Hi folks,
My 4670K is poor for overclocking; it needs 1.431 VID just to do 4.4 Ghz (at 80 C in the x264 v2 stress test). If I push it any faster, it flirts with 100 C.
There is strong evidence that the Haswell cache (a.k.a. uncore) can be considerably slower than the cores with little ill effect. As a result, many run their cache slow (sometimes even 34/35) because it might need high volts to match OC core speed. The reasoning is, of course, "if cache speed doesn't matter much, why push it?"
But I'd like to explore the flip side of that. Why not push it? What exactly hurts a CPU and/or cache?
My poor CPU hits 80 C when stressed with the cores at 44 and 1.431 VID. At idle, this runs at 50 C if the cache is sidelined (speed 34, Auto volts ~1.094 in my rig in sig). If I match Uncore speed to Core, the cache needs 1.392 V and the rig runs at 53 on idle, but still 80 when stressed. Yes, it makes almost no difference to the X264 v2 stress test - but then, logically I suppose, also doesn't affect temps at all.
The bottom line is that, while fast 1:1 cache may not help much, who's to say it's hurting much? If the only difference is +3 C at idle (but not hotter when stressed), who cares? It's not like I'm worried about extra electricity charges for 1.4 V versus 1.0 V uncore.
![thumb.gif]( "thumb.gif")
What exactly is the evidence the high voltages damage over time? Or is it actually high temperatures (and "high volts" is just a proxy for that)? 50 versus 53 C is hardly worth writing home about.
Note that I am looking for solid evidence here, if anyone has some or can point to some. Or *lots* of personal experience (you run banks of PCs at work). We all have opinions and guesses.
What solid evidence is there that 1.4 volts will hurt? Looking for something more than "I burned out one CPU", please.
Please don't reply "why push it". The point of this post is, what's the evidence to not push it.
Thanks
My 4670K is poor for overclocking; it needs 1.431 VID just to do 4.4 Ghz (at 80 C in the x264 v2 stress test). If I push it any faster, it flirts with 100 C.
There is strong evidence that the Haswell cache (a.k.a. uncore) can be considerably slower than the cores with little ill effect. As a result, many run their cache slow (sometimes even 34/35) because it might need high volts to match OC core speed. The reasoning is, of course, "if cache speed doesn't matter much, why push it?"
But I'd like to explore the flip side of that. Why not push it? What exactly hurts a CPU and/or cache?
My poor CPU hits 80 C when stressed with the cores at 44 and 1.431 VID. At idle, this runs at 50 C if the cache is sidelined (speed 34, Auto volts ~1.094 in my rig in sig). If I match Uncore speed to Core, the cache needs 1.392 V and the rig runs at 53 on idle, but still 80 when stressed. Yes, it makes almost no difference to the X264 v2 stress test - but then, logically I suppose, also doesn't affect temps at all.
The bottom line is that, while fast 1:1 cache may not help much, who's to say it's hurting much? If the only difference is +3 C at idle (but not hotter when stressed), who cares? It's not like I'm worried about extra electricity charges for 1.4 V versus 1.0 V uncore.
What exactly is the evidence the high voltages damage over time? Or is it actually high temperatures (and "high volts" is just a proxy for that)? 50 versus 53 C is hardly worth writing home about.
Note that I am looking for solid evidence here, if anyone has some or can point to some. Or *lots* of personal experience (you run banks of PCs at work). We all have opinions and guesses.
What solid evidence is there that 1.4 volts will hurt? Looking for something more than "I burned out one CPU", please.
Please don't reply "why push it". The point of this post is, what's the evidence to not push it.
Thanks
