Windows 7: Post Your Overclock!

lol, I'll give it some consideration mate

I'm dead serious. You are good at explaining this stuff.

I, on the other hand, am good at volunteering other people to do things.

The RAM vendors just want to sell you RAM. They don't care what voltage you run your processor at, that is your risk. And serious benchers go through processors like candy I expect - no skin off their nose. I'd like to see that quote from Intel - I stand by my case to be prudent unless you can provide it.

And I am not talking a 10 year life either - I expect it is much shorter if you overvolt too much 24x7.

But really you should not have to go out of the operating ranges except for extreme overclocking if you have the right RAM because Intel seems to have decoupled the RAM from the overclocking equation - as long as you leave BCLK alone. So there is no reason to propagate unofficial "safe" voltages for Vccio and the dram voltage when you don't really need to change them. These you mention are significantly out of the operating range in the Intel spec for Sandy Bridge.

Thanks mate, and lol :P



Well obviously there is an element to that. Believing otherwise would be foolish, but I'm sure by now there'd have been a massive hue and cry as thousands of customers have dead components caused by unsafe products.




I use benchers as an example because as you say they go through components like candy, but through their endeavours the rest of us can glean an insight of what extreme settings can do and for general use thus avoid.


If I'd bookmarked the thousands of posts discovered during casual browsing on the off chance of providing proof, I'd be more than happy to do so. I don't wish to sound argumentative or offensive, But since I don't bookmark everything on the off chance, you can remain prudent on your stance.

I do tend to advocate sticking as close to specs as possible you know, just as much as I tend to point out possible ramifications

10 years was just an arbitrary number.

Even if you shorten a components life span by a few years, most overclockers are willing to do so. A lot of overclockers will have upgraded long before serious noticeable degradation has occurred.

Again, if you can't afford to replace something - don't do it in the first place.



No you shouldn't have to, but for many years people have, and will continue to go beyond the recommended ranges.

And like the "I've been running my XXX at blah for years with no problem and the "My system died because of blah" - there's always many other variables that factor into the whole equation.

I prefer not to propagate myths, but in the absence of conclusive definitives, erring on the side of a positive general consensus is better than nothing.

In this instance, I thinks it safe to agree to disagree wouldn't you say?

Also serious benchers have access to chips and RAM we peons don't. either they or the vendors supply hand pick components to use. Some people with $$$ out the wazoo can but several chips to find a specific binning they know is a good speed demon.

I very much doubt an Intel person ever stated that, I am sure through all the multitude of reading you have done you misremember. Even if they thought it they would not state it publicly in writing.

As for core overclockers, sure you can give advice about what you or someone you have read think are safe voltages, even though no one can know the affect they will have on the lifetime for more than about 6 months to a year. The only voltages that can be said to be "safe" are those in the Intel spec. The only thing that can be said about voltages beyond those are that the processor will run stably for some period of time. I am not suggesting people shouldn't run their processors beyond the Intel spec voltages- just that they know the risk and labeling them as "safe" just means that your processor won't roll over on you for some unknown period of time. I think the audience here is a little different than core overclockers.

Sure for many years people have overvolted, and a lot of them have cooked their processors pretty quickly too I am sure. Running at The lower voltages become more critical as the dies shrink - smaller components and traces require lower voltages. That 32 nm Sandy bridge runs at lower voltages than the previous generation is part of the reason they can overclock higher than the previous gen right out of the box -they generate less heat because of this. OTOH, that also means the last generation "safe" voltages don't apply.

I would be less worried about the DRAM voltage than increasing the Vccio. It is too bad Intel and the memory makers won't get together ion the memory voltages.

I just think that the words safe and overclocking used in the same sentence is an oxymoron. Everyone knows, or should know, that running something faster than specs is taking a risk. The question then becomes, how big a risk are you willing to take. What amount of risk do you deem acceptable. To me, it is as simple as that. If you want to be safe, don't overclock. I've said on these forums many times, 'if you are not willing to replace it, don't overclock'. How much risk you are willing to take is a personal decision. Ram manufacturers are making ram approved by them for sandy Bridge at 1.65V. While I agree they want to sell ram, I don't believe they would open themselves up to potential litigation. Motherboard manufacturers are making boards that allow you to overclock the ram and CPU and making it easy for you to do it. I am sure they have taken these same considerations in mind. I overclock and am willing to take the risk, up to a point. Whatever that point is for everyone else is a personal decision. But, I would like to see a comprehensive guide that tells me how to do it. I already know what is stock, I'll gage the risk for myself.

Well I agree with you. I guess my quibble was with the use of the words "safe". I don't know how the RAM manufacturers are open to litigation when you prob. couldn't prove what was the cause of any long-term damage.

Ditto on the risk - I try to minimize it the best I can having degraded a processor with what many declared a "safe" settings.

I agree. We've probably all been through the buck-passing where the MB manufacturer blames the RAM company who blames the PSU maker who blames...

What I think the RAM companies do pay attention to is their reputation in the enthusiast community. If you were researching an upcoming purchase and saw tons of forum posts raving about RAM "A" and how stable and reliable it was, then saw lots of griping about RAM "B", which would you buy?

This doesn't help the early-adopters too much, but they usually realize that they are both paying a premium price and taking on the added risk of being the real-world guinea pigs for cutting edge technology. That's probably why we haven't seen a lot of X79 platform questions yet.