9900k Direct Die Overclock Help Needed - Page 3 - Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community

Forum Jump: 

9900k Direct Die Overclock Help Needed

Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #21 of 34 (permalink) Old 08-16-2019, 09:38 PM - Thread Starter
New to Overclock.net
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 24
Rep: 0
Quote: Originally Posted by Falkentyne View Post
Ok Ok Ok.
First of all I'm going to shout loudly here.

DO NOT USE SMALL FFT AVX TO TEST WHETHER YOU WON THE SILICON LOTTERY OR NOT! You are exceeding the Intel maximum electrical specifications for that processor by SO MUCH that not only can barely ANY CPU pass prime95 at 5.1 ghz with that VR VOUT (see below), you are also going to slowly degrade that processor (or maybe more than slowly degrade it)--see below.
To test whether you won the silicon lottery, lay off the AVX small FFT/FMA3 worship. Use Realbench 2.56 two hour stress test, Cinebench R20, 3600 second custom stress test, and Prime95 29.8 build 5 small FFT preset with AVX and AVX2 *disabled*. This is all you need to do to avoid damaging your processor and driving yourself to the mental hospital in the process.
Also, are you aware that Silicon Lottery bins their golden processors with an AVX -2 offset?

Even THEY aren't crazy enough to test with small FFT AVX at 5.1 ghz. If they did, maybe 1% rather than 4-8% of their 5.1 ghz bin processors would pass, and they would need cooling solutions most people simply don't use.

You're reading the wrong vcore sensor.

CPU-Z is the Super I/O chip and is going to be wildly inaccurate. CPU-Z reads the ITE 8688E chip which tends to show higher than than the bios voltage you set. The ITE 8792E with LLC=Turbo shows a +/12mv voltage within bios voltage, regardless of your current, so even this is inaccurate.

You need to read VR VOUT. And your load voltage is 1.250v.

Also please reset your HWinfo fields (choose reset layout or reset to default layout or restore fields in the settings). You have two iGPU fields active (duplicated 0.004v VR VOUT which is the inactive iGPU).
And please don't run that prime95 test you are running!

You're pushing ***222 amps*** into that thing! That's WAY past the maximum Intel allowed specification of 193 amps! And at 193 amps, VR VOUT must not exceed 1.225v (tl;dr: the higher the amps, the lower the maximum safe VR VOUT allowed before your CPU risks faster than "normal wear and tear" degradation.

tl;dr:
if you can pass realbench 2.56 WITHOUT CPU CACHE L0 errors (shown in HWinfo64) at THESE SETTINGS:

x51 / x47
1.310v bios set (Fixed)
Loadline calibration: Turbo
Then you have anywhere between a very good to a golden processor (this depends on how low you can go on the bios set voltage without L0 errors).


Passed the R20 test. @ 5.2
here is just a few min before while running and the final score
5291 @ 5.2ghz 1.41v vcore fixed extreme loadline
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	cinebench.png
Views:	9
Size:	4.98 MB
ID:	289666  

Click image for larger version

Name:	5291 score.png
Views:	7
Size:	6.08 MB
ID:	289668  

poopsLIVE is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #22 of 34 (permalink) Old 08-16-2019, 10:44 PM - Thread Starter
New to Overclock.net
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 24
Rep: 0
Quote: Originally Posted by Falkentyne View Post
Ok Ok Ok.
First of all I'm going to shout loudly here.

DO NOT USE SMALL FFT AVX TO TEST WHETHER YOU WON THE SILICON LOTTERY OR NOT! You are exceeding the Intel maximum electrical specifications for that processor by SO MUCH that not only can barely ANY CPU pass prime95 at 5.1 ghz with that VR VOUT (see below), you are also going to slowly degrade that processor (or maybe more than slowly degrade it)--see below.
To test whether you won the silicon lottery, lay off the AVX small FFT/FMA3 worship. Use Realbench 2.56 two hour stress test, Cinebench R20, 3600 second custom stress test, and Prime95 29.8 build 5 small FFT preset with AVX and AVX2 *disabled*. This is all you need to do to avoid damaging your processor and driving yourself to the mental hospital in the process.
Also, are you aware that Silicon Lottery bins their golden processors with an AVX -2 offset?

Even THEY aren't crazy enough to test with small FFT AVX at 5.1 ghz. If they did, maybe 1% rather than 4-8% of their 5.1 ghz bin processors would pass, and they would need cooling solutions most people simply don't use.

You're reading the wrong vcore sensor.

CPU-Z is the Super I/O chip and is going to be wildly inaccurate. CPU-Z reads the ITE 8688E chip which tends to show higher than than the bios voltage you set. The ITE 8792E with LLC=Turbo shows a +/12mv voltage within bios voltage, regardless of your current, so even this is inaccurate.

You need to read VR VOUT. And your load voltage is 1.250v.

Also please reset your HWinfo fields (choose reset layout or reset to default layout or restore fields in the settings). You have two iGPU fields active (duplicated 0.004v VR VOUT which is the inactive iGPU).
And please don't run that prime95 test you are running!

You're pushing ***222 amps*** into that thing! That's WAY past the maximum Intel allowed specification of 193 amps! And at 193 amps, VR VOUT must not exceed 1.225v (tl;dr: the higher the amps, the lower the maximum safe VR VOUT allowed before your CPU risks faster than "normal wear and tear" degradation.

tl;dr:
if you can pass realbench 2.56 WITHOUT CPU CACHE L0 errors (shown in HWinfo64) at THESE SETTINGS:

x51 / x47
1.310v bios set (Fixed)
Loadline calibration: Turbo
Then you have anywhere between a very good to a golden processor (this depends on how low you can go on the bios set voltage without L0 errors).
Quote: Originally Posted by poopsLIVE View Post
Passed the R20 test. @ 5.2
here is just a few min before while running and the final score
5291 @ 5.2ghz 1.41v vcore fixed extreme loadline
p95
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	prime95.png
Views:	19
Size:	5.42 MB
ID:	289682  

poopsLIVE is offline  
post #23 of 34 (permalink) Old 08-17-2019, 09:18 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
robertr1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 155
Rep: 6 (Unique: 5)
Those are some brave daily settings you're running. As long as you're happy with and know the potential consequences, it's your choice. Your VVSA going to 1.32v is also something I'd personally be uncomfortable with.
robertr1 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #24 of 34 (permalink) Old 08-17-2019, 02:35 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
CallsignVega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Saudi Arabia (US Military)
Posts: 8,351
Rep: 520 (Unique: 359)
I run 5.4 GHz at 1.41v de-lided (but not bare die). I don't run HT (since it's a gaming only PC). Temps are in check and she is stable as a rock.

GPU: TITAN RTX - 2175 MHz, liquid cooled
CPU: 9900K 5.4 GHz, liquid cooled
MB: ASUS Maximus XI Gene
RAM: G.Skill 16GB 4600 MHz
SSD: Intel Optane 905P - 960GB
DISPLAY: LG C9 55" OLED
CallsignVega is offline  
post #25 of 34 (permalink) Old 08-17-2019, 05:30 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
Socks keep you warm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,104
Rep: 131 (Unique: 116)
Quote: Originally Posted by CallsignVega View Post
I run 5.4 GHz at 1.41v de-lided (but not bare die). I don't run HT (since it's a gaming only PC). Temps are in check and she is stable as a rock.
But can i ask what the point of running a 9900K is if you disable the HT? You may as well have saved $200 AU dollars and bought the 9700K..

I like to have fun.
https://hwbot.org/user/sockskeepyouwarm/
https://www.trueachievements.com/gamer/II+TH3PRO+II
16 Threads is Good
(10 items)
CPU
Intel Core I9 9900K 4.8Ghz
Motherboard
Gigabyte Aorus Elite
GPU
Aorus 2080Ti Xtreme Waterforce WB 11GB
RAM
Trident Z
Hard Drive
Samsung 250 SSD
Power Supply
Cooler Master Silent Pro Hybrid
Cooling
Watercooling Custom
Case
900D
Operating System
Windows 10 x64
Monitor
28" ACER 4K Monitor
▲ hide details ▲


Socks keep you warm is offline  
post #26 of 34 (permalink) Old 08-17-2019, 05:41 PM - Thread Starter
New to Overclock.net
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 24
Rep: 0
Quote: Originally Posted by Falkentyne View Post
If it were me, I would not stress test at those settings and I would also not exceed "Turbo" LLC at voltages that high.
I cannot assure the longevity of your CPU before it starts getting unstable eventually and then needs more vcore.

I calculated the maximum safe voltages (on-die sense voltage--VR VOUT) based on different current draw amounts; these are for people that want to be safe. Exceeding these limits could result in accelerated degradation.
All these values are extrapolated from the Intel specification documents (1.52v VCC maximum (CPU must be pulling ZERO AMPS (meaning--not subject to a clock) if VR VOUT is 1.520v!!), 193 amps maximum, with DEFAULT loadline (Intel does not allow for loadline calibration in any of its specifications). The default VRM Loadline will drop the 1520mv based on amps, down to a safe MAXIMUM level--meaning these are absolute limits (on ambient cooling).

Voltage given is at maximum load, measured on the CPU die.

193 Amps: 1.212v to 1.230v (8 core CPU + 1.6 mOhms VRM loadline, versus 6 core CPU + 2.1 mOhms VRM loadline). Value: 1520mv - ( 193 * 1.6 ) = 1520mv - 308.8 = 1211.2 mv
150 Amps: 1.280v (1520 - (150 * 1.6)).
100 Amps: 1.360v (1520 - (100 * 1.6))
50 Amps: 1.440v (1520 - (50 * 1.6))

When using loadline calibration, the mOhms of loadline is reduced (standard/Normal loadline calibration is 1.6 mOhms), so this totally changes the entire formula, but the voltage/amps target is identical, but the BIOS voltage must now be set lower.

Example: Loadline calibration=Turbo is 0.4 mOhms of loadline.
So if you had a 1.340v bios voltage set and were pulling 150 amps in Realbench, for example:
1340 mv - (0.4 * 150) = you would be pulling 1280mv load VR VOUT at 150 amps.
As you can see that matches up with the above table so you're okay.

But if your bios voltage were higher (like 1.360v) with LLC Turbo, then that's asking for trouble at 150 amps.

Extreme LLC is 0.2 mOhms of loadline, so you can see the load VR VOUT is shifted upwards.
So tl;dr: I would not feel safe running at that voltage and that loadline. I know you may be unstable with a lower LLC, but keep that in mind. You want your CPU to last awhile without needing more voltage.

I'm happy that you're stable but I would absolutely not keep the CPU at these settings. Using Extreme LLC

So I believe my 5.1 OC is safe then? 1.285v fixed bios. @ 133 amps my math is saying 1.307v VR OUT should be the max and my VR OUT on realbench is showing 1.232v. It does peak at 144 when the test first starts up and my math is showing 1.289v max and I am getting 1.275v when it peaks like that. I didn't see this until after I ran those cinebench and p95 runs @ 5.2 already last night. I am taking it 5.2 is definitely out of the question and no way to get it there safely?

EDIT: Has to be safe at 5.1, during p95 I will hit 152amps and be at 1.275v
poopsLIVE is offline  
post #27 of 34 (permalink) Old 08-17-2019, 06:27 PM - Thread Starter
New to Overclock.net
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 24
Rep: 0
also would loadline be able to help me get the amps down? Like for a possible 5.2 oc. I am on extreme llc with the stability at 1.41v fixed but the results are most definitely too high. If the absolute max is 1.52 fixed vcore would it be crazy to try to lower the llc and just up the voltage from 1.41 and just not exceed 1.52? Or is that a reach?


Edit: Not currently on those settings, but I have them saved. When I read your post about not running that 5.2 AFTER it went all the way to the p95 tests ***. Currently rocking that 5.1 and its pretty nice. Just trying to real deal max this out safely. Kind of bummed a delidded direct die is only able to hit 5.1 not because of temps, but because of voltage and amps. I wouldve sworn the first wouldve came first but I guess my cooling is more than average. Sucks knowing that I could still add another 360 rad ANDDDDDDD do a water chiller and it not make a difference because of the voltages this chip wants... Please teach me more.

Last edited by poopsLIVE; 08-17-2019 at 06:32 PM.
poopsLIVE is offline  
post #28 of 34 (permalink) Old 08-17-2019, 07:15 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
Falkentyne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Riverside
Posts: 5,987
Rep: 383 (Unique: 274)
Quote: Originally Posted by poopsLIVE View Post
So I believe my 5.1 OC is safe then? 1.285v fixed bios. @ 133 amps my math is saying 1.307v VR OUT should be the max and my VR OUT on realbench is showing 1.232v. It does peak at 144 when the test first starts up and my math is showing 1.289v max and I am getting 1.275v when it peaks like that. I didn't see this until after I ran those cinebench and p95 runs @ 5.2 already last night. I am taking it 5.2 is definitely out of the question and no way to get it there safely?

EDIT: Has to be safe at 5.1, during p95 I will hit 152amps and be at 1.275v
Quote: Originally Posted by poopsLIVE View Post
also would loadline be able to help me get the amps down? Like for a possible 5.2 oc. I am on extreme llc with the stability at 1.41v fixed but the results are most definitely too high. If the absolute max is 1.52 fixed vcore would it be crazy to try to lower the llc and just up the voltage from 1.41 and just not exceed 1.52? Or is that a reach?


Edit: Not currently on those settings, but I have them saved. When I read your post about not running that 5.2 AFTER it went all the way to the p95 tests ***. Currently rocking that 5.1 and its pretty nice. Just trying to real deal max this out safely. Kind of bummed a delidded direct die is only able to hit 5.1 not because of temps, but because of voltage and amps. I wouldve sworn the first wouldve came first but I guess my cooling is more than average. Sucks knowing that I could still add another 360 rad ANDDDDDDD do a water chiller and it not make a difference because of the voltages this chip wants... Please teach me more.
You are correct in some of your points. Extreme LLC should simply not be used at those voltages. Extreme Loadline calibration is 0.2 mOhms and Turbo is 0.4 mOhms and High is 0.8 mOhms. In "general", if you can get away with it, MORE vdroop is better for you, not less. But on fixed voltages, since AC Loadline won't help you (see below for full explanation), you need a balance between bios voltage and vdroop.

First of all, the below is based on "Auto" vcore being used, NO VRM loadline calibration used (Intel specified VRM loadline used-1.6 mOhms), and x49/x50 core multiplier, with AC Loadline limited to 1.6 mOhms.

The entire problem with the "1.520v" value is, the way Intel designs these processors (based on *AUTO* Vcore and Serial VID), it will *never* see a 1.52v idle voltage, with zero amps anyway. If you use the maximum AC Loadline of 1.6 mOhms (I found that at 4.9 and 5 ghz default VIDS, there is no difference in load VR VOUT between an ACLL of 1.6 mOhms and ACLL of 1.3 mOhms except at light loads), and use Auto vcore (x50 and x49 multiplier), your idle VR VOUT would be about 1.40v, not 1.520v. That's because the AC Loadline value is what is responsible for boosting the "Idle" voltage target and the "load" voltage target to the VRM. The "base" VID at x49 and x50 multiplier is about 1.175v to 1.250v, depending on the silicon quality of your processor. (you can get this value manually, on fixed voltage, by setting AC Loadline and DC Loadline to "1" (0.01 mOhms)). If you were using pure auto vcore at this point, and NO loadline calibration (LLC Standard/Normal), this is the Voltage "target" that would get sent to the VRM, and used by the voltage controller before vdroop.

An AC Loadline higher than 1 will raise the default idle voltage up. An AC Loadline of 1.60 (160) will put the idle VR VOUT somewhere around 1.40v. An AC Loadline of 2.10 (maximum Intel allows for 4/6 core processors) will put the idle VR VOUT at about 1.45v.

DC loadline affects the VID *AFTER* the VRM already has the voltage ID target programmed--meaning the DC Loadline has no effect on VR VOUT at all. The DC Loadline mOhms resistance value affects the VID in the exact same way that "VRM Loadline" (Loadline calibration) affects VR VOUT. However Intel specifies that DC Loadline is only used for power reporting, not for the CPU power supply. CPU Package Power is the result of VID * Amps, after DC Loadline affects the VID.

(Vdroop in millivolts is equal to R * I, based on Ohm's law...R=resistance (milliohms), I=Current (Amps).

At full load, the AC Loadline will boost the CPU VRM voltage target even higher than it does at idle. This VRM target cannot exceed 1.520v, but *will* be up to 1.520v on auto voltages. (easy way to see this safely on your own? Set AC Loadline to 160 and DC Loadline to 1, and watch the VID in windows. DC Loadline=1 prevents DC Loadline from dropping the VID for power reporting).

Now, this is where NOT having loadline calibration will help your processor's longevity. That 1.520v (1520mv) will be dropped by the VRM loadline value (in this case default is 1.6 mOhms), depending on resistance, so anywhere between 1.220v to 1.30v at full load, depending on amps.

Intel uses AC Loadline to help 'mitigate excessive vdroop' without needing high idle voltages, by raising the VRM voltage target at full load.

Dropping AC loadline below 1.6 mOhms (160) will reduce the idle VR VOUT in windows. Load VR VOUT (heavy amps) will remain the same depending on if AC Loadline is lowered slightly or a lot, because again this is a factor of resistance. You will have to lower AC loadline quite a bit to have the "VRM target" at full load below 1.520v, which will then drop your load VR VOUT also.

These settings are intel's maximum limits.


Now to answer your question, the problem with using 1.52v set in BIOS with NO loadline calibration at all, is that when you use a fixed voltage, AC Loadline can no longer help you. Fixed vcore bypasses AC Loadline and programs the VRM manually with a new voltage target. So your VR VOUT is going to be extremely high--probably 1.49v. You are not going to like that and even if it "may" be safe if NO LLC is used, you would not want to see slow degradation anyway. It makes far more sense just to use 1.3 mOhms AC Loadline or 1.6 mOhms AC Loadline (130-160) and use pure Auto vcore, and NO LLC, and get a lower idle voltage. It just makes sense.

Note: SVID Offset being enabled disables all manual and offset voltage control and allows VID to exceed 1.520v, by up to 200mv.
This can be useful to people on subzero, but a neat trick, since AC Loadline can now boost VID VRM target higher than 1520mv, is to lower AC loadline by a lot (like, 80-110, depending on your CPU quality) and then enable SVID offset. The lower AC Loadline will reduce your idle vcore by a lot, and SVID Offset enabled will allow VID VRM to exceed 1.520, but due to the lower AC Loadline, it will drop back down to 1520mv, then vdroop (VRM loadline) will drop it much lower on load.

Not sure if this makes sense. Your best bet is to actually test these things.

WARNING: NEVER enable SVID OFFSET ON AUTO VCORE if AC LOADLINE IS 1.6 MOHMS OR HIGHER! YOUR VR VOUT WILL BE TOO HIGH FOR SAFE AMPS LIMITS.

[email protected] ghz, RX Vega 64, 32GB DDR4, Gigabyte Aorus Master, Seasonic Platinum 1000W, Corsair 760T
Alt: MSI GT73VR Throttlebook with 7820HK @ 4.7 ghz, GTX 1070 MXM TDP mod to 230W, 32 GB RAM
Falkentyne is online now  
post #29 of 34 (permalink) Old 08-18-2019, 06:04 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
zGunBLADEz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,502
Rep: 99 (Unique: 72)
Quote: Originally Posted by Socks keep you warm View Post
But can i ask what the point of running a 9900K is if you disable the HT? You may as well have saved $200 AU dollars and bought the 9700K..
better asking him why bcuz he plays at 4k lol

zGunBLADEz is offline  
post #30 of 34 (permalink) Old 08-18-2019, 09:03 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
CallsignVega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Saudi Arabia (US Military)
Posts: 8,351
Rep: 520 (Unique: 359)
Quote: Originally Posted by Socks keep you warm View Post
But can i ask what the point of running a 9900K is if you disable the HT? You may as well have saved $200 AU dollars and bought the 9700K..
9900K has larger cache. Also mine is a 9900KF with the disabled GPU which on average overclocks higher.

GPU: TITAN RTX - 2175 MHz, liquid cooled
CPU: 9900K 5.4 GHz, liquid cooled
MB: ASUS Maximus XI Gene
RAM: G.Skill 16GB 4600 MHz
SSD: Intel Optane 905P - 960GB
DISPLAY: LG C9 55" OLED
CallsignVega is offline  
Reply

Tags
9900k , direct die , Overclock , temperature , water cooled

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off