Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

E5200 overclocked and undervolted, something wrong or good chip ?

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 17, 2011 2:25:04 PM

Hi there, I have an E5200 overclocked to 3.325 ghz (12.5 x 266) at 1.15 volts (thats what I selected in the BIOS and in CPU-Z it says its 1.072volts)

When I ran prime95 and intel burn test it was stable. Research on the internet concludes that intel burn test is supposed to be more stressing for the CPU and the temperatures can rise 15-20C more than prime95 but I ran it 20 times and maximum stress level with the maximum available ram which was about 1.5gb (originally 2.5gb but while windows 7 is running it takes up around 900mb -1000mb) and my temperatures were 2C less for both cores as compared to one and a half hours of prime95. The idle temperatures are 33C for both cores.

Is it bad that I have overclocked my CPU and undervolted it ? Also CPU-Z shows the voltage dropping from 1.104 volts to 1.072 volts while running intel burn test. It seems a little bit wierd, do you guys think it might be damaging my CPU ? I have disable the C1E in the bios already.

If it is ok should I carry on overclocking my CPU to 3.6ghz so that it doesnt bottleneck my new HD6770 and keep it undervolted ? I am using Arctic Freezer 7 Pro Heatsink.

My System Specs:

- Pentium Dual Core E5200 currently at 3.3ghz
- GA-73PVM-S2H (nForce 630i Chipset)
- 2.5gb Ram
- HD6770 (ordered, not received yet)
- 320gb HDD
- 500W OCZ StealthXStream PSU

Thanks.

December 17, 2011 3:01:08 PM

if it's stable as you said, mate its a great overclock,,then no worries, , a small suggestion, get 2 gb more ram if possible.
a b à CPUs
December 17, 2011 4:49:27 PM

No, it you got your CPU with a stable overclock while undervolting it, that's great. You might be able to put the voltage back to stock and get a higher OC.
Related resources
a c 172 à CPUs
December 17, 2011 5:56:07 PM

The E5200 is based on the Wolfdale core. Intel's manx recommended voltage is 1.45 volts. max recommended temps are 70 C.

And many E5200 series chips will run faster than 4 GHz. Even with the rather average ACF7P, you have a fair amount of room to push higher.

The 1.104 voltage drop to 1.072 is called vdroop. It is a normal feature.
December 19, 2011 8:07:54 PM

Thanks for the reply guys, I might be updating the ram to 4gb but dont know yet. Although its stable can anyone explain why my temperatures are lower when running intel burn test because it makes me think that the processor might working less hard as some sort of safety feature that prevents the computer from crashing if it reaches full potential and less voltage although task manager shows 100% CPU usage when running intel burn test. Cheers
December 20, 2011 4:01:37 AM

just dont worry, your temps are normal. just overclock a little far if you can and post your results
December 21, 2011 5:44:49 PM

Ok I will overclock my CPU after I receive my graphic card and post the results.
a b à CPUs
December 21, 2011 6:47:14 PM

Cool! I hope it all goes well!
January 7, 2012 11:54:03 AM

so I got my graphic card(hd6770) which was bad then got an RMA for it, still I am having a few problems with it. Anyhoo just to let you guys know I overclocked my E5200 to 3.51ghz still undervolted at 1.19 volts so I believe I can take it to atleast 3.7ghz on stock voltage but havnt tried that yet but when I do I will post the settings. Just an update.

a b à CPUs
January 7, 2012 2:01:39 PM

Sweet! Keep up the good work! With a voltage bump, you probably go really far. (4Ghz+)
January 8, 2012 8:10:38 AM

cool, see as far as you can go
January 14, 2012 7:45:10 PM

3.62 ghz at 1.250 volts(was stable at 1.24 volts but I just put in some more juice)...running battlefield 3 at 30-45 fps right now :)  might go to 3.7ghz but then stop because I still want to keep it below the stock voltage. Max temperature with intel burn test(max) is 59 Degrees.
January 14, 2012 7:47:35 PM

oh btw my fsb : dram ratio was 8:11 which I realised. It should be 1:1 considering I have an LGA 775 system. I decreased my rams clock speed by 10mhz so it is now 790 mhz instead of 800mhz, that made my ratio 3:4. Should I try to decrease the ram clock more ? I did decrease it to like 667 mhz and my computer made a long beep restarted and booted in safe mode so I had to set it to 790 mhz.
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2012 9:32:27 PM

If your RAM is stock at 800Mhz, you don't have to lower the speed down to 790Mhz, you can keep it at 800Mhz. Just don't go far above 800Mhz. Also, you can go past stock voltage, it won't be an issue.
January 14, 2012 10:42:08 PM

HostileDonut said:
If your RAM is stock at 800Mhz, you don't have to lower the speed down to 790Mhz, you can keep it at 800Mhz. Just don't go far above 800Mhz. Also, you can go past stock voltage, it won't be an issue.


but wouldnt not having a 1:1 ratio affect the performance significantly considering that my ratio is 3:4 right now ?
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2012 11:20:13 PM

030910TA said:
but wouldnt not having a 1:1 ratio affect the performance significantly considering that my ratio is 3:4 right now ?

Wait, if you ratio is 1:1, what is your RAM speed? Are you saying with a 1:1 ratio, you get 800Mhz? Or with a 3:4 ratio you get 790Mhz? If with a 3:4 you get 790Mhz, keep it there.
January 15, 2012 12:16:50 AM

HostileDonut said:
Wait, if you ratio is 1:1, what is your RAM speed? Are you saying with a 1:1 ratio, you get 800Mhz? Or with a 3:4 ratio you get 790Mhz? If with a 3:4 you get 790Mhz, keep it there.


with 800 mhz I get a ratio of 8:11. with 790 mhz I get a ratio of 3:4. Now should I try to get as close to 1:1 as possible or stay with 3:4 ? or go back to the ratio of 8:11 i.e 800mhz ?
a b à CPUs
January 15, 2012 12:20:58 AM

Might as well stick with 8:11 to get the full 800Mhz. I mean, if there is a reason not to, don't, but it seems pretty straight forward that 8:11 gives you more performance, so why not?
January 16, 2012 8:24:06 PM

HostileDonut said:
Might as well stick with 8:11 to get the full 800Mhz. I mean, if there is a reason not to, don't, but it seems pretty straight forward that 8:11 gives you more performance, so why not?


ok but why is it that when I read online guides to overclocking they said 1:1 is the best ratio ? I dont know whether my performance has increased or decreased, somehow my windows experience index went from 6.7 to 6.8 for the CPU and the memory. Anyway I am testing for 3.7ghz right now.
January 16, 2012 8:26:45 PM

everytime I am trying to overclock, I feel like I am gonna hear a little bang, some flashing, little fire and some smoke and a big BLACK screen. damn
a b à CPUs
January 16, 2012 8:39:24 PM

030910TA said:
ok but why is it that when I read online guides to overclocking they said 1:1 is the best ratio ? I dont know whether my performance has increased or decreased, somehow my windows experience index went from 6.7 to 6.8 for the CPU and the memory. Anyway I am testing for 3.7ghz right now.

1:1 will yield the best performance, but if you run your RAM too fast it can hurt it or cause instability. If your RAM is rated for 800Mhz and you try running git at 1Ghz, it will most likely not work, so you need to change the ratio so that the RAM runs at a stable frequency. i.e. 3:4 or 8:11 like you had it.
a b à CPUs
January 16, 2012 8:40:00 PM

030910TA said:
everytime I am trying to overclock, I feel like I am gonna hear a little bang, some flashing, little fire and some smoke and a big BLACK screen. damn

Your CPU will hit the TJMAX before any of that happens, don't worry.
January 16, 2012 11:05:06 PM

HostileDonut said:
1:1 will yield the best performance, but if you run your RAM too fast it can hurt it or cause instability. If your RAM is rated for 800Mhz and you try running git at 1Ghz, it will most likely not work, so you need to change the ratio so that the RAM runs at a stable frequency. i.e. 3:4 or 8:11 like you had it.


Cheers for the replies mate. I dont know what I did but at 297 mhz fsb it automatically sets the ram to 791.9 mhz but if I go higher like 298 or 299 mhz fsb it becomes 798.1 and 800 mhz respectively. So I have left it at the original 800 mhz now and running the e5200 at 3.74ghz at 1.293 volts which is going over the stock voltage but still its a huge overclock and still near the stock voltage, people usually have to set their e5200 at 1.36 volts or so. Although CPU-Z shows 1.216 volts under load and 1.248 volts while idle, dont know what thats about but its below stock voltage.

I am going to stop being adventurous with my CPU for now until I get ivy bridge because this is the only CPU I got till then.
a b à CPUs
January 16, 2012 11:31:14 PM

Pretty good OC! Nice job, very nice job. :) 

Have a nice day!
January 17, 2012 6:01:29 PM

HostileDonut said:
Pretty good OC! Nice job, very nice job. :) 

Have a nice day!


Ok so I got a little more excited after watching a youtube video where this guy overclocked the E5200 to 4.0ghz, so I decided to see if I can break it, I OC'd mine to 4.025 ghz running stable at 1.400volts (Huge voltage jump :S ) BUT CPU-Z shows a voltage of 1.312 volts. The max temp on the core 1 & 2 was 74 degrees. Can you tell me why CPU-Z is showing a lower voltage ? is the bios wrong or is CPU-Z wrong ?

Anyway I have put it back down to 3.74 ghz to stop it from frying itself. Max temps of 62 degrees. I need to do some cable management as I have an XFX Pro PSU and it has lots of connections/wires.

a b à CPUs
January 17, 2012 7:20:45 PM

The BIOS runs your CPU @ 100% with pretty close to maximum voltage. If you run OCCT/Prime95 and you get a maximum voltage of 1.312v, it will generally be around 1.312v, but maybe .2-3v higher. Still good as long as temps are safe. Just don't exceed 1.3625v in most applications or P96/OCCT. 74C is the maximum temperature. If you get 74C maximum temp when running at 100%, you should be fine as long as voltages are good.
!