• 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.

Lower VID really better??

R

RamonGTP

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
8,149
So I keep reading about how a low VID is the holy grail of high overclocks, but my experience is suggesting otherwise. My observations has been that a low VID is good in that a stock clocked CPU runs very cool and uses less power, it also allows for light to moderate OCing with very little to no voltage increase. However, it has also been my experience that they hit a frequency wall much sooner and that they're only good for a small bump in voltage, anything more does little to nothing for overclocking and only serves to make them run hotter. It also seems a lower VID part experiences a higher temperature spike when it comes to over-volting than a CPU that starts out at a higher VID to begin with.

Thoughts?
 
Are you comparing the vid between 65nm cpus and 45nm cpus? If you are the voltage doesnt really have anything to do with how well they overclock. The cores are not identical so its not really a valid comparison.
 
True or not, I'm always taking the C2D with the lowest VID, regardless.
 
Renesis13B said:
Are you comparing the vid between 65nm cpus and 45nm cpus? If you are the voltage doesnt really have anything to do with how well they overclock. The cores are not identical so its not really a valid comparison.
Click to expand...

No, i'm actually comparing VID between several different Q6600's i've messed around with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top