i7 13700k - 5.7Ghz 1.55v OC

[kevinj93]

I'm trying to OC my 13700k and it seems to be stable after a 30 mins cinebench stress test @ 5.7Ghz 1.55v (P Cores) with max temp of 91 C

 

I know overvolting decreases the lifespan of the CPU, especially with an OV this high. I'm wondering by how much if I keep it running at 1.55v for around 7-8 hours a day, 7 days a week. Dunno if I lost the silicon lottery, but I can't seem to be running it stable with any voltage below that.

 

Should I keep the OC for the little bit of extra performance or revert back to stock turbo settings for the sake of longer lifespan? (5.4Ghz, 1.38v)

 

Your opinions?

[Zando_]

The idea of a 1.55v daily sounds fucking terrifying. 

 

If you need the clock that badly just get a 13900K. Unless you're on the very cutting edge of the highest possible refresh rates and struggling to meet them though, you don't, so I'd revert the OC and keep stock turbo. 

[RONOTHAN##]

8 minutes ago, kevinj93 said:

Dunno if I lost the silicon lottery

You did. My 13700K on water does Linpack (an actual stress test unlike Cinebench) at 5.72GHz (E cores disabled, it's stuck at 5.6GHz/4.5GHz with them enabled) with 1.36V running in the OS (1.46V set in the BIOS with Mode 6 LLC on a Unify-X). 1.55V is just way too much voltage for one of those chips if that's actually the running voltage, if you're running a setup with a massive amount of VDroop then it would still likely be high, I'm not really aware of a board with 200mV of VDroop in a Cinebench run, but it's likely something a bit more reasonable, and given that you aren't well over 100C I'd assume you're actually running in Windows with a voltage closer to 1.4V. That's still really high for one of those chips, I'd want something a little lower, but it's not suicidal like 1.55V is. 

 

Still though, I wouldn't keep pushing for 5.7GHz on that chip, it doesn't sound like your chip can do it, and if you pull out any number of more aggressive stress tests (Linpack, Y cruncher, god forbid Prime95 Small FFTs) it would likely instacrash, or instantly overheat. Given it's struggling this hard to do 5.7GHz in Cinebench (good chips can do 6GHz in there on the P cores, at least for 1 run), I doubt you'd be able to get 5.6GHz to be stable in anything super intensive, and at that point if you have to drop down to 5.5GHz youmight as well stick to stock settings, not gonna be noticeably better. 

[kevinj93]

9 minutes ago, RONOTHAN## said:

You did. My 13700K on water does Linpack (an actual stress test unlike Cinebench) at 5.72GHz (E cores disabled, it's stuck at 5.6GHz/4.5GHz with them enabled) with 1.36V running in the OS (1.46V set in the BIOS with Mode 6 LLC on a Unify-X). 1.55V is just way too much voltage for one of those chips if that's actually the running voltage, if you're running a setup with a massive amount of VDroop then it would still likely be high, I'm not really aware of a board with 200mV of VDroop in a Cinebench run, but it's likely something a bit more reasonable, and given that you aren't well over 100C I'd assume you're actually running in Windows with a voltage closer to 1.4V. That's still really high for one of those chips, I'd want something a little lower, but it's not suicidal like 1.55V is. 

 

I'd like to mention that E-Cores are still enabled. I'm still new to overclocking. Is it possible to run at 5.6-5.7 Ghz at a lower voltage with E-Cores disabled or it makes no difference since I already lost the silicon lottery? I have the Asus Z790-F Gaming WiFi mobo if that helps.

[PDifolco]

41 minutes ago, kevinj93 said:

I'm trying to OC my 13700k and it seems to be stable after a 30 mins cinebench stress test @ 5.7Ghz 1.55v (P Cores) with max temp of 91 C

 

I know overvolting decreases the lifespan of the CPU, especially with an OV this high. I'm wondering by how much if I keep it running at 1.55v for around 7-8 hours a day, 7 days a week. Dunno if I lost the silicon lottery, but I can't seem to be running it stable with any voltage below that.

 

Should I keep the OC for the little bit of extra performance or revert back to stock turbo settings for the sake of longer lifespan? (5.4Ghz, 1.38v)

 

Your opinions?

To me it seems a good way to double your electricity bills at 200W+ for a time then get a fried chip (or worse) in a few months...  

Max OC is good for fun, but gaining less than +5% perf for +40% power is a waste, do you really bother if a 1 hour task is 2min30 shorter or if you have 103 fps to 101 on a "normal" OC ?

[kevinj93]

2 minutes ago, PDifolco said:

To me it seems a good way to double your electricity bills at 200W+ for a time then get a fried chip (or worse) in a few months...  

Max OC is good for fun, but gaining less than +5% perf for +40% power is a waste, do you really bother if a 1 hour task is 2min30 shorter or if you have 103 fps to 101 on a "normal" OC ?

Of course not, I'm just asking if it is ok and after reading the comments, I decided to revert back to stock turbo speed (5.4 Ghz @ 1.36v). I don't think the 5% performance increase is worth it if it's going to shorten the CPU's lifespan that much.

[RONOTHAN##]

1 minute ago, kevinj93 said:

Is it possible to run at 5.6-5.7 Ghz at a lower voltage with E-Cores disabled or it makes no difference?

Disabling the E cores does lower the heat inside the chips and can make P core overclocks a bit more stable. Not a ton more stable, it's the difference between 5.6GHz and 5.7GHz at most, but it's more stable nonetheless since the CPU is drawing closer to 250-300W rather than 350-400W in an all core stress test. If you do multithreaded stuff though, the loss of the E Cores is gonna do more harm than good to the overall score (for R23 numbers, the P cores alone at 5.7GHz should do ~24000 while the P+E cores at 5.6/4.5 should do ~32000, so you lose 25% of your performance to gain 2% single thread performance). 

[freeagent]

Does Intel still rate max vcore at 1.55v? Been awhile since I looked

 

1.55v on my 3770K was mighty intense

 

It did not like it. Actually it was 1.525 because anything more and the board would tell me all about OVP.

[kevinj93]

@RONOTHAN## Which voltage I should pay attention to the most?

 

VCORE or VID (Max)? as VID (Max) voltages are higher than of VCORE. Using CPUID HWMonitor

 

What is the difference between the two? I've been reading about them but I don't seem to understand it well.

[RONOTHAN##]

1 minute ago, kevinj93 said:

@RONOTHAN## Which voltage I should pay attention to the most?

 

VCORE or VID (Max)? as VID (Max) voltages are higher than of VCORE. Using CPUID HWMonitor

 

What is the difference between the two? I've been reading about them but I don't seem to understand it well.

VCore is the one that matters. 

 

The difference between them is relatively simple: VID is what the CPU requests the voltage to be, VCore is what the VRM actually delivers to the CPU. VID only really matters when doing stock settings or messing around with boost algs like TVB (Intel) or PBO (AMD). When doing static all core overclocks with static voltage values, VID isn't used anymore, and VCore is what actually exists. 

[freeagent]

I think the VID is programmed into the chip for stock clocks and their corresponding voltages, and vcore is what it is actually getting. I haven’t looked at a new Intel system for eons so that could have changed.

 

Showing how long it’s been.. this is just and example. My x5690 had a vid ( voltage identification range) of up to 1.35v. That is the supposed max the board can give the cpu for its max clock. 1.35v gave me 4200MHz so I was able to run the clock at “stock” volts.

[Ebony Falcon]

I got 5.6 p cores and 4.4 e cores stable at 1.32v  underload on a 13600k 

have u looked at ur voltage underload ?  
1.55 might be idle with a lot of droop down to 1.4v underload 

 

 

[kevinj93]

I can now run stable 5.4Ghz turbo @ 1.31v with C-states enabled. Will try all P-core OC to 5.5Ghz to see how it works.

 

With c-states disabled I couldn't get it to run it stable with voltages below 1.36V

 

Does enabling c-state significantly reduce vcore usage under load? I ran cinebench and the scores are exactly the same, but at much lower voltages.

 

How is this possible?