Motherboard Forums


Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes

Overclock but undervolt -- safe? How much?

 
 
Green Xenon [Radium]
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-05-2007, 04:55 AM
Hi:

Is it possible to significantly decrease the heat generated by "Pentium
4 570J 3.8 GHz processor" by using extreme undervolting without
underclocking? How far can undervolting go before it causes trouble?
What problems can result from undervolting? Can it damage the CPU or
other parts of the PC?

Also, can this processor be overclocked to 4 GHz while still being
undervolted to the max tolerable? Does overclocking decrease the extent
to which undervolting can be safely performed?

In addition, what is the max that this CPU can be overclocked without
damaging it or decreasing its lifetime?


Thanks,

Radium
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Phil
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-07-2007, 05:54 PM
Green Xenon [Radium] wrote:
> Hi:
>
> Is it possible to significantly decrease the heat generated by
> "Pentium 4 570J 3.8 GHz processor" by using extreme undervolting
> without underclocking? How far can undervolting go before it causes
> trouble? What problems can result from undervolting? Can it damage
> the CPU or other parts of the PC?
>
> Also, can this processor be overclocked to 4 GHz while still being
> undervolted to the max tolerable? Does overclocking decrease the
> extent to which undervolting can be safely performed?
>
> In addition, what is the max that this CPU can be overclocked without
> damaging it or decreasing its lifetime?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Radium


You've got to test it. Set the min voltage and work up the clock until it
errors prime95/orthos.

--
Phil


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Phil Weldon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-07-2007, 11:18 PM
'Radium' wrote:
| Is it possible to significantly decrease the heat generated by "Pentium
| 4 570J 3.8 GHz processor" by using extreme undervolting without
| underclocking? How far can undervolting go before it causes trouble?
| What problems can result from undervolting? Can it damage the CPU or
| other parts of the PC?
|
| Also, can this processor be overclocked to 4 GHz while still being
| undervolted to the max tolerable? Does overclocking decrease the extent
| to which undervolting can be safely performed?
|
| In addition, what is the max that this CPU can be overclocked without
| damaging it or decreasing its lifetime?
_____

Overclocking is not going to damage an Intel x86 CPU before it becomes
obsolete (your Pentium 4 570J 3.8 GHz CPU already is.) On the other hand,
raising the core voltage too high can immediately destroy an Intel x86 CPU.
Limiting the core voltage to no more than +10% should give a good safety
margin; more than that is possible (there are many accounts of successful
overclocks with a higher core voltage increase, but there are no guarantees.

There is no such thing as 'extreme undervolting.' There is a cutoff voltage
at which a transistor will no longer operate. Reducing the core voltage
will not harm a CPU, but you will rapidly reach a voltage at which the CPU
will just not operate. The CPU will not be damaged, nor will any other part
of the system. Restoring the core voltage to normal will set everything
aright.

Read Phil's answer carefully, and also other posts in this newsgroup. You
will benefit from a better grasp of what overclocking entails. Basically,
just trading off voltage and heat safety margins for higher clock speeds.
Slowly and methodically is the way to go.

Phil Weldon

"Green Xenon [Radium]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:4705c170$0$16463$(E-Mail Removed)...
| Hi:
|
| Is it possible to significantly decrease the heat generated by "Pentium
| 4 570J 3.8 GHz processor" by using extreme undervolting without
| underclocking? How far can undervolting go before it causes trouble?
| What problems can result from undervolting? Can it damage the CPU or
| other parts of the PC?
|
| Also, can this processor be overclocked to 4 GHz while still being
| undervolted to the max tolerable? Does overclocking decrease the extent
| to which undervolting can be safely performed?
|
| In addition, what is the max that this CPU can be overclocked without
| damaging it or decreasing its lifetime?
|
|
| Thanks,
|
| Radium


 
Reply With Quote
 
Green Xenon [Radium]
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-08-2007, 12:59 AM
Phil Weldon wrote:

> Overclocking is not going to damage an Intel x86 CPU before it becomes
> obsolete (your Pentium 4 570J 3.8 GHz CPU already is.) On the other hand,
> raising the core voltage too high can immediately destroy an Intel x86 CPU.
> Limiting the core voltage to no more than +10% should give a good safety
> margin; more than that is possible (there are many accounts of successful
> overclocks with a higher core voltage increase, but there are no guarantees.


Is it possible to decrease the core voltage and at the same time,
increase the clock frequency?

> There is no such thing as 'extreme undervolting.' There is a cutoff voltage
> at which a transistor will no longer operate. Reducing the core voltage
> will not harm a CPU, but you will rapidly reach a voltage at which the CPU
> will just not operate. The CPU will not be damaged, nor will any other part
> of the system. Restoring the core voltage to normal will set everything
> aright.


Okay. What if I use the minimum voltage necessary?

> Read Phil's answer carefully, and also other posts in this newsgroup. You
> will benefit from a better grasp of what overclocking entails. Basically,
> just trading off voltage and heat safety margins for higher clock speeds.
> Slowly and methodically is the way to go.


Okay.

My goal here is to use the minimum voltage required and at the same
time, the highest frequency possible. Is this possible?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ed M.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-08-2007, 01:56 PM

"Green Xenon [Radium]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:47097e55$0$9578$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Phil Weldon wrote:
>
>> Overclocking is not going to damage an Intel x86 CPU before it becomes
>> obsolete (your Pentium 4 570J 3.8 GHz CPU already is.) On the other
>> hand, raising the core voltage too high can immediately destroy an Intel
>> x86 CPU. Limiting the core voltage to no more than +10% should give a
>> good safety margin; more than that is possible (there are many accounts
>> of successful overclocks with a higher core voltage increase, but there
>> are no guarantees.

>
> Is it possible to decrease the core voltage and at the same time, increase
> the clock frequency?
>


In almost every case, NO.

>> There is no such thing as 'extreme undervolting.' There is a cutoff
>> voltage at which a transistor will no longer operate. Reducing the core
>> voltage will not harm a CPU, but you will rapidly reach a voltage at
>> which the CPU will just not operate. The CPU will not be damaged, nor
>> will any other part of the system. Restoring the core voltage to normal
>> will set everything aright.

>
> Okay. What if I use the minimum voltage necessary?
>


You can try it........ That processor is pretty much set to operate on it's
default Vcore and lowering it will probably make it unstable even at it's
default speed.

>> Read Phil's answer carefully, and also other posts in this newsgroup.
>> You will benefit from a better grasp of what overclocking entails.
>> Basically, just trading off voltage and heat safety margins for higher
>> clock speeds. Slowly and methodically is the way to go.

>
> Okay.
>
> My goal here is to use the minimum voltage required and at the same time,
> the highest frequency possible. Is this possible?


The best you could probably do is to find the highest possible freq that
the processor will do at default Vcore, which will probably not be very much
higher. What folks are trying to tell you is that the two processors you
mention are not the most efficient and not great OCers without voltage
INCREASES. They are very marginal even at default speeds and Vcore. Those
processors were Intel's last go-round at using raw speed rather than better
efficiency (operations per cycle) like the Core 2 Duos and Quads. An E6600
at 2.4Ghz outperforms my EM64T 630 OC'd to 3.6Ghz by almost double in any
benchmark. The Q6600 does even better, even in apps that are not optimized
for it. Almost everyone in this group are very knowledgeable and are really
trying to help you out. You just have to listen to what they are telling
you........Regards



Ed


 
Reply With Quote
 
Green Xenon [Radium]
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-08-2007, 04:10 PM
Ed M. wrote:
> "Green Xenon [Radium]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:47097e55$0$9578$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>>Phil Weldon wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Overclocking is not going to damage an Intel x86 CPU before it becomes
>>>obsolete (your Pentium 4 570J 3.8 GHz CPU already is.) On the other
>>>hand, raising the core voltage too high can immediately destroy an Intel
>>>x86 CPU. Limiting the core voltage to no more than +10% should give a
>>>good safety margin; more than that is possible (there are many accounts
>>>of successful overclocks with a higher core voltage increase, but there
>>>are no guarantees.

>>
>>Is it possible to decrease the core voltage and at the same time, increase
>>the clock frequency?
>>

>
>
> In almost every case, NO.
>
>
>>>There is no such thing as 'extreme undervolting.' There is a cutoff
>>>voltage at which a transistor will no longer operate. Reducing the core
>>>voltage will not harm a CPU, but you will rapidly reach a voltage at
>>>which the CPU will just not operate. The CPU will not be damaged, nor
>>>will any other part of the system. Restoring the core voltage to normal
>>>will set everything aright.

>>
>>Okay. What if I use the minimum voltage necessary?
>>

>
>
> You can try it........ That processor is pretty much set to operate on it's
> default Vcore and lowering it will probably make it unstable even at it's
> default speed.
>
>
>>>Read Phil's answer carefully, and also other posts in this newsgroup.
>>>You will benefit from a better grasp of what overclocking entails.
>>>Basically, just trading off voltage and heat safety margins for higher
>>>clock speeds. Slowly and methodically is the way to go.

>>
>>Okay.
>>
>>My goal here is to use the minimum voltage required and at the same time,
>>the highest frequency possible. Is this possible?

>
>
> The best you could probably do is to find the highest possible freq that
> the processor will do at default Vcore, which will probably not be very much
> higher. What folks are trying to tell you is that the two processors you
> mention are not the most efficient and not great OCers without voltage
> INCREASES. They are very marginal even at default speeds and Vcore. Those
> processors were Intel's last go-round at using raw speed rather than better
> efficiency (operations per cycle) like the Core 2 Duos and Quads. An E6600
> at 2.4Ghz outperforms my EM64T 630 OC'd to 3.6Ghz by almost double in any
> benchmark. The Q6600 does even better, even in apps that are not optimized
> for it. Almost everyone in this group are very knowledgeable and are really
> trying to help you out. You just have to listen to what they are telling
> you........Regards
>
>
>
> Ed
>
>


It's true that CPUs with lower clock rates can be more efficient than
CPUs with higher clock rates if the former uses more bits-per-cycle than
the latter.

As I've recently found, the 4.7 GHz IBM Power6 holds the current record
for highest frequency CPU:

http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...708-01383.html

How much does the 4.7 GHz IBM Power6 cost?

Is the 4.7 GHz IBM Power6 available today? If so, where can I find it? I
live in Southern California in Diamond Bar. Any store close to me that
carries this processor?

What is the least expensive motherboard that is fully-compatible with
this CPU?

What is the least expensive HDD that is fully-compatible with this CPU?

Also, if I do buy the 4.7 GHz IBM Power6, I would like to undervolt and
overclock it to the max possible. If I use the minimum voltage required
for the CPU to operate, what is the highest clock frequency I can get?

I believe Power6 uses more instructions-per-cycle than most Intel or AMD
processors. So it is a combination of higher-clock-rate and more
bits-per-cycle.

Just out of curiousity, is it physically-possible to build a CPU whose
clock-rate is 600 PetaHz and whose Vcore is a picovolt?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Phil Weldon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-08-2007, 07:19 PM
'Radium' wrote, in part:
| It's true that CPUs with lower clock rates can be more efficient than
| CPUs with higher clock rates if the former uses more bits-per-cycle than
| the latter.
|
| As I've recently found, the 4.7 GHz IBM Power6 holds the current record
| for highest frequency CPU:
|
| http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...708-01383.html
|
| How much does the 4.7 GHz IBM Power6 cost?
|
| Is the 4.7 GHz IBM Power6 available today? If so, where can I find it? I
| live in Southern California in Diamond Bar. Any store close to me that
| carries this processor?
_____

Do some research on your own. You are just asking a string of questions
that really have no relationship to overclocking.

To repeat, overclocking consist of swapping temperature and voltage safety
margins for higher clock speeds.
Overclocking is operating a CPU at a higher speed than that marked or
specified by the manufacturer.

| It's true that CPUs with lower clock rates can be more efficient than
| CPUs with higher clock rates if the former uses more bits-per-cycle than
| the latter.

Efficiency, what is efficiency? Efficiency can be instructions per second,
or instructions per watt, data processing accomplished per watt or second,
instructions per cycle, data processed per cycle.

| How much does the 4.7 GHz IBM Power6 cost?
|
| Is the 4.7 GHz IBM Power6 available today? If so, where can I find it? I
| live in Southern California in Diamond Bar. Any store close to me that
| carries this processor?

Nobody here knows or cares, and you can't afford it. If you had such a CPU,
what software would you run?

| What is the least expensive motherboard that is fully-compatible with
| this CPU?

See above comment.

| What is the least expensive HDD that is fully-compatible with this CPU?

Hard drives have absolutely NOTHING to do with the CPU. Modern CPUs do not
communicate directly with a hard drive. Some flavor of IDE, PATA, SATA or
SCSI interface handles data drives.

| Also, if I do buy the 4.7 GHz IBM Power6, I would like to undervolt and
| overclock it to the max possible. If I use the minimum voltage required
| for the CPU to operate, what is the highest clock frequency I can get?

| Just out of curiousity, is it physically-possible to build a CPU whose
| clock-rate is 600 PetaHz and whose Vcore is a picovolt?

The speed of light is an absolute limit to the operation of a single CPU. A
petrahertz is 1/1,000,000,000,000,000 second in duration. In that time NO
signal can travel further than 0.3 nanometer (less that the width of a
single transistor in a CPU.)

A picovolt is such an incredibly small voltage that likely someone combing
hair on the other side of the earth would change the local electrical field
by more than that.

As stated before, there is a minimum cut-off voltage for transistors - at
less than this voltage they do not "transist". This voltage is about 0.7
volts for transistors used today; additional voltage is needed to make a
clear difference between the logic 0 state and the logic 1 state, additional
voltage is needed to raise the signal above the noise level. Additional
voltage is needed to increased the switching speed. The first transistors
were built on germanium rather than silicon; these germanium transistors
have a cutoff voltage of about 0.3 volts, but have many disadvantages,
including leakage, slower switching speeds, and higher power consumption.

The short answers are NO and NO.

Phil Weldon

"Green Xenon [Radium]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:470a53d7$0$20609$(E-Mail Removed)...
| Ed M. wrote:
| > "Green Xenon [Radium]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
| > news:47097e55$0$9578$(E-Mail Removed)...
| >
| >>Phil Weldon wrote:
| >>
| >>
| >>>Overclocking is not going to damage an Intel x86 CPU before it becomes
| >>>obsolete (your Pentium 4 570J 3.8 GHz CPU already is.) On the other
| >>>hand, raising the core voltage too high can immediately destroy an
Intel
| >>>x86 CPU. Limiting the core voltage to no more than +10% should give a
| >>>good safety margin; more than that is possible (there are many accounts
| >>>of successful overclocks with a higher core voltage increase, but there
| >>>are no guarantees.
| >>
| >>Is it possible to decrease the core voltage and at the same time,
increase
| >>the clock frequency?
| >>
| >
| >
| > In almost every case, NO.
| >
| >
| >>>There is no such thing as 'extreme undervolting.' There is a cutoff
| >>>voltage at which a transistor will no longer operate. Reducing the
core
| >>>voltage will not harm a CPU, but you will rapidly reach a voltage at
| >>>which the CPU will just not operate. The CPU will not be damaged, nor
| >>>will any other part of the system. Restoring the core voltage to
normal
| >>>will set everything aright.
| >>
| >>Okay. What if I use the minimum voltage necessary?
| >>
| >
| >
| > You can try it........ That processor is pretty much set to operate on
it's
| > default Vcore and lowering it will probably make it unstable even at
it's
| > default speed.
| >
| >
| >>>Read Phil's answer carefully, and also other posts in this newsgroup.
| >>>You will benefit from a better grasp of what overclocking entails.
| >>>Basically, just trading off voltage and heat safety margins for higher
| >>>clock speeds. Slowly and methodically is the way to go.
| >>
| >>Okay.
| >>
| >>My goal here is to use the minimum voltage required and at the same
time,
| >>the highest frequency possible. Is this possible?
| >
| >
| > The best you could probably do is to find the highest possible freq
that
| > the processor will do at default Vcore, which will probably not be very
much
| > higher. What folks are trying to tell you is that the two processors you
| > mention are not the most efficient and not great OCers without voltage
| > INCREASES. They are very marginal even at default speeds and Vcore.
Those
| > processors were Intel's last go-round at using raw speed rather than
better
| > efficiency (operations per cycle) like the Core 2 Duos and Quads. An
E6600
| > at 2.4Ghz outperforms my EM64T 630 OC'd to 3.6Ghz by almost double in
any
| > benchmark. The Q6600 does even better, even in apps that are not
optimized
| > for it. Almost everyone in this group are very knowledgeable and are
really
| > trying to help you out. You just have to listen to what they are telling
| > you........Regards
| >
| >
| >
| > Ed
| >
| >
|
| It's true that CPUs with lower clock rates can be more efficient than
| CPUs with higher clock rates if the former uses more bits-per-cycle than
| the latter.
|
| As I've recently found, the 4.7 GHz IBM Power6 holds the current record
| for highest frequency CPU:
|
| http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...708-01383.html
|
| How much does the 4.7 GHz IBM Power6 cost?
|
| Is the 4.7 GHz IBM Power6 available today? If so, where can I find it? I
| live in Southern California in Diamond Bar. Any store close to me that
| carries this processor?
|
| What is the least expensive motherboard that is fully-compatible with
| this CPU?
|
| What is the least expensive HDD that is fully-compatible with this CPU?
|
| Also, if I do buy the 4.7 GHz IBM Power6, I would like to undervolt and
| overclock it to the max possible. If I use the minimum voltage required
| for the CPU to operate, what is the highest clock frequency I can get?
|
| I believe Power6 uses more instructions-per-cycle than most Intel or AMD
| processors. So it is a combination of higher-clock-rate and more
| bits-per-cycle.
|
| Just out of curiousity, is it physically-possible to build a CPU whose
| clock-rate is 600 PetaHz and whose Vcore is a picovolt?


 
Reply With Quote
 
~misfit~
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-09-2007, 01:08 AM
> 'Radium' wrote, in part:
> > http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...708-01383.html
> >
> > How much does the 4.7 GHz IBM Power6 cost?
> >
> > Is the 4.7 GHz IBM Power6 available today? If so, where can I find
> > it? I live in Southern California in Diamond Bar. Any store close
> > to me that carries this processor?
> >
> > What is the least expensive motherboard that is fully-compatible
> > with this CPU?
> >
> > What is the least expensive HDD that is fully-compatible with this
> > CPU?
> >
> > Also, if I do buy the 4.7 GHz IBM Power6, I would like to undervolt
> > and overclock it to the max possible. If I use the minimum voltage
> > required for the CPU to operate, what is the highest clock
> > frequency I can get?
> >
> > I believe Power6 uses more instructions-per-cycle than most Intel
> > or AMD processors. So it is a combination of higher-clock-rate and
> > more bits-per-cycle.
> >
> > Just out of curiousity, is it physically-possible to build a CPU
> > whose clock-rate is 600 PetaHz and whose Vcore is a picovolt?


C'mon guys, if this isn't a troll I'll eat my C2D. Everyone's feeding him
lots.

(For some reason I don't see his posts, must be in my bit-bin from a
previous incarnation).
--
TTFN

Shaun.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Sjouke Burry
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-09-2007, 05:15 PM
~misfit~ wrote:
>> 'Radium' wrote, in part:
>>> http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...708-01383.html
>>>
>>> How much does the 4.7 GHzn is 600 PetaHz and whose Vcore is a picovolt?

>
> C'mon guys, if this isn't a troll I'll eat my C2D. Everyone's feeding him
> lots.


Save your digestion. Radium strings together a random
selection of science terms,the sillier the better and
then sits back to watch.
He is doing it on a wide selection of newsgroups.
 
Reply With Quote
 
~misfit~
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-10-2007, 12:57 AM
Somewhere on the interweb "Sjouke Burry" typed:
> ~misfit~ wrote:
> > > 'Radium' wrote, in part:
> > > > http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...708-01383.html
> > > >
> > > > How much does the 4.7 GHzn is 600 PetaHz and whose Vcore is a
> > > > picovolt?

> >
> > C'mon guys, if this isn't a troll I'll eat my C2D. Everyone's
> > feeding him lots.

>
> Save your digestion. Radium strings together a random
> selection of science terms,the sillier the better and
> then sits back to watch.
> He is doing it on a wide selection of newsgroups.


I guess if one doesn't have a life, it keeps you occupied.

Thanks for the confirm (and saving me indigestion). <g>
--
TTFN

Shaun.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Please answer me -- overclock but undervolt -- safe? How much? Green Xenon [Radium] Overclocking 29 10-19-2007 10:37 PM
Please answer me -- overclock but undervolt -- safe? How much? Green Xenon [Radium] Intel 29 10-19-2007 10:37 PM
Overclock but undervolt -- safe? How much? Green Xenon [Radium] Intel 9 10-10-2007 12:57 AM
CPU undervolt on IC7-MAX3! DS Abit 1 08-26-2004 03:46 PM
NF7-S: Does this Motherboard Undervolt Vcore? (300w Antec PSU). Wayne Youngman Abit 18 09-22-2003 02:39 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:28 PM.


Welcome!
Welcome to Motherboard Point
 

Advertisment