Can I pinmod an Intel Core 2 Duo e6400 to reduce the voltage, therefore heat
output, therefore cooling fan speeds? I can only find pinmods for upping the
voltage for overclocking. I have read that they can run as low as 1.1v, but
can't find out how.
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 15:55:02 -0000, "GT"
<ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Can I pinmod an Intel Core 2 Duo e6400 to reduce the voltage, therefore heat
>output, therefore cooling fan speeds? I can only find pinmods for upping the
>voltage for overclocking. I have read that they can run as low as 1.1v, but
>can't find out how.
>
Can you link to one of the more comprehensive mods for
higher voltage?
Generally, a few pins designate steps of voltage increase,
so connecting them increases voltage while insulting the
appropriate pins decreases it. Insulating means coating
with insulating material or pulling out the pin. Another
option would be pulling up the corresponding pin on the VRM
controller which is effectively the same mod done at the
other end where it's detecting the pin was connected. If
the motherboard is worth less than the CPU and you're good
at fine detail soldering work, you might consider modifying
the board before pulling a pin if you would pull rather than
insulate.
You may need to both insulate a pin and connect a different
one to get a target voltage, but I can't give more advice on
this without knowing the pins and voltages you have and
need. Another easier answer is to use a motherboard with
programmable bios voltage reduction options.
GT wrote:
> Can I pinmod an Intel Core 2 Duo e6400 to reduce the voltage, therefore heat
> output, therefore cooling fan speeds? I can only find pinmods for upping the
> voltage for overclocking. I have read that they can run as low as 1.1v, but
> can't find out how.
>
Looking at a processor datasheet, the VID table goes from 0.85V to 1.60V.
The VID code is 6 bits. Traditionally, some companies, like Asus, only
allow a small amount of undervolting, below the nominal for the
processor, which is an impediment to adjustment from the BIOS.
The voltage regulator chip itself, also tends to strictly adhere to the
Intel table. Some motherboards, if they offered, say, 1.65V and 1.70V,
would do that with signals other than VID. Just as some hobbyists fool
around with the feedback pin (droop mods and the like), the motherboard
maker can do the same thing. Sometimes, their efforts are not that
accurate or effective. So when you see voltage options outside the
bounds of the table, they tend to be less accurate than values which
are within the table.
VID6 is the MSB of the VID code. If VID6 = 1, the voltage table spans
0.85 to 1.2125. If VID6 = 0, the voltage table spans 1.2250 to 1.6000.
So fiddling with just one VID signal, can make a gross shift in the table,
if that is what you're after.
Absolute max in the datasheet, states 1.55V . That means the VID table
actually spans outside the valid range, by 0.05V. Just so you know what
Intel feels the limit is for the processor.
The 6 bit VID code is not static, as in previous generations. Intel
EIST feature, allows changing FID/VID as a function of operating system
load. If EIST is enabled, the voltage is changed in 12.5mV steps
(slewed as it were), until the new desired value is reached. (That means
stepping through a range of those 6 bit codes.) This is similar to the
Cool N' Quiet concept, as far as I know. With EIST operating, you might
already receive the benefit of power savings, when the desktop is idling.
In fact, it is even possible, that a program like RMClock, could mod things
without resorting to pinmods. You may find P-state support here, which allows
dropping voltage and frequency, as a function of system load. This program
adds an extra setting to your "Power" control panel, to allow the program
to do its own power management. The downloadable version is fully functional,
and you don't need to buy their commercial version if you don't want to.
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:4gakj3pvd5o5f5jfke0bojadflgcquqssn@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 15:55:02 -0000, "GT"
> <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Can I pinmod an Intel Core 2 Duo e6400 to reduce the voltage, therefore
>>heat
>>output, therefore cooling fan speeds? I can only find pinmods for upping
>>the
>>voltage for overclocking. I have read that they can run as low as 1.1v,
>>but
>>can't find out how.
>>
>
> Can you link to one of the more comprehensive mods for
> higher voltage?
>
> Generally, a few pins designate steps of voltage increase,
> so connecting them increases voltage while insulting the
> appropriate pins decreases it. Insulating means coating
> with insulating material or pulling out the pin. Another
> option would be pulling up the corresponding pin on the VRM
> controller which is effectively the same mod done at the
> other end where it's detecting the pin was connected. If
> the motherboard is worth less than the CPU and you're good
> at fine detail soldering work, you might consider modifying
> the board before pulling a pin if you would pull rather than
> insulate.
>
> You may need to both insulate a pin and connect a different
> one to get a target voltage, but I can't give more advice on
> this without knowing the pins and voltages you have and
> need. Another easier answer is to use a motherboard with
> programmable bios voltage reduction options.
I'm quite happy to use insulating tape to cover any CPU connections/pins. I
have nothing I can use to connect the CPU 'pins' other than a pencil, so if
that won't do the job, then I will drop the whole idea. I don't want to do
anything permanent.
What I would really like to see/find is a Core2Duo version of this, but I
guess I will have to 'dream on' for a while as most motherboards (except my
ASrock allow voltage changes)!: http://www.ocinside.de/go_e.html?/ht...md_pinmod.html
I know I could get a motherboard that allows voltage changes, but as always
I am operating on a zero/minimal budget!
Paul wrote:
> Traditionally, some companies, like Asus, only allow a small amount of
> undervolting, below the nominal for the
> processor, which is an impediment to adjustment from the BIOS.
My Asus allows me to set the vcore in 0.0125V increments from 1.1000V to
1.7000V.
Asus P5K-E.
I think 1.1V is more than "a small amount of undervolting", don't you?
--
TTFN,
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 10:43:46 -0000, "GT"
<ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote:
>There are some successfull over-volts in here:
>http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=498167&page=2
>
>The Core 2 Duo Datasheet. There is a section here on Voltage Identification
>Definition, but I don't know how to relate it to CPU pins.
>ftp://download.intel.com/design/proc...s/31327807.pdf
>
>What I would really like to see/find is a Core2Duo version of this, but I
>guess I will have to 'dream on' for a while as most motherboards (except my
>ASrock allow voltage changes)!:
>http://www.ocinside.de/go_e.html?/ht...md_pinmod.html
>
>I know I could get a motherboard that allows voltage changes, but as always
>I am operating on a zero/minimal budget!
>
Pg. 16 of datasheet reads:
"The processor uses six voltage identification signals,
VID[6:1], to support automatic selection of power supply
voltages. Table 2 specifies the voltage level corresponding
to the state of VID[6:1]. A ‘1’ in this table refers to a
high voltage level and a ‘0’ refers to a low voltage level."
That Table 2 is on the next page (17). Compare the voltage
of your CPU to the target voltage in the table so you can
see which VID pads or pins on yours are floating at a high
(1) voltage or pulled down to a low (0) voltage.
For every column in the table the corresponding pin on your
CPU is either:
1) ok as-is
2) needs pulled low from a high state (is currently a 1 and
needs to be a 0) by wiring that pin position to a VSS pin
(Gnd) or instead wired to another pin that is already pulled
down to 0.
3) Needs to be left floating high but is already pulled low.
The pad or pin needs insulated at that position in the
socket, or if you were dead-sure you wanted it permanent and
it would work, you could cut the trace to that socket pin
wherever it is exposed, which might be easier at the VRM
controller chip. Insulating used to be easier when pins
were larger and further apart on the processor and the
contacts were side-wipers. Now insulation might mean using
nail-polish painted on through a mask (like a piece of tape
with a pinhole in it).
I don't know what the default voltage for your CPU is, but
you might pick the target voltage that requires the least
modifications, just getting nearer to that.
As for where these pins are, see datasheet pg. 48 and
thereafter, and remember if looking at the socket itself you
have to visualize it as a mirror image of the processor
pinout.
~misfit~ wrote:
> Paul wrote:
>> Traditionally, some companies, like Asus, only allow a small amount of
>> undervolting, below the nominal for the
>> processor, which is an impediment to adjustment from the BIOS.
>
> My Asus allows me to set the vcore in 0.0125V increments from 1.1000V to
> 1.7000V.
>
> Asus P5K-E.
>
> I think 1.1V is more than "a small amount of undervolting", don't you?
Actually, no.
Why can't we adjust all the way down to 0.85V if we want ?
There is nothing in the datasheet that prevents it.
What I'm saying, is I've noticed two things:
1) Asus prevents complete undervolting. In the case of AthlonXP,
they used a strict interpretation of the specs in the processor
datasheet. If the processor spec was 1.50V +/- 0.05V for Vcore,
the BIOS would only allow you to set it to 1.45V.
2) Other brands of boards allow lower undervolting. Which means
these motherboard companies, don't design things exactly the
same way. I like to be able to trace the behaviors to specs,
but I'm not always successful at it.
If you want to see the significance of 1.1V, have a look at
Figure 18 on page 27. This is a datasheet for a Vcore regulator,
and Figure 18 defines the behavior for VRD11.
As far as I know, VRD11 is the spec for voltage regulator on
Core2. And "Default VCC Voltage for initial powerup" is specified
as 1.1V, in the Core2 datasheet. It is the only instance of 1.1V
I can find. And to verify this hypothesis, that 1.1V is the limit,
because it is the default startup voltage, I'd have to find out what
other Asus Core2 motherboard models are capable of, in terms of
undervolting.
I' be much happier, if I could find a line in the Intel datasheet
that says "you're not allowed to run our processors below 1.1V",
because then the Asus programmed limit would make sense. A limit like
that, shouldn't be an arbitrary one.
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 03:01:22 -0500, Paul <nospam@needed.com>
wrote:
>~misfit~ wrote:
>> Paul wrote:
>>> Traditionally, some companies, like Asus, only allow a small amount of
>>> undervolting, below the nominal for the
>>> processor, which is an impediment to adjustment from the BIOS.
>>
>> My Asus allows me to set the vcore in 0.0125V increments from 1.1000V to
>> 1.7000V.
>>
>> Asus P5K-E.
>>
>> I think 1.1V is more than "a small amount of undervolting", don't you?
>
>Actually, no.
>
>Why can't we adjust all the way down to 0.85V if we want ?
>There is nothing in the datasheet that prevents it.
>
>What I'm saying, is I've noticed two things:
>
>1) Asus prevents complete undervolting. In the case of AthlonXP,
> they used a strict interpretation of the specs in the processor
> datasheet. If the processor spec was 1.50V +/- 0.05V for Vcore,
> the BIOS would only allow you to set it to 1.45V.
That might be true, and yet on boards like A7V333, they
provided jumpers to reduce vcore to 1.1V, which is probably
lower than most reasonable underclocking would go, else why
have a modern (at the time) board and CPU if only to reduce
performance to that level? Granted, today it seems much
more reasonable, in that with old hardware we arent' looking
to use as a primary performance system but rather re-use for
low power and heat aux. role. While I liked Athlon XP well
enough at the time, the lack of universal ACPI support, HALT
idling across all boards like it had been with preceeding P3
boards, makes power savings or heat a bad target.
IMO, a better target for such a system is to just run it as
fast as reasonable before incurring excessive heatsink fan
noise.
>2) Other brands of boards allow lower undervolting. Which means
> these motherboard companies, don't design things exactly the
> same way. I like to be able to trace the behaviors to specs,
> but I'm not always successful at it.
>
>If you want to see the significance of 1.1V, have a look at
>Figure 18 on page 27. This is a datasheet for a Vcore regulator,
>and Figure 18 defines the behavior for VRD11.
>
>http://www.onsemi.com/pub/Collateral/NCP5381-D.PDF
>
>As far as I know, VRD11 is the spec for voltage regulator on
>Core2. And "Default VCC Voltage for initial powerup" is specified
>as 1.1V, in the Core2 datasheet. It is the only instance of 1.1V
>I can find. And to verify this hypothesis, that 1.1V is the limit,
>because it is the default startup voltage, I'd have to find out what
>other Asus Core2 motherboard models are capable of, in terms of
>undervolting.
>
>I' be much happier, if I could find a line in the Intel datasheet
>that says "you're not allowed to run our processors below 1.1V",
>because then the Asus programmed limit would make sense. A limit like
>that, shouldn't be an arbitrary one.
IMO, let the bios support all settings the individual chips
can support, that it's better to give users a low voltage
too low, and a high voltage too high, than to cause problems
for those who have some idea of what they're dealing with.
Unfortunately, it has become too common for the average Joe
to get into the bios settings and as such I understand Asus
et al. limiting the damage/RMAs that could result from that.
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:ltpnj395d9qa8a4e459os7n3rik9384ffv@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 10:43:46 -0000, "GT"
> <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>There are some successfull over-volts in here:
>>http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=498167&page=2
>>
>>The Core 2 Duo Datasheet. There is a section here on Voltage
>>Identification
>>Definition, but I don't know how to relate it to CPU pins.
>>ftp://download.intel.com/design/proc...s/31327807.pdf
>>
>>What I would really like to see/find is a Core2Duo version of this, but I
>>guess I will have to 'dream on' for a while as most motherboards (except
>>my
>>ASrock allow voltage changes)!:
>>http://www.ocinside.de/go_e.html?/ht...md_pinmod.html
>>
>>I know I could get a motherboard that allows voltage changes, but as
>>always
>>I am operating on a zero/minimal budget!
>>
>
>
> Pg. 16 of datasheet reads:
>
> "The processor uses six voltage identification signals,
> VID[6:1], to support automatic selection of power supply
> voltages. Table 2 specifies the voltage level corresponding
> to the state of VID[6:1]. A '1' in this table refers to a
> high voltage level and a '0' refers to a low voltage level."
>
> That Table 2 is on the next page (17). Compare the voltage
> of your CPU to the target voltage in the table so you can
> see which VID pads or pins on yours are floating at a high
> (1) voltage or pulled down to a low (0) voltage.
>
> For every column in the table the corresponding pin on your
> CPU is either:
>
> 1) ok as-is
>
> 2) needs pulled low from a high state (is currently a 1 and
> needs to be a 0) by wiring that pin position to a VSS pin
> (Gnd) or instead wired to another pin that is already pulled
> down to 0.
>
> 3) Needs to be left floating high but is already pulled low.
> The pad or pin needs insulated at that position in the
> socket, or if you were dead-sure you wanted it permanent and
> it would work, you could cut the trace to that socket pin
> wherever it is exposed, which might be easier at the VRM
> controller chip. Insulating used to be easier when pins
> were larger and further apart on the processor and the
> contacts were side-wipers. Now insulation might mean using
> nail-polish painted on through a mask (like a piece of tape
> with a pinhole in it).
>
> I don't know what the default voltage for your CPU is, but
> you might pick the target voltage that requires the least
> modifications, just getting nearer to that.
>
> As for where these pins are, see datasheet pg. 48 and
> thereafter, and remember if looking at the socket itself you
> have to visualize it as a mirror image of the processor
> pinout.
A sanity check please:
Can you confirm that the following appears to be correct. My CPU (e6400)
currently has variable voltages courtesy of RightMark, but the default
/normal voltage is 1.325v. According to the table, this equates to:
VID6 = 0, VID5 = 1, VID4 = 0, VID3 = 1, VID2 = 1, VID1 = 1
There is a voltage setting for 1.225v which looks like this:
VID6 = 0, VID5 = 1, VID4 = 1, VID3 = 1, VID2 = 1, VID1 = 1
This change would require me to turn VID4 from a 0 (low) setting to a 1
(high) setting. Which if I understand correctly, means insulating pin VID4.
I intend to try a tiny piece of electricians tape stuck to the CPU
underside, which I can then clean off later if necessary.
If I require a lower voltage, then VID6 will need to change from a high to
low, which means connecting it to another pin that is grounded
VID4 maps to pin AK-4. Working from the top view pinnout on page 45, pin
AK-4 is 4 pads in from the top and 4 pads in from the right. So when I'm
looking at the bottom of the processor, with the cut-off corner in the
bottom left, this would mean covering the CPU pad located 4 pads in from the
top and 4 pads in from the left?
This reduction in voltage should reduce the original 65w power (and heat
output) by (1.225/1.325)squared - about 85% - to 55.5w.
>> Pg. 16 of datasheet reads:
>>
>> "The processor uses six voltage identification signals,
>> VID[6:1], to support automatic selection of power supply
>> voltages. Table 2 specifies the voltage level corresponding
>> to the state of VID[6:1]. A '1' in this table refers to a
>> high voltage level and a '0' refers to a low voltage level."
>>
>> That Table 2 is on the next page (17). Compare the voltage
>> of your CPU to the target voltage in the table so you can
>> see which VID pads or pins on yours are floating at a high
>> (1) voltage or pulled down to a low (0) voltage.
>>
>> For every column in the table the corresponding pin on your
>> CPU is either:
>>
>> 1) ok as-is
>>
>> 2) needs pulled low from a high state (is currently a 1 and
>> needs to be a 0) by wiring that pin position to a VSS pin
>> (Gnd) or instead wired to another pin that is already pulled
>> down to 0.
>>
>> 3) Needs to be left floating high but is already pulled low.
>> The pad or pin needs insulated at that position in the
>> socket, or if you were dead-sure you wanted it permanent and
>> it would work, you could cut the trace to that socket pin
>> wherever it is exposed, which might be easier at the VRM
>> controller chip. Insulating used to be easier when pins
>> were larger and further apart on the processor and the
>> contacts were side-wipers. Now insulation might mean using
>> nail-polish painted on through a mask (like a piece of tape
>> with a pinhole in it).
>>
>> I don't know what the default voltage for your CPU is, but
>> you might pick the target voltage that requires the least
>> modifications, just getting nearer to that.
>>
>> As for where these pins are, see datasheet pg. 48 and
>> thereafter, and remember if looking at the socket itself you
>> have to visualize it as a mirror image of the processor
>> pinout.
>
>A sanity check please:
>
>Can you confirm that the following appears to be correct. My CPU (e6400)
>currently has variable voltages courtesy of RightMark, but the default
>/normal voltage is 1.325v. According to the table, this equates to:
>VID6 = 0, VID5 = 1, VID4 = 0, VID3 = 1, VID2 = 1, VID1 = 1
>
>There is a voltage setting for 1.225v which looks like this:
>VID6 = 0, VID5 = 1, VID4 = 1, VID3 = 1, VID2 = 1, VID1 = 1
>
>This change would require me to turn VID4 from a 0 (low) setting to a 1
>(high) setting. Which if I understand correctly, means insulating pin VID4.
>I intend to try a tiny piece of electricians tape stuck to the CPU
>underside, which I can then clean off later if necessary.
This does seem correct. When I used to do pin-voltmods I
would always put a multimeter probe on the VRM output and
other lead clipped to ground, just in case I made a mistake
so I could shut off the power within a couple seconds
instead of having to wait to wade through a bios menu for
that reading (or sometimes bios didn't even have CPU voltage
report).
>
>If I require a lower voltage, then VID6 will need to change from a high to
>low, which means connecting it to another pin that is grounded
For even lower then VID6 will need changed from low 0 to
high 1, will also need insulated.
>
>
>VID4 maps to pin AK-4. Working from the top view pinnout on page 45, pin
>AK-4 is 4 pads in from the top and 4 pads in from the right. So when I'm
>looking at the bottom of the processor, with the cut-off corner in the
>bottom left, this would mean covering the CPU pad located 4 pads in from the
>top and 4 pads in from the left?
This does seem correct.
>
>This reduction in voltage should reduce the original 65w power (and heat
>output) by (1.225/1.325)squared - about 85% - to 55.5w.
>
Yes, resultant full load power should be about 55W or 85% of
the former level. Not really enough to get excited about
though if you also underclock (if/when needed) then you can
lower voltage even more.
Paul wrote:
> ~misfit~ wrote:
>> Paul wrote:
>>> Traditionally, some companies, like Asus, only allow a small amount
>>> of undervolting, below the nominal for the
>>> processor, which is an impediment to adjustment from the BIOS.
>>
>> My Asus allows me to set the vcore in 0.0125V increments from
>> 1.1000V to 1.7000V.
>>
>> Asus P5K-E.
>>
>> I think 1.1V is more than "a small amount of undervolting", don't
>> you?
>
> Actually, no.
Ok, whatever, it's the voltage the OP specified as what he'd like, it's low
for a Core 2 Duo and you claimed that Asus didn't allow anyhting other than
a small amount of undervolting. I would consider -5% a small amount,
obviously you think that nearly 20% undervolting is a small amount.
"~misfit~" <misfitnz@yahoot.com.au> wrote in message
news:473d8229$1@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
> Paul wrote:
>> ~misfit~ wrote:
>>> Paul wrote:
>>>> Traditionally, some companies, like Asus, only allow a small amount
>>>> of undervolting, below the nominal for the
>>>> processor, which is an impediment to adjustment from the BIOS.
>>>
>>> My Asus allows me to set the vcore in 0.0125V increments from
>>> 1.1000V to 1.7000V.
>>>
>>> Asus P5K-E.
>>>
>>> I think 1.1V is more than "a small amount of undervolting", don't
>>> you?
>>
>> Actually, no.
>
> Ok, whatever, it's the voltage the OP specified as what he'd like, it's
> low for a Core 2 Duo and you claimed that Asus didn't allow anyhting other
> than a small amount of undervolting. I would consider -5% a small amount,
> obviously you think that nearly 20% undervolting is a small amount.
Actually I (OP) said "I have heard they *can* run as low as 1.1v" (Although
I didn't use stars in my original post). I don't necessarily expect to get
it that low, but any reduction in voltage will reduce heat, therefore noise.
The point of my post was for help with undervolting via a pinmod as my
motherboard has no voltage controls, not discussions on what voltages are
reasonable/low etc. However, these tangents usually appear in this kind of
post, so I'm not really that bothered - just thought I would butt in!
GT wrote:
> "~misfit~" <misfitnz@yahoot.com.au> wrote in message
> news:473d8229$1@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
>> Paul wrote:
>>> ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>> Paul wrote:
>>>>> Traditionally, some companies, like Asus, only allow a small amount
>>>>> of undervolting, below the nominal for the
>>>>> processor, which is an impediment to adjustment from the BIOS.
>>>> My Asus allows me to set the vcore in 0.0125V increments from
>>>> 1.1000V to 1.7000V.
>>>>
>>>> Asus P5K-E.
>>>>
>>>> I think 1.1V is more than "a small amount of undervolting", don't
>>>> you?
>>> Actually, no.
>> Ok, whatever, it's the voltage the OP specified as what he'd like, it's
>> low for a Core 2 Duo and you claimed that Asus didn't allow anyhting other
>> than a small amount of undervolting. I would consider -5% a small amount,
>> obviously you think that nearly 20% undervolting is a small amount.
>
> Actually I (OP) said "I have heard they *can* run as low as 1.1v" (Although
> I didn't use stars in my original post). I don't necessarily expect to get
> it that low, but any reduction in voltage will reduce heat, therefore noise.
> The point of my post was for help with undervolting via a pinmod as my
> motherboard has no voltage controls, not discussions on what voltages are
> reasonable/low etc. However, these tangents usually appear in this kind of
> post, so I'm not really that bothered - just thought I would butt in!
>
>
There is always RMClock - if the board supports EIST and ACPI,
then you may be able to adjust VID while in Windows. I don't know
if there is a Linux equivalent to this as well or not. There is
also that CrystalCPUID? program, not sure of the name, that does
something similar. That way, you could see whether the full
adjustment range is made available or not, and leave something like
Prime95 or Orthos running as a test, while you crank it down in software.
The voltage adjustment thing isn't supported on my board (too old),
but a lot of the newer stuff can use this (Athlon64 has Cool N' Quiet
and the latest Intel stuff has working EIST).
"Paul" <nospam@needed.com> wrote in message news:fhk3sc$579$1@aioe.org...
> GT wrote:
>> "~misfit~" <misfitnz@yahoot.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:473d8229$1@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
>>> Paul wrote:
>>>> ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>>> Paul wrote:
>>>>>> Traditionally, some companies, like Asus, only allow a small amount
>>>>>> of undervolting, below the nominal for the
>>>>>> processor, which is an impediment to adjustment from the BIOS.
>>>>> My Asus allows me to set the vcore in 0.0125V increments from
>>>>> 1.1000V to 1.7000V.
>>>>>
>>>>> Asus P5K-E.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think 1.1V is more than "a small amount of undervolting", don't
>>>>> you?
>>>> Actually, no.
>>> Ok, whatever, it's the voltage the OP specified as what he'd like, it's
>>> low for a Core 2 Duo and you claimed that Asus didn't allow anyhting
>>> other than a small amount of undervolting. I would consider -5% a small
>>> amount, obviously you think that nearly 20% undervolting is a small
>>> amount.
>>
>> Actually I (OP) said "I have heard they *can* run as low as 1.1v"
>> (Although I didn't use stars in my original post). I don't necessarily
>> expect to get it that low, but any reduction in voltage will reduce heat,
>> therefore noise. The point of my post was for help with undervolting via
>> a pinmod as my motherboard has no voltage controls, not discussions on
>> what voltages are reasonable/low etc. However, these tangents usually
>> appear in this kind of post, so I'm not really that bothered - just
>> thought I would butt in!
>
> There is always RMClock - if the board supports EIST and ACPI,
> then you may be able to adjust VID while in Windows. I don't know
> if there is a Linux equivalent to this as well or not. There is
> also that CrystalCPUID? program, not sure of the name, that does
> something similar. That way, you could see whether the full
> adjustment range is made available or not, and leave something like
> Prime95 or Orthos running as a test, while you crank it down in software.
> The voltage adjustment thing isn't supported on my board (too old),
> but a lot of the newer stuff can use this (Athlon64 has Cool N' Quiet
> and the latest Intel stuff has working EIST).
Thanks Paul. I installed RMClock after you mentioned it before. I am now
using the enhanced halt state command (as I used to with my Athlon). My
board doesn't support EIST, so I can't change the voltage in the BIOS or on
the fly in Windows. I'm going to try a pinmod (or padmod!). CPU normally
runs at 1.325v, and 1.225v is an easy pinmod, so I'll give it a go and see
what I can break!!
"GT" <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:473d89bc$0$10743$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> "~misfit~" <misfitnz@yahoot.com.au> wrote in message
> news:473d8229$1@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
>> Paul wrote:
>>> ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>> Paul wrote:
>>>>> Traditionally, some companies, like Asus, only allow a small amount
>>>>> of undervolting, below the nominal for the
>>>>> processor, which is an impediment to adjustment from the BIOS.
>>>>
>>>> My Asus allows me to set the vcore in 0.0125V increments from
>>>> 1.1000V to 1.7000V.
>>>>
>>>> Asus P5K-E.
>>>>
>>>> I think 1.1V is more than "a small amount of undervolting", don't
>>>> you?
>>>
>>> Actually, no.
>>
>> Ok, whatever, it's the voltage the OP specified as what he'd like, it's
>> low for a Core 2 Duo and you claimed that Asus didn't allow anyhting
>> other than a small amount of undervolting. I would consider -5% a small
>> amount, obviously you think that nearly 20% undervolting is a small
>> amount.
>
> Actually I (OP) said "I have heard they *can* run as low as 1.1v"
> (Although I didn't use stars in my original post). I don't necessarily
> expect to get it that low, but any reduction in voltage will reduce heat,
> therefore noise. The point of my post was for help with undervolting via a
> pinmod as my motherboard has no voltage controls, not discussions on what
> voltages are reasonable/low etc. However, these tangents usually appear in
> this kind of post, so I'm not really that bothered - just thought I would
> butt in!
Incidentally the default Vcc voltage for initial powerup on these processors
is 1.1v !
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:em8pj3pf032susk096ffp82roqogqm13sj@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:51:58 -0000, "GT"
> <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>The Core 2 Duo Datasheet. There is a section here on Voltage
>>>>Identification
>>>>Definition, but I don't know how to relate it to CPU pins.
>>>>ftp://download.intel.com/design/proc...s/31327807.pdf
>
>>> Pg. 16 of datasheet reads:
>>>
[snip]
>>A sanity check please:
>>
>>Can you confirm that the following appears to be correct. My CPU (e6400)
>>currently has variable voltages courtesy of RightMark, but the default
>>/normal voltage is 1.325v...
I haven't done anything yet, but I had made a mistake there. I don't think
my stock voltage is 1.325v, I think it is lower. The reason I was confused
before is because the RMClock utility enabled a variable voltage facility on
the CPU (like speedstep I guess). The highest voltage I saw on that was
1.325, so assumed this was the stock/full voltage. I disabled all this
software and rebooted and CPUz now shows 1.264v and speedfan shows 1.26v. I
guess this is a either a very badly regulated 1.25v, or more likely a
1.2625v.
There are 2 voltages close to these, which would both require only a VID2
change from 0 to 1 which is a simple insulation job. The change is not
enough to really see any temperature changes, but it will confirm that I
have the correct pins and voltages!
If this works, then I think i will attempt to drop it further, but I need
more advice:
Any lower voltage will require VID6 needs to move from 0 to 1 - an
insulation change = no problem, but I will also have to change VID4 and VID5
from 1 to 0, which is a wiring change (connect to another 0 somewhere). You
said I need to wire them to something that is already a 0. These 2 pins are
next to each other and therefore have 6 neighbouring pins - VID1 on one side
(if it is a 0, then it can't be used), and the other surrounding pins are
VRDSEL, ITP_CLK0, and 3 VSS pins. How can I find out if these other 5 pins
are low, high or could they even be variable?
GT wrote:
> "~misfit~" <misfitnz@yahoot.com.au> wrote in message
> news:473d8229$1@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
>> Paul wrote:
>>> ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>> Paul wrote:
>>>>> Traditionally, some companies, like Asus, only allow a small
>>>>> amount of undervolting, below the nominal for the
>>>>> processor, which is an impediment to adjustment from the BIOS.
>>>>
>>>> My Asus allows me to set the vcore in 0.0125V increments from
>>>> 1.1000V to 1.7000V.
>>>>
>>>> Asus P5K-E.
>>>>
>>>> I think 1.1V is more than "a small amount of undervolting", don't
>>>> you?
>>>
>>> Actually, no.
>>
>> Ok, whatever, it's the voltage the OP specified as what he'd like,
>> it's low for a Core 2 Duo and you claimed that Asus didn't allow
>> anyhting other than a small amount of undervolting. I would consider
>> -5% a small amount, obviously you think that nearly 20% undervolting
>> is a small amount.
>
> Actually I (OP) said "I have heard they *can* run as low as 1.1v"
> (Although I didn't use stars in my original post). I don't
> necessarily expect to get it that low, but any reduction in voltage
> will reduce heat, therefore noise. The point of my post was for help
> with undervolting via a pinmod as my motherboard has no voltage
> controls, not discussions on what voltages are reasonable/low etc.
> However, these tangents usually appear in this kind of post, so I'm
> not really that bothered - just thought I would butt in!
Hehee! Sure.
Yeah, these things happen. That was my whole point, 1.1v would be plenty of
adjustment and what I'd consider more than a small amount of undervolting
under normal circumastances.
GT wrote:
> "GT" <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:473d89bc$0$10743$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>> "~misfit~" <misfitnz@yahoot.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:473d8229$1@news2.actrix.gen.nz...
>>> Paul wrote:
>>>> ~misfit~ wrote:
>>>>> Paul wrote:
>>>>>> Traditionally, some companies, like Asus, only allow a small
>>>>>> amount of undervolting, below the nominal for the
>>>>>> processor, which is an impediment to adjustment from the BIOS.
>>>>>
>>>>> My Asus allows me to set the vcore in 0.0125V increments from
>>>>> 1.1000V to 1.7000V.
>>>>>
>>>>> Asus P5K-E.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think 1.1V is more than "a small amount of undervolting", don't
>>>>> you?
>>>>
>>>> Actually, no.
>>>
>>> Ok, whatever, it's the voltage the OP specified as what he'd like,
>>> it's low for a Core 2 Duo and you claimed that Asus didn't allow
>>> anyhting other than a small amount of undervolting. I would
>>> consider -5% a small amount, obviously you think that nearly 20%
>>> undervolting is a small amount.
>>
>> Actually I (OP) said "I have heard they *can* run as low as 1.1v"
>> (Although I didn't use stars in my original post). I don't
>> necessarily expect to get it that low, but any reduction in voltage
>> will reduce heat, therefore noise. The point of my post was for help
>> with undervolting via a pinmod as my motherboard has no voltage
>> controls, not discussions on what voltages are reasonable/low etc.
>> However, these tangents usually appear in this kind of post, so I'm
>> not really that bothered - just thought I would butt in!
>
> Incidentally the default Vcc voltage for initial powerup on these
> processors is 1.1v !
Yeah, I know. It's internally controlled and, AFAIK, only stays that low
momentarilly. Almost a check to see things are good (heatsink etc) before
applying full voltage.
--
TTFN,
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:44:01 -0000, "GT"
<ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I haven't done anything yet, but I had made a mistake there. I don't think
>my stock voltage is 1.325v, I think it is lower. The reason I was confused
>before is because the RMClock utility enabled a variable voltage facility on
>the CPU (like speedstep I guess). The highest voltage I saw on that was
>1.325, so assumed this was the stock/full voltage. I disabled all this
>software and rebooted and CPUz now shows 1.264v and speedfan shows 1.26v. I
>guess this is a either a very badly regulated 1.25v, or more likely a
>1.2625v.
>
>1.25v equates to:
>VID6 = 0, VID5 = 1, VID4 = 1, VID3 = 1, VID2 = 0, VID1 = 1
>1.2625v equates to:
>VID6 = 0, VID5 = 1, VID4 = 1, VID3 = 1, VID2 = 0, VID1 = 0
In either case, VID6 is 0, pulled down to VSS/GND. What if
you use a multimeter between VID6 and each other VID pin in
turn to compare the resistance then fill in values for the
remaining whether they be 0 or 1?
>
>
>There are 2 voltages close to these, which would both require only a VID2
>change from 0 to 1 which is a simple insulation job. The change is not
>enough to really see any temperature changes, but it will confirm that I
>have the correct pins and voltages!
>
>1.225v equates to:
>VID6 = 0, VID5 = 1, VID4 = 1, VID3 = 1, VID2 = 1, VID1 = 1
>1.2375v equates to:
>VID6 = 0, VID5 = 1, VID4 = 1, VID3 = 1, VID2 = 1, VID1 = 0
If you were only going for 65W to 55W or so as previously, I
wouldn't even bother with doing this mod as you might be as
well off just getting a different heatsink. 65W is not very
high thermal load though, I have to wonder what the target
application is if 65W is too much. Generally I only
undervolted to arrive at some very low heat level for
passive cooling or for reusing some old processor in a role
where performance didn't matter, so the vcore reduction went
along with a frequency reduction.
>If this works, then I think i will attempt to drop it further, but I need
>more advice:
>
>Any lower voltage will require VID6 needs to move from 0 to 1 - an
>insulation change = no problem, but I will also have to change VID4 and VID5
>from 1 to 0, which is a wiring change (connect to another 0 somewhere). You
>said I need to wire them to something that is already a 0. These 2 pins are
>next to each other and therefore have 6 neighbouring pins - VID1 on one side
>(if it is a 0, then it can't be used), and the other surrounding pins are
>VRDSEL, ITP_CLK0, and 3 VSS pins. How can I find out if these other 5 pins
>are low, high or could they even be variable?
>
I don't know if they are variable, you now have as much info
as I do.
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:2ggsj3t3fo0iif66gg92kel9overhsr19n@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:44:01 -0000, "GT"
> <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> If you were only going for 65W to 55W or so as previously, I
> wouldn't even bother with doing this mod as you might be as
> well off just getting a different heatsink. 65W is not very
> high thermal load though, I have to wonder what the target
> application is if 65W is too much. Generally I only
> undervolted to arrive at some very low heat level for
> passive cooling or for reusing some old processor in a role
> where performance didn't matter, so the vcore reduction went
> along with a frequency reduction.
I agree - an 85% drop will only gain me a few degrees of temperature, so the
noise output isn't going to change drastically. I have a new heatsink and I
was just investigating the possibility of running it entirely passively, or
with just a few undervolted fans to give carefully designed airflow. I have
abandonned the idea of undervolting the CPU. Insulating pin 2 made no
difference to the voltage on the CPU, so I have given up on the whole idea.
One day, I'll get a new motherboard that can do all this in BIOS (or even
windows). The reason I though this would be a good idea was due to the
undervolt and resulting silence I had achieved with my last Athlon 2400+.
Ran it passively with a zalman heatsink and good, directed case airflow. I
think I can achieve the same with this processor without dropping the
voltage - it would have just made things a little easier. With the side off
my case and near silence from the 2 120mm fans positioned over the CPU
heatsink, I can maintain 51-52 degrees C under full CPU load and low 40s
idle. So with good case flow, I recon I can stick near that figure and all
will be fine. I don't think I want the CPU much hotter than that though.
"GT" <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0093aee1$0$32393$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> "kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:2ggsj3t3fo0iif66gg92kel9overhsr19n@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:44:01 -0000, "GT"
>> <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> If you were only going for 65W to 55W or so as previously, I
>> wouldn't even bother with doing this mod as you might be as
>> well off just getting a different heatsink. 65W is not very
>> high thermal load though, I have to wonder what the target
>> application is if 65W is too much. Generally I only
>> undervolted to arrive at some very low heat level for
>> passive cooling or for reusing some old processor in a role
>> where performance didn't matter, so the vcore reduction went
>> along with a frequency reduction.
>
> I agree - an 85% drop
*15%* drop to 85% of the former level (before someone spots that!).
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 10:17:51 -0000, "GT"
<ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:2ggsj3t3fo0iif66gg92kel9overhsr19n@4ax.com.. .
>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:44:01 -0000, "GT"
>> <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> If you were only going for 65W to 55W or so as previously, I
>> wouldn't even bother with doing this mod as you might be as
>> well off just getting a different heatsink. 65W is not very
>> high thermal load though, I have to wonder what the target
>> application is if 65W is too much. Generally I only
>> undervolted to arrive at some very low heat level for
>> passive cooling or for reusing some old processor in a role
>> where performance didn't matter, so the vcore reduction went
>> along with a frequency reduction.
>
>I agree - an 85% drop will only gain me a few degrees of temperature, so the
>noise output isn't going to change drastically. I have a new heatsink and I
>was just investigating the possibility of running it entirely passively, or
>with just a few undervolted fans to give carefully designed airflow. I have
>abandonned the idea of undervolting the CPU.
Ironically I've just come across a scenario where I'll end
up doing something similar (in power reduction, not a
pinmod) to decrease CPU heat production.
I had a spare A64 I knew could o'c to 3Ghz easily (at stock
voltage) but the system it was in had since been upgraded to
a X2 processor. Having the spare processor and leftover DDR
memory (was a skt 939 chip) I got an Asus A8N5X board to run
these leftover parts.
Oddly, the A8N5X board seems to do a terrible job. Perhaps
it's just a poor VRM design but it can't run the same CPU
with same heatsink it previously used ('sink pulled and
reinstalled as well, is definitely making good contact), and
same vCore, without overheating even at lower than stock
voltage and a 200MHz lower speed. At first I just thought
it was an inaccurate temp reading as some Asus boards do
seem to report higher CPU temp than other brands, but sure
enough runnning a Prime95 torture test it crashes when the
temp reported rises above about 62C.
Granted it could probably run w/o overheating if I put a
different fan on the 'sink but the whole point was to
duplicate the result seen on the other board with it running
inaudible.
Since it just wouldn't run cool enough I ended up reducing
vcore from 1.35V default to 1.2V and speed from 3GHz to
2.7Ghz to keep it stable @ 1.2V. Not entirely satisfied
with this I would've normally investigated why and perhaps
upgraded the capacitors in the VRM subsection on the board
but unfortunately Asus chose to use 8mm dia. caps so that's
a real limitation. They're Panasonic FJ caps so not
entirely junk quality but it does seem as though the board
wasn't engineered to provide enough clean power for an A64 @
1.35V/3GHz, their higher tiered boards using very similar
design have more (I think it was) UCC caps of higher
capacitance.
I'd wondered if it was a memory, bus speed, etc issue but
changing all these paramaters made no difference, it just
won't run the processor as cool at full load as the prior
(Biostar TForce4 U) board did. So much for Asus' lower-end
boards. If it were all new parts I'd just send the board
back but for it's purpose, price, and the time to redo it
all, this will have to do.
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 05:19:51 -0500, kony <spam@spam.com>
wrote:
>
>Oddly, the A8N5X board seems to do a terrible job. Perhaps
>it's just a poor VRM design but it can't run the same CPU
>with same heatsink it previously used ('sink pulled and
>reinstalled as well, is definitely making good contact), and
>same vCore, without overheating even at lower than stock
>voltage and a 200MHz lower speed. At first I just thought
>it was an inaccurate temp reading as some Asus boards do
>seem to report higher CPU temp than other brands, but sure
>enough runnning a Prime95 torture test it crashes when the
>temp reported rises above about 62C.
>
After writing this I decided to get to the bottom of the
problem...
The biostar board which had better results uses a different
brand of socket, 'sink mounting frame which seems to put
more pressure on the heatsink-CPU interface. While the same
heatsink had a poor result on the Asus board, substituting
another 'sink which has roughly equivalent performance
(otherwise) resulting in the temp dropping down to an
expected range. This is after I'd already remounted the
original 'sink 3 times, the same as I always did and had
good results with on the other board.
Further examination also showed that when the AN85X was set
to 1.35V vcore, the processor was actually getting about
1.4V idle and 1.42V under full load. Unfortunately when
the bios vcore setting was reduced until actual voltage
remained at the target 1.35V, the processor was no longer
stable at as high a(n overclocked) speed. These two factors
seem to account for the differences in heat but now I wonder
if Asus' design to overvolt the processor slightly was just
bad design or if they'd intentionally done so to save a buck
on their VRM circuit - at the users' expense of heat and
power.
Regardless the processor was stable at stock voltage when it
actually received the stock spec'd 1.35V so ultimately it is
just noteworthy as a board that has atypically worse
overclocking performance than most of Asus' offerings. It
reminds me of another Asus board I had in past years which
was also built to a price-point (A7V600) but had overclocked
more in line with their upper-end models. Ultimately I
think they should have sold this one as an Asrock instead of
Asus brand.
pinmods 
Linear Mode
