A Few Questions About My CPU Voltage, Temps and General CPU Behavior

[DrumsXO]

Hey, everyone.

CPU Specs:
Model: i7-7700K
Frequency: 4.8GHz OC
Core Voltage: 1.155 Volts
IO Voltage: 0.95 Volts
CPU Ratio Mode: Dynamic

Issues / Behavior Questions:
1) Core Temperatures spike up and down frequently. These spikes correspond with spikes in the core's load, so I think it may be normal. Is it?

2) Core Temperatures at idle hover between 30 and 33 Celsius. Shouldn't they be lower?

Worrying Questions:
1) Is 1.155 Volts too low of a Core Voltage? Someone told me 1.155 Volts is too low, which is probably causing the Motherboard to push extra power to the CPU, causing the spikes in temperatures and damaging the CPU.

I don't know if I'm overreacting here or if there's actually a cause for concern. My build is stable as far as I can tell. Even at that 1.155 Volts, I don't have crashes, weird glitches, etc.

Under gaming load my temperatures hover around 60 - 65 Celsius, which I know isn't a lot for the 7700K. So more than likely, everything is fine, but I'm a Paranoid Perfectionist, so I need to be sure.

 

[feelinfroggy777]

Yes, your temperature will spike pending on load. That is completely normal. Your idle temps are just fine a 30-33C. Remember, they will never be lower than ambient temps, so that plays a big role. You need to look at your temps underload. I like my average temps under load to stay below 80C.

I would not worry about the volts being too low. Low is good. Higher volts increase temperatures. Increased temps causes thermal throttling and damages CPUs. If your system is stable at 1.15 volts with 48 on the multiplier you have won the silicon lottery. That is a very good overclock with low voltage. This is why your load temps are in the 60s.

You should not have any trouble hitting 5ghz with low temps. I am at 5ghz with 1.33volts. So you have a good bit of room to go. If I were you, I would put 50 on the multiplier and 1.2 on the core and run a stress test.

 

[DrumsXO]

Yes, your temperature will spike pending on load. That is completely normal. Your idle temps are just fine a 30-33C. Remember, they will never be lower than ambient temps, so that plays a big role. You need to look at your temps underload. I like my average temps under load to stay below 80C.

I would not worry about the volts being too low. Low is good. Higher volts increase temperatures. Increased temps causes thermal throttling and damages CPUs. If your system is stable at 1.15 volts with 48 on the multiplier you have won the silicon lottery. That is a very good overclock with low voltage. This is why your load temps are in the 60s.

You should not have any trouble hitting 5ghz with low temps. I am at 5ghz with 1.33volts. So you have a good bit of room to go. If I were you, I would put 50 on the multiplier and 1.2 on the core and run a stress test.

Yeah, I was pretty sure that the spikes were normal, since the core loads spike along with it. If it was JUST the temps spiking then it'd be concerning.

My load temps never break 65 Celsius.

I haven't noticed any kind of instability thus far, and it's been overclocked with these settings for a couple of months now. When I was manually dropping my voltage little by little and stressing the system after each drop, I didn't have crashes or boot loops until I was down to 1.14 and 1.13 volts.

If there isn't anything wrong with my setup, I don't see myself changing anything, honestly. 4.8 to 5.0GHz won't give me enough of an improvement to justify the increase in temps.

You think I'm stable though? There's no cause for concern?

 

[DrumsXO]

I installed and ran HWInfo64 and looked at the VCore value. 1.160 volts across the board. So, it's .05 higher than the 1.155 it's set to in the BIOS, but that's still pretty damn low for a 4.8GHz clock.

 

[feelinfroggy777]

There is no cause for concern. Your voltages are extremely limited.

I prefer to use Intel XTU to watch temps and voltages, but HWInfo is fine too. I just like the Intel built in benchmark and the fact that it is designed for Intel CPUs. But dont use XTU to overclock. You always want to do that from the bios. XTU is a good place to monitor temps and voltages.

 

[DrumsXO]

There is no cause for concern. Your voltages are extremely limited.

I prefer to use Intel XTU to watch temps and voltages, but HWInfo is fine too. I just like the Intel built in benchmark and the fact that it is designed for Intel CPUs. But dont use XTU to overclock. You always want to do that from the bios. XTU is a good place to monitor temps and voltages.

I've never heard of Intel XTU before, but I'll look into it! I use Core Temp for temperatures right now, and only used HWInfo64 to check the VCore reading.

So, since my 4.8GHz overclock is stable with 1.155 set and 1.160 actual, what do you think I should start at for voltage if I want to try, say, 5.2GHz?

 

[feelinfroggy777]

You will have to work your way up to 5.2. I think you will find that you will hit a wall past 5ghz where moving up another 100mhz requires a large jump in voltage. But there is only one way to find out. What is your CPU cooler? That will have a big impact on how far you can take it.

I would go for 5ghz with 1.2 and see if it is stable. It may need 1.25 for 5ghz. If it works then bump it up to 5.1 and add .01 increments to the voltage till it is stable or your temps get too high. Once it is stable, move it to 5.2 and add .01 increments to the voltage again. I would stop at 1.35 volts or average temps above 80C. That is pretty safe there. I think Intel says 1.45 volts is the recommended max on the v-core, so you are still pretty far below their maximum.

 

[DrumsXO]

You will have to work your way up to 5.2. I think you will find that you will hit a wall past 5ghz where moving up another 100mhz requires a large jump in voltage. But there is only one way to find out. What is your CPU cooler? That will have a big impact on how far you can take it.

I would go for 5ghz with 1.2 and see if it is stable. It may need 1.25 for 5ghz. If it works then bump it up to 5.1 and add .01 increments to the voltage till it is stable or your temps get too high. Once it is stable, move it to 5.2 and add .01 increments to the voltage again. I would stop at 1.35 volts or average temps above 80C. That is pretty safe there. I think Intel says 1.45 volts is the recommended max on the v-core, so you are still pretty far below their maximum.

Alright. Here's an update for you, kind sir.

I just finished running Prime95 on Small FFTs for over a half an hour. My current overclock is 5.0GHz with a Core Voltage of 1.220 Volts. Now, I know what you're thinking; why 1.220 when I suggested 1.2? Well, it wouldn't let me log in at 1.2 Volts. I'm not sure if that's because the voltage is too low (it DID blue screen, after all), or if it was a BSOD because of this damn update problem I'm having (check the spoiler below if you want to read about that).

Spoiler

The newest update for Windows 10, KB4054517, keeps hanging at 99% and will not finish. It stays running in the background until the computer is shut down or restarted. The problem there is that, since the update was still in progress, the computer then has to recover from the failure mid-update, and I get "Windows is getting ready" for sometimes over a half an hour before I actually get my login screen... That may have caused the BSOD at 1.2 because a little while into "Getting Windows ready" it crashed.

So, running 5.0GHz at 1.220 Volts at 100% load in Prime95 yielded the following readings.

Core 0: 78 C
Core 1: 77 C
Core 2: 78 C
Core 3: 80 C
VCore: 1.240 (drops to 1.224 during idle)

Granted, this doesn't ensure stability. I haven't tried boot-looping it where I log in, restart; log in, restart; log in, restart to check for BSODs. I also haven't gamed yet, and at one point when getting my 4.8GHz overclock stable, I passed the boot-loop test, passed Prime95 and then BSOD'd while gaming, lol. So, that's next.

So far though, those numbers still look pretty good, I'd say. I wonder what it will do at 5.2GHz... What kind of voltage I'll have to hit it with. I'm debating if I want to try and do that now, or if I should game on this overclock to see if it's stable or not. Or if I should drop to 1.2 volts again and test it.

 

[feelinfroggy777]

Those are really good temps for Prime95. I dont usually run Prime95 because there is not real world application that will push your hardware that far. So having temps at 80C in Prime95 is really good.

I would set it to 5.2 and 1.25 and see what happens.

 

[DrumsXO]

Those are really good temps for Prime95. I dont usually run Prime95 because there is not real world application that will push your hardware that far. So having temps at 80C in Prime95 is really good.

I would set it to 5.2 and 1.25 and see what happens.

I think this will have to wait a bit. I've more than likely got to do a fresh installation of Windows, because something must be hella corrupt on my machine at the moment. 🙁

 

[DrumsXO]

Those are really good temps for Prime95. I dont usually run Prime95 because there is not real world application that will push your hardware that far. So having temps at 80C in Prime95 is really good.

I would set it to 5.2 and 1.25 and see what happens.

Alright; update time!

At this time, 5.2GHz is not an option for my system; I would need a custom liquid loop for that high of an overclock. I started at 1.25V like you suggested, and I instantly got a BSOD on boot, lol. Initially I was going up in .005 increments; 1.250 to 1.255, then 1.260, 1.265, 1.270, etc. I kept getting a BSOD on boot. Finally I jumped right to 1.300, and it managed to boot, but crashed after loading the desktop. Many failures later, I'm at 1.375V running Prime95 and instantly hitting 97 Celsius! No! Bad! No thank you!

So, now I'm back to a 5.0GHz freq. at 1.215V in the BIOS.

Prime95, Small FFTs (max heat production) for 26 minutes:
Core 0: 76C
Core 1: 74C
Core 2: 77C
Core 3: 78C
Max Load: 100%
Max VCore: 1.232V
Idle VCore: 1.216V

I'm about to start gaming with it and test for stability there. If it passes, then I'm sticking with this.

I don't know why 5.2GHz requires at least 1.375V when 5.0GHz runs at 1.215V, but it's quite annoying. I wanted to be exactly one gig over the stock clock speed, lol.

POST-GAME UPDATE:

No crashes! At least, not in the solid 30 minutes I just spent slaying anything and everything, creating maximum explosions and chaos in Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus. Not even so much as a hiccup or anything. Now, that said, I don't think I noticed a gain in performance, but I didn't see a real climb in temps either; 59C, 59C, 61C and 63C. That's really not far off at all of what I was getting with my 4.8GHz overclock.

Perhaps if I could uncap my framerate I'd see a few FPS faster than at 4.8GHz, but I have to leave it capped to 60 or it tears (my monitor hates anything over 60). I'm not sure if I wanna leave it at 5.0GHz for bragging rights, or go back to 4.8GHz to save my CPU's lifespan just a tad bit more.

Thoughts?

 

[CompuTronix]

DrumsXO,

Read this Sticky: Intel Temperature Guide - http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-1800828/intel-temperature-guide.html

CT

 

[feelinfroggy777]

I told you in an earlier post, that after you get past 5ghz you were going to hit a wall that would require a large jump in voltage. I would not run the CPU at 1.375volts for an extended period of time and 97C is not acceptable.

I think you found you sweet spot for your CPU. If you want to run it at 5ghz, it will be fine, but as you said, if you still cant get any better fps from it, then maybe it is not worth the trouble. The only think that may help would be frame variance. It should keep your minimums up some. But you will not see any visual difference from 4.8 and 5ghz, only in benchmarks and as you said, bragging rights.

Additionally, you are not running enough volts nor enough heat to shorten the life span of your CPU with your settings at 5ghz. By the time that CPU dies, it will be obsolete.

What GPU and monitor do you have? You can find some really good deals on 144hz panels these days and the difference between 60hz and 144hz is amazing. It is something you cant "unsee". It is like the difference between standard definition and high definition. Plus, screen tearing is much milder at higher fps. Or if you have the cash, get a monitor with gsync (Nvidia GPU) or free sync (AMD GPU) and eliminate screen tearing all together.

 

[eathdemon]

I told you in an earlier post, that after you get past 5ghz you were going to hit a wall that would require a large jump in voltage. I would not run the CPU at 1.375volts for an extended period of time and 97C is not acceptable.

I think you found you sweet spot for your CPU. If you want to run it at 5ghz, it will be fine, but as you said, if you still cant get any better fps from it, then maybe it is not worth the trouble. The only think that may help would be frame variance. It should keep your minimums up some. But you will not see any visual difference from 4.8 and 5ghz, only in benchmarks and as you said, bragging rights.

Additionally, you are not running enough volts nor enough heat to shorten the life span of your CPU with your settings at 5ghz. By the time that CPU dies, it will be obsolete.

What GPU and monitor do you have? You can find some really good deals on 144hz panels these days and the difference between 60hz and 144hz is amazing. It is something you cant "unsee". It is like the difference between standard definition and high definition. Plus, screen tearing is much milder at higher fps. Or if you have the cash, get a monitor with gsync (Nvidia GPU) or free sync (AMD GPU) and eliminate screen tearing all together.

only putting this here becouse it isnt worth its own thread. got a computer with a 8700 in it, while gamming is high 60/mid 70s c, but under full load (aka video rendering ect) it can reach 80 to 84c. I know thats on the high end, but is it in safe levels for a 8700?

 

[feelinfroggy777]

If your temps spike to 84C, it’s okay. But I would not want my averages temps to be in the mid 80s for extended periods of time. Long term exposure to high temps can shorten a CPUs life span. So you may need to back off the overclock when you are video editing.

 

[eathdemon]

If your temps spike to 84C, it’s okay. But I would not want my averages temps to be in the mid 80s for extended periods of time. Long term exposure to high temps can shorten a CPUs life span. So you may need to back off the overclock when you are video editing.

its not a k chip. that being said it seems the onlything that puts it in the 80s is ether video rendering/ benchmarks. the 2 games I have played overwatch/warfrae seem to have it sitting in the mid 70s. so while on the high end, it seems like im in the safe range for cpu temps as far as I can tell.

 

[DrumsXO]

DrumsXO,

Read this Sticky: Intel Temperature Guide - http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-1800828/intel-temperature-guide.html

CT

I've skimmed through that before, but I always end up going into information overload. 🙁

I told you in an earlier post, that after you get past 5ghz you were going to hit a wall that would require a large jump in voltage. I would not run the CPU at 1.375volts for an extended period of time and 97C is not acceptable.

I think you found you sweet spot for your CPU. If you want to run it at 5ghz, it will be fine, but as you said, if you still cant get any better fps from it, then maybe it is not worth the trouble. The only think that may help would be frame variance. It should keep your minimums up some. But you will not see any visual difference from 4.8 and 5ghz, only in benchmarks and as you said, bragging rights.

Additionally, you are not running enough volts nor enough heat to shorten the life span of your CPU with your settings at 5ghz. By the time that CPU dies, it will be obsolete.

What GPU and monitor do you have? You can find some really good deals on 144hz panels these days and the difference between 60hz and 144hz is amazing. It is something you cant "unsee". It is like the difference between standard definition and high definition. Plus, screen tearing is much milder at higher fps. Or if you have the cash, get a monitor with gsync (Nvidia GPU) or free sync (AMD GPU) and eliminate screen tearing all together.

Yeah, I figured you were right about not being able to get past 5.0GHz without having to jack up the voltage, since you haven't steered me wrong thus far. Still, I had to try it for myself, and you were definitely right. It's so weird that adding an extra 200MHz onto the 5.0GHz requires so much extra voltage. It's honestly perplexing!

I want to tell myself that I notice a performance gain, but honestly, so far, I don't think I really do. At least not in Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus. It may be a different story in something like Ghost Recon: Wildlands or Skyrim, for example. So far the temperatures at 5.0GHz haven't actually been higher than they were at 4.8GHz... Maybe by a degree or two, but nothing that's anywhere even close to alarming; I'm still a few degrees below even 65 Celsius. I may keep it at 5.0GHz since it's not doing any damage to the chip.

I've got a 24" ASUS monitor, and an EVGA GTX 1070 SC GPU. I've definitely been giving some thought to the notion of getting a new, 144Hz monitor! I just don't have the money to spend on one right now, unless I got on HELL of a deal. Buying used isn't an option either, since I've been burned far too many times on used electronics. It'd be nice though, because my current monitor could perhaps be mounted somewhere and used as a second monitor for Core Temp, HWInfo64 and MSI Afterburner while gaming! That way, I don't have to Alt+Tab to check temps.