That's [EDIT: damn thread moves so fast, I was referring to the guy saying he talked to sin] what I was referring to when I said 1.6. I clearly stated the comment as if I wasn't 100% sure of it, too.
There is no argument here VonDutch. It's well known that voltage is much more damaging than temperature to CPU lifespan. You can even look at the graph you posted, what do you think would happen if that same line began at the "Mid VID" or "High VID" instead of "Low VID" (this isn't what I'm basing my comment on, I'm just saying how it's kinda goofy you show a graph to say temps are more dangerous than vcore when the graph pretty clearly shows that VID is the real killer, consistent with what everyone says and has shown).
You provide a lot of good information but you are wrong in saying temps are more dangerous than vcore. It would be more accurate if you just said "Higher temps can significanitly attribute to CPU degradation, even if you dont change your vcore".
"There isnt isn'treally a max vcore for ivy because no one knows,"
i think i said that in my other posts too, nice quote..
This is definitely true, but I think the general boundaries in regards to voltages have been mapped out.Edited by Belial - 1/14/13 at 12:23pm