• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

I9 9900k

moorhen2 said:
1.350v if I remember correctly, it was the temps getting up towards 90c in the Realbench Stress tests that I was not happy with, although Intel do say the100c Tjunction can be upped to 115c, but I would not be happy getting up around those temps at all.
Click to expand...
I can understand that.

At least if you are able to do a realbench run or whatever to check stability it will be a one off. Temps should be much lower in normal use, especially with all that rad space you've got!

And it's chilly tonight so maybe open some windows :D
 
Distracted said:
I can understand that.

At least if you are able to do a realbench run or whatever to check stability it will be a one off. Temps should be much lower in normal use, especially with all that rad space you've got!

And it's chilly tonight so maybe open some windows :D
Click to expand...

I'm still tinkering, as I do, yes the high temps are when putting a lot of stress into the chip, everyday use would not do that. As you probably know we enthusiasts like to see what's possible with our hardware, and the least voltage and temps the better.
 
Some stats taken from silicon lottery. Keep in mind their sample size is small and may not represent your own chances when buying a 9900k.

I think this is useful info for those overclocking. No info yet on why those particular voltages were chosen or any temperature data.


As of 11/17/18, 100% of tested 9900Ks were able to hit 4.8GHz or greater.
  • CPU Multiplier: 48
  • BCLK: 100.0
  • CPU Vcore: 1.275V
  • AVX Offset: 2

As of 11/17/18, the top 82% of tested 9900Ks were able to hit 4.9GHz or greater.
  • CPU Multiplier: 49
  • BCLK: 100.0
  • CPU Vcore: 1.287V
  • AVX Offset: 2

As of 11/17/18, the top 46% of tested 9900Ks were able to hit 5.0GHz or greater.
  • CPU Multiplier: 50
  • BCLK: 100.0
  • CPU Vcore: 1.300V
  • AVX Offset: 2

As of 11/17/18, the top 14% of tested 9900Ks were able to hit 5.1GHz or greater.
  • CPU Multiplier: 51
  • BCLK: 100.0
  • CPU Vcore: 1.312V
  • AVX Offset: 2

There are no 5.2GHz chips being offered and the settings and frequencies above are with non delidded CPUs.

With regards to delidding they say that "Peak core temperatures under a heavy overclocked load typically decrease anywhere from 4°C to 8°C for Intel 9th generation CPUs."

Takeaways from this, 1 in 5 9900ks tops out at around 4.8GHz.

More than 50% of 9900ks wont reach 5GHz(!)

I imagine those numbers will change with a larger sample, and if the voltages were changed then more would hit higher frequencies, but presumably heat is a problem otherwise the vcore they are using would be set higher.

The biggest shock to me is the 5GHz percentage. The numbers lend credence to those reviewers that complained about temps and poor overclocks.
 
Last edited:
moorhen2 said:
I'm still tinkering, as I do, yes the high temps are when putting a lot of stress into the chip, everyday use would not do that. As you probably know we enthusiasts like to see what's possible with our hardware, and the least voltage and temps the better.
Click to expand...

Yup :D

I'm already thinking of ways to hang a rad out the window to make the most of the winter :D
 
Distracted said:
Some stats taken from silicon lottery. Keep in mind their sample size is small and may not represent your own chances when buying a 9900k.

I think this is useful info for those overclocking. No info yet on why those particular voltages were chosen or any temperature data.


As of 11/17/18, 100% of tested 9900Ks were able to hit 4.8GHz or greater.
  • CPU Multiplier: 48
  • BCLK: 100.0
  • CPU Vcore: 1.275V
  • AVX Offset: 2

As of 11/17/18, the top 82% of tested 9900Ks were able to hit 4.9GHz or greater.
  • CPU Multiplier: 49
  • BCLK: 100.0
  • CPU Vcore: 1.287V
  • AVX Offset: 2

As of 11/17/18, the top 46% of tested 9900Ks were able to hit 5.0GHz or greater.
  • CPU Multiplier: 50
  • BCLK: 100.0
  • CPU Vcore: 1.300V
  • AVX Offset: 2

As of 11/17/18, the top 14% of tested 9900Ks were able to hit 5.1GHz or greater.
  • CPU Multiplier: 51
  • BCLK: 100.0
  • CPU Vcore: 1.312V
  • AVX Offset: 2

There are no 5.2GHz chips being offered and the settings and frequencies above are with non delidded CPUs.

With regards to delidding they say that "Peak core temperatures under a heavy overclocked load typically decrease anywhere from 4°C to 8°C for Intel 9th generation CPUs."

Takeaways from this, 1 in 5 9900ks tops out at around 4.8GHz.

More than 50% of 9900ks wont reach 5GHz(!)

I imagine those numbers will change with a larger sample, and if the voltages were changed then more would hit higher frequencies, but presumably heat is a problem otherwise the vcore they are using would be set higher.

The biggest shock to me is the 5GHz percentage. The numbers lend credence to those reviewers that complained about temps and poor overclocks.
Click to expand...

Crikey that puts things into perspective, I'd like a cpu like moorhens to put under LN2 but the chance of me finding without just buying it is pretty slim. But tbh until I have tested mine that cold who knows. The best are able to bench 7ghz+ but not sure how they do at ambient.
 
Nickolp1974 said:
Crikey that puts things into perspective, I'd like a cpu like moorhens to put under LN2 but the chance of me finding without just buying it is pretty slim. But tbh until I have tested mine that cold who knows. The best are able to bench 7ghz+ but not sure how they do at ambient.
Click to expand...
Yup.

Do keep in mind the small sample size. They could have got particularly unlucky with the CPUs they binned. The opposite is also true.

Oh, and they don't really push the envelope when it comes to voltage either. Perhaps that 5GHz figure would be higher if the vcore was set at 1.35. Presumably (I am guessing here) they do this to reduce heat so they can guarantee the overclock for a wide variety of cooling solutions.
 
Distracted said:
Some stats taken from silicon lottery. Keep in mind their sample size is small and may not represent your own chances when buying a 9900k.

I think this is useful info for those overclocking. No info yet on why those particular voltages were chosen or any temperature data.


As of 11/17/18, 100% of tested 9900Ks were able to hit 4.8GHz or greater.
  • CPU Multiplier: 48
  • BCLK: 100.0
  • CPU Vcore: 1.275V
  • AVX Offset: 2

As of 11/17/18, the top 82% of tested 9900Ks were able to hit 4.9GHz or greater.
  • CPU Multiplier: 49
  • BCLK: 100.0
  • CPU Vcore: 1.287V
  • AVX Offset: 2

As of 11/17/18, the top 46% of tested 9900Ks were able to hit 5.0GHz or greater.
  • CPU Multiplier: 50
  • BCLK: 100.0
  • CPU Vcore: 1.300V
  • AVX Offset: 2

As of 11/17/18, the top 14% of tested 9900Ks were able to hit 5.1GHz or greater.
  • CPU Multiplier: 51
  • BCLK: 100.0
  • CPU Vcore: 1.312V
  • AVX Offset: 2

There are no 5.2GHz chips being offered and the settings and frequencies above are with non delidded CPUs.

With regards to delidding they say that "Peak core temperatures under a heavy overclocked load typically decrease anywhere from 4°C to 8°C for Intel 9th generation CPUs."

Takeaways from this, 1 in 5 9900ks tops out at around 4.8GHz.

More than 50% of 9900ks wont reach 5GHz(!)

I imagine those numbers will change with a larger sample, and if the voltages were changed then more would hit higher frequencies, but presumably heat is a problem otherwise the vcore they are using would be set higher.

The biggest shock to me is the 5GHz percentage. The numbers lend credence to those reviewers that complained about temps and poor overclocks.
Click to expand...

Very useful info mate, well done.

I can remember getting my 5960x, an 8 core 16 thread desktop cpu, a real monster, but it would have been a dream to have a 5.0ghz 8 core 16 thread desktop processor., but here we are. And here lies one of the problems, more cores, more voltage, more heat to get rid of.

So looking at there results, my chip is in the 14% bracket, but needing less voltage.

Ian.
 
moorhen2 said:
Very useful info mate, well done.

I can remember getting my 5960x, an 8 core 16 thread desktop cpu, a real monster, but it would have been a dream to have a 5.0ghz 8 core 16 thread desktop processor., but here we are. And here lies one of the problems, more cores, more voltage, more heat to get rid of.

So looking at there results, my chip is in the 14% bracket, but needing less voltage.

Ian.
Click to expand...

They're using an AVX offset of -2 which skews things a bit. I imagine the results would look very different with no AVX offset.
 
Nickolp1974 said:
Not so sure it makes much difference as I always thought "stable" did not include avx and your right about being conservative with voltage, not everyone uses custom loops etc with multiple rads.
Click to expand...

They test (at least in part) with realbench iirc which has 2 sections at least that use AVX. If they didn't have the offset to -2 then the vcore needed would be higher (so too would the heat output) before they could say the cpu had passed.

By having the offset they can pass a cpu as stable with a lower voltage and temps.

Whether that matters or not is open to interpretation. But the fact is worth mentioning since it will affect the numbers.

Der8auer for instance recommended in his guide to use a -4 AVX offset and on the caseking website for the 8 series (i can't see the 9 listed) it says an offset of at least 3 is needed. Plus the voltage listed (again for 8 series) is 'at most' 1.42.

So if we were trying to compare binning results we would need to take these differences into account. Obviously wider voltages and larger offsets mean more CPUs will make the grade at a given bin.

I'm not arguing for or against an AVX offset, just trying to present all the info accurately.
 
Nickolp1974 said:
Not so sure it makes much difference as I always thought "stable" did not include avx and your right about being conservative with voltage, not everyone uses custom loops etc with multiple rads.
Click to expand...

And looking about to see what software uses AVX, it seems as though a few more games are beginning to take advantage of it. Meaning anyone with an offset will potentially see performance drops in those games.

If you buy the 9900k at 5.1GHz and game exclusively on BF V for instance you might end up running at 4.9, 4.8 or even 4.7 depending on the offset that is applied.

It isn't the end of the world, but it is worth keeping in mind.
 
Nickolp1974 said:
Not so sure it makes much difference as I always thought "stable" did not include avx and your right about being conservative with voltage, not everyone uses custom loops etc with multiple rads.
Click to expand...

Yes as far as I am concerned stable means stable at a pre defined frequency or overclock, but if an AVX offset is used then the frequency set is not actually being used, it will drop to a lower one if any AVX instructions are encountered in any benchmark or stress test being used, so not actually stable at the frequency set. That's how I see it anyway. JMO.
 
Just a little info for any z370 9900k people. After searching the bios it seems you can actually increase the max CPU temp to 115c. I haven't gone over 100c yet. Got to 91c though. No throttling. These things run so hot. I am only at 1.3v.
 
0121danwilliams84 said:
Just a little info for any z370 9900k people. After searching the bios it seems you can actually increase the max CPU temp to 115c. I haven't gone over 100c yet. Got to 91c though. No throttling. These things run so hot. I am only at 1.3v.
Click to expand...

I don't know how hot the i7 9700k run but they take even more voltage to hit the same OC as an i9 9900k according to the stats from SL.
 
Last edited:
Has anyone here noticed temp drops from changing vccsa or vccio from auto to a lower fixed number?

I havent touched these yet but I'm reading that auto tends to run them high and I could shave off a degree or two by tuning them.
 
Distracted said:
Has anyone here noticed temp drops from changing vccsa or vccio from auto to a lower fixed number?

I havent touched these yet but I'm reading that auto tends to run them high and I could shave off a degree or two by tuning them.
Click to expand...

i haven't had massive temp drops by lowering them. I followed der8auer vccio 1.15 and vccsa 1.1. Wasn't completely stable so now 1.2 and 1.15. No WHEA errors yet. At auto it was giving like 1.35 vccio. Haven't noticed any temp drops to write home about tbh
 
0121danwilliams84 said:
i haven't had massive temp drops by lowering them. I followed der8auer vccio 1.15 and vccsa 1.1. Wasn't completely stable so now 1.2 and 1.15. No WHEA errors yet. At auto it was giving like 1.35 vccio. Haven't noticed any temp drops to write home about tbh
Click to expand...
Ty. I should tune them anyway, if nothing else I'll hopefully be shoving less voltage through the silicon.
 
SA and IO normally set too high on auto, they are generally used when RAM overclocking, when I am oveclocking my 3200mhz kit to 4133mhz they like an SA of 1.23v and IO of 1.22v, way lower than the auto rules set by the bios.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom