I was thinking about this today and I am confused as to why people think 1.2v is the true stock voltage for the Lynnfield range when it is actually variable depending on CPU frequency, even at stock speeds.
For example, take the Core i7 860. With all four cores fully active, it runs at 2.93ghz at 1.16v~ under load. Taking into account vdroop, that puts it at 1.2v, the number usually given for 'stock'. However, once the max Turbo speed kicks in, the CPU frequency is 3.46ghz and the vcore voltage is automatically adjusted to 1.3v (or 1.28v after vdroop).
Wouldn't that mean the true stock voltage when considering overclocking above 3.46ghz is 1.3v and anything under that is technically undervolting?
I suppose I could see why people think 1.2v is the 'stock' voltage and that Intel is factory overclocking the processor for it's turbo mode, but can it really be considered overclocking when it's built in to the core design of the processor?
For example, take the Core i7 860. With all four cores fully active, it runs at 2.93ghz at 1.16v~ under load. Taking into account vdroop, that puts it at 1.2v, the number usually given for 'stock'. However, once the max Turbo speed kicks in, the CPU frequency is 3.46ghz and the vcore voltage is automatically adjusted to 1.3v (or 1.28v after vdroop).
Wouldn't that mean the true stock voltage when considering overclocking above 3.46ghz is 1.3v and anything under that is technically undervolting?
I suppose I could see why people think 1.2v is the 'stock' voltage and that Intel is factory overclocking the processor for it's turbo mode, but can it really be considered overclocking when it's built in to the core design of the processor?
Last edited: