Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

How long will an i7 2600k CPU last at high temps?

I tried searching the forums or running a few google searches to find an answer but couldn't find anything. So I figured I'd just ask you guys. 

I'm running a i7 2600k CPU atm at 4.8 GHz with a Corsair h100 for cooling, and temps are fantastic. While running a WII emulator to play my WII games for a few hours, my temps usually stick around 49-55 on two of the cores, will the other two cores run slightly cooler. When running prime 95 torture test for a while, the max temperature is 73, which I hear is a good number considering you'll probably never hit that temp when doing heavy gaming.

Though 4.8 GHz is great, I want to push it more, if for just bragging rights. I'm wondering if I were to up the GHz and begin getting temps of up to 80 (with prime95), how long will the CPU last, do you guys think? 

Also, it might help to mention that I needed to set the voltage to 1.5 to get 4.8 GHz stable, or at least that is my experience with my limited knowlege of overclocking. I'll probably have to up the voltage to achieve higher clock speeds.

 

I was thinking that if my CPU were to last a year to a year and a half, I'd be happy as I'll probably want to after that amount of time any way. So damage done to the processor isn't such a big deal in that regard, as long as its not damaged before a year is up. Any thoughts?

Comments

  • Loke666Loke666 Member EpicPosts: 21,441

    My thoughts is that while it probably can last that time let's not chanse on that.

    Get a better cooling system for it. I think a Corsair H70 like I use for my -AMD hexacore would be the best choice for a limited budget.

    With some good cooling your computer will be fine for years instead of risking to burn up. It just ain´t worth the risk for that small sum (the H70 cost $80 at newegg). There are of course better cooling systems than it, a lot better but not at that price.

    Besides, better cooling means you can push even further if you don´t care at all about the risks.

  • ToxiaToxia Member UncommonPosts: 1,308

    Originally posted by zseal

    I tried searching the forums or running a few google searches to find an answer but couldn't find anything. So I figured I'd just ask you guys. 

    I'm running a i7 2600k CPU atm at 4.8 GHz with a Corsair h100 for cooling, and temps are fantastic. While running a WII emulator to play my WII games for a few hours, my temps usually stick around 49-55 on two of the cores, will the other two cores run slightly cooler. When running prime 95 torture test for a while, the max temperature is 73, which I hear is a good number considering you'll probably never hit that temp when doing heavy gaming.

    Though 4.8 GHz is great, I want to push it more, if for just bragging rights. I'm wondering if I were to up the GHz and begin getting temps of up to 80 (with prime95), how long will the CPU last, do you guys think? 

    Also, it might help to mention that I needed to set the voltage to 1.5 to get 4.8 GHz stable, or at least that is my experience with my limited knowlege of overclocking. I'll probably have to up the voltage to achieve higher clock speeds.

     

    I was thinking that if my CPU were to last a year to a year and a half, I'd be happy as I'll probably want to after that amount of time any way. So damage done to the processor isn't such a big deal in that regard, as long as its not damaged before a year is up. Any thoughts?

    There is no bragging rights to be had in overclocking a CPU. i lol at you.

    It's your money if you want to waste it, do so, but don't expect cookies to come flying at you for your awesome l33t overclocking skills. i know very little about PC's, and my chip is running at 4.6. it took like 5 clicks of a mouse to get it to do so.

    IF you have limited knowledge of overclocking, you really shouldn't tinker around, lest you break it in a week and be sad for the next year till you have the cash to get another, as you said.

    EDIT: if you are insistant on continuing this, at least get a better cooler for starters.

    The Deep Web is sca-ry.

  • eye_meye_m Member UncommonPosts: 3,317

    Originally posted by Loke666

    My thoughts is that while it probably can last that time let's not chanse on that.

    Get a better cooling system for it. I think a Corsair H70 like I use for my -AMD hexacore would be the best choice for a limited budget.

    With some good cooling your computer will be fine for years instead of risking to burn up. It just ain´t worth the risk for that small sum (the H70 cost $80 at newegg). There are of course better cooling systems than it, a lot better but not at that price.

    Besides, better cooling means you can push even further if you don´t care at all about the risks.

    so he should get rid of his corsiar H100 for a corsair H70?

    All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.

    I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.

    I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.

    I don't hate much, but I hate Apple© with a passion. If Steve Jobs was alive, I would punch him in the face.

  • @ Toxia

    Little confused about a few things you said. For one, I have enough knowledge to avoid killing my CPU while overclocking. I never like to say I know a lot about things because theres always so much out there I don't know. I try to only relate myself to experts. What I was wondering was simply how long a CPU can remain stable and healthy at relatively higher temperatures, which you didn't seem to bother considering, so I don't exactly understand why you posted in the first place.

    Also, about the braggin rights comment. Don't be jelly of my rig lol. In all seriousness, in regards to the comment implying my cooling setup is sub par, the h100 is a pretty good cooler and I'm guessing you didn't actually read everything I said, which isn't terribly surprising considering the overall mood behind your post. 

  • nowaydown1nowaydown1 Member Posts: 7

     

    I'm not a hardcore overclocker by any stretch, but I do have an early model 2600K that I run at 1.35Vcore / 4.3ghz stable on a Corsair H70.    It's been a while since I did my overclock, but I remember hearing that 1.35 was the "probably safe" number from Intel.   I build a new rig about once every 3 years, so my overclocking tends to be somewhat conservative.

    I do remember reading about folks cooking their 2600K's inside of 30 days @ 1.5V+ early on.    My rig has been running for about a year now @ 1.35 with no issues.    You can probably get away with 1.5V for benchmark blasting with your friends, but I personally wouldn't run it at that voltage 24/7.     I've read that some folks have been running okay with 1.4.     Obviously the more voltage you put through the chip, the greater the risk of losing it.

    It's hard to give a definitive "how long".   I think these chips are lot like people...... Some people can abuse their bodies in extreme fashion and live to be 100 while others won't make it that long.   Kinda of a dice roll in the end.    Have fun with the rig!

  • Loke666Loke666 Member EpicPosts: 21,441

    Originally posted by eyelolled

    Originally posted by Loke666

    My thoughts is that while it probably can last that time let's not chanse on that.

    Get a better cooling system for it. I think a Corsair H70 like I use for my -AMD hexacore would be the best choice for a limited budget.

    With some good cooling your computer will be fine for years instead of risking to burn up. It just ain´t worth the risk for that small sum (the H70 cost $80 at newegg). There are of course better cooling systems than it, a lot better but not at that price.

    Besides, better cooling means you can push even further if you don´t care at all about the risks.

    so he should get rid of his corsiar H100 for a corsair H70?

    Doh, I am blind and stupid and just missed that.

    Yeah, no then the alternative gets pretty expensive, sorry.

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,130

    First off, you should understand that temperatures aren't the only thing that can fry a chip.  Electromigration can kill a processor even if the temperatures are always kept below room temperature.  1.5 V is an awful lot of voltage already for a chip whose stock voltage is only 1.2 V.  The overclocking attempts in Hard OCP's motherboard reviews usually don't go that high on voltage, and that's even with a review sample so that they're willing to fry some things.  With your current overclock already a serious risk of frying the processor, I'd advise against overclocking it further unless it's not a big loss to you if you do end up with dead hardware.

    Incidentally, what motherboard do you have, and what power supply?  Your processor could conceivably be pulling 200 W, and most motherboards aren't built to handle that sort of load.  Some are, so if you've got a higher end motherboard, you won't need to worry too much about frying the motherboard, but that won't save the processor.

    If you're using your current overclock all the time, then the processor might well last until you replace the machine.  Or it could easily be dead in a matter of weeks or months.  Make sure that you're willing to accept that risk before keeping that large of an overclock, let alone pushing it further.


  • Originally posted by Quizzical

    First off, you should understand that temperatures aren't the only thing that can fry a chip.  Electromigration can kill a processor even if the temperatures are always kept below room temperature.  1.5 V is an awful lot of voltage already for a chip whose stock voltage is only 1.2 V.  The overclocking attempts in Hard OCP's motherboard reviews usually don't go that high on voltage, and that's even with a review sample so that they're willing to fry some things.  With your current overclock already a serious risk of frying the processor, I'd advise against overclocking it further unless it's not a big loss to you if you do end up with dead hardware.

    Incidentally, what motherboard do you have, and what power supply?  Your processor could conceivably be pulling 200 W, and most motherboards aren't built to handle that sort of load.  Some are, so if you've got a higher end motherboard, you won't need to worry too much about frying the motherboard, but that won't save the processor.

    If you're using your current overclock all the time, then the processor might well last until you replace the machine.  Or it could easily be dead in a matter of weeks or months.  Make sure that you're willing to accept that risk before keeping that large of an overclock, let alone pushing it further.

     

    Thanks for the info on the Electromigration issue. I hadn't heard of this before. I'll certainly not take it past 4.8 if I need to up the volts to acheive a stable overclock, and I might even reduce the overclock to obtain a lower voltage considering what you said. 

    In regards to the powersupply and motherboard:

    Motherboard: GIGABYTE GA-Z68X-UD3H-B3 LGA 1155 Intel Z68 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard.

    link: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128498&Tpk=z68x

     

    Power Supply: CORSAIR Enthusiast Series TX750 v2

    link: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139021

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,130

    The power supply should not be a problem for you at all, unless perhaps you're running a CrossFire or SLI setup and pulling a ton of wattage that way.

    The motherboard is more of a concern.  I count seven power phases.  As far as I can tell, Gigabyte doesn't say, but it's probably a 5+2 arrangement, with five phases for the processor.  That should be enough to get you a respectable overclock, but not necessarily a "let's see if we can fry the processor" overclock that you seem to be going for.  If you were pushing, say, 4.5 GHz at 1.35 V, I wouldn't worry about the motherboard.  But it could be a problem at your current overclock, and I wouldn't recommend pushing it further.

     

  • Alright thanks for the helpful info Quizzical, and thanks for the help guys. Gonna stick to the current overclock then, or maybe lower it in the future. Who knows. :P

  • tixylixtixylix Member UncommonPosts: 1,288

    Originally posted by Quizzical

    The power supply should not be a problem for you at all, unless perhaps you're running a CrossFire or SLI setup and pulling a ton of wattage that way.

    The motherboard is more of a concern.  I count seven power phases.  As far as I can tell, Gigabyte doesn't say, but it's probably a 5+2 arrangement, with five phases for the processor.  That should be enough to get you a respectable overclock, but not necessarily a "let's see if we can fry the processor" overclock that you seem to be going for.  If you were pushing, say, 4.5 GHz at 1.35 V, I wouldn't worry about the motherboard.  But it could be a problem at your current overclock, and I wouldn't recommend pushing it further.

     

    good luck getting 4.5ghrz at 1.35v stable....

  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,061


    Originally posted by zseal
    I tried searching the forums or running a few google searches to find an answer but couldn't find anything. So I figured I'd just ask you guys. 
    I'm running a i7 2600k CPU atm at 4.8 GHz with a Corsair h100 for cooling, and temps are fantastic. While running a WII emulator to play my WII games for a few hours, my temps usually stick around 49-55 on two of the cores, will the other two cores run slightly cooler. When running prime 95 torture test for a while, the max temperature is 73, which I hear is a good number considering you'll probably never hit that temp when doing heavy gaming.
    Though 4.8 GHz is great, I want to push it more, if for just bragging rights. I'm wondering if I were to up the GHz and begin getting temps of up to 80 (with prime95), how long will the CPU last, do you guys think? 
    Also, it might help to mention that I needed to set the voltage to 1.5 to get 4.8 GHz stable, or at least that is my experience with my limited knowlege of overclocking. I'll probably have to up the voltage to achieve higher clock speeds.
     
    I was thinking that if my CPU were to last a year to a year and a half, I'd be happy as I'll probably want to after that amount of time any way. So damage done to the processor isn't such a big deal in that regard, as long as its not damaged before a year is up. Any thoughts?

    The lifespan of a CPU is realistically decades. There are no moving parts, very few capacitors, and it's mostly just silicon. Even run at 94C (1 degree shy of auto-throttledown), it would ~probably~ last for years. I've never seen the CPU fail on it's own. Every CPU failure I've seen has been with a power supply explosion, or with a motherboard that gets hit by lightning, or some such.

    I've seen some CPU's run with basically no cooling inside of industrial cabinets that have fried hard drives, the CPU and motherboard are perfectly OK, and it's probably been running way above specification for years... now these are mostly older CPU technologies, and they are certainly not over clocked.

    The only thing with pushing your system that hard: it's not static. It's not like you can say "Ok, I can hit 5.1G today, and it's totally stable, and it will be that way for years". Your "max" over clock slides as it gets older and the components all get older, and the power supply starts to drift a bit, and the ambient temperature changes, and a million other factors. So your computer is never entirely stable, or at least for long, if you are pushing it as hard as you possibly can.

    Not to mention the extra heat it will put off, which can be noticeable in a small room with insufficient cooling, as well as the extra noise (you have to move that heat, which means more fans running louder). It also means more electricity, which can lead to higher power bills (assuming you don't need a bigger power supply as well).

    Generally, you over clock the snot out of it, see how high you can get it, then throw it back to stock clocks to just do everyday stuff on it. If you need ~turbomode~ for a game you turn it back on - temporarily - ... but I haven't found any game where I really need to crank up my old i7 920 off it's stock 2.66G, let alone a shiny 2600k. But if I need to, I know I can hit 4.2G with it and it will hum at 93C under Prime95 torture test all night long... I just haven't needed to do that for anything (other than to heat my home in the winter).

    Your H100 is probably about as heavy duty as your going to get in terms of cooling off the shelf. To get any better, your going to need to get down and start doing some custom stuff with refrigeration or heat exchangers or the like.

Sign In or Register to comment.