• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

6900k, 4.6@ 1.410vcore. Do i keep it?

Aenra

Aenra

Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
568 (0.18/day)
System Specs
System Name ACME Singularity Unit
Processor Coal-dual 9000
Motherboard Oak Plank
Cooling 4 Snow Yetis huffing and puffing in parallel
Memory Hasty Indian (I/O: 3 smoke signals per minute)
Video Card(s) Bob Ross AI module
Storage Stone Tablet 2.0
Display(s) Where are my glasses?
Case Hand sewn bull hide
Audio Device(s) On demand tribe singing
Power Supply Spin-o-Wheel-matic
Mouse Hamster original
Keyboard Chisel 1.9a (upgraded for Stone Tablet 2.0 compatibility)
Software It's all hard down here
As per title, you guys think it's safe for 24/7?

Am reading a lot about a supposed 1.4 'wall', but no offense to you all, the more i read (ie not forums, but actual pages), the more i see just how much is superstition, guesswork and so on.
So no longer sure on what to accept and what not to, lol
edit: Then why ask? It's what one does when lacking the facts to decide on their own, what else can one do :)

Forgot to mention; temps are well below 75 Celsius during stress tests. Round 30 in normal circumstances. Also, my bad. 24/7 as in only Speedstep on, all C states off, sleep off.
 
Save is 1.3v on air, and around 1.4v on water...
 
The Pack said:
Save is 1.3v on air, and around 1.4v on water...
Click to expand...

Thanks :)
Admittedly, 4.5/4.6 makes zero difference, i know. But what with the mobo being new, i thought i'd try for higher out of curiosity you know? Didn't honestly expect it would boot, let alone stay stable.
 
The newest Bios helps a lot with to high voltages. If you fix the voltages,it is't e problem. The mobo does'nt start,clear cmos and start with default settings. My cpu start at 1,5v/4,5 ghz but it isn't stable.It is a silicon lottery. Its a z-mobo,than you have enough air for going up with voltages
 
Perhaps i wasn't as clear as i originally thought, my apologies. Am already stable.
Am more interested in understanding the reasoning behind said barrier(s)* than anything else. As stated, yes, i know everyone says 1.4, hence the OP. I also know that this being the internet, 99% is just mindless repetition of what is available elsewhere.

*the one actual Intel document i've come across that mentions it is extremely dated and obviously referencing an entirely different architecture.
 
i thought the wall is 1.52


and we're gonna make mexico benchmark it

edit: doesnt every architecture have the document?

edit2: everything is 'safe', everything is totally arbitrary, these are pieces of metal with electrons moving around

what you dont know is prolonged lifespan, nobody would, unless they always ran at a number for a long enough time to see failures

we dont know what intel's guideline is based on (actually, i havent read these docs word for word to know if they mention)
 
kn00tcn said:
i thought the wall is 1.52


and we're gonna make mexico benchmark it

edit: doesnt every architecture have the document?

edit2: everything is 'safe', everything is totally arbitrary, these are pieces of metal with electrons moving around

what you dont know is prolonged lifespan, nobody would, unless they always ran at a number for a long enough time to see failures

we dont know what intel's guideline is based on (actually, i havent read these docs word for word to know if they mention)
Click to expand...
Thats what i mean. I haven't chance to write something like this,because my english isn't so good :-)
 
These voltage "walls" are there becouse of electron migration(to prevent it). So becouse for example the 14nm process is a lot smaller than say 32nm, the max voltage has to be smaller. In theory...
 
:-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top