Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel CPUs › I5 3570k OC Damage?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I5 3570k OC Damage? - Page 3

post #21 of 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by schwerlin View Post

About 6 months ago I bought an i5 3570k for a gaming rig I was putting together. This was my first computer build, and was very excited about the final product. I knew that CPU Overclocking can be very knowledge intensive, so I read up on how to do it -safely- for about a month before starting the OC process. When I DID start the process, I didn't do anything major. The cpu is rated for a 3.8ghz boost clock, so I went up to 4.0ghz, then 4.2ghz, without any problem. I ran into a little bit of stability issues when I tried above 4.4ghz, which was understandable, considering I didn't change any voltages yet. I started playing around with the voltages, increasing the voltage from stock to 1.300v. This allowed me to run 4.5ghz stable, great, but I really wanted to push my processor, to see how fast I could get it. After playing with it for about a week, I was able to get it to 4.8ghz, at 1.475v. A 1.4ghz OC!

At 4.8ghz @ 1.475v, resulted in a relatively stable OC. p95 failed after a 6 hour test, with a maximum temperature of 88c (air). Not perfect, but not bad for my first major overclock. I knew that 1.475v was very close to the recommended maximum voltage of 1.500v, and that failing p95 usually means the OC is unstable, but I was not worried because my normal operating temperature was so low. (77c while encoding video, 68c while gaming) and only Bluescreened while doing the p95 benchmark, and not under normal use.

This is the OC I have been using for 6 months now, and I am starting to have a few questions. I know for a fact that I did not change all of the values I should have while setting up my overclock. For example I do not think I changed the PLL, VCC ect, Only the VCore.

My question for everyone is: Can running my CPU at this voltage severely lower my cpu life? I know that it DOES somewhat, but is it something I should be worried about? Can anyone explain CPU overvolting damage caused by Electromigration to me? I would like to think that because I keep my temps far below the recommended max, that I am somewhat safe...

I personally try to keep my 3570k under 1.3v for daily use. It's around 1.25 now, that's giving it a little buffer, since I'm not sure how accurate my Vcore reading is on my E4. That being said, I'm hoping you weren't pushing those volts on an ASrock Z77 board, because that "1.47v" could have easily been 1.53v or more.
The Duke
(12 items)
 
Little Faithful
(7 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5-3570K 3.4GHz Quad-Core ASRock Z77 Extreme4 ATX LGA1155 Gigabyte Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition 3GB A-Data XPG Gaming Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 840 Series 250GB 2.5" SSD Toshiba 2TB 3.5" 7200RPM WD Blue 500GB 3.5" Microsoft Windows 8 (OEM) (64-bit) 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G19 Rosewill Hive 750W ATX12V / EPS12V Rosewill ARMOR-EVO ATX Full Tower Sidewinder X5 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i3 530 Asus Saphire HD 4870 1GB 2 GB Essential 1600 MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOS
WD 500 GB Caviar Green Toshiba DVD+RW Windows 7 Home Premium OEM 
  hide details  
Reply
The Duke
(12 items)
 
Little Faithful
(7 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5-3570K 3.4GHz Quad-Core ASRock Z77 Extreme4 ATX LGA1155 Gigabyte Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition 3GB A-Data XPG Gaming Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR3-1600 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 840 Series 250GB 2.5" SSD Toshiba 2TB 3.5" 7200RPM WD Blue 500GB 3.5" Microsoft Windows 8 (OEM) (64-bit) 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G19 Rosewill Hive 750W ATX12V / EPS12V Rosewill ARMOR-EVO ATX Full Tower Sidewinder X5 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i3 530 Asus Saphire HD 4870 1GB 2 GB Essential 1600 MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOS
WD 500 GB Caviar Green Toshiba DVD+RW Windows 7 Home Premium OEM 
  hide details  
Reply
post #22 of 23
1.47v is amd cpu territory. and I thought 1.41v was pretty high for my 5ghz OC
post #23 of 23
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fulvin View Post

Why one would need to have the CPU prime proof is beyond me. One of the reasons being exactly that the programs utilize the CPU in different ways that the prime doesn't cover and also that the load it tests with is unrealistically high making it completely irrelevant. If OP has run an OC for several months now without WHEA's nor BSODs, then what makes you think hes far from stable? That sounds like a very solid OC to me. If he needed to have 110% failproof system for something, then he'd spend the money to get the enterprice stuff that wouldn't go down no matter what. But OP is just doing general games, browsing work etc, so why bother?


In reply to Belial.

In regards to stability, I couldn't agree more with Fulvin. My machine isn't on for more than 6 hours at a time, with no externally dependent users. So extended stability is not a problem for me. I did a p95 test as soon as I got my mainboard and CPU (gpu's shipped seperately, had time to spare) and passed, so at least I know my HW is not faulty. I will be sure to do a test every year just to be sure.


Its very possible that I do not understand the correct definition to 'CPU bottlenecking', can you help me revise how I understand it to be?

My understanding is: All software (games, rendering sw, ect) require processing power, generally split between the CPU and the GPU(s), which process their respective information. And depending on the application, more or less load will be placed on one system over the other. When #1 Processing System has a far greater load, to the point where the #2 Processing System cannot compute any more information until the #1 has finished its queue, and time is wasted waiting, then this is a bottleneck.

Ill give a few gaming examples I believe show this:

CPU bottleneck:
Valve's source engine was introduced last decade. It became a very popular engine, because, unlike the majority of the games that existed at the time, games that ran on the Source engine used the CPU to render certain tasks normally designated to the GPU's, lowering the load on the GPU and increasing the framerate in the game. Today, this means source games are relatively CPU dependent. If I were to run a source game at max settings with 1xGTX 670 (for simplicity) I would be seeing about a 35% +- 10 usage on my GPU, whereas my CPU will have 1 core running at 100%. This, I believe is a CPU bottleneck, because if I had a faster CPU, it would allow for the GPU to work more often, and therefore have a higher overall usage.

GPU bottleneckle
4A'a Metro 2033 is known as an extremely GPU heavy game. In almost all cases, the faster your GPU is, the higher the framerate you'll see. If you have your settings up, you will likely see a GPU usage of 99%, and a lower CPU usage.

In general, whichever Processing System is running at full capacity, is the limiter / bottleneck of the entire computer system. Now I know it isn't that simple, but its pretty damn close.




Back to stability, I hunted down my windows event logs, and all of my Bluescreens have been because of MSI Afterburner extension which displays an overlay on my screen while gaming. Some games don't play well with this (CS:GO, ArmA II, both CPU heavy games). If I lower my CPU OC, or disable the extension, the game runs fine. I know this is an example of an unstable CPU, but if its reproducible, and therefore avoidable, I see no problem with it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Intel CPUs
Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel CPUs › I5 3570k OC Damage?