i5 760... pretty amazing OC for a stock fan and voltages

[Grant]

Edit: OMG you kids are annoyingly technotarded

So... Got my i5 760 a few hours ago, put it in with some AS5 and the stock HSF. Turned on p95 and started OCing that bitch.

I was so excited I forgot to get screen shots of CPU-z but I got to 3.5GHz stable before I had to leave (on my ZuneHD right now, in an airport, going on a vacation). No doubt that it could have gone higher, then again no doubt that it's possible I hit a wall there. I mean that's .7GHz higher than stock; with the stock fan, normal voltages, and nothing special like putting it outside in the 40 fucking degree rain. It hit 75C a few times but that would go down to 70C when the AS5 cures, and probably 65-68C if I put an aftermarket fan on it. And no 75c won't burn it, at least not for an hour of stress testing, maybe if you hit 80c and stayed there every time you gamed it'd die.

I know you hardcore AMD fans are like HOLY SHIT DUDE THATS LIKE WAI TOO HOT!!
And sure, for AMD it is ;). Intel rates most of their i series at at least 73C for maximum constant, and they don't even need to do thermal shutdown until around 100C.

Anyway as soon as I get back I need to take pictures. I'm not 100% sure this is amazing because everyone has i7 920s or 950s and few people have 750s or 760s. But I know it's certainly not something every CPU can do.

And one more thing, the multiplier on it is as high as it will go (21 from the factory, can't go higher) so this is all with FSB, raping the RAM and other components as well as the CPU as opposed to the multi just raising CPU speed.

[AutoPlay]

Dude thats not even smile worthy

3.5GHz on an i5 760?

Thats pretty shitty even with the stock fan ect

1. 70 Degrees on your i5 is gonna seriously degrade the silicon halfing the lifetime if not more. I series are not meant to run about 55 underload. Hence the reason you NEVER overclock on a stock cooler. Thermal shut down on any Intel CPU is 120 degrees.

2. An AMD CPU is rated at around 55 degrees (Phenom II) and shuts down at 95 degrees.

can you post your system specs, RAM timings, voltages and PI Calculations please

[Grant]

All intel CPUs from presscott to sandy bridge(and every other one they ever made) are meant to have a max tcase around 75c, IE there's no difference between running it 24/7 at 70c or 40c. The don't have thermal throttling until ~100C and thermal shutdown sometime after that. And sure, AMD CPUs DO melt at 60c, but that's normal 90% load temp for an intel.

I'm not typing my specs again because windows automatic update fucked me TWICE while I was typing and restarted my computer without asking.

When I'm done being pissed at microsoft I'll start hyperpi.

[darkwoon]

All intel CPUs from presscott to sandy bridge(and every other one they ever made) are meant to have a max tcase around 75c, IE there's no difference between running it 24/7 at 70c or 40c.
Just for the record, there is, but mostly not on the CPU itself - running with an average temperature of 70°C instead of 40°C means that your overall case design needs to dissipate significantly more heat.

There is supposedly also a difference in the CPU core itself, in that the closer you are running it to its estimated limit, the higher the strain on the physical elements. The maximum design values tell nothing about that - they simply say that "it should work as expected for a normal lifespan". How much the average lifespan is influenced, the datasheets will not tell you. For most overclockers, this is irrelevant anyway, as they tend to change their CPUs often.

Ah, and of course, there is also a difference in the total power consumption of the rig - my parents would probably not like me having a heavily overclocked system running 24/7 :).

And sure, AMD CPUs DO melt at 60c, but that's normal 90% load temp for an intel.
Nope. The Phenom II 1075T is for example listed at max temperature of 62°C, and that's the specification value, not the physical melting threshold. Some are actually rated higher - The 1055T is listed with a max temperature of 71°C.

[Azunite]

Heh, mine is i7

[Grant]

Nope. The Phenom II 1075T is for example listed at max temperature of 62°C, and that's the specification value, not the physical melting threshold. Some are actually rated higher - The 1055T is listed with a max temperature of 71°C.

Haha, no it's not... All CPUs in a series are rated at a certain temperature. All the athlon x2s were 65c, and they die pretty fast if you run them at that for more than a few seconds at a time. All phenoms were something like 60c, but that's because they were the biggest failure in CPU history. All phenom IIs are 62c.

People benchmark with their i7 980xs at 80c all the time, and there hasn't been a single person that I've seen had one fail because of heat yet. But I've seen AMD fail a bunch of times.

Now let's not turn this into an intel vs AMD, we all know intel is better, even if the AMD fanbois don't want to accept it. I'll ignore any further comments regarding this.

[darkwoon]

Haha, no it's not... All CPUs in a series are rated at a certain temperature. All the athlon x2s were 65c, and they die pretty fast if you run them at that for more than a few seconds at a time. All phenoms were something like 60c, but that's because they were the biggest failure in CPU history. All phenom IIs are 62c.
The "AMD Family 10h Desktop Processor Power and Thermal Datasheet" (Available here (http://support.amd.com/us/Processor_TechDocs/43375.pdf)) from September 2010 clearly lists a Tcase-max of 71°C, and a Tctl-max of 70°C for the HDT55TWFK6DGR (The AMD product number for the Phenom II 1055T). Most of the Phenom II's listed in that document are referred to as having similar temperature limits.

So, haha, yes it is? :p

You are tight that all CPUs in a serie are normally rated the same temperature, but you are wrong thinking "Athlon X2", "Phenom" or "Phenom II" are such series - those are only commercial labels. Series normally relate to the internal core design, manufacturing process and tolerance limits.

Now let's not turn this into an intel vs AMD, we all know intel is better, even if the AMD fanbois don't want to accept it. I'll ignore any further comments regarding this.
Just for the record, I own an Intel i5 myself, and my message didn't aim at making this another stupid vendor wars - but you presented numbers that the official datasheets clearly contradicted, so I thought it was necessary to present what the vendor's docs said.

Now of course if you have another official source giving different temperature limits for the AMDs, that would be interesting to share - rig builders always make great use of that kind of infos.

[Donkey]

While that means as much to me as Morse code, if it makes you happy, congratulations.

[AutoPlay]

People benchmark with their i7 980xs at 80c all the time, and there hasn't been a single person that I've seen had one fail because of heat yet. But I've seen AMD fail a bunch of times.

Now let's not turn this into an intel vs AMD, we all know intel is better, even if the AMD fanbois don't want to accept it. I'll ignore any further comments regarding this.

Im guessing youve never owned an AMD CPU before so let me clue you in a little...

the Intel Architecture offers better performance per GIGAFLOP when it comes to calculations and rendering (Gaming Graphics ect) Hence the reason Intel are the main choice when it comes to system building. Combine an Intel chip with an Nvidia card and you tend to get a bit of a performance boost over an AMD card. This is due to the Architecture of the Nvidia GPU and how it compensates loads given with the architecture of the Intel chip. an Intel chip will shut down at no more than 120 degrees. This prevents major heat damage to the copper threads inside the die. Anything over 120 and permanant head damage will occur. However anything over 75 degrees will cause minor damage. This may be in the form of lower life span or maybe even calculation errors.

An AMD chip is better for rendering intense graphics and for running extreme performance Servers. The AMD architecture allows more triangles to be rendered in one go than an Intel chip. It also give powerful applications such as Photoshop CS4 + 5 and other Graphics suites a huge performance boost as more threads can be processed from the applications than in an intel chip. The AMD Opteron series can run at temperatures in excess of 120 degrees. As you may know, or probably not in this case (judging by what you have said already) the Opteron series is designed to be used in High Performance servers.

After reading this thread its become clear that you want to start an AMD v Intel debate.

heres a simple answer that i think other members who have commented on this thread will agree on.

There is NO winner. They are both designed for different tasks at which the perform amazingly well.

tl:dr: AMD is better for rendering intense graphics an running extreme performance enterprise servers, An Intel chip is better for Gaming, and large business servers.

[Grant]

^ I had a dual core AMD in my computer 5 days ago...
Dude, I'm not a fucking computarded 5-year-old, opteron vs xeon, phenom II vs iX, athlon x2 vs pentium, etc. I know what they're used for.

[AutoPlay]

^ I had a dual core AMD in my computer 5 days ago...
Dude, I'm not a fucking computarded 5-year-old, opteron vs xeon, phenom II vs iX, athlon x2 vs pentium, etc. I know what they're used for.

You seem like it to me

no offence