Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community - Reply to Topic
Thread: Baffled with my Core i9-9900K overclock (Asus Auto OC > Manual VCore) Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:

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


  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
01-19-2020 09:17 AM
Totally Dubbed
Quote: Originally Posted by Shadowdane View Post
Your chip seems similar to my 9900K.. I used the Adaptive Mode setting though which is kinda similar to the offset mode voltages. My chip seems to top out at 4.9Ghz @ 1.28v, I did get it stable at 5Ghz @ 1.35v but the temps were way too hot for me.


Also don't leave the VCCIO & System Agent voltages on Auto. Asus boards in particular if you use any memory kits over DDR4-3000 will massively overvolt the VCCIO & System Agent voltages. Give the following a try might help lower your temps too! Before setting these voltages manually I was stuck basically at stock settings using a

VCCIO = 1.05v to 1.15v
System Agent = 1.15v to 1.25v

Thanks - although, I did ask Intel about this; I've chosen to leave them at Auto - it seems to work just fine

Quote: Originally Posted by The Pook View Post
silicon lottery, not silicone. silicone is for boobies.

nice that you got it stable but at 4.7 I'm not sure why you're calling it an OC, that's what a 9900K runs out of the box?

if you're using adaptive voltage your numbers are meaningless unless you're using the exact motherboard and exact CPU as someone else, different boards give CPUs different stock voltages and different CPUs of the same model report needing different VID.

I run a -0.40 offset @ 4.7 on my 9900K and that sounds like a lot but really its just that my board shoves a ton of voltage into my CPU when stock for no reason, my end voltage is still 1.26v or so.
Ha yes, I always make that mistake.
As for 4.7 - technically as it's not running on its base close of 3.6Ghz then ramping to Turbo, I see a 4.7 across all cores as an 'overlock', but yes, it's not technically a full on OC - but I am running it at lower voltages and temps than it would do out the box - if that makes sense?

I'm running offset not adaptive, but yes; I'm sharing my 'resolution' and settings for anyone to see.
And interesting to see that you also go somewhat similar to me; you don't run higher than 4.7 then?
01-17-2020 09:56 AM
The Pook silicon lottery, not silicone. silicone is for boobies.

nice that you got it stable but at 4.7 I'm not sure why you're calling it an OC, that's what a 9900K runs out of the box?

if you're using adaptive voltage your numbers are meaningless unless you're using the exact motherboard and exact CPU as someone else, different boards give CPUs different stock voltages and different CPUs of the same model report needing different VID.

I run a -0.40 offset @ 4.7 on my 9900K and that sounds like a lot but really its just that my board shoves a ton of voltage into my CPU when stock for no reason, my end voltage is still 1.26v or so.
01-17-2020 09:31 AM
Shadowdane Your chip seems similar to my 9900K.. I used the Adaptive Mode setting though which is kinda similar to the offset mode voltages. My chip seems to top out at 4.9Ghz @ 1.28v, I did get it stable at 5Ghz @ 1.35v but the temps were way too hot for me.


Also don't leave the VCCIO & System Agent voltages on Auto. Asus boards in particular if you use any memory kits over DDR4-3000 will massively overvolt the VCCIO & System Agent voltages. Give the following a try might help lower your temps too! Before setting these voltages manually I was stuck basically at stock settings using a

VCCIO = 1.05v to 1.15v
System Agent = 1.15v to 1.25v
01-10-2020 07:04 PM
Totally Dubbed So for those searching, I've been trying a multitude of things; again thanks to all that contributed on this thread.
Ultimately, I contacted Intel and Asus. The latter haven't gotten back to me yet (as it's gone to HQ), but Intel took some time with me to explain the OC.
They told me to keep things simple and use offset voltage rather than manual Vcore (as per the suggestion of 95% of videos/guides), the result has been great and actually lead me to a stable 4.7Ghz overclock at a lower voltage than what I had when I was on auto.

The steps are extremely simple - for an Asus board, here are my settings:
-AI overclock tuner: XMP 1
-Asus multicore enhancement: Enabled (for some reason, disabled which is normally suggested dropped my CPU frequency in non-AVX loads down to 4.3GHz)
-AVX instruction: set to 3
-CPU core ratio: Sync all cores to 47
-CPU core voltage: Offset, negative sign, -0.020

And that's it. No fiddling with LLC, SVID, manual Vcore or any other setting. Of course, if you want to set your BIOS preferences (ie fan speeds, LEDs, C-states etc, go ahead)

I then (as per Intel's suggestion), ran RealBench for 8hrs. Avg temp sat at around 78.8c with a Vcore of 1.128v and VID of 1.2390v.

So what's the difference between this and my Auto setting, I achieved before?
The Auto setting whereby I had everything in the BIOS set to auto, apart from XMP1 and/or manual RAM timings, yielded the same results (4.7Ghz), but at 1.243V and a VID of 1.3367v; this gave off an avg temp of 83c.
Ultimately, I shaved off a few centigrade and managed to reduce my Vcore by 0.115v. Decent.

Now, why didn't I push further?
Well, I actually did - I went up to 4.8GHz, whereby I reached almost a +/-0 offset, and went up to 5Ghz where I was hitting more of a + (not minus), 0.050 offset. The result of these two yielded really high temps - whereby I wouldn't feel comfortable running that 24/7 - I'm speaking high 90s, close to 100c at the 5GHz OC, and that was after only 10mins of RealBench, let alone 8hrs, which I didn't/want to test.

So what made me decide on 4.7Ghz, well a few things:
-The actual benefit of having 4.7Ghz vs 5Ghz in synthetic benchmarks is absolutely minimal; to give you an idea, I've 20 separate benchmarks from various benchmarking software
-The silicone lottery, had I had a better chip, I'd have been able to achieve a higher OC
-The temps, with my Noctua D15 air cooler, there's only so much I can achieve with the fans running at 1,500 RPM for 8hrs; the i9 9900K is a hot chip and is power-hungry if you push it - temps can easily get into the mid 90s on a 'low' OC - dependent on silicone lottery, of course.

Anyway, tl'dr, I got unlucky with silicone lottery, and must have one of the worst i9 chips out there, but I don't really care - as I'm still hitting fantastic results at a lower-mid-tier OC

I thought to share this, in case anyway was wondering where I got to.
I'll be sure to share more thoughts if and when I have them.

EDIT: Added bull BIOS screenshots.
01-05-2020 12:05 PM
Totally Dubbed
Quote: Originally Posted by munternet View Post
You may not get 5GHz but you might be able to get a little higher...
I always run HWinfo while I'm gaming. I like to know what temps I reach and if I throw a WHEA error. I actually threw a CPU error tonight after about 4 hours straight of BFV so I added 0.005 vcore.
Here are my settings anyway. You might find something useful in them
Thanks, will have a look at it!
01-03-2020 04:27 AM
munternet
Quote: Originally Posted by Totally Dubbed View Post
Feel free to share you settings - although, I'd not want to input anything via a file or anything, rather manually do them; at this stage I'm not bothered about getting to 5GHz no more as I don't think my chip can take it. I think it's a bad lottery, whereby temps get too high (it requires high volts) to get to the fabled 5GHz. At the same time, I'm very much content with 4.7GHz on auto (across all cores), but still want to understand WHY this has all happened.
I want to learn about it; I careless about actually using a 5GHz OC now (due to temp limitations).

And absolutely, I saw throttling when I was manually OCing, whereby when I was near 1.4V, cores dropped off 5GHz and downclocked to the safer 4.3-4.6GHz; that's when I decided to stop OCing and realised, this chip just can't take it or, of course, if I'm doing something wrong.
But according to you guys, all the guides I watched and read, there's nothing I'm fundamentally doing wrong.
For example, even though I don't agree with der8auer's settings - I copied his settings word by word and instead of using his 1.29V I ramped it straight to 1.35V - that failed; and so did 1.4V with both old and new P95 versions.
I've asked Asus and Intel to see what's the deal, linking them to this thread too.

As for the layout - good point, but given I'll no longer be going into the BIOS, pretty pointless now
You may not get 5GHz but you might be able to get a little higher...
I always run HWinfo while I'm gaming. I like to know what temps I reach and if I throw a WHEA error. I actually threw a CPU error tonight after about 4 hours straight of BFV so I added 0.005 vcore.
Here are my settings anyway. You might find something useful in them
01-03-2020 02:42 AM
Totally Dubbed
Quote: Originally Posted by munternet View Post
On my Max XI Gene in Extreme Tweaker/Overclocking Presets, there are a couple of 5GHz overclocks. A manual and an adaptive by der8auer. I could save the adaptive file as a text file and give it to you if you don't have it in your bios. It may translate straight over. I doubt the .CMO file would work.

The other thing I noticed is your temps at 5GHz seem to be at or near the limit of your cooler. At this level the cooler may actually lose it's ability to cool properly and performance will diminish according to This Video

Edit: You might consider customizing the HW layout to get all the main settings in one place. You can drag or hide items to make your favs viewable on one screen
Feel free to share you settings - although, I'd not want to input anything via a file or anything, rather manually do them; at this stage I'm not bothered about getting to 5GHz no more as I don't think my chip can take it. I think it's a bad lottery, whereby temps get too high (it requires high volts) to get to the fabled 5GHz. At the same time, I'm very much content with 4.7GHz on auto (across all cores), but still want to understand WHY this has all happened.
I want to learn about it; I careless about actually using a 5GHz OC now (due to temp limitations).

And absolutely, I saw throttling when I was manually OCing, whereby when I was near 1.4V, cores dropped off 5GHz and downclocked to the safer 4.3-4.6GHz; that's when I decided to stop OCing and realised, this chip just can't take it or, of course, if I'm doing something wrong.
But according to you guys, all the guides I watched and read, there's nothing I'm fundamentally doing wrong.
For example, even though I don't agree with der8auer's settings - I copied his settings word by word and instead of using his 1.29V I ramped it straight to 1.35V - that failed; and so did 1.4V with both old and new P95 versions.
I've asked Asus and Intel to see what's the deal, linking them to this thread too.

As for the layout - good point, but given I'll no longer be going into the BIOS, pretty pointless now
01-01-2020 05:58 PM
munternet
Quote: Originally Posted by Totally Dubbed View Post
So here's the update from me: 4.7GHz across all cores runs fine (decent temps, given my ambient is around 21-24c) - 17hrs on P95 without any issues; this is on auto mode with mutlicore disabled -> BIOS optimised.
Still, I'm baffled about the 'OC' as mentioned in my first post - so if anyone does have any ideas, do let me know! Thanks!
On my Max XI Gene in Extreme Tweaker/Overclocking Presets, there are a couple of 5GHz overclocks. A manual and an adaptive by der8auer. I could save the adaptive file as a text file and give it to you if you don't have it in your bios. It may translate straight over. I doubt the .CMO file would work.

The other thing I noticed is your temps at 5GHz seem to be at or near the limit of your cooler. At this level the cooler may actually lose it's ability to cool properly and performance will diminish according to This Video

Edit: You might consider customizing the HW layout to get all the main settings in one place. You can drag or hide items to make your favs viewable on one screen
01-01-2020 01:35 PM
Totally Dubbed So here's the update from me: 4.7GHz across all cores runs fine (decent temps, given my ambient is around 21-24c) - 17hrs on P95 without any issues; this is on auto mode with mutlicore disabled -> BIOS optimised.
Still, I'm baffled about the 'OC' as mentioned in my first post - so if anyone does have any ideas, do let me know! Thanks!
12-31-2019 10:00 AM
Totally Dubbed
Quote: Originally Posted by acoustic View Post
Idle temps don't matter - it's the temps under load. Heat breeds instability, so as your temps go up, you end up needing more voltage. This is a never-ending circle, as more voltage = more heat.



It could be BIOS related. I updated to that new 140x BIOS before I destroyed my Hero, and was having issues with settings that worked for months. Try rolling back to the 1303(?) BIOS and see if that helps. I've seen multiple people having issues with memory overclocking on the 140x, but haven't seen much about people losing CPU overclock because of it.

Again, I would dump P95 and go to ROG Realbench.
Sticking to P95 right now as I know that works and pushes the hell outta the chip; but have tried Cinebench R20/15 too.
As for the BIOS, yup I rolled back to 1302

Quote: Originally Posted by Falkentyne View Post
oh thats a 9900k? I thought it was a 9900ks. :/
in that case its just a bad chip. Because of the 9900KS binning. There's nothing you can do about it except sell it and try again or buy a KS or wait for the 10900k.
Yup, as mentioned in the OP
So, if it's a bad chip - I'm fine with that, but could you explain the VCore difference in BIOS vs CPUZ/HW? Or any ideas/pointers.

Current update btw:
I ENABLED Asus Multicore, and from memory, it basically adds more voltage than is needed and gives you higher temps at the top-spec frequency = 5GHz.
Upon Googling that seems to be the case too - now here's the thing; I can't get stable 5GHz at 1.4V with a manual OC, and yet, right now P95 has been running the XMP + Enabled multicore option. It's running 5GHz across all cores, temps are high 90s, however.
The thing is, it's running and actually is working (so far). Under load right now: VCore = 1.332V; VID = 1.42V ish (constantly fluctuating); current CPU power draw is 145W.

Just as a reference for anyone searching, with Asus multicore DISABLED or BIOS chosen, results in a max 4.7GHz clock speed across all eight cores; temps are far more acceptable and sit near the mid-to-low 80s -> I'll probably opt for this option all things considered.

So I'm back to square one where I'm baffled lol. I just don't get why manual OC with a higher voltage and even low or high LLC causes crashes at the same base frequency as the Auto mode.
I mean long story short, if temps weren't a concern and I REALLY wanted 5GHz (as if 4.7GHz wasn't enough), I basically have a one option does it all; and I don't have to faff around with 30 different BIOS settings...

EDIT:
Screenshot of the auto mode at 5GHz attached. Those core temps are frighteningly high...

EDIT 2:
I've decided to bin 5GHz in favor of the 'stock' 4.7GHz OC instead; and going to run that - still baffled with it all, but kind of getting tired of this back and forth when nothing actually makes sense lol...
If there was something I was doing wrong, I'd adjust it; but I simply can't see where I'm going wrong
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

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