Simple question, but probably with many answers and opinions...What is the max. CPU voltage on the i5 2500k?Personally I wont go past 1.35, and as a result I get "only" 4.6 Ghz.Temps at max. 68.What do you all think.?

I am at 1.35v my personal maximum and can only get 4.5GHz but run at 4.4GHz just to be certain I am perfectly stable. I have read a lot of nonsense on maximum volts for this processor and personally subscribe to this one as being accurate and stating 1.38v as absolute max: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18227647

There certainly has been a bunch of nonsense on this subject including that link you posted (in my own opinion). The tone of that link seems to indicate it has been some sort of epidemic - which I have two problems with:1. I personally have not read of a single processor dying on any of the forums I participate in and several people have been running much higher volts than 1.5 for weeks and now months on end with no problems. 2. It was posted just 1 day after Sandy Bridge was officially released. How many people really got their CPUs and immediately blew them up?!So I wrote it off as some sort of fear mongering or possibly an over reaction to some isolated case. Or perhaps somebody unfamiliar with the differences between 1155 overclocking and 1366 overclocking probably just tried overclocking via the BCLK.With that said, I feel perfectly safe going to about 1.5, but I would start to cringe beyond that. The way I see it is that as long as I remain below the 1.52 specified by the Intel documents, somebody owes me a new CPU if I blow it up.

I always tended to go higher than "recommended", and never ran into any trouble. The MOST important thing is cooling. Keep it cool and below crazy temperature limits, and you'll be usually fine.And btw. I got a friend who is always using my older systems, and when I give the system to him, I downclock it a bit, since he uses air only. He still has my old 775-chip and the older Pentium, I don't remember exactly which one, they are both pretty high-clocked for air and still working great. Now he's getting my i7 system, planing to test it with Noctua NH-D14, shall see how much it holds with good case cooling, as opposed to watercooling...

The problem is that Intel doesn't release the absolute maximum voltage data anymore. Why would they do that? it makes no sense. Personally I think it's a big mistake to take the VID as a reference, and the fact that there's people running 1.5+ with no issues so far doesn't twll me much. Degradation can take time and probably those guys don't mind replacing their chips if they fail, and I wouldn't either, but the thing is that even at 1.52V we might hit 5.2-5.3GHz at best, which is really not that much more anyway, and even if it was safe the temperatures would be way too high (I guess even under water but I could be wrong). Every CPU sort of let's you know where is it's limit and I like to have my parts in good shape ready for selling when the next generation arrives. That way I plan on upgrading fairly often at a reasonable cost. Just my take on this

With that said, I feel perfectly safe going to about 1.5, but I would start to cringe beyond that. The way I see it is that as long as I remain below the 1.52 specified by the Intel documents, somebody owes me a new CPU if I blow it up.

Corey you need read foot note #2 on that spec, it is giving VID of 1.52v and not Vcore. Run what you like it is your chip.

I suppose I came off pretty crass in my post above. None of it was directed towards you, Gary, or your decision to rely on the information given by that link - it is a perfectly legitimate reason. I was just giving my personal analysis of the link... my words just don't always come out very subtle. Dazz has it right, however. When you're overclocking you're chip and you start seeing that wall, it's probably time to stop as it's not really worth pushing much further anyway. I think everybody is seeing that wall somewhere between 1.35 and 1.45v.

I have one golden rule about voltage and overclocking and that's.......if you can't afford to overclock.....don't. Best of luck...

I sealed the cover to my case 10 days ago with my cpu running 1.41 -turbo'd. Hell, if I had the need, and the cooler, I'd feel confident that my system would give me trouble free service @ 5.4GHz 1.54v.

Thanks for the answers..I got my i5 a few days ago, and first I used the Asus Auto Tune set to "Fast", and it reached 4.3 fairly easy, but I noticed that the voltage skyrocketed too...Next I tried "Extreme" - and after a few reboots and tests, it reached 4.9 and a warning came up down in the right corner of the screen: "Your CPU is now at 80-90 degrees C".!Here´s the "Official Asus P8P67 series Overclock Guide"http://hardforum.com...d.php?t=1578110"10.Enter a CPU V Core Voltage value of 1.415 or 1.425""10. CPU V of 1.415 or 1.425

Thanks for the answers..IHere´s the "Official Asus P8P67 series Overclock Guide"http://hardforum.com...d.php?t=1578110"10.Enter a CPU V Core Voltage value of 1.415 or 1.425""10. CPU V of 1.415 or 1.425

I think Alain, makes a great statement above.I read a post by a person claiming to be an Intel Engineer in response to that Asus (marketing)post on voltage. He basically says there is too small a sample size and too many variables to responsibly make voltage recommendations like Asus has done, for the masses. He further makes comment that there are those that think they know then there are those that do know, in implication that those voltages are highly inaccurate.When dealing with a chip that runs 1.1-1.25v at 3.4GHz it is not reasonable to me to expect that chip to sustain 1.5v and higher.At the end of the day I really do not care what anybody else does with their property. I will not recommend or run my own equipment (I am a chicken and cannot afford to be wrong)past 1.35v or 68c on temp. If I see something factual from a reliable source indicating different I will reconsider. We could debate all day and not resolve. Overclocking is not a science it is an art. It is exceeding the design specifications of the manufacturer.

I suppose I came off pretty crass in my post above. None of it was directed towards you, Gary, or your decision to rely on the information given by that link - it is a perfectly legitimate reason. I was just giving my personal analysis of the link... my words just don't always come out very subtle. Dazz has it right, however. When you're overclocking you're chip and you start seeing that wall, it's probably time to stop as it's not really worth pushing much further anyway. I think everybody is seeing that wall somewhere between 1.35 and 1.45v.

Corey, no worries,and I did not take your comment personally.My opinions are not above criticism and no one has to agree with them and everyone is entitled to their opinion too (as long as it agrees with mine :Just Kidding:)