• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Failure rate for Intel ES chips

S

sobrietywarrior

n00b
Joined
Aug 12, 2013
Messages
42
I'm considering building a 4p Intel box with ES E5-4650 chips. I was wondering if anyone can chime on what the failure rates of Intel ES chips are running folding 24/7 100% load?
 
ive never heard of an ES chip failing underload, atleast not a later stepping one (which is what most here tend to purchase)
 
I have a pair of Musky's L5640's that were in an SR-2 at some point and overclocked to within an inch of their lives. They still work fine 24/7 at stock, happily crunching away at 53k PPD
 
In my own personal experience, LGA 1366 ES chips failed on me with disturbing regularity. I have some rather decorative but not altogether functional E5649, X5675 and X5679 chips. So far so good with LGA 2011 ES chips, though.
 
I have two E5-4650ES 4P rigs running for a while now - no issues whatsover.

Although, those two rigs, an AMD G34 6172 4P (oc'd), two i7 3770K's (oc'd), an i7 2600K (oc'd) and two GTX Titans do make for some rather uncomfortable temperatures throughout the house from time to time :D
 
I am running 12 - 2011 4650 ES chips 0 failures

I would say most ES chips have no greater failure rate than any other chip you just need to get everything set up propperley which can be more work than some are willing to do. ;)
 
About steppings:

Letter changes, so from A to B indicate changes to multiple levels of the silicone.

Number changes, so from A0 to A1 indicate changes to a single level of silicone.

So Letter changes are bigger then number changes.

A1 is better then A0, and B0 is better then A1, with B1 being better then B0 and so on.
 
I'm debating if I should wait for the v2 12 core chips to come out Q1 of 2014 or just pull the trigger on the v1 4650 now. I know that the new ES chips will be pretty expensive at least for a year or more.
 
Spazturtle said:
About steppings:

Letter changes, so from A to B indicate changes to multiple levels of the silicone.

Number changes, so from A0 to A1 indicate changes to a single level of silicone.

So Letter changes are bigger then number changes.

A1 is better then A0, and B0 is better then A1, with B1 being better then B0 and so on.
Click to expand...

As general rule this is true, however with 2011, B0 is better than B1 or B2 - but all 2011 Bx stepping cpu's should be avoided
 
And, as far as FAH is concerned, there are no practical differences between C0 and C1.

I'd focus more about cleanliness/wear of eBay chips, tbh...
 
sobrietywarrior said:
I'm considering building a 4p Intel box with ES E5-4650 chips. I was wondering if anyone can chime on what the failure rates of Intel ES chips are running folding 24/7 100% load?
Click to expand...

They don't fail often. But if it's an ES chip, you got it for free or next to it, so I wouldn't worry about it.
 
ScottSwing said:
They don't fail often. But if it's an ES chip, you got it for free or next to it, so I wouldn't worry about it.
Click to expand...

Not sure I would call $400+ off ebay free or next to it.
But yes.... all ES chips are without warranty and any failure is on you.
That stepping had a reason why it didn't go into production. You may find it you may not.
However... C1 stepping on SB-E did go into production despite the VT-d errata.
 
Gillbot said:
I thought the A steppings should be avoided and B + C were better on 2011?
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1775045
Click to expand...

Not quite, B was better than A, but they still have problems. B1 & B2 were very unstable and would not run in all 2p mobo's. Bios support for these CPU's was pulled very early, B0 is at least stable enough to fold on but again BIOS support has been pulled due to the other issues.

I've not seen many A stepping cpu's for sale but those that are are very cheap. Bx chips are slightly more expensive but still cheap enough to tempt the unwary, especialy the none functional B1 and B2's. Best bet for future board compatibility/Bios updates is C0 or higher
 
Nathan_P said:
Not quite, B was better than A, but they still have problems. B1 & B2 were very unstable and would not run in all 2p mobo's. Bios support for these CPU's was pulled very early, B0 is at least stable enough to fold on but again BIOS support has been pulled due to the other issues.

I've not seen many A stepping cpu's for sale but those that are are very cheap. Bx chips are slightly more expensive but still cheap enough to tempt the unwary, especialy the none functional B1 and B2's. Best bet for future board compatibility/Bios updates is C0 or higher
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've been tempted on the Bx chips myself and was under the impression they were nearly as good as Cx chips. Most of the Cx chips i've seen are priced near retail but I refuse to pay that as i'd rather have retail.
 
I do not know where you are seeing retail chips in that range but the lowest price I have seen retail for is $2000+ even on ebay. Are you sure the chips you are seeing ar retail.
 
Grandpa_01 said:
I do not know where you are seeing retail chips in that range but the lowest price I have seen retail for is $2000+ even on ebay. Are you sure the chips you are seeing ar retail.
Click to expand...

They claim they are at least.
 
Right. So... it fits:
- production chips (C2) (new/used) well beyond $2k
- spicy (C0/C1) chips $450-$600.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top