Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26

Thread: Intel VID vs what the box says...




  1. #11

    Default Re: Intel VID vs what the box says...

    Quote Originally Posted by Lsdmeasap View Post
    I read this about the box voltage at a few places >>>
    IMO quotes without a reference or link are not useful. The source of information is important.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    942

    Default Re: Intel VID vs what the box says...

    Quote Originally Posted by Lsdmeasap View Post
    Realtemp does not monitor actual usage voltages, so that is why it will remain the same

    You must calibrate RealTemp, and you must also set the correct tjmax for your CPU in settings, which is why the 10C difference. Tjmax can be changed in Realtemp of course, and everest, I am not sure if you can set it in hwmonitor or PCwizard but they are not correct I can say that for sure since the value has not been released.

    Now what the actual tjmax is has yet to be released by intel for 45nm, some say 95c, some say 100c. They are "Supposed" to be releasing this info soon, but who knows >>>
    [OCCP] TJMax for All - Overclock.net - Overclocking.net

    Here is how you calibrate it (Toward the middle, this MUST be done) >>
    Real Temp - Documentation
    Ahem LsdMe..... As I said above the author suggests that it Does monitor Real time VID Voltage!

    Real Temp - Documentation

    Core VID

    This is the Minimum and Maximum voltage that your processor will request from your motherboard when the Voltage is set to AUTO or Default in the bios. Depending on your motherboard and how it is set up this voltage request may be ignored. Core VID is a suggested voltage and may not be the same as the actual core voltage that your processor receives. Use a program like CPU-Z to report actual core voltage. The real time VID is displayed on the main RealTemp screen at the upper right and can change depending on whether SpeedStep/C1E are enabled and on the load your processor is at.
    GA-P35C-DS3R Rev2.0 F11 bios, E8200 (@3.0Ghz), OCZ DDR3 PC3-10666 Reaper 4GB (@1200Mhz), Xonar D1, 8800GTS 512, Corsair HX520 (Single 12volt line, Max 40A), WDC 3200aaks/5000aaks in AHCI mode, Vista 64 Premium.

  3. #13
    Lsdmeasap's Avatar
    Lsdmeasap is offline GIGABYTE Guru
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    PCB Island
    Posts
    25,940

    Default Re: Intel VID vs what the box says...

    Well, Maybe when I get time I will hunt them down again. It was no pro I can tell you that. It was quoted comments just like I just made. Hear-say I suppose

    But I have read it many places in the past many times with no one shooting it down.

    Here is 2 places I see it at now just googling the first line >>>

    P7N Diamond Overclocking
    E8400 VID check before buy? - [H]ard|Forum

  4. #14
    Lsdmeasap's Avatar
    Lsdmeasap is offline GIGABYTE Guru
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    PCB Island
    Posts
    25,940

    Default Re: Intel VID vs what the box says...

    RealTime VID is not monitored like you are thinking. The VID is HARD Set, unless like you highlighted you have EIST or C1E enabled.

    VID is really nothing you need to worry this much about, you cannot adjust it or use it for anything useful.

  5. #15

    Default Re: Intel VID vs what the box says...

    Quote Originally Posted by Lsdmeasap View Post
    I can say that for sure since the value has not been released.

    Now what the actual tjmax is has yet to be released by intel for 45nm, some say 95c, some say 100c. They are "Supposed" to be releasing this info soon, but who knows >>>
    [OCCP] TJMax for All - Overclock.net - Overclocking.net
    This information is a bit dated. The tjmax for the 45nm processors has been released but not for the 65nm processors.

    Intel gave out this info at the last Intel's Developer Forum in Sept. There was a PDF file out for a while and was taken down but I saved a copy.

    A New Processor Temperature Specification: Using the Digital Temperature Sensor
    Benson Inkley
    Intel®Microarchitecture(Larrabee) Technical Marketing
    TMTS001

    Desktop TJFor Dual and Quad Core CPUs

    45nm Desktop Dual-Core ProcessorsTJ

    •Intel®Core™2 Duo processor E8000 and E7000 series 100°C


    45 nm Desktop Quad-Core Processors

    •Intel
    ®Core™2 Quad processor Q9000 and Q8000 series100°C

    •Intel®Core™2 Extreme processor QX9650 95°C
    •Intel®Core™2 Extreme processor QX9770 85°C

  6. #16
    Lsdmeasap's Avatar
    Lsdmeasap is offline GIGABYTE Guru
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    PCB Island
    Posts
    25,940

  7. #17

    Default Re: Intel VID vs what the box says...

    What Intel DTS Means for Enthusiasts

    Tom’s Hardware previously reported on the excitement surrounding the release of this information because it could finally put to rest the debate over which temperature monitoring software provides the most accurate readings. Unfortunately, Intel’s IDFhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDF presentation was quite disappointing, and once again the enthusiast community has been left scratching its head in the dark. While Intel did disclose the maximum Tjunction values for all of its 45nm desktop ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_2 Duos and Core 2 Quads as well as a few other small details, it stopped short of revealing any especially useful information.

    According to the developer of RealTemp, “[Intel] did not release enough information for any software developer to write an accurate program so we’re right back to guessing and making assumptions. It’s easy to take a pen and circle some numbers but they didn’t test, prove or show anything.”

    Of course, the primary function of the DTS is not for the end user to monitor temperatures, but to protect the processor from damage due to overheating. This makes it even more strange that Intel has released the Tjunction Max values for its 45nm processors.
    What Intel DTS Means for Enthusiasts - Tom's Hardware

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    942

    Default Re: Intel VID vs what the box says...

    Quote Originally Posted by Lsdmeasap View Post
    RealTime VID is not monitored like you are thinking. The VID is HARD Set, unless like you highlighted you have EIST or C1E enabled.

    VID is really nothing you need to worry this much about, you cannot adjust it or use it for anything useful.
    So I don't have to copy and paste from the Intel data sheets:-

    [H]ard|Forum - View Single Post - Q6600 VID fluctuates in Core Temp?

    The processor provides the ability to operate while transitioning to an adjacent VID and its associated processor core voltage (VCC). This will represent a DC shift in the load line. It should be noted that a low-to-high or high-to-low voltage state change may result in as many VID transitions as necessary to reach the target core voltage.
    Transitions above the specified VID are not permitted. Table 5 includes VID step sizes and DC shift ranges. Minimum and maximum voltages must be maintained as shown in Table 6 and Figure 1 as measured across the VCC_SENSE and VSS_SENSE lands.
    The VRM or VRD used must be capable of regulating its output to the value defined by the new VID. DC specifications for dynamic VID transitions are included in Table 5 and Table 6. Refer to the Voltage Regulator-Down (VRD) 11.0 Processor Power Delivery Design Guidelines For Desktop LGA775 Socket for further details.
    GA-P35C-DS3R Rev2.0 F11 bios, E8200 (@3.0Ghz), OCZ DDR3 PC3-10666 Reaper 4GB (@1200Mhz), Xonar D1, 8800GTS 512, Corsair HX520 (Single 12volt line, Max 40A), WDC 3200aaks/5000aaks in AHCI mode, Vista 64 Premium.

  9. #19
    Lsdmeasap's Avatar
    Lsdmeasap is offline GIGABYTE Guru
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    PCB Island
    Posts
    25,940

    Default Re: Intel VID vs what the box says...

    So, then this would mean that it never goes up above VID unless the user changes something, right? >>>
    Transitions above the specified VID are not permitted
    Really, all in all, still no biggie to overclockers I would think. Just watch your temps and you will be buying a new CPU anyway far before your CPU is dead, unless you do crazy things to it

    *EDIT*
    And ya know, I think that guy maybe wrote something wrong or some translations are incorrect... Or something

    Because.....

    At 1.6 and 4.5Ghz my VID remains the same at idle and under load in Realtemp, his program. So Something is worded wrong, or understood wrong amongst someone somewhere.

    If you believe that, and I am crazy... You show me your VID changed at some freq and then the normal VID
    Last edited by Lsdmeasap; 09-30-2008 at 04:57 AM.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    942

    Default Re: Intel VID vs what the box says...

    Quote Originally Posted by Lsdmeasap View Post
    So, then this would mean that it never goes up above VID unless the user changes something, right? >>>
    Yep :-)

    Really, all in all, still no biggie to overclockers I would think. Just watch your temps and you will be buying a new CPU anyway far before your CPU is dead, unless you do crazy things to it
    I agree with you LsdMe, but it might be interesting for overclockers to know that if the tested max and set VID of their CPU is pretty low in the VID range of their model of CPU, that they may not need to go mad on incrementing the voltage when they overclock.

    I think on some forums, Member A might say you need to have 1.3volts for 20% overclock on your E8500 and then that sort of gets set in stone and often is the "starting" point people increment from. Yet Member B might have a "better" chip with a lower Intel Set VID that will do the same overclock at a lower voltage.

    I think the same happens a LOT with memory. People read the main timings and the max voltage on the memory label and set the bios to those levels from the outset, without even trying the memory at a lower voltage.

    I agree with you too, that those who overclock a lot probably don't keep their components long, so it doesn't really matter if they destroy them, or they don't last for that long.
    I think there is the other category too though, that wants to experiment overclocking, but really can't afford to damage anything.

    Edit:-

    *EDIT*
    And ya know, I think that guy maybe wrote something wrong or some translations are incorrect... Or something

    Because.....

    At 1.6 and 4.5Ghz my VID remains the same at idle and under load in Realtemp, his program. So Something is worded wrong, or understood wrong amongst someone somewhere.

    If you believe that, and I am crazy... You show me your VID changed at some freq and then the normal VID
    This is what i was saying further up the thread Lsdme, my VID appears to stay on the retail box max voltage in RealTemp. Reading through the notes though, some people were wondering why their VID had changed between versions of RealTEMP! I think this was on the 45nm chips too. So i'm not 100% convinced what I'm seeing is the "Real Time" VID and think the program probably needs some polishing.

    But elsewhere on the net I have read from an Intel source that Intel does not publish this info and doesn't encourage "rogue" programs that display such data.
    We all know how Intel are over temperature monitoring and in depth documentattion isn't readily available for those who want to write specific utility/diagnostic programs hence the RealTemp approach.

    I'll still be researching it though as I'm just have an interest.
    Last edited by VorLonUK; 09-30-2008 at 05:18 AM.
    GA-P35C-DS3R Rev2.0 F11 bios, E8200 (@3.0Ghz), OCZ DDR3 PC3-10666 Reaper 4GB (@1200Mhz), Xonar D1, 8800GTS 512, Corsair HX520 (Single 12volt line, Max 40A), WDC 3200aaks/5000aaks in AHCI mode, Vista 64 Premium.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •