|
I don't know if they changed the design since the sinks that came with conroe and wolfdale, but those really were annoying. From what I remember there is a bit of a trick to it and once you figure it out it's much easier, but jeez they just weren't user friendly. My i5 2500k stock hsf is in the box so I can't speak to how it compares.
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2011 15:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 22:44 |
|
|
The cooler that came with my 2500k went on easily, I had no problems getting it lined up or anything. Though I only used it for a day before replacing it with a 212+.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2011 18:13
|
|
|
Yea the 2500k cooler went on very easy but I too replaced it in a day, I was hitting 55c without OC but this might have been because it comes shipped in the lock position, once I placed the fan I moved each pin into "unlock" thinking it was lock  I'm kind of on the fence about pushpin technology, on one hand it's really easy to put together on the other hand everytime I have taken it off the mobo once I've snapped a pin putting it back on again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2011 20:33
|
|
|
I was hitting about 65C with it at stock speeds and idling around 40, though I have low speed intake/exhaust fans (500 rpm or so). That was with Arctic Silver 5, I didn't even try the stuff it came with. At 4.4 GHz with the 212+ I seem to max around 60-62 (sustained 100% load with Prime95). During normal use I haven't seen it break 40, idles around 28. The 212+ is held on with a combination of screws and a spring though. I went a little thick on the Arctic Silver, I could probably bring it down further if I removed some of it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2011 10:35
|
|
|
some texas redneck posted:The 212+ is held on with a combination of screws and a spring though. This is my favorite type of mount, bracket you screw onto the board, then spring-loaded screws to tighten the sink down. Least scary method ever unless you're some kind of :hambeast: and crack the loving CPU (in 2011 nonetheless).
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2011 15:11
|
|
|
some texas redneck posted:I was hitting about 65C with it at stock speeds and idling around 40, though I have low speed intake/exhaust fans (500 rpm or so). That was with Arctic Silver 5, I didn't even try the stuff it came with. That's just a couple degrees hotter than mine at 4.4, probably about right depending on whether the part of the country you are in is hot, damned hot, or sun adjacent. Assuming you are in the US. Also my intake/exhaust fans run at 900rpm but are those scythe fluid bearing things so they're basically silent unless I put my ear in front of the case.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2011 16:11
|
|
|
Dogen posted:That's just a couple degrees hotter than mine at 4.4, probably about right depending on whether the part of the country you are in is hot, damned hot, or sun adjacent. Assuming you are in the US. Also my intake/exhaust fans run at 900rpm but are those scythe fluid bearing things so they're basically silent unless I put my ear in front of the case.  Couple of days ago.  Bouncing between 30-33C now with Netflix running.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2011 22:03
|
|
|
Oh hey what's up Texas sun adjacent buddy. There was a cloud today! I forgot about clouds. Seriously though luckily my computer is near the thermostat, unfortunately our bedroom is about as far away from the thermostat as it can get so it stays pretty drat hot in there even after the sun goes down.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2011 22:57
|
|
|
Looked in the OP and back a few pages and couldn't find much to answer my question: My state owes me a bit of cash that's in the processing stages. I'm trying to decide if in about a month once I have it whether I should look at buying a 2600K and a Z68 board I've been eying (upgrading from a D0 920 and would use the HT over the 2500K), or if 22nm chips are expected within 2-3 months. Have been reading alot of conflicting rumors about their (pending) availability. 22nm would be a bigger upgrade given the timetable I'm looking at, but I would probably grab the current generation if they're not expected to drop within the next 6 months. Basically, any ideas as to how far we are from 22nm, or is it all rumors and guessing at this stage?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 20:18
|
|
|
Dammit Intel, why? Don't do this...at least not to the enthusiast processors. But it's a slippery slope.quote:Intel has posted an upgrade service page on their website which indicates that Intel will again be offering upgradeable CPUs. This is not totally unheard of since Intel offered a similar service for Pentium G6951 a year ago. Back then, $50 bought you Hyper-Threading and 1MB more L3 cache, and the SKU of the CPU changed to G6952. This time Intel has expanded the lineup and the upgrade service is available for three CPUs: i3-2312M, i3-2102 and Pentium G622. Unfortunately we don't know the price yet but we do know that the upgrade offers higher frequency and possibly increased amount of cache. Here are the CPU before and after the upgrade: Kind of makes sense for OEMs I guess, but still a slippery slope.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2011 18:14
|
|
|
Grumperfish posted:Basically, any ideas as to how far we are from 22nm, or is it all rumors and guessing at this stage? Oops, I missed this. Signs point to Q1/Q2 2012 at this point (probably the latter). You could purchase a 6-series motherboard now and drop in a 22nm CPU later though, if you wish. (The big mobo makers should support their boards with a BIOS update to handle the new CPUs). Forgoing 7-series chipsets mostly makes you forfeit Intel USB 3.0 support. Additionally, the analog PCIe switches on current boards may not be rated to PCIe 3.0 specifications, rendering the PCIe 3.0 controller on Ivy Bridge useless for you (it'll just run at 2.0 instead). That being said, I think by the time 3.0 even becomes a "necessary" upgrade for your GPU, you'll be ready to upgrade anyways. Recent benchmarks showed games being purely GPU-limited, with little to no difference in performance when the PCIe link was squeezed down to x4.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2011 18:18
|
|
|
Say if this is the wrong place to ask, but does anyone know of any good articles on what the semiconductor industry plans to do when the end of the roadmap is reached in 2016 (assuming they get there)? I'm not so interested the semi-theoretical spintronics/nanowire/optical/quantum/etc stuff as any actual practical ideas that're being bandied about.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2011 21:03
|
|
|
What is the goon-recommended max voltage on a Sandy Bridge chip that is safe meaning it won't damage the CPU in any way? I want to try to get to at least 4.5GHz on my 2500K but I want to make sure I'm not cranking up the voltage too high. I'm currently running at 4.3GHz@1.28v or is the extra 200-300MHz not worth the voltage increase?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 02:18
|
|
|
1.38V, you have a ways to go. That said, 200-300MHz may still not be worth the extra heat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 02:21
|
|
|
coffeetable posted:Say if this is the wrong place to ask, but does anyone know of any good articles on what the semiconductor industry plans to do when the end of the roadmap is reached in 2016 (assuming they get there)? I'm not so interested the semi-theoretical spintronics/nanowire/optical/quantum/etc stuff as any actual practical ideas that're being bandied about. I usually go with EE Times / IEEE Spectrum / etc to keep abreast of things, but better review sites like AnandTech will occasionally have a digested-for-layman version of roadmaps/etc up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 14:12
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:1.38V, you have a ways to go. That said, 200-300MHz may still not be worth the extra heat. I managed to reach 4.5GHz but only after cranking up the vcore up to 1.35v and at that point even with the 120mm CPU fan from the Gaia SD1283 (Xigmatek's answer to the Hyper 212+) and three 120mm case fans(two intake, one exhaust) at full blast, the temp gets into the upper 60s Celsius under load from Prime95. If I run the window AC I have in this room it runs in the lower 60s under load but is using a dedicated room air conditioner considered cheating?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 23:43
|
|
|
People freak out about temperature way too early. So you're kissing 70ºC with literally one of the most demanding loads that it is possible to run? You could run the computer headless as a dedicated Prime95 machine for years at that voltage and temperature and be fine, that's well within 24/7 safe temperatures. Under many iterations of IBT my overclock (1.36-1.38vcore, 2600K, hyper-threading enabled) kisses 80ºC, and will run in the mid to high 70s for Prime95 on the most CPU intensive test (one core's a bit hotter than the others or it'd just be "mid 70s," nothing to do but put up with its propensity to exceed its siblings by about 2-3ºC). I'm not worried about it, that's very far away from the temperature at which anything would even start to throttle, let alone any protections kick in to shut it down. Processors don't have to be supercooled to run, they just have to be within safe limits. Under 70ºC is super duper safe. Overclocking consensus is often misinformed, with ideas like "turn off speedstep and C1E for a more stable overclock" - no, turn off speedstep and C1E for a higher electric bill. If your processor is running within safe temperatures, you're doing fine. Don't worry so much  Under the most demanding day-to-day conditions you'll probably never see anything nearly that high; when doing large project renders across all 8 logical cores I don't get past the mid 50ºC range. Torture tests/stress tests are well named. They show you the extremes of what your processor can be subjected to under its power delivery, clock speed and thermal dissipation. They aren't normal temperatures... And even if they were, again, you're well within safe limits for running the processor full-time at extreme load. Something else would break before it would.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 00:15
|
|
|
movax posted:Dammit Intel, why? Don't do this...at least not to the enthusiast processors. But it's a slippery slope.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 00:10
|
|
|
I wouldn't mind them selling K-unlock codes for <$20 each.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 00:37
|
|
|
Wedesdo posted:I guess they're going to limit this to low-end processors. Otherwise hackers who want to pay mid-range prices and get premium processors would have a pretty big incentive to crack the system. Intel probably thinks no one who buys a Pentium Gxxx would possibly hack their code. Calling it now, in a few years Intel will follow the video game developers in requiring always on internet connection in order to use your unlocked processor. If you are offline it'll revert back to the pre unlocked values until you can get back online.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 02:55
|
|
|
Longinus00 posted:Calling it now, in a few years Intel will follow the video game developers in requiring always on internet connection in order to use your unlocked processor. If you are offline it'll revert back to the pre unlocked values until you can get back online. if internet becomes so ubiquitous that at any given moment, your computer is connected to multiple high quality lines, then it is a possibility.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 06:04
|
|
|
Longinus00 posted:Calling it now, in a few years Intel will follow the video game developers in requiring always on internet connection in order to use your unlocked processor. If you are offline it'll revert back to the pre unlocked values until you can get back online. It still wouldn't stop a dedicated enough hacker. Spoof your own server or re-write the microcode. If this ever happens though I'm buying AMD again, no matter how much slower AMD is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 20:09
|
|
|
MeruFM posted:if internet becomes so ubiquitous that at any given moment, your computer is connected to multiple high quality lines, then it is a possibility. Wedesdo posted:Spoof your own server or re-write the microcode.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 20:11
|
|
|
Wedesdo posted:It still wouldn't stop a dedicated enough hacker. Spoof your own server or re-write the microcode. If one-way functions exist, then a digital signature scheme can be used and the former won't work.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 00:16
|
|
|
I'm a little confused about hyperclocking on my Core i7 2600k. Is it something that's on by default or do I need to set it in the Z68 BIOS (ASUS if that matters)? The motherboard was trying to auto-overclock the chip awhile ago but most of the time that just resulted in the box failing to POST a couple times when I would start it up, followed by normal running.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 03:13
|
|
|
Shumagorath posted:I'm a little confused about hyperclocking on my Core i7 2600k. Is it something that's on by default or do I need to set it in the Z68 BIOS (ASUS if that matters)? The motherboard was trying to auto-overclock the chip awhile ago but most of the time that just resulted in the box failing to POST a couple times when I would start it up, followed by normal running. Are you sure it wasn't overclocked? The failing to POST is part of the process. Check with CPUZ or in BIOS what your multiplier is at. Also, what the hell is hyperclocking?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 03:32
|
|
|
Dogen posted:Are you sure it wasn't overclocked? The failing to POST is part of the process. Check with CPUZ or in BIOS what your multiplier is at. Also, what the hell is hyperclocking? It was overclocked; BIOS confirmed ~4GHz and overclocked memory. Why does it fail POST all the time though? Hyperclocking is when single cores get dynamically clocked higher if there's uneven workload across them... isn't it? Shumagorath fucked around with this message at 16:17 on Aug 19, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 15:47
|
|
|
Shumagorath posted:The motherboard was trying to auto-overclock the chip awhile ago but most of the time that just resulted in the box failing to POST a couple times when I would start it up, followed by normal running. You really don't want to use the auto overclocking features. Also I'm going to assume you mean Turbo mode when you say hyperclocking. I haven't used a Z68 board yet but your CPU EFI screen should look almost exactly like this. Set overclock tuner to manual or XMP, then set turbo ratio to by all four cores (NOT per core), and set the multiplier to 40 if you want 4ghz. For the rest: BCLK/PEG tuner = 100 (don't raise this) PLL overvolt = off memory frequency should be whatever speed your memory is epu power saving = disabled load line calibration = regular (try next highest if you have trouble) vrm frequency = auto phase control = optimized duty control leave at default cpu current capability = 100% (try 110 if you have trouble) For voltages leave them at default except cpu voltage. I'd set that to offset and +.025ish. These are the settings I use for my 2500k @ 4.2ghz.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 17:37
|
|
|
What spanko said! That should take care of your POST failure problems, for some reason if you use the auto tuning to OC it will get testy every time you reboot. The other advice I have seen is to copy down whatever settings the auto tune uses and manually input them, but spanko's are pretty much what I use, except I am running at 4.4
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 18:35
|
|
|
I disagree on a few points. First, and perhaps controversially, I don't disagree on LLC. For one thing, the Auto and Regular are both Intel's stock vdroop implementation. Second, while there are good technical reasons why at higher voltages it can be potentially harmful to processor 24/7 lifespan, it's an effective tool to set the rough parameters of your voltage when using offset mode. Within reason I haven't seen evidence that it's going to cause a CPU failure before the system is entirely deprecated anyway. I've used a more aggressive prior implementation of it on a Q9550 system for some years now and recently moved it from 3400mhz/core to 3800mhz/core, for a 1000mhz total overclock, on an Asus board - it's been fine, tests fine on stability tests, etc., etc., and it doesn't have fancy options, it's just off or on. Stability tests and "does it work in real situations" are both fine, though the system was built in 2008 and has been used extensively. That out of the way... PLL Overvolting - Off is definitely the proper choice there for any clock under 4.5GHz, and some folks get away with up to 4.7 or even 4.8 before it shows any stability improvements. And with it on or set to Auto it won't let you sleep, which sucks for some people I understand. VRM frequency - Under most circumstances fine to leave at Auto, but if you get instability that you can't root out, try setting it to 350 manually - that's a pretty safe, stable setting that can help you determine what might be causing instability. Phase control - I recommend setting it to "Extreme." The ones below it, including "Optimized," will not use all of your VRM phases, meaning you're feeding more power through less of your potential power delivery system, which unnecessarily stresses the components compared to utilizing the full VRM phase array. I don't like their naming of this option as I think it encourages people to under-utilize a very safe and beneficial feature of the motherboard. Duty control - While this is, I believe, the default option, ensure that it's set to T-Probe. Safety first, the other option will maintain power on a current load basis even under dangerous conditions for your parts. It's important to keep perspective. A 2500/2600 non-K is already REALLY REALLY FAST so it's better to not overdo it here than to risk your hardware for that extra 100mhz/core. By combining your full VRM phases and thermal, it will more safely deliver solid and steady power to your processor, which is what you're after. CPU current capability - I really don't recommend exceeding 100%. Even a going a little bit out of spec here can be dangerous, there are important bumps that may not be rated for higher current, especially since by overclocking it and raising the LLC and voltage offset you are already increasing current as you raise the voltage. Just opens it up to risks that are completely unnecessary at most overclocks, even high ones. And scrolling down, set CPU Spread Spectrum to disabled. Hurts stability, and it's really unlikely you're going to get some kind of a resonance with it off anyway. Finally, just in case someone told you to do it, don't turn off the damned power saving features. Enhanced Speedstep and C1E don't hurt stability on this processor (or, in my experience, on the Core 2 Quad that I have overclocked either). They do, however, save you a hell of a lot of electricity. Using LLC and a voltage offset to achieve higher voltage under loads for stability are perfectly compatible with the power-saving features, and why would you want your processor running at maximum speed all the time anyway? You only need it when you need it, and provided your VRM is up to the task and you've got a stable overclock, when you need it, there will be no trouble transitioning from the 1600mhz resting state with C1E halts to the full multiplier value you've set under load. Please note that some chips are sensitive to using negative offsets; while negative offsets are very useful for controlling the voltage under load, especially when using LLC to set the rough voltage range (which is a function it serves on Asus motherboards), nonetheless you can end up in the unhappy position of getting BSODs, hanging or crashes if you use too high of a negative offset, because the voltage offset is always applied. I use a +0.025V offset, so I run at 1.024V rather than the stock ~1.0V at the resting state of 1600mhz. If you use a negative offset, you'll be going down from the stock ~1V, and if you go down too far, the processor might become unstable. Keep that in mind... it can seem like a weird gremlin issue because, what the hell, it tests fine at full load under stability tests but then crashes randomly when you're just browsing the internet or whatever - but it's because it isn't being fed the voltage it needs to run when power saving is working. Don't sacrifice power saving to keep a negative offset, though. You're better off not using LLC and instead just biting the bullet and raising the voltage via a positive offset than you are sacrificing power saving. The processor can use as little as 10-15w when running in its power saving mode, a fraction of its load wattage. Agreed fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Aug 19, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 19:26
|
|
|
Thanks for all the feedback guys. Only one question remains... how do I actually set the multipliers from the OS? Ai Suite? I also turned on EPU power saving (Speedstep and C1E were already on). Is that in the same class of setting or should I turn it off? Shumagorath fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Aug 19, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 21:30
|
|
|
Leave it off. Do your settings from BIOS, it's under advanced mode\cpu I think?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 23:03
|
|
|
Intel has pushed back Ivy Bridge until Spring of 2012.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2011 16:02
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:Intel has pushed back Ivy Bridge until Spring of 2012. Sounds like the perfect amount of time to save up more money after tax season for Ivy Bridge.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2011 01:30
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:Intel has pushed back Ivy Bridge until Spring of 2012. I guess with AMD having issues with Bulldozer, probably makes sense to sit back and see what Bulldozer is actually like compared to current Sandy Bridge range.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2011 01:34
|
|
|
I thought Ivy was always 2012 to begin with 
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2011 01:35
|
|
|
japtor posted:I thought Ivy was always 2012 to begin with
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2011 01:37
|
|
|
I was at the PCI SIG plugfest (woo!) last week and the Intel guy whose Ivy Bridge/Panther Point boards I was plugging stuff into said March of 2012 for release. Granted he was an engineering manager and not a marketing scuzzbag.. I should have asked when the Patsburg stuff is going to show up because we could use a 2P for interop testing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2011 01:40
|
|
|
They have a tremendous amount of leverage at the moment what with AMD not really having swung a bat in their direction for so long and apparently plagued by issues getting it out the door and getting markedly better performance than the current generation. Why wouldn't they wait and see rather than rush them given the current market conditions? Maybe they can fine-tune the manufacturing process in the meantime for better yields while they're at it. I just wish they didn't fragment their motherboard market so badly. I bought in at 1155, what upgrade paths with Ivy Bridge does that decision lock me out of? No QPI processors, or...? (Edit: Or anything, apparently, backwards compatible, not forwards )Speaking of the roadmap and 2011, they're supposed to be bringing the extreme Sandy Bridge models in pretty soon, aren't they? I wonder if the ease of overclocking the 2500K and 2600K play into the delays at all. Getting to 4.5GHz was trivial, getting to 4.7GHz took only slightly more effort, I could probably go higher if I wanted - and it's really, really fast, makes my Q9550 at 3.8GHz look slow. Did they anticipate the easy overclocking, and if so, would that factor into a decision that affects the timing of releases? Agreed fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Sep 2, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2011 01:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 22:44 |
|
|
Not too surprised by the delay, it's a pretty big leap in process technology. PCIe 3.0 validation testing might be taking a little while as well. Still makes the best financial sense to get a 2500K right now and then wait for Ivy Bridge's successor before upgrading, IMHO. Or if you really must have 22nm this very instant, get a i3 or something. Don't think it's worth buying a 2500K and then getting Ivy Bridge, though you could probably sell the 2500K on a forum somewhere and not lose a terrible amount of money. Native USB 3.0 support will be nice though, I actively try to avoid using my USB 3.0 ports when I can, I'm just really distrustful of non-Intel silicon (even though they have proven to be just as fallible when it comes to firmware, look at the SSDs). LGA2011 looks pretty pro though, can't wait to see people with entirely too much money start building some machines with that. RAM is ultra cheap too, 6x4GB go go go (I bought 2 3x4GB kits for my server recently, incredibly cheap).
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2011 15:55
|
|