Certain pieces of the core and eDRAM run on the same internal frequency bus so whichever fails first (its the eDRAM) limits the total overclock. That's why the Broadwell E chips can hit 4.4-4.5 and the eDRAM Broadwells cant.
I think we can all agrees ASUS is the culprit here.
As for the comparison, my intuition says eDRAM has little bearing on the ability of the core to overclock. I concede I may very well be wrong, though I think it unlikely that the multiple BW-E CPUs I’ve had hands on have had the exact same results as in the article. The average for stability with Broadwell in general seems to be around 4.2 with anything above being above average.
Going above 4.2 results in huge increases in power consumption and voltage requirements regardless of ASIC quality and stability.
But that really isn’t the point of this topic, so I won’t continue to derail it.
Certain pieces of the core and eDRAM run on the same internal frequency bus so whichever fails first (its the eDRAM) limits the total overclock. That's why the Broadwell E chips can hit 4.4-4.5 and the eDRAM Broadwells cant.
That's kind of when I took it more as a joke than seriously.....He's counting the second one simply because it didn't overclock well...
If your DRAM speed was left as standard and the board was increasing VSA then yes, that's an ASUS problem. On my Asrock X99 I also get high VSA if set on auto but only if DRAM speed is set higher than standard for HSW / BDW but then I have always been wary of auto settings and try to set them manually if able so VSA was a lot lower than Auto's offering. Now the OP seemed to indicate the fault was with core degradation and not IMC so to me that sounds like the core is getting too much current. Over voltage tends to be less subtle, killing a CPU in it's tracks. Not sure what that OC socket is doing but normally there would be some protection with FIVR fault protection enabled.I can't vouch for OP, but in my case it was two separate ASUS boards and two separate CPUs. This was for my first unRAID build so it was not overclocked, everything was set to stock to ensure stability. IIRC the ASUS board was setting my system agent voltage far higher than it should have been, causing degradation and eventual failure to boot reliably; even when set to stock it did this.
I thought the 6850k was 2 bins above the 6800k. For my 6800k the manufacturing turbo settings were 1-2 cores at 3.8GHz and 3 or more cores at 3.5GHz. That would make the 6850k all core 3.7GHz. My 6800k could only manage 4.0GHz stable with a little under 1.3V. More than 1.3V if I wanted to go higher. If I had known at the time I could get my money back from Intel I would have done it in a heart beat.Well stock turbo is 4ghz.
Certain pieces of the core and eDRAM run on the same internal frequency bus so whichever fails first (its the eDRAM) limits the total overclock. That's why the Broadwell E chips can hit 4.4-4.5 and the eDRAM Broadwells cant.
4.0 is the single favored core 3.0 turbo number.Well stock turbo is 4ghz. And it couldn't maintain 4.2ghz regardless of the voltage. It beats the purpose of a K series processor if I can't overclock it since I would keep it stock then. I decided to send it back and that was my decision. You're entitled to your opinion though. It was either that or I sell the processor and to get a different one.
Intel will generally take a chip back once without really pressing you on why you want to exchange it.If your DRAM speed was left as standard and the board was increasing VSA then yes, that's an ASUS problem. On my Asrock X99 I also get high VSA if set on auto but only if DRAM speed is set higher than standard for HSW / BDW but then I have always been wary of auto settings and try to set them manually if able so VSA was a lot lower than Auto's offering. Now the OP seemed to indicate the fault was with core degradation and not IMC so to me that sounds like the core is getting too much current. Over voltage tends to be less subtle, killing a CPU in it's tracks. Not sure what that OC socket is doing but normally there would be some protection with FIVR fault protection enabled.
Back in the P67 days with ASUS they had a BIOS bug that would sometimes set the core offset voltage to somewhere around 0.8V IIRC when changing profiles. There was also a 1.5V max protection setting IIRC so perhaps if that was disabled, a positive offset originally used but a lower value in the profile, profile changed and the 1.5V protection overridden it may have had some consequences. At the time Asus reported they could not reproduced the fault even though one member posted how to make it happen. So one time even manual settings were not a guarantee.
I thought the 6850k was 2 bins above the 6800k. For my 6800k the manufacturing turbo settings were 1-2 cores at 3.8GHz and 3 or more cores at 3.5GHz. That would make the 6850k all core 3.7GHz. My 6800k could only manage 4.0GHz stable with a little under 1.3V. More than 1.3V if I wanted to go higher. If I had known at the time I could get my money back from Intel I would have done it in a heart beat.
I've heard a lot of people claim their Asus X99 boards killed their Broadwell-E chips. Seriously.
Strange. I've had two different Asus X99 boards, and I've never had a issue with degradation. My first board had a 5930K, and that overclocked easily to 4.4ghz on air and was able to maintain that speed as long as I owned it. It also easily handled DDR4 3200 speeds.
Then my current motherboard houses a 6900K, which I have at 4.2ghz with 1.267v, and DDR4 3400. Again, no issues with degradation whatsoever. That said, I know there has been some problems with X99 motherboards in general setting the system agent voltage WAY too high with XMP enabled. If you recall moonbogg, I caught that for you when you first upgraded to your current X99 setup Your system agent voltage was sky high, which definitely would have degraded your CPU if left unchecked.
But that issue obviously wasn't restricted to just Asus boards. A UEFI firmware upgrade fixed the problem. That's why it's so important to check for UEFI upgrades on a regular basis.
Its true, you saved my life. You disarmed a landmine at my feet. This makes us brothers which means I'd do something nice for you, like buy you some special cat food or something. But the OP has another issue I think. According to many forum posts, a rash of people complaining over the course of a couple years have said their Asus boards were jamming a load of voltage in their CPU's and killing them. Clearly its not all Asus boards, and not even a large percentage of Asus boards, but maybe a higher percentage than usual when it comes to defects like this? There's a lot of noise about this online at Overclock.net and other sites.
I thought maybe instead of changing the CPU every 3 weeks the OP might put two and two together and try a different board for crying out loud. If my board fragged 3 CPU's, I'd totally not use that board anymore, regardless of brand anyway.