Overclock.net banner

What OC are you hitting on 10600K

  • 5.4

    Votes: 7 12.5%
  • 5.3

    Votes: 2 3.6%
  • 5.2

    Votes: 2 3.6%
  • 5.1

    Votes: 10 17.9%
  • 5.0

    Votes: 26 46.4%
  • 4.9

    Votes: 5 8.9%
  • 4.8

    Votes: 3 5.4%
  • 4.7

    Votes: 1 1.8%
341 - 360 of 375 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
Oh yeah, forgot to mention
VRMs were at max of 48c
and the cpu actually downclocked to 4.9GHz on all cores since it was above 95c
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Oh yeah, forgot to mention
VRMs were at max of 48c
and the cpu actually downclocked to 4.9GHz on all cores since it was above 95c
Ahhh! Whew. Because I was afraid you were 'cocked at 100' and I didn't quite know what to make of that. No cocking at 100! I'm glad you have thermal protection enabled. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
I'm actually impressed by your settings because with your settings I was actually able to run c20 without any crashes
but, my cpu was cocking at 100C
Vcore reading was 1.476 and VR VOUT reading was 1.42 which is better
I didn't complete the run because I stopped it, I don't want to burn my cpu
maybe ill try reapplying the thermal paste as its been the same for 6 months and I was testing a lot of settings, 4.8GHZ, 4.9GHZ, 5GHZ on all cores and sometimes the voltage wasnt really cpu friendly
vccsa was 1.33 at max so I think I can play with it a a bit and if I do should I try lowering the voltage?
Excellent! So it seems you just need a little more cooling, unless you can get away with lowering Vcore some.

My box is a 20-year old thing I've kept upgraded over the years. I've added fans to it, so now I have total 5 fans, including the PSU (Thermalake 700w), all blowing out of the box. Then I use clear plastic and create a duct from my CPU fan to the empty 5-1/4" bay in the front. I've replaced the bay faceplate with a screen. CPU fan is forced to suck (almost) only cool outside air; and the other fans are all forced to suck through the CPU radiator because there is no other air opening in the box.

The thermal paste job is pretty critical. I toss what came in the CPU box for a tube of high-silver content paste I found once in a store (an actual brick store with computers!). I've had to re-do my paste job before, and saw my CPU run in the low 90s after not being able to cool enough before. So it does make a difference. I try to use the absolute thinnest film of paste I can manage to apply with uniformity. Then I progressively torque the bolts down around the radiator, in 2 passes.

I wish you a happy outcome.

Oh... my Vcore also spent most of it's time at 1.476. Peak was 1.488 but I never actually saw it hit that value. I'm using that as a target... whenever I set something else (like VCCSA) which changes the peak Vcore value... I change the setting to get back to 1.476 peak run-time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
122 Posts
Vcore reading was 1.476 and VR VOUT reading was 1.42 which is better
Oh... my Vcore also spent most of it's time at 1.476. Peak was 1.488 but I never actually saw it hit that value.
Jeepers @ these Vcore and VCCSA voltages. You are very likely seeing transients going over 1.5 V with these settings. I expect you will see degradation or even complete failure in the near term. You both seem like overclocking newbies, normalising pumping crazy high voltages by chatting to each other about these silly numbers. Personally, I wouldn't be happy seeing over 1.38 Vcore, or 1.30 V for VCCSA!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
Excellent! So it seems you just need a little more cooling, unless you can get away with lowering Vcore some.

My box is a 20-year old thing I've kept upgraded over the years. I've added fans to it, so now I have total 5 fans, including the PSU (Thermalake 700w), all blowing out of the box. Then I use clear plastic and create a duct from my CPU fan to the empty 5-1/4" bay in the front. I've replaced the bay faceplate with a screen. CPU fan is forced to suck (almost) only cool outside air; and the other fans are all forced to suck through the CPU radiator because there is no other air opening in the box.

The thermal paste job is pretty critical. I toss what came in the CPU box for a tube of high-silver content paste I found once in a store (an actual brick store with computers!). I've had to re-do my paste job before, and saw my CPU run in the low 90s after not being able to cool enough before. So it does make a difference. I try to use the absolute thinnest film of paste I can manage to apply with uniformity. Then I progressively torque the bolts down around the radiator, in 2 passes.

I wish you a happy outcome.

Oh... my Vcore also spent most of it's time at 1.476. Peak was 1.488 but I never actually saw it hit that value. I'm using that as a target... whenever I set something else (like VCCSA) which changes the peak Vcore value... I change the setting to get back to 1.476 peak run-time.
im not that worried about the Vcore reading in HWiNFO64
i know that the VR VOUT is more accurate, and thats between 1.33 and 1.44 which is not that high but not that low either
its also the first time that my cpu actually went to town on wattage draw at 170w, at 4.9GHZ all core the max that i saw was 135w with turbo power limits off
ill keep testing tomorrow after I come back from work
so far I only tested csgo and it was stable, but its not a really good benchmark since it doesn't put a heavy load on the cpu or gpu
my gpu usually caps at 2085MHZ and I was able to push it to 2150-2160MHZ and the memory to 8000MHZ at 50-55c but the memory is the same in all games
ill try playing with the vcore and both llc settings tomorrow

I really what to thank you for the settings and guide, it was really helpful
both you and the homie fray_bentos, you guys helped me alot


if I'm using the auto vcore preset instead of override, my pc would last about 30 seconds before crashing - and thats in the desktop, unless I pump medium-ish voltages into the cpu like 1.4 which the llc changes to 1.43-1.44, not that bad but a bit high for me
I think ill end up lowering my voltage and maybe ring ratio too and if that wont help ill go back to 4.9GHZ but on Override vcore to see if I can get a lower voltage, after all my 10900K upgrade is planned to 4-5 years from now so i need that 10600k alive :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
I beg to differ, but it's your chip. It will be interesting to find out degradation limits for those of us who are more risk-averse. You'd be best dropping 100 MHz than risk degradation. I'd move to 11900K next (not 10900K).
ill go for the 10900K since it has more cores, id rather have mores cores then 10 more fps
but that's in the far future, maybe intel wont do the "2 gens for a socket" type **** and ill get to keep my mb for longer
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
122 Posts
ill go for the 10900K since it has more cores, id rather have mores cores then 10 more fps
but that's in the far future, maybe intel wont do the "2 gens for a socket" type **** and ill get to keep my mb for longer
12th Gen is confirmed on another socket, the dimensions of the chip are elongated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Jeepers @ these Vcore and VCCSA voltages. You are very likely seeing transients going over 1.5 V with these settings. I expect you will see degradation or even complete failure in the near term. You both seem like overclocking newbies, normalising pumping crazy high voltages by chatting to each other about these silly numbers. Personally, I wouldn't be happy seeing over 1.38 Vcore, or 1.30 V for VCCSA!
Well I checked these things before I started the project. The Intel Datasheet Vol 1, starting on page 118, shows the max VCCcore and max VCCSA = 1.52V. For VCCIO (pg 126), it doesn't specify a max but does specify 0.92v +/- 5%.


I feel safe capping my VCCcore at 32mV below max. And I'm not so worried about "silly" hypothetical voltage transients, especially after it passes overnight P95 testing without exceeding 1.488 peak. It is my opinion that the motherboard's job is to provide final power conditioning and prevent such transients.

But the P95 Large FFT test is the hardest strain anything ever puts on my CPU. Only 2 other apps come close to loading my cpu that much. One is Windows Defender Antivirus doing a full scan on my boot drive when it hits all those tiny files; and the other is when I render video from splicing in Windows Live Moviemaker. If I want to run a more demanding app, then I will simply need a larger radiator (that's my working theory). The voltages support the frequencies and remain below maximum spec by 32mV or more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
Yep, see post 259 in this thread: 10600K OC Results
yes i know, i just wanted to show this to homie above
they are also overclocking with Asus mbs that have different settings then Gigabytes mb
in general my 10600K is on 5GHz all core now and its stable for now but just runs hot on c20
voltage is around 1.41-1.43
when im rendering ill still drop the clock back to 4.8GHz
maybe ill get a custom AIO kit from ek if ill see a price drop or holiday deal or something like that
can be cool, literally
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
122 Posts
Well I checked these things before I started the project. The Intel Datasheet Vol 1, starting on page 118, shows the max VCCcore and max VCCSA = 1.52V. For VCCIO (pg 126), it doesn't specify a max but does specify 0.92v +/- 5%.


I feel safe capping my VCCcore at 32mV below max. And I'm not so worried about "silly" hypothetical voltage transients, especially after it passes overnight P95 testing without exceeding 1.488 peak. It is my opinion that the motherboard's job is to provide final power conditioning and prevent such transients.

But the P95 Large FFT test is the hardest strain anything ever puts on my CPU. Only 2 other apps come close to loading my cpu that much. One is Windows Defender Antivirus doing a full scan on my boot drive when it hits all those tiny files; and the other is when I render video from splicing in Windows Live Moviemaker. If I want to run a more demanding app, then I will simply need a larger radiator (that's my working theory). The voltages support the frequencies and remain below maximum spec by 32mV or more.
Transients aren't hypothetical; you can record them with an oscilloscope. Be sure to report back if you do see degradation, and also report to CPU Overvolt death/Degradation Stories?. There are reports of degradation at 1.45 Vcore there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Transients aren't hypothetical; you can record them with an oscilloscope. Be sure to report back if you do see degradation, and also report to CPU Overvolt death/Degradation Stories?. There are reports of degradation at 1.45 Vcore there.
Well you have piqued my interest, and I will definitely make time to do some reading in that forum section. Thanks for the link. Still... if my PC runs full-bore for 12 straight hours, and the voltage sensors or HWiNFO don't pick up any of these 'transients', and I have 30 or more mV safety margin, I am confident my cpu will last at least 5 years. This criteria has never failed me.

The 1.488v max is actually a voltage transient. 1.476 is the next lowest value the sensor will record, and is my actual steady-state VCCcore maximum. I'm pretty sure I can make the 1.488 disappear from the results entirely by lowering VCCcore 1-3 more mV. I've made 1.476 my target. I'll post when I have a solution pass my overnight test.

sixty9sublime, I look forward to seeing credible details which might support such a conclusion. But thanks for sharing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
Well you have piqued my interest, and I will definitely make time to do some reading in that forum section. Thanks for the link. Still... if my PC runs full-bore for 12 straight hours, and the voltage sensors or HWiNFO don't pick up any of these 'transients', and I have 30 or more mV safety margin, I am confident my cpu will last at least 5 years. This criteria has never failed me.

The 1.488v max is actually a voltage transient. 1.476 is the next lowest value the sensor will record, and is my actual steady-state VCCcore maximum. I'm pretty sure I can make the 1.488 disappear from the results entirely by lowering VCCcore 1-3 more mV. I've made 1.476 my target. I'll post when I have a solution pass my overnight test.
Check out Buildzoid's work on youtube @actuallyhardcoreoverclocking, might learn something regarding transients. All I can say is your current knowledge on the subject is quite flawed. Up to you if you'd like to learn more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
122 Posts
Well you have piqued my interest, and I will definitely make time to do some reading in that forum section. Thanks for the link. Still... if my PC runs full-bore for 12 straight hours, and the voltage sensors or HWiNFO don't pick up any of these 'transients', and I have 30 or more mV safety margin, I am confident my cpu will last at least 5 years. This criteria has never failed me.

The 1.488v max is actually a voltage transient. 1.476 is the next lowest value the sensor will record, and is my actual steady-state VCCcore maximum. I'm pretty sure I can make the 1.488 disappear from the results entirely by lowering VCCcore 1-3 more mV. I've made 1.476 my target. I'll post when I have a solution pass my overnight test.

sixty9sublime, I look forward to seeing credible details which might support such a conclusion. But thanks for sharing.
It is clear based on your closing line in response to sixty9sublime's excellent advice that your attitude is out of step with your actual level of knowledge. If you watch buildzoid's videos with oscilloscope monitoring of overclocking then you will see all the "credible details" that you need. The transients last for milliseconds at the longest. Your sensors might take a point sample reading every one second or so. There is a several orders of magnitude difference in the timescale of these events compared to your sampling; no software continually monitors voltages in realtime with such fine resolution.
 

·
old school 386 OC
Joined
·
11 Posts
Is this a normal thing in Windows task manager reporting wrong CPU speed?
it always reports at least 1.1ghz higher than actual.
2477224
 
341 - 360 of 375 Posts
Top