-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
CPU Vids
- Thread starter Guest2
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 4,022
Well, not entirely sure which of the default features it was on my BIOS (assuming it was the speedstep), but when I first booted up with this CPU after clearing CMOS, I saw 1.1525 VID in Coretemp, and my processor was being downclocked as well, with a 6x multiplier at idle.
On doing my usual pre-overclocking routine of disabling EIST, C1E, Executive Disable Bit, Virtualisation, Limit CPUID, it then showed 1.2125 VID (which is what the seller advertised it as) and normal stock clocks of 2.4GHz at idle.
Edit: seems to be confirmed in this post from elsewhere, too.
Fuller explanation here.
Last edited:
Did I say anything about the Vid...hmmmmm NO
You should have checked simples really. Lesson learned move on
[VID] is meant to be the voltage that particular chip asks for from the motherboard . . if there was no [VID] stamped on the processor the mobo would have no idea what vCore to set? . . . I suppose without this [VID] system the motherboard could have some kinda data base with different chips and diferent volts but the [VID] system obviously makes the most sense! . . .
Iirc I remember seeing an LGA775 chips [VID] change (not vCore), I think this may well have had something to do with EIST . . . Was reading [1.225] VID one day and then I noticed it said [1.100] VID, remember scratching my head because I'd never seen it change before . . . the same E5200 chip also got stuck in EIST mode and refused to up the CPU Multi & volts when underload . . . it was heaviliy undervolted at the time but again it was something I hadn't seen before!
I wouldn't stress too much man, as long as the chip works fine, next time hopefully you will have more luck!
Well that's a lesson learnt!
Iirc I remember seeing an LGA775 chips [VID] change (not vCore), I think this may well have had something to do with EIST . . . Was reading [1.225] VID one day and then I noticed it said [1.100] VID, remember scratching my head because I'd never seen it change before . . . the same E5200 chip also got stuck in EIST mode and refused to up the CPU Multi & volts when underload . . . it was heaviliy undervolted at the time but again it was something I hadn't seen before!
I wouldn't stress too much man, as long as the chip works fine, next time hopefully you will have more luck!
I'm a little bit confused. Here is a Core Temp reading from my Q6600 G0 when it was at stock settings with a VID of 1.1625v, and here is a Core Temp reading from the same chip, overclocked to 3.2GHz, with a VID of 1.2750v.
Could someone explain why this has happened?
To the OP, as you've lapped it, I would try to sell it on. You'll probably get a similar amount back. I'm guessing it was a genuine mistake by the seller to give you the wrong VID, but I know it must be pretty annoying for you.
Could someone explain why this has happened?
To the OP, as you've lapped it, I would try to sell it on. You'll probably get a similar amount back. I'm guessing it was a genuine mistake by the seller to give you the wrong VID, but I know it must be pretty annoying for you.
I think you should leave it, have a hug and sell it on, you won't really lose anything.
You really shouldn't of started this thread and asked the seller directly, since it is not good for his image when it looks like it is a genuine mistake.
And to be honest if he really wanted that extra £10, he could have sold it on the bay.
You really shouldn't of started this thread and asked the seller directly, since it is not good for his image when it looks like it is a genuine mistake.
And to be honest if he really wanted that extra £10, he could have sold it on the bay.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 4,022
I'm a little bit confused. Here is a Core Temp reading from my Q6600 G0 when it was at stock settings with a VID of 1.1625v, and here is a Core Temp reading from the same chip, overclocked to 3.2GHz, with a VID of 1.2750v.
Could someone explain why this has happened?
Neither of those are "stock" settings in the important sense. They are both running with a 6x multi, due to speedstep whilst at idle. That's a similar effect on VIDs that I saw between running at stock and with a speedstep lowered multi. Whilst both yours are being speedstepped, I would guess the fact that you've raised the FSB in the second one is also having some effect.
How do I disable the speedstep? The multi is manually set to 9 in the BIOS
It used to be at 9 when I first did the overclock (356*9 to get 3204Mhz)Sorry, I don't mean to drag this thread off topic.
Edit: Also, to get that reading I had to open Core Temp four times, because the other three times I opened it, it was giving me a totally incorrect reading - displaying the multiplier as a really high number, to give a massive frequency
I'm not at my computer at the moment so I can't try to show you what I mean.
Last edited:
Thanks, I'll do that when I get home.
Also, I'm pretty sure my CPU settings are this, so I should have SpeedStep disabled.
Yes looks like it is disabled, maybe ratio control should be set to 9 if its playing up, doubt it would be that though. Speedstep isn't really a bad thing if your just running on stock, saves you money, can cause problems with overclocks.
The 2 screenshots above are of 2 different versions of coretemp which does not help. Speedstep/eist/c1e are all disabled in bios. Depending on your motherboard it will be in different places, on mine its in advanced
I read about a known bug in 0.99.6 too
**The seller is basing not refunding me ANY money at all solely on this post**
1. speedstep should be on if you are overclocking and it was sold saying it was overclocked to 3.2ghz
2. bug in core-temp 0.99.6.
3. 9 x 266 is the stock multi and speed of the Q6600. not 6
Its not just about the £10. Its email replies like "Sorry Alex but I knew what I sent you was correct" that are annoying. It was clearly not correct at all.
If he had said something on the lines of "Sorry Alex, I read the core voltage from coretemp, but cannot refund you because it has now been lapped and you could be sending me back a different chip" I would be a lot less annoyed
edit - also that random guff about his owning a multimillion pound supermarket so knows about good customer service
I read about a known bug in 0.99.6 too
**The seller is basing not refunding me ANY money at all solely on this post**
1. speedstep should be on if you are overclocking and it was sold saying it was overclocked to 3.2ghz
2. bug in core-temp 0.99.6.
3. 9 x 266 is the stock multi and speed of the Q6600. not 6
Its not just about the £10. Its email replies like "Sorry Alex but I knew what I sent you was correct" that are annoying. It was clearly not correct at all.
If he had said something on the lines of "Sorry Alex, I read the core voltage from coretemp, but cannot refund you because it has now been lapped and you could be sending me back a different chip" I would be a lot less annoyed
edit - also that random guff about his owning a multimillion pound supermarket so knows about good customer service
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Jan 2006
- Posts
- 4,724
- Location
- Guernsey
IMO because you have modified the chip and voided any warranty it might have had the problem is yours, not the sellers. If it was tested before you lapped it then you would have been able to get a refund as seller has stated.
I don't believe a partial refund should be given either.
Test it before doing anything. Live and learn and move on.
I don't believe a partial refund should be given either.
Test it before doing anything. Live and learn and move on.
I know that...read above post
Yeah, when I took the first screenshot 0.99.5 was the latest, and I took the other screenshot yesterday with the latest 0.99.6. I'll try with 0.99.5.
Anyway, I have to agree with the others that it's probably best to move on seeing as you lapped the chip. I would just sell it on. If you do make a loss, it will be a very small one. You'll probably break even. It's annoying, I know, but it's probably the best thing to do.
Always fun to see questions raised in a thread after a post which provides the answer.
Completely agree with you man, but there's an issue here in that motherboard (via cpu-z) readings of this are unreliable.
That's rather irritating. Lapping a chip is not damaging it, worst case scenario you're making the heat transfer from chip to heatsink worse. You have my sympathy OP.
Completely agree with you man, but there's an issue here in that motherboard (via cpu-z) readings of this are unreliable.
That's rather irritating. Lapping a chip is not damaging it, worst case scenario you're making the heat transfer from chip to heatsink worse. You have my sympathy OP.
This is even more irritating, knowing that he knew the VID and sold me a duffer. A quick search finds this...
from this thread, post #6
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18110064
After reading this I will be leaving negative feedback unless I get some sort of refund - It sounds like he knew it had a high or 'horribly high' VID. I will of course say in the feedback about lapping it before testing (which i know was my fault)
from this thread, post #6
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18110064
After reading this I will be leaving negative feedback unless I get some sort of refund - It sounds like he knew it had a high or 'horribly high' VID. I will of course say in the feedback about lapping it before testing (which i know was my fault)
Last edited:
Wounded. The mans clearly a ****, it happens. On the bright side, he may have just been really crap at overclocking, 3.4ghz out of a q6600 certainly suggests that. I reckon negative feedback then clock it anyway. I stick by high vid <> bad overclocking.
Sorry to hear it man
Sorry to hear it man