9900KS lottery thread - Page 2 - Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community
Forum Jump: 

9900KS lottery thread

Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #11 of 414 (permalink) Old 11-01-2019, 07:32 PM - Thread Starter
New to Overclock.net
 
Melodist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 195
Rep: 1 (Unique: 1)
Quote: Originally Posted by Falkentyne View Post
My chip isn't a good sample. It's average. Middle of the road. Unable to do 5 ghz FMA3 small FFT prime95 on Auto vcore and AC Loadline 1.6 mOhms and "Standard" Vcore loadline calibration because it gets too hot and crashes at 90C. And can barely do small FFT AVX Prime95 at the same settings (Auto vcore, LLC:Standard, ACLL 1.6 mOhms).

Yes I did "check FPU" only.
I'm aware that the other stress tests draw less power.
Have you tried check FPU with 1.30v bios set and LLC:High and checking your VR VOUT and comparing it to your previous 1.275v + Turbo attempt?

By the way, the "Julia" and a couple of the other FPU benchmark tests draw as much current as FMA3 prime95 ! WAY more than "Test FPU". It's very hard to get CURRENT IOUT or DTS temps even logged in HWInfo64 when running those because the entire system freezes during the most of the test no matter how stable you are. Probably why Aida doesn't include those in the stress tests, because people would just crash or reach 100C+ trying them for too long. Don't be surprised if you BSOD on those.

A 9900KS at its worst should have a +100 mhz bin advantage over an "average" 9900k (and far far more vs trash tier 9900k's).
Yeah you're right. If I got a chip that ran at the same setting with 40 mV less, I'd be super happy.

Some people, especially Youtubers, claim to have a good sample but run stress tests that are a joke.

Usually by running non avx tasks, adding an offset and testing games...

The one year warranty is cracking me up though given how most laptops always run at nearly TJmax for years on years.

Last edited by Melodist; 11-01-2019 at 07:38 PM.
Melodist is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #12 of 414 (permalink) Old 11-02-2019, 02:59 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
robertr1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 277
Rep: 11 (Unique: 8)
Most of the youtube stability testing is inadequate and sets a false expectation. To the point, you see people touting their cinebench runs as stable.

At the minimum, you should run 10 loops of x264 stress test and OCCT large with avx2 for 90mins

If you can get away with P95 non avx, go for it!

There's no practical use case for p95 avx outside of saying you did it. It'll require a de-lid and custom loop to manage the heat and you'll probably pull amps well above intel spec. I'd put p95 avx as a component stress test rather than a stability test. There is a difference between the two.

The whole point of stability testing is to confirm if you're going to spit out errors under different loads. That's where OCCT excels at compared to anything else I've tested.
robertr1 is offline  
post #13 of 414 (permalink) Old 11-02-2019, 05:02 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
reflex75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 112
Rep: 1 (Unique: 1)
Very interesting to check how much Intel has binned their KS version compare to the original 9900k.
I have an old stepping R0 9900k and I have tried the same test of Aida64 FPU only (with AVX).
Stable at 1.20v with no error after 6 minutes, but I don't understand why my power is still so high? (around 200w)
Is it because I use an air cooler? (more heat=more leakage=more power?)
Something else I don't understand is why such a huge difference between my VID (voltage asking by my CPU) and real voltage needed?
(Aida is showing 1.199v vs 1.398v!)
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	AVX test 1.20v.png
Views:	103
Size:	1.11 MB
ID:	304056  

reflex75 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #14 of 414 (permalink) Old 11-02-2019, 06:07 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
Falkentyne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Riverside
Posts: 6,807
Rep: 418 (Unique: 293)
Quote: Originally Posted by reflex75 View Post
Very interesting to check how much Intel has binned their KS version compare to the original 9900k.
I have an old stepping R0 9900k and I have tried the same test of Aida64 FPU only (with AVX).
Stable at 1.20v with no error after 6 minutes, but I don't understand why my power is still so high? (around 200w)
Is it because I use an air cooler? (more heat=more leakage=more power?)
Something else I don't understand is why such a huge difference between my VID (voltage asking by my CPU) and real voltage needed?
(Aida is showing 1.199v vs 1.398v!)
Power is high because CPU Package Power is ViD * Amps, not vcore * amps.
If your VRM supports current monitoring, you can get the real power draw from Current IOUT (Amps) and Power POUT (Watts).

The VID shown is also affected by the default VID written for that cpu multiplier, which is then affected by both Thermal Velocity Boost voltage optimizations (VID decreases 1.5mv every 1C drop, from 100C to 0C) and the AC Loadline written into the processor.

[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 offline  
post #15 of 414 (permalink) Old 11-02-2019, 08:46 AM - Thread Starter
New to Overclock.net
 
Melodist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 195
Rep: 1 (Unique: 1)
Quote: Originally Posted by reflex75 View Post
Very interesting to check how much Intel has binned their KS version compare to the original 9900k.
I have an old stepping R0 9900k and I have tried the same test of Aida64 FPU only (with AVX).
Stable at 1.20v with no error after 6 minutes, but I don't understand why my power is still so high? (around 200w)
Is it because I use an air cooler? (more heat=more leakage=more power?)
Something else I don't understand is why such a huge difference between my VID (voltage asking by my CPU) and real voltage needed?
(Aida is showing 1.199v vs 1.398v!)
****, 1.2 sounds like a badass CPU, might as well be a 9900ks to be honest.
Melodist is offline  
post #16 of 414 (permalink) Old 11-02-2019, 08:47 AM - Thread Starter
New to Overclock.net
 
Melodist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 195
Rep: 1 (Unique: 1)
Quote: Originally Posted by robertr1 View Post
Most of the youtube stability testing is inadequate and sets a false expectation. To the point, you see people touting their cinebench runs as stable.

At the minimum, you should run 10 loops of x264 stress test and OCCT large with avx2 for 90mins

If you can get away with P95 non avx, go for it!

There's no practical use case for p95 avx outside of saying you did it. It'll require a de-lid and custom loop to manage the heat and you'll probably pull amps well above intel spec. I'd put p95 avx as a component stress test rather than a stability test. There is a difference between the two.

The whole point of stability testing is to confirm if you're going to spit out errors under different loads. That's where OCCT excels at compared to anything else I've tested.
Yeah because they claim 5 Ghz can be easily achieved with any 9900k 😂 Especially jayzs2cents is a dum dum when it comes to that.

My first 9900k didn't even manage to pull off 4.9 with the Aida 64 fpu test .

Last edited by Melodist; 11-02-2019 at 08:51 AM.
Melodist is offline  
post #17 of 414 (permalink) Old 11-02-2019, 08:52 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
ALSTER868's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 70
Rep: 2 (Unique: 1)
Quote: Originally Posted by reflex75 View Post
Very interesting to check how much Intel has binned their KS version compare to the original 9900k.
I have an old stepping R0 9900k and I have tried the same test of Aida64 FPU only (with AVX).
Stable at 1.20v with no error after 6 minutes, but I don't understand why my power is still so high? (around 200w)
Is it because I use an air cooler? (more heat=more leakage=more power?)
Something else I don't understand is why such a huge difference between my VID (voltage asking by my CPU) and real voltage needed?
(Aida is showing 1.199v vs 1.398v!)
I'd be happy to have a 9900k (KS) of that kind like 1.2v for 5ghz.
ALSTER868 is offline  
post #18 of 414 (permalink) Old 11-02-2019, 09:32 AM - Thread Starter
New to Overclock.net
 
Melodist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 195
Rep: 1 (Unique: 1)
Quote: Originally Posted by Falkentyne View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by reflex75 View Post
Very interesting to check how much Intel has binned their KS version compare to the original 9900k.
I have an old stepping R0 9900k and I have tried the same test of Aida64 FPU only (with AVX).
Stable at 1.20v with no error after 6 minutes, but I don't understand why my power is still so high? (around 200w)
Is it because I use an air cooler? (more heat=more leakage=more power?)
Something else I don't understand is why such a huge difference between my VID (voltage asking by my CPU) and real voltage needed?
(Aida is showing 1.199v vs 1.398v!)
Power is high because CPU Package Power is ViD * Amps, not vcore * amps.
If your VRM supports current monitoring, you can get the real power draw from Current IOUT (Amps) and Power POUT (Watts).

The VID shown is also affected by the default VID written for that cpu multiplier, which is then affected by both Thermal Velocity Boost voltage optimizations (VID decreases 1.5mv every 1C drop, from 100C to 0C) and the AC Loadline written into the processor.
.

The same wattage is odd though given it is fed 80mv less. You think Asus' 1.2 is equal to gigabyte's 1.28? Almost 100mv offset? 😮
Melodist is offline  
post #19 of 414 (permalink) Old 11-02-2019, 09:39 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
reflex75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 112
Rep: 1 (Unique: 1)
Quote: Originally Posted by Falkentyne View Post
Power is high because CPU Package Power is ViD * Amps, not vcore * amps.
If your VRM supports current monitoring, you can get the real power draw from Current IOUT (Amps) and Power POUT (Watts).

The VID shown is also affected by the default VID written for that cpu multiplier, which is then affected by both Thermal Velocity Boost voltage optimizations (VID decreases 1.5mv every 1C drop, from 100C to 0C) and the AC Loadline written into the processor.
My gosh! You're right! The power value I was monitoring is not my real power consumption!
It's based on the theorical VID asked by my CPU!

But I've found the real values given by ASUS EC sensors (Embedded Controller) for both power and current.
And indeed, they are way lower!

So I did again the same test (Aida64, FPU only, with AVX) this time with only 1.19v and now my power consumption is about 160w (instead of my previous 200w based on high VID asked by the CPU)
And the current is 135 amps: check my screenshot.

You give me a good news today Because until now I based my OC to stay in Intel max safe spec, but with a wrong higher power value!
Which means I have more room to increase voltage and thus power
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	AVX test 1.19v.png
Views:	76
Size:	1.15 MB
ID:	304088  

reflex75 is offline  
post #20 of 414 (permalink) Old 11-02-2019, 04:03 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
Talon2016's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 131
Rep: 7 (Unique: 6)
9900KS at 5.1Ghz all core, 4.7Ghz cache, 1.23v BIOS with 1.172v under load.

Edit: I've tested up to 5.3Ghz in BFV and Cinebench but will do more testing for Realbench and AIDA64 stability. 5.3Ghz with my 280mm AIO will be my limit and I am willing to be the thermals under 100% AVX load are going to skyrocket. That said, these synthetic loads far outstrip my daily usage and gaming needs so 5.3Ghz would be a viable clock for me. I will still likely stick with 5.1Ghz at low voltage as my daily driver.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Screenshot (93).png
Views:	151
Size:	610.3 KB
ID:	304140  


Last edited by Talon2016; 11-02-2019 at 04:07 PM.
Talon2016 is offline  
Reply

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