You are not logged in.
My cpu had been having problems with the imc for awhile now. Pretty sure, I finally killed it.
I just want to double check that bfs doesn't pull more power than a chip usually receives, on haswell-e. I've heard prime95 pulls more voltage than usual because of the instruction sets used. I just want to double check that bfs doesn't cause additional power draw than a chip normally receives, so I don't kill the rma as well.
Chip was going to die anyways, and it had a weak uncore. So, it's not too much of a loss.
Offline
Nothing is safe if you set too high voltage.
I once installed XMP RAM to a stupid MSI motherboard which applied the XMP overvoltage without asking for confirmation or even informing me about that - RAM voltage was simply shown as "auto" and I didn't know what it meant. The IMC crapped out after few months even though it was a cool-running, slow dual-core used only for web browsing.
Offline
Settings of auto are indeed scary. Better to dial them in. Bfs or cfs should be fine for the cpu whether overvolted or not.
Offline
Yeah, it was probably just the cpu giving out. The strain from bfs was probably the last straw. The chip's imc was weak from the beginning. Had to up the cache voltage just to get 4.5 stable, and the cache started degrading significantly after a few months. At least, Intel is sending me a new chip. At 4.6 ghz it's crazy how fast apps open on bfs. Almost so fast that it's startling.
I try to dial in everything manually as well.
Offline
The strain from bfs was probably the last straw.
No strain. Con has repeatedly asserted that the design of BFS makes it exceptional at uncovering underlying kernel bugs.
Offline
???
Neither scheduler nor kernel bugs have anything to do with degeneration of overvolted chips.
Offline