Baffled with my Core i9-9900K overclock (Asus Auto OC > Manual VCore)

Totally Dubbed · Dec 30, 2019

EDIT: Here's where I got to, tl'dr I have a bad silicone lottery: https://www.overclock.net/forum/28277336-post29.html

Heya!

I've recently upgraded from my long-standing Asus Sabertooth Z77 with a de-lidded Core i7-3770K (running at 4.5GHz) to an Asus Maximus Hero XI Wi-Fi with a Core i9-9900K.
As I learned 6+ years ago, it's always good to test the system on stock first; and I did that with the Core i9 system - Upon installing Windows I hit up the BIOS, tinkered with a few settings and put it on an old non-AVX built P95. Then, I ran the test for around 2hrs without any throttling or problems; temps were in the high 90s and I presumed the system was overshooting my voltage in order to guarantee a 5GHz OC (Asus MultiCore Enhancement set all 8 cores to 5GHz) - CPU-Z reported a VCore of 1.252V; HW reported a max of 1.332V-1.368V.

Below is a pic of my BIOS; essentially most things were on stock/auto; XMP1 + the Asus OC.

https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=314966&thumb=1

After testing my 'stock' system, I decided to start my OC'ing journey. I watched a multitude of guides, read a bunch of them - most had contradicting information, so I stuck with what I knew best - the same sort of settings that applied to my core i7-3770K (almost identical to a few guides I read of the i9-9900K).

Long story short, 5GHz ran into plenty of BSOD/auto-restart/P95 crashing but the PC staying in desktop; and right now I'm a bit stumped.
To put it into perspective, I ran manual VCore to 1.4V and it was still crashing (let alone the sky-high temps, which put me off 5GHz all together).
Even more of a mystery to me is my VCore readings in CPUZ and HW: If in the BIOS I set 1.32V, in the software programs without ANY load, I get around 1.28V; add 100% P95 load on it and with LLC Level 6-7 it drops to around 1.25V.

Okay, so what are the questions?
I want to know the following:
1. Why is my BIOS Vcore drastically different from my CPUZ/HW readings?
2. Why is my manual OC struggling, while the Asus auto OC seems to run fine in P95?
3. What can I realistically achieve with my Noctua D15 air cooler with this chip? I don't need 5GHz, but it would be a nice sweet spot

4. Why do I need 1.31V to run 4.8GHz?
5. Am I doing anything wrong with my settings/BIOS etc?

Just before answering, I've attached all my BIOS screenshots, below for my 4.8GHz 'OC'; it's currently running P95 as I type this - it failed at 1.3V after 2.5hrs.
FYI - I'm now running the latest P95 version and have disabled AVX2 and AVX1 in the custom field.

Any help would be greatly apprecaited

!

The Pook · Dec 30, 2019

look in HWInfo for a "VR VOUT" sensor. Some boards don't have it but if you do then that's what you should be looking at.

Software readings always have some level of inaccuracy but the VR VOUT sensor is a direct readout from the VRM and should be accurate enough.

vDroop is normal and it's a good thing (albeit annoying), use LLC to limit it if it's excessive but you shouldn't try to completely remove it. Overshoot is more of an issue than needing slightly higher voltage to offset the vDroop.

https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/load-line_calibration

Totally Dubbed · Dec 30, 2019

The Pook said:
look in HWInfo for a "VR VOUT" sensor. Some boards don't have it but if you do then that's what you should be looking at.

Software readings always have some level of inaccuracy but the VR VOUT sensor is a direct readout from the VRM and should be accurate enough.

vDroop is normal and it's a good thing (albeit annoying), use LLC to limit it if it's excessive but you shouldn't try to completely remove it. Overshoot is more of an issue than needing slightly higher voltage to offset the vDroop.

https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/load-line_calibration

Yeah already looked for that info and don't have VR OUT, unfortunately.
As for the readings - I can only go based on CPU-Z and HW.

VDroop is normal, I know, and I do know about LLC; but running Lvl 8/8 LLC isn't advisable - due to the extremely hot temperatures; LLC also accounts for drops in voltage when faced with a load, not in an idle state (correct me if I'm wrong).
So, my LLC needs to be set based on the drop I have; when I'm stress testing - however - that doesn't answer my initial question as to why my vcore is different in the BIOS vs CPUZ in the idle state (let alone when I'm stress testing); I've been digging since posting this question and have found some enlighting answers; but I'm not sure this directly corresponds to what I'm seeing. Any ideas?

https://www.reddit.com/r/intel/comments/9yuyhi/asus_z390_boards_have_a_hidden_100mv_offset/
https://www.overclock.net/forum/5-i.../forum/5-intel-cpus/1714622-9900k-large-vdroop-load-voltage-main-1-watch-2.html

skupples · Dec 31, 2019

as to why its reading differently, are you sure its the newest CPUZ? have you tried any other HW monitoring tools? CPUZ is mostly a validation tool. It's sensors are meh.

as to manual OC. I tried OC'ing my 9700k just like I would've my 4930k, & it didn't go well. set voltage & go just didn't seem to work as well as it used to. Instead, I used offset to tune it, and left LLC on "medium" or setting 3 of 5. Some folks set it even lower.

is it the best OC in the world? probably not. Does it do better than my MSI's AI OC? by a few degrees and 300mhz? yes.

here's a 9900k OC done via offset with LLC low.
https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocking/comments/cpd69t/9900k_offset_oc_51ghz_110v/

The Pook · Dec 31, 2019

running the highest LLC isn't advisable because of overshoot, the temperature is irrelevant. vdroop makes overshoot a non-issue, if you set 1.25v and are getting 1.15v under 100% load then even an unrealistic level of overshoot isn't pushing your CPU voltage that'd be harmful.

overshoot isn't detectable in software, just because you're not seeing spikes to high vCore doesn't mean it isn't.

lengthy but good information, watch it at 1.5x speed or something because he takes forever to go through some of it, lol.

most of the boards that don't have a VR VOUT sensor have accurate vCore, but if you have VR VOUT then you should go by that. Otherwise just go by why HWInfo is saying. My board shows ~0.15v higher than what I'm actually using compared to VR VOUT.

munternet · Dec 31, 2019

A friend and I both recently purchased the exact same set-up. Gene XI M/board, CPU 9900ks and ram (as in my sig) both with custom loops.
Mine runs 5.2GHz no problem and might be able to go higher but his struggles to get past 5.0GHz. He has been having similar issues as you with the blue screens etc if he tries to pass 5.0, even with pumping the volts and trying higher llc. We settled on 6 for llc and raising the idle voltage, as higher llc just seemed to make it worse. I even tried saving a .cmo file to usb with "safe" settings on my pc and sent it to him, but that didn't work either.
I get a higher reading in HWinfo than cpu-z also but not much.
What @skupples is alluding to makes good sense and I might look into it for my mate
Maybe with the advent of the 9900ks chips it's just harder to get a decent 9900k?

Totally Dubbed · Dec 31, 2019

skupples said:
as to why its reading differently, are you sure its the newest CPUZ? have you tried any other HW monitoring tools? CPUZ is mostly a validation tool. It's sensors are meh.

as to manual OC. I tried OC'ing my 9700k just like I would've my 4930k, & it didn't go well. set voltage & go just didn't seem to work as well as it used to. Instead, I used offset to tune it, and left LLC on "medium" or setting 3 of 5. Some folks set it even lower.

is it the best OC in the world? probably not. Does it do better than my MSI's AI OC? by a few degrees and 300mhz? yes.

here's a 9900k OC done via offset with LLC low.
https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocking/comments/cpd69t/9900k_offset_oc_51ghz_110v/

thanks for sharing - offset could be the ticket. But to figure an offset, you usually have to figure out your stable manual VCore, right?
I can't lower my LLC as it'll only create a larger VDroop :O
And yes, latest CPUZ and HW

Totally Dubbed · Dec 31, 2019

The Pook said:
running the highest LLC isn't advisable because of overshoot, the temperature is irrelevant. vdroop makes overshoot a non-issue, if you set 1.25v and are getting 1.15v under 100% load then even an unrealistic level of overshoot isn't pushing your CPU voltage that'd be harmful.

overshoot isn't detectable in software, just because you're not seeing spikes to high vCore doesn't mean it isn't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMIh8dTdJwI

lengthy but good information, watch it at 1.5x speed or something because he takes forever to go through some of it, lol.

most of the boards that don't have a VR VOUT sensor have accurate vCore, but if you have VR VOUT then you should go by that. Otherwise just go by why HWInfo is saying. My board shows ~0.15v higher than what I'm actually using compared to VR VOUT.

But I can't have overshoot when I'm not even hitting my baseline VCore! That's my point.
I'm at 7/8 LLC and I'm still off my VCore...in IDLE! At this rate, I feel a fresh BIOS reset might be the only solution - as I can't seem to find any logic behind this all.

FYI: BIOS is on the latest provided by Asus.

munternet said:
A friend and I both recently purchased the exact same set-up. Gene XI M/board, CPU 9900ks and ram (as in my sig) both with custom loops.
Mine runs 5.2GHz no problem and might be able to go higher but his struggles to get past 5.0GHz. He has been having similar issues as you with the blue screens etc if he tries to pass 5.0, even with pumping the volts and trying higher llc. We settled on 6 for llc and raising the idle voltage, as higher llc just seemed to make it worse. I even tried saving a .cmo file to usb with "safe" settings on my pc and sent it to him, but that didn't work either.
I get a higher reading in HWinfo than cpu-z also but not much.
What @skupples is alluding to makes good sense and I might look into it for my mate
Maybe with the advent of the 9900ks chips it's just harder to get a decent 9900k?

Potentially; it's all silicone lottery at the end of the day. I just can't seem to get my head around the fact that I get 5GHz on an auto voltage, and yet can't hit the SAME frequency when I set the VCore to a HIGHER or the SAME VCore as Auto mode. It literally makes no sense to me...thus the creation of this thread.

As we speak my 4.8GHz 'OC' has been running for hrs straight; no negatives so far - so it looks like I'm near stability on 4.8GHz...at 2.31 Vcore. If that's the case, there's no way I'm pushing past 4.8Ghz as I'll get thermal throttling and/or too much of a VDroop.
I must have gotten unlucky or done something wrong in the BIOS; really can't put my finger on it.

munternet · Dec 31, 2019

Totally Dubbed said:
But I can't have overshoot when I'm not even hitting my baseline VCore! That's my point.
I'm at 7/8 LLC and I'm still off my VCore...in IDLE! At this rate, I feel a fresh BIOS reset might be the only solution - as I can't seem to find any logic behind this all.

FYI: BIOS is on the latest provided by Asus.

By setting 7/8 llc aren't you creating large undetectable transients as the load comes on and off thus entering blue screen territory?
Maybe setting a higher idle voltage with llc 6, or even 5 will create smaller transients and not drop into blue screen territory when load comes on. The higher idle voltage won't be creating too much heat without the load/current draw?
Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm trying to work this out for my mate also

Falkentyne · Dec 31, 2019

Totally Dubbed said:
But I can't have overshoot when I'm not even hitting my baseline VCore! That's my point.
I'm at 7/8 LLC and I'm still off my VCore...in IDLE! At this rate, I feel a fresh BIOS reset might be the only solution - as I can't seem to find any logic behind this all.

FYI: BIOS is on the latest provided by Asus.

Potentially; it's all silicone lottery at the end of the day. I just can't seem to get my head around the fact that I get 5GHz on an auto voltage, and yet can't hit the SAME frequency when I set the VCore to a HIGHER or the SAME VCore as Auto mode. It literally makes no sense to me...thus the creation of this thread.

As we speak my 4.8GHz 'OC' has been running for hrs straight; no negatives so far - so it looks like I'm near stability on 4.8GHz...at 2.31 Vcore. If that's the case, there's no way I'm pushing past 4.8Ghz as I'll get thermal throttling and/or too much of a VDroop.
I must have gotten unlucky or done something wrong in the BIOS; really can't put my finger on it.

Don't use LLC7 or 8 ever. It makes your transients worse and worsens your minimum voltage floor (making it higher) for high load vcore stability. LLC5 is the best balance. LLC5 allows a lower load vcore than LLC6 because the transient dips are smaller. Just raise the bios voltage a bit to compensate for the increased vdroop.

https://elmorlabs.com/index.php/2019-09-05/vrm-load-line-visualized/

BTW on these boards the spikes arent the issue contrary to what some are telling you except at very high bios voltages like >1.45v. The spikes happen at load release (low current) and won't become an issue unless they exceed 1.5v on an oscilloscope capture. Its the dips that are the problem.

acoustic · Dec 31, 2019

Falkentyne said:
Don't use LLC7 or 8 ever. It makes your transients worse and worsens your minimum voltage floor (making it higher) for high load vcore stability. LLC5 is the best balance. LLC5 allows a lower load vcore than LLC6 because the transient dips are smaller. Just raise the bios voltage a bit to compensate for the increased vdroop.

https://elmorlabs.com/index.php/2019-09-05/vrm-load-line-visualized/

BTW on these boards the spikes arent the issue contrary to what some are telling you except at very high bios voltages like >1.45v. The spikes happen at load release (low current) and won't become an issue unless they exceed 1.5v on an oscilloscope capture. Its the dips that are the problem.

My issue with not using high(er) LLC is that your idle voltage ends up being high. On my Z390 Dark, I'm currently running 5.1/4.8 with 1.335v in BIOS with +25% vdroop. That gives me 1.295v under load. My idle voltage is high as hell now, though. Higher LLC and I can bring the idle closer to my load voltage.

I tried messing with adaptive voltage today (using static/override right now) but I don't understand how it works. I was ending up with my idle voltage too low and then my load voltage would be through the roof. Got frustrated and went back to static/override.

Falkentyne · Dec 31, 2019

acoustic said:
My issue with not using high(er) LLC is that your idle voltage ends up being high. On my Z390 Dark, I'm currently running 5.1/4.8 with 1.335v in BIOS with +25% vdroop. That gives me 1.295v under load. My idle voltage is high as hell now, though. Higher LLC and I can bring the idle closer to my load voltage.

I tried messing with adaptive voltage today (using static/override right now) but I don't understand how it works. I was ending up with my idle voltage too low and then my load voltage would be through the roof. Got frustrated and went back to static/override.

Did you look at the link I gave you?
Bringing your idle voltage closer to your load voltage causes your transient voltage dips to increase.
You do NOT want your idle voltage and your load voltage so close.

Look at the chart again please.

https://elmorlabs.com/index.php/2019-09-05/vrm-load-line-visualized/

Look at LLC7 and LLC8. Do you know what part of the line is your idle voltage? it's the far left and far right.
The load voltage is the line in the middle.

Now do you see that DIP below the load voltage?
*THAT* is what causes your computer to crash randomly. Sensors WILL NOT SHOW THIS. It will only show the averaged lines that you see. Those transient dips and spikes only last for several (up to 40'ish) microseconds. But that's enough (the dips) to crash something.

I'm fully aware of "what you want" but this is a case of you having to learn that you can't have what you want. You have to accept reality and use what works best. Check the maximus XI 9900ks thread in this same section. You will see that SEVERAL people tested LLC5 and LLC6 and they all found that LLC5 gives them a *LOWER* true load voltage on "RMS" Vcore (in HWinfo64) than LLC6. They even posted numbers.

But what you seem to want is LLC8. But LLC8 will cause your voltage to repeatedly drop 70+mv below the vcore shown at *light* load. It's worse at a heavy load (like 100 amps). You're talking about a 100mv drop basically.
Elmor tested a 100 amp prime95 run with LLC8 vs LLC1.

https://www.overclock.net/forum/6-i...ntel-motherboards/1638955-z370-z390-vrm-discussion-thread-413.html#post28022572

You can see that LLC8 had the voltage rise 100mv above the idle voltage in spikes and the voltage dip 100mv below the idle voltage. That means if you used LLC8 and set 1.25v in your BIOS, your voltage would repeatedly drop down to 1.15v (!) during medium loads over and over but the vcore sensor, which only shows RMS, would stay at 1.25v the entire time..

With LLC1, the vdroop is massive of course, but the transient "drop" below the load vcore shown would only be about 10-20mv.

LLC5 is the best balance.
I honestly don't understand why you're fighting this information.

munternet · Dec 31, 2019

^^That's what I was trying to say.
I went and did some testing for myself and had some interesting results.
My coolant temp is 35c which is hot for here so these are extremes and each time I loaded the BIOS I ran CB R15 "5 times" in a row to really get those transients jumping

You can see the idle temps are THE SAME even though the voltages are different.
And though the LLC5 run showed lower load voltage it was actually more stable. I managed to get WHEA errors on the LLC6 run with higher load voltage :O

Falkentyne · Dec 31, 2019

munternet said:
^^That's what I was trying to say.
I went and did some testing for myself and had some interesting results.
My coolant temp is 35c which is hot for here so these are extremes and each time I loaded the BIOS I ran CB R15 "5 times" in a row to really get those transients jumping
You can see the idle temps are THE SAME even though the voltages are different.
And though the LLC5 run showed lower load voltage it was actually more stable. I managed to get WHEA errors on the LLC6 run with higher load voltage :O

Yes. 1.234v (LLC5 at max load) was more stable than 1.252v (LLC6 at max load), which is because the transient DIPS with LLC6 were *larger* than the RMS load difference between 1.234v and 1.252v (18mv difference).

This can be seen very obviously, without numbers (the numbers show a larger dip from RMS to minimum because the average voltage seems to "rise" over the measurement, which throws off the results--look at the graph itself).

https://elmorlabs.com/index.php/2019-09-05/vrm-load-line-visualized/

You can see that the huge dip below the middle voltage line is MUCH larger at LLC6 than LLC5. In fact it's larger (substantially) than the vdroop 'decrease' (the amount the middle line gets closer to the idle voltage) going from LLC5 to LLC6.

Also people keep getting afraid of 'high' idle voltages. When using a "healthy" vdroop, a high idle voltage isn't a problem. It only becomes a problem if it's above 1.45v. If you can keep the idle voltage at 1.40v or below when using a fixed voltage and LLC5 (or lower LLC), then there's no problems. Only worry about a high idle voltage if you need to set a bios voltage higher than 1.40v.

Vdroop is people's friend. Not their enemy.

Totally Dubbed · Dec 31, 2019

munternet said:
By setting 7/8 llc aren't you creating large undetectable transients as the load comes on and off thus entering blue screen territory?
Maybe setting a higher idle voltage with llc 6, or even 5 will create smaller transients and not drop into blue screen territory when load comes on. The higher idle voltage won't be creating too much heat without the load/current draw?
Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm trying to work this out for my mate also

See this is news to me, thanks!

Falkentyne said:
Don't use LLC7 or 8 ever. It makes your transients worse and worsens your minimum voltage floor (making it higher) for high load vcore stability. LLC5 is the best balance. LLC5 allows a lower load vcore than LLC6 because the transient dips are smaller. Just raise the bios voltage a bit to compensate for the increased vdroop.

https://elmorlabs.com/index.php/2019-09-05/vrm-load-line-visualized/

BTW on these boards the spikes arent the issue contrary to what some are telling you except at very high bios voltages like >1.45v. The spikes happen at load release (low current) and won't become an issue unless they exceed 1.5v on an oscilloscope capture. Its the dips that are the problem.

Now this is the type of info I've been looking for.
Eye opener for me; I've been testing all night really, trying to find the balance with my VCore at LLC 7 - now it's a fresh day and have restarted testing.
Before reading your comment I went back to default bios then redid my BIOS based on this video guide:

What do you make of his settings vs my manual ones I have on this thread? (minus LLC of course)

I took his settings went for LLC7 and 1.34V; temps hit the floor and I think the CPU throttled down to 4.6GHz (down from 5GHz) - at which point this method wasn't viable.
Now, I'm running 1.37V with LLC5 (as per your suggestion), with the YouTuber's BIOS settings (XMP etc)
Right now my PC is showing a rather large vDroop though - it's down to 1.279V (-100mV); is that fine?

EDIT: that crashed; now raised to 1.39V. VCore under a certain P95 test dropped VCore down to 1.219V :O

What do you make of that/suggestions

?

Thanks for your insightful knowledge, really helpful; never new about the transient dips.

acoustic · Dec 31, 2019

You didn't give me a link. I'm not the OP.

Interesting read though. I'm curious if the DARK doesn't suffer those transient dips as bad as the Gene. I know the Maximus boards are pretty awful for Z390, but I was under the impression the 3 that were built properly were the Gene (which elmor uses in the test), the Apex, and the Extreme. Maybe that's as good as it gets.

My issue is figuring out which setting on the DARK relates to LLC5. I think that will put me at +50 or maybe +75% vdroop.

Falkentyne · Dec 31, 2019

acoustic said:
You didn't give me a link. I'm not the OP.

Interesting read though. I'm curious if the DARK doesn't suffer those transient dips as bad as the Gene. I know the Maximus boards are pretty awful for Z390, but I was under the impression the 3 that were built properly were the Gene (which elmor uses in the test), the Apex, and the Extreme. Maybe that's as good as it gets.

My issue is figuring out which setting on the DARK relates to LLC5. I think that will put me at +50 or maybe +75% vdroop.

Hmm. Guess I shouldn't post while sleepy. Quoted the wrong person

LLC5 equivalent on the Dark is at a bit less than 50% reduced vdroop. I would put it at close to 40% reduced vdroop.
The gap between LLC5 and LLC6 on the Gene/Apex seems to be greater than on the Master. Seems like LLC5 on the Gene is 1.0 mOhm while on the Gigabyte it's 0.8 mOhm. That would put it closer to LLC: Medium on the Gigabyte board (which is 1.0 mOhm).

LLC6 on the Gene and Master is 0.4 mOhm, which is the same as 75% reduced vdrop on the Dark/Turbo on the Gigabyte.

50% reduced vdroop on the Dark is equal to LLC: High on the Aorus Master (0.8 mOhm; Intel spec is 1.6 mOhm)
75% reduced vdroop on the Dark is equal to LLC Turbo on the Master and LLC6 on the Asus. (0.4 mOhm; Intel spec is 1.6 mOhm)

Totally Dubbed · Dec 31, 2019

Falkentyne said:
Hmm. Guess I shouldn't post while sleepy. Quoted the wrong person
LLC5 equivalent on the Dark is at a bit less than 50% reduced vdroop. I would put it at close to 40% reduced vdroop.
The gap between LLC5 and LLC6 on the Gene/Apex seems to be greater than on the Master. Seems like LLC5 on the Gene is 1.0 mOhm while on the Gigabyte it's 0.8 mOhm. That would put it closer to LLC: Medium on the Gigabyte board (which is 1.0 mOhm).

LLC6 on the Gene and Master is 0.4 mOhm, which is the same as 75% reduced vdrop on the Dark/Turbo on the Gigabyte.

50% reduced vdroop on the Dark is equal to LLC: High on the Aorus Master (0.8 mOhm; Intel spec is 1.6 mOhm)
75% reduced vdroop on the Dark is equal to LLC Turbo on the Master and LLC6 on the Asus. (0.4 mOhm; Intel spec is 1.6 mOhm)

Update from me: 5GHz at 1.4V failed with LLC set to 5.
I'm a little lost right now - not really sure where to go from here. Could you chime in

?

Also, could you just let me know - what's actually the purpose of OC'ing a 9900K?
Unless you want to manually force 5Ghz all the time, most would like the SpeedStep function, whereby the CPU doesn't run at 5GHz all the time - in this case, stock setting basically do this - don't they?
3.6GHz base, 5GHz Turbo, albeit on Core 1-2 only while the rest run at 4.7-4.8GHz, which is practically fine unless you're trying to prove something - am I missing something here?

As unlike my 3770k - which ran at around 3.2 stock with turbo at 4.2, my 4.5ghz OC actually WAS an OC.

acoustic · Dec 31, 2019

Falkentyne said:
Hmm. Guess I shouldn't post while sleepy. Quoted the wrong person
LLC5 equivalent on the Dark is at a bit less than 50% reduced vdroop. I would put it at close to 40% reduced vdroop.
The gap between LLC5 and LLC6 on the Gene/Apex seems to be greater than on the Master. Seems like LLC5 on the Gene is 1.0 mOhm while on the Gigabyte it's 0.8 mOhm. That would put it closer to LLC: Medium on the Gigabyte board (which is 1.0 mOhm).

LLC6 on the Gene and Master is 0.4 mOhm, which is the same as 75% reduced vdrop on the Dark/Turbo on the Gigabyte.

50% reduced vdroop on the Dark is equal to LLC: High on the Aorus Master (0.8 mOhm; Intel spec is 1.6 mOhm)
75% reduced vdroop on the Dark is equal to LLC Turbo on the Master and LLC6 on the Asus. (0.4 mOhm; Intel spec is 1.6 mOhm)

No biggie! I appreciate the info. Thanks for sharing the conversions from the DARK to the ASUS. I haven't ran anything other than an ASUS board in a long time, so it's a learning process with this EVGA board

Currently, I'm running +25% (more vdroop). So by running PLUS 25% (more vdroop), I'm actually around LLC2, it would seem. I will have to try -25% (reduced vdroop), I think that will put me where I want to be.

Totally Dubbed said:
Update from me: 5GHz at 1.4V failed with LLC set to 5.
I'm a little lost right now - not really sure where to go from here. Could you chime in ?

Also, could you just let me know - what's actually the purpose of OC'ing a 9900K?
Unless you want to manually force 5Ghz all the time, most would like the SpeedStep function, whereby the CPU doesn't run at 5GHz all the time - in this case, stock setting basically do this - don't they?
3.6GHz base, 5GHz Turbo, albeit on Core 1-2 only while the rest run at 4.7-4.8GHz, which is practically fine unless you're trying to prove something - am I missing something here?

As unlike my 3770k - which ran at around 3.2 stock with turbo at 4.2, my 4.5ghz OC actually WAS an OC.

How is it failing? Is it hard-locking, BSOD, or shutting down the test? Not all 9900K are going to run 5Ghz all-core, but at 1.4V pretty much 99% of them will, afaik. Your temps must be out of control at that voltage, or are you running a custom loop? I would disable all the C-states and run it at 100% until you find a stable setting. I'm not going to lie to you, the Hero is a pretty awful motherboard. I had one before I replaced it with this EVGA Dark, and it was a PITA. After watching the videos of the VRMs from Buildzoid and how ASUS sacrificed quality to make more money with almost every board in the Maximus line, I will be avoiding Asus for a while. The power delivery on the Hero is ****, and I had a lot of issues overclocking memory that I just don't have with this Dark.

I would also move to ROG Realbench for your testing. P95 is just so finnicky now. I had similar weirdness with voltage dropping tremendously running P95.

What are your VCCIO and VCCSA voltages set to? I would set the RAM to straight XMP if you haven't already and work from there. There is definitely an advantage to running 5Ghz all-core. The numbers don't lie, and you can see the difference in games as well.

Totally Dubbed · Dec 31, 2019

acoustic said:
No biggie! I appreciate the info. Thanks for sharing the conversions from the DARK to the ASUS. I haven't ran anything other than an ASUS board in a long time, so it's a learning process with this EVGA board

Currently, I'm running +25% (more vdroop). So by running PLUS 25% (more vdroop), I'm actually around LLC2, it would seem. I will have to try -25% (reduced vdroop), I think that will put me where I want to be.

How is it failing? Is it hard-locking, BSOD, or shutting down the test? Not all 9900K are going to run 5Ghz all-core, but at 1.4V pretty much 99% of them will, afaik. Your temps must be out of control at that voltage, or are you running a custom loop? I would disable all the C-states and run it at 100% until you find a stable setting. I'm not going to lie to you, the Hero is a pretty awful motherboard. I had one before I replaced it with this EVGA Dark, and it was a PITA. After watching the videos of the VRMs from Buildzoid and how ASUS sacrificed quality to make more money with almost every board in the Maximus line, I will be avoiding Asus for a while. The power delivery on the Hero is ****. I had a lot of issues overclocking memory that I just don't have with this Dark.

What are your VCCIO and VCCSA voltages set to? I would set the RAM to straight XMP if you haven't already and work from there.

There is definitely an advantage to running 5Ghz all-core. The numbers don't lie, and you can see the difference in games as well.

I mean either something is going wrong or I've got the worst i9-9900K to date.
So to answer your questions:
-It either BSOD's or just restarts and boots to Windows on its own. I've had P95 randomly crash after an hour of benching too, which I read is also a sign of instability
-I'm running on air via a Noctua D15 - served me well and idle temps sit at around 25-30c; all of that element seems fine
-I don't want to disable C-states as in the long run I want the CPU to be throttling; I want to ultimately be on an offset configuration; regardless, I've had issues with C-States also disabled, so I've ruled that out as a possibility too...again, do say if I'm missing something here.
-It is set to XMP, the rest is on Auto, as per most guides I've read/watched

I've had an idea - could it be BIOS related? I'm on the latest BIOS, and a quick google seems to indicate some have had issues with it...I've now rolled back and going to run benches on STOCK (Asus multi disabled, intel forced) + XMP only.
If this now fails, there's a hardware problem...

As for the OC, but we're speaking 0.2-0.3Ghz right? On 6 out of the 8 cores; at which point this will only impact a very minor number of games - I'm just trying to get my head around it all.
I remember I had the same sort of thoughts with my 3770k: could have it run at 4.8GHz at very high temps, or run at 4.5GHz at much lower/acceptable temps. The difference in synthetic benches were minimal and were near non-existent in BF3/BF4 benches I did back in the day.

Baffled with my Core i9-9900K overclock (Asus Auto OC > Manual VCore)

Totally Dubbed

Attachments

The Pook

Totally Dubbed

skupples

The Pook

munternet

Totally Dubbed

Totally Dubbed

munternet

Falkentyne

acoustic

Falkentyne

munternet

Attachments

Falkentyne

Totally Dubbed

acoustic

Falkentyne

Totally Dubbed

acoustic

Totally Dubbed

Top Contributors this Month

Recommended Communities