• 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.

Team Blue's 10900K Overclocks

FireTwo

FireTwo

FireTwo

Associate
Joined
16 Jun 2015
Posts
593
anyone lucky enough to receive the new flagship from Intel yet?

wondering how many of you can possible run (stable) 5.2 @ 1.3/1.33vcore?

stock vcore seems to be 1.25v.
 
Grim5 said:
Why run 5.2ghz? You will lose single core performance, games run slower?

just leave it stock at 5.3ghz
Click to expand...

mainly as all the testing has them hitting 5.3 on a single core for a period of max less than one minute, but generally it hits to milliseconds, where as a full set 5.2 seems to do better on reviews.
We'll need to see if review silicon was specially binned, or what an end user can expect
 
Destination said:
mainly as all the testing has them hitting 5.3 on a single core for a period of max less than one minute, but generally it hits to milliseconds, where as a full set 5.2 seems to do better on reviews.
We'll need to see if review silicon was specially binned, or what an end user can expect
Click to expand...

Ah ok. What you should do is per core workload overclocking. Its a new feature on z490 boards

Watch this video, he goes through explaining how to do it

The tl:dr is to make sure you don't sacrifice any performance and make gains in every possible area: Set single core work load to run at 5.4ghz on Core 7 & 8. Then set Non AVX all core workload to run at 5.2ghz on all cores. Then set AVX all core workloads to run at 5.0ghz on all cores. This type of overclock will give you a performance boost in every task.

 
So far this 10900K is mega fun to play with
5.1GHz @ 1.25vcore seems stable in occt large & small no avx / adia64 (fpu stress) battlefieldV

r20 benchmark numbers so far,
537 single
6724 muti
 
Last edited:
Shac said:
So even at 5.1Ghz it cant beat an AMD 3900X at single or multi.
Click to expand...

That's not the right way to overclock the 10900k anyway. People should use the per core overclocking, flat all core overclocks are sacrificing single core and potentially gaming performance as well as sacrificing performance in single core software like photoshop or Microsoft excel

AMD owners know what's up, but this is the first time Intel owners will have to look into per core overclocking so it will take time for them to learn
 
Grim5 said:
Ah ok. What you should do is per core workload overclocking. Its a new feature on z490 boards

Watch this video, he goes through explaining how to do it

The tl:dr is to make sure you don't sacrifice any performance and make gains in every possible area: Set single core work load to run at 5.4ghz on Core 7 & 8. Then set Non AVX all core workload to run at 5.2ghz on all cores. Then set AVX all core workloads to run at 5.0ghz on all cores. This type of overclock will give you a performance boost in every task.

Click to expand...

You can do this on Z390 also. It's nothing new. New is per core HT disable and v/f curve visually which before you had to tune with offset voltage using AC/DC voltage tweaks.
 
Robert896r1 said:
You can do this on Z390 also. It's nothing new. New is per core HT disable and v/f curve visually which before you had to tune with offset voltage using AC/DC voltage tweaks.
Click to expand...

ah ok didn't know, my last intel board was z370. I suppose it's perhaps more useful now than it was in the past
 
Shac said:
So even at 5.1Ghz it cant beat an AMD 3900X at single or multi.
Click to expand...

3900X is around
Normal R20 Single is 505-515
Normal R20 Multi is 7100-7250

I'm at 6852 with -4 threads.

cpuZ singlecore bench seems good at 629, my 3800x at 4.5 was only 520ish
 
Last edited:
I will give you are minus 4 threads but the single core R20 needs to exceed 544 to beat a 3900X.
Not standard clocks but neither is your Intel.
And post above your comparing standard 3900x scores to yours overclocked or is that incorrect?

Not trying to rain on your parade man as I have had many Intel chips but i dont see why one would buy them atm.
Other than brand loyalty which if that's your thing then go for it.
 
Shac said:
And post above your comparing standard 3900x scores to yours overclocked or is that incorrect?
Click to expand...
My post was comparing the CPU score mark, which is the mainstream multi-table. The slowest stock 3900x on the chart is Score 7232. And you have stock 3900x's getting 520~ in the single-threaded chart, and overclocked ones about 540.

I didn't bother with the single threaded chart as you have 3600, 3900, 8700's, 8086, 9700's and 9900's all beating the single score of the 10900k at around 5.1/5.2Ghz for the Intels and 4.6/4.7Ghz for the AMD's.

~edit~
I'd be interested to see what he can get with the per core overclocking or using the velocity boost instead like @Grim5 suggests. Bit like treating it like a 3000 series instead of a traditional Intel processor.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom