Maximus 12 series and i9 10900k overclocking guide and tech sheet - Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community
Forum Jump: 

Maximus 12 series and i9 10900k overclocking guide and tech sheet

Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 37 (permalink) Old 05-20-2020, 08:00 AM - Thread Starter
Facepalm
 
Falkentyne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Riverside
Posts: 7,346
Rep: 440 (Unique: 306)
Maximus 12 series and i9 10900k overclocking guide and tech sheet

Asus Z490 - Bios Done Right.

Here is an overclocking guide for the Z490 Maximus 12 series.
This was done on a 12 Extreme, but should apply throughout the series.
This is based on a 10900k.

Bios used: 0508.
A big thank you to the great Shamino at Asus for supplying the test system used for review.

----------------------------------------------
Easy mode for people who just want to play video games fast or get to work
Use all auto settings (all intel defaults-->load optimized defaults or after clear CMOS) to use system within Intel spec settings.

You can check your "SP" or chip quality rating in your BIOS.
Average chip is 63--most end users will get around this.
World record clocking LN2 SP chip is 117.

----------------------------------------------
Quick overclock:

Boot windows and run a simple load like Cinebench R20.
Then go back to BIOS and set core Ratio to AI Optimized.
Protip: the Exact settings AI Optimized sets or recommends to you can be found
in the "AI Features" page
(You can enable XMP as needed for your RAM).
Unfortunately I cannot help with memory overclocking, guys.

---------------------------------------------
Manual control the fast way:

Enable XMP, and just set your CPU multiplier. No need to change anything else.
The other auto settings should work well, 4.8 to 5.1 ghz without needing to tweak.
Gamers should get easy 5.0 ghz on all cores. No problem.

------------------------
Expectations:

Low end air cooler: 4.8 ghz
High end air cooler: 4.9 to 5 ghz
Good water AIO: 5 ghz-5.2 ghz, depending on chip quality
Custom loops, chilled water, delids: 5.2 ghz easy+, depending on quality
Extreme Torture stress tests: 4.8 ghz air, 5 ghz Water.
On all auto settings, your CPU will utilize thermal velocity boost component of turbo boost 3.0
allowing 4.9 ghz on all cores if CPU temp <=70C. Otherwise 4.8 ghz via Turbo boost 2.0. On light loads, the two best cores will run up to 5.3 ghz at <70C, otherwise 5.1 ghz for light loads.

---------------------------
Turbo Boost 3.0 behavior:

1) There are only two favored cores defaulted for x53 ratio. They can be viewed in
BIOS in CPU configuration or with newest CPUZ, under tools->clocks (in red).
2) Windows 10 ver 1909 or newer is required to prioritze favored cores.
3) You can only boost to x53 for light loads on TB 3.0 if:
a) no more than 2 cores are loaded.
b) the cores being used as the favored cores.
On all auto settings, Intel power limits and power limit time (TAU) will be respected. 250 watts "short term" CPU package power for Power limit 2, 125W long term PL for power limit 1.

------------------------
Taking manual control:

Setting all core multipliers manually will max your power limits and remove PL restrictions and multiplier restrictions from TVB.
Want to control your cpu voltage with fixed vcore without risk of overvoltage?
It's easy.
Bios will test your cooler. You can boot to windows a few times, run some regular programs then reboot and it will recalibrate the cooler.
Then just look at the prediction value. For most users, you want the "Non AVX" voltage. This is the voltage you set *IN THE BIOS*. And is calibrated for Level 4 Loadline Calibration. Set your manual vcore control closest to the predicted value, up to 5mv higher (example: if 1.172v predicted, set 1.175v, not 1.170v).
And that's all you need to do. You should be stable in 99% of applications, even normal stress tests, including realistic AVX stress tests (Realbench 2.56, Cinebench R20, Prime95 AVX disabled small FFT, AIDA64 Stress FPU). Prime95 small FFT with AVX or FMA3, Y-cruncher AVX2, LinX 0.9.6, Linpack Extreme are not important for 99% of users! Please ignore it for your own sanity. It really is not important. If you care about that anyway you can read advanced options below.

-----------------------------------------
Advanced stuff for those who like reading (or who enjoy Buildzoid's oscilloscope videos!)
-----------------------------------------

The Asus Bios is universally considered to be the milepost for how to design a UEFI Bios, and while this is my first Asus board since the legendary P5W series

Compared to Z390, Voltages are toned down. No more getting 1.35v IO/SA on XMP 3200 RAM. All auto settings (bios defaults) now use 100% spec Intel power limits and voltages, while some competitors seem to be back to breaking the rules to make their boards look better, which was happening all over with Z390.

The most important new feature Asus has included with Z490 is their voltage tuning.
I've tested this extensively on a 10900k sample at 4.8ghz-5 ghz on all cores, and Asus tuning for standard users is literally 100% accurate.

Asus has two main tunings: Non AVX and AVX. These are tuned for Loadline Calibration level 4 (L4). The calibrations work up to L6, but become more inaccurate at L6 and you should tune to your specific system. Higher levels of LLC have worse transient response, so it's impossible to get full accuracy at all LLC levels. I have used L4 up to 5.2 ghz prediction (only Cinebench R20 tested @ 5.2 all cores).

An example of what a high LLC does to your transient response can be seen on these Z390 scope captures using a 11 Gene:
https://elmorlabs.com/index.php/2019...ne-visualized/
As Buildzoid noted, it is the absolute minimum voltage that determines stability, not your average RMS. With the improvements to Z490 VRM, using a level 4 LLC keeps your Vmins very close to the voltage transient dips.

Non AVX is based on Prime95 29.8 build 6 small FFT with AVX disabled, and based on your cooling solution, sets a minimum voltage that is needed to maintain full stability. Normal users please focus on this.

At full load, this is called an absolute "vMin", or a minimum load voltage floor that is needed to process SSE2 instructions without errors. If full load die-sense vcore for any other app drops below this point seen in Prime95, based on the predicted point you set in BIOS, you may have stability issues.

Note that AVX instructions are an extension of SSE2 instructions, and this is why SSE2 stability is important. Yes, AVX instructions use more current and draw more heat, but contrary to what most people think, the "minimum" voltage floor is almost identical. What changes the floor is heat. Vdroop does not change the floor--it simply changes the starting (Bios set) voltage needed to compensate for it.

In my own tests (assuming your hyperthreading related "Auxiliary" voltages are set correctly--VCCIO and VCCSA), the Non-AVX Bios set prediction values will give the average user FULL stability in both non AVX programs and in realistic AVX Stress tests-including Realbench 2.56, Cinebench R20, AIDA64 "Stress FPU", and Battlefield 5.

I've found that Prime95 small FFT with AVX disabled, Realbench 2.56, CB R20 and AIDA64 "Stress FPU" are all very close to the same current load and require about the same voltages overall.

The "Die sense" full load vcore reported vmin (based on prime95 small FFT AVX disabled) is the target point. If your AVX workloads remain at or above this Vmin, you should be stable. What you do not want is for your AVX workload to drop below this Vmin at full load.

The AVX bios voltage requirement is based on Prime95 small FFT with AVX. I found these not as accurate on L4 as the AVX disabled predictions, because the die-sense load voltage for AVX enabled may drop lower than the Vmin point of prime95 small FFT with AVX disabled at the prediction points. That can cause instability, so if that happens on your chip, increase bios voltage a bit until the load voltage is better than the prime AVX disabled load voltage. You can use HWinfo64's WHEA sensors log to check for CPU Cache L0 errors.

Also please keep in mind that the heat output of AVX enabled is going to also be MUCH higher than AVX disabled, which will also require an even higher Vmin. Example: If your chip is stable at load 1.05v @ 4.7 ghz in AVX disabled small FFT Prime95, it's NOT going to be just as stable at the same 1.05v load 4.7 ghz AVX enabled prime95, because your temps will be about 10-15C higher. You need to compensate for that.

Gamers and content creators should pay attention to the Non AVX predictions. They are that good.

Now I'm going to say this directly: PRIME95 AVX SMALL FFT STABILITY IS NOT IMPORTANT ON THIS PLATFORM! The AVX disabled prediction is good enough for regular AVX use!

Unless you are doing medical or scientific /number crunching work that requires these instructions, don't worry about AVX small FFT. Seriously. Passing Prime95 AVX small FFT, FMA3 small FFT, LinX 0.9.6 35000 sample size, Linpack Extreme 1.1.2, and putting 250 amps into your CPU is cool and all and it feels good if you pass it, but seriously it's NOT important! Heat output on 10 cores and the higher vdroop and current draw in these worst-case torture tests are NOT based on realistic usage situations, so there's NO need for anyone to say "If it's not AVX small FFT stable it's not stable." This applies even more when you exceed 4.8 ghz on all cores.

Another thing: Stop complaining about VRM temps! Cooler temps are always nice to have, but VRM's are designed to run hot and can operate to their rated temps. A VRM isn't a CPU. A VRM isn't suddenly going to throw math calculations or make your +12v drop to 10v at 85C. 60-70C is fine. This is fine. You can always use the fan to cool them more. Capacitors care about temps at 85C max. A VRM can run at 100C without causing crashes. So there's no need to say board X is worse than Y because X VRM's reached 75C while Y's reached 55C so Y is better--not true. That will not affect performance.
-------------------
Personal test results: Here are some of my own results from testing to demonstrate the accuracy of "Non AVX Prediction" at LLC4:

Vmins: Fixed Vcore test: 4.7 ghz: low vcore:

1.150v bios set, LLC4-->stable Apex Legends, Minecraft loading, AIDA64 "Stress FPU" (1.039v load! AIDA FPU), Prime95 AVX disabled small FFT stable
VMIN: 1.145v bios set, 1.012v load, Realbench 2.56 4 hours stable, 62C max, AIDA64: 1.012v load. 1 hour 64C max. Prime95 small FFT AVX disabled stable (1.012v load). 1000 khz VRM switching frequency seems to help Minecraft loading screen vmin very slightly. (Minecraft is a special case as it puts a 100% load on all cores when loading. It also seems to expose a 'bug' in the skylake core causing an Internal Parity Error randomly at a Vmin higher than expected. This bug was found during Apex Legends testing and debugging by Respawn's programmer Oriostorm, This causes a "Parity Error" rather than the more expected "L0 cache error" from too low vcore.

4.8ghz, 1.215v L4 LLC, AIDA64 stress FPU stable (1.066v load AIDA64 FPU stable), Minecraft loading stable, Prime 95 AVX enabled stable.
Bios set test: 1.180v LLC4: AIDA64 Stress FPU: 68C, 1.048v load
Realbench 2.56, 66C, 1.048v load, Minecraft Java: random Internal Parity Errors loading
Minecraft Java VMIN: 1.190v L4, 1.066v load, 60C max, 22 loads, No Internal Parity Errors over 22 consecutive main menu loads.
Absolute Vmin bios prediction: 1.175v, VRM 1000 khz-->seems to help minecraft.

4.9ghz, 1.225v L4 LLC, AIDA64, minecraft java load (1.083v load AIDA64 FPU, 145 amps, 72C, 1 hour test (Arctic Freezer II 360, ambient 74F)

5 ghz/4.7 cache @ 1000 khz
LLC4 test: 1.285v LLC4-Vmin SSE2, Normal AVX, Minecraft load loops, Prime95 SSE2, etc: 1.128v load. Minecraft Java loading screen test 40 loops @ LLC6, 500 khz (100% CPU, CPU Internal Parity Error test):
Higher LLC test: 1.235v bios set LLC6, VCCIO: 1.05v, VCCSA 1.10v. Load voltage vmin: 1.153v
----------------------
Hyperthreading seems to be very dependent on IO/System agent voltages, and very erratic stabilty can happen when you are very close to the voltage Vmin. To check if L3 cache/IMC (Via VCCIO/VCCSA, which are signal rails, both related to the memory controller) is hurting stability, use Prime95 AVX disabled in-place fixed FFT 112k-112k and look for HWinfo64 WHEA CPU Cache L0 errors within 10mv of your Vmin or for random programs crashing during the 112k test. 112K in-place fixed FFT is a strange case. It actually hits the system RAM and caches hard, so it can determine if your IMC auxiliaries are set properly.

When testing at your vmin, if your VCCIO/VCCSA is too low, you may get the following:
1) WHEA CPU Cache L0 error in HWinfo64 sensors.
2) System Service Exception (or IRQL) BSOD
3) Random crashed prime95 threads.
4) Your Video driver settings crashing randomly during the stress test (Radeonsettings has stopped working).

There seems to be about a 10mv-20mv range where a too high IO/SA (or too low) will cause random issues during a 112K-112K in place AVX disabled Prime95 stress test, or during Realbench 2.56 / AIDA64 Stress FPU, unless you increase CPU Vcore enough.

If your IO and SA are set properly, if your Vmin is too low, AIDA64 "Stress FPU" should report "instability detected" instead of you getting a BSOD or your video card driver crashing
I found that 1.05v VCCIO and 1.10v VCCSA seems to be the best point for me. Your mileage will vary and it depends on your RAM timings and memory speeds!

If you are unstable, you can also just increase CPU Voltage. Also note that higher XMP speeds also will require a higher IO/SA. This is the reason why people have found that they need a higher CPU Vcore when overclocking their RAM. Sometimes a higher IO/SA at 4000 mhz RAM speeds will let you reduce vcore slightly.

Some random AVX power virus tests (seriously don't focus on small FFT AVX).
Prime95 AVX1 15K: 1.250v LLC6, VCCIO: 1.05v, VCCSA: 1.10v (load voltage min: 1.128v).
Prime95 AVX2 (FMA3) 15K: 1.270v LLC6, VCCIO: 1.05v, VCCSA: 1.10v (load voltage min: 1.137v)

5.1 ghz: Prime95 AVX1: 1.320v LLC6--100C (FMA3 is impossible--temps).
5.2 ghz: Cinebench, gaming: 1.380v LLC4 (prediction)--1.199v load--passed CB R20. I did not do much testing at all here. 1.350v LLC6 also passed.

5.3 ghz test: : Minecraft loading, Battlefield 5 fully stable @ 1.380v LLC7, Stress testing is impossible (temps--100% in seconds then hard lock, e.g. Cinebench R20).
Battlefield 5 reached the 80's.
I used a high LLC here because of lack of prediction points at 5.3 ghz (too few samples) and vdroop would be much too high, so I wanted a lower BIOS voltage at the cost of bad transients.
---------------
An issue with offset voltage/adaptive when using a high AC Loadline, and why ACLL/DCLL 0.01 mOhms is very good.

Random tech rambling.

5.3 ghz+ Offset voltage +5mv + SVID Behavior: Typical (AC/DC Loadline=0.6 mOhms)+ Loadline Calibration: Intel default (1.1 mOhms = LLC3): seemed to be VERY unreliable and unpredictable depending on test: Idle voltage was 1.420v, however Random Internal parity errors loading Minecraft. However Vcore response was VERY smooth and evenly controlled when doing any full core load like Cinebench R20 (1.320v load) with no oscillations. But loading minecraft or Battlefield 5 caused erratic voltage swings from 1.305v(!) to 1.480v(!), which made vmin randomly too low. This is the same issue I encountered on Z390 when trying to use AC Loadline to control load voltages at a high overclock. It seems that ACLL can boost the output voltage reliably using this formula:

Vcore=vCPU + (ACLL * IOUT) - (LLC * IOUT) + vOffset
However with mixed AVX/non AVX loads that are NOT on all cores loaded, it seems like ACLL doesn't raise the output voltage at the correct time, which causes too much vdroop, and at other times raises it during a low load situation, causing too much vcore. This is not a bios bug, but rather an issue with mixed loads with high transients and AC Loadline responding to it, as I encountered on the Z390 Aorus Master when trying to use Offset mode (Auto mode=offset + 0mv) with AC Loadline 1.6 mOhms, LLC: Standard (1.6 mOhms=Intel spec) at 5.2 ghz. Example: 1.32v during Cinebench R20 (nice and even VR VOUT), but Battlefield 5 ranging from 1.28v (= BSOD!) to 1.46v

The only way to avoid an issue like this is to set ACLL to 0.01 mOhms to limit how much it can boost the output voltage, but then you need to use a higher Loadline calibration. (remember: on offset mode, the HIGHER you set the AC Loadline value, the LOWER Level you must set for Loadline calibration (low levels of LLC=higher mOhms of resistance, so you should try to keep ACLL close to LLC (VRM Loadline).

But if you're going to use offset mode with ACLL 0.01 mOhms, you're better off using fixed vcore or adaptive voltage anyway. The only advantage of offset mode with ACLL=0.01 mOhms, compared to fixed vcore (let's say you are using LLC: L6 in both) is the ability to downvolt while idle to avoid high idle voltages, but there is one other advantage: offset mode with ACLL 0.01 mOhms allows you to take advantage of Thermal Velocity Boost to raise the vCPU as temps increase, but if you need to use a higher Loadline calibration, you get a transient response penalty compared to a steeper LLC.

As a gamer, and you hear this often, it's commonly recommended to disable all c-states and power saving to maximize stability. Having a constant clock and steady voltage states with c-states disabled is often recommended by many experienced people, including Mr Fox on notebookreview forums and LN2'ers and so on.

Having the new VF curve feature can help with low load instability issues when using c-states in offset or adaptive modes. Using a fixed offset applies the offset to all voltage points at each frequency step. You can use the VF Curve to tune this.

----------------------
Thermal Velocity Boost test:

All auto voltages, Intel spec settings used: 3dmark Firestrike: Cores settled at 4.9 ghz all cores.
I personally haven't found much use for TVB as a gamer with a good cooling solution. If your cooling solution isn't up to par, it may be useful, but Asus' voltage tuning is so good, you can just use their recommendations. I never saw the 5.3 ghz boost in games.
Only in windows at idle. Maybe someone can run Super Pi or mess around with Affinity and lock a prime95 thread or a single threaded game process to a core and run prime95 on two threads and post their results.

Favored cores is a binning where the two best cores will get the thermal velocity boost ratios. You can change which cores are getting which ratios in the BIOS advanced settings for CPU Configuration or set "By Per Core Loading". I personally didn't find a lot of use for this again, but if you are trying to push past 5.3 ghz on limited core loads, perhaps this may be useful to you.

VF Frequency editor:
You can now configure the offset voltages used on Adaptive / offset vcore mode when your CPU is downclocking, e.g. in combination with C-states and Speedstep, etc. This can help avoid problems seen on Z390 with "Idle BSOD's" because you wanted to undervolt but the undervolt applied to the entire voltage range from 800 mhz up to 5 ghz. The frequency range below 2 ghz often triggers something like this. I don't use C-states (I keep them permanently off) as I personally like to "smoke em if I got em", but there are some people who will love this.

The VF points you can change are 800 mhz, 2.5 ghz, 3.5 ghz, 4.3 ghz, 4.8 ghz, 5.1 ghz, 5.2 ghz and 5.3 ghz.

ROG Shamino put a lot of work into this feature, and I don't believe all OEM's expose this, so if you find this useful, use it.
---------------
Adaptive voltage:
In order to use adaptive voltage, you MUST know your Vmin at the LLC you want to use. You can get that vmin from fixed vcore prediction testing. Once you have found it, and verified its stability on your own system, you need to set your offset so that you stay above your vmin. You may find that setting a 0mv offset with adaptive voltage may get you similar load voltages as your fixed bios prediction setting, with a lower idle voltage.

Another advantage of adaptive voltage (as well as the direct offset mode) is being able to downvolt when you downclock at idle, if you choose to use power saving.

Additional turbo voltage allows you to set a voltage floor if you need more vcore at your "P0" frequency, but this floor cannot be lower than the reported VID. Additional Turbo Voltage differs from "Offset" in adaptive mode, because additional turbo voltage only applies to the "P0" frequency (e.g. in auto modes with TVB, this is x53, the two favored cores). So if you want a light load, you can set for example, x55 for the two favored cores, 1.50v additional turbo voltage etc (this is a high voltage, but it's an example).

Offset voltage applies to the entire voltage range. So +50mv offset, for example, would apply to all the core frequencies, whether 800 mhz or 5.2 ghz, etc.
You can use the voltage frequency editor to change the offsets of the higher turbo ratios. Obviously there are fewer points below 5.1 ghz, since they are not so important since it's >5ghz people care about. So VF point at x48, x51, x52, x53, then at larger steps below x48.

----------------------------------------------
What's this about AC/DC Loadline?
----------------------------------------------

AC loadline is what helps set the operating voltage of the processor, based on silicon quality and adjusting for current. You can think of it as loadline calibration but done on the CPU side (request) instead of on the VRM side (vdroop). It's a specification designed by Intel, and it's a simple formula to calculate, although the implementation isn't always giving you what you think it is, which causes issues if you use a too high ACLL on Auto/Offset vcore modes.

Protip: on Auto/Offset vcore modes, the higher the AC Loadline value (CPU Input voltage) is in milliohms, the Higher the Loadline Calibration mOhms (Lower Level of LLC---or MORE VDROOP) should be. DO NOT COMBINE HIGH MOHMS OF ACLL WITH LOW MOHMS OF LOADLINE CALIBRATION, EVER.

Relationship between Vdroop and LLC mOhms is here:
https://www.overclock.net/forum/6-in...l#post27860326

CPU Vcore(mv)= vCPU + (ACLL * IOUT) - (LLC * IOUT) + vOffset
Where: vCPU=CPU base VID in millivolts (measured at ACLL, DCLL=0.01 mOhms + Thermal Velocity Boost voltage offset based on temps),
ACLL=AC Loadline in milliohms
DCLL=DC Loadline in milliohms
LLC=VRM Loadline (Loadline calibration) in milliohms
iOUT=CPU current in amps
vOffset=offset voltage in millivolts.

Thermal Velocity Boost: raises vCPU based on temps, as CPU's need higher voltage at higher temps. At the highest turbo ratio, I believe this is -2.5mv every -1C drop, starting at 100C, or you could say +2.5mv every 1C starting at 0C. I don't remember the exact value. On Z390 on a 9900K, it was 5mv per 1C at x50 multiplier and disabled at x40 multiplier.

More specifially you should know the relationship between VID and Vcore.
CPU VID is actually vCPU + (ACLL * dI) - (DCLL * I) + vOffset

I do NOT know what dI means. This formula came from Elmor, but dI=d1-d0. I'll let you engineers deal with that.
The above formula helps explain the use of having DC Loadline equal to VRM (LLC) Loadline in mOhms.

So it makes sense that AC Loadline controls the operating voltage.
Where the processor attempts to keep ACLL at the vCPU value, if DC Loadline=VRM Loadline (LLC and DCLL are at the same milliohms).

This works excellent in a fully balanced, even load like Prime95 or Cinebench. Perfect, actually.
Let's take an example at 100 amps:

vCPU=1.215v (1215mv) @ 5 ghz
Temps:30C (vCPU will be lower if temps are lower, higher if higher, this is from TVB voltage optimizations).
200 amp current load-Cinebench R20.

Loadlines: Intel's fail safe: AC Loadline: 1.1 mOhms, DC Loadline: 1.1 mOhms. Loadline Calibration: level 3 (1.1 mOhms). Remember DCLL is used only for power measurements (CPU VID/CPU package Power as CPU Package Power=VID * IOUT).
We can use Vcore offset mode for this: +005v (closest to 0mv). Or adaptive +0mv
Load temp: 70C, Need to do some math.

70C-30C=40C temp increase. 40 * 2.5mv =100mv. (Thermal Velocity boost)
So vCPU=1215mv + 100mv=1315mv.
Vcore: 1315mv + (1.1 * 200) - (1.1 * 200) + 0
1315 + (220mv) - (220mv)=1.315v load voltage.

Your cinebench load voltage should be reporting about 1.315v steady die-sense in this example. If your temps were lower, your voltage would be lower too (remember?
The first 220mv is the AC Loadline voltage request from 200 amps of current (200 * 1.1 mOhms). The second 220mv is from vdroop of the vcore on the VRM. (done to improve transients)

Now there is an important reason I am giving both of these values.
This AC Loadline automation works extremely well for "balanced" loads like prime and cinebench, however when you use an erratic, violent changing load like Battlefield 5, it seems that ACLL and the vdroop are not always synched with the changing load.

You would think that vcore should be constantly between 1280-1340v. But in fact, if you play your Battlefield 5, you would see extremely erratic vcores as low as 1.240v and as high as 1.40 or higher!! Let's look again at the CB example:

1315mv + (220mv)=1.535v at 200 amps. This is the absolute max that the VRM will supply to the CPU before vdroop occurs. This cap is set by the AC Loadline SVID limit, which is 1.520v, but Asus allows VRM command 33h (an IMPV8 command)active, which allows SVID to go up to 1.720v. Vdroop at 200 amps will drop this back down to 1.315v.

The issue is for some reason (this has absolutely NOTHING to do with Asus--it's an Intel/VRM design thing--Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Master acts the exact same), sometimes AC Loadline will not boost the operating voltage high enough like it should (e.g. it might only be 1350mv at 200 amps for a short time), or the VRM might see a very low load and not apply enough vdroop to counter ACLL's voltage request (thus your 1.45v). This can cause you to BSOD if your load voltage drops too low suddenly (like it drops to 1250mv when you need 1300mv minimum) or have your chip at far too much voltage for safety.

The fix for this is to keep AC Loadline at 0.01 mOhms. But this requires you to use a stronger loadline calibration than Level 3 usually.

For high overclocks, if you need a high load voltage, you can try using fixed vcore with a very strong loadline calibration, to keep your idle voltage from beineg too high, but be wary of stress testing as your transients will be very bad, Or you can use adaptive voltage with additional turbo voltage value for your voltage floor. Remember do not use a too strong LLC when using adaptive voltage.

Also: Warning:--in adaptive or offset or auto vcore modes: as if once was not enough:
DO NOT EVER COMBINE A HIGH AC LOADLINE MOHMS VALUE (>0.9 mOhms) with a high level LOADLINE CALIBRATION VALUE (low mOhms!)
On fixed vcore, the ACLL value is not important as it is not used for vcore so this can be ignored.

More on Thermal Velocity Boost.
Thermal Velocity Boost consists of several components, some new to 10th gen, some carried over from 9th gen (technically even Kaby Lake had this but was not advertised as such).
You have the Turbo Boost 3.0 component, which allows cores to reach the TVB setting of 4.9 ghz all cores at <75C core temps, (otherwise you get Turbo Boost 2.0 ratios of 4.8 ghz all core), or 5.3 ghz on the two favored cores on 1-2 core load. Most common PC games will use the all core ratio for multi-core loads.
You also have a new setting called vMaxStress. This will limit VID requests so that as a too high VID, the processor will reduce its frequency instead of trying to run at a higher VID. It will reduce its frequency until the VID request is no longer >1.45v. You can enable this if you prefer to run at lower frequencies or if you are scared about too high voltages while you are learning. This is a safety mechanism.

TVB Ratio clipping was first seen on 8th gen laptops, as a pretty large throttling mechanism, and was usually disabled anyway (it activated at 50C, which was useless on a laptop).
On our desktops, TVB Ratio clipping will drop the multiplier by 1 if the temp exceeds 70C. Example, all cores 4.9 ghz-->4.8 ghz for TVB.

You can use ratio clipping in combination with changing the multiplier of the favored cores, for example, if your CPU is strong enough, you can have the two best cores run at x55 if <70C, so that if you exceed 70C, the two lightly loaded cores will not drop more than one bin lower. Some benchmarkers may like this feature.

TVB voltage optimizations is enabled by default.
TVB voltage optimizations will scale the CPU VID depending on the core temp, with higher multipliers scaling more and scaling being disabled at x44 on a 10900k. It's very similar to the Z390 version:
x53: VID will drop 1.55mv every 1C (starting at 100C) (-1.55mv / -1C)
x52: -1.45mv / -1C
x51: -1.15mv / -1C
x50: -0.9mv / -1C
And so on.
At x45 this is only -0.05mv every 1C and is disabled at x44.
So you can see at x53 this can get very aggressive.
Disabling this will set your VID at the highest possible point for that multiplier (as if the CPU were at 100C). Since the AI prediction tuning tests your cooler and takes that into account, you usually won't need to enable this. But if you need a higher VID, you can enable it, but it may be a bit too aggressive.

---------------
For users who don't want to read too much:

Just use Auto voltage and Auto loadline calibration and set the multiplier you want. This works very well up to x50 (5000 mhz). Try it and see for yourself!
In my own tests, the prediction for 4.8-5.0 ghz Non AVX is 100% accurate.

At 5.1 ghz, the prediction accuracy falls off and at 5.2 ghz, it falls way off. Shamino expected this.
That is caused by a lack of VID sampling points (Shamino, please correct me if i'm inaccurate), and lower chip data numbers,
since the chips are not designed to run 5.1 ghz on all cores at heavy loads, and the vdroop also makes estimations difficult, especially when some cores are stronger than others.

Feel free to post your own prediction tests and accuracy for 4.8 to 5 ghz on your 10900k samples for non AVX (remember: Prime95 small FFT AVX disabled is the target base, and Realbench 2.56).

A higher VRM switching frequency may help or hurt your Vmins. 300 khz may be more stable for sustained heavy balanced loads while worse for violently changing transients,
The user will have to test different switching frequencies for themselves. I found 300 khz most stable at 5.1 ghz small FFT AVX disabled Prime95.

---------------

Big thank you to Asus @ Shamino for supplying the system used in this guide and all of the help and feedback he gave me with this platform!

[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

Quote: Originally Posted by sakete View Post
Well, I want you to know I have an academic degree in speculation.

Last edited by Falkentyne; 05-22-2020 at 07:37 AM.
Falkentyne is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 37 (permalink) Old 05-20-2020, 10:03 AM
Retired Staff
 
phospholipid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: California
Posts: 6,535
Rep: 400 (Unique: 292)
beautiful, thank you!


Wibbly Wobbly, Timey Wimey.
CPU
i9-9900k
Motherboard
Asus Maxmimus Code XI
GPU
ASUS 2080 RTX Ti FE
RAM
G.Skill Trident
Hard Drive
Samsung Evo PRO
Cooling
NZXT x62
Case
Lian Li O11 Dynamic
▲ hide details ▲


phospholipid is offline  
post #3 of 37 (permalink) Old 05-20-2020, 10:12 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
GAN77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 252
Rep: 2 (Unique: 2)
Thank you for your work!
GAN77 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 37 (permalink) Old 05-20-2020, 10:16 AM - Thread Starter
Facepalm
 
Falkentyne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Riverside
Posts: 7,346
Rep: 440 (Unique: 306)
Quote: Originally Posted by GAN77 View Post
Thank you for your work!
You're welcome. It's definitely a more interesting platform than Z390, and you can tell the improvements being set in place for a future platform.

[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

Quote: Originally Posted by sakete View Post
Well, I want you to know I have an academic degree in speculation.
Falkentyne is online now  
post #5 of 37 (permalink) Old 05-20-2020, 10:56 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
criskoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 398
Rep: 5 (Unique: 4)
Quote: Originally Posted by Falkentyne View Post
Expectations:

Low end air cooler: 4.8 ghz
High end air cooler: 4.9 to 5 ghz
Good water AIO: 5 ghz-5.2 ghz, depending on chip quality
Custom loops, chilled water, delids: 5.2 ghz easy+, depending on quality
With these estimates, what are your temperature limits that coincide with these estimated values? Meaning during normal person stability stress tests (Aida FPU / P95 Small FFT NO AVX ) for realistic durations of a few hours? 80C? 85C? 90C? Or are you allowing all the way up to throttling?

Is the 10900k similar to the 9900k in that after 90C stability starts to drop fast?

Obviously every cpu will be different and your single sample is difficult to gauge what others might be capable as it’s still very early. But considering the expectations you estimate and set out there was wondering if you might be able to share your expectations about what max temps should be to stay in a certain category?

Example.... “Good water AIO: 5 ghz-5.2 ghz, depending on chip quality” keep it under 85C doing Aida FPU / P95 Small FFT NO AVX?

Just trying to gauge your temp cut off limit per category.


You’ve given a ton of great info there. So awesome. I’m sure his will come in handy for many to come.

Current
(13 items)
CPU
9900KS
Motherboard
Asus Maximus XI Extreme
GPU
Nvidia 1080Ti FE
RAM
Corsair Dominator Platinum RGB
Hard Drive
Samsung 970 EVO
Power Supply
Evga 1200 P2
Cooling
Ek Magnitude
Cooling
EK D5 Kinetic D5 TBE
Cooling
2X EK 360 PE
Cooling
EK 1080ti Full Cover Block
Cooling
AC High Flow USB
Cooling
10X Corsair 120mm ML Pro Fans
Case
Lian Li 011 Dynamic XL
▲ hide details ▲

Last edited by criskoe; 05-20-2020 at 11:22 AM.
criskoe is online now  
post #6 of 37 (permalink) Old 05-20-2020, 11:12 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
reflex75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 132
Rep: 1 (Unique: 1)
Big thanks for such a brillant writing for the OC community!
I am sure you will make a lot of us want to buy Asus Motherboards.
I hope Asus will let you keep this MB+CPU for your good work, you deserve it!
reflex75 is offline  
post #7 of 37 (permalink) Old 05-20-2020, 11:23 AM - Thread Starter
Facepalm
 
Falkentyne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Riverside
Posts: 7,346
Rep: 440 (Unique: 306)
Quote: Originally Posted by criskoe View Post
With these estimates, what are your temperature limits that coincide with these estimated values? Meaning during normal person stability stress tests (Aida FPU / P95 Small FFT NO AVX ) for realistic durations of a few hours? 80C? 85C? 90C? Or are you allowing all the way up to throttling?

Obviously every cpu will be different and your single sample is difficult to gauge what others might be capable. But considering the expectations you estimate there was wounding if you might be able to say about what max temp would be about of said tests?

Example.... Can a “Good water AIO: 5 ghz-5.2 ghz, depending on chip quality” keep it under 85C doing Aida FPU / P95 Small FFT NO AVX?

Not sure if you took note or documented during your testing but Could you share your samples temps? Like at X speed with X test at X ambient with X cooling product used. You’ve already done a lot. Please share if you have the time and energy.

You’ve given a ton of great info there. So awesome. I’m sure his will come in handy for many to come.
Pretty sure I posted the temps in part of the breakdown.
But AIDA64 "Stress FPU" at 4.8 ghz, 1.175v Bios set, LLC Level 4, 1.048v load, is 66C
Arctic Liquid Freezer II 360 with Thermalright TFX paste (This paste seems a few C better than Kryonaut after it cures).

That's at my absolute Vmin. Even 5mv lower on voltage and AIDA64 bails with an Instability Detected error rather quickly.

And I really can't give temp estimates like that. So much depends on the vcore you use and of course you already know a low VID chip at a certain voltage point can run hotter than a high VID chip at the same point, but can take less voltage for a frequency. And voltage predictions will change based on CPU Quality and Cooler score. My score has been between 159 to 166.

[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

Quote: Originally Posted by sakete View Post
Well, I want you to know I have an academic degree in speculation.

Last edited by Falkentyne; 05-20-2020 at 11:28 AM.
Falkentyne is online now  
post #8 of 37 (permalink) Old 05-20-2020, 11:29 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
criskoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 398
Rep: 5 (Unique: 4)
Quote: Originally Posted by Falkentyne View Post
Pretty sure I posted the temps in part of the breakdown.
But AIDA64 "Stress FPU" at 4.8 ghz, 1.175v Bios set, LLC Level 4, 1.048v load, is 66C
Arctic Liquid Freezer II 360 with Thermalright TFX paste (This paste seems a few C better than Kryonaut after it cures).

That's at my absolute Vmin. Even 5mv lower on voltage and AIDA64 bails with an Instability Detected error rather quickly.
Yeah no sorry I see you have some temps scattered through out the write up. Thank you. So I’m wording this wrong then. My bad

Trying to gauge you’re category estimate of ”expectations”.

Like if you can keep it under X temp you should be able to hit X speed. Like how you categorized air/aio/custom.

I was wondering what value you were using there? I’m guessing 90c?

Current
(13 items)
CPU
9900KS
Motherboard
Asus Maximus XI Extreme
GPU
Nvidia 1080Ti FE
RAM
Corsair Dominator Platinum RGB
Hard Drive
Samsung 970 EVO
Power Supply
Evga 1200 P2
Cooling
Ek Magnitude
Cooling
EK D5 Kinetic D5 TBE
Cooling
2X EK 360 PE
Cooling
EK 1080ti Full Cover Block
Cooling
AC High Flow USB
Cooling
10X Corsair 120mm ML Pro Fans
Case
Lian Li 011 Dynamic XL
▲ hide details ▲
criskoe is online now  
post #9 of 37 (permalink) Old 05-20-2020, 11:43 AM - Thread Starter
Facepalm
 
Falkentyne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Riverside
Posts: 7,346
Rep: 440 (Unique: 306)
Quote: Originally Posted by criskoe View Post
Yeah no sorry I see you have some temps scattered through out the write up. Thank you. So I’m wording this wrong then. My bad

Trying to gauge you’re category estimate of ”expectations”.

Like if you can keep it under X temp you should be able to hit X speed. Like how you categorized air/aio/custom.

I was wondering what value you were using there? I’m guessing 90c?
The values come from the AI prediction settings in the BIOS.
And I have no idea what temp is expected or needed for what speed. That stuff goes into the realm of microprocessor physics and is beyond me.
What I do know is that the predictions are based on CPU VID, cooler score and on Asus' own tests of various CPU's of different quality. There is no exact formula as the predicted BIOS set voltage at LLC4 may match the CPU VID at idle with ACDC Loadline at 0.01 (SVID Behavior=best case scenario) at 4.7ghz, for example, but at something like 5 ghz, the predicted BIOS set voltage will be much higher than the VID.

In my case, 4.7ghz VID was 1.140v (ACDC LL=0.01 mOhms) and BIOS prediction was 1.145v LLC4, but at 5 ghz, idle VID was 1.215v while predicted BIOS voltage to set was 1.285v LLC4.

Pretty sure the VIDs are based on an AC and DC Loadline and VRM Loadline (LLC=level 3=1.1 mOhms) all of 1.1 mOhms on Auto voltage (or Offset mode with 0mv offset), as I looked in laptop Bioses and laptops use a default ACDC Loadline of 1.1 mOhms on 10th gen H/HK parts and a fixed VRM Loadline (LLC) of 1.1 mOhms. But this gets over my head quickly.

[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

Quote: Originally Posted by sakete View Post
Well, I want you to know I have an academic degree in speculation.
Falkentyne is online now  
post #10 of 37 (permalink) Old 05-20-2020, 11:52 AM
Back at it again.
 
Avacado's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 1,369
Rep: 100 (Unique: 75)
Subscribed for sure. Thank you very much for the time and effort to break it down for us. + Rep

22643 Time Spy https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/46344026?

https://folding.extremeoverclocking....e.php?u=207393
White Lightning
(12 items)
CPU
i7 9700k @ 5.1GHz 1.385v
Motherboard
ASUS Prime Z390-A
GPU
Evga 2080 Ti Black Gamer
RAM
32GB GSkill TridentZ DDR4 3600
Hard Drive
2 x 1 TB Samsung EVO 970 Raid 0
Power Supply
EVGA 1000w
Cooling
Corsair H150i Pro
Case
CORSAIR Crystal 570X White Mid Tower
Operating System
Windows 10 Home
Monitor
Alienware 1900R 34.1" @ 120Hz
Keyboard
Loigitech G910
Mouse
Logitech G700s
▲ hide details ▲


Avacado 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