Gigabyte Offset Voltage
Gigabyte Offset Voltage
i don't know how you're managing to read accurately, since none of the graphs look right for me.
the numbers also confused me - i can't understand what they mean, which is why i like to run my own tests.
philipew asks grimsin about the accuracy of readings and the confusion with values, noting personal difficulties interpreting results.
philipew :
Thank you for publishing your results, complete with clear screenshots, etc.
You are right, this looks good, but you are still a little too high at 1.296 V when 12 mV less (1.284 V) is sufficient for you to be stable, as you wrote previously. And since an offset of -10 drops your load VCore from 1.308 V to 1.296 V (-12 mV), I suppose that an offset of
-20
would drop your load VCore from 1.296 V to
1.284 V
(-12 mV) which is your
ideal
operating value, and also get your idle VCore even closer to 0.7 V (from 0.732 V) as a bonus. I recall that you already hinted (in a previous post) at trying this -20 offset.
The VID value and the other influencing parameters are very particular to each setup, even to each particular 6600K CPU unit. So I must really try it on my own rig and make observations as they appear, in sequence (not just when seeing an end-result) before being able to make more sense of how this works. I will probably be able to do it this week-end already, time permitting.
I am going to try a -0.020V offset (DVID) next.
This is actually my son's PC that he and I built together. I try to balance the time between him playing and running stress tests while we overclock.
On my machine, nothing displays correctly—it doesn't recognize the overclocked CPU, and the VCore stays at a steady 0.6V. All the graphs look distorted.
on my computer nothing appears correctly—it doesn't recognize my overclocked CPU, the VCore stays at a steady .6v, and all the graphs look strange. That's unusual. I use CPU-Z, HWMonitor for monitoring, and OCCT for stress testing, but when I run OCCT it generates the expected charts.
Your charts appear acceptable, but mine seem to be different
philipew:
grimsin:
don't worry about reading accurately, none of the charts display correctly for me.
I have to admit, the numbers confused me too—can't interpret the outcomes clearly. That's why I like running my own tests.
grimsin:
Your graphs seem fine, mine look different.
Alright, thanks for clarifying. Considering your note about possible inconsistencies in the charts, everything appeared normal to me.
burnhamjs :
grimsin :
i don't know how you're managing to read accurately, none of the graphs display correctly for me.
i have to admit, the numbers confused me too - i can't interpret the results properly, which is why i like to run my own tests.
what specific values are causing this issue?
mainly vcore issues. what is your vid, the one you're applying the offset to? it should be higher than your vcore in this case.
Mostly VCore. What is your VID, the one you apply your offset to? It should be higher than VCore in your case. In most tests my VID was 1.2V, but it's not as straightforward as just subtracting VID from Vcore. I suggest setting CPU Vcore to NORMAL with a +0.000V Dynamic Voltage (DVID) for an offset to check what CPU-Z reports for Vcore. Then fine-tune the DVID offset from that value. For instance, if you obtain a Vcore of 1.308V with CPU Vcore in NORMAL and a +0.000V DVID, but you require 1.355V, subtract 1.308 from 1.355 to get 0.047. Now adjust the DVID to +0.045 and observe the result.