• 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

Sem said:
not sure if there's a bug in the voltage reading cause this seems too good to be true but currently at 5.2 AVX realbench 15mins stable at only 1.28v
tired now will test more and tweak more settings in the morning
J6fhcdW.png
Click to expand...

Could you try prime95 avx small tft'. I was realbench stable at 1.309 5.2ghz 4.7 cache. Didn't try lower. But moving over to prime avx 4.3 cache and I can't get stable even at .05v more. Also, my average core was 80 with peak about 84 in realbench after 30 mins. Prime took me to the mid 90's in 1 second for the brief time before my comp crashed.
My decision is, do I take 5.2 as my 24/7 knowing that it handles all other stress tests. Or do I back down to 5.0ghz where I know i'm passing prime95 avx small tft 100%. Should probably go with 5.2. If it isn't crashing during my use, why worry. But then there is that little itch, the one that reminds me that there are instances my comp will crash eg prime95.
 
Distracted said:
Prime with AVX is a monster. I don't know what you can tweak to make the system stable.
Click to expand...

Caught me by surprise how much more. I expected to maybe see some failing workers early on, but to have total system shutdown within 1 second until I added about 0.05. At 1.36ish it was taking more than a few seconds to crash, but the temps were already in the 90's before the shutdown. Seems for me, I can be stable in all other stress tests, but still VERY FAR off being prime avx stable.
 
Sc00p007 said:
Could you try prime95 avx small tft'
Click to expand...
im not running AVX prime on any cpu again after it destroyed the cache overclock on my old haswell-e system
for me for gaming stability i run non avx prime blend for 12-24 hours and for avx testing i use real bench and x264/5 benchmark and real world x264 encoding using the slower preset i will queue up 3-4 films that take 3 hours or so to do a 2 pass encode
and if it does all 3 films back to back without crashing or errors then for me its stable

only testing 5.2 anyway dont care about absolute stability
i plan to keep it at 5Ghz 24/7
 
Sem said:
im not running AVX prime on any cpu again after it destroyed the cache overclock on my old haswell-e system
for me for gaming stability i run non avx prime blend for 12-24 hours and for avx testing i use real bench and x264/5 benchmark and real world x264 encoding using the slower preset i will queue up 3-4 films that take 3 hours or so to do a 2 pass encode
and if it does all 3 films back to back without crashing or errors then for me its stable

only testing 5.2 anyway dont care about absolute stability
i plan to keep it at 5Ghz 24/7
Click to expand...

Time to start playing the how low can you go game with voltage at 5GHz
 
0121danwilliams84 said:
I really wish I could! It's just not stable with anything less. I mean it boots at 1.25 but is not stable at all. Testing thoroughly, I am at 1.340v 4.9GHz with no WHEA errors...yet.
Click to expand...

Hi mate, my chip is not a great overclocker either.
Actually, I started a thread titled 'Exclusive thread for i9 9900k lottery losers' on another forum (don't know if I can link here) just to check if I am the only one who needs well over 1.3 for 5.0. I am just wondering if people with bad/average chips are just not as likely to post their results as the ones who can get 5.1 Ghz well below 1.3 v.
 
Majek said:
Hi mate, my chip is not a great overclocker either.
Actually, I started a thread titled 'Exclusive thread for i9 9900k lottery losers' on another forum (don't know if I can link here) just to check if I am the only one who needs well over 1.3 for 5.0. I am just wondering if people with bad/average chips are just not as likely to post their results as the ones who can get 5.1 Ghz well below 1.3 v.
Click to expand...

That's a good idea. I guess as time goes by we will see what the average results are. I know it won't make much difference to my experience but it's always nice to get the extra performance and it looks good at 5GHz too! I found the losers thread! What motherboard are you using? I am using more voltage than you 1.340v for 4.9GHz not 5! Thanks.
 
Last edited:
0121danwilliams84 said:
That's a good idea. I guess as time goes by we will see what the average results are. I know it won't make much difference to my experience but it's always nice to get the extra performance and it looks good at 5GHz too! I found the losers thread! What motherboard are you using? I am using more voltage than you 1.340v for 4.9GHz not 5! Thanks.
Click to expand...

Hi,

I am using Gigabyte Aorus Z390 Master board, so this may be one of the reasons why I am seeing a lower voltage needed than you are (from what you have written you are on z370). Plus, I am on an average air cooler at the moment, so can't check the full stability e.g. with small ffts in Prime.

It is likely that I am not fully stable at 5.0 with 1.32. I have tried multiple runs of CB15, OCCT medium, Prime 26.6 1344 FFTs and Prime 29.5 1344 FFTs. If I go to small FFTs or small data set in OCCT, the temperatures shoot to 100 C immediately.

Thanks,
 
The only app I know that shows the voltage that is set in the bios is Asus TurboV core, not sure if it will also work on non Asus boards.
 
Managed to boot into Windows @ 5.4ghz, and close to getting Cinebench to complete, but voltage was getting out of hand, so gave up trying.

2b841cd2-0c5b-4f76-b425-839f9d401220-original.jpg
 
Majek said:
Hi mate, my chip is not a great overclocker either.
Actually, I started a thread titled 'Exclusive thread for i9 9900k lottery losers' on another forum (don't know if I can link here) just to check if I am the only one who needs well over 1.3 for 5.0. I am just wondering if people with bad/average chips are just not as likely to post their results as the ones who can get 5.1 Ghz well below 1.3 v.
Click to expand...

One thing i've noticed is that people seem to quote from different sources.
Some say the vcore they set in bios while others use hwinfo and i've seen several use cpuz.

Those can all show different voltages even if the setting in bios is the same.


For example I set 1.15 in bios but under load with v droop cpuz was reporting 1.008v!

If i just said the cpuz vcore it would sound amazing for the oc compared to the bios number.

I think there are people with great chips out there, we can see some on this forum, but now i've seen the disparity between voltage measurements it is also clear that people like to pick the best numbers to report in some cases. That seems to be the case especially with people selling high clockers.
 
Distracted said:
One thing i've noticed is that people seem to quote from different sources.
Some say the vcore they set in bios while others use hwinfo and i've seen several use cpuz.

Those can all show different voltages even if the setting in bios is the same.


For example I set 1.15 in bios but under load with v droop cpuz was reporting 1.008v!

If i just said the cpuz vcore it would sound amazing for the oc compared to the bios number.

I think there are people with great chips out there, we can see some on this forum, but now i've seen the disparity between voltage measurements it is also clear that people like to pick the best numbers to report in some cases. That seems to be the case especially with people selling high clockers.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I am running 1.340v 4.9GHz in the bios and max voltage in HW info is 1.312v
 
Majek said:
Hi mate, my chip is not a great overclocker either.
Actually, I started a thread titled 'Exclusive thread for i9 9900k lottery losers' on another forum (don't know if I can link here) just to check if I am the only one who needs well over 1.3 for 5.0. I am just wondering if people with bad/average chips are just not as likely to post their results as the ones who can get 5.1 Ghz well below 1.3 v.
Click to expand...
Seems like a few people couldnt read the title of your thread :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom