i7-2600K on M4E, low vCore but hot!

Adam1203

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 11, 2011
Messages
159
Hey everyone,

Long story short, I RMA'd my original i7-2600K in hopes to get a better OC'er as my original couldn't hit 5Ghz no matter how much vCore I through at it.

The replacement processor I got is a Costa Rica version and can hit 5Ghz stable on 1.44 vCore. What is strange is that the temps hit 75 - 77C load.... and I'm under water.

Does that seem strange to anyone? Could it be because it's on the Maximus board, or maybe because it's from the CR plant and not Malay?

My other processor on the M4E would load at about 65C running at 4.9 with about 1.48 vCore.

Thoughts?
 

Falkentyne

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 19, 2000
Messages
1,822
Nice chip!
What's the DEFAULT VID for the chip at 3.4 ghz? (X34). That will tell us about the temps. Mine is costa rica and 1.21v VID at 3.4 ghz, and runs over 5C hotter than my Malay chip (assuming both are at the same vcore, of course) that needed 1.48v load vcore for 5 ghz. (this chip needs 1.404-1.41v load vcore (bios 1.445v) for 5 ghz).

(How did you RMA a cpu successfully, anyway? They would test the cpu, see its fine, and send it back...(I would think...))
 

Adam1203

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 11, 2011
Messages
159
Nice chip!
What's the DEFAULT VID for the chip at 3.4 ghz? (X34). That will tell us about the temps. Mine is costa rica and 1.21v VID at 3.4 ghz, and runs over 5C hotter than my Malay chip (assuming both are at the same vcore, of course) that needed 1.48v load vcore for 5 ghz. (this chip needs 1.404-1.41v load vcore (bios 1.445v) for 5 ghz).

(How did you RMA a cpu successfully, anyway? They would test the cpu, see its fine, and send it back...(I would think...))

Thanks for the reply. The VID was 1.3xx (I can't remember the rest as I'm not infront of the PC).

I was able to RMA it to NewEgg, they didn't ask any questions with all the recalls and whatnot.

Sorry about posting in two seperate boards, I just wasn't sure if it was a motherboard issue or a CPU issue. :)
 

MrSneis

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
2,716
Are you basing your vcore numbers on what you set it at or what you are seeing in cpu-z or the like?
 

DeadSkull

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
4,482
Lower vid usually means higher leakage and higher power consumption despite low vcore.
 

Falkentyne

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 19, 2000
Messages
1,822
No nono..the LOWER the VID, the better (usually), but this is NOT a hard and firm rule. There are some high vid chips that can overclock far, but it's just not as common.

The VID was not 1.3xxx at 3400 mhz though. No such thing as a cpu with that high of a vid at stock (if there were, you wouldn't be hitting even 4.5 ghz).
it's only that high if you're between 4-5 ghz, so you probably remembered it from that.
You need to set the cpu to 3400 mhz to see the vid there, after you save the settings. The VID is not the "voltage monitoring" in health. It's the "target VID" you should see left of the area where you set the voltage. (VRD 12 allows the cpu to choose what voltage to run at). The target VID is the voltage the CPU would set for itself, if you used auto vcore.

The key is the VID at 3400 mhz.

Lower vid usually means higher leakage and higher power consumption despite low vcore.

high leakage cpu's usually respond better to more voltage, so while they may run hotter, you can often overclock them farther.
So you may see a 1.21 vid cpu run hotter at 3.4 ghz, than a 1.25 vid cpu, but the 1.21v chip may reach 5 ghz at a lower voltage, since high leakage chips are affected more by voltage changes.

This does NOT mean that two chips with the same vid, will have the hotter chip overclock higher, though. High heat can also happen because the IHS isn't soldered on with the best contact to the core, too.
 
Last edited:

Adam1203

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 11, 2011
Messages
159
No nono..the LOWER the VID, the better (usually), but this is NOT a hard and firm rule. There are some high vid chips that can overclock far, but it's just not as common.

The VID was not 1.3xxx at 3400 mhz though. No such thing as a cpu with that high of a vid at stock (if there were, you wouldn't be hitting even 4.5 ghz).
it's only that high if you're between 4-5 ghz, so you probably remembered it from that.
You need to set the cpu to 3400 mhz to see the vid there, after you save the settings. The VID is not the "voltage monitoring" in health. It's the "target VID" you should see left of the area where you set the voltage. (VRD 12 allows the cpu to choose what voltage to run at). The target VID is the voltage the CPU would set for itself, if you used auto vcore.

The key is the VID at 3400 mhz.



high leakage cpu's usually respond better to more voltage, so while they may run hotter, you can often overclock them farther.
So you may see a 1.21 vid cpu run hotter at 3.4 ghz, than a 1.25 vid cpu, but the 1.21v chip may reach 5 ghz at a lower voltage, since high leakage chips are affected more by voltage changes.

This does NOT mean that two chips with the same vid, will have the hotter chip overclock higher, though. High heat can also happen because the IHS isn't soldered on with the best contact to the core, too.

OK, I just reset my BIOS and looked at the vCore next to where it would be set manually in the BIOS. It was 1.176v.

When I boot into Windows and look at Core Temp's VID it bounces around from .9707 - 1.32ish

Which is the actual VID and do I have a good processor (for overclocking and reasonable temps concidering my cooling).

[EDIT]

I just rebooted and entered the BIOS again, and the voltage was set to 1.248..... not sure which is the actual VID. I'm guessing 1.248 because 1.176 doesn't seem feasible.
 
Last edited:

Falkentyne

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 19, 2000
Messages
1,822
Ok your VID is 1.248v? Hmm...that sounds more feasible (the VID is NEVER reported correctly after a CMOS clear, btw. When I first installed my second 2600k, on a brand new UD5 B3, it said the VID was 1.235v on the very first boot, with whatever defaults it was using. After I set the settings in the CMOS, it said the VID was 1.21v, which is the correct VID that realtemp also reports).

Can you run windows at 34x100 and use realtemp 3.67 (not coretemp) and press the top right button so it cycles to the VID? Make sure C3 and C6 and EIST are disabled.

That will show you your true vid.
1.248v seems a bit high, but that would explain why you need 1.44v load and mine needs 1.404v load for 5 ghz. (my VID is 1.21, and I can run 45x100 at 1.238v load). But 1.248v seems like an "uneven" setting, so that's why I wanted you to check with realtemp. Usually VID is something like 1.21v, 1.215v, 1.2135v, 1.240, 1.245, 1.25, etc, but maybe that's not always the case..
 

Falkentyne

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 19, 2000
Messages
1,822
Hi Unclewebb from xs :)
Yes, that is true.
However, what we have been trying to figure out, is the relationship between the default VID, and how far the processors can overclock.

On my CPU that overclocks to 5 ghz at 1.404v (load), and 4.5 ghz at 1.236v (load), the default VID shown for the entire range from 3.4 ghz to 5 ghz is significantly lower than my other chip that needs 1.485v load to run at 5 ghz. The lower vcore chip has a default VID of 1.21v at 3.4 ghz and 1.3711v at 5 ghz. The worse chip had a 3.4 ghz VID of 1.235v, and 5 ghz was 1.390v.

Likewise, the low VID chip runs hotter....it runs at about the same temp (estimated) as the higher VID chip with about 0.05v more volts.

So the tentative conclusion here was that lower VID chips have higher leakage (since they respond better to volts, more heat is released) while the higher VID chips need more vcore to respond (since they don't leak as much, and thus may be more resistant). Another person said that his golden i7-920 which did 4.5 ghz HT off at 1.375 ran hotter than the worse chips that couldn't overclock as far (despite volts).

So we're trying to see if such a thing can be reached as a conclusion: low default VID=better clocking CPU. Both chips have a max multi of X49 with internal PLL disabled, though.

Adams' and my chip both reach 5 ghz, but mine needs less vcore to do it, but also has a lower default VID (apparently across the entire mhz range, compared to adam's cpu).

I'm going to make a poll to see how well the CR chips are doing...
 

Dr.GumbyM.D.

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 18, 2010
Messages
143
Well, since there is no poll up yet, maybe I can provide some numbers and in return get some advice? :)

2600k stock 3500mhz VID: 1.2660 max temp Prime95: 60 Max watts: 61W shown VID in bios: 1.216

2600k@4300mhz VID: 1.2410 max temp " : 70C Max Watts: 99.7W didn't check bios VID

Chip is L050A854 from Malaysia. Doing a quick googling it looks like people have hit over 5 on this, but I get crashes every time I try 4.8. Should I be messing with the "CPU Voltage" param in Asus TurboV suite? It's set at 1.195 now. I don't think Asus Suite's measurements bear any resemblance to those from RT3.67, as it shows about 1.288V Vcore load at 4.3ghz and 1.216 at 3.5ghz full load. If I bump up the multiplier to 45x in Asus suite while running Prime95, the computer crashes, guess it needs more voltage, but I'm still unsure of how increasing vcore works with the Asus suite.

That's a lot of personal info, maybe some helpful info in there. Hopefully I contributed!
 
Top