Just upgraded from an i5 2500K to an i7 2600K - start the party

[Delicieuxz]

I've just bought an i7 2600K CPU for the very decent price of $180 CAD, from someone who says they never overclocked, or put any serious stress on it.

 

I've read that the 2600K is pretty much the exactly same CPU as the 2500K, except that it has hyper-threading, which I hear will improve game smoothness due to lower frame-times, as well as improve the speed of CPU-intense productivity-application work, which I do a bit of. The only game I've tried so far with the 2600K installed is Assassin's Creed Syndicate, and it actually did feel to me that it ran noticeably smoother than it did on my 2500K, without putting any effort into trying to focus on whether I was perceiving additional smoothness.

 

 

My i5 2500K CPU was running at 4.6 Ghz, which is also what I'm now running the 2600K at. However, it took a bit more voltage to get this 2600K CPU stable at that speed, with voltage with the 2600K reaching 1.42 in heavy testing, whereas my 2500K only hit something like 1.362v at most (I used a voltage offset configuration for both overclocks). Though, the 2600K CPU is also running much cooler than my 2500K was, which could be from my applying significantly more thermal paste this time than I did with my 2500K, or, maybe I just screwed the CPU-cooler down a bit more tightly this time. Idle voltage on the 2600K is below 1.00v, due to Intel Speed-Stepping, whereas I didn't have Speed-Stepping properly set up with my 2500K overclock.

 

With my i5 2500K overclock, my idle core temps were around 34C, and max core temps in Intel Burn Test would be around 84C. With the 2600K overclock, which has a bit more voltage on it, my idle core temps are 26 - 28C, and my full-load heavy testing core temps are 68 - 71C. The Intel Speed-Stepping will be contributing a few Cs to the low idle temperatures I'm now getting.

 

Also, the temperatures I'm now getting are with a Noctua NH-D15 fan cooler, using the low-power cable extensions, for reduced noise (but slightly decreased cooling). I used a CoolerMaster 212 Hyper Evo fan cooler for most of the time that I had the 2500K installed, and I'm not sure if the temperature I reported for the 2500K overclock only applies to the CoolerMaster 212, or if they were still similar after I installed the NH-D15, using its low-power cable extensions for reduced noise.

 

 

i5 2500K overclock specs:

 

4.6 Ghz

LLC - 50%

Intel Speed-Stepping not properly set up (I probably had it set to Auto, but in the OS, the power plan had my minimum CPU state set in the OS to 100%)

min voltage: 1.240v

max voltage: 1.336v

temps: 34C - 84C (summer temps)

 

 

 

i7 2600K overclock specs:

 

4.6 Ghz

LLC - 100%

Intel Speed-Stepping enabled, minimum CPU state set in OS to 15% (I'm going to lower it to 10%)

min voltage: 0.992v

max voltage: 1.42v

temps: 26C - 71C

 

 

I was hoping to get a higher clock speed out of this 2600K CPU, but I got some stability issues when I left all settings as-is, and tried 4.7 Ghz, and I also don't want to raise the voltage much beyond 1.4v.

 

That said, the same 4.6 Ghz speed, along with hyper-threading, and the much cooler temperatures, as well as finally having Intel Speed-Stepping set up properly, all make the installation of this 2600K a very nice improvement for my PC. And I got it for a good price, and with reportedly very low wear on the CPU. I hope that this system will continue to do well for the next couple of years, save maybe a 1440p monitor and another GPU upgrade.

 

 

System specs:

 

OCZ 1250 watt PSu

Asus P8P67 Pro Rev 3.1

i7 2600K @ 4.6 Ghz

16 GB RAM @ 1866 Mhz

EVGA GTX 1070 SC @ 2113 Mhz core / 4646 Mhz memory

Auzentech Prelude X-Fi

[Cereal5]

180 CAD? I would pay that all day for a 2600K, great deal! 4.6 GHz is a still a great overclock, happy to hear your temps are down also. Buying CPUs used is a pretty safe investment because it's really hard to mess up a CPU

[Bananasplit_00]

please dont run your CPU at 1.4V. its bad for the CPU, never go above 1.4V if you want to keep your CPU for a while and perferably dont go over 1.3V if you dont have too.

[007agentHP]

4 minutes ago, Bananasplit_00 said:

please dont run your CPU at 1.4V. its bad for the CPU, never go above 1.4V if you want to keep your CPU for a while and perferably dont go over 1.3V if you dont have too.

not going over 1.3 is for skylake / haswell

 

this is sandy bridge

the recommended max is 1.45v

[Bananasplit_00]

1 minute ago, 007agentHP said:

not going over 1.3 is for skylake / haswell

 

this is sandy bridge

the recommended max is 1.45v

its still not super great to just push that much voltage.

[007agentHP]

Just now, Bananasplit_00 said:

its still not super great to just push that much voltage.

people have pushed far more through it (its called the 5.0 Ghz club) and many still run one. 

the difference in 1.3 and 1.45v on a sandybridge probably brings its lifespan from 20 years down to 16. and no one would want to keep one that long

[Delicieuxz]

I've read that, according to Intel's testing, the maximum safe voltage is 1.52v. What context that voltage is safe in, however, I'm less aware of. Regardless, I would run lower voltage if I didn't have to sacrifice clock-speed over my 2500K configuration. I was hoping to get 4.8 Ghz, or even 5 Ghz with this CPU, while still keeping voltage under 1.45v.

 

If I didn't use the low-power fan cable extensions for my Noctua NH-D15, I might be able to get 4.7 Ghz at similar settings. But, I want to use the low-power cable extensions for reduced fan noise.

 

I also don't want to disable power-saving features to get my OC.

[Delicieuxz]

This is a pretty informative post about the voltage:

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1707579/2600k-safe-limit.html#10999012

Quote

Intels highest tested voltage is 1.520v, Page 75, Table 7.1, that is not a 24/7 guarantee of a solid safe voltage to run that's a motherboards known spike jump of the voltage is within Intels tested parameters as OK.

I'm fully aware of the so called 1.400v safe longevity voodoo magic number that most have adopted as gospel here at THGF and I say that's doodly squat.

According to CPU-Zs monitoring you should already be seeing a 1.439v out in the operating system spiking to 1.450v or possibly higher, Right?

If that is the case you should still be on the safe side of increasing further if your operating system monitored spikes are not exceeding 1.520v, that's still within Intels tested parameters, no matter how you're accomplishing it.

 

My 1.42v is a max spike. It wavers from below 1.4v to 1.42v in heaviest testing.

[Starelementpoke]

35 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

I've just bought an i7 2600K CPU for the very decent price of $180 CAD, from someone who says they never overclocked, or put any serious stress on it.

 

I've read that the 2600K is pretty much the exactly same CPU as the 2500K, except that it has hyper-threading, which I hear will improve game smoothness due to lower frame-times, as well as improve the speed of CPU-intense productivity-application work, which I do a bit of. The only game I've tried so far with the 2600K installed is Assassin's Creed Syndicate, and it actually did feel to me that it ran noticeably smoother than it did on my 2500K, without putting any effort into trying to focus on whether I was perceiving additional smoothness.

 

 

My i5 2500K CPU was running at 4.6 Ghz, which is also what I'm now running the 2600K at. However, it took a bit more voltage to get this 2600K CPU stable at that speed, with voltage with the 2600K reaching 1.42 in heavy testing, whereas my 2500K only hit something like 1.362v at most (I used a voltage offset configuration for both overclocks). Though, the 2600K CPU is also running much cooler than my 2500K was, which could be from my applying significantly more thermal paste this time than I did with my 2500K, or, maybe I just screwed the CPU-cooler down a bit more tightly this time. Idle voltage on the 2600K is below 1.00v, due to Intel Speed-Stepping, whereas I didn't have Speed-Stepping properly set up with my 2500K overclock.

 

With my i5 2500K overclock, my idle core temps were around 34C, and max core temps in Intel Burn Test would be around 84C. With the 2600K overclock, which has a bit more voltage on it, my idle core temps are 26 - 28C, and my full-load heavy testing core temps are 68 - 71C. The Intel Speed-Stepping will be contributing a few Cs to the low idle temperatures I'm now getting.

 

Also, the temperatures I'm getting now are with a Noctua NH-D15 fan cooler, using the low-power cable extensions, for reduced noise (but slightly decreased cooling). I used a CoolerMaster 212 Hyper Evo fan cooler for most of the time that I had the 2500K installed, and I'm not sure if the temperature I reported for the 2500K overclock only applies to the CoolerMaster 212, or if they were still similar after I installed the NH-D15, using its low-power cable extensions for reduced noise.

 

 

i5 2500K overclock specs:

 

4.6 Ghz

LLC - 50%

Intel Speed-Stepping not properly set up (I probably had it set to Auto, but in the OS, the power plan had my minimum CPU state set in the OS to 100%)

min voltage: 1.240v

max voltage: 1.336v

temps: 34C - 84C

 

 

 

i7 2600K overclock specs:

 

4.6 Ghz

LLC - 100%

Intel Speed-Stepping enabled, minimum CPU state set in OS to 15% (I'm going to lower it to 10%)

min voltage: 0.992v

max voltage: 1.42v

temps: 26C - 71C

 

 

I was hoping to get a higher clock speed out of this 2600K CPU, but I got some stability issues when I left all settings as-is, and tried 4.7 Ghz, and I also don't want to raise the voltage much beyond 1.4v.

 

That said, the same 4.6 Ghz speed, along with hyper-threading, and the much cooler temperatures, as well as finally having Intel Speed-Stepping set up properly, all make the installation of this 2600K a very nice improvement for my PC. And I got it for a good price, and with reportedly very low wear on the CPU. I hope that this system will continue to do well for the next couple of years, save maybe a 1440p monitor and another GPU upgrade.

 

 

System specs:

 

OCZ 1250 watt PSu

Asus P8P67 Pro Rev 3.1

i7 2600K @ 4.6 Ghz

16 GB RAM @ 1866 Mhz

EVGA GTX 1070 SC @ 2113 Mhz core / 4646 Mhz memory

Auzentech Prelude X-Fi

Hype. What are you going to do with your 2500k?

[Delicieuxz]

28 minutes ago, Starelementpoke said:

Hype. What are you going to do with your 2500k?

After I run the 2600K CPU for a week or two without any issue, I'm going to sell the 2500K.

 

The only spare case / mobo / RAM that I have is a P4 2.4 Ghz system, OC'd to something like 3.2, or 3.6 Ghz, so I don't have another system to put it into.

[Jumper118]

32 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

After I run the 2600K CPU for a week or two without any issue, I'm going to sell the 2500K.

 

The only spare case / mobo / RAM that I have is a P4 2.4 Ghz system, OC'd to something like 3.2, or 3.6 Ghz, so I don't have another system to put it into.

4.6ghz isn't great for a 2600k, it's below average but you do have all the power saving,  not fixed voltage and an old 1155 board,  so that's probably why.  

[Delicieuxz]

20 minutes ago, Jumper118 said:

4.6ghz isn't great for a 2600k, it's below average but you do have all the power saving,  not fixed voltage and an old 1155 board,  so that's probably why.  

Yup. My 4.6 Ghz at max 1.42v would actually be one of the worst Sandy Bridge clock-speed per voltage-level OCs that I've seen, if I didn't have all power-saving features enabled, and wasn't using the low fan-speed option for my CPU cooler.

 

http://www.overclock.net/t/968053/official-the-sandy-stable-club-guides-voltages-temps-bios-templates-inc-spreadsheet

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gBNe7KvjWTi-33VFM6O85qzeCFHLPB9PN2dYzh0Wrhw/pub?hl=en_US&hl=en_US&output=html&widget=true

 

 

Putting aside the power and noise aspects, and trying for my maximum possible OC under 1.45v might be something that I do, just to find out how this 2600K actually compares to the average.

[Delicieuxz]

So, this 2600K, set to 4.8 Ghz and given a manual voltage of 1.45v, handled Prime 95 and IBT at maximum settings for 5 or so minutes, until I stopped the tests. At a manual voltage of 1.43v, it BSODs while loading Windows. I haven't tested 1.44v. And with a manual voltage of 1.45, the actual voltage peaks can be a bit higher, like maybe 1.462v.

 

Using my 4.6 Ghz voltage offset configuration, with speed-step and C-states enabled, and changing it to 4.7 Ghz, it also runs stable in Prime 95 and IBT for several minutes. Min / max voltages for 4.7 Ghz are 0.992v / 1.432v. Min / max temperatures are 27C / 73C.

 

I think I'm going to stick with the 4.7 Ghz configuration.

[Jumper118]

32 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

So, this 2600K, set to 4.8 Ghz and given a manual voltage of 1.45v, handled Prime 95 and IBT at maximum settings for 5 or so minutes, until I stopped the tests. At a manual voltage of 1.43v, it BSODs while loading Windows. I haven't tested 1.44v. And with a manual voltage of 1.45, the actual voltage peaks can be a bit higher, like maybe 1.462v.

 

Using my 4.6 Ghz voltage offset configuration, with speed-step and C-states enabled, and changing it to 4.7 Ghz, it also runs stable in Prime 95 and IBT for several minutes. Min / max voltages for 4.7 Ghz are 0.992v / 1.432v. Min / max temperatures are 27C / 73C.

 

I think I'm going to stick with the 4.7 Ghz configuration.

Sounds OK. I had 2 2600k's and one did 4.7ghz at 1.4v and other did 4.7ghz.