Lower VID really better??

[RamonGTP]

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?

 

[Renesis13B]

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.

 

[UtopiA]

True or not, I'm always taking the C2D with the lowest VID, regardless.

 

[RamonGTP]

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.

No, i'm actually comparing VID between several different Q6600's i've messed around with.