Overclocking lifespan reduce

[The321]

Will my cpu lifespan lower when I overclock at stock voltage or at least will it be less lifespan lowering than adding voltage ?

[3 Lions]

If you have adequate cooling then the CPU will mostly likely last longer than you actually want to use it for.  

[Princess Luna]

Intel states their CPUs should work for 15 years, when you OC them (right) you'll be reducing expectancy to like 12~13 years.

[Max_Settings]

Don't worry about that. Even if you overclock the CPU will last far longer than you would want to use it, 10+ years.

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

16 minutes ago, The321 said:

Will my cpu lifespan lower when I overclock at stock voltage or at least will it be less lifespan lowering than adding voltage ?

As long as you have proper cooling and don't go overboard with the voltage, it should last for as long as that system stays relevant. 

[PSUGuru]

Pretty sure this is a myth. 

[Mira Yurizaki]

The most common issue with overclocking is heat. However if you do increase the power draw, it'll also wear out the interconnects faster. But nobody's really done a formal study as far as I know so it's effectively impossible to predict.

 

Actually that's the other thing, nobody's really done a formal study on processor life span anyway.

[mynameisjuan]

56 minutes ago, QuantumElement said:

Pretty sure this is a myth. 

Im in the same boat with you. The amount of people saying OC will kill your CPU or temps above 80c will burn your CPU up really have no evidence to support it. I know of two 2600ks and a 3570k that have been running at 95c+ since release and are still running solid. Mobo will always fail first. 

[PSUGuru]

15 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Im in the same boat with you. The amount of people saying OC will kill your CPU or temps above 80c will burn your CPU up really have no evidence to support it. I know of two 2600ks and a 3570k that have been running at 95c+ since release and are still running solid. Mobo will always fail first. 

Yeah. I have a buddy that still has his old core two duo system. He can't bring himself to get rid of it. He's been running a 4.0Ghz overclock since the things release. Still running strong.

[vanished]

1 hour ago, M.Yurizaki said:

The most common issue with overclocking is heat. However if you do increase the power draw, it'll also wear out the interconnects faster. But nobody's really done a formal study as far as I know so it's effectively impossible to predict.

 

Actually that's the other thing, nobody's really done a formal study on processor life span anyway.

This is something I really would love to see done though.  I proposed a method but it would require thousands of CPUs and enough years that even all the ones run at stock die of natural causes.

[mynameisjuan]

32 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

This is something I really would love to see done though.  I proposed a method but it would require thousands of CPUs and enough years that even all the ones run at stock die of natural causes.

I would love to see this test too! But with 15+ year life cycle it will be a long, boring one. 

[vanished]

Just now, mynameisjuan said:

I would love to see this test too! But with 15+ year life cycle it will be a long, boring one. 

I mean, some of the data would come in fairly quickly.  If you were testing kaby lake for example at 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5+ volts, the chips at the high end would probably die within a year if I was to guess, if not minutes.

 

On the plus side, this isn't just killing chips for the sake of it.  What I envisioned would have also given accurate overclocking data for a wide range on conditions (what percent of chips you can expect to hit x GHz at y volts)

[mynameisjuan]

Just now, Ryan_Vickers said:

I mean, some of the data would come in fairly quickly.  If you were testing kaby lake for example at 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5+ volts, the chips at the high end would probably die within a year if I was to guess, if not minutes.

 

On the plus side, this isn't just killing chips for the sake of it.  What I envisioned would have also given accurate overclocking data for a wide range on conditions (what percent of chips you can expect to hit x GHz at y volts)

A test like that could change the way people think about temps and OCing depending on the outcome. Personally I have seen CPUs running at 95c+ for years with no apparent harm. But the pool is so small I cant justify it being proof, but intel seems to agree and thing below 105 is fine but many many people disagree with me. 

 

To bad I couldnt use the 700 or so Dell 760s scrapped at my old job to test those CPUs

[vanished]

10 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

A test like that could change the way people think about temps and OCing depending on the outcome. Personally I have seen CPUs running at 95c+ for years with no apparent harm. But the pool is so small I cant justify it being proof, but intel seems to agree and thing below 105 is fine but many many people disagree with me. 

 

To bad I couldnt use the 700 or so Dell 760s scrapped at my old job to test those CPUs

The trouble with this test, besides being extremely expensive and time consuming, is that it would have to be redone every time there's a major change in the design of the chip since obviously different designs behave differently.