major breakthrough when they introduced the next generation of chips. Not like they have anything to worry about sells.
a c 103 à CPUs
a c 239 K Overclocking
May 16, 2012 11:09:03 AM

zhihao50 said:
A tick is a shrink to a smaller nm size using a mature architecture typically bringing lower power consumption. Ie 22nm + the same sandybridge arch = Ivy,

Tock is when they update the architecture using a now matured manufacturing node. ie 22nm + new Haswell arch.

So they are effectively only taking half the amount of risk each year rather then risking both new arch and die shrink goes wrong at the same time and end up with a product thats a lot worse.

One must wonder if they purposely made ivy perform worse then it can so they can claim a major breakthrough when they introduced the next generation of chips. Not like they have anything to worry about sells.


Somewhere along the lines Intel has to be considering the mid range capability of overclocked performance surpassing their flagship line, I'm sure they are not ignorant of those facts.

But in the same respect Intels solid advantage is overclockers are a very small minority of consumers compared to the entire world of computer users.

Only through overclocking are the weaknesses revealed, performance wise with no overclocking involved the IB is a step up from the SB, it's not a leap, just a step.

Presently AMD is no challenge so Intel is not forced to do any plan changing, that doesn't mean they purposely made Ivy perform worse, it was just another step.

The Ma and Pa daily computer buyer doesn't even know what overclocking is.

The new transistors are also a limiting factor and are bringing new heat to the table to be dealt with but only overclocked, otherwise the CPUs run fine.
a c 82 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
May 16, 2012 11:55:18 AM

jaquith said:
I 'get' Intel's version of Tick-Tock -- what I'm 'trying' to say is the lower nm 'alone' is IMO a weird version of 'Tick' especially on the same socket; it 'seems' ass-backwards. The initial Haswell (22nm) is a Tock, but the second Haswell code name 'Broadwell' (14nm) will be a Tick. Clearly, I understand Intel's version of Tick-Tock, but I don't agree with it.

I get:
i7-930 (45nm)/LGA 1366 = Tock, i7-980X (32nm)/LGA 1366 = Tick, SB/SB-E (32nm)/LGA 1155 & 2011 = both Tock, and IB/IB-E (22nm)/LGA 1155 & 2011 = both Tick...

As far as the "same micro-arch different process" ditto arguments with the SB/IB.

Intel's version as I stated is "the 'first' rendition of a lower nm is typically a Tick then the Tock is additional refinements" though be it on totally different Sockets & Integration i.e. PCIe or iGPU from the SB -- expect the SB-E with no iGPU.


if you don't agree with the naming convention and definitions that intel has created for structuring its R&D and Release then clearly intel are wrong.

The lower nm alone IS THEIR DEFINITION of a tick. I frankly don't care if the naming convention seems a bit odd to you, you didn't create the naming convention. Every time that they have ticked, they have shrunk it with broadly the same Microarch, this time they have shrunk it, with broadly the same microarch (except the GPU which they boosted a lot, but no-one cares), so that makes it a tick like all of the others.
a c 103 à CPUs
a c 239 K Overclocking
May 16, 2012 2:51:26 PM

Come on guys, just let it go, this thread has great potential.
a c 82 à CPUs
a b K Overclocking
May 16, 2012 3:00:58 PM

4Ryan6 said:
Come on guys, just let it go, this thread has great potential.

OK
!