Just found this and thought I'd post it since Core i7 builds are getting common. It's a pretty good guide with tips from some very credible PC enthusiast sites. It also gets a bit funny toward the end. LOL
I really didn't realize OCing a Core i7 was so much more complex than the Core 2s, though this certainly makes it easier. I'll probably be doing this stuff with my next build, though minus the water cooling and with 6GB vs 12GB RAM. I may not even bother OCing the undercore, which only yields minimal gain for the added complexity.
[COLOR=Red]YouTube - Intel Core i7 Overclocking Tutorial (NCIX Tech Tips #19)[/COLOR]
Kind of funny that they recommend nothing over 1.25v on the CPU. Most people that overclock the i7 put up to 1.4v with no problems.
kow_ciller;4856448Kind of funny that they recommend nothing over 1.25v on the CPU. Most people that overclock the i7 put up to 1.4v with no problems.
Yes especially with water cooling. Seems they're very concerned about long term reliability. Anyways, it applies more to my needs because I won't be looking for an extreme OC nor using water cooling.
I've done some more checking on your claim. I have found some saying they can go up to 3.6Ghz @ 1.25v on a 920. I'd say that's a pretty high OC, about 35% over stock speed. If that's the case I can definitely see why they recommend no more than 1.25v on an i7. They run pretty hot to begin with and pushing a 920 too high in voltage or speed is just going to make it run all the hotter and lower it's life span considerably.
This is exactly what I was getting at before on the MB argument. There's a difference between a practical OC and a no holds barred, throw caution to the wind OC. It used to be OCing was merely about getting the equivalent of a notch higher grade of gear without paying to buy it. Now it's about silly speed competions trying to get the fastest clock times with no regard for the trade offs.
I feel people should keep things in perspective when responding to questions asking about gaming gear. Unless the person says they're looking for the fastest speed they can get out of their gear and knows full well it won't likely last as long, the advice should be tempered with practicality. Thus I maintain, I see this as a very good guide taken from advice from those in the know at forums like XtremeSystems.org.
Actually, I was referencing to the 4ghz clock that most people try to get with their 920's. 1.4v isn't really that much. I really dont see a problem unless you're on the stock cooler. 4ghz/1.4v isn't really a deal breaker on your chip and increased voltage doesn't harm a chip over time. Contrary to popular belief, chips get used to an increased amount of voltage over time. It sort of gets burned in and higher tolerances for are achieved with a chip over time. Btw, XS is down for awhile if you haven't already seen.
kow_ciller;4857900Actually, I was referencing to the 4ghz clock that most people try to get with their 920's. 1.4v isn't really that much. I really dont see a problem unless you're on the stock cooler. 4ghz/1.4v isn't really a deal breaker on your chip and increased voltage doesn't harm a chip over time. Contrary to popular belief, chips get used to an increased amount of voltage over time. It sort of gets burned in and higher tolerances for are achieved with a chip over time.
Those sound like lofty claims given no one out there with any credibility is giving OCing tips without disclaimers on long term reliability. Do what you want kow, but there's no way in hell I'm going to clock a 920 to 4Ghz. Maybe the 940, but not the 920.
I know exactly what you are going to say to that too, the 940 is the same as the 920 with a different clock speed. Well to that I say a factory set clock speed vs ramping it up with a MB are two different things entirely. The latter involves much more potential for fluctuations in overall stability. That is why there are a myriad of different results from user to user even when the same procedures are followed.
When it comes right down to it there's never such a thing as a perfect OC or OCer, it's just not an exactly predictable science.
Well, they are the same chip. Just binned differently. While you wont necessarily get the same clock speed with both of them its the same thing. And a factory clock speed doesn't really matter much since the only difference is how the chips are binned.
You aren't getting that it's not just a difference in clock speed, but whether they're internally set or ramped up via the MB. That DOES make a difference. Much more potential for instability using the MB. And not getting the same clock speed from both of them is the entire point, and a very relative one that verifies they are not at all the same chip in end result OCing wise. If I see a 940 anywhere near $400 by the end of the year I'll probably snatch one up. Lowest I've seen it so far is $545.
If im buying a $200 motherboard it sure as hell better not have instability problems.
kow_ciller;4858068If im buying a $200 motherboard it sure as hell better not have instability problems.
The whole point I'm making is that relying on the MB for your processor speed opens you up to more potential for error and inconsistent results, esp on down the road. That being said I'll be OCing too, just not to as high a percentage over the CPU's stock speed or voltage. Trust me, I'd love it if you could still get a 3.4-3.6Ghz CPU without paying over $1000, but ever since quads came out they've been skimping on raw speed. It doesn't matter so much in games that make good use of the chip's multicore design, but many still don't.