Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel CPUs › OC'ing 45nm Quads degradation issues?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

OC'ing 45nm Quads degradation issues?

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 
OK, so some of you might have read my thread about the q9450 OC nightmare (which is luckely over by now, 475 FSB so 3800 MHz by now!), but on some other forum I got a serious warning about overclocking these processors and it sounds like pretty logical AND dangerous to me:

"You will find that the CPU begins to degrade in not all that long a time. Your overclock will become unstable and you will have to begin to drop the clock, then issues of stability will arise once again, thus necessitating a drop again. This will continue until you are not able to run stable at stock.

These are different beasts than even the 45nm Dual Cores. These processors use the FSB to allow Core 1 & 2 to communicate with Core 3 & 4. The Duals communicate through the CPU interconnect and thus the FSB can be maintained with longterm stability, but others with 45nm Quad Cores are finding issues and the higher the FSB > 400Mhz the quicker the issues arise. Keep in mind that these processors are fabbed on a new high-k hafnium process and this is NOT the prior silicon dioxide process that has been in use for 40 years. We are finding that the issue of heat is not the prime indicator of processor deterioration that it was in the past. Processors of the Quad Core 45nm variety are deteriorating from high overclocks while still cool. This was not the case priorly. So, good luck to you with regards to CPU longevity."
with my regards to DerekT!

As I said, sounds pretty logical to me! Now we all know OC'ing isn't the most healthy thing to do for a processor, but this seems quite a different story!

Any feedback and personal opinions on this one are greatly appreciated
Edited by baretsu - 6/11/08 at 1:01am
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q9450 MSI X38 Hydrogen HD 3870X2 Corsair TWIN3X2048-1333C9DHX 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
3 x WD 500GB NEC Windows Vista Ultimate 32bit Nec Multisync 20WGX² Pro 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G15 Antec Neo 650W Lian Li 2100 Plus Logitech G5 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q9450 MSI X38 Hydrogen HD 3870X2 Corsair TWIN3X2048-1333C9DHX 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
3 x WD 500GB NEC Windows Vista Ultimate 32bit Nec Multisync 20WGX² Pro 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G15 Antec Neo 650W Lian Li 2100 Plus Logitech G5 
  hide details  
Reply
post #2 of 12
From what I've read, Quads aren't all that overclockable to start off with. They can be OC'd a little, but to push them hard takes a lot of time and in the long run degradation. I'm pretty sure that if you keep your volts very close to stock, or the recommended max (which is 1.36 with the 45nm I think..?) then it should be fine.
no u
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
C2D E8400 eVGA 750i FTW eVGA GTX 260+ 4GB 800mhz 6400 Geil Ram 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
320gb WD SATA, 250gb WD SATA Windows XP Home Samsung 24" Wide + ViewSonic 19" LCD Logitech G15 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Zalman 750w Modular Thermaltake Matrix VD3000 Logitech G9 eVolve Gaming Mat 
  hide details  
Reply
no u
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
C2D E8400 eVGA 750i FTW eVGA GTX 260+ 4GB 800mhz 6400 Geil Ram 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
320gb WD SATA, 250gb WD SATA Windows XP Home Samsung 24" Wide + ViewSonic 19" LCD Logitech G15 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Zalman 750w Modular Thermaltake Matrix VD3000 Logitech G9 eVolve Gaming Mat 
  hide details  
Reply
post #3 of 12
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KHORR View Post
From what I've read, Quads aren't all that overclockable to start off with. They can be OC'd a little, but to push them hard takes a lot of time and in the long run degradation. I'm pretty sure that if you keep your volts very close to stock, or the recommended max (which is 1.36 with the 45nm I think..?) then it should be fine.
Well, they do overclock quite nicely at rather low voltages (Q9450@3.8 GHZ on 1.25v isn't too bad!) but it does indeed take lots of time to achive (just read my thread here if you want to know the full story nightmare ). My concern is the communication between the two CPU parts and the new high-k hafnium process which seems to be the real killer here ...
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q9450 MSI X38 Hydrogen HD 3870X2 Corsair TWIN3X2048-1333C9DHX 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
3 x WD 500GB NEC Windows Vista Ultimate 32bit Nec Multisync 20WGX² Pro 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G15 Antec Neo 650W Lian Li 2100 Plus Logitech G5 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q9450 MSI X38 Hydrogen HD 3870X2 Corsair TWIN3X2048-1333C9DHX 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
3 x WD 500GB NEC Windows Vista Ultimate 32bit Nec Multisync 20WGX² Pro 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G15 Antec Neo 650W Lian Li 2100 Plus Logitech G5 
  hide details  
Reply
post #4 of 12
I would say aload of rubbish.
They are just pushing volts 2 high .
Just keep them on the safe side and you will be fine.
Parrots P67
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
I7 2600K Msi p67a-g45 7970 Gigabyte windforce 4gb g skill 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
ocz agilty 3 60gb water cooled. 3 x 120mm rad with heatkiller block win7 asus 24in 
PowerCase
corsair 750 comos s 
  hide details  
Reply
Parrots P67
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
I7 2600K Msi p67a-g45 7970 Gigabyte windforce 4gb g skill 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
ocz agilty 3 60gb water cooled. 3 x 120mm rad with heatkiller block win7 asus 24in 
PowerCase
corsair 750 comos s 
  hide details  
Reply
post #5 of 12
I was reading another thread and someone posted this link about said 'degradation' and I thought it was an interesting read!

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=179965

Hope this helps!
MR.MOTO
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 940@ 3.8ghz ASUS Rampage III Emtreme mATX XFX 2x69501gb CF 6gb DDR3 Mushkin Ridgeback 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Crucial RealSSD 128GB / WD 750GB ASUS Blueray Win7 64-bit Sharp 42" & Samsung 2253sw 22" 
KeyboardPowerMouse
Saitek Eclipse Silverstone 700w Modular Logitech MX518 
  hide details  
Reply
MR.MOTO
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 940@ 3.8ghz ASUS Rampage III Emtreme mATX XFX 2x69501gb CF 6gb DDR3 Mushkin Ridgeback 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Crucial RealSSD 128GB / WD 750GB ASUS Blueray Win7 64-bit Sharp 42" & Samsung 2253sw 22" 
KeyboardPowerMouse
Saitek Eclipse Silverstone 700w Modular Logitech MX518 
  hide details  
Reply
post #6 of 12
Well, DerekT is a pretty good source for this. He's The Man (but not The Guy) on the Corsair forum. Adds a lot of credibility to this.
post #7 of 12
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by seward View Post
Well, DerekT is a pretty good source for this. He's The Man (but not The Guy) on the Corsair forum. Adds a lot of credibility to this.
Exactly my point. And the fact you read about all these issues with this processor (probably other 45nm quads as well but I concentrate myself on the Q9450 for obvious reasons), I agree we shouldn't go over this too lightly ... For now, I decided to just try to OC it as high as possible for the benching (so just for the sport) but won't be taking too much risk on daily 24/7 operation. Besides, at clock I can turn all fans to an absolute minimum ... I just love the silence
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q9450 MSI X38 Hydrogen HD 3870X2 Corsair TWIN3X2048-1333C9DHX 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
3 x WD 500GB NEC Windows Vista Ultimate 32bit Nec Multisync 20WGX² Pro 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G15 Antec Neo 650W Lian Li 2100 Plus Logitech G5 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q9450 MSI X38 Hydrogen HD 3870X2 Corsair TWIN3X2048-1333C9DHX 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
3 x WD 500GB NEC Windows Vista Ultimate 32bit Nec Multisync 20WGX² Pro 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G15 Antec Neo 650W Lian Li 2100 Plus Logitech G5 
  hide details  
Reply
post #8 of 12
LOL, I got freaked by your nightmares and degradation issues guys!
Started thinking of taking some e4xxx rather than e7200... glad I don`t need to...saw about this "burn-in period"---relief...
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
E5200, @3.5Ghz, 1.385 :/ Asus P5E3 Deluxe Sapphire HD 4850 Kingston 2*1gb, 1333Mhz, CL9 temp 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
WD Caviar Blue 6400 AAKS Win XP SP3 dual boot Vista Ultimate SP1 Samsung T220 Thermaltake Purepower RX 600w 
Case
NZXT Tempest 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
E5200, @3.5Ghz, 1.385 :/ Asus P5E3 Deluxe Sapphire HD 4850 Kingston 2*1gb, 1333Mhz, CL9 temp 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
WD Caviar Blue 6400 AAKS Win XP SP3 dual boot Vista Ultimate SP1 Samsung T220 Thermaltake Purepower RX 600w 
Case
NZXT Tempest 
  hide details  
Reply
post #9 of 12
Once I get a case for my Q9450 and make it my main rig, I will have to keep an eye out for this "burn-in" period
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 5820k asus x99 sabertooth Gigabyte GTX 1070 8GB 16 GB CORSAIR Vengeance LPX DDR4 2666mhz 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
SanDisk Extreme PRO 480GB Phanteks PH-TC14S Win7 64 Acer XB271HU 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Corsair Strafe RGB Antec Edge 750W Corsair 450D Steelseries Rival 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 5820k asus x99 sabertooth Gigabyte GTX 1070 8GB 16 GB CORSAIR Vengeance LPX DDR4 2666mhz 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
SanDisk Extreme PRO 480GB Phanteks PH-TC14S Win7 64 Acer XB271HU 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Corsair Strafe RGB Antec Edge 750W Corsair 450D Steelseries Rival 
  hide details  
Reply
post #10 of 12
Okay, so, how credible are these Q9450 FSB > 400 degradation stories now? Because with a x8 multiplier, you'll need to start at 400Mhz to even get to 3.2Ghz. I hear the craziest stories, from folks having to let their Q9450 'heat up' to function properly (as if it were a frelling car), to folks doing 500 easily.

Also, apparently (I've been told) the Q9450 clocks a lot better on G33 chipsets than, say, the P45. If it's true, why is that? I mean, if it is, then it makes you wonder whether there's even a true degradation issue at all. Or rather, it makes you wonder whether maybe not something is bunko in the X38-P45 chipsets (which Intel may be hiding) that makes em work properly at stock, but above not so much.

At any rate, all speculation put aside, I wish some solid evidence would show up to support these claims. So, anyone out there with experience with a P45 chipset and the Q9450? We really ought to get to the bottom of this (which is, of course, what we're doing here). So, I hope this thread doesn't just die off unresolved.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Intel CPUs
Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel CPUs › OC'ing 45nm Quads degradation issues?