By overclocking? In light of some recent posts and the latest sandy bridge/fsx craze, I've been wondering what speed is safe and won't be detrimental to the cpu? Am I ok running my processor at 4.5 or should I tone it down a little? Hoping some experts can weigh in. Thanks.

By overclocking? In light of some recent posts and the latest sandy bridge/fsx craze, I've been wondering what speed is safe and won't be detrimental to the cpu? Am I ok running my processor at 4.5 or should I tone it down a little? Hoping some experts can weigh in. Thanks.

Well. The better question is what voltage is detrimental. What's your Vcore at? Running your processor at your given speed (provided you are at an acceptable voltage) will not noticeably shorten the life of it, at all.

Not sure about VCore, I'll have to look at that, but I manually set my voltage to 1.30, my computer has been completely stable, running FSX with Level D 767, UTX, FSDT, mostly high settings, my highest core temp at this point has been 59, while the others were 54-57.

Jeff, I noticed in the other thread that you said you set PLL to Auto to avoid cold boot restarts. Dis you mean LLC? That's going to affect your Vcore.Did you set your Vcore using manual or offset mode?What's your idle Vcore?What's your full load (Prime95 for example) Vcore?For the best performance/safety you want your Vcore set using offset and activate C1E to let your Vcore throttle down while idling.Setting LLC to High or Ultrahigh will then limit your Vcore at moderate loads keeping it in optimal values, while still having a safe Vcore at full loadEDIT: ok, I see you answered while I was typing.Download CPU-Z 1.57 to monitor your Vcore.Didn't you stress test for stability?

Edited May 13, 201115 yr by dazz

Both voltage and temperature!Not sure about SB voltage (Vcore, Vmemory and Vpll, see here, but note I don't have an SB and am not up to date on SB voltages and I make no recommendations), but 70º C and below is the safe temperature in the long-term.Cheers,- jahman.

You could tune vcore by reducing in increments, and stress test each time withh OCCT, and find lowest stable vcore.Bjorn

Yes, I meant LLC, not PLL. I will PM you on those settings, but I will say everything seems good, I will run prime95 at some point and will post my results in the other thread.

By overclocking? In light of some recent posts and the latest sandy bridge/fsx craze, I've been wondering what speed is safe and won't be detrimental to the cpu? Am I ok running my processor at 4.5 or should I tone it down a little? Hoping some experts can weigh in. Thanks.

Every overclock is detrimental to the CPU - it's the nature of overclocking.IMO, you are safe around 4.5, if you keep temps down and your vcore also not too high.But still, it may happen that your chip dies within some time @ 4.5 and mine at 5.0 still sings a song.It's not a matter of settings, it's just a matter of silicone

Any engineer will tell you that almost every component ever made is tested beyond the advertised capabilities, then given a limit well back from the point where it failed. So it is invariably the case that you can go beyond the official spec with most things - cars, aeroplanes, computer components, etc - but the moment you do, the company who made that thing relinquishes responsibility for it working as advertised. That's the thing you need to be aware of.In fact, where things such as processors are concerned, several processor models from the same range which are rated at different speeds and voltages, are in fact all capable of the limits that the fanciest one can manage, since the components they are made of are invariably standard across that range, which means that the risk is probably less if you overclock one of the processors from the lower end of the product range, as it is fairly likely that it could handle most of what the fanciest one from that same range could handle, but of course if it doesn't, then it is at your own risk.Al

Doods!The Sandy bridge 2500 and 2600 are rated up to 95 watts at a max of 72c.So when setting up your puter your goal is to get that 72c as close to the 95w load as possible. Some guys reach the goal at 4.2GHZ, others like myself reach that goal at 5.0GHz.I've seen guys running clock speeds at 4.5GHz with temps in the 80c range at 60% loads!?!?!? <----- Where's the efficiency? This example is an "extreme" overclock" IMO.

By overclocking? In light of some recent posts and the latest sandy bridge/fsx craze, I've been wondering what speed is safe and won't be detrimental to the cpu? Am I ok running my processor at 4.5 or should I tone it down a little? Hoping some experts can weigh in. Thanks.

Sure you are, but by how much is up for debate. They don't last forever, and fortunately they don't need to. Here is an Intel's official statement on this issue with respect to my processor, which I may be probably relevant to any processor:**Within functional operation limits, functionality and long-term reliability can be expected.***At conditions outside functional operation condition limits, but within absolutemaximum and minimum ratings, neither functionality nor long-term reliability can beexpected. If a device is returned to conditions within functional operation limits afterhaving been subjected to conditions outside these limits, but within the absolutemaximum and minimum ratings, the device may be functional, but with its lifetimedegraded depending on exposure to conditions exceeding the functional operationcondition limits.****At conditions exceeding absolute maximum and minimum ratings, neither functionalitynor long-term reliability can be expected. Moreover, if a device is subjected to theseconditions for any length of time then, when returned to conditions within thefunctional operating condition limits, it will either not function, or its reliability will beseverely degraded.This came out of the data sheet for my QX9650, which I never ran above the 'absolute maximum and minimum ratings'. The 'functional operation conditions' for voltage for my processor was 1.1-1.30v. Max was 1.45v. I ran my CPU some of the time around 1.4v, but mostly around 1.3625v. It died after 3.4y. Everyone's mileage will vary.There will be some conjecture about why my CPU died, but Occam would clearly call it voltage related as this is the most obvious explanation without getting more exotic.Noel

Ideally, your SB CPU needs only last until you can get your hands on a replacement Ivy Bridge! :-)Cheers,- jahman.

Ideally, your SB CPU needs only last until you can get your hands on a replacement Ivy Bridge! :-)Cheers,- jahman.

Jahman is IB's onboard graphics processor going to work well enough to avoid needing a dedicated GPU, for FSX?Noel

Jahman is IB's onboard graphics processor going to work well enough to avoid needing a dedicated GPU, for FSX?Noel

noway

Every overclock is detrimental to the CPU - it's the nature of overclocking.

This is only true if you exceed the Thermal Design Power. Intel and AMD turbo technologies are a good illustration of this idea. Both companies allow for the clockspeed of many of their processors to scale upwards depending on workload and power draw/temperature. Remember, these chips are designed to run within a certain engineered power envelope so as long as they stay within it, they're fine.

IMO, you are safe around 4.5, if you keep temps down and your vcore also not too high.But still, it may happen that your chip dies within some time @ 4.5 and mine at 5.0 still sings a song.It's not a matter of settings, it's just a matter of silicone

Yes, such is the random nature of *silicon*

Jahman is IB's onboard graphics processor going to work well enough to avoid needing a dedicated GPU, for FSX?Noel

IVB graphics should be faster than SNB graphics by about a factor of 2. One could likely run FSX at low-mid settings with this level of graphics horsepower. Amazingly, AMD's Bulldozer graphics with up to 400 stream processors should be more than adequate for across-the-board mid settings in FSX.