FYI: Max Sandy Voltage (Official)

tangoseal

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
9,382
***EDIT** This has been updated with a much higher quality image. (if you have visited this thread before you may need to force a refresh in your browser, usually holding shift + reload icon)

This is to help with the confusion that so many people have asked around here and other forums.
(Posted in the Intel specific forum by nature of article)

The image below is from the official Intel Document titled:
"2nd Generation Intel® Core™Processor Family Desktop" "Data Sheet, Volume 1"

Here is a hyperlink - Official Intel Site: http://download.intel.com/design/processor/datashts/324641.pdf

The official page can be found in the document page no. 78 under Chapter 7 Section 10.1.

Hope this helps you overclockers and maybe this will get a sticky one day (if desired).

Voltage.PNG.jpg


and page 2 ...

Voltage2.PNG.jpg
 
Last edited:

skizzled

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 13, 2007
Messages
1,945
I think this has been posted before but I've heard rumblings of people frying chips at 1.5v+. Though, I haven't actually seen anything to back that up (I haven't exactly searching much for it to be honest).
 

Porter_

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
8,430
this has been posted a few times already, the data sheet has been available to the public for some time now. i'm still not cranking my chip up to 1.52V.
 

Wiseguy2001

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Messages
3,466
The problem is that allot of motherboards supply extra voltage than specified. For example setting my processor voltage to 1.36 in the bios. Under load cpu-z reports 1.416 volts, but plugging a multimeter into the reference points reports 1.442v (this is the figure I trust).

This is over .08 more than set. So setting 1.52v would result in the cpu getting 1.6v - and likely killing it.
 

tangoseal

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
9,382
I think this has been posted before but I've heard rumblings of people frying chips at 1.5v+. Though, I haven't actually seen anything to back that up (I haven't exactly searching much for it to be honest).

I think you may have heard right. However since some people do not effectively cool their chips properly and.or the motherboards are constructed as to allow serious and dangerous overvolting which is probably intended for vapor exchange cooling or liquid gas cooling methods which 99.995% of us do not endeavor into, these chips will blow.
 

aldamon

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 24, 2000
Messages
6,603
For example setting my processor voltage to 1.36 in the bios. Under load cpu-z reports 1.416 volts, but plugging a multimeter into the reference points reports 1.442v (this is the figure I trust).

Damn. Are you serious? I'll have to break out the multimeter tonight.
 

tangoseal

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
9,382
The problem is that allot of motherboards supply extra voltage than specified. For example setting my processor voltage to 1.36 in the bios. Under load cpu-z reports 1.416 volts, but plugging a multimeter into the reference points reports 1.442v (this is the figure I trust).

This is over .08 more than set. So setting 1.52v would result in the cpu getting 1.6v - and likely killing it.

Good points.

The way I see it, dont put your chip voltage above 1.4 in UEFI or BIOS, that will at least give you a little head room in case the board or whatever volts it more than you set.

Anyways I am going to sell this SB board and chip when 2011 comes out. Or bulldozer plows everything into the ditch.
 
Last edited:

SixFootDuo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
5,825
What's funny is, AMD 1050, 1090 and 1100, in order to get 4Ghz, you almost always have to set 1.5 vcore in the bios. You can google this on your own and find the same info.

Personally, I don't think 1.5 is bad, just from experience.

And like someone else pointed out, all you hear are RUMORS of people killing CPU's, I've yet to read a first hand account.

Urban myth type bs
 

rolling_tiger

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 10, 2010
Messages
188
I would never run 1.5V on a 32nm chip. Just because it might have been okay for 45nm or 65nm, does not mean its okay for 32nm. Every time you go down a node, you'll need less voltage to operate and you'll need less voltage need to kill a chip.
 

tangoseal

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
9,382
I would never run 1.5V on a 32nm chip. Just because it might have been okay for 45nm or 65nm, does not mean its okay for 32nm. Every time you go down a node, you'll need less voltage to operate and you'll need less voltage need to kill a chip.

Yeah its cool to play on the safe side. The chips just came out. let see real first hand stories of people smoking these chips.
 

Wiseguy2001

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Messages
3,466
My opinion-->

I'm surprised Intel states a maximum of 1.52 volts, this is high for any processor released in the last 5 years let alone these new ones. For example, take a 65mn chip like the q6600. The transistors in that chip are 4x times the size of those in a 32mn processor. So now we're basically pushing the same voltage though transistors a quarter the size - sounds a little crazy when you think about it.
 

rolling_tiger

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 10, 2010
Messages
188
Yeah its cool to play on the safe side. The chips just came out. let see real first hand stories of people smoking these chips.

You won't see the stories of chips dying right away. Its a slow death that will probably happen a few months from now.
 

tangoseal

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
9,382
My opinion-->

I'm surprised Intel states a maximum of 1.52 volts, this is high for any processor released in the last 5 years let alone these new ones. For example, take a 65mn chip like the q6600. The transistors in that chip are 4x times the size of those in a 32mn processor. So now we're basically pushing the same voltage though transistors a quarter the size - sounds a little crazy when you think about it.

But then again we arent the ones getting paid 350K/year as top engineers who figure out how to make materials that get better and better at handling various voltages, currents, etc...

Intel knows very well what they are doing and for them to say it can handle 1.52v means it can handle 1.52v but that doesnt mean one has to like it and therefore do it. :p
 

Forceman

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 7, 2005
Messages
9,243
But then again we arent the ones getting paid 350K/year as top engineers who figure out how to make materials that get better and better at handling various voltages, currents, etc...

Intel knows very well what they are doing and for them to say it can handle 1.52v means it can handle 1.52v but that doesnt mean one has to like it and therefore do it. :p

But do we know for sure that the entry on that line is really the highest voltage to use? What if it is just the highest value for VID they decided to allow the chip to report?
 

tangoseal

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
9,382
But do we know for sure that the entry on that line is really the highest voltage to use? What if it is just the highest value for VID they decided to allow the chip to report?

Could be eh ? Maybe one of us can email intel directly. I just dont know who would answer?
 

aphexcoil

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
322
1.52 volts is probably the maximum voltage without any engineering tolerance. Generally I'd subtract 20% from that figure for "unknowns" and not go above 1.42 volts. You're really asking to fry your chip in less than a year with anything more.
 

gmutale

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
211
so is it possible to run safely @ 5ghz/1.45v 24/7 ? <- if I can get these numbers with wc, i'd be sooo happy :D
 

Falkentyne

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 19, 2000
Messages
1,832
Here we go again...

1.52v is the maximum VID that is expressed in binary, that the CPU can accept a signal from, using the VRD 12 specification (possibly WRONG, see below). I believe someone said that the vcore the chip requests at auto voltage is the voltage it requests to run at at that frequency, based on that specification.

This has NOTHING to do with "Absolute maximum" voltage.

If you remember on the c2q 45nm chips, maximum VID was 1.3625 while absolute maximum voltage was 1.45v. Notice max VID is LESS than absolute max vcore.

On 45nm i7, maximum VID was 1.35v while absolute maximum voltage was 1.55v. (proof here: http://download.intel.com/design/processor/datashts/320834.pdf )

Now on sandy bridge, maximum VID is 1.52v, while absolute maximum voltage is...(unknown).

Now I honestly don't know why the maximum VID is 1.52v here. This doesn't make sense. Both previous processor families (C2Q/wolf series and core i7) had max vid around 1.35v.

I suggest you guys look at this carefully.

Go back to the core i7 chart for 45nm.
Notice in the vid CHART (3 graphs), the maximum VID possible that is shown in binary is 1.600v ?
But the maximum VId allowed for the processor is 1.35v?

Now look at the SB chart here:
http://download.intel.com/design/processor/datashts/324641.pdf

Both the CHART and the vid range ENDS at 1.52v. This does NOT happen with previous processors. Something doesn't match up correctly here. Almost seems like someone made a design error making the documents, and made the VID range match the chart, which is clearly not what is supposed to happen. For proof, look at the 45nm I7 vid range: it starts at 0.825v at minimum. A processor can actually RUN at this voltage. But Sandy Bridge starts at 0.250. Good luck making any processor operate at that voltage, even under LN2. Someone clearly just copied the Binary field for vid range from the chart, and no one actually put the VALID proper vid range for the processor. (Willing to bet its about 0.825v-1.35v).

I'll bet anyone hard cold money that 1.52v is NOT the "max vid" for this processor. Unless you want to prove to me that 1.60v was the max vid under valid vid range, for the i7 45nm. Anyone care to take me up on that?

Unlike some of you guys, I don't have higher ups over at Intel, so me contacting them may do nothing...
 
Last edited:

tangoseal

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
9,382
Well its been some time now since I started this thread.

It appears that all over the world people have been volting their chips higher and higher and in some cases pushing way over 1.52. I ve seen 1.54+ around the web.

Also its time to bump this thread back up because lots of people are still asking what the max is. So once again lets see if we can update and add to this thread a little more.
 

tangoseal

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
9,382
Ill bump it up again. People are still not using the forum search tools and are once again believing that its really unsafe to run their chips past 1.3x volts. LOL
 

okashira

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 7, 2005
Messages
1,802
Ill bump it up again. People are still not using the forum search tools and are once again believing that its really unsafe to run their chips past 1.3x volts. LOL

And nowhere in that document does it say it is safe for you to be running 1.52 V.
 

tangoseal

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
9,382
And nowhere in that document does it say it is safe for you to be running 1.52 V.

And no where in that document do you see credits or copyright as myself being the author.

I didnt offer the document to satisfy your questions. I posted the document so everyone could see what Intel wrote on paper.
 

okashira

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 7, 2005
Messages
1,802
And no where in that document do you see credits or copyright as myself being the author.

I didnt offer the document to satisfy your questions. I posted the document so everyone could see what Intel wrote on paper.

Say what? You have clearly implied that the content of this document says it's safe to run 1.52 V on a SB CPU. I am telling everyone that this is NOT correct.

This paper is intended for engineers designing stuff to interface with the CPU. Not for the average, or even above average, enthusiast to determine what is safe for long term use.
 

tangoseal

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
9,382
Say what? You have clearly implied that the content of this document says it's safe to run 1.52 V on a SB CPU. I am telling everyone that this is NOT correct.

This paper is intended for engineers designing stuff to interface with the CPU. Not for the average, or even above average, enthusiast to determine what is safe for long term use.

Sure thing buddy.
 
Last edited:

Falkentyne

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 19, 2000
Messages
1,832
1.52v is the max VID. VID is not the same as vcore, yet people seem to somehow think it is. VID is a voltage identification register. The chips are DESIGNED under VRD 12 to not only request a VID, but also to NOT be run under loadline calibration. VDROOP is part of the VRD 12 specification. Run a CPU at 1.52v set in BIOS, without any LLC, and under max load, it will drop down to 1.39-1.40v.

This is by design and intended under Intel's thermal specifications. So no, 1.52v is NOT the maximum LOAD VOLTAGE the cpu is supposed to be run under. It's more like 1.39-1.40v.

I challenge ANYONE to prove me wrong. Be prepared to present VRD-12 documents as proof, if you think VID is the actual vcore going to the chip and 1.52v is the maximum VCORE.

When I made my original post here, I did not take loadline slope into consideration, but now it's completely blatantly obvious that VID was designed also with Loadline (vdroop) in mind. Remove vdroop and you are instantly running the cpu's out of specification once you go above 1.4v. Doesn't mean you can't do it, but a lot of people are getting degradation at these voltages now. Some aren't, as every cpu is different, but some are. Some are even getting it at 1.3'isih volts, but the difference is, the cpu's become stable and stop getting any worse, a lot sooner.
 
Top