Interesting article on Intel OC lab.

 https://www.tomshardware.com/uk/features/inside-intels-secret-overclocking-lab

Pay attention to Page 7 how to wear out your CPU.

Edited January 2, 20206 yr by rjfry

More to spend our money on this year, more speed.

https://www.tomshardware.com/uk/news/comet-lake-to-allegedly-feature-10-cores-with-up-to-53ghz-thermal-velocity-boost

In another column from Tom'sHardware is the reality of the i9 10900K.  Intel marketing claims a 30% increase in performance over the 9900K, but of course that is in multi-threaded apps.  The following paragraph tells most simmers what we can expect:

Other benchmarks show a much lower improvement, especially XPRT which averages about 3-4% higher on the 10900K than the 9900K. This benchmark measures single-threaded performance, and since we know the architecture isn't really that different than its predecessor, it's almost certain that Intel has yet again increased clock speeds with this upcoming 10th-Gen chip. The aging 14nm process has shown surprising gains in clock speed, but this certainly is coming at the cost of power; we can see that under multi-threaded workloads, the performance bump is only equal to as many cores Intel has added to the 10900K, indicating that Intel hasn't made very much, if any, gain on core clock speeds.

Look out Intel, there's a Big Red machine closing hard on your heals!

Greg

 

Good article.  Nothing surprising or unexpected, but some fact-based reinforcement of the fairly well-established knowns that excessive voltage and temps are CPU-killers, and that moderating those adds to CPU longevity.  Which is why I prefer a water-cooled CPU running at 45 deg C over an air-cooled one at 70 deg C where I can manage it.

 

56 minutes ago, w6kd said:

Good article.  Nothing surprising or unexpected, but some fact-based reinforcement of the fairly well-established knowns that excessive voltage and temps are CPU-killers, and that moderating those adds to CPU longevity.  Which is why I prefer a water-cooled CPU running at 45 deg C over an air-cooled one at 70 deg C where I can manage it.

 

More importantly than these well-known axioms is the confirmation that 1.4V is safe for desktop CPUs, and even more with HEDT chips (presuming proper cooling).  I've set 1.4V as my personal threshold for many years now.  Glad to see it confirmed.

Great article. To be honest, we all know Intel are okay with overclocking and include OC features, but I had no idea just how EXTREMELY committed to overclocking Intel were. Even to the extent of the team now having to compile overclockability reports for high-ranking Intel executives as a key checkpoint in the standard chip design flow. 

Interesting that Intel favour the Corsair H115i. Not a surprise, its a good cooler. But do they really, or are they simply provided by Corsair for free? 

1.4 volts max and 80C max. Nothing new there. And C-States enabled and AVX offset, something most of use do. 

 

Quote

90C to 80C yields a huge increase in chip longevity.

 

Something for those of you nudging over 80 under load to take note of. Seems the old advice most of us have adhered to over the years, not to exceed 80 is confirmed. 

On 1/2/2020 at 10:51 PM, w6kd said:

 Which is why I prefer a water-cooled CPU running at 45 deg C over an air-cooled one at 70 deg C where I can manage it.

 

 

Have you even had a CPU running at 70 under load fail? I never have. Between 70 and 80 has usually ended up being my temp range over the years for overclocking and my chips have never failed. In fact I gave a friend of mine one of my old boards with a very old CPU that was significantly overclocked. Ran in the high 70's for me and with his cooler. He had it for many years after I had finished with it. Even that guy showed zero sighs of wear.

We don't need to be concerned about temps in the 70's. And certainly not we enthusiasts who swap our CPU's more frequently. 

Edited January 4, 20206 yr by martin-w

53 minutes ago, martin-w said:

 

Have you even had a CPU running at 70 under load fail? I never have. Between 70 and 80 has usually ended up being my temp range over the years for overclocking and my chips have never failed. In fact I gave a friend of mine one of my old boards with a very old CPU that was significantly overclocked. Ran in the high 70's for me and with his cooler. He had it for many years after I had finished with it. Even that guy showed zero sighs of wear.

We don't need to be concerned about temps in the 70's. And certainly not we enthusiasts who swap our CPU's more frequently. 

Nope, never had one fail,  but knowing what the engineers tell us re: temps and voltages, I still prefer to keep them on the cool end of things. 

A drunk that's made it home safely after getting hammered and driving home 100 times may think he's proven there's nothing to all that drinking and driving nonsense, too!  😉

16 hours ago, w6kd said:

Nope, never had one fail,  but knowing what the engineers tell us re: temps and voltages, I still prefer to keep them on the cool end of things. 

A drunk that's made it home safely after getting hammered and driving home 100 times may think he's proven there's nothing to all that drinking and driving nonsense, too!  😉

 

Fair enough. Stay chilly brother. 😁 My philosophy is related to how long I expect to own the CPU. I think most of us on this forum are enthusiasts, who are unlikely to be keeping our CPU's far beyond the warranty period. Currently 3 years. A CPU running at a mere 70 degrees, is unlikely to fail at 3, 5, or 7 years. 70 degrees is well inside the thermal capability of a CPU. 

Completely agree. The most deadly killer of CPUs is obsolescence, not heat.

Cheers!

Luke

Haha, I drive by this place everyday. A co-worker of mine used to work there, he told me stories of this place...