http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipse [...] i=3251&p=6

This is the kind of quality of an article I would expect from Tom's. This article is simply superb, very well written, very well explained, and very technical.

This article not only offered the review of E8500, it also offered the explanation of E8400's temperature errata, as well as its degradation due to overclocks. It should debunk a lot of erroneous claims about temperature and degradation of CPU under overclocks.

Temperature:

This confirms Intel's documented errata on motherboard unable to measure E8400's DTS accurately, and thereby causing thermal interrupts.

CPU degradation from overclocks:

As a result, those who believed they can run E8400 @ 4.xGhz with simple stock cooling, and overvolted them about 0.2~0.3V, and still believe they can outrun their warranty lifetime, are morons. As shown in Anand's graph, E8400's VID is 1.125V, and in order to run at 4.xGhz, most people put more than 30% more voltage into the processor. Compared to only 15% more voltage to overclock a 65nm dual core Core 2 to 4.xGhz (1.5V), or 28% for a Q6600 to hit 4.0Ghz (1.6V). So far I have not seen a Q6600 to be overclocked to 4.0Ghz without exotic cooling, that's capable of running more than few days for benching purpose.

EDIT:
I believe Anand summed up very well in terms of overclocking Wolfdale in his conclusion.

This means, 1.8V for 4.0Ghz E8400 is similar to putting 2.1~2.2V into 65nm Core 2s. I can guarantee you, unless you have a golden chip, or you're extremely lucky, your chip will fail within weeks, if not days.

Regardless, this is a great read. Definitely a good article for those interested in getting a Wolfdale, and for the editors of Toms to learn from.

This explains why people are encountering temperature reading problems on the Wolfdales.

Nice post, but I dont think anyone is using 1.8v for 4ghz. 1.4v would be the max. But I'm just fine using 1.27 @ 3.8ghz, why ruin such a great chip that is almost impossible to replace right now?

So its the mobo not the chip. Love it.

Nice post yomama. I really like the reviews that come out of Anandtech. Especially their mobo reviews. Their articles are definitely held to higher standards than TH and they are usually quite thorough. I just wish they would kick them out faster…

I've been waiting for this for a long time. Granted, I'm using an overclocked Athlon 2800+, and with it's 130nm (feel lucky those of you who have got 90nm cpu's.) process, it's fine pushing at extra 200-400MHz when i need it to. But it just makes sense, doesn't it people? Pushing more power through something smaller will put more strain on it.
I won't be surprised if even smaller processes start losing intel's fabulous overclocking abilities, as of lately.
Only time will tell, but i'm sure there's a remedy to this - the most obvious one will probably be less power usage. We may find sub 45nm processors that have voltages not only very near 1v, but we may make changes in the thousandths for overclocking. 1.001v...1.002v...

New technology is so much fun.

I would rate the article as "FAIR".

The writing is excellent, but they fail to provide a technical reference for many of their claims. This is perfectly acceptable if the results are based upon your own tests which you can present.

The claims made in the article, as valid as they may be, are totally invalid w/o documenting the source of those claims.

Wait, does this mean that the temperature readings on the Core 2s are inaccurate, or have the tjunction been clearly established for each model?

It means since Tjunction (or to better put it, maximum operating temperature) differs between chips, models, and steppings, its hard to come up with an universal maximum value for it.

For example, while the first iteration of Core 2 has maximum temperature of 105C, the later revisions lowered that to 95C, and that is still considers inaccurate. The truth is, we'll never know the accurate value until Intel publishes them.

I find the article interesting, if not a bit unsettling. For sure, I'll be watching the temps a bit more closely and taking more effort to reduce them. I don't know if I've been just lucky with some past overclocking efforts or the fact that I usually change CPUs more often than every three years which has kept me out of trouble and my credit card intact.

I honestly dont know much about OCing, but would that article apply to say, when Tom OC'd that 1.8ghz Intel Dual Core chip to 3ghz?

Anand's article apply to any chip being OCed out of the spec.

Is their forum decent over there? Maybe its time to just jump ship completely.

Excellent article, thanks for the link. I'm sure even the seasoned overclocker can learn something from this article.

I think it has been well established that overclocking *will* shorten the lifespan of your CPU - however, the point is that, overclocking within reason (ie. 10% overvolt with a good HSF) will not shorten the CPU life long enough for you to notice, since most enthusiasts update their CPU at least once every couple of years.

FWIW, I've yet to have an overclocked CPU die, though I usually only keep them for 2 - 3 years max. However, 5 year ago I built my cousin a rig based on an Athlon XP 2500+ overclocked to 2.2GHz, and it is still running strong to this day.

However, I've had a Radeon 9800 Pro die after prolonged overclocking for over a year, I don't know if it's just bad luck or not. Thankfully, by the time the it died I was due for an upgrade anyway.

the article itself says it does not apply to any chip in the same manor - if you read it, it says high hafnium gate cpu's are more likely to degrade faster.

this article while nice for scientist and engineer is useless for normal people

i will translate it:

1) use the best cooling possible and keep temps as low as possible
2) keep voltage as low as possible

3) the more your run a cpu at 100% output the more damage done to it from high end overclocking


my perspective - "the sweet spot"

the sweet spot is the speed which is slight lower then where you see a greater increase in temps after a same increase in speed, in many case the multipler and fsb are interchangable.

fsb should be maximized until performance drops off - today that is 1600-1700 fsb with intel chipsets

the multiplier should optimal for the cpu - c2d is 9 give or take a little. that why the E6600 is such a great chip and the e8500/e8400 are close as is the q6600

you increase the speed of the cpu until you see a spike in temps then back off slightly. typically the voltage is 1.38-1.48. As you increase voltage the temps increase greatly above 1.45 or so volts and the so does the degradation process or diffusion of silicone from resistance.

heat =resistance, this results in electrons being pushed, hard bumping of the electons and energizing the atoms in to cpu material and push the atoms, diffusion - like sand at the beach. the sand stays put until a strong enough current fluidised the sand.

bottom line - new wolfdate cpu's may suffer more from overclocking then cpu's in the past, buy the best cooler, use as many low speed high output fans as possible and keep your voltage in line!

for gamer and such that do not run their systems 25/7 who cares, if you folding at home turn down the oc and voltage

My E8400 chip hits 4ghz no problem and very stable and the motherboard manages the voltages for that (Not sure of the exact voltage) but it's cooled very well, with a huge copper waterblock with copper fins that the water passes through... and it keeps the CPU @ 20 - 25'c on idle & 35'c full load, with the Cores between 38 - 45'c on idle and upto core temps of 60'c on full load.

Would these be safe temps? I'll get the Voltage in a moment since ive not got it clocked at the minute.

3.6ghz is a safe O.C, no voltage changes required, very little extra heat and a huge performance increase.

Mind proving that with a quotation? I looked around and the article clearly states that overclocking does indeed result in faster degradation, regardless of a specific type of CPU.

Anand just made this statement, which I quoted earlier.

This is the reason why I don't like people doing overclocking when they certainly have no background of it. Most of them do not understand the inherit danger of overclocking, and how it affect their system. Its one thing to overclock to 3.6Ghz (for example), and its another to use 1.45V to achieve it.

Proof?

very interesting article.