discussion Why is everybody a Voltage wussy!

[bradleyg5]

Ok so intel specs the 2500k at a max voltage of 1.52. Has there been any evidence ever that has established running near this limit properly cooled will cause the chip to die prematurely? I see motherboards die way more often than I see chips die.

I want evidence! For Ivy bridge I think hardware canucks should take a motherboard and a ivy bridge chip, push it very near the highest vCore as established by intel and just let it run prime95 permanently until it dies(if that even happens within years). Just put it in the corner with a Noctura cooler on it and just leave it.

It's just annoying that I'm running around 1.4v and people are like "oh your gonna burn that chip out I'm running 1.32v" I mean this is pure unsupported conjecture! the only reason voltage under 1.52 would kill the chip is from increased heat output that isn't managed properly.

unkUSH IT TO THE LIMIT!unk:

 

[supaflyx3]

Because not everyone wants to have to replace dead hardware every few months, which will more then likely happen if you're running at a high voltage with 24/7 load.

 

[mo' power]

By all means, feel free to become a hardware torture test reviewer for HWC! Simply contact hardware manufacturers and I'm sure they'll supply you with all the hardware you need after you explain to them what you plan on doing with it.

 

[bradleyg5]

Because not everyone wants to have to replace dead hardware every few months, which will more then likely happen if you're running at a high voltage with 24/7 load.

SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!

 

[BT!]

your the one interested in evidence of it happening... dont be a wuss and show us with your equipment.

 

[bradleyg5]

My evidence is intel saying 1.52v. I'm simply stating that recommendations to run at a maximum lower than that amount are baseless conjecture. I'm just saying your statements should be backed up, mine already are by the engineers.

 

[ilya]

Processors are a lot more resilient than most people realize. Running at 1.32v vs 1.4v won't reduce the lifespan in any noticeable to the end user, most overclockers will have sold the chip or thrown it away well before the increased voltage has killed it. (as long as temps are under control) That's not to say pumping voltage to the limits is practical at all, increasing clock speed will increase heat and power consumption in a linear fashion. However, increasing voltage usually increases the two in an exponential fashion, so it's simply more practical to run at the lowest stable voltage for your target overclock.

 

[maverick_brent]

Processors are a lot more resilient than most people realize. Running at 1.32v vs 1.4v won't reduce the lifespan in any noticeable to the end user, most overclockers will have sold the chip or thrown it away well before the increased voltage has killed it. (as long as temps are under control) That's not to say pumping voltage to the limits is practical at all, increasing clock speed will increase heat and power consumption in a linear fashion. However, increasing voltage usually increases the two in an exponential fashion, so it's simply more practical to run at the lowest stable voltage for your target overclock.

perfectly said!

 

[mo' power]

Perhaps if you contact Intel, they might have the data you're looking for. I'm pretty sure that their R&D department does extensive testing on processors before the specs are released to manufacturing.

 

[bradleyg5]

That would be neat if they released all that information in their press kits when they release K series chips. I doubt they'll hand out more information than they've already given.