Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel Motherboards › Why did Asus Remove Additional Turbo Voltage From Bios?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why did Asus Remove Additional Turbo Voltage From Bios? - Page 3

post #21 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by ucode View Post

Kevin, usually at idle LLC has a much smaller effect than at load and yes, it is normal that additional turbo voltage is limited to maximum VID.

wholeeo, be careful. Just because it might appear as text in the BIOS does not mean it is necessarily implemented. Did the MVE support additional turbo voltage at any time through its different BIOS versions?

I noticed that at 47x, I can't even reach 1.5VID no matter how high I increase additional turbo voltage?
post #22 of 30
What are you using to measure VID and what extra voltage are you using?

Here's an example I posted on XS as some_one, note that the VID readings here are fp calculated and IMO a little higher than if calculated integer wise.

hivid.png
Edited by ucode - 1/31/13 at 11:24pm
post #23 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by ucode View Post

What are you using to measure VID and what extra voltage are you using?

Here's an example I posted on XS as some_one, note that the VID readings here are fp calculated and IMO a little higher than if calculated integer wise.

hivid.png

Well, I didn't really monitor VID using Realtemp but I monitored the core voltage with CPUZ. Even with +0.400 additional turbo voltage, the vcore just won't past around 1.450V IIRC. Increasing it further doesn't do anything to the core voltage which means that the VID is not increased as well.

So in your example, you are using negative offset because your vcore is less than the vid displayed?
post #24 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevindd992002 View Post

So in your example, you are using negative offset because your vcore is less than the vid displayed?

No, IIRC I was using as close to zero as I could (vcore offset -0.005V) so this should only reduce vcore by 5mV. The main reason vcore is lower is due to loadline and running linpack. For example, drawing 80A with a VID of 1.5V and loadline of 1.7mΩ then we could expect vcore to be a bit less than 1.364V. This is somewhat simplified to make it easier to understand, there is more to it.

Seems I remembered wrong, well it was over a year ago lol, sorry about that. The tests were done with fixed voltage but the above principal remains the same. wink.gif

BTW you can use CPU-Z to read VID if you set sensor=0 in the ini file.
Edited by ucode - 2/1/13 at 7:31pm
post #25 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by ucode View Post

No, IIRC I was using as close to zero as I could (vcore offset -0.005V) so this should only reduce vcore by 5mV. The main reason vcore is lower is due to loadline and running linpack. For example, drawing 80A with a VID of 1.5V and loadline of 1.7mΩ then we could expect vcore to be a bit less than 1.364V. This is somewhat simplified to make it easier to understand, there is more to it.

Seems I remembered wrong, well it was over a year ago lol, sorry about that. The tests were done with fixed voltage but the above principal remains the same. wink.gif

BTW you can use CPU-Z to read VID if you set sensor=0 in the ini file.

Lol ok. So what explains why I can't go past my target vcore no matter how much I increase additional turbo voltage?
post #26 of 30
VID is hardware limited by the CPU. If you want 1.5V or higher then better to use either fixed voltage and ignore the VID request or use a positive offset to compliment the additional turbo voltage. You will need to take the loadline into account. Note also there may be an MB hardware limit too, for instance on some ASUS boards you may need to set CPU voltage monitor to "ignore" in the BIOS.
post #27 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by ucode View Post

VID is hardware limited by the CPU. If you want 1.5V or higher then better to use either fixed voltage and ignore the VID request or use a positive offset to compliment the additional turbo voltage. You will need to take the loadline into account. Note also there may be an MB hardware limit too, for instance on some ASUS boards you may need to set CPU voltage monitor to "ignore" in the BIOS.

Ok. What will setting the CPU voltage monitor to "ignore" in the BIOS of my ASUS board do? What is its connection?
post #28 of 30
If your system supports it then it can act as a failsafe when set to monitor. If you accidentally set vcore too high, maybe you want to set offset to 0.1 but miss out the decimal place, then hopefully it will prevent over 2V being applied to your CPU. If however you had some reason to want to run 1.6V vcore for example then you would need to set "ignore". Whether it is an option is something that would be specific to MB and BIOS.

Here's a googled example.
post #29 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by ucode View Post

If your system supports it then it can act as a failsafe when set to monitor. If you accidentally set vcore too high, maybe you want to set offset to 0.1 but miss out the decimal place, then hopefully it will prevent over 2V being applied to your CPU. If however you had some reason to want to run 1.6V vcore for example then you would need to set "ignore". Whether it is an option is something that would be specific to MB and BIOS.

Here's a googled example.

Thanks. But that is for over 1.56V which I am nowhere near that?
post #30 of 30
Is setting additional turbo voltage to auto practically disabling it as in +0.000V?

I read the definition of Additional Turbo Voltage and it says it is the "allowable" voltage during Turbo Mode. So it's some kind of a limit voltage that is added to the vcore?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Intel Motherboards
Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel Motherboards › Why did Asus Remove Additional Turbo Voltage From Bios?