New Rig: Intel i5-2500k

Everlong said:

sygnus21 said:

Lordbob75 said:

Nope, that has always been my actual GPU's temperature.
(I am not sure though)

~Lordbob

I don't think so. Here's mine.....

Attachment 137500

Note no GPU readings. Remember your processor has the built in GPU.

Mine displays GPU on the version of RealTemp I have too with my 9550.

Confirming that it is indeed my 260GTX. If you click on the button it tells you.

I have also played with my 4.5Ghz OC, and have it stable at 1.35V, which is MUCH better than 1.4V.

~Lordbob

You know, I hate to be a stinker, but...

4999.9 is close...

(I am kidding, of course.)

sygnus21 said:

sygnus21 said:

Hmmm.... I've never seen mine displayed that way on any version of Real Temp

Well mystery solved!

Silly me! As long as I've been using Real Temp I never ever really looked at the options available! Finally did that and checked the "ATI" box and what do you know.....



Duh

It's an alright feature to have, but for GPU temp reading I just open GPU-Z and have it run alongside RealTemp when I'm testing temps.

You may even be able to get those voltages a tad lower.


Still,with lower voltages, and should be much lower temps, I think its worth the trade off of the slightly higher clocks.

Probably not that much of a performance increase in the grand scheme of things anyway.


Look forward to building one of the SandyBridge setups :)

profdlp said:

You know, I hate to be a stinker, but...

4999.9 is close...

(I am kidding, of course.)

While my snip timing appears to be rather poor, it was indeed stable at 5Ghz (check the CPUz validation).

And yes, in the long term, I will take 4.5Ghz at 1.35V (what I am now) over 5Ghz at 1.55V. Especially considering anything over 1.4V is not recommended and 1.5 and over is considered too high.

~Lordbob

Exactly.
I too love playing around and finding the Max everything will do, but in the end a good trade off or "Sweet Spot" as refer to it is the best option IMO. :)