Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I5 2500k @ 4.5Ghz 1.3v? Stock 3.7 @ 1.22v?

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Overclocking
  • Intel i5
Last response: in Overclocking
Share
April 22, 2012 8:00:17 PM

Hey guys, I've recently been working on overclocking my new rig (specs in sig). I think I'm happy with my stable 4.5Ghz but it comes at the cost of 1.3v on my vcore. My temps never go above 65 running prime95 and probably about 81-83 running IBT on maxmimum.

Just want opinions, does 1.3v sound to heavy for such a modest OC?

Also, incase I decide to go back to stock voltage, my MB defaults have the stock cpu running at 3.7Ghz with turbo, but for some reason it sets my voltage all the way up to 1.22. This is a problem because I can manually set it to 1.12 @ 4.0Ghz and be completely stable. I notice large temperature readings even though it's completely stock.

Now I understand that I can just set it manually and rest assured, how ever for power consumption, I may not want my voltage to remain a constant 1.12 (Like when idling it should drop to about .985v.). Has anyone had this issue where the MB sets your voltage a lot higher then it has to be? How can I ramp it down with out affecting stability and without manually changing my voltage? Most importantly, why does the MB feel it is neccesary to use such a high voltage?

Thanks in advance!

More about : 2500k 5ghz stock 22v

a b K Overclocking
April 23, 2012 12:41:32 AM

From what I've heard, Intel Burn Test doesn't test the stability of your machine. So stick to prime 95 for testing that.

The absolute max for i5/i7 cores is 1.4v so 1.3 is fine.
m
0
l
a c 238 à CPUs
a c 106 K Overclocking
April 23, 2012 1:29:08 AM

1.3v is completely safe for long term use and pretty much average for a 4.5Ghz overclock with a 2500k/2600k. As long as you are under 1.4v you are fine. And the absolute max is actually 1.5v but if you want your CPU to last you should keep the voltage as low as you can. Sandy Bridge chips don't start degrading due to electromigration until you get around 1.4v though.
m
0
l
Related resources
April 23, 2012 4:58:29 AM

bobusboy said:
From what I've heard, Intel Burn Test doesn't test the stability of your machine. So stick to prime 95 for testing that.

The absolute max for i5/i7 cores is 1.4v so 1.3 is fine.


From what I've heard, IBT does in fact test for stability.. as a matter of fact if it is not stable it gives you a pop up menu saying its not stable :) . I do use prime95 for a few hours after running the quick IBT just to make sure.



anort3 said:
1.3v is completely safe for long term use and pretty much average for a 4.5Ghz overclock with a 2500k/2600k. As long as you are under 1.4v you are fine. And the absolute max is actually 1.5v but if you want your CPU to last you should keep the voltage as low as you can. Sandy Bridge chips don't start degrading due to electromigration until you get around 1.4v though.


I understand the 1.4-1.5v threshold. I just wasn't sure what was average so thanks for pointing that out to me. I don't plan on pushing it any more then it is now.

Any ideas on why my MB feels it needs 1.22v +/- .50v to reach 3.7Ghz?
m
0
l
a c 186 à CPUs
a c 150 K Overclocking
April 23, 2012 5:55:28 AM

Just stay under 1.52v and you will be fine, as for your voltages they are perfectly fine. I can get a stable 4.5ghz with 1.295v and a stable 4ghz with 1.065v.
m
0
l
April 23, 2012 6:11:19 AM

amuffin said:
Just stay under 1.52v and you will be fine, as for your voltages they are perfectly fine. I can get a stable 4.5ghz with 1.295v and a stable 4ghz with 1.065v.


Thank you, I will be happy with my 1.3v, but no one has answers my second question about the MB default voltages being so high
m
0
l
a c 186 à CPUs
a c 150 K Overclocking
April 23, 2012 6:23:04 AM

It doesn't really matter, probably because you are running an older bios.
m
0
l
April 23, 2012 7:06:15 AM

amuffin said:
It doesn't really matter, probably because you are running an older bios.


Lol, it definitely matters to me, and I am running the latest bios.
m
0
l
a c 186 à CPUs
a c 150 K Overclocking
April 23, 2012 7:12:21 AM

Why would it matter to you? You did raise the voltage for 4.5ghz. :??: 
m
0
l
April 23, 2012 11:26:41 AM

amuffin said:
Just stay under 1.52v and you will be fine, as for your voltages they are perfectly fine. I can get a stable 4.5ghz with 1.295v and a stable 4ghz with 1.065v.

What's your system's specs and OC settings?
m
0
l
April 23, 2012 10:58:25 PM

amuffin said:
Why would it matter to you? You did raise the voltage for 4.5ghz. :??: 


As i mentioned, I may consider going back to stock clock settings.. Not to mention I just want to know why the hardware is acting the way it is.



Quote:
how did you clock your unit, what settings.?
I hope this is a BIOS clock and not some software manipulation.
lots of people make clocking a 2500K more difficult than it needs to be.
for a simple clock of 4.3GHz or lower all you need to do is disable turbo boost and raise the multiplier on 'auto' voltage.
then check temps.
:??: 
then if there is a temp problem (sometimes associated with higher voltage, sometimes not), then the tweaking begins.


I did it manually though BIOS, multiplier is at 45.. BCLK @ 100, vcc @ 1.3, DDR timings all set to manufacture settings..

None of that is the problem, though, the problem is at default levels 3.3Ghz with 3.7Ghz turbo (which is default) my board is set to all defaults (auto everything) accross the board and is using 1.22v for stock performance where as when I set it manually to 4.0Ghz turbo i can get by on 1.12v with out breaking a sweat. This 1.22v default is resulting in unneccesary heat output and is a little perplexing to me.

Do you see my problem now? Basically, what I want to know is why, when everything is set to absolute default (auto) values, it runs at such a high voltage.
m
0
l
April 24, 2012 3:19:02 AM

Quote:
all that you just mention....
all those voltages you read out seem high to me.


lol.. yes that's what ive been saying.
m
0
l
!