aristede1: "Vdroop is a good thing. The rebound voltages can be excessive."
But do vdroop reduce these voltages? To me, having read THIS
, it seems the spike in voltage when current consumption rapidly either increases or decreases still exists... but rather than being a rapid increase (or decrease) followed by a rapid drop (or riset) to original vcore, the vdroop allows voltage to rise (or drop) rapidly and stay there. To me, there's still a jolt in voltage, the duration of the jolt just happens to be longer... say, for example 7 minutes instead of microseconds.
Intel says it's designed NOT to reduce voltage spikes but to limit the maximum voltage peaks to tolerable level. Why the hell couldn't that be achieved by running a (constant) lower vcore (without vdroop)? It'd save a lot of energy while computer is idling. It sure doesn't help much us overclocking folders but it'd help the rest 99% of overclocking community ... gamers for example. It'd also reduce carbon dioxide emissions if vdroop is eliminated... and vcore reduced by the same amount of course. If vcore is not dropped after vdroop mod, then the horror scenario Intel is talking might be reality, that maximum allowed voltages are exceeded.
I believe droop is implemented to:
- save cost and to
- meet Intel's specs.
You can live without vdroop if you break several Intel's specs. This includes that you not only refuse use of vdroop but also ignore VID and use a lower vcore. Motherboard manufacturers can't go against the specs or they couldn't advertise the board as Intel compatible! The overclocker has to break the specs him-/herself. Breaking vdroop is only one of the many violations... others being ignoring both VID and FID. At least we don't exceed maximum temperatures... in fact OC community, despite the higher than stock frequencies may well be running their CPUs cooler than stock.
aristede1: "Intel versus AMD
14 minutes vs. 19 minutes - Per checkpoint on that the 1760 jobs.
135 watts vs. 150 watts - IE 10% less power for a lot less processing speed."
Shouldn't that be "10% less power for a lot more processing speed" or "10% less power for a lot less processing time"? That is, if in both sentences the Intel value was mentioned before AMD's.