Overclock.net banner
41 - 60 of 94 Posts

·
Z390 is fun!
Joined
·
14 Posts
I started with my 2600k back in the days at 4,8GHz but can't remember the voltage for the life of me but it was below 1,4V and IntelBurnTest was hitting low 90s °C, load was 40-50°C. After a couple of years I started having BSODs - I bumped up the voltage and all was ok. Another year or two have passed and I had to tune down the multiplier to 4,2GHz (goal was to finally have reasonable temps) until again after two more years I had to turn up the voltage a little bit. When trying to juice the little guy again to mitigate the frametime issues I started having in modern games I tried to see if I can touch 5GHz for fun. Nope, all I could get was 4,5GHz at 1,31V. Anything higher failed instantly regardless of hyper-threading being on or off. Then I told myself it's time to give the 8-year old veteran a new home and go for a refresh.

I wish I could give more detail than this, I'd just like to confirm that from my experience the degradation was real.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
I started with my 2600k back in the days at 4,8GHz but can't remember the voltage for the life of me but it was below 1,4V and IntelBurnTest was hitting low 90s °C, load was 40-50°C. After a couple of years I started having BSODs - I bumped up the voltage and all was ok. Another year or two have passed and I had to tune down the multiplier to 4,2GHz (goal was to finally have reasonable temps) until again after two more years I had to turn up the voltage a little bit. When trying to juice the little guy again to mitigate the frametime issues I started having in modern games I tried to see if I can touch 5GHz for fun. Nope, all I could get was 4,5GHz at 1,31V. Anything higher failed instantly regardless of hyper-threading being on or off. Then I told myself it's time to give the 8-year old veteran a new home and go for a refresh.

I wish I could give more detail than this, I'd just like to confirm that from my experience the degradation was real.
On the face of it, you should have gone to intel and reported the need for more voltage after only a couple of years (within warranty), but they would likely have said that as long as it could hold stock at 1.35v then they wouldn't do a thing.

But lasting 8 years and still only needing 1.31v I think is fine - that's just called 'getting old' in the useful life of a CPU.

5Ghz was likely never possible unless you wanted to go much higher on the voltage or delid.

I've never ran a PC build longer than 3 years, but I have all the old school components, even an original Pentium 4.
I might set up a rig and see how much the P4 will take before it dies!
Although it's (at least for me) a CPU landmark, so I might keep it for memories instead of frying it.

Thanks for your report.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
What's the consensus on delidding with liquid metal with regard to degradation?
Does it make any difference because the heat is much lower?

Or is it all about current just the same as stock?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,726 Posts
What's the consensus on delidding with liquid metal with regard to degradation?
Does it make any difference because the heat is much lower?

Or is it all about current just the same as stock?

this is only my opinion. as I do not clock my hardware to it's max and leave it their. I will build a system and about every 3 years clock the system a little further, in a effort to keep up with newer hardware. by the time I get to the third time I am overclocking the system I do not expect the system to last more than two years, because by this point I will have the system clocked to it's max stable clock speed. the longest I have had a system last at a max clock was my AMD939 FX60 this CPU lasted at a 3Ghz clock speed for 4 years before it died. most do not last more than a year. so to me the higher the clock speed, the faster the degradation will be. temps will help to slow this process down, but if you allowing your CPU to run at temps above 60C. you will see the system dying, faster than stock systems that run below 60C.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
this is only my opinion. as I do not clock my hardware to it's max and leave it their. I will build a system and about every 3 years clock the system a little further, in a effort to keep up with newer hardware. by the time I get to the third time I am overclocking the system I do not expect the system to last more than two years, because by this point I will have the system clocked to it's max stable clock speed. the longest I have had a system last at a max clock was my AMD939 FX60 this CPU lasted at a 3Ghz clock speed for 4 years before it died. most do not last more than a year. so to me the higher the clock speed, the faster the degradation will be. temps will help to slow this process down, but if you allowing your CPU to run at temps above 60C. you will see the system dying, faster than stock systems that run below 60C.
Ok, so if I'm never seeing CPU temps above 50-55C in any game I play at 5.3Ghz (all cores with 47x uncore, no AVX offset - vCore max is 1.392v under load, dropping to 1.376v), then probably nothing to worry about.

If it dies in 3 years then I'm fine with that.
My previous build was a 6700K that was ran for close to 3 years at 4.6Ghz @ 1.41v and never required any adjustments whatsoever - sold it to a friend and it's still running without issue to this day.
I suppose the difference in silicon and build quality is the factor, just at your CPU is able to run at vCore that I would guess would fry any other CPu within hours if not minutes.

No risk, no reward.
 

·
Vermin Supreme 2020
Joined
·
25,788 Posts
took 5 years of running my 3930k @ like 1.45 to see any change. in stability.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
took 5 years of running my 3930k @ like 1.45 to see any change. in stability.
This is exactly in line with what I was thinking.

I doubt much will change in the 3-5 year life of a PC build if vCore is below 1.45v and temps are good.
There's virtually no data out there with numerous alarming stories about CPU deaths with vCore below 1.45 and good temp control, I think because it's very rare for a CPU to die or degrade to a point where it's a big issue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
I had a I7 6800k that died in a few months
That's a short life, but you forgot to mention how it 'lived' it's short life and what factors may have caused it's early demise?

Unless you were doing something crazy like 1.55-1.6vCore, ignoring insane temps etc. the only plausible reason would be that it was a lemon from the day it left the factory.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Disclaimer: The following experiment can merely guess the short/midterm voltage induced degradation and only the voltage induced degradation of 14 nm Intel CPUs at room temperature with air cooling. It does not reflect the combined degradation mechanism resulting from electromigration and temperature induced effects.

I'd refrain from dialing in 1.55 V as you'll most likely have to add another 10 mV or so to keep your super tight overclock stable within two weeks. Let me explain the experiment I've been doing for the past weeks before bothering you with numbers and details. I was about to start a dedicated thread to it but when I saw this one on the first page I thought that's the perfect place and timing.

So I had a few dud 7700Ks lying around which I decided to sacrifice for the sake of science :) I was really curious about the rate of degradation in new generation CPUs at crazy high voltages. One by one, I tested them to determine the amount of time (under constant high core voltage) it takes to see a noticeable change (which is 5 mV or 0.005 V) in the Vcore one needs to apply to stabilise a mediocre, rather low voltage overclock. My procedure follows as such:

First, I determined a very tight overclock and two corresponding core voltages namely Vcore_max_unstable and Vcore_min_stable. As the names suggest, there happens to be a rather sharp transition point in Vcore, below which I can repeatedly prove the overclock is unstable and above which it can repeatedly pass the stability test (that is the Vcore_min_stable) when using V-Ray benchmark which is a miraculously effective tool to roughly check the stability in a very quick fashion. Since the chips were dud and I intended to isolate the influence of other factors like current and temperature on degradation, I've set the fixed overclock speed for my experiment to 4.6 GHz. Here are the initial voltages for the following CPUs:

CPU1 (batch L709C966):
Vcore_max_unstable = 1.195 V
Vcore_min_stable = 1.200 V

CPU2 (batch L710C662):
Vcore_max_unstable = 1.175 V
Vcore_min_stable = 1.180 V

CPU3 (batch L709C966):
Vcore_max_unstable = 1.190 V
Vcore_min_stable = 1.195 V

Now it's time to apply those crazy voltages. Degrading new generation Intel chips wasn't really a distant concept to me as I'd already played with and completely degraded (complete degradation would mean the required minimum voltage gets shifted so much that it fails to boot even at its stock speed on a fresh motherboard) numerous CPUs before like several G4400s, many i3s and some i5 6400s so I already knew what to expect and that anything between 1.75-1.85 V could bring sudden death. That's why I limited myself to 1.7 V. But first I started with 1.55 V. I dialed it in, got to the Win10 desktop and simply waited. I didn't run any intentional tasks but only some background Windows processes were running. I just interrupted the experiment every 12 hours to check the stability at those low voltages I mentioned above. At first I thought it would take weeks to see any change in my stable min. Vcore but then I was surprised to witness that all 3 chips were unstable at the initially stable voltages after 36 hours. Here are the results of the 1.55 V experiment:

CPU1: new Vcore_min_stable = 1.205 V after 24 hours
CPU2: new Vcore_min_stable = 1.185 V after 36 hours
CPU3: new Vcore_min_stable = 1.200 V after 24 hours

Next up was 1.6 V. I checked the stability every 4 hours during the experiment which yielded:

CPU1: new Vcore_min_stable = 1.210 V after 8 hours
CPU2: new Vcore_min_stable = 1.190 V after 12 hours
CPU3: new Vcore_min_stable = 1.205 V after 12 hours

Then I went on to 1.65 V and checked the stability every half an hour

CPU1: new Vcore_min_stable = 1.215 V after 1 hour
CPU2: new Vcore_min_stable = 1.195 V after 1.5 hours
CPU3: new Vcore_min_stable = 1.210 V after 1 hour

Finally 1.7 V. I guess I didn't check the stability frequent enough but the outcome was still obvious

CPU1: new Vcore_min_stable = 1.220 V after 15 mins
CPU2: new Vcore_min_stable = 1.200 V after 30 mins
CPU3: new Vcore_min_stable = 1.215 V after 15 mins

Well, can we deduce anything from all that? I guess so. Just like the mean time to failure rates of silicon chips vs. temperature follow the Arrhenius curve (failure time decreases exponentially with increasing temperature), the degradation rate vs. core voltage could also be an exponential function as the activation energy for voltage induced degradation/breakdown depends on the electric field strength in the transistor. As a matter of fact, even those very roughly determined degradation rates in my experiment follow a very clear exponential trajectory as you can see below.



So I took the liberty to extrapolate it further into the lower voltages to predict the time it would take for the required min. stable Vcore to degrade by 5 mV. Of course I'm not suggesting that at 1.45 V your CPU will degrade by 5 mV after 1000 hours since there must be significant amount of uncertainty margin in this tiny experiment but at least it gives some abstract picture. Assuming the uncertainty is less than 10x I can pretty much say that you're sure to lose a very tight overclock after a year or so (10000 hours) if you set a 24/7 fixed Vcore of 1.45 but then again, it's only 0.005 Volts. Then if I assume that the amount of voltage shift degradation has also an exponential behaviour, I can predict another trajectory namely the 50 mV degradation curve. What this curve shows at 1.5 V is particularly interesting to me as it would suggest the stable Vcore to shift by 50 mV after about 20000 hours which is 2.5 years. Given that Intel insists on the absolute max. voltage rating of 1.52 V for 3 years of warranty, the prediction doesn't seem too far fetched. And I also think Intel sets the stock VID to around 50-100 mV higher than what the chip can actually remain stable. Considering the 7700K I think every single chip can operate stable below 1.2 V at a stock turbo of 4.5 GHz but the stock voltage for it seems to be around 1.25-1.27 V. Which means even if you push your chip to the limits for 2.5 years with a constant 1.5 V, Intel has to make sure it's still stable at 1.25 V.

Then what's the bottom line? To me, the bottom line is unless you're sure to upgrade your CPU within the current year, going above 1.5 V doesn't seem to be a good idea. And 1.55 V is surely a no go for long term. After all, it only takes 36 hours to lose 5 mV off of your overclock.
Now that my i5 8600k (1404pts cinebench r23) has about the same singlecore performance as a i9 10900k (1418pts cinebench r23) and you have just shown me i should not be worried about using 1.410 V vcore I feel pretty great. Thank you for this comment, thats a pretty cool experiment you did there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
Now that my i5 8600k (1404pts cinebench r23) has about the same singlecore performance as a i9 10900k (1418pts cinebench r23) and you have just shown me i should not be worried about using 1.410 V vcore I feel pretty great. Thank you for this comment, thats a pretty cool experiment you did there.
Care to share the juicy details? De-lidded? What all-core clock speed? Cinebench images of your run that equaled 10900K would be nice! Was this in reference to a stock clock 10900K?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Disclaimer: The following experiment can merely guess the short/midterm voltage induced degradation and only the voltage induced degradation of 14 nm Intel CPUs at room temperature with air cooling. It does not reflect the combined degradation mechanism resulting from electromigration and temperature induced effects.

I'd refrain from dialing in 1.55 V as you'll most likely have to add another 10 mV or so to keep your super tight overclock stable within two weeks. Let me explain the experiment I've been doing for the past weeks before bothering you with numbers and details. I was about to start a dedicated thread to it but when I saw this one on the first page I thought that's the perfect place and timing.

So I had a few dud 7700Ks lying around which I decided to sacrifice for the sake of science :) I was really curious about the rate of degradation in new generation CPUs at crazy high voltages. One by one, I tested them to determine the amount of time (under constant high core voltage) it takes to see a noticeable change (which is 5 mV or 0.005 V) in the Vcore one needs to apply to stabilise a mediocre, rather low voltage overclock. My procedure follows as such:

First, I determined a very tight overclock and two corresponding core voltages namely Vcore_max_unstable and Vcore_min_stable. As the names suggest, there happens to be a rather sharp transition point in Vcore, below which I can repeatedly prove the overclock is unstable and above which it can repeatedly pass the stability test (that is the Vcore_min_stable) when using V-Ray benchmark which is a miraculously effective tool to roughly check the stability in a very quick fashion. Since the chips were dud and I intended to isolate the influence of other factors like current and temperature on degradation, I've set the fixed overclock speed for my experiment to 4.6 GHz. Here are the initial voltages for the following CPUs:

CPU1 (batch L709C966):
Vcore_max_unstable = 1.195 V
Vcore_min_stable = 1.200 V

CPU2 (batch L710C662):
Vcore_max_unstable = 1.175 V
Vcore_min_stable = 1.180 V

CPU3 (batch L709C966):
Vcore_max_unstable = 1.190 V
Vcore_min_stable = 1.195 V

Now it's time to apply those crazy voltages. Degrading new generation Intel chips wasn't really a distant concept to me as I'd already played with and completely degraded (complete degradation would mean the required minimum voltage gets shifted so much that it fails to boot even at its stock speed on a fresh motherboard) numerous CPUs before like several G4400s, many i3s and some i5 6400s so I already knew what to expect and that anything between 1.75-1.85 V could bring sudden death. That's why I limited myself to 1.7 V. But first I started with 1.55 V. I dialed it in, got to the Win10 desktop and simply waited. I didn't run any intentional tasks but only some background Windows processes were running. I just interrupted the experiment every 12 hours to check the stability at those low voltages I mentioned above. At first I thought it would take weeks to see any change in my stable min. Vcore but then I was surprised to witness that all 3 chips were unstable at the initially stable voltages after 36 hours. Here are the results of the 1.55 V experiment:

CPU1: new Vcore_min_stable = 1.205 V after 24 hours
CPU2: new Vcore_min_stable = 1.185 V after 36 hours
CPU3: new Vcore_min_stable = 1.200 V after 24 hours

Next up was 1.6 V. I checked the stability every 4 hours during the experiment which yielded:

CPU1: new Vcore_min_stable = 1.210 V after 8 hours
CPU2: new Vcore_min_stable = 1.190 V after 12 hours
CPU3: new Vcore_min_stable = 1.205 V after 12 hours

Then I went on to 1.65 V and checked the stability every half an hour

CPU1: new Vcore_min_stable = 1.215 V after 1 hour
CPU2: new Vcore_min_stable = 1.195 V after 1.5 hours
CPU3: new Vcore_min_stable = 1.210 V after 1 hour

Finally 1.7 V. I guess I didn't check the stability frequent enough but the outcome was still obvious

CPU1: new Vcore_min_stable = 1.220 V after 15 mins
CPU2: new Vcore_min_stable = 1.200 V after 30 mins
CPU3: new Vcore_min_stable = 1.215 V after 15 mins

Well, can we deduce anything from all that? I guess so. Just like the mean time to failure rates of silicon chips vs. temperature follow the Arrhenius curve (failure time decreases exponentially with increasing temperature), the degradation rate vs. core voltage could also be an exponential function as the activation energy for voltage induced degradation/breakdown depends on the electric field strength in the transistor. As a matter of fact, even those very roughly determined degradation rates in my experiment follow a very clear exponential trajectory as you can see below.



So I took the liberty to extrapolate it further into the lower voltages to predict the time it would take for the required min. stable Vcore to degrade by 5 mV. Of course I'm not suggesting that at 1.45 V your CPU will degrade by 5 mV after 1000 hours since there must be significant amount of uncertainty margin in this tiny experiment but at least it gives some abstract picture. Assuming the uncertainty is less than 10x I can pretty much say that you're sure to lose a very tight overclock after a year or so (10000 hours) if you set a 24/7 fixed Vcore of 1.45 but then again, it's only 0.005 Volts. Then if I assume that the amount of voltage shift degradation has also an exponential behaviour, I can predict another trajectory namely the 50 mV degradation curve. What this curve shows at 1.5 V is particularly interesting to me as it would suggest the stable Vcore to shift by 50 mV after about 20000 hours which is 2.5 years. Given that Intel insists on the absolute max. voltage rating of 1.52 V for 3 years of warranty, the prediction doesn't seem too far fetched. And I also think Intel sets the stock VID to around 50-100 mV higher than what the chip can actually remain stable. Considering the 7700K I think every single chip can operate stable below 1.2 V at a stock turbo of 4.5 GHz but the stock voltage for it seems to be around 1.25-1.27 V. Which means even if you push your chip to the limits for 2.5 years with a constant 1.5 V, Intel has to make sure it's still stable at 1.25 V.

Then what's the bottom line? To me, the bottom line is unless you're sure to upgrade your CPU within the current year, going above 1.5 V doesn't seem to be a good idea. And 1.55 V is surely a no go for long term. After all, it only takes 36 hours to lose 5 mV off of your overclock.
Care to share the juicy details? De-lidded? What all-core clock speed? Cinebench images of your run that equaled 10900K would be nice! Was this in reference to a stock clock 10900K?
Ok just because youre asking so nice ^^
Its delidded and of course, I changed the thermalpaste with liqud-metal.Yesterday I did the same with my graphicscard and covered the parts direcly beside the die with öm nail polish ^^. My Cpu at idle sits at 35C (25C if I open the window xD) and under load I get 75C at max.
Ive compared my cinebench scores with a stock i9 10900k I think (just googled cinebench r23 single core scores). So the 10900k clock turbo is 5,3ghz on one core and 4,9ghz on all cores. This 10900k scores at about 1418pts.
So my i5 8600k is clocked at 5.2ghz with 1.410V vcore / 3000mhz ram (XMP on) / on a gigabyte z390 aorus pro. I just disabled every power limit in the bios ^^ and for my 1404pts run I disabled AVX (usually AVX is on 2) and load line calibration is set on turbo.
On this settings my chip is stable in every game or stresstest I throw at him but the XTU benchmark thats game over xD. If I run the XTU benchmarch my TDP shoots up to 160 watts and my pc freezes and I get a bluescreen everytime ( but it works at Vcore 1,43 V but honestly if just this benchmark doesnt work I dont care ^^). I dont know how I could prevent my Pc from crashing at XTU benchmark yet ,but I am sure I going to tweak some things prevent it from crashing.
So below theres a picture of my run. I know theres an app called snipping tool but I just wanted to send it to my friend.
Oh and the 5.2ghz are set on all my 6 cores
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Ok just because youre asking so nice ^^
Its delidded and of course, I changed the thermalpaste with liqud-metal.Yesterday I did the same with my graphicscard and covered the parts direcly beside the die with öm nail polish ^^. My Cpu at idle sits at 35C (25C if I open the window xD) and under load I get 75C at max.
Ive compared my cinebench scores with a stock i9 10900k I think (just googled cinebench r23 single core scores). So the 10900k clock is 5,3ghz on one core. This chip scores at about 1418pts.
So my i5 8600k is clocked at 5.2ghz with 1.410V vcore / 3000mhz ram (XMP on) / on a gigabyte z390 aorus pro. I just disabled every power limit in the bios ^^ and for my 1404pts run I disabled AVX (usually AVX is on 2) and load line calibration is set on turbo. On this settings my chip is stable in every game or stresstest I throw at him but the XTU benchmark thats game over xD. If I run the XTU benchmarch my TDP shoots up to 160 watts and my pc freezes and I get a bluescreen everytime ( but it works at Vcore 1,43 V but honestly if just this benchmark doesnt work I dont care ^^). I dont know how I could prevent my Pc from crashing at XTU benchmark yet ,but I am sure I going to tweak some things prevent it from crashing. So below theres a picture of my run. I know theres an app called snipping tool but I just wanted to send it to my friend.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
Very nice!! And thank you for sharing!
I have never been able to get good bench scores on Cinebench, (i7 8086K delidded @ 5.2Ghz all cores at 1.36vCore no AVX offset, 32GB DDR 3200Mhz, M.2 NVME, RTX 3080 etc), so there must be something 'special' people do when they run a bench?
Brand new Win 10 install with nothing else on it? Safe mode, or disable as much background stuff in Win 10 as they can before running?
Whatever it is, it's some secret benchmarking sauce I do not know about as my scores are never that good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Very nice!! And thank you for sharing!
I have never been able to get good bench scores on Cinebench, (i7 8086K delidded @ 5.2Ghz all cores at 1.36vCore no AVX offset, 32GB DDR 3200Mhz, M.2 NVME, RTX 3080 etc), so there must be something 'special' people do when they run a bench?
Brand new Win 10 install with nothing else on it? Safe mode, or disable as much background stuff in Win 10 as they can before running?
Whatever it is, it's some secret benchmarking sauce I do not know about as my scores are never that good.
I have just closed all my apps and pulled out the displaycable of my second monitor. Daaamn you got a 3080 ?!?!?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
I have just closed all my apps and pulled out the displaycable of my second monitor. Daaamn you got a 3080 ?!?!?
Yeah, turns out an extreme stroke of luck. Not the card I wanted, but I don't think anyone can be too fussy these days with those scalper scumbags.
Talk about low life praying on people who are already having a tough time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Yeah, turns out an extreme stroke of luck. Not the card I wanted, but I don't think anyone can be too fussy these days with those scalper scumbags.
Talk about low life praying on people who are already having a tough time.
What cinebench score have you got since you are unhappy with your results.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
1348 Single Core
10600 Multi Core

I probably need to do a fresh install of Win 10 as this one has been updated a few times with major updates, but low Cinebench scores are the norm in my experience.
2466540
 
41 - 60 of 94 Posts
Top