[SOLVED] Which is more harmful: High Vcore or High Temps?

wheelingbruce

Reputable
Nov 14, 2017
13
0
4,510
0
Hi All,

I just put my first pc together and want to overclock my 10900KF cpu. Right now the MSI 'Game Boost' + XMP is giving me an almost constant 5.3 ghz/per core (some cores shoot up to 5.5 occasionally) @ 1.41 volts when running Cinebench 20. My temps hover around 75-80 degrees during the Cinebench run. I'm using a program called HWINFO64 to monitor voltages, temps, clock speeds per core.
I want to manually overclock the cpu, but hopefully get close to the performance I'm getting from the MSI 'Game Boost'. I've heard a lot of people say that voltages above 1.4 are bad for the cpu. They don't really explain why, so I'm wondering if it's because 1.4 volts tends to make the temperatures run too hot. Or is 1.4 volts bad even with <80degree max temperature?

In short, if I can run 4 hours or so of prime95 at 5.3ghz @ 1.41 volts without it crashing/glitching and the temps stay below 80 degrees (I've heard that's the max temp before it's unsafe for the cpu), am I good? Or is 1.41 volts bad, regardless of how many hours of stress testing with <80 temps and no crashing?

Here's my pc parts if it helps:
10900KF
MSI MEG Unify z490
Kraken z73
32gb Corsair Vengeance 3200 ram

Thanks in advance for your help : )
 

wheelingbruce

Reputable
Nov 14, 2017
13
0
4,510
0
wheelingbruce,

There's a Sticky at the top of the CPUs Forum that you should read: Intel CPU Temperature Guide 2021

Section 8 - Overclocking and Voltage has the answers you seek, which includes graphs and detailed explanations concerning Maximum Recommended Vcore, Electromigration, Voltage Threshold (VT) Shift and more.

In addition to Section 8, I suggest that you read the entire Guide.

CT:sol:
Thanks! I was looking for a guide like that.
I think I'm stuck at 5.1ghz @ 1.3V with max temps in the mid 70s using prime95 and Realbench
I wanted 5.2 @ 1.36 with temps in the low 80s but I get Cpu L0 Cache errors which I'm considering a fail.
Apart from raising my Vcore, which will make my temps uncomfortably high, is there something else to try for 5.2?
 

CompuTronix

Intel Master
Moderator
Apart from raising my Vcore, which will make my temps uncomfortably high, is there something else to try for 5.2?
If Ring (Uncore) frequency is at least 300MHz lower than Core frequency, then no.

Keep in mind that the closing paragraph of Section 8 in the Guide states the following:

"Remember to keep overclocking in perspective. For example, the difference between 4.5 and 4.6 GHz is less than 2.3%, which has no noticeable impact on overall system performance. It simply isn’t worth pushing your processor beyond recommended Core voltage and Core temperature limits just to squeeze out another 100 MHz. "

The difference between 5.1 and 5.2 GHz is only 1.96%.

At 5.1 GHz I would declare victory with a very respectable overclock and call it a day. Enjoy your rig!

CT:sol:
 

Karadjgne

Titan
Ambassador
My i7-3770K could hit 5.0GHz. At 1.42v vcore. It was also stable at 4.9GHz at 1.32v. No brainer there, ran it at 4.9GHz for 6 years before the fans on my aio went bunk so I dropped to 4.6GHz @ 1.208v and used an aircooler instead (funny, got the same temps as the higher OC).

Higher volts = higher wattage, and using the same cooler = higher temps possible. If driving volts up to gain a measly 100MHz puts the cpu above recommended maximums, the value of that is moot, the performance gain doesn't justify the expense.

Nobody can say exactly what % of life expectancy can possibly be lost, it only takes 0.00001v over the cpus transistor voltage limits, and it burns out. Do you loose 100% or 1%, anybodys guess, there's no telling. But it's irreversible, once a TX is dead, it's dead. There's so many TX that make up a cpu that you may never notice the dead count, but if you get unlucky, it could be all of them. You can push that cpu right upto the edge of that cliff, but one tiny step and your feet have nothing but air underneath.

5.1GHz within safe limits is a far greater value than 5.2GHz and past the limits, but I'd be much happier overall with 5.1GHz for the next 6 years, than 5.2GHz and its elevated voltages for the next 6 weeks.

Oh, and don't use the MSI Dragon Center game boost. That works very well for weaker cpus to bump up performance, but with the higher end cpus it has a strong tendency to over-drive the performance, it changes values that honestly do not need changing and more than a few are values you cannot see in the bios screen as they are not user accessible or variable. Meaning you may think you are good, and what bios shows you are good, but some values you can't see are already past voltage or current limitations. It's like adding nitros to a stock engine, sure the performance goes up, but you have no idea that you are half a step away from burning out your valves and the one time you push the rpms poof there goes your heads.
 
Last edited:

wheelingbruce

Reputable
Nov 14, 2017
13
0
4,510
0
If Ring (Uncore) frequency is at least 300MHz lower than Core frequency, then no.

Keep in mind that the closing paragraph of Section 8 in the Guide states the following:

"Remember to keep overclocking in perspective. For example, the difference between 4.5 and 4.6 GHz is less than 2.3%, which has no noticeable impact on overall system performance. It simply isn’t worth pushing your processor beyond recommended Core voltage and Core temperature limits just to squeeze out another 100 MHz. "

The difference between 5.1 and 5.2 GHz is only 1.96%.

At 5.1 GHz I would declare victory with a very respectable overclock and call it a day. Enjoy your rig!

CT:sol:
Thanks again : ) I decided to keep 5.1 and slept comfortably with prime95 running over night. The max temp was 77 and no whea errors. I ran Timespy to see how much performance I lost from 5.2, but I was surprised that my 5.1 score went UP from the 5.2 score to 16950ish! So close to the 17000 club but I'm happy with 5.1 : )

Thanks again
 

wheelingbruce

Reputable
Nov 14, 2017
13
0
4,510
0
My i7-3770K could hit 5.0GHz. At 1.42v vcore. It was also stable at 4.9GHz at 1.32v. No brainer there, ran it at 4.9GHz for 6 years before the fans on my aio went bunk so I dropped to 4.6GHz @ 1.208v and used an aircooler instead (funny, got the same temps as the higher OC).

Higher volts = higher wattage, and using the same cooler = higher temps possible. If driving volts up to gain a measly 100MHz puts the cpu above recommended maximums, the value of that is moot, the performance gain doesn't justify the expense.

Nobody can say exactly what % of life expectancy can possibly be lost, it only takes 0.00001v over the cpus transistor voltage limits, and it burns out. Do you loose 100% or 1%, anybodys guess, there's no telling. But it's irreversible, once a TX is dead, it's dead. There's so many TX that make up a cpu that you may never notice the dead count, but if you get unlucky, it could be all of them. You can push that cpu right upto the edge of that cliff, but one tiny step and your feet have nothing but air underneath.

5.1GHz within safe limits is a far greater value than 5.2GHz and past the limits, but I'd be much happier overall with 5.1GHz for the next 6 years, than 5.2GHz and its elevated voltages for the next 6 weeks.

Oh, and don't use the MSI Dragon Center game boost. That works very well for weaker cpus to bump up performance, but with the higher end cpus it has a strong tendency to over-drive the performance, it changes values that honestly do not need changing and more than a few are values you cannot see in the bios screen as they are not user accessible or variable. Meaning you may think you are good, and what bios shows you are good, but some values you can't see are already past voltage or current limitations. It's like adding nitros to a stock engine, sure the performance goes up, but you have no idea that you are half a step away from burning out your valves and the one time you push the rpms poof there goes your heads.
Thanks! I'll stay away from Dragon Center. I definitely want this pc to last the next 5 years at least, so 5.1 it is : ) I'm coming from a i7-7700, and I can already tell the performance is better.
Thanks again : )
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS