9900KS lottery thread - Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community

Forum Jump: 

9900KS lottery thread

Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 195 (permalink) Old 11-01-2019, 09:45 AM - Thread Starter
New to Overclock.net
 
Melodist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 193
Rep: 1 (Unique: 1)
9900KS lottery thread

Howdy there,

How are people's 9900KS OC results? All the reviews on the web seem pretty uninvested and don't really show how they stresstested their KS.

I'd love to hear about people's OC results, especially when there is even a previous 9900k to compare with.
Melodist is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 195 (permalink) Old 11-01-2019, 09:49 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
bass junkie xl's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 24
Rep: 0
hey there im looking for threads like this to read on lol . im waiting for my 9900ks but im on a asus x hero z 370 wifi board if i get 5 ghz @ 1.22 v ill be happy 5.2 ghz @ 1.3v or less

i9-9900 ks @ 5.0 Ghz @ 1.25v - Asus X-Hero Z-370 - 16 GB Trident Z RGB @4000 CL-17 - MSi GTX 1080TI FE - PG279Q
bass junkie xl is offline  
post #3 of 195 (permalink) Old 11-01-2019, 09:54 AM - Thread Starter
New to Overclock.net
 
Melodist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 193
Rep: 1 (Unique: 1)
Quote: Originally Posted by bass junkie xl View Post
hey there im looking for threads like this to read on lol . im waiting for my 9900ks but im on a asus x hero z 370 wifi board if i get 5 ghz @ 1.22 v ill be happy 5.2 ghz @ 1.3v or less
Yeah, that's exactly what I'm hoping for, 5 GHz at something like 1.2 to 1.25, able to run non AVX prime and proper Stresstests on air because my 9900k required 1.28 to 1.3 volt to be prime avx stable.
Melodist is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 195 (permalink) Old 11-01-2019, 10:43 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
chibi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 685
Rep: 31 (Unique: 26)
Quote: Originally Posted by Melodist View Post
Yeah, that's exactly what I'm hoping for, 5 GHz at something like 1.2 to 1.25, able to run non AVX prime and proper Stresstests on air because my 9900k required 1.28 to 1.3 volt to be prime avx stable.

Didn't you buy a binned 9900K? From what I recall, it was a pretty good one.

Unit 02
(12 items)
CPU
Intel Core i7-8700K
Motherboard
ASUS Maximus X Apex
GPU
NVIDIA Titan Xp
RAM
GSkill Trident Z - 16GB
Hard Drive
Samsung 960 PRO - 512GB
Power Supply
PRIME Ultra 1000 Titanium
Cooling
EK-CoolStream PE 360
Case
Lian Li PC-O11
Monitor
Dell AW3418DW
Keyboard
Corsair K70 RGB
Mouse
SteelSeries Rival 300
Audio
AKG K7XX
▲ hide details ▲
chibi is online now  
post #5 of 195 (permalink) Old 11-01-2019, 10:55 AM - Thread Starter
New to Overclock.net
 
Melodist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 193
Rep: 1 (Unique: 1)
Quote: Originally Posted by chibi View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Melodist View Post
Yeah, that's exactly what I'm hoping for, 5 GHz at something like 1.2 to 1.25, able to run non AVX prime and proper Stresstests on air because my 9900k required 1.28 to 1.3 volt to be prime avx stable.

Didn't you buy a binned 9900K? From what I recall, it was a pretty good one.
Yeah, it ran at around 1.25v stable during most tests but required 1.28 to 1.29 volts to run Aida 64 fpu stably which bugged me.

I think it was an average good one but not good. I think it runs really well at 4.9.

But I have my own standards when it comes to stability so I'm hoping to improve my odds with the 9900Ks, if not, I can still send it back...

I mean, whatever people assumed to be 5 GHz stable was to me 4.9 so I'm hoping to get a chip that is better.

Mine will arrive on Monday.
Melodist is offline  
post #6 of 195 (permalink) Old 11-01-2019, 11:16 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
Falkentyne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Riverside
Posts: 6,326
Rep: 397 (Unique: 283)
Quote: Originally Posted by Melodist View Post
Yeah, it ran at around 1.25v stable during most tests but required 1.28 to 1.29 volts to run Aida 64 fpu stably which bugged me.

I think it was an average good one but not good. I think it runs really well at 4.9.

But I have my own standards when it comes to stability so I'm hoping to improve my odds with the 9900Ks, if not, I can still send it back...

I mean, whatever people assumed to be 5 GHz stable was to me 4.9 so I'm hoping to get a chip that is better.

Mine will arrive on Monday.
Is that 1.29v bios set voltage or *load* voltage, and how was it measured? Maximus XI core voltage sensor? VR VOUT (Gigabyte, etc)?

[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 #7 of 195 (permalink) Old 11-01-2019, 03:53 PM - Thread Starter
New to Overclock.net
 
Melodist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 193
Rep: 1 (Unique: 1)
Quote: Originally Posted by Falkentyne View Post
Is that 1.29v bios set voltage or *load* voltage, and how was it measured? Maximus XI core voltage sensor? VR VOUT (Gigabyte, etc)?
I think that's the best I was able to pull off

https://www.overclock.net/forum/atta...303968&thumb=1

*Update*

Actually 1.285 volts is stable during aida 64 FPU, 1.28 crashes right before 1 hour.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	best.jpg
Views:	107
Size:	470.1 KB
ID:	303968  


Last edited by Melodist; 11-01-2019 at 05:26 PM.
Melodist is offline  
post #8 of 195 (permalink) Old 11-01-2019, 05:07 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
Falkentyne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Riverside
Posts: 6,326
Rep: 397 (Unique: 283)
Quote: Originally Posted by Melodist View Post
I think that's the best I was able to pull off

https://www.overclock.net/forum/atta...303968&thumb=1
Got it.
I did the exact same test as you and got the same VR OUT in AIDA64 stress test (1.184v) but I had a lower power draw. Same settings: 5 ghz 4.7 cache, but I didn't use Turbo LLC like you did.
I used LLC=High with a higher Bios target voltage than you did (1.30v vs 1.275v). Improves on transient response (VMIN) while the RMS load vcore is lower from more vdroop (lower temps). This creates a stability increase.

I no longer use LLC Turbo in any of my profiles now.

Try this:
1.30v BIOS set.
Vcore LLC=High.
Run AIDA64 stress test like that.
Your VR VOUT will be the same but your power draw or temps should be lower.

[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 #9 of 195 (permalink) Old 11-01-2019, 05:37 PM - Thread Starter
New to Overclock.net
 
Melodist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 193
Rep: 1 (Unique: 1)
Quote: Originally Posted by Falkentyne View Post
Got it.
I did the exact same test as you and got the same VR OUT in AIDA64 stress test (1.184v) but I had a lower power draw. Same settings: 5 ghz 4.7 cache, but I didn't use Turbo LLC like you did.
I used LLC=High with a higher Bios target voltage than you did (1.30v vs 1.275v). Improves on transient response (VMIN) while the RMS load vcore is lower from more vdroop (lower temps). This creates a stability increase.

I no longer use LLC Turbo in any of my profiles now.

Try this:
1.30v BIOS set.
Vcore LLC=High.
Run AIDA64 stress test like that.
Your VR VOUT will be the same but your power draw or temps should be lower.
Oh man, thank you so much for doing the same test so I have some reference to go with by another user's good sample

You only did FPU? Because only FPU is the proper stresstest, not checking all the other boxes. To me Aida 64 in this mode is the best stress test to test your CPU, not too demanding like Prime and not too absurdly low profile like der b8uer's test.

Yeah you are right, I think a lower LLC would be better.

I just hope the 9900ks will give me something where 5.1 sits at this voltage so I can run 5 GHz more stably at a lower one or do you think my expectations are too high?

I wish reviewers tested the 9900ks with aida 64 in FPU mode instead of vague stability assumptions based on quick tests without telling what they've actually used :/

Last edited by Melodist; 11-01-2019 at 06:02 PM.
Melodist is offline  
post #10 of 195 (permalink) Old 11-01-2019, 06:30 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
Falkentyne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Riverside
Posts: 6,326
Rep: 397 (Unique: 283)
Quote: Originally Posted by Melodist View Post
Oh man, thank you so much for doing the same test so I have some reference to go with by another user's good sample

You only did FPU? Because only FPU is the proper stresstest, not checking all the other boxes. To me Aida 64 in this mode is the best stress test to test your CPU, not too demanding like Prime and not too absurdly low profile like der b8uer's test.

Yeah you are right, I think a lower LLC would be better.

I just hope the 9900ks will give me something where 5.1 sits at this voltage so I can run 5 GHz more stably at a lower one or do you think my expectations are too high?

I wish reviewers tested the 9900ks with aida 64 in FPU mode instead of vague stability assumptions based on quick tests without telling what they've actually used :/
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).

[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

Last edited by Falkentyne; 11-01-2019 at 06:38 PM.
Falkentyne is online now  
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: 2 (1 members and 1 guests)
Scorpion667
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