1.63v on air with Venice/Palermo Chips

L

Louse76

n00b
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
28
I just wanted to comment that I have run both my Palermo 3000+ and Venice 3000+ at 1.63v with no problems and good cool temps. Without CnQ, 41C idle and 50C load. The Venice is new, but the Palermo was at that for a couple of months, until I realized I could lose 3MHz on the HTT and get CnQ to run which lets me max at 1.58v on my Asus K8N-E Deluxe.

Why is everyone so afraid of this? People say .1v is all that is safe. Come on! :D

BTW, both do 2.7GHz Prime Stable! :D

Both CBBWE as well, s754.
 
i agree...its a bunch of crap, I have been running at 1.61v for a year now, and with pretty much the same odds as everyone else will continue to work till at least when i upgrade in less than a year to something better and something dual core. My load and idle temps in the sig and is pretty reasonable.
 
ran 1.58v on my 3000+ on stock cooling well I was assembling the water cooling loop. Temps were always below 50c thanks to the arctic conditions I like to live in. You know youve been ocing to long when your willing to freeze your ass off just to avoid raising the heat and possibly having to lower cpu speed a bit. *shakes head at self*
 
Back in the day I bought and ran a window mount AC unit to cool my duron with the side panel off of the case, back when they were first released in socket A, ha!

I'm no longer willing to pay the electric to cool it down that way though... :D
 
I personally generally say that 10% increase is "safe" because I've seen that listed in Intel/AMD white papers saying such and such CPU is rated to X.XXv +/- 10%. If the manufacturer says so, it must be so. Now whether the board is actually giving your CPU what it claims to and detects in monitoring is a different matter...

Some people have no problems with high vcore. Other people have had CPUs mysteriously die. Couple years ago people were having Northwoods mysteriously die. Common to them all was highly increased vcore.

The other thing is that I've found often a CPU will do so much on stock vcore, then some more on a tiny boost, but after that it takes greater and greater amounts of voltage to go any higher - point of diminishing returns. Personally I find that point and then stay just under it.
 
I've been running at 1.58-1.6 on a venice for about 6 months no issues. I pumped it up to 1.65v recently to try to get more out of it, but I barely got any more mhz (like 40mhz) so I just set it back. I'm not worried, I think it will last longer then I plan on keeping it. Its just a 3200+ venice.
 
I've been running my venice at 1.6v since I got it and it's going strong, Since I watercool and the temps never go above about 34 I figure it's safe enough. If it dies, Oh well it's only a 3000+ chip and I've got a good run outta it
 
I don't like to go above spec voltage cause I want my cpu to last me a couple years, although I am at [email protected], I can't go any higher without pumping more juice and setting my memory speed lower, it takes me 1.550volts to get to 2800 and my memorys slower then the 2.7Ghz one. (not worth it in my opinion)
 
JohnleMVP said:
I pumped it up to 1.65v recently to try to get more out of it, but I barely got any more mhz (like 40mhz) so I just set it back.
Click to expand...
Exactly what I said - point of diminishing returns. You hit that and it really doesn't make sense for the extra couple of MHz.
 
Zap said:
I personally generally say that 10% increase is "safe" because I've seen that listed in Intel/AMD white papers saying such and such CPU is rated to X.XXv +/- 10%. If the manufacturer says so, it must be so. Now whether the board is actually giving your CPU what it claims to and detects in monitoring is a different matter...

Some people have no problems with high vcore. Other people have had CPUs mysteriously die. Couple years ago people were having Northwoods mysteriously die. Common to them all was highly increased vcore.

The other thing is that I've found often a CPU will do so much on stock vcore, then some more on a tiny boost, but after that it takes greater and greater amounts of voltage to go any higher - point of diminishing returns. Personally I find that point and then stay just under it.
Click to expand...

I agree with the point of diminishing returns, but I also see a lot of value in being able to run right at a point that allows memory to run at stock speeds using a divider.
 
sculelos said:
I don't like to go above spec voltage cause I want my cpu to last me a couple years, although I am at [email protected], I can't go any higher without pumping more juice and setting my memory speed lower, it takes me 1.550volts to get to 2800 and my memorys slower then the 2.7Ghz one. (not worth it in my opinion)
Click to expand...

Dang! What chip will give you that kind of speed while undervolting?!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top