1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

Overclock but undervolt -- safe? How much?

Discussion in 'Overclocking' started by Green Xenon [Radium], Oct 5, 2007.

  1. 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
     
    Green Xenon [Radium], Oct 5, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Green Xenon [Radium]

    Phil Guest

    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
     
    Phil, Oct 7, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Green Xenon [Radium]

    Phil Weldon Guest

    '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]" <> wrote in message
    news:4705c170$0$16463$...
    | 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
     
    Phil Weldon, Oct 8, 2007
    #3
  4. 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?
     
    Green Xenon [Radium], Oct 8, 2007
    #4
  5. Green Xenon [Radium]

    Ed M. Guest

    "Green Xenon [Radium]" <> wrote in message
    news:47097e55$0$9578$...
    > 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
     
    Ed M., Oct 8, 2007
    #5
  6. Ed M. wrote:
    > "Green Xenon [Radium]" <> wrote in message
    > news:47097e55$0$9578$...
    >
    >>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/res2007q3/cpu2006-20070708-01383.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?
     
    Green Xenon [Radium], Oct 8, 2007
    #6
  7. Green Xenon [Radium]

    Phil Weldon Guest

    '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/res2007q3/cpu2006-20070708-01383.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]" <> wrote in message
    news:470a53d7$0$20609$...
    | Ed M. wrote:
    | > "Green Xenon [Radium]" <> wrote in message
    | > news:47097e55$0$9578$...
    | >
    | >>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/res2007q3/cpu2006-20070708-01383.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?
     
    Phil Weldon, Oct 8, 2007
    #7
  8. Green Xenon [Radium]

    ~misfit~ Guest

    > 'Radium' wrote, in part:
    > > http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/res2007q3/cpu2006-20070708-01383.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.
     
    ~misfit~, Oct 9, 2007
    #8
  9. Green Xenon [Radium]

    Sjouke Burry Guest

    ~misfit~ wrote:
    >> 'Radium' wrote, in part:
    >>> http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/res2007q3/cpu2006-20070708-01383.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.
     
    Sjouke Burry, Oct 9, 2007
    #9
  10. Green Xenon [Radium]

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on the interweb "Sjouke Burry" typed:
    > ~misfit~ wrote:
    > > > 'Radium' wrote, in part:
    > > > > http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/res2007q3/cpu2006-20070708-01383.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.
     
    ~misfit~, Oct 10, 2007
    #10
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Green Xenon [Radium]

    Overclock but undervolt -- safe? How much?

    Green Xenon [Radium], Oct 5, 2007, in forum: Intel
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    905
    ~misfit~
    Oct 10, 2007
  2. Green Xenon [Radium]

    Please answer me -- overclock but undervolt -- safe? How much?

    Green Xenon [Radium], Oct 7, 2007, in forum: Overclocking
    Replies:
    29
    Views:
    2,174
    Green Xenon [Radium]
    Oct 19, 2007
  3. Green Xenon [Radium]
    Replies:
    29
    Views:
    1,591
    Green Xenon [Radium]
    Oct 19, 2007
  4. chhjposter

    Too much undervolt results in no BIOS?

    chhjposter, Sep 23, 2008, in forum: Overclocking
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    775
    Ed Medlin
    Sep 23, 2008
  5. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    598
    buckley
    Jul 28, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page