-
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.
Does low VID suggest a good OCing CPU?
- Thread starter Stickman
- Start date
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 11,668
- Location
- Northampton
Generally a lower VID is considered better as your chip will run cooler and have a larger margin for voltage increase, however AMD TWKR chips which are sent to reviewers etc for putting under extreme cooling (LN2 & Phase) are actually chips that run extremely hot and with higher voltage.
As has been said, a lower Vid gives more vid headroom for clocking.
That said, my experience of all the low Vid Intel chips that i've had is that they always run hotter than a higher Vid chip at the same clock. It dosn't bother me, because i always run Phase. But on air, it will more than likely be heat that stops a clock, rather than the Vid.
That said, my experience of all the low Vid Intel chips that i've had is that they always run hotter than a higher Vid chip at the same clock. It dosn't bother me, because i always run Phase. But on air, it will more than likely be heat that stops a clock, rather than the Vid.
Agree with kitfit about low vid chips running hotter, noticed a pattern on various c2d duals/quads i had, a q6600 that i had was a mid range vid chip, (1.2750), good clocker and ran cool enough at 3.8ghz on air. Best of both worlds with a middle of the road vid.
There seems to be some conflicting opinions on this subject but I believe that may be due to different types of silicon being discussed . . .
As kitfit1 & setter have already mentioned low [VID] Intel® Core™2 silicon while able to hit higher GHz with less voltage do indeed appear to run a lot hotter than a high [VID] Intel® Core™2 piece of silicon . . . for someone with extreme cooling this isn't a problem but for a regular enthusiast using mid/high end air cooling a low [VID] Intel® Core™2 will possible have its overclock "capped" by the temps flying off into orbit!
I'm not sure if Intel® Core™ i7 silicon follows the same trend? . . . . I've also not have enough experience with AMD® SOI silicon to notice any particular trend, the three chips I've used so far (RANA/PROPUS/DENEB) all seem to run amazingly cool although the slab of level 3 cache of the DENEB seems to get a bit toasty and thus drive temps up a lot more than the Athlon™ II . . .
What specific silicon are you referring too Stickman?
As kitfit1 & setter have already mentioned low [VID] Intel® Core™2 silicon while able to hit higher GHz with less voltage do indeed appear to run a lot hotter than a high [VID] Intel® Core™2 piece of silicon . . . for someone with extreme cooling this isn't a problem but for a regular enthusiast using mid/high end air cooling a low [VID] Intel® Core™2 will possible have its overclock "capped" by the temps flying off into orbit!
I'm not sure if Intel® Core™ i7 silicon follows the same trend? . . . . I've also not have enough experience with AMD® SOI silicon to notice any particular trend, the three chips I've used so far (RANA/PROPUS/DENEB) all seem to run amazingly cool although the slab of level 3 cache of the DENEB seems to get a bit toasty and thus drive temps up a lot more than the Athlon™ II . . .
What specific silicon are you referring too Stickman?
In my experience, no it dosn't.
Obviously as you increase BCLK, clockspeed and Vcore, temps rise. But the biggest culprit for the increase in temps is the amount of VTT needed as you increase BCLK. Along with the fact that CPU PLL voltage is set miles too high by default on most x58 mobo's.
Nothing specific... just trying to learn all I can to help any future overclocking I may do.
So, thanks for all the excellent information in this thread. *files it away in big old brain*
If you define maximum safe voltage as the greatest value in the specified vid range...
Then low vid is better, as you'll overvolt it more before you lose your nerve.
Unfortunately the above definition is absurd in several ways.
Then low vid is better, as you'll overvolt it more before you lose your nerve.
Unfortunately the above definition is absurd in several ways.
Care to expand on that statement JonJ678 ?
As none of us know what "definition" you are refering to, i'm shure we could all benefit from your input.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 11,364
- Location
- Cheshire
As title really... Does a CPU having a VID in the lower end of it's range suggest it will run cooler/overclock better etc?
Thanks.
Not necessarily but it does indicate that it will usually require less volts to get overclocked!
Sorry kit, i meant this one:
Safe voltage suggests that no harm will come to your chip. However, it degrades continuously while running, whatever the voltage. Stock voltage will eventually kill it through electromigration, if nothing else does.
So perhaps safe voltage is what will provide you with t hours of life. However, temperature depends in part on voltage, and hotter will shorten lifespan.
So you can ask what the safe voltage is, quoting desired service life and working temp. This is roughly what the high end of the vid is, the chip should last the length of the warranty, at stock, at max operating temp, which intel or amd quote.
We dont know how they arrived at this figure. 8hr per day or 24? What load conditions? What fraction are expected to fail? Or indeed whether the warranty length takes any of the above into consideration.
I'm igoring the 'all chips are different', and 'would it have died even were it running at stock' problems to reduce the length of this post, but they are still relavent.
Somehow people look at the highest vid someone else's chip could have, then deduce that they can run theirs at different temperatures, different frequencies, with a whole set of voltages tweaked manually, but as long as vcore is below this value they're safe. Its a thoroughly ridiculous line of reasoning.
To address the op, people like lower vid chips. There's an anecdotal correlation between lower vid and better overclocking results. It makes some intuitive sense too. If you've arbitrarily set a maximum voltage for all chips of your type, then there is an advantage in being willing to overvolt by a greater % of vid than if you had a higher vid chip.
Whether a given low vid chip will hold a higher overclock for the same lifetime as the average is unknowable. Intel's engineers may have a fair idea, i certainly dont.
Safe voltage suggests that no harm will come to your chip. However, it degrades continuously while running, whatever the voltage. Stock voltage will eventually kill it through electromigration, if nothing else does.
So perhaps safe voltage is what will provide you with t hours of life. However, temperature depends in part on voltage, and hotter will shorten lifespan.
So you can ask what the safe voltage is, quoting desired service life and working temp. This is roughly what the high end of the vid is, the chip should last the length of the warranty, at stock, at max operating temp, which intel or amd quote.
We dont know how they arrived at this figure. 8hr per day or 24? What load conditions? What fraction are expected to fail? Or indeed whether the warranty length takes any of the above into consideration.
I'm igoring the 'all chips are different', and 'would it have died even were it running at stock' problems to reduce the length of this post, but they are still relavent.
Somehow people look at the highest vid someone else's chip could have, then deduce that they can run theirs at different temperatures, different frequencies, with a whole set of voltages tweaked manually, but as long as vcore is below this value they're safe. Its a thoroughly ridiculous line of reasoning.
To address the op, people like lower vid chips. There's an anecdotal correlation between lower vid and better overclocking results. It makes some intuitive sense too. If you've arbitrarily set a maximum voltage for all chips of your type, then there is an advantage in being willing to overvolt by a greater % of vid than if you had a higher vid chip.
Whether a given low vid chip will hold a higher overclock for the same lifetime as the average is unknowable. Intel's engineers may have a fair idea, i certainly dont.
