Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26

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




  1. #21
    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...

    Ya, I do see what you mean with all your thoughts above the edit. I do often mention a "starting Range" like you say for CPU's, but always tell the user to Lower later with testing.

    And I VERY often explain, more then I would like to I think, That ram sticker voltage specs are the MAX rated under the warranty and are not what is needed for all boards to run at the rated speeds and timings. Only that it is the max the manufacturer allows under warranty and what they have tested to be stable in all boards they have pre-tested the ram with

    Anyone who want to experiment but cannot afford to kill something should for sure do TONS of reading first. Which Many, especially those types, do. As for the rest of us overclockers we know a "Range" that will generally be too much for long periods and even if we venture there for short periods we are not worried as we know we plan to by the New Qxxxx or the i7 CPU in 6 months to a year anyway. New CPU's come into out lives like clockwork thanks to Intel.

    A new CPU range is released almost every 6 months now, and CPU's will last MANY years at high voltages anyway. Of course not at crazy ones but for sure at mex spec or a little above they will outlive the User's desire to have that chip

    __________________________________________________ _____

    Ahh, then we are on the same page!

    Ya, RealTemp's VID changed many times for everyone throughout the versions because of his thoughts on Tjmax values and how he had the program setting/guessing the VID's (mainly 45nm). It is all final and corrected now. CoreTemp was doing the same until now.

    Now why your's matches the box and others same CPU's may not is just because your Chips batch that day when being made was programmed/tested to be a the top of that processors VID range to be classified as such.

    It was going thru the polishing, is why people noticed those things. It is all final and correct now that Intel has released the above mentioned PDF (Dead Link now, Thanks Intel) >>>
    http://intel.wingateweb.com/US08/pub...TS001_100r.pdf

    *Edit*
    Uploaded PDF >>>
    TjMax-4-All.rar

    If you go thru the XS link I posted you can get all the versions and beta's and you can see the progression in the programming and settings. Not saying you need to or should, I just mean if you DID want to see your VID at a different amount you can easily grab some of the older versions and compare. May take you a while to find which will show it, but they are there. I used to have about 20 of the beta's/versions in a folder but tossed them all a while back as they were no longer being used. But they are still there if anyone wanted to get a older one.

    If you, or any of those users noticed all apps, Everest, CoreTemp, and Realtemp varied there for a while with TJmax Defaults and VID Defaults for certain chips. But they all are now in agreement. But yes, still several of them are Adjustable for TjMax anyway, VID should remain constant thru all apps you use provided they are up to date.

    All are the same VID now in all Apps I use including SIV >>>>

    <a href="http://img215.imageshack.us/my.php?image=snap1at0.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/6753/snap1at0.th.jpg" border="0"></a>

    Granted, some apps are still behind and always will be in sensors data when it comes to actual voltages and TjMax, but VID is always a constant

  2. #22

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Lsdmeasap View Post
    Granted, some apps are still behind and always will be in sensors data when it comes to actual voltages and TjMax, but VID is always a constant
    What bios are you using with which board and when was the last time you updated???

    As posted before this has not been my experience. The VID in the bios, which is being talked about here, has changed on my system and been reflected in most of the Monitoring programs.

  3. #23
    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...

    I am using the latest BIOS with a P45-DS4P board, why do you ask? Mine is always the exact same as shown above, at 1.x volts and 4.5 volts

    Brand new board. Maybe you didn't read all of our discussion. I know you are the VID & vdroop police But our main discussion about it here was how RealTemp thru all the beta's and versions will sometimes show different amounts for the actual Set Programmed per chip VID defaults

    Meaning When I have X version and XX version on my desktop and open them both, 2 different VID's were shown. Just a programming pickup difference, not actual correct VID value

  4. #24

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Lsdmeasap View Post
    I am using the latest BIOS with a P45-DS4P board, why do you ask? Mine is always the exact same as shown above, at 1.x volts and 4.5 volts
    Well I was talking about the P35 as Gigabyte did change the Normal CPU Vcore in the 7 to 8 bios on my board and would not be surprised if they did on your board too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lsdmeasap View Post
    Brand new board. Maybe you didn't read all of our discussion. I know you are the VID & vdroop police But our main discussion about it here was how RealTemp thru all the beta's and versions will sometimes show different amounts for the actual Set Programmed per chip VID defaults
    I read the whole thread and made my comments where appropriate.

    There is a maximum set VID for a CPU and I have never seen it in a board bios, RealTemp or any other monitoring program.

    As for being the police you can stick that comment even with the smilie. Repeating incorrect infomation is believed when repeated enough. If that is what you want on your forum I wll be pleased to cooperate.

  5. #25
    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...

    Normal CPU Vcore default is Set by the CPU installed to the VID in the chip, not by the board itself. This is part of the reason you should always load optimized defaults when you first start a new board, and or change CPU's >>>

    VID is used by a motherboard to determine what core voltage to supply the CPU. Motherboards with overvoltage capabilities use VID as the base voltage.
    ALCPU Forums :: View topic - Voltage reading is still not correct.

    As for your second comment, I really was joking around with you. Just meant you are the one who comments the most on it is all.

    The VID set is per CPU series and per CPU within each series, and You will have to read the 90 or so pages I guess at XS before you understand what I meant in your quote. But basically the point that we were discussing was that throughout all the Beta Versions of Realtemp he had some programming code wrong and it picked up VID's incorrectly, not the Maximum VID just the usual one showed by MANY apps.


    And many apps, and BIOS's will get the Correct MAX VID, what made you think they could not? Here is a example with 2 apps reporting correct Max (and Min in one) VID's ---- SIV & CPU-z >>>

    <a href="http://img150.imageshack.us/my.php?image=snap2br1.png" target="_blank"><img src="http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/8128/snap2br1.th.png" border="0"></a>

    I will take a few minutes and find some older versions of Coretemp (Which did the same and will take FAR less looking thru pages) and show you what I meant

    Damn Shzt, well ya know how that hunt went! HAHA Really man, I did meant nothing by that comment above, please do not be offended!

    I did get this for you though, this is what we really meant (Acknowledged by the Dev of CoreTemp, but RealTemp had same issue As well) >>>
    ALCPU Forums :: View topic - VID changed in CT 0.99

    More of the same, users noticing what we were meaning
    ALCPU Forums :: View topic - CoreTemp 0.99 reporting wrong VID for 45nm?
    ALCPU Forums :: View topic - CPU detection issue

    And for Realtemp you can start on page 32 for users starting to compare incorrect VID by different versions, and coretemp vs realtemp. What is was with RealTemp is that some were picking up Max VID and Some others Min VID, and still Some Erroneous VID's in between. And between different Versions he had by default The Max and Min showing on the main page at different times, and he also had changed the name from VID to MaxVID and just VID for Min, and several ways in between with the various Betas. So all in all, that is all we meant when talking about RealTemp and how it showed defferent values. And of course the same applies, yet even more thru all the versions for users who have Speedstep enabled as it would change often between min and max and not show or show those associated names with the values >>>
    Real Temp - New temp program for Intel Core processors - XtremeSystems Forums

    Example of this in CoreTemp and RealTemp (With RealTemps Original naming scheme which shows how the VID could be changed and confuse a user) >>>



    XtremeSystems Forums - View Single Post - Real Temp - New temp program for Intel Core processors


    Comment made partially thru development, also showing how it could have changed or been seen in RealTemp and confused some users.
    If RealTemp is reporting Minimum VID then if you start up Prime or whatever it should jump and report the Maximum VID. The T7200 mobile chip I tried showed 4 different VID values depending on load when transitioning between Minimum and Maximum VID.
    XtremeSystems Forums - View Single Post - Real Temp - New temp program for Intel Core processors

    Basically, the naming scheme of VID in RealTemp and Or Speedstep and VID being used were factors that led us and others to see different VID per Program versions.

    All corrected now in both Programs.


    Like I said above, I did not mean that offensively at all, Only meant that you would be for sure dropping a word in about it all.
    Last edited by Lsdmeasap; 10-01-2008 at 04:39 PM.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    942

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

    Thanks Lsdme for posting all that info - I know it takes time.

    From what I can gather, quite a few of the programs out there for reporting any type of VID status, ie range or actual, have had problems resulting in misreporting, cue some of your screenshots

    So far though, it seems clear that Intel have a VID range for a particular CPU product line/model, which they print as part of the online specification.

    Then there is the Voltage stamped on the Intel Retail Box, which has the suffix "max".
    I assume this is the maximum "programmed" VID, ie the most the CPU will require to operate at its stock specification.

    Now I assumed that as the Box VID was the maximum required, why did CPUz show a lesser figure in what *seemed* Normal operation. Then I thought well if the VID on the box is the maximum required for the CPU to do its normal specified job, then maybe there is a mechanism for it to operate at a lesser voltage, still within the confines of the VID code and bios/board/system translation.

    However, I think that the fact I still have C1E and EIST enabled might be skewing my thinking.
    I need to disable those and then check to see if CPUz raises upto and indicates that maximum VID on the box, for there to be a clear reference for the user.
    Last edited by VorLonUK; 10-01-2008 at 10:43 PM.
    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 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

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
  •