Burn-in experience

CheekyChava · Feb 24, 2003

I left my XP 1800+ (@stock speed) at 2.0v for 22hrs on Prime95 torture test.

DAMN.

Now, to get stable at 1.9Ghz, which i had before at 1.85v and 45*C load, i have to run at 1.9v which gives load temps nearer 48*C.

I dont suppose i can get it back to its former glory. lol

Anyway... neva mind... at least i didn't fry the chip

Paul.

Pinky · Feb 24, 2003

2.0v is waay too much voltage for average cooling, so I would never recommend that much for a burnin. 1.95v is the max theoretical voltage (30% of 1.5v) for the tbred 1800+ 'A' cores (regardless of cooling). People running 1.95v+ with their tbreds are really asking for an early and dangerous death (cause if the cpu goes, often it takes a motherboard, memory, psu, etc with it). I don't think enough precaution and due respect is given to overvolting.

CheekyChava · Feb 24, 2003

I didnt like the risk of 2.0v but have read so much telling me burnins rule!

The price i pay for throwing caution to the wind. lol

I'l know next time.

Paul.

deathstar13 · Feb 24, 2003

Pinky said:
2.0v is waay too much voltage for average cooling, so I would never recommend that much for a burnin. 1.95v is the max theoretical voltage (30% of 1.5v) for the tbred 1800+ 'A' cores (regardless of cooling). People running 1.95v+ with their tbreds are really asking for an early and dangerous death (cause if the cpu goes, often it takes a motherboard, memory, psu, etc with it). I don't think enough precaution and due respect is given to overvolting.

pinky nailed this on the head.
burning in needs more exact plan of attack than just throwing a chip into 1.95v.
id say the chip is somewhat damaged now.1 reason is the use of to much voltage too fast and another is excessive heat at high voltage.your lucky it even works still.

burning in has to benifits if done correctly.
1- you gain higher speeds at less voltage
2- it makes it possable to run high voltage later after its burnt in properly.
number1 is done by slowly increasing the voltage over a few day period topping at about 1.8v max ,especailly on air cooling.this also should be done like number 2 but at lower voltages.
number 2 is for the harder core of use that run h20 or better and run high vcore of +2.2v
this is done by slowly uping the vcore over a 2 week period.
4 days 1.8v
3 days 1.9v
3 days 2v
2 days 2.05v
2 days 2.1v
2 days 2.15v
its not exact but it gives you a good idea.this isnt proven fact stuff im talking its "MY OPINIONS" but i do run 2.2vcore with 2 cpu's i own so i think my opinions might be note worthy.

Pinky · Feb 24, 2003

CheekyChava said:
I didnt like the risk of 2.0v but have read so much telling me burnins rule!

The price i pay for throwing caution to the wind. lol

I'l know next time.

Paul.

There's nothing wrong with trying stuff, but you still need to adhere to a few simple rules (30% max voltage above default and only proportional to your level of cooling, lowest clock speed/mhz you can run the cpu).

http://people.freenet.de/s.urfer/conditioning.htm

CheekyChava · Feb 24, 2003

Thanks guys!

I learnt my lesson, and my chip still works. lol

No more posts please, dont rub it in!

Paul

deathstar13 · Feb 24, 2003

im not rubbing it i dont think but to inform other readers who will read this also.trust me i know one person who did this and got a dead chip.no names here farleytron

lol just teasen ya man!

wether results are good or painfull in your case we all can learn from it.that is why i posted what i did.
and trust me when my first cpu death at 2.2v occures im gonna get so lambasted with bad comments its not gonna be funny.if it ever happens but it still needs to be posted for others information.

CheekyChava · Feb 24, 2003

Pinky said:
There's nothing wrong with trying stuff, but you still need to adhere to a few simple rules (30% max voltage above default and only proportional to your level of cooling, lowest clock speed/mhz you can run the cpu).

http://people.freenet.de/s.urfer/conditioning.htm

Lol @ your link.

I read that before i did anything... serves me right for skim reading... :bang head

Pinky · Feb 24, 2003

CheekyChava said:
Lol @ your link.

I read that before i did anything... serves me right for skim reading...

It's a hefty read, goes way deeper than I'm interested in going, but there's a specific section I quote in the FAQ that basically tells you 'increased (but not excessive) voltage, lower temps and lower clock speed.'

Better luck next time

I was rubbing it in, but I'll stop now

j/k

Emericana · Feb 24, 2003

reapply thermal paste

CheekyChava · Feb 25, 2003

Why do you think that the thermal paste has caused it, and how will it fix it? - i thought the extra volts was what gave me the extra heat.

Paul.

deathstar13 · Feb 25, 2003

mabey it can fix the problem mabey not.
after the burnin you didnt take the heatsink off did you?
if you did that might be a reason for higher temps.
if you didnt it means what we have been talking about.

basically anyone can get a bad mounting on a heatsink we all do it.
reseating it sometimes helps.

CheekyChava · Feb 25, 2003

deathstar13 said:
after the burnin you didnt take the heatsink off did you?
if you did that might be a reason for higher temps.

Nope! And i cant be arsed to take off the heatsink to reapply paste either.... I'm too busy with another system. lol

Thanks guys (and girls?) I wont do it again!

Paul

stompah · Feb 25, 2003

actually at those temps you could have 'cooked' the thermal paste. it may be a wise choise to spend the 10-20 minutes reapplying the paste.

Captain Hilts · Feb 25, 2003

I don't think that saying 30% over default voltage is a very meaningful rule. What you're saying is that it's okay to go up to 1.95 for an 1800+ Tbred A, but for a 2200+ Tbred A you can go up to 2.15v. This makes no sense since they're the same core, just with different default voltages.

Also, in my experience burning-in has not helped at all, and I wouldn't doubt that most of the gains that people have experienced from burning-in have just been the normal result of CPU temps dropping after a couple of days. I still attempt to burn-in every chip because the success that people often report, but I think I'm going to drop this practice due to the lack of any real results.

CheekyChava · Feb 25, 2003

actually at those temps you could have 'cooked' the thermal paste.

The max temp the CPU has ever been is 48*C. This enough to cause the thermal paste to become less efficient?

Paul

Pinky · Feb 25, 2003

Captain Hilts said:
I don't think that saying 30% over default voltage is a very meaningful rule. What you're saying is that it's okay to go up to 1.95 for an 1800+ Tbred A, but for a 2200+ Tbred A you can go up to 2.15v. This makes no sense since they're the same core, just with different default voltages.

It's not a stead fast rule, and you have a good point. It's more/less a gauge... obviously becoming a bit of an 'old' gauge

. It's a throw-back to the old days when cpus were released as one voltage for the same core. I'll probably start saying "30% of the lowest default voltage for that core" from now on. That's good stuff, thanks for the reminder

.

As far as thermal stuff breaking down, I've notice that AS3 tends to break down over time, becomes runny. I doubt this is good, and doubt it was an issue here as 1 day of use shouldn't be enough to break it that far down... I'd send the stuff back if that were the case.

Captain Hilts · Feb 25, 2003

I think it would be more meaningful to recognize it as a percentage of the highest default voltage of that core, since you know that the chip manufacturer deems it safe at that level.

In that case I wouldn't use 30% though, 20% may be more reasonable. 30% over the default voltage of a Palomino, for example, would be 2.28v. I think that would be pushing it.

Pinky · Feb 25, 2003

Captain Hilts said:
I think it would be more meaningful to recognize it as a percentage of the highest default voltage of that core, since you know that the chip manufacturer deems it safe at that level.

In that case I wouldn't use 30% though, 20% may be more reasonable. 30% over the default voltage of a Palomino, for example, would be 2.28v. I think that would be pushing it.

This may or may not be potatos and tomatoes.

Okay, first you would NOT want to take the highest, the chips that run the higher of the default voltages are 'poorer' cores that require the extra voltage to run stock speeds. I don't consider them 'standard setting' cores. You said yourself that running the XP2200+ Tbred A core at 30% above stock voltage would push it in the 2.1v range... which is dangerously high for any tbred core.

Shaving the percentage back in light of our advances in cpu cooling (both air and water are better at cooling cpus than ever before) would be a step back in this hobby. It's an ongoing game of living on the edge but wearing a parachute

.

Palominos could take 2.3v if the cooling warranted it. Again, people are seeing "1.95v theoretic max voltage" and assume they're automatically safe to go that high regardless of their cooling, which we know is wrong... which was my point I was trying to make in the first place, the same point I think you're trying to reinforce as well... after that, I think it becomes semantics.

Captain Hilts · Feb 25, 2003

I would agree with pretty much all that you've said there except that the chips that run at higher default voltages are the poorer cores. The only reason that the 2200+ chips run at a 1.65v default is because it has a higher default clock speed than the low speed Tbreds. This was the same for Coppermine CPUs and probably some other cores as well.

Regardless, what we want to know is what the chip maker deems is a 'safe' voltage, and how far above that we want to risk. AMD would not be selling chips with default voltages that they think would be dangerous, so we can assume that 1.65v is their deemed maximum 'safe' voltage then go from there.

Burn-in experience

Member

Member

Member

FSB FRIEK

Member

Member

FSB FRIEK

Member

Member

Member

Member

FSB FRIEK

Member

Deep Pain Senior Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads