# Overclocking 10900k results, bins and discussion



## ThrashZone

Hi,
So where are the 10900k benchmark scores posted ?


----------



## newls1

im having a terrible time trying to get a 5.1ghz stable on the 10900k. Im @ 1.25v SA and 1.25 VCCIO upto 1.35vcore with LLC @ LVL7 (asus maximus formula) and still cant get past 30secs into aida64 stress test (only cpu, fpu, and cache selected) wth am i doing wrong? Its not temp related... my waterloop is very strong, even has serial d5 pumps and 2 420mm rads in push pull... temps are getting in the 70c range in a 66f room


----------



## Falkentyne

newls1 said:


> im having a terrible time trying to get a 5.1ghz stable on the 10900k. Im @ 1.25v SA and 1.25 VCCIO upto 1.35vcore with LLC @ LVL7 (asus maximus formula) and still cant get past 30secs into aida64 stress test (only cpu, fpu, and cache selected) wth am i doing wrong? Its not temp related... my waterloop is very strong, even has serial d5 pumps and 2 420mm rads in push pull... temps are getting in the 70c range in a 66f room


Please boot at 5 ghz core, 4.7 ghz cache with SVID=best case scenario and tell me your IDLE VID (not vcore) shown in hwinfo64.
Make sure you have all power saving disabled. (you can also tell me your idle VID at 5.1 ghz, but I'm not sure if the VID will change if ring ratio is x48 or x47, try x48, just to report it there too).
Then I'll see if I can determine anything.


----------



## newls1

Falkentyne said:


> Please boot at 5 ghz core, 4.7 ghz cache with SVID=best case scenario and tell me your IDLE VID (not vcore) shown in hwinfo64.
> Make sure you have all power saving disabled. (you can also tell me your idle VID at 5.1 ghz, but I'm not sure if the VID will change if ring ratio is x48 or x47, try x48, just to report it there too).
> Then I'll see if I can determine anything.


i sure will, thanks for trying to help me. Ill post up this info in the morning. what all do i have to disable for power saving features? I disabled speed step, however i noticed in cpu-z, if i set a multi higher then 50x cpuz still reports 5ghz as speed even if i have it @ 51x, 52x, etc...


----------



## Falkentyne

newls1 said:


> i sure will, thanks for trying to help me. Ill post up this info in the morning. what all do i have to disable for power saving features? I disabled speed step, however i noticed in cpu-z, if i set a multi higher then 50x cpuz still reports 5ghz as speed even if i have it @ 51x, 52x, etc...


VID is easy to check. (*edit* users only have to set AC/DC loadline to "1" on gigabyte boards. Asus boards have this as default 

Check VID at x50 core/x47 cache then at x51 core / x48 cache.

the VID should range from 1.175v to 1.250v.


----------



## newls1

Falkentyne said:


> Please boot at 5 ghz core, 4.7 ghz cache with SVID=best case scenario and tell me your IDLE VID (not vcore) shown in hwinfo64.
> Make sure you have all power saving disabled. (you can also tell me your idle VID at 5.1 ghz, but I'm not sure if the VID will change if ring ratio is x48 or x47, try x48, just to report it there too).
> Then I'll see if I can determine anything.


Here you go! I appreciate any and all help sir. Would LOVE to get a 5.1GHz stable OC going..


----------



## Falkentyne

newls1 said:


> Here you go! I appreciate any and all help sir. Would LOVE to get a 5.1GHz stable OC going..


Good morning.
You dont have the VID showing. You hid it in hwinfo. You need to unhide it.

Also you can go into your BIOS and look at the VF curve, or use the VF frequency tool graph or app (if its in ai suite) and tell me the 5 ghz VID there too, for the future.


----------



## newls1

Falkentyne said:


> Good morning.
> You dont have the VID showing. You hid it in hwinfo. You need to unhide it.
> 
> Also you can go into your BIOS and look at the VF curve, or use the VF frequency tool graph or app (if its in ai suite) and tell me the 5 ghz VID there too, for the future.


going thru the settings in hwinfo to figure out where it is to "SHOW" it... bare with me!

**EDIT** What is it actually called in hwinfo? Im just not seeing it. In that above pic, there is Vcore showing.. is that not what you are looking for?


----------



## Falkentyne

newls1 said:


> going thru the settings in hwinfo to figure out where it is to "SHOW" it... bare with me!


Fastest way is to click 'restore layout' or 'restore order' or something in the settings.


----------



## newls1

I did exactly what you said, and restored layout... is it showing now?


----------



## Falkentyne

newls1 said:


> I did exactly what you said, and restored layout... is it showing now?


No.
Try updating your HWinfo to the latest beta version shown on their page.
Also go into the layout in the settings. Do you see "Core #0 VID" and #1 VID and stuff hidden around in there?


----------



## Dogzilla07

@newls1

There's still plenty to scroll down on the last sub-window it's probably there, and all the windows previous and left of the last one are not the ones where the readout would be, close them.


----------



## newls1

Falkentyne said:


> No.
> Try updating your HWinfo to the latest beta version shown on their page.
> Also go into the layout in the settings. Do you see "Core #0 VID" and #1 VID and stuff hidden around in there?


okay, let me go look. THANK YOU for all your patience.



Dogzilla07 said:


> @newls1
> 
> There's still plenty to scroll down on the last sub-window it's probably there, and all the windows previous and left of the last one are not the ones where the readout would be, close them.


didn't know there was a newer version, ill go do that and the scroll down stuff is useless stuff


----------



## newls1

I don't have that option, I swear!! triple checked...


----------



## Falkentyne

newls1 said:


> I don't have that option, I swear!! triple checked...


Do you have "SVID Support" disabled in your BIOS?

CPU VID should be right above the cpu frequency....it is on mine.


----------



## Kargeras

Falkentyne said:


> Chip 1:
> Absolute minimum die-sense load voltages required to pass Prime95 small FFT AVX disabled and Realbench 2.56/AIDA64 "Stress FPU"



How long did you run each of the tests for?

Asking for a friend.


----------



## newls1

Falkentyne said:


> Do you have "SVID Support" disabled in your BIOS?
> 
> CPU VID should be right above the cpu frequency....it is on mine.


SVID is enabled in bios. Only VID options I have are already showing.. Maybe update to this BETA version??


----------



## Falkentyne

Kargeras said:


> How long did you run each of the tests for?
> 
> Asking for a friend.


15 minutes to 1 hour.


----------



## Falkentyne

newls1 said:


> SVID is enabled in bios. Only VID options I have are already showing.. Maybe update to this BETA version??


You didn't update it? It only takes like 20 seconds.
If that doesn't work, in the VF editor in your BIOS, tell me the VID at 5.1 ghz.


----------



## newls1

this is the newest beta version... Im showing EVERYTHING minus HDD/SSD/GPU crap


----------



## Falkentyne

newls1 said:


> this is the newest beta version... Im showing EVERYTHING minus HDD/SSD/GPU crap


I wonder if there is a bug preventing the CPU from communicating with the VRM.

I noticed you don't have CPU Package Power either.
SVID Support is required in order for the CPU to report its VID and package power to the VRM.

Can you go into your BIOS and check VF points and find the VID for 5.1 ghz point?
And see if there is a BIOS update for your board.


----------



## newls1

just went into bios and snapped a pic.. This is the latest bios, so nothing to update too. Is this what you are looking for?


----------



## Falkentyne

newls1 said:


> just went into bios and snapped a pic.. This is the latest bios, so nothing to update too. Is this what you are looking for?


Yeah, although these values are different than the idle VID you see in windows, but this will work.
Here's mine.

So your chip has a higher VID. But you should still be able to run AIDA64 at the settings you used easily. 
Mine passes "Stress FPU" (CPU, cache and FPU at the same time is less stressful) at 1.187v load voltage at 5.1 ghz.

I would estimate that yours needs 1.230v-1.250v load voltage to pass.
Did you look at your load vcore (minimum vcore) in HWinfo during your AIDA64 run?

Instead of LLC7, try :
1.375v BIOS set, LLC=5.

Does that help?


----------



## newls1

Falkentyne said:


> Yeah, although these values are different than the idle VID you see in windows, but this will work.
> Here's mine.
> 
> So your chip has a higher VID. But you should still be able to run AIDA64 at the settings you used easily.
> Mine passes "Stress FPU" (CPU, cache and FPU at the same time is less stressful) at 1.187v load voltage at 5.1 ghz.
> 
> I would estimate that yours needs 1.230v-1.250v load voltage to pass.
> Did you look at your load vcore (minimum vcore) in HWinfo during your AIDA64 run?
> 
> Instead of LLC7, try :
> 1.375v BIOS set, LLC=5.
> 
> Does that help?


Sir, i cant thank you enough for all your assistance... SO MUCH RESPECT! Here is the weird thing... If I just have the "check mark ticked" for FPU, and leave CPU, cache unchecked, it seems stable as ive let it go for 17mins and stopped it myself. If I check CPU,Cache, and FPU... she fails in seconds and this is @ "AUTO" vcore, which is 1.325ish, I have LLC @ lvl6. Never had an intel cpu fight me like this. My 9900k was EASY... set 1.25v all core OC @ 5.0ghz and that was it... This 10900k is a different animal


----------



## Falkentyne

newls1 said:


> Sir, i cant thank you enough for all your assistance... SO MUCH RESPECT! Here is the weird thing... If I just have the "check mark ticked" for FPU, and leave CPU, cache unchecked, it seems stable as ive let it go for 17mins and stopped it myself. If I check CPU,Cache, and FPU... she fails in seconds and this is @ "AUTO" vcore, which is 1.325ish, I have LLC @ lvl6. Never had an intel cpu fight me like this. My 9900k was EASY... set 1.25v all core OC @ 5.0ghz and that was it... This 10900k is a different animal


Oh that is easy then.
It (probably) means your IMC is not stable.

Something is possibly wrong with your VCCIO/VCCSA or VDIMM values with respect to your DDR and hyperthreading.
It could ALSO be defective RAM. Or at worst case, a defective CPU. These are very unlikely but possible.

Can you pass these tests at 5 ghz or 4.9 ghz?
Also can you please lower your cache ratio to x43 and test the original voltage again?

There is a complicated relationship between hyperthreading and the IMC/L3 cache.

Try either lowering your IO/SA voltages (keep them within 5mv of each other), down slowly, 5mv at a time, to 1.10v / 1.15v, and also try raising them up 5mv at a time slowly, up to 1.40v/1.45v and test.
(this is safe for testing). Shamino did it himself on his CPU. Hell, buildzoid had it even higher in his 10900k video.

I am still concerned why your VID and CPU Package Power is missing however. It's like your CPU can't communicate with the VRM....


----------



## newls1

Falkentyne said:


> Oh that is easy then.
> It (probably) means your IMC is not stable.
> 
> Something is possibly wrong with your VCCIO/VCCSA or VDIMM values with respect to your DDR and hyperthreading.
> It could ALSO be defective RAM. Or at worst case, a defective CPU. These are very unlikely but possible.
> 
> Can you pass these tests at 5 ghz or 4.9 ghz?
> Also can you please lower your cache ratio to x43 and test the original voltage again?
> 
> There is a complicated relationship between hyperthreading and the IMC/L3 cache.
> 
> Try either lowering your IO/SA voltages (keep them within 5mv of each other), down slowly, 5mv at a time, to 1.10v / 1.15v, and also try raising them up 5mv at a time slowly, up to 1.40v/1.45v and test.
> (this is safe for testing). Shamino did it himself on his CPU. Hell, buildzoid had it even higher in his 10900k video.
> 
> I am still concerned why your VID and CPU Package Power is missing however. It's like your CPU can't communicate with the VRM....


I have 2 sets of this for 32gb's ( https://www.newegg.com/patriot-16gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820225144 ) the 4400MT/s XMP wouldnt boot, but the 2nd XMP profile which is 4266 19/19/39 1.35v booted but not stable with SA/IO @ 1.25v each, and dimm @ 1.40 so i figured this is to much for a daisy chain setup, and lowered ram to 4133 @ 18/18/36 500tRFC 1.4v and all seems good. she trains on a cold boot fast and aida64 mem test went forever till i stopped it. So im happy here I guess.


----------



## Falkentyne

newls1 said:


> I have 2 sets of this for 32gb's ( https://www.newegg.com/patriot-16gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820225144 ) the 4400MT/s XMP wouldnt boot, but the 2nd XMP profile which is 4266 19/19/39 1.35v booted but not stable with SA/IO @ 1.25v each, and dimm @ 1.40 so i figured this is to much for a daisy chain setup, and lowered ram to 4133 @ 18/18/36 500tRFC 1.4v and all seems good. she trains on a cold boot fast and aida64 mem test went forever till i stopped it. So im happy here I guess.


The Hell? Newegg makes a sale on the Steel 4400 ONE DAY AFTER I ORDER THE 4000 ?!?!!!!!
They were $149 so I ordered the 4000 steel B-dies for $99...now they're $119....

Well I was going to order the 4400's anyway but then I saw they use an absurdly high tRFC of 750 or something at XMP, so I figured I would have better luck with the 4000's.
The 4000's and my retail 10900k arrives today. I'll toss it in the Aorus Master and check the VID and see which chip is better binned. I already have 2x16 3200 CL14's in my Maxiumus Extreme, and since I suck at memory overclocking, I figured I'd risk destroying windows on a 750GB spinner on the Master and the retail CPU.

Hopefully Asus can investigate what is going on with your VID/CPU Package Power.

Are you able to use "Offset voltage" or "Adaptive voltage" with Level 4 LLC in your BIOS?


----------



## newls1

im getting god damn pissed! I can stress the FPU alone @ 5.1 "auto" vcore and she goes till I stop her.. If I check CPU, Cache and FPU... insta fail. What settings would you recommend to try to stabilize 5.1? Im pulling out my hair.. this is the hardest time ive ever had OCing an intel cpu


----------



## Falkentyne

newls1 said:


> im getting god damn pissed! I can stress the FPU alone @ 5.1 "auto" vcore and she goes till I stop her.. If I check CPU, Cache and FPU... insta fail. What settings would you recommend to try to stabilize 5.1? Im pulling out my hair.. this is the hardest time ive ever had OCing an intel cpu


First things first. Disable XMP and test.
Then set cache to x43 and test.

Or vice versa.


----------



## newls1

ok, brb


----------



## shamino1978

i'd guess similar, high mem + high cpu , 
easier to tell if you are already on the new bios 
https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?118328-Asus-Z490-stuff

and still seeing the same symptom, i'd try to set svid behavior typical or even worst case


----------



## newls1

shamino1978 said:


> i'd guess similar, high mem + high cpu ,
> easier to tell if you are already on the new bios
> https://rog.asus.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?303
> 
> and still seeing the same symptom, i'd try to set svid behavior typical or even worst case


there is only 1 bios for this XII Formula (0403) unless there is a secret beta somewhere? 

I disabled XMP, set cpu vcore to "auto", also set IO/SA to "auto" ... I manually set 51x multi, and cache to 43 and she is very stable... ***!!! What can I do to get my mem speed back? Prior I had IO/SA set to 1.2, i also tried 1.25 and still had random lockup and insta fail on this stability test. So what can I do from this point? THANKS A MILLION FOR ALL YOUR HELP!!! attached is a pic of my system loaded with XMP disabled and settings above


----------



## shamino1978

sorry wrong link
https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?118328-Asus-Z490-stuff

in any case if u wanna quickly check, put the xmp back and then manually set svid behavior to one of the 2 i mentioned just to check if you can get it stable at the expense of heat, and im assuming the cache was even left at auto which was 43x when you crashed previously,


----------



## Falkentyne

Shamino is the legendary Asus engineer, by the way 
He, Elmor and Bing have gotten some huge world records. Did anyone see Bing's 6600 mhz DDR4 overclock on the Apex 12? Like...(jaw drops).

Kingpin is still the video card god, though.








newls1 said:


> there is only 1 bios for this XII Formula (0403) unless there is a secret beta somewhere?
> 
> I disabled XMP, set cpu vcore to "auto", also set IO/SA to "auto" ... I manually set 51x multi, and cache to 43 and she is very stable... ***!!! What can I do to get my mem speed back? Prior I had IO/SA set to 1.2, i also tried 1.25 and still had random lockup and insta fail on this stability test. So what can I do from this point? THANKS A MILLION FOR ALL YOUR HELP!!! attached is a pic of my system loaded with XMP disabled and settings above


Oh so your default VID (vCPU) at 5.1 ghz is 1.335v (idle)? Mine is 1.245v (idle) at 5.1 ghz, but my BCLK is 100.0. Yours is up to 101 so that could be raising your vCPU VID @ idle. How did you fix the VID to get it working in HWinfo64? Let me guess, you forgot or you reset a BIOS setting?


----------



## newls1

shamino1978 said:


> sorry wrong link
> https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?118328-Asus-Z490-stuff
> 
> in any case if u wanna quickly check, put the xmp back and then manually set svid behavior to one of the 2 i mentioned just to check if you can get it stable at the expense of heat, and im assuming the cache was even left at auto which was 43x when you crashed previously,


Thanks for the HELP! I did exactly what you said.. xmp is back, but lowered speed to 4133, cache is left to auto (which gives me 43) and I see auto for SA/IO is nearly 1.5v WOW... so i lowered that to 1.30 for both, and I get my insta fail in aida64. I also set SVID to "Typical"...

**EDIT** Thanks for new link, going to flash to the new BIOS.. crossing fingers


----------



## Falkentyne

newls1 said:


> Thanks for the HELP! I did exactly what you said.. xmp is back, but lowered speed to 4133, cache is left to auto (which gives me 43) and I see auto for SA/IO is nearly 1.5v WOW... so i lowered that to 1.30 for both, and I get my insta fail in aida64. I also set SVID to "Typical"...
> 
> **EDIT** Thanks for new link, going to flash to the new BIOS.. crossing fingers


Are those A2 PCB dimms?
Does enabling Trace Centering help anything?

Disclaimer: I suck at memory overclocking. 
Anything I say must be taken with a cup filled with salt.


----------



## newls1

Falkentyne said:


> Are those A2 PCB dimms?
> Does enabling Trace Centering help anything?
> 
> Disclaimer: I suck at memory overclocking.
> Anything I say must be taken with a cup filled with salt.


yes sir, they are "A2" pcb's.. I dont know that answer, i havent tried that yet.. I will tho. updating to new bios.. brb


----------



## shamino1978

and after flashing i would leave io and sa at auto first to rule them out


----------



## newls1

it sets them to 1.5v tho


----------



## shamino1978

newls1 said:


> it sets them to 1.5v tho


not at 4133 or even 4266, its more like 1.30 iirc. u go by hw monitor?
edit: i could be wrong since you are running dual ranks sticks, usually they need higher but i cant be sure how much right now


----------



## newls1

ooooook... update: new bios (0509) XMP loaded but adjusted to 4000MT/s speed, 1.35v. Cache @ 46 IO/SA @ auto (giving me 1.35v for both) CPU multi to 51 CPU Vcore @ auto (1.40v) and aida64 will run till i stop it. so not sure what this is telling me... my brain is fried


----------



## newls1

shamino1978 said:


> not at 4133 or even 4266, its more like 1.30 iirc. u go by hw monitor?
> edit: i could be wrong since you are running dual ranks sticks, usually they need higher but i cant be sure how much right now


arent my sticks single rank? but i am using all 4 slots....


----------



## shamino1978

sorry, i guessed at your sticks looking at your sig. so all good then just need to up the mem and see if crashes


----------



## newls1

should i enable trace centering and what is this mode 1 and mode 2 option i see? BTW my ram is the patriot 4400 b die sticks 4x8gb sticks


----------



## Falkentyne

newls1 said:


> arent my sticks single rank? but i am using all 4 slots....


I was under the impression that single rank all 4 slots=dual rank 2 slots as far as how much your CPU hates it.
And Dual rank in all 4 slots is:

Falkentyne visits the Volcano God
Falkentyne turned into hog slag
Falkentyne becomes bored with life
Falkentyne melted


----------



## shamino1978

newls1 said:


> should i enable trace centering and what is this mode 1 and mode 2 option i see? BTW my ram is the patriot 4400 b die sticks 4x8gb sticks


no, different tuning methods basically for mode 1/2, 1 is more generalized so higher chance for stability unless you customize a lot of sub timings, 
2 is more of a let's try another approach, id stick to one till you are very comfortable messing around with mem


----------



## newls1

Im certainly getting closer to nailing this OC, THANKS TO YOU GUYS. Couple last questions. Why is it that I set 51x multi in bios but yet cpuz and hwinfo64 are showing me @ 5050MHz (which is my avx offset speed??) and in this pic below, out of all those voltage readings, which is the correct 1 to go by, im so confused!! That pic is system 100% loaded with aida64 doing CPU,FPU,and CACHE..... also, im back to 4141MT/s mem speeds now


----------



## Falkentyne

newls1 said:


> Im certainly getting closer to nailing this OC, THANKS TO YOU GUYS. Couple last questions. Why is it that I set 51x multi in bios but yet cpuz and hwinfo64 are showing me @ 5050MHz (which is my avx offset speed??) and in this pic below, out of all those voltage readings, which is the correct 1 to go by, im so confused!! That pic is system 100% loaded with aida64 doing CPU,FPU,and CACHE..... also, im back to 4141MT/s mem speeds now


AIDA64 uses AVX for Stress FPU if it is checked in the options. Are you using an AVX offset of -1? And your BCLK isn't 100.0 also.


----------



## shamino1978

its weird that youre on 101 bclk in the first place... your xmp is 4400 or one of those rare ratios like 4333


----------



## newls1

shamino1978 said:


> no, different tuning methods basically for mode 1/2, 1 is more generalized so higher chance for stability unless you customize a lot of sub timings,
> 2 is more of a let's try another approach, id stick to one till you are very comfortable messing around with mem


ok, ill disable trace centering and leave the modes to auto. Gonna try to increase my cache up 1 to 47 and see what happens. Running this b die mem @ 4141MT/s at 18/18/18/37 1.35v and changed tRFC to 550 (from 774) what settings could you throw at me to try for better performance?


----------



## Falkentyne

shamino1978 said:


> its weird that youre on 101 bclk in the first place... your xmp is 4400 or one of those rare ratios like 4333


I saw 100.4 BCLK when AI behavior was default after clear CMOS (I forgot, either auto or AI Optimized). When I set it to "manual" it was 100.0 BCLK, if I remember correctly.


----------



## newls1

i manually set 101.. dont know why, just have always used "101" since sandy bridge 2600k days.... 

*EDIT** guess i messed around to much with mem timings as during the process of playing with mem timings my OS install was doing weird stuff.. since she is MUCH improved now (thanks to you 2 guys) im gonna format and reinstall and start fresh again


----------



## Falkentyne

Ok remove your AVX offset and set 100?


----------



## newls1

Falkentyne said:


> Ok remove your AVX offset and set 100?


AVX removed and now @ 5150MHz all core and aida64 went till i shut it down. so far improvement. mixture of this new bios, and SA/IO @ 1.345v have helped this OC tremendously. im just worried about vcore. during stress it went to 1.45ish if i go by certain readouts, and others said 1.370v in hwinfo64... which of these readings do i go by?


----------



## shamino1978

newls1 said:


> AVX removed and now @ 5150MHz all core and aida64 went till i shut it down. so far improvement. mixture of this new bios, and SA/IO @ 1.345v have helped this OC tremendously. im just worried about vcore. during stress it went to 1.45ish if i go by certain readouts, and others said 1.370v in hwinfo64... which of these readings do i go by?


ill let falkentyne answer that  , btw i didnt mean 'disable trace centering' when i said 'no', i meant leave it as what it was.


----------



## newls1

shamino1978 said:


> ill let falkentyne answer that  , btw i didnt mean 'disable trace centering' when i said 'no', i meant leave it as what it was.


crap, i cant remember its default setting now... shes booting and not failing anything (yet) so whatever i set it back too must be the correct setting LOL


----------



## Falkentyne

newls1 said:


> AVX removed and now @ 5150MHz all core and aida64 went till i shut it down. so far improvement. mixture of this new bios, and SA/IO @ 1.345v have helped this OC tremendously. im just worried about vcore. during stress it went to 1.45ish if i go by certain readouts, and others said 1.370v in hwinfo64... which of these readings do i go by?


VID=reported CPU request to controller. based on ACDC Loadline=0.01 mOhms (this is vCPU; vCPU is based on cpu multiplier/cache, starts at x8 and stops at x52 multiplier), then raised by Thermal Velocity Boost voltage optimizations, which starts at a baseline of 100C core temp, and drops 1.55mv every 1C (-1.55mv / -1C), so at 0C, it is -155mv. For example, if your CPU were at 100C, if vCPU were 1.45v (1450mv), then at 0C, the CPU would be at 1.295v (1295mv).

Then AC Loadline at higher values tries to compensate for current load by adding to vCPU. And DC Loadline tries to "predict" output voltage (vout) by using its own loadline, and that is the VID you see in the end.
DC Loadline is used for CPU Package Power. If DCLL is equal to VRM Loadline (LLC), then VID will usually follow vcore, +/-offsets

If DC Loadline=0.01 mOhms (milliohms), you can see the ACLL request to the VRM without droop, but this will affect package power reporting. This is because CPU Package Power=VID * IOUT.
IOUT is current (Amps).

AC Loadline is the CPU attempting to request a voltage by adding to vCPU, to compensate for current load (and voltage drop based on current load)--it is close to being called the "Opposite" of vdroop, or opposite of VRM Loadline. ACLL compensates for this by adding to vCPU, with the math multiplier below.

DCLL is the prediction of the estimated vout, based on vdroop, which is subtracted from the ACLL calculation.

VRM Loadline is loadline calibration (in milliohms).

So the VID you see in windows is = vCPU + (ACLL mOhms * dI) - (DCLL mOhms * I))

Where dI=d1-d0 @elmor help me what is this? and I is IOUT.
And remembering vCPU will change a lot with temps.

On fixed voltage mode: 
Vcore is simply vBase - (LLC mOhms * IOUT), where vBase is your bios voltage, or base voltage.

Offset mode (Intel spec) is used on laptops. And the vcore in offset mode is:

Vcore=vCPU + (ACLL * IOUT) - (LLC mOhms * IOUT) + vOffset
(vOffset is your offset voltage).

Adaptive mode's "Additional Turbo Voltage" applies a voltage floor to the "P0" frequency. This voltage floor cannot be lower than VID.

Example, if you set in your BIOS right now:

AC Loadline: 1.1 mOhms (Intel spec), DC Loadline: 1.1 mOhms, Loadline calibration: Level 3 (1.1 mOhms)--notice ACLL=DCLL=VRM loadline, and Vcore mode: Offset mode +5mv (or -5mv--But do not leave this at auto, it will adjust up to +150mv, depending on cache ratio, so set it manually!).

You should see CPU Vcore=CPU VID.


----------



## newls1

Falkentyne said:


> VID=CPU request to controller. based on ACDC Loadline=0.01 mOhms (this is vCPU; vCPU is based on cpu multiplier/cache, starts at x8 and stops at x52 multiplier), then raised by Thermal Velocity Boost voltage optimizations, which starts at a baseline of 100C core temp, and drops 1.55mv every 1C (-1.55mv / -1C), so at 0C, it is -155mv. For example, if your CPU were at 100C, if vCPU were 1.45v (1450mv), then at 0C, the CPU would be at 1.295v (1295mv).
> 
> Then AC Loadline at higher values tries to compensate for current load by adding to vCPU. And DC Loadline tries to "predict" output voltage (vout) by using its own loadline, and that is the VID you see in the end.
> DC Loadline is used for CPU Package Power. If DCLL is equal to VRM Loadline (LLC), then VID will usually follow vcore, +/-offsets
> 
> If DC Loadline=0.01 mOhms, you can see the ACLL request to the VRM without droop, but this will affect package power reporting. This is because CPU Package Power=VID * IOUT.
> 
> So the VID you see in windows is = vCPU + (ACLL mOhms * dI) - (DCLL mOhms * I))
> 
> Where dI=d1-d0 @elmor help me what is this? and I is IOUT.
> And remembering vCPU will change a lot with temps.
> 
> On fixed voltage mode:
> Vcore is simply vBase - (LLC mOhms * IOUT), where vBase is your bios voltage, or base voltage.
> 
> Offset mode (Intel spec) is used on laptops. And the vcore in offset mode is:
> 
> Vcore=vCPU + (ACLL * IOUT) - (LLC mOhms * IOUT) + vOffset
> Adaptive mode's "Additional Turbo Voltage" applies a voltage floor to the "P0" frequency. This voltage floor cannot be lower than VID.
> 
> Example, if you set in your BIOS right now:
> 
> AC Loadline: 1.1 mOhms (Intel spec), DC Loadline: 1.1 mOhms, Loadline calibration: Level 3 (1.1 mOhms)--notice ACLL=DCLL=VRM loadline, and Vcore mode: Offset mode +5mv (or -5mv--But do not leave this at auto, it will adjust up to +150mv, depending on cache ratio, so set it manually!).
> 
> You should see CPU Vcore=CPU VID.


ummmmm, that is like 4574 times above my head and reading like german! are either 1 of those red circled areas in my pic close to the accurate reading?


----------



## Falkentyne

newls1 said:


> ummmmm, that is like 4574 times above my head and reading like german! are either 1 of those red circled areas in my pic close to the accurate reading?


Use vcore. Make sure your BIOS is set to die sense (should be the default).
And what I wrote is really not hard to understand. You need to go slow, and make sure you understand each term before moving on.
It's all basic math in the end. The math is pre algebra level, actually.

Edited the earlier post to explain better.


----------



## newls1

appreciate ya! really thank you for all your help today


----------



## newls1

I think I have just 1 more issue! Ive been spending the last hour trying to figure out what I think is a mem training issue. only on a cold boot, the board takes a while to post and most of the time it will shut down, then startup again, and it is on this 2nd boot when the pc will post. its not consistant, but 8/10 cold boots it will do this behavior. What can I do to assist with training?


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

newls1 said:


> I think I have just 1 more issue! Ive been spending the last hour trying to figure out what I think is a mem training issue. only on a cold boot, the board takes a while to post and most of the time it will shut down, then startup again, and it is on this 2nd boot when the pc will post. its not consistant, but 8/10 cold boots it will do this behavior. What can I do to assist with training?


This will be solved once you lower your IO/SA below 1.25V. It is the way that IO/SA increase volts.


----------



## 86Jarrod

I bought 2 10900k's and a z490 hero. The first that i tested barely could pass r15 at 1.279 (fail maybe 1 of every 3 runs) at 5.2 all core. The second can pass r15 at 1.279 at 5.3 all core (no hwinfo errors) so that's the one I'm trying to dial in. LLC6. The question I have is why is my vid so high? I'm completely new to asus bios.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

86Jarrod said:


> I bought 2 10900k's and a z490 hero. The first that i tested barely could pass r15 at 1.279 (fail maybe 1 of every 3 runs) at 5.2 all core. The second can pass r15 at 1.279 at 5.3 all core (no hwinfo errors) so that's the one I'm trying to dial in. LLC6. The question I have is why is my vid so high? I'm completely new to asus bios.


You set in BIOS VCORE=1.37~1.38, and your VID is 1.42. This is reasonable. Don't look at VCORE on ASUS, this measurement of VCORE is a little different from VID. You need to distinguish between "VCC sense (Die sense per ASUS)" and "Socket sense".


----------



## 86Jarrod

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> You set in BIOS VCORE=1.37~1.38, and your VID is 1.42. This is reasonable. Don't look at VCORE on ASUS, this measurement of VCORE is a little different from VID. You need to distinguish between "VCC sense (Die sense per ASUS)" and "Socket sense".


Thanks for your reply. What should I look at when determining safety? Are these settings relatively safe? I'm used to z390 dark and this bios seems to have way more settings and some are worded differently.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

86Jarrod said:


> Thanks for your reply. What should I look at when determining safety? Are these settings relatively safe? I'm used to z390 dark and this bios seems to have way more settings and some are worded differently.


As far as you can cool your processor (<80C for daily use), set any VCORE in bios under 1.45V (LLC6 condition) should be OK.


----------



## newls1

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> This will be solved once you lower your IO/SA below 1.25V. It is the way that IO/SA increase volts.


i seem to be getting my stability @ 1.3+ SA/IO though..... so this double post issue is normal then given these sa/io settings?


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

newls1 said:


> i seem to be getting my stability @ 1.3+ SA/IO though..... so this double post issue is normal then given these sa/io settings?


If any of IO/SA is higher than 1.25V double post should appear.


----------



## Falkentyne

86Jarrod said:


> I bought 2 10900k's and a z490 hero. The first that i tested barely could pass r15 at 1.279 (fail maybe 1 of every 3 runs) at 5.2 all core. The second can pass r15 at 1.279 at 5.3 all core (no hwinfo errors) so that's the one I'm trying to dial in. LLC6. The question I have is why is my vid so high? I'm completely new to asus bios.


Nice. I have two chips also now (the ES and a retail bought chip), and my ES can pass Cinebench R20 at 5.3 core/4.9 cache IF I can keep load voltage above 1.320v. But it reaches 100C on my 360 AIO so I can't loop it at all. I can use 1.380v BIOS set, Loadline calibration: level 7. If I use Level 6 LLC, I need like 1.435v bios set because of the vdroop.

5.2 ghz / 4.9 cache on the ES is easy: requires just 1.235v LOAD voltage to pass Cinebench R20 and Prime95 small FFT with AVX disabled.

The second retail chip has the same stability voltage at 5 ghz, but falls off at 5.1 ghz compared to the first, and falls off more at 5.2 ghz. 5.3 ghz all cores requires like 1.4v LOAD voltage so that's impossible.
I tested that worse chip in an Aorus Master and I do not have die-sense or amps monitoring as HWInfo64 apparently doesn't support the voltage controllers yet so I can't be fully sure if the loadlines are identical to the Asus loadlines.

What's your Bios set vcore for your good CPU that can do R15 @ 5.3 ghz? I assume you are using 1.390v set in BIOS + LLC6? Or are both your chips set to 1.40v in BIOS + LLC6 ?

Can you pass CB R20? Please try R20


----------



## Falkentyne

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> You set in BIOS VCORE=1.37~1.38, and your VID is 1.42. This is reasonable. Don't look at VCORE on ASUS, this measurement of VCORE is a little different from VID. You need to distinguish between "VCC sense (Die sense per ASUS)" and "Socket sense".


Um, I think you mean to say "don't look at VID--look at VCORE on Asus, and use Die-sense".


----------



## ViTosS

I see you guys saying VID and everything, just wondering I use manual OC fixed voltage mode with SVID disabled, can I use it and don't worry about VID since it doesn't show in HWiNFO64 with SVID disabled? Also another thing I noticed, when I use SVID and turn my PC off completely (shut down PSU switch) and start boot it doesn't boot and turn off and boot again like when I have SVID disabled, is that normal behavior? Sorry a bit off topic, I use an 8700k and Asus Maximus X Hero.


----------



## 86Jarrod

Falkentyne said:


> Nice. I have two chips also now (the ES and a retail bought chip), and my ES can pass Cinebench R20 at 5.3 core/4.9 cache IF I can keep load voltage above 1.320v. But it reaches 100C on my 360 AIO so I can't loop it at all. I can use 1.380v BIOS set, Loadline calibration: level 7. If I use Level 6 LLC, I need like 1.435v bios set because of the vdroop.
> 
> 5.2 ghz / 4.9 cache on the ES is easy: requires just 1.235v LOAD voltage to pass Cinebench R20 and Prime95 small FFT with AVX disabled.
> 
> The second retail chip has the same stability voltage at 5 ghz, but falls off at 5.1 ghz compared to the first, and falls off more at 5.2 ghz. 5.3 ghz all cores requires like 1.4v LOAD voltage so that's impossible.
> I tested that worse chip in an Aorus Master and I do not have die-sense or amps monitoring as HWInfo64 apparently doesn't support the voltage controllers yet so I can't be fully sure if the loadlines are identical to the Asus loadlines.
> 
> What's your Bios set vcore for your good CPU that can do R15 @ 5.3 ghz? I assume you are using 1.390v set in BIOS + LLC6? Or are both your chips set to 1.40v in BIOS + LLC6 ?
> 
> Can you pass CB R20? Please try R20


After messing with a little ram oc this is what I have it set to. 1.395 in bios llc6. I'm going to do some memtest overnight. I have the per core 5.4 for 4, 5.3 for 10.


----------



## Falkentyne

86Jarrod said:


> After messing with a little ram oc this is what I have it set to. 1.395 in bios llc6. I'm going to do some memtest overnight.


What stress test did you run? CB R15 or R20?


----------



## 86Jarrod

Falkentyne said:


> What stress test did you run? CB R15 or R20?


r20


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

Falkentyne said:


> Um, I think you mean to say "don't look at VID--look at VCORE on Asus, and use Die-sense".


I meant to say...compare the socket sense VID (also the bios vcore) with die sense (VCC sense) software reading might not be quite correct


----------



## Falkentyne

86Jarrod said:


> r20


Ah good job. That's a nice result.

I was able to complete a run at 1.370v LLC7 but temps reached 97C core max and 98C on package and had a package/ring throttling flag. (1.332v load).
I tried 1.380v LLC7 before that, and reached 99C and the entire system locked up completely. a complete hard lock. I guess that's overheat protection.
Your chip's better than mine  

Can I ask you a question?
If you set your CPU to 5 ghz core, 4.7 cache and make sure you set SVID Behavior to "best case scenario", boot windows, what is your IDLE VID shown in hwinfo64 ?


----------



## Falkentyne

People need to understand what I/O voltage (VCCIO) and SA Voltage (VCCSA) are and why, when you are overclocking memory, you MUST raise IO/SA voltages,
and why you should not be too afraid of high IO/SA voltages.

The IMC is powered by a voltage rail (much like other rails) and there is a relationship between VCCIO and VCCSA, much like there is a relationship between
AC Loadline and DC Loadline / VRM Loadline.

One functions are pre-output buffers and the other functions on post output buffers, much like AC Loadline functions on CPU *REQUEST* voltage,
and VRM Loadline functions on CPU *DELIVERED* voltage (DC Loadline is a prediction of the VR VOUT, used for power measurements, VRM Loadline is the actual vdroop,
set at intel default and tuned by loadline calibration, etc)....

So there is a relationship between them, and why IO/SA should be close to each other, much like ACLL and DCLL should match each other also.
Although VCCIO is a special case since it also drives the shared L3 cache, and this gets even more tricky because the IMC controls hyperthreading,
and hyperthreaded CPU cores function with virtualized instruction registers that are stored in a "L0" or level zero cache--the L0 cache is the
virtualized instruction register store. Also this is why at higher memory speeds, you often need to increase CPU VCORE to keep your CPU stable, or increase IO/SA, or your CPU hyperthreading
will be unstable...does this make sense?

Have any of you ever wondered why you don't usually get CPU Cache L0 errors if hyperthreading is disabled? And no System Service Exceptions, etc---but instead the application crashes
if your vcore is too low, or you just get 0x101 (Clock watchdog) or 0x124 (WHEA uncorrectable) BSOD's? Well there you go...

So there is no Intel spec limit on VCCIO, but VCCSA has a 1.52v limit. Same as Vcore (without VRM Serial VID offset mode enabled, which is VRM command 33h, an IMPV8 command),
But you see, 1.520v VID is based on default loadlines being respected (In other words, Vdroop is GOOD, boys), and then the -1.6mv / amp curve (9900k) or -1.1mv /A for 10900k etc...
So as amps go up, the VID goes down...etc etc....so 245 amps on 10900k becomes 1.250v load voltage...
Although I am not sure how the 1.720v VID limit for offset mode functions (command 33h allows up to 200mv of higher VID)---maybe this is for sub-zero crowd...I know nothing about this...

Anyway, even if you still think 1.520v with max vdroop (intel spec) is still bad, you can't do anything about it anyway, because AC Loadline (e.g., default AC Loadline like used on H chip series laptops) of 1.1 mOhms *WILL* Boost the VID up to 1.520v anyway and not even tell you. Because AC Loadline will boost base VID (You can find this at idle---set AC/DC Loadline to 0.01 mOhms first, boot windows and look at HWinfo64),
up depending on current, like this:

Vcore = vCPU + (ACLL mOhms * Amps). before vdroop. So if your vCPU is 1.210v at idle @ 30C, you try to draw a 245 amp Prime95 load
in offset mode with +0mv (or Auto or adaptive vcore with +0mv offset), your AC Loadline will ASK FOR A VOLTAGE FROM THE VRM of:

1210mv + (245 * 1.1 mOhm) =1479mv or 1.479v IF YOUR CPU IS AT 30C. So the CPU will ask for 1.479v from VRM at 30C. At 80C this will be higher (vCPU rises higher as temp rises, 1.55mv every C, or -1.55mv every C, starting at 100C and going down, at x52 multiplier I think) --probably 1.520v if VRM command 33h is off, because the VID cap will be 1.520v max. And this is intel spec so no need to be so scared.

But this is only half of the formula. You forgot about VRM Loadline.
VRM Loadline of 1.1 mOhms is intel spec also, same as ACLL:
So now you have vdroop to bring the voltage back down:
1.1 mOhm * 245A.....=269mv of vdroop....

1520mv - 269mv = 1.250v....so your CPU is at 1.250v max safe voltage at 245A...intel spec.
THIS IS WHY HAVING NO VDROOP IS BAD...IF YOU HAD NO VDROOP WITH THIS SPEC YOU WOULD BE 1.520V LOAD @ 245A....SEE ?


But let's go to VCCSA with this.

As you can see you can't destroy your System Agent by using no vdroop at 1.520v Bios set voltage, like you can your CPU, because some fool thought no vdroop is good, when you are violating Intel's loadline spec and generating terrible transient ripple (read: https://elmorlabs.com/index.php/2019-09-05/vrm-load-line-visualized/ )

Because there is no loadline specification for VCCSA for you to destroy anyway. So you are not insta-breaking your IMC by using 1.50v system agent.
VCCIO is similar.

Now think of CPU scaling here and that VCCIO and VCCSA are signal power rails...
Let's say your CPU needs:

1.250v for 5 ghz core
1.450v for 5 ghz ring ratio
1.55-1.60v for 5 ghz DDR RAM ratio...
1.40v VCCSA for 4400 mhz DDR RAM 
1.65v VCCSA for 5 ghz DDR RAM 

IO and SA are affected too so you may need 1.4v+ for 4400 mhz +. See?
This is normal. And there is also a frequency point where the voltage you need to run faster frequency gets more steep

Like:
1.012v for 4.7 ghz
1.043v for 4.8 ghz
1.083v for 4.9 ghz
1.124v for 5.0 ghz
1.180v for 5.1 ghz
1.235v for 5.2 ghz
1.335v for 5.3 ghz....

The same thing happens with memory frequency, just not so sharp. But DDR 4400 + requires scaling IO/SA too. But not as sharp scaling for DDR voltage etc.
Hope you guys will understand this.


----------



## aDyerSituation

Anyone in here have a strix-e? How's it treating you? Wondering if it would be worth it to just buy the hero


----------



## shaolin95

Hey guys, 
I know is early but I am debating with my 9900k 5GHZ all cores with Arous Master and thermaltake floe 360 (which was best until the new Artic one came out)...am I really going to get some great gains going to the 10900k with either Asus Hero or another Gigabyte mobo. Or is the hotter 10900k going to limit my gains vs my current setup?
One reason I was thinking about it was also the claims that 11th gen will work on the same mobo but of course, I am not sure if that 100% true.

Thanks!


----------



## criskoe

shaolin95 said:


> Hey guys,
> I know is early but I am debating with my 9900k 5GHZ all cores with Arous Master and thermaltake floe 360 (which was best until the new Artic one came out)...am I really going to get some great gains going to the 10900k with either Asus Hero or another Gigabyte mobo. Or is the hotter 10900k going to limit my gains vs my current setup?
> One reason I was thinking about it was also the claims that 11th gen will work on the same mobo but of course, I am not sure if that 100% true.
> 
> Thanks!


I have a 9900KS. And I really want a 10900k. I’m seeing all this fun and feel like I’m missing out. Lol. I feel like the poor kid watching his wealthy buddies open there nice shiny Christmas presents. Lol. 

Jokes aside. I could totally buy one but I’m trying be realistic and smarter with my money and not give in so easily to my inner tech junkie. Especially for such a small return over what I have. 

If you do production/productivity work you shouldn’t even be looking at the 10900k. You should be going ryzen. There’s no arguing that. And if your just doing gaming. Well there are plenty of benches out showing the 10900k eeks very little over the 9900k. Very little. In fact a lot of the time they are equal. And the rest just neck n neck. Basically A few frames here and there. Honestly nothing that your going to notice in real world while actually playing the game.. Especially if you play at a resolution over 1080p. It’s a wash. According to your sig you run a 4K monitor. If that’s still true. You are going to ZERO gains in gaming. 

Your 9900k isn’t all of a sudden a slouch now that the 10900k is out. But if a higher cinebench or some other synthetic benchmarking score is gunna make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside then go for it. Cause that really all you will get over your existing 9900k if gaming is your main goal. Cause again if you need more threads for productivity work you really should be looking at the 3900X or the 3950X. 

All that said. I don’t think buying a whole new platform for a tiny bit more frames is worth it. And don’t buy into this platform with the plan that MAYBE intel might have a better cpu later to socket into it. Don’t do it. Wait and see what 11th Gen really is. For all we know it could end up just being another 14+++++++++ but with pci 4 and that’s it. Lol. 

Anyways thats what I’m telling myself. And it’s working pretty well keeping me a good boy. Lol. But Don’t let my Debbie downer attitude sway you if all your looking for is some new toys to play with and you got money to burn.


----------



## Falkentyne

10th gen is just so fun to tweak though. And the memory overclocking is just nuts.

I wish Intel would let us disable individual physical cores like you can on X299 though.
If you could do that here, disabling your weakest physical cores, this would be the best platform ever created.

Maybe Intel will merge the HEDT FIVR system and the consumer systems someday once they fix the issues with Mesh bus? 
We can't have per core voltage control without a FIVR multi-rail system.
Is it possible this is the exact same reason you can't disable specific physical cores?


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

Falkentyne said:


> 10th gen is just so fun to tweak though. And the memory overclocking is just nuts.
> 
> I wish Intel would let us disable individual physical cores like you can on X299 though.
> If you could do that here, disabling your weakest physical cores, this would be the best platform ever created.
> 
> Maybe Intel will merge the HEDT FIVR system and the consumer systems someday once they fix the issues with Mesh bus?
> We can't have per core voltage control without a FIVR multi-rail system.
> Is it possible this is the exact same reason you can't disable specific physical cores?


You can try to turn off HT on some lame cores, should help a lot


----------



## newls1

Gonna try to post this in here, maybe Falkentyne will see it!! Looking to see if you could recommend what timings to adjust for better mem performance. I had to bring tRFC back to 550 as pc was throwing very weird errors, but what else in this pic would you adjust for slightly better performance?


----------



## criskoe

Falkentyne said:


> 10th gen is just so fun to tweak though. And the memory overclocking is just nuts.


Yeah I feel you. It looks like a lot of fun. Which is why I’m living vicariously through you guys by creeping the threads. Lol. It’s seemingly satisfying my itch. Lol. 

Normally I’d pull the trigger and just give in. But I’m trying to be smart. World is falling apart and who knows what’s going to happen. Future is so uncertain right now. So I’m thinking keeping these duckets in my pocket right now is more important. Rainy days sure are here and who knows for how long.


----------



## shaolin95

criskoe said:


> I have a 9900KS. And I really want a 10900k. I’m seeing all this fun and feel like I’m missing out. Lol. I feel like the poor kid watching his wealthy buddies open there nice shiny Christmas presents. Lol.
> 
> Jokes aside. I could totally buy one but I’m trying be realistic and smarter with my money and not give in so easily to my inner tech junkie. Especially for such a small return over what I have.
> 
> If you do production/productivity work you shouldn’t even be looking at the 10900k. You should be going ryzen. There’s no arguing that. And if your just doing gaming. Well there are plenty of benches out showing the 10900k eeks very little over the 9900k. Very little. In fact a lot of the time they are equal. And the rest just neck n neck. Basically A few frames here and there. Honestly nothing that your going to notice in real world while actually playing the game.. Especially if you play at a resolution over 1080p. It’s a wash. According to your sig you run a 4K monitor. If that’s still true. You are going to ZERO gains in gaming.
> 
> Your 9900k isn’t all of a sudden a slouch now that the 10900k is out. But if a higher cinebench or some other synthetic benchmarking score is gunna make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside then go for it. Cause that really all you will get over your existing 9900k if gaming is your main goal. Cause again if you need more threads for productivity work you really should be looking at the 3900X or the 3950X.
> 
> All that said. I don’t think buying a whole new platform for a tiny bit more frames is worth it. And don’t buy into this platform with the plan that MAYBE intel might have a better cpu later to socket into it. Don’t do it. Wait and see what 11th Gen really is. For all we know it could end up just being another 14+++++++++ but with pci 4 and that’s it. Lol.
> 
> Anyways thats what I’m telling myself. And it’s working pretty well keeping me a good boy. Lol. But Don’t let my Debbie downer attitude sway you if all your looking for is some new toys to play with and you got money to burn.


Well for Photoshop which what I use the most, 9900k beats all AMDs (it even beats the 10900k at this time..likely some firmware issues going on there). For gaming, Intel is indeed king (I do competitive with a 1080p 240hz monitor). That is why I feel I rather wait because going with the 10900k is going to be a little upgrade for some things like unzipping, maybe Premiere etc. And going for AMD I will lose top FPS, lesser Photoshop so its a compromise and I want my next upgrade to be a FULL noncompromise upgrade so guess I better wait for 11th gen and 4000 to see how those turn out.


----------



## criskoe

newls1 said:


> Gonna try to post this in here, maybe Falkentyne will see it!! Looking to see if you could recommend what timings to adjust for better mem performance. I had to bring tRFC back to 550 as pc was throwing very weird errors, but what else in this pic would you adjust for slightly better performance?


You Probably be better posting this in the memory area. Falkentyne is a genius and wealth of info and I defiantly don’t want to speak for him but he’s said a few times in different threads that ram OC isn’t his strong area. I dunno. The ram area has some pretty knowledgeable dudes that should be able to give you some good tips.


----------



## shaolin95

Falkentyne said:


> 10th gen is just so fun to tweak though. And the memory overclocking is just nuts.


Yeah that part sounds fun for sure BUT I run 4x16GB for my Premiere and huge Photo stitching stuff so I am sure OCing memory will be limited for me anyways.


----------



## criskoe

shaolin95 said:


> Well for Photoshop which what I use the most, 9900k beats all AMDs (it even beats the 10900k at this time..likely some firmware issues going on there). For gaming, Intel is indeed king (I do competitive with a 1080p 240hz monitor). That is why I feel I rather wait because going with the 10900k is going to be a little upgrade for some things like unzipping, maybe Premiere etc. And going for AMD I will lose top FPS, lesser Photoshop so its a compromise and I want my next upgrade to be a FULL noncompromise upgrade so guess I better wait for 11th gen and 4000 to see how those turn out.


Yeah dude. Just wait and see what 11th gen really is. No sense in investing in something now you know nothing about. And 4000 is close too so theirs that. 

But more exciting is the rumoured sept video cards coming!!!! Take that money and tuck it away for that dude.


----------



## Falkentyne

I'm definitely not the guy to ask about memory overclocking.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

shaolin95 said:


> Yeah that part sounds fun for sure BUT I run 4x16GB for my Premiere and huge Photo stitching stuff so I am sure OCing memory will be limited for me anyways.


Why OC a PC for work?


----------



## shaolin95

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> Why OC a PC for work?


lol because its my PC that performs better OCed and I use it for gaming as well..I said that just like two posts before this that you quoted.... so the question is WHY NOT?


----------



## ThrashZone

shaolin95 said:


> Well for Photoshop which what I use the most, 9900k beats all AMDs (it even beats the 10900k at this time..likely some firmware issues going on there). For gaming, Intel is indeed king (I do competitive with a 1080p 240hz monitor). That is why I feel I rather wait because going with the 10900k is going to be a little upgrade for some things like unzipping, maybe Premiere etc. And going for AMD I will lose top FPS, lesser Photoshop so its a compromise and I want my next upgrade to be a FULL noncompromise upgrade so guess I better wait for 11th gen and 4000 to see how those turn out.


Hi,
So how would a 8 core processor beat a 10 core or more processor exactly ?
Last I saw photoshop/... all work off settings of resources set to use.


----------



## opt33

newls1 said:


> Gonna try to post this in here, maybe Falkentyne will see it!! Looking to see if you could recommend what timings to adjust for better mem performance. I had to bring tRFC back to 550 as pc was throwing very weird errors, but what else in this pic would you adjust for slightly better performance?


this is a good place to start:
https://www.overclock.net/forum/27784556-post7836.html

After getting primary timings as low as possible...you can also boot up at stock memory 2133 and write down all secondary timings (that will be close to lowest possible values you can use on XMP). Then boot back up to XMP and try to walk each down slowly towards stock values, using link above, making 1-2 changes at a time. I would use hci memtest or some version thereof, and test 10-20mins near 100% often so you dont make several changes with instability and not knowing which change caused it. Use low memory per test and run several instances to do 100% faster. Then run hci memtest for 400-500% coverage with 85-90% ram useage (I ran mine overnight 8hrs/800% to be sure) on my patriot viper 4400CL19, which I had to run at 4000Cl17 with tight secondary timings b/c weak mem controller and not wanting to use 1.4+Vccsa/io. But 4000cl17 and tight secondary timings I was close to 4400cl19 aida write/copy speeds and lower latency and only using 1.27 vccio/sa and 1.4vdram.

And that thread where link is great for people helping with mem.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

shaolin95 said:


> lol because its my PC that performs better OCed and I use it for gaming as well..I said that just like two posts before this that you quoted.... so the question is WHY NOT?


Don't know your case but I don't want to mess my simulation that has been running for days. That's a lot of money. If you have a PC for work that is running at default or even XMP, you know you have sb to be blamed when situation comes. If you OCed your PC and suddenly your PC dies due to mysterious reasons, not only OC, you will have a hard time.


----------



## shaolin95

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> Don't know your case but I don't want to mess my simulation that has been running for days. That's a lot of money. If you have a PC for work that is running at default or even XMP, you know you have sb to be blamed when situation comes. If you OCed your PC and suddenly your PC dies due to mysterious reasons, not only OC, you will have a hard time.


What??? I have been OCing since a Tbird 1.4, NEVER had a part die, is all about common sense and knowing how far you are willing to push your gear, into safe range or go pass that. I did not think I will find people afraid of OCing in this website of all places..I mean its called Overclock! LOL
Regards


----------



## shaolin95

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> So how would a 8 core processor beat a 10 core or more processor exactly ?
> Last I saw photoshop/... all work off settings of resources set to use.


Dont ask me, just check the current results, the 9900k is beating all CPUs including 10900k. Steve from Gamers Nexus thinks it is related to the BIOS issues he has experienced but so far every result I have seen shows the same thing. Likely to change in the future. Photoshop LOVES speed which is how the 9900k (@5Ghz) beats AMD CPUs with more cores.
That lower than expected Photoshop performance of the 10900k makes me wonder if there is more to come out of the 10900k after things are more mature...


----------



## newls1

opt33 said:


> this is a good place to start:
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/27784556-post7836.html
> 
> After getting primary timings as low as possible...you can also boot up at stock memory 2133 and write down all secondary timings (that will be close to lowest possible values you can use on XMP). Then boot back up to XMP and try to walk each down slowly towards stock values, using link above, making 1-2 changes at a time. I would use hci memtest or some version thereof, and test 10-20mins near 100% often so you dont make several changes with instability and not knowing which change caused it. Use low memory per test and run several instances to do 100% faster. Then run hci memtest for 400-500% coverage with 85-90% ram useage (I ran mine overnight 8hrs/800% to be sure) on my patriot viper 4400CL19, which I had to run at 4000Cl17 with tight secondary timings b/c weak mem controller and not wanting to use 1.4+Vccsa/io. But 4000cl17 and tight secondary timings I was close to 4400cl19 aida write/copy speeds and lower latency and only using 1.27 vccio/sa and 1.4vdram.
> 
> And that thread where link is great for people helping with mem.


thank you sir


----------



## opt33

newls1 said:


> thank you sir


one other thing, with 4 dimms you will have to use looser timings and higher voltages in general than screenshots you will see with overclocking 2 dimms, which is why you will see more ocing with just 2.


----------



## ThrashZone

shaolin95 said:


> Dont ask me, just check the current results, the 9900k is beating all CPUs including 10900k. Steve from Gamers Nexus thinks it is related to the BIOS issues he has experienced but so far every result I have seen shows the same thing. Likely to change in the future. Photoshop LOVES speed which is how the 9900k (@5Ghz) beats AMD CPUs with more cores.


Hi,
Well rendering 3d or otherwise is just rendering 
By that logic you should be able to run blender opendata cpu full test faster than mine which is only 6 render files is a row 

https://opendata.blender.org/
See if you can do that in less than 30 minutes my guess would be no way lol 
https://www.overclock.net/forum/61-water-cooling/1733810-optimus-waterblock-269.html#post28391284


----------



## shaolin95

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Well rendering 3d or otherwise is just rendering
> By that logic you should be able to run blender opendata cpu full test faster than mine which is only 6 render files is a row
> 
> https://opendata.blender.org/
> See if you can do that in less than 30 minutes my guess would be no way lol
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/61-water-cooling/1733810-optimus-waterblock-269.html#post28391284


To be honest, I am not sure what you are talking about man. PHOTOSHOP...that is NOT 3D rendering, is photoshop. 
https://www.gamersnexus.net/images/media/2020/10900k-review/photoshop-10900k-review.png
Just look everywhere, the 9900k is at the top OCed.
Again, I am confused why you are bring up 3D Rendering with blender to a Photoshop argument because they work COMPLETELY different.


----------



## Falkentyne

Some other stuff here

https://github.com/integralfx/MemTestHelper/blob/master/DDR4 OC Guide.md


----------



## 8051

'Absolute minimum die-sense load voltages required to pass Prime95 small FFT AVX disabled and Realbench 2.56/AIDA64 "Stress FPU"'

So Falkentyne those were the lowest VRVOUT voltages seen during the benchmark test? That's impressive for 10 cores/20 threads.


----------



## ThrashZone

shaolin95 said:


> To be honest, I am not sure what you are talking about man. PHOTOSHOP...that is NOT 3D rendering, is photoshop.
> https://www.gamersnexus.net/images/media/2020/10900k-review/photoshop-10900k-review.png
> Just look everywhere, the 9900k is at the top OCed.
> Again, I am confused why you are bring up 3D Rendering with blender to a Photoshop argument because they work COMPLETELY different.


Hi,
Think you & GN are both full of it going by some silly photoshop test.

Only stressful thing PH does id 3d rendering and rendering is just that rendering where cores matter or gpu matters which ever way the settings are set to use.


----------



## Falkentyne

8051 said:


> 'Absolute minimum die-sense load voltages required to pass Prime95 small FFT AVX disabled and Realbench 2.56/AIDA64 "Stress FPU"'
> 
> So Falkentyne those were the lowest VRVOUT voltages seen during the benchmark test? That's impressive for 10 cores/20 threads.


Yeah


----------



## Exilon

So how's the per-core HT switches and the XTU voltage curves? 

Anyone try disabling HT on the turbo 3.0 cores and bump them up by 100-200MHz?


----------



## 86Jarrod

Optimized default plus settings you wanted. Auto vcore.


----------



## Falkentyne

86Jarrod said:


> Optimized default plus settings you wanted. Auto vcore.


I assume that was for me. 
Thank you. Anyway. in your BIOS, you should have a "SP" CPU score.
Can you tell us what it is, if you have time?


----------



## 86Jarrod

Falkentyne said:


> I assume that was for me.
> Thank you. Anyway. in your BIOS, you should have a "SP" CPU score.
> Can you tell us what it is, if you have time?


Yeah sorry I hit quick reply. My score is 87.


----------



## newls1

what is the safest max vcore to run these cpus at? wanting to try for 52x multi now. At 51x multi (vcore set to "auto") I get Core 0-9 VID @ 1.409, then cpu vcore is 1.376... Wondering what "Auto" vcore and setting 52x multi will do and if it would be safe. With all that said, falkentyne, what would "YOU" use for an average 52x vcore?


----------



## Falkentyne

86Jarrod said:


> Yeah sorry I hit quick reply. My score is 87.


Is this the chip that you said can run Cinebench R20 at 5.3 ghz @ 1.279v load voltage?
Interesting. Mine needs at least 1.320v load voltage for that.

But I notice your VID @ 5 ghz 29C is 1.215v while mine is 1.210v.
My VID at 5.2 ghz windows idle is 1.305v


----------



## 86Jarrod

Falkentyne said:


> Is this the chip that you said can run Cinebench R20 at 5.3 ghz @ 1.279v load voltage?
> Interesting. Mine needs at least 1.320v load voltage for that.
> 
> But I notice your VID @ 5 ghz 29C is 1.215v while mine is 1.210v.
> My VID at 5.2 ghz windows idle is 1.305v


Yeah it's that chip. I restored optimized defaults. Set the settings you asked for, enabled forced freq or whatever it's called, and left vcore on auto.


----------



## newls1

newls1 said:


> what is the safest max vcore to run these cpus at? wanting to try for 52x multi now. At 51x multi (vcore set to "auto") I get Core 0-9 VID @ 1.409, then cpu vcore is 1.376... Wondering what "Auto" vcore and setting 52x multi will do and if it would be safe. With all that said, falkentyne, what would "YOU" use for an average 52x vcore?


here is a screen shot of my VID and VCORE after applying 52x multi, vcore = "Auto" and SVID Behavior = "Trained" Are these to much for 24/7? Temps are crazy low, hottest core got to 67c :thumb: I just dont understand why "VID" is in the 1.380's range, and Vcore is 1.279v Loaded.... This is normal right, and 1.279v 100% loaded should be safe i would think right?


----------



## Falkentyne

So, I increased the cache ratio to x50 (what) from x49, at x53 all cores, lowered the bios voltage set by 5mv, from 1.435v to 1.430v, Level 6 loadline calibration,
and was somehow able to pass both a few runs of Cinebench R20, a few map loads of battlefield 5 (violent transients, sometimes you get 100% load 
on all cores to load assets), and 10 loads of Minecraft Java without an internal parity error (those are harmless) and no CPU Cache L0 errors.

I have no idea why it would suddenly be more stable with x50 than with x49. No idea at all. But the 96C temps are NOT helping matters. 

Also, for the rest of you, can you please look in your BIOS, go to VF Points, and tell me the VF points VID for your processor at x52 and x53?
Are they the exact same?


----------



## 86Jarrod

Falkentyne said:


> Is this the chip that you said can run Cinebench R20 at 5.3 ghz @ 1.279v load voltage?
> Interesting. Mine needs at least 1.320v load voltage for that.
> 
> But I notice your VID @ 5 ghz 29C is 1.215v while mine is 1.210v.
> My VID at 5.2 ghz windows idle is 1.305v


Here's some more info from bios. I guess i had VRM switching frequency to fast, LLC 6, cache up to 49. Also another screenshot of R20 and AIDA stress. Bumped up voltage a little bit for stability.


----------



## Falkentyne

newls1 said:


> here is a screen shot of my VID and VCORE after applying 52x multi, vcore = "Auto" and SVID Behavior = "Trained" Are these to much for 24/7? Temps are crazy low, hottest core got to 67c :thumb: I just dont understand why "VID" is in the 1.380's range, and Vcore is 1.279v Loaded.... This is normal right, and 1.279v 100% loaded should be safe i would think right?


Hello,
Can you pass this same test with only "Stress FPU"?
Having stress CPU, FPU and Cache all selected at the same time puts a very low load on the CPU.

I also can't answer your VID question. My VID at 5.2 ghz is 1.305v at idle. VID is basically a quality rating for the processor, and is used by Intel to calculate the processor's "Voltage request" via AC Loadline, with the target being an AC Loadline value of 1.1 mOhms, DC LL of 1.1 mOhms and VRM Loadline (Loadline Calibration) of 1.1 mOhms---LLC3 on Asus boards, LLC: "Standard / Normal" on Gigabyte boards, etc.
Base VID (you can see base VID with SVID Behavior on "best case scenario") or ACLL / DCLL at 0.01 mOhms is the VID shown at idle, also known as " vCPU ".

vCPU will rise up or down depending on temps...starting at 100C, and dropping 1.55mv every 1C temp drop (-1.55mv / 1C), so if your CPU is at 0C, your base VID will be 155mv lower than it would be at 100C.
Disabling "Thermal Velocity Boost Voltage Optimizations" in your BIOS will treat the vCPU as if your CPU were always at 100C, which can be useful in some situations, if you need a "higher" vCPU at lower temps.


Laptops use these Serial VID by default, via direct Serial VID (Offset mode with a 0mv offset, basically). Desktops will use VID this way also, but will only calculate vcore via VID in offset or adaptive modes.
Loadline calibration on laptops is fixed at 1.1 mOhms. On desktops, the lowest level starts at 1.7 mOhms (Asus) and 1.1 mOhms (Gigabyte), with each higher level reducing vdroop by a certain PERCENTAGE of the base vdroop loadline (a lower mOhms value of LLC=lower vdroop).

Easy math example of vdroop:
200A IOUT: (amps).

vTarget: 1.350v set in BIOS, fixed vcore.

1350mv - (200 * 1.1) = 1.130v VOUT (Loadline=intel spec defaults of 1.1 mOhms, or Level 3 LLC on Asus).

1350mv - (200 * .485) = 1.253v VOUT (Loadline=0.485 mOhms, or Level 6 LLC on Asus, LLC Turbo on Gigabyte Z490, etc).

Level 4 LLC on Asus is 0.97 mOhms, btw.

Anyway, that was for fixed voltage.
For offset voltage with a "0mv" offset (not "Auto" offset!!!):

It's
Vcore = vCPU + (amps * ACLL mOhms) - (amps * VRM LLC mOhms). Remembering that vCPU will rise/drop depending on temps also (unless you disable TVB voltage optimizations).

This is exactly how LAPTOPS get their vcore always.

On laptops, OVERRIDE VOLTAGE doesn't set Vcore. it overwrites the vCPU completely with your override value!

Gigabyte Z490 Aorus master and extreme have an "Override" voltage and "Fixed" voltage.
For Asus, you should use adaptive voltage and you can train your "AC Loadline" by the AI options (I still am not fully sure about this procedure), and keep your LLC at level 4.


----------



## Falkentyne

86Jarrod said:


> Here's some more info from bios. I guess i had VRM switching frequency to fast, LLC 6, cache up to 49. Also another screenshot of R20 and AIDA stress. Bumped up voltage a little bit for stability.


Hi jarrod. Those aren't the VF points in your screenshots. You gave me "Turbo ratio limits". Don't need those.

Go to your advanced settings and look for the menu called "VF Points". Thats what I need


----------



## 86Jarrod

Here's the VF points for my current oc. Plus Aida stress FPU only. Thanks for all the awesome info in the thread!


----------



## Falkentyne

86Jarrod said:


> Here's the VF points for my current oc. Plus Aida stress FPU only. Thanks for all the awesome info in the thread!


Thank you very much! Very helpful!

For some reason, my VF point 8 says 5.3 ghz, with the same VID as 5.2 ghz, while yours has 5.4 ghz with no 5.3 VID VF point, with the OC point (I assume favored cores boost). I see that in my AI training profile also, but I guess because I set my AI options to manual, it put a 5.3g VID there with the same VID as 5.2g. Unless there is an ES CPU bug I ran into or something. I'll check Bios 509 with all defaults later to see.

BTW my 5.2v VID in BIOS is 1.394v VF point. But in windows (idle desktop) its 1.305v... hmm...Bios might be showing prediction values maybe.


----------



## shamino1978

Each vf point in bios or the aisuite tool reads back the current ratio and vid associated with it and the last point for 10900k is used for oc ratios either 53x if ratio is not set to any higher or 5xx if you overwrote it with 54x etc . For vf points, you will not be able to request for a non monotonic curve so it must be ever increasing , or at minimum, flat. As in you can set it to be non monotonic but pcode will not honor the request


----------



## shamino1978

Bios shows the vid readback from proc at that ratio with 0.01 acdcll plus tvb volt opt dis, so it is consistent regardless of temp

In any case I think actual numbers are only good for comparing proc vs proc cos the actual vout is susceptible to other factors such as load, llc etc . What you may wanna do in adaptive mod is to lower each point from small point to big point to be at absolute vmin at each freq. You can do that easier with the aisuite tool cos it will block you from setting a non monotonic setting or just remind yourself to not set a bigger point with a lower resultant vid (vid at that point plus the offset val)


----------



## reflex75

shamino1978 said:


> What you may wanna do in adaptive mod is to lower each point from small point to big point to be at absolute vmin at each freq. You can do that easier with the aisuite tool cos it will block you from setting a non monotonic setting or just remind yourself to not set a bigger point with a lower resultant vid (vid at that point plus the offset val)


Hello Shamino, thank you for sharing your knowledge with the community, it's a nice way to help us and promote Asus brand which is my favorite for Motherboards 
Now I am wondering what is the benefit of this new method compare to the standard "adaptive+offset"?
On my current Asus M XI Hero with 9900ks, I use this adaptive voltage with negative offset to be stable at the max boost clock with minimum voltage (keep some safety)
What's the benefit to marginally lower voltage at 3.5Ghz or 4.3Ghz?
The CPU is almost cold at this lower frequencies, so a little more or less voltage won't do anything.
What's missing is a help to find the best LLC for the minimum load voltage stability.
I spend hours/days to test each LLC to find the highest one which does not add transient response penalty!
Moreover, OC is temperature dependent, so you can implement some OC algorithm dependent on the load temperature by fixing the max CPU allowed temperature.
For instance, my daily OC is 5.2Ghz all cores.
But my CPU can also do 5.3Ghz at the same settings for low to middle work load (gaming), but not stable for stress tests at higher temperature (+90°c).
But if I set max core temperature at 90°c, then I become stable at all load levels and temperature, even with the most heavy crazy avx stress test because frequency/voltage/temperature decrease at 90°c and I don't crash. So I have peace of mind and can enjoy 5.3Ghz with all the rest (until 90°c) such as gaming


----------



## shamino1978

reflex75 said:


> Hello Shamino, thank you for sharing your knowledge with the community, it's a nice way to help us and promote Asus brand which is my favorite for Motherboards
> Now I am wondering what is the benefit of this new method compare to the standard "adaptive+offset"?
> On my current Asus M XI Hero with 9900ks, I use this adaptive voltage with negative offset to be stable at the max boost clock with minimum voltage (keep some safety)
> What's the benefit to marginally lower voltage at 3.5Ghz or 4.3Ghz?
> The CPU is almost cold at this lower frequencies, so a little more or less voltage won't do anything.
> What's missing is a help to find the best LLC for the minimum load voltage stability.
> I spend hours/days to test each LLC to find the highest one which does not add transient response penalty!
> Moreover, OC is temperature dependent, so you can implement some OC algorithm dependent on the load temperature by fixing the max CPU allowed temperature.
> For instance, my daily OC is 5.2Ghz all cores.
> But my CPU can also do 5.3Ghz at the same settings for low to middle work load (gaming), but not stable for stress tests at higher temperature (+90°c).
> But if I set max core temperature at 90°c, then I become stable at all load levels and temperature, even with the most heavy crazy avx stress test because frequency/voltage/temperature decrease at 90°c and I don't crash. So I have peace of mind and can enjoy 5.3Ghz with all the rest (until 90°c) such as gaming


close to none, if you already have a 'Legacy universal' negative offset, but the question is if this offset is truly bare minimum if you have to avoid being too low at 800mhz idle , typically the undervolting margin gets smaller at lower freq since the v is already very low to begin with. so maybe you could have applied even lower offset if u had it per point.
what u described can also be achieved somewhat similarly by setting by core usage, which is very useful in my opinion with the procs that have a default high boost freq, that way you can have a very customized vf curve across the 5ghz +/- range. the points on say a 10600k would have a big gap in comparison so say with a 53x oc, after the 48x point you can only customize the 53x point and 48x point but not in between. iirc pcode tries to draw a line between the 2 points to decide on the vid in between these 2 points, still not bad.


----------



## GAN77

*shamino1978*,

Thank you for the detailed information!
What frequency of VRM Switching Frequency (KHz) do you recommend for Apex XII 16(16+0)*70A (TDA21472)?


----------



## shamino1978

i didnt see much of a diff for my watercooled tests 300 vs 800, altho i set them to 800 as a habit for ln2 tests. you can let me know if u see a diff in v required when u play with it.


----------



## robertr1

Can someone test switching frequency on Z490 apex please?

on Z390 apex, 500khz extreme/extreme was best at delivering the best vmin under load as it got progressively worse going all the way upto 1000khz. 1k was terrible and needed an extra 30mv+ to keep same stability as 500khz. Going below 500khz wasn't possible with bios 1401 and above. VRM temps were not a factor as there was fan on them in all testing. 

run p95 small avx at whatever thermals you can handle in your setup.
@shamino1978 maybe you can comment on this?


----------



## GAN77

*shamino1978*,

Thank you for your reply!


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
HWBOT 
Cinebench R20 leader board results 
Most 10900k/ KFC on LN down to 5th 
One on dry ice and couple on chillers on 7900x 
Only 8-10 say on water loops & Jpmboy on his dead 9900x at 10th :thumb:

So yeah lets see some subs on aio/ clc or water loops air what ever 

https://www.overclock.net/forum/21-...n/1721958-post-your-cinebench-r20-scores.html


----------



## newls1

Can someone please tell me if this is a safe OC for the given VID of the cores, Vcore, and SA/IO voltages while system is 100% under stress test load. Temps are a NON-ISSUE as this water setup is way overkill, and my VRM temp makes me giggle. Am I safe??? Thanks


----------



## Falkentyne

newls1 said:


> Can someone please tell me if this is a safe OC for the given VID of the cores, Vcore, and SA/IO voltages while system is 100% under stress test load. Temps are a NON-ISSUE as this water setup is way overkill, and my VRM temp makes me giggle. Am I safe??? Thanks


170A @ 1.252v ...

Max VID=1.520v without SVID VRM offset mode (command 33h disabled),
Max IOUT=245A
VRM Loadline: 1.1 mOhm

1520mv - (1.1 mOhm * 170A)=1333mv=1.333v.

You're safe with 80mv of leeway. Good job.


----------



## newls1

Falkentyne said:


> 170A @ 1.252v ...
> 
> Max VID=1.520v without SVID VRM offset mode (command 33h disabled),
> Max IOUT=245A
> VRM Loadline: 1.1 mOhm
> 
> 1520mv - (1.1 mOhm * 170A)=1333mv=1.333v.
> 
> You're safe with 80mv of leeway. Good job.


You really did all this, not me! I appreciate you. Setting SVID behavior to "trained" and not "Worst case senario" lowered VID.. this is pretty much all Auto OC letting SVID do my numbers. I still havent figured out manual vcore settings yet because once i disable SVID, my OC goes to ****. Asus really integrated A HUGE AMOUNT of "AI" in these boards that help alot... seems like this is the 1st time ever, that leaving things on auto work better... atleast for me


----------



## Exilon

You should just use SVID for daily use.


----------



## MazrimCF

What types of coolers are you all using? i'm on an Enermax 360 and I idle in the mid 40's with my 10900k in the Hero XII no OC just XMP enabled that I just put together this morning. I'm not sure if I got a dud cpu or this Enermax needs better fans or even a better aio


----------



## elmor

Falkentyne said:


> So the VID you see in windows is = vCPU + (ACLL mOhms * dI) - (DCLL mOhms * I))
> 
> Where dI=d1-d0 @elmor help me what is this? and I is IOUT.


d1 and d0 should be the two different output currents you're going between.

Example:

1. Idle and ready to start the benchmark, output current = 10A. This is your starting point d0 = 10A.
2. Start running the benchmark, output current = 100A. This is your final value d1 = 100A.

This means the difference/delta in output current dI = d1 - d0 = 100A - 10A = 90A. This is also called the load step.


----------



## Falkentyne

elmor said:


> d1 and d0 should be the two different output currents you're going between.
> 
> Example:
> 
> 1. Idle and ready to start the benchmark, output current = 10A. This is your starting point d0 = 10A.
> 2. Start running the benchmark, output current = 100A. This is your final value d1 = 100A.
> 
> This means the difference/delta in output current dI = d1 - d0 = 100A - 10A = 90A. This is also called the load step.


Thank you Elmor! Congratulations on the 10900k world LN2 record you got. Did you beat Hicookie?


----------



## newls1

MazrimCF said:


> What types of coolers are you all using? i'm on an Enermax 360 and I idle in the mid 40's with my 10900k in the Hero XII no OC just XMP enabled that I just put together this morning. I'm not sure if I got a dud cpu or this Enermax needs better fans or even a better aio


im on a full custom loop dedicated for cpu only using 1 420 EK 60mm thick rad in push/pull and a 240 rad in push, with 2 D5's pumps in a "serial" EK dual pump block and a Heatkiller ProIV all copper waterblock with slightly stiffer mounting springs for more pressure. I idle in the mid 20's in a 67f room. under extreme full 100% stress testing load, i havent yet seen a single core go over 74c. Ill have to post a few pics of my water setup in the watercooling thread soon, im really happy with how it all turned out. here is a quick pic i took after filling loops with coolant. Blue loop is "CPU" and green is "GPU".. you can see the roof of the case houses my 2 420mm rads in push/pull (1 is for cpu, 1 for gpu) and in the lower portion of case, i have my 240 rad in push for the 2ndry rad for cpu loop. with the 2 D5's in the cpu loop, the flow is ridiculous!


----------



## shamino1978

Falkentyne said:


> Thank you Elmor! Congratulations on the 10900k world LN2 record you got. Did you beat Hicookie?


"Famous overclocker Elmor overclocked the 10900K to 7.7GHz on *1.194v *...."


----------



## elmor

shamino1978 said:


> "Famous overclocker Elmor overclocked the 10900K to 7.7GHz on *1.194v *...."


Seems legit  I don't think hicookie was competing in the CPU-Z validation category this time around.


----------



## ThrashZone

86Jarrod said:


> Here's the VF points for my current oc. Plus Aida stress FPU only. Thanks for all the awesome info in the thread!


Hi,
What is your system spec's and cooling on this monster lol :thumb:
Add it as plain text to your signature if you'd be so kind 

This is pretty wild too :thumb:
https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=348302&d=1590197028


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

The 10900k looks like a blast to play with. Once I can afford custom watercooling i'll have to switch over to z490/10900k as I hear z490 will also support rocket lake, nice to have an upgrade path on the same chipset. Can't wait to see the memory OCs the ddr4 thread churns out.


----------



## ThrashZone

newls1 said:


> Can someone please tell me if this is a safe OC for the given VID of the cores, Vcore, and SA/IO voltages while system is 100% under stress test load. Temps are a NON-ISSUE as this water setup is way overkill, and my VRM temp makes me giggle. Am I safe??? Thanks


Hi,
lol yeah that formula vrm is stupid cold :thumb:

Might just go with the apex most I've seen vrm's aren't touching 50c yet.

Micro center just popped up with some 10900k's


----------



## GAN77




----------



## MazrimCF

newls1 said:


> im on a full custom loop dedicated for cpu only using 1 420 EK 60mm thick rad in push/pull and a 240 rad in push, with 2 D5's pumps in a "serial" EK dual pump block and a Heatkiller ProIV all copper waterblock with slightly stiffer mounting springs for more pressure. I idle in the mid 20's in a 67f room. under extreme full 100% stress testing load, i havent yet seen a single core go over 74c. Ill have to post a few pics of my water setup in the watercooling thread soon, im really happy with how it all turned out. here is a quick pic i took after filling loops with coolant. Blue loop is "CPU" and green is "GPU".. you can see the roof of the case houses my 2 420mm rads in push/pull (1 is for cpu, 1 for gpu) and in the lower portion of case, i have my 240 rad in push for the 2ndry rad for cpu loop. with the 2 D5's in the cpu loop, the flow is ridiculous!


My home is around 74f and I was hitting mid high 80's in Aida after 20 min or so. I can't afford custom cooling so I might just look at getting some Noctua 120's for this AIO.


----------



## 86Jarrod

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> What is your system spec's and cooling on this monster lol :thumb:
> Add it as plain text to your signature if you'd be so kind
> 
> This is pretty wild too :thumb:
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=348302&d=1590197028


I put the system specs up. Hopefully I did that right lol.


----------



## shaolin95

delete


----------



## shaolin95

So...is 5.2Ghz considered pretty "normal" for this CPU? 
I am still debating in trying one from my solid 9900k @5GHZ because of the supposed compatibility with 11th gen. Would be nice to just drop another CPU next year to upgrade while still having fun OCing this one. Surely COVID19 is not helping to control the upgrade bug..then again, I dont see it in stock anywhere 
Thanks!


----------



## Mech70

Guys, do you think the Kraken X72 will be enough to cool the 10900K to 5.3GHz? Thank's in advance!


----------



## jcde7ago

shaolin95 said:


> So...is 5.2Ghz considered pretty "normal" for this CPU?
> I am still debating in trying one from my solid 9900k @5GHZ because of the supposed compatibility with 11th gen. Would be nice to just drop another CPU next year to upgrade while still having fun OCing this one. Surely COVID19 is not helping to control the upgrade bug..then again, I dont see it in stock anywhere
> Thanks!


Yes, most 10900Ks should hit 5.2Ghz on less than 1.300v load vcore.

I'm currently Cinebench R20/Prime95/Gaming stable on my 10900K @ 1.270v load, LLC7/BIOS @ 1.300v flat, on an H150i Pro 360mm AIO. Temps are high-80s to low-90s during stress tests and mid-50s to mid-60s during gaming. 

Custom loops are the only way to go for 5.3-5.4Ghz, 360mm AIOs aren't going to keep up unless it's an absolutely golden chip or people want to be idling/gaming at very high temps.



Mech70 said:


> Guys, do you think the Kraken X72 will be enough to cool the 10900K to 5.3GHz? Thank's in advance!


More than fine for 5.0-5.1 Ghz, 5.2Ghz should be good provided your chip isn't absolutely terrible (most 10900Ks i'm seeing are hitting 5.2Ghz all-core just fine on 360mm AIOs of pretty much any brand).

Example Cinebench R20 run of mine early on during my testing:

https://streamable.com/44i29y


----------



## ThrashZone

86Jarrod said:


> I put the system specs up. Hopefully I did that right lol.


Hi,
Nope empty 0 Items.
Easier to just use plain text rig builder is a pain to mess with just turn show rig in sig off.

With that last r20 score you showed was close to chiller score


----------



## shaolin95

jcde7ago said:


> Yes, most 10900Ks should hit 5.2Ghz on less than 1.300v load vcore.
> 
> I'm currently Cinebench R20/Prime95/Gaming stable on my 10900K @ 1.270v load, LLC7/BIOS @ 1.300v flat, on an H150i Pro 360mm AIO. Temps are high-80s to low-90s during stress tests and mid-50s to mid-60s during gaming.
> 
> Custom loops are the only way to go for 5.3-5.4Ghz, 360mm AIOs aren't going to keep up unless it's an absolutely golden chip or people want to be idling/gaming at very high temps.
> 
> 
> 
> More than fine for 5.0-5.1 Ghz, 5.2Ghz should be good provided your chip isn't absolutely terrible (most 10900Ks i'm seeing are hitting 5.2Ghz all-core just fine on 360mm AIOs of pretty much any brand).
> 
> Example Cinebench R20 run of mine early on during my testing:
> 
> https://streamable.com/44i29y


mm so 200Mhz + 2 more cores over my 9900k...now if I only I can find 100% confirmation that 11th gen will be fine on Z490, the temptation may be too much for me to not get the 10900 LOL. Damn you COVID!!!


----------



## Mech70

jcde7ago said:


> Yes, most 10900Ks should hit 5.2Ghz on less than 1.300v load vcore.
> 
> I'm currently Cinebench R20/Prime95/Gaming stable on my 10900K @ 1.270v load, LLC7/BIOS @ 1.300v flat, on an H150i Pro 360mm AIO. Temps are high-80s to low-90s during stress tests and mid-50s to mid-60s during gaming.
> 
> Custom loops are the only way to go for 5.3-5.4Ghz, 360mm AIOs aren't going to keep up unless it's an absolutely golden chip or people want to be idling/gaming at very high temps.
> 
> 
> 
> More than fine for 5.0-5.1 Ghz, 5.2Ghz should be good provided your chip isn't absolutely terrible (most 10900Ks i'm seeing are hitting 5.2Ghz all-core just fine on 360mm AIOs of pretty much any brand).
> 
> Example Cinebench R20 run of mine early on during my testing:
> 
> https://streamable.com/44i29y





Thanks a lot @jcde7ago!  This info is very helpful for me.


----------



## 86Jarrod

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Nope empty 0 Items.
> Easier to just use plain text rig builder is a pain to mess with just turn show rig in sig off.
> 
> With that last r20 score you showed was close to chiller score


It says 0 items but when I click on First Custom Build it shows everything. I don't know


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Okay it shows 27 items now :thumb:


----------



## Falkentyne

jcde7ago said:


> Yes, most 10900Ks should hit 5.2Ghz on less than 1.300v load vcore.
> 
> I'm currently Cinebench R20/Prime95/Gaming stable on my 10900K @ 1.270v load, LLC7/BIOS @ 1.300v flat, on an H150i Pro 360mm AIO. Temps are high-80s to low-90s during stress tests and mid-50s to mid-60s during gaming.
> 
> Custom loops are the only way to go for 5.3-5.4Ghz, 360mm AIOs aren't going to keep up unless it's an absolutely golden chip or people want to be idling/gaming at very high temps.
> 
> 
> 
> More than fine for 5.0-5.1 Ghz, 5.2Ghz should be good provided your chip isn't absolutely terrible (most 10900Ks i'm seeing are hitting 5.2Ghz all-core just fine on 360mm AIOs of pretty much any brand).
> 
> Example Cinebench R20 run of mine early on during my testing:
> 
> https://streamable.com/44i29y


Is that 5.2 ghz @ 1.300v flat, LLC7 @ 1.270v load?

If so, are you still stable if you try to reduce the voltage 10mv at a time? How low can you go?
I just tested mine. 5.2 ghz LLC7, I can do 1.270v Bios set, 1.234v load. 

Do you know the SP value in your Bios? (If that's an Asus board? What board are you using?)


----------



## Pilot53

Wow I must have the worst clocking 10900k then, I need 1.42v under load to pass prime95 without avx at 5.2. temps hit 95c. For those hitting 5.2 with low volts what is your uncore clock?


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Yeah what is flat manual override 1.3 ?


----------



## Falkentyne

Pilot53 said:


> Wow I must have the worst clocking 10900k then, I need 1.42v under load to pass prime95 without avx at 5.2. temps hit 95c. For those hitting 5.2 with low volts what is your uncore clock?


What motherboard?
If its an Asus board, please go into your BIOS and tell us the "SP" rating. And make sure you set SVID Behavior to "Best case scenario"---that does the below for you automatically, btw (AC/DC Loadlines 0.01 mOhms).

If it's not, if your BIOS allows you to get AC and DC Loadlines (Gigabyte bios allows it), go into internal VRM settings, sets AC Loadline to 1, DC Loadline to 1, boot into windows (make sure you are NOT downclocking!!!) and tell us the VID at idle at 5.2 ghz. If ACLL and DCLL Are NOT equal to 1 ,both of them (or 0.01 mOhms), this test will fail.

If it's an asrock board, they may allow you to enter 0.01 for AC And DC Loadline.
I have no idea about MSI.


----------



## Pilot53

Does this advice apply even when using manual vcore? I've never messed with those settings before. I'm using an aorus ultra, LLC set at turbo, uncore ratio 48.


----------



## Falkentyne

Pilot53 said:


> Does this advice apply even when using manual vcore? I've never messed with those settings before. I'm using an aorus ultra, LLC set at turbo, uncore ratio 48.


Just go into your BIOS and tell us the SP score. You have to do absolutely nothing to get that score except look at the top right XD

SVID Behavior on "Auto" in your BIOS is already best case scenario. So just go into windows and tell us the idle VID at 5 ghz, in HWINFO64.
And of course the SP score.


----------



## Pilot53

What is the sp score? I don't see it in my bios. Anyway with the loadlines set at 1 my idle vid is 1.5v according to hwinfo at 5.2. this is with manual vcore set at 1.41 and turbo LLC.


----------



## Falkentyne

Pilot53 said:


> What is the sp score? I don't see it in my bios. Anyway with the loadlines set at 1 my idle vid is 1.5v according to hwinfo at 5.2. this is with manual vcore set at 1.41 and turbo LLC.


Oh my bad. Gigabyte BIOS? Ok.....
Go to cpu voltage settings-->advanced voltage settigs->CPU VRM settings->Internal VR

Enable "IA VR control" at the top.
Change AC Loadline to 1
Change DC Loadline to 1.

Reboot. then tell me the VID 
Sorry for making you do all this work.


----------



## Pilot53

Falkentyne said:


> Oh my bad. Gigabyte BIOS? Ok.....
> Go to cpu voltage settings-->advanced voltage settigs->CPU VRM settings->Internal VR
> 
> Enable "IA VR control" at the top.
> Change AC Loadline to 1
> Change DC Loadline to 1.
> 
> Reboot. then tell me the VID
> Sorry for making you do all this work.


No need to apologize my friend, thank you for taking the time to educate me. Yes gigabyte bios, its the aorus ultra. With the above settings my vid is 1.5


----------



## Falkentyne

Pilot53 said:


> No need to apologize my friend, thank you for taking the time to educate me. Yes gigabyte bios, its the aorus ultra. With the above settings my vid is 1.5


.....wait...
Are you serious??
You set AC Loadline to 1 and DC Loadline to 1 ?

Can you take a screenshot or picture of your BIOS for me ?
I have never seen a VID this high before, ever....

Usually a VID of 1.5v at idle only happens if AC and DC Loadlines are at 0 (auto).

Please double check.
This is important.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
At 1.5v you passed Valhalla


----------



## Pilot53

Falkentyne said:


> .....wait...
> Are you serious??
> You set AC Loadline to 1 and DC Loadline to 1 ?
> 
> Can you take a screenshot or picture of your BIOS for me ?
> I have never seen a VID this high before, ever....
> 
> Usually a VID of 1.5v at idle only happens if AC and DC Loadlines are at 0 (auto).
> 
> Please double check.
> This is important.


Checked again, some of the cores vid go down to 1.4, but most are at 1.5. It bounced around a bit.


----------



## Falkentyne

Pilot53 said:


> Checked again, some of the cores vid go down to 1.4, but most are at 1.5. It bounced around a bit.


Thank you.
Your idle VID is 1.380v

You have things running in the background using your CPU, and boosting your VID up to 1.5v.
Your cores have random loads all over. Do you see the "minimum" VID? That is the correct value. All your cores should show 1.380v together at idle. You have things running using up your CPU. You are not idle properly.


Your CPU is unfortunately below average quality. 1.380v VID @ 5.2 ghz is extremely high.

Your VID confirms it--higher idle VID at turbo boost ratios means worse quality.

My ES is 1.305v VID (can do 5.2 ghz @ 1.234v measured at LOAD, 5.3 ghz at 1.331v-1.340v measured at load (any lower will cause WHEA errors),
and my worse quality retail chip is 1.325v VID. That chip can't even do 5.3 ghz at 1.40v @ load without problems


----------



## jcde7ago

Falkentyne said:


> jcde7ago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, most 10900Ks should hit 5.2Ghz on less than 1.300v load vcore.
> 
> I'm currently Cinebench R20/Prime95/Gaming stable on my 10900K @ 1.270v load, LLC7/BIOS @ 1.300v flat, on an H150i Pro 360mm AIO. Temps are high-80s to low-90s during stress tests and mid-50s to mid-60s during gaming.
> 
> Custom loops are the only way to go for 5.3-5.4Ghz, 360mm AIOs aren't going to keep up unless it's an absolutely golden chip or people want to be idling/gaming at very high temps.
> 
> 
> 
> More than fine for 5.0-5.1 Ghz, 5.2Ghz should be good provided your chip isn't absolutely terrible (most 10900Ks i'm seeing are hitting 5.2Ghz all-core just fine on 360mm AIOs of pretty much any brand).
> 
> Example Cinebench R20 run of mine early on during my testing:
> 
> https://streamable.com/44i29y
> 
> 
> 
> Is that 5.2 ghz @ 1.300v flat, LLC7 @ 1.270v load?
> 
> If so, are you still stable if you try to reduce the voltage 10mv at a time? How low can you go?
> I just tested mine. 5.2 ghz LLC7, I can do 1.270v Bios set, 1.234v load. /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> Do you know the SP value in your Bios? (If that's an Asus board? What board are you using?)
Click to expand...

Correct, it's 1.300v flat in BIOS @ LLC7.

LLC6 has too much of a vdroop (needs 1.380v BIOS to hit 1.270v under full load, at 1.330v BIOS LLC6 it hits 1.225v under full load, for example, and i bluescreen).

I have not tried dialing the mv down anymore just yet but it's 100% stable with every test i've thrown at it on 1.300v LLC7.

The SP is 122, which I understand is insanely high (golden even?), but how is that number determined by ASUS right off the bat? Can that number be changed/retrained in any way?


----------



## Falkentyne

jcde7ago said:


> Correct, it's 1.300v flat in BIOS @ LLC7.
> 
> LLC6 has too much of a vdroop (needs 1.380v BIOS to hit 1.270v under full load, at 1.330v BIOS LLC6 it hits 1.225v under full load, for example, and i bluescreen).
> 
> I have not tried dialing the mv down anymore just yet but it's 100% stable with every test i've thrown at it on 1.300v LLC7.
> 
> The SP is 122, which I understand is insanely high (golden even?), but how is that number determined by ASUS right off the bat? Can that number be changed/retrained in any way?


SP 122 ??
How did you get that chip???

That chip should be able to do 5.4 ghz on all cores! Possibly 5.5 may be an option.
@shamino1978 what do you think about this chip sample? @elmor what about you? If that chip is SP 122....

I estimate that this chip should be capable of 5.2 ghz at 1.180v load and 5.3 ghz at 1.25v load.
What I CAN TELL YOU is you can run at a much lower voltage than that probably.

Is there any way you can go into your BIOS, take a screenshot of the "VF POINTS" window and your bios screen in the VF points? Or camera/ss whatever.
Thank you!
This is the highest chip sample I've seen. Someone who is getting 1000 chip batches from Intel for a company and binning them on a Godlike, has a 120 SP sample.....


----------



## ThrashZone

jcde7ago said:


> Correct, it's 1.300v flat in BIOS @ LLC7.
> 
> LLC6 has too much of a vdroop (needs 1.380v BIOS to hit 1.270v under full load, at 1.330v BIOS LLC6 it hits 1.225v under full load, for example, and i bluescreen).
> 
> I have not tried dialing the mv down anymore just yet but it's 100% stable with every test i've thrown at it on 1.300v LLC7.
> 
> The SP is 122, which I understand is insanely high (golden even?), but how is that number determined by ASUS right off the bat? Can that number be changed/retrained in any way?


Hi,
Wild you get 0.030 vdroop on llc-7 should be less seeing llc-8 is no vdroop :/


----------



## jcde7ago

Falkentyne said:


> SP 122 ??
> How did you get that chip???
> 
> That chip should be able to do 5.4 ghz on all cores! Possibly 5.5 may be an option.
> 
> @shamino1978 what do you think about this chip sample?
> @elmor what about you? If that chip is SP 122....
> 
> I estimate that this chip should be capable of 5.2 ghz at 1.180v load and 5.3 ghz at 1.25v load.
> What I CAN TELL YOU is you can run at a much lower voltage than that probably.
> 
> Is there any way you can go into your BIOS, take a screenshot of the "VF POINTS" window and your bios screen in the VF points? Or camera/ss whatever.
> Thank you!
> This is the highest chip sample I've seen. Someone who is getting 1000 chip batches from Intel for a company and binning them on a Godlike, has a 120 SP sample.....


I have a screenshot of the SP but i am not in front of my pc to take a screenshot of the bios right this second:

(and if what you say is true that this is a golden sample, then I simply don't have the cooling required to unlock its true potential  )

Also, this chip is a retail chip from the day-1 NewEgg pre-order on 5/14.


----------



## Falkentyne

jcde7ago said:


> I have a screenshot of the SP but i am not in front of my pc to take a screenshot of the bios right this second:
> 
> (and if what you say is true that this is a golden sample, then I simply don't have the cooling required to unlock its true potential  )
> 
> Also, this chip is a retail chip from the day-1 NewEgg pre-order on 5/14.


What motherboard is that?
it's showing NA for all of your chip predictions.
@shamino1978 any idea what's going on?


----------



## jcde7ago

Falkentyne said:


> What motherboard is that?
> it's showing NA for all of your chip predictions.
> 
> @shamino1978 any idea what's going on?


It's a ROG Maximus XII Formula.

I wasn't too in the know with what SP does, but is it possible that it does require some Ai training first? I went straight to manual OC for the most part, I never did any Ai overclock on this board. But again, i'm just not knowledgeable enough about what determines the overall SP value or if it can even be changed at all.

I was very wary of the SP122 rating when I first booted up this board since I know the world record chip is 117? and thought it would change as I stability tested my OC, but it has not moved at all.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Just got 10900k out of micro center locally no telling what it will be 
XII Formula from amazon next weekend should be fun 31-3rd


----------



## Falkentyne

jcde7ago said:


> It's a ROG Maximus XII Formula.
> 
> I wasn't too in the know with what SP does, but is it possible that it does require some Ai training first? I went straight to manual OC for the most part, I never did any Ai overclock on this board. But again, i'm just not knowledgeable enough about what determines the overall SP value or if it can even be changed at all.
> 
> I was very wary of the SP122 rating when I first booted up this board since I know the world record chip is 117? and thought it would change as I stability tested my OC, but it has not moved at all.


Test with 1.20v LLC7 and see if that's stable. Then work your way up or down from there, please.
And please send me a screenshot of the VF Curves bios window


----------



## jcde7ago

Falkentyne said:


> jcde7ago said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a ROG Maximus XII Formula.
> 
> I wasn't too in the know with what SP does, but is it possible that it does require some Ai training first? I went straight to manual OC for the most part, I never did any Ai overclock on this board. But again, i'm just not knowledgeable enough about what determines the overall SP value or if it can even be changed at all.
> 
> I was very wary of the SP122 rating when I first booted up this board since I know the world record chip is 117? and thought it would change as I stability tested my OC, but it has not moved at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Test with 1.20v LLC7 and see if that's stable. Then work your way up or down from there, please.
> And please send me a screenshot of the VF Curves bios window /forum/images/smilies/frown.gif
Click to expand...

Bugged? Doesn't look like the board is making any voltage predictions, or is there a setting i'm missing somewhere? Might explain the SP122 rating?

(BY THE WAY - This is BIOS version 0403, just checked it)


----------



## shamino1978

jcde7ago said:


> Bugged? Doesn't look like the board is making any voltage predictions, or is there a setting i'm missing somewhere? Might explain the SP122 rating?


yep bugged, can u reseat the proc again? lift it a lil bit and back. can also usb flashback it


----------



## jcde7ago

shamino1978 said:


> yep bugged, can u reseat the proc again? lift it a lil bit and back. can also usb flashback it


Is there a newer BIOS version than 0403 that I can/should try?


----------



## shamino1978

yes 0403 is pretty old:

https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?118328-Asus-Z490-stuff


----------



## Falkentyne

jcde7ago said:


> Bugged? Doesn't look like the board is making any voltage predictions, or is there a setting i'm missing somewhere? Might explain the SP122 rating?
> 
> (BY THE WAY - This is BIOS version 0403, just checked it)


That explains that. 122 SP is the cap.

Please update your BIOS from here.

https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?118328-Asus-Z490-stuff


----------



## jcde7ago

Thanks @shamino1978 and @Falkentyne, i'll update the BIOS and report back.


----------



## Falkentyne

jcde7ago said:


> Thanks @shamino1978 and @Falkentyne, i'll update the BIOS and report back.


Also make sure you do not have "SVID Support" set to disabled in your BIOS.


----------



## jcde7ago

Falkentyne said:


> Also make sure you do not have "SVID Support" set to disabled in your BIOS.


I updated the BIOS with the file linked, and it's now failing to boot with QCode 79 - CSM initialization. I am certain i applied the correct bios. Is there something i need to do? Please tell me I didn't just brick the board 

EDIT: It was still updating, I had to clear CMOS and cycle power


----------



## shamino1978

jcde7ago said:


> I updated the BIOS with the file linked, and it's now failing to boot with QCode 79 - CSM initialization. I am certain i applied the correct bios. Is there something i need to do? Please tell me I didn't just brick the board


clear cmos, with that button behind, nhold it down for a few secs. 
vga card is snugly in?


----------



## jcde7ago

I've re-input my initial BIOS 0403 settings and the previous 1.300v BIOS @ LLC7 is no longer stable in Cinebench R20....

SP is also at 63 now (ouch). 

What was changed with this BIOS that I can no longer achieve the previous OC? I'm seeing the same vdroop amount in HWinfo/CPU-Z, but Cinebench can no longer complete a run on 1.270v full-load.... :/

EDIT: comparing screenshots and it looks like VCCIO is significantly lower by default on 0509 vs 0403, changing that now and will re-run benches


----------



## Falkentyne

jcde7ago said:


> I've re-input my initial BIOS 0403 settings and the previous 1.300v BIOS @ LLC7 is no longer stable in Cinebench R20....
> 
> SP is also at 63 now (ouch).
> 
> What was changed with this BIOS that I can no longer achieve the previous OC? I'm seeing the same vdroop amount in HWinfo/CPU-Z, but Cinebench can no longer complete a run on 1.270v full-load.... :/


Are your RAM settings correct? Are VCCIO and VCCSA properly configured? What RAM do you have?
Try either lowering or raising your IO and SA if your RAM speed is lower than 4133 mhz. Try lowering it first. Try VCCIO 1.0v and VCCSA 1.05v and go upwards from there 50mv at a time for each together. 
CPU Voltage is voltage and cannot change if its set the same with loadline.

Is your ring/cache ratio correctly set?

How is CB R20 failing? What error? Are you getting CPU Cache L0 errors in HWinfo64 sensors?


----------



## jcde7ago

Falkentyne said:


> Are your RAM settings correct? Are VCCIO and VCCSA properly configured? What RAM do you have?
> Try either lowering or raising your IO and SA if your RAM speed is lower than 4133 mhz. Try lowering it first. Try VCCIO 1.0v and VCCSA 1.05v and go upwards from there 50mv at a time for each together.
> CPU Voltage is voltage and cannot change if its set the same with loadline.
> 
> Is your ring/cache ratio correctly set?
> 
> How is CB R20 failing? What error? Are you getting CPU Cache L0 errors in HWinfo64 sensors?


I've gotten 2x BSODS in Cinebench, "IRQL" and "Page fault" errors...i may need to tweak my ram settings like you said, it's what i suspected, perhaps the XMP profiles between the BIOSes are much different with regards to voltages, as the CPU load voltage is being reported exactly the same as what my previous setting was on 0403.


----------



## 86Jarrod

So I decided to delid this thing. Note the delid test ran for a min and a half longer and ambient was about 1c lower. Here's my results.


----------



## Awsan

Anyone reached 5.5Ghz (Daily) land yet?


----------



## jcde7ago

Falkentyne said:


> jcde7ago said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've re-input my initial BIOS 0403 settings and the previous 1.300v BIOS @ LLC7 is no longer stable in Cinebench R20....
> 
> SP is also at 63 now (ouch).
> 
> What was changed with this BIOS that I can no longer achieve the previous OC? I'm seeing the same vdroop amount in HWinfo/CPU-Z, but Cinebench can no longer complete a run on 1.270v full-load.... :/
> 
> 
> 
> Are your RAM settings correct? Are VCCIO and VCCSA properly configured? What RAM do you have?
> Try either lowering or raising your IO and SA if your RAM speed is lower than 4133 mhz. Try lowering it first. Try VCCIO 1.0v and VCCSA 1.05v and go upwards from there 50mv at a time for each together.
> CPU Voltage is voltage and cannot change if its set the same with loadline.
> 
> Is your ring/cache ratio correctly set?
> 
> How is CB R20 failing? What error? Are you getting CPU Cache L0 errors in HWinfo64 sensors?
Click to expand...

It was indeed the RAM, I had to up DRAM voltage a bit on BIOS 0509 vs 0403, i'm once again Cinebench R20/Prime95/gaming stable on 1.300v BIOS/1.270v load @ LLC7 for 5.2Ghz all cores. 🙂

It's late but i'm pretty sure i can drop voltages even lower, will test some more in the morning and mess with RAM timings even further.


----------



## robertr1

robertr1 said:


> Can someone test switching frequency on Z490 apex please?
> 
> on Z390 apex, 500khz extreme/extreme was best at delivering the best vmin under load as it got progressively worse going all the way upto 1000khz. 1k was terrible and needed an extra 30mv+ to keep same stability as 500khz. Going below 500khz wasn't possible with bios 1401 and above. VRM temps were not a factor as there was fan on them in all testing.
> 
> run p95 small avx at whatever thermals you can handle in your setup.
> 
> @shamino1978 maybe you can comment on this?


 @shamino1978 @Falkentyne would it be possible to get freq switching test results from the z490 apex?


----------



## ThrashZone

robertr1 said:


> @shamino1978 @Falkentyne would it be possible to get freq switching test results from the z490 apex?


Hi,
Apex hasn't been released yet unless shamino has one around at asus.


----------



## cstkl1

Falkentyne said:


> jcde7ago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bugged? Doesn't look like the board is making any voltage predictions, or is there a setting i'm missing somewhere? Might explain the SP122 rating?
> 
> (BY THE WAY - This is BIOS version 0403, just checked it)
> 
> 
> 
> That explains that. 122 SP is the cap.
> 
> Please update your BIOS from here.
> 
> https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?118328-Asus-Z490-stuff
Click to expand...

Seen 143 on bugged bios. So there is some maths being done.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Apex hasn't been released yet unless shamino has one around at asus.


They sold those APEXs to CHINA first since the price is 650USD there! In the US its only 400USD!


----------



## cstkl1

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> ThrashZone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> Apex hasn't been released yet unless shamino has one around at asus.
> 
> 
> 
> They sold those APEXs to CHINA first since the price is 650USD there! In the US its only 400USD!
Click to expand...

Pretty sure its higher. The price of formula last i check was close to usd 1k.. the extreme priced is... well all i can say is lol. U dont even want to know. 

Didnt you know the answer where to search to be incredible
Its screwing asians incredibly by asians.

Pricing here.. they changed the srp. The strix-e just usd 30 short of hero. The extreme like 1k usd. And the oddest of all hero quite fairly price.. 40-50 usd more. (Exchange rate has zero change since mid march according to my usd acct ) drive down 300+km to sg and u get extreme at arnd usd 760.. but the rest more expensive.

Msi/giga scaling on pricing is even throughout their lineup. But not asus. They found the “incredible” 

Lol


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

cstkl1 said:


> Pretty sure its higher. The price of formula last i check was close to usd 1k.. the extreme priced is... well all i can say is lol. U dont even want to know.
> 
> Didnt you know the answer where to search to be incredible
> Its screwing asians incredibly by asians.
> 
> Pricing here.. they changed the srp. The strix-e just usd 30 short of hero. The extreme like 1k usd. And the oddest of all hero quite fairly price.. 40-50 usd more. (Exchange rate has zero change since mid march according to my usd acct ) drive down 300+km to sg and u get extreme at arnd usd 760.. but the rest more expensive.
> 
> Msi/giga scaling on pricing is even throughout their lineup. But not asus. They found the “incredible”
> 
> Lol


Alrighty then...My APEX is still on the sea!

Newegg says this coming batch has only 20! I don't know if I can get one. If I can't I will switch to Godlike. It's in stock and MSI is offering 60USD rebate, very attractive.


----------



## cstkl1

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> cstkl1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sure its higher. The price of formula last i check was close to usd 1k.. the extreme priced is... well all i can say is lol. U dont even want to know.
> 
> Didnt you know the answer where to search to be incredible
> Its screwing asians incredibly by asians.
> 
> Pricing here.. they changed the srp. The strix-e just usd 30 short of hero. The extreme like 1k usd. And the oddest of all hero quite fairly price.. 40-50 usd more. (Exchange rate has zero change since mid march according to my usd acct ) drive down 300+km to sg and u get extreme at arnd usd 760.. but the rest more expensive.
> 
> Msi/giga scaling on pricing is even throughout their lineup. But not asus. They found the â€œincredibleâ€
> 
> Lol
> 
> 
> 
> Alrighty then...My APEX is still on the sea!
> 
> Newegg says this coming batch has only 20! I don't know if I can get one. If I can't I will switch to Godlike. It's in stock and MSI is offering 60USD rebate, very attractive.
Click to expand...

apex
https://youtu.be/bs7ac4bgsTM

quite a few ppl arnd has them. 
thats a sp63 cpu. yet scales


----------



## ThrashZone

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> They sold those APEXs to CHINA first since the price is 650USD there! In the US its only 400USD!





OLDFATSHEEP said:


> Alrighty then...My APEX is still on the sea!
> 
> Newegg says this coming batch has only 20! I don't know if I can get one. If I can't I will switch to Godlike. It's in stock and MSI is offering 60USD rebate, very attractive.


Hi,
Wow that's wild but yeah I gave up on the apex when they delayed it again to July 2nd 

I don't buy boards from newegg only sold and shipped from amazon they have a much better custom support line plus free returns 
Egg I've read horror stories of them shipping damaged boards and they blame the installer so only ram from the egg and maybe some other low ticket items.

My formula was 541.25 shipped should have it this weekend.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

cstkl1 said:


> apex
> https://youtu.be/bs7ac4bgsTM
> 
> quite a few ppl arnd has them.
> thats a sp63 cpu. yet scales


I don't trust that score anymore My 8086K is 78, but runs 53x all core AVX only @1.41V LLC6. Another 9900K graded as 98 cannot even run 5.0 all core @1.3V...


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Wow that's wild but yeah I gave up on the apex when they delayed it again to July 2nd
> 
> I don't buy boards from newegg only sold and shipped from amazon they have a much better custom support line plus free returns
> Egg I've read horror stories of them shipping damaged boards and they blame the installer so only ram from the egg and maybe some other low ticket items.
> 
> My formula was 541.25 shipped should have it this weekend.


Just asked Newegg that I am the 1st order, so hopefully, they will ship my APEX on May 27th as shown on that page. Otherwise I will switch to Godlike


----------



## cstkl1

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> Just asked Newegg that I am the 1st order, so hopefully, they will ship my APEX on May 27th as shown on that page. Otherwise I will switch to Godlike


errr msi always has that quirk with avx


----------



## ThrashZone

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> Just asked Newegg that I am the 1st order, so hopefully, they will ship my APEX on May 27th as shown on that page. Otherwise I will switch to Godlike


Hi,
Yeah I thought about it and it was just too long of a wait for the apex sadly :/


----------



## D-EJ915

cstkl1 said:


> errr msi always has that quirk with avx


What bug is that?


----------



## Talon2016

Humble brag about my 10900K SP 103 on my Hero XII, not bugged, on both old and newest BIOS. VID tables populated. Got mine on launch day from Newegg. 

Question about safe VCCIO and VCCSA on 10th gen? I keep seeing people using 1.4v and 1.5v which I had known to be pretty insane for 8th and 9th gen. For reference I keep mine both around 1.18v. Is 10th able to use higher without burning up?


----------



## 86Jarrod

I got mine stable at 5400 and 51 cache at 1.359 load llc7. I noticed a couple weird things. First it "seems" to be stable at 52 cache as well but scores about 100 pts less in r20 consistently with no errors. Second I get a 00 error on my hero if i try 5500 no matter what it seems. 5500 all core, just 4 cores, and even just 1 core. Maybe a bios bug?


----------



## newls1

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Yeah I thought about it and it was just too long of a wait for the apex sadly :/


you are going to enjoy the formula..... you know you are. Im no where near your level of overclocking abilities, but it makes me feel like i purchased the right board when people like yourself are willing to purchase it as-well


----------



## newls1

Talon2016 said:


> Humble brag about my 10900K SP 103 on my Hero XII, not bugged, on both old and newest BIOS. VID tables populated. Got mine on launch day from Newegg.
> 
> Question about safe VCCIO and VCCSA on 10th gen? I keep seeing people using 1.4v and 1.5v which I had known to be pretty insane for 8th and 9th gen. For reference I keep mine both around 1.18v. Is 10th able to use higher without burning up?


if it means anything, im using 1.312 SA/IO as it seems i need to be there for my mem to work properly.


----------



## ThrashZone

newls1 said:


> you are going to enjoy the formula..... you know you are. Im no where near your level of overclocking abilities, but it makes me feel like i purchased the right board when people like yourself are willing to purchase it as-well


Hi,
Thanks I'm not all that good this isn't HEDT I'll be starting all over 
This was preferred to have vrm's on water from the beginning even if this platform doesn't need them on water
But with apex delayed and no water block for it yet either says watercool the formula was next in line seeing the extreme is just way too much for my blood 

Doubt I'll be chasing 5k mhz memory anything over 4k mhz I'd be happy with 

I blame intel for no 10980xe around for this platform switch can't really believe I snagged a 10900k off a local micro center prior to that lightening strike I was leaning towards amd 4k release


----------



## Pilot53

Im at 1.3v sa/sio, even with that I cant get my bdie over 4000 24/7 stable. Thats with 4 dimms though.


----------



## newls1

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Thanks I'm not all that good this isn't HEDT I'll be starting all over
> This was preferred to have vrm's on water from the beginning even if this platform doesn't need them on water
> But with apex delayed and no water block for it yet either says watercool the formula was next in line seeing the extreme is just way too much for my blood
> 
> Doubt I'll be chasing 5k mhz memory anything over 4k mhz I'd be happy with
> 
> I blame intel for no 10980xe around for this platform switch can't really believe I snagged a 10900k off a local micro center prior to that lightening strike I was leaning towards amd 4k release


AMD's Zen3 will be in my future as i enjoy playing with new hardware, so ill grab the zen3 version of the 3950x (4950x maybe??) I am enjoying this 10900k, games play crazy fast with it.



Pilot53 said:


> Im at 1.3v sa/sio, even with that I cant get my bdie over 4000 24/7 stable. Thats with 4 dimms though.


Same here brother...


----------



## ttnuagmada

What's considered the upper limit for safe sa/sio voltage?

Also does anyone know if a rockit 88 tool will delid these?


----------



## Falkentyne

ttnuagmada said:


> What's considered the upper limit for safe sa/sio voltage?
> 
> Also does anyone know if a rockit 88 tool will delid these?


It's known that Der8auer's kit will delid these. The rockit 89 kit might. It's up to you if you want to be the guinea pig.


----------



## Falkentyne

86Jarrod said:


> I got mine stable at 5400 and 51 cache at 1.359 load llc7. I noticed a couple weird things. First it "seems" to be stable at 52 cache as well but scores about 100 pts less in r20 consistently with no errors. Second I get a 00 error on my hero if i try 5500 no matter what it seems. 5500 all core, just 4 cores, and even just 1 core. Maybe a bios bug?


Hi Jarrod. What's your SP quality again? Nice score and result!


----------



## cstkl1

D-EJ915 said:


> cstkl1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> errr msi always has that quirk with avx
> 
> 
> 
> What bug is that?
Click to expand...

If u decided to use avx offset.. it flux in few things that has no avx instruction..
Hci memtest, overwatch etc.
This happen in 8700k and according to my friend in his 9900k as well. A z270/390 board. 
So abit skeptical. 

Also it has some amazing things. The ability to throttle cpu to boot into windows for high cpu clock

https://youtu.be/RuSHwZkTO0I


----------



## Falkentyne

cstkl1 said:


> If u decided to use avx offset.. it flux in few things that has no avx instruction..
> Hci memtest, overwatch etc.


This same thing happens on Gigabyte also.
Gigabyte looked into this and determined this does NOT happen after a fresh install of windows, but DOES happen after certain drivers or runtimes are installed.
When I was helping the Apex Legends programmer Oriostorm fix the Internal Parity Error Skylake cores CPU crash, we determined that AVX is an extension of SSE2 instructions and SSE2 can "look" like AVX, triggering a downclock, and also background processors that use an AVX instruction can trigger it too. Even clicking on the windows start menu can trigger a downclock...


----------



## ttnuagmada

86Jarrod said:


> So I decided to delid this thing. Note the delid test ran for a min and a half longer and ambient was about 1c lower. Here's my results.


which delid kit is that?


----------



## Carillo

Any stats for average SP quality ? Receiving 3 x 10900K s Wednesday. A bit worried they all be 63s. LOL


----------



## 86Jarrod

Falkentyne said:


> Hi Jarrod. What's your SP quality again? Nice score and result!


Thank you. SP is 87


----------



## Falkentyne

86Jarrod said:


> Thank you. SP is 87


Hmm, surprised I can't do that. I can run cinebench R20 IF i keep my cpu vcore load above 1.320v at 5.3 ghz but it gets WAY too hot. For example 1.360v LLC7 works, but it QUICKLY gets over 100C on my Arctic Liquid Freezer II 360 AIO and locks up hard and I don't want to remove the protection (i did once and it stayed under 105C but that's not safe).  so I can't even try your 1.390v LLC7 5.4 ghz attempt.

You must have some really good cooling...


----------



## SoldierRBT

Carillo said:


> Any stats for average SP quality ? Receiving 3 x 10900K s Wednesday. A bit worried they all be 63s. LOL /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif


Nice. What motherboard will you use? I’ll be getting 2x 10900K and Z490 Apex. I’ve seen a lot of 63, some around 78-83, a 94 and 103 is the highest so far. I saw one running Cinebench R15 5.4GHz all cores at 1.234v underload. He gonna check the SP later today but I believe that must be a SP 110+ chip


----------



## 86Jarrod

ttnuagmada said:


> which delid kit is that?


This one. It was different than the 9900k where you'd hear the "snap", the 10900k tim seems to be softer feeling so I had to move the IHS with the tool farther than the 9900k and it just felt weird. I had to push the IHS back and forth from the correct direction then flipping it 180 and push from the other direction maybe 8 times.
https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B07KL7YLML/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o06_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1


----------



## cstkl1

Falkentyne said:


> cstkl1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If u decided to use avx offset.. it flux in few things that has no avx instruction..
> Hci memtest, overwatch etc.
> 
> 
> 
> This same thing happens on Gigabyte also.
> Gigabyte looked into this and determined this does NOT happen after a fresh install of windows, but DOES happen after certain drivers or runtimes are installed.
> When I was helping the Apex Legends programmer Oriostorm fix the Internal Parity Error Skylake cores CPU crash, we determined that AVX is an extension of SSE2 instructions and SSE2 can "look" like AVX, triggering a downclock, and also background processors that use an AVX instruction can trigger it too. Even clicking on the windows start menu can trigger a downclock...
Click to expand...

Msi-fae said about the samething and insisted they did as per spec. Heck if not would gone via msi route with the ace looking pretty awesome on spec/pricing.. its priced here= asus Z490 strix-e. Msi has not found how to be incredible like asus.
Lol but dat bug... especially i would be doing hci for months..


----------



## Carillo

SoldierRBT said:


> Nice. What motherboard will you use? I’ll be getting 2x 10900K and Z490 Apex. I’ve seen a lot of 63, some around 78-83, a 94 and 103 is the highest so far. I saw one running Cinebench R15 5.4GHz all cores at 1.234v underload. He gonna check the SP later today but I believe that must be a SP 110+ chip


Nice  1.23v is sick..Too bad with all the 63s tough. I have ordered the Apex Xii, but they keep pushing the date.. Seems like a delivery problem with the Apex in many countries. So i bought the Asus Formula to bin cpus  Will sell it when i get my Apex.. if i ever do  Will post my results. I saw this guy on youtube with SP 143! possible a bug ??


----------



## cstkl1

Carillo said:


> Nice  1.23v is sick..Too bad with all the 63s tough. I have ordered the Apex Xii, but they keep pushing the date.. Seems like a delivery problem with the Apex in many countries. So i bought the Asus Formula to bin cpus  Will sell it when i get my Apex.. if i ever do


depends how you look at it.. 
all the 10900k does 5ghz easily though.. 
cant say the same on 9900k


----------



## Carillo

cstkl1 said:


> depends how you look at it..
> all the 10900k does 5ghz easily though..
> cant say the same on 9900k


Totaly agree with you. Im most interested in a strong IMC. Hope to find one that can match my 8086K IMC  I dont care so much about high core clocks,I would be happy with a cool 5ghz


----------



## ttnuagmada

86Jarrod said:


> This one. It was different than the 9900k where you'd hear the "snap", the 10900k tim seems to be softer feeling so I had to move the IHS with the tool farther than the 9900k and it just felt weird. I had to push the IHS back and forth from the correct direction then flipping it 180 and push from the other direction maybe 8 times.
> https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B07KL7YLML/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o06_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1


I think I'm gonna try it!


----------



## SoldierRBT

Carillo said:


> SoldierRBT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice. What motherboard will you use? Iâ€™️ll be getting 2x 10900K and Z490 Apex. Iâ€™️ve seen a lot of 63, some around 78-83, a 94 and 103 is the highest so far. I saw one running Cinebench R15 5.4GHz all cores at 1.234v underload. He gonna check the SP later today but I believe that must be a SP 110+ chip
> 
> 
> 
> Nice /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif 1.23v is sick..Too bad with all the 63s tough. I have ordered the Apex Xii, but they keep pushing the date.. Seems like a delivery problem with the Apex in many countries. So i bought the Asus Formula to bin cpus /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif Will sell it when i get my Apex.. if i ever do /forum/images/smilies/tongue.gif Will post my results. I saw this guy on youtube with SP 143! possible a bug ??
Click to expand...

That’s a bug. He needs to update his bios. The predictions are N/A in the photo


----------



## ogider

Carillo. WoW ddr4

z490 MSI have some kind of this prediction thing in bios?


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

Carillo said:


> Nice  1.23v is sick..Too bad with all the 63s tough. I have ordered the Apex Xii, but they keep pushing the date.. Seems like a delivery problem with the Apex in many countries. So i bought the Asus Formula to bin cpus  Will sell it when i get my Apex.. if i ever do  Will post my results. I saw this guy on youtube with SP 143! possible a bug ??


Is that chip made in Vietnam?


----------



## cstkl1

Eh whatsup with asrock
https://www.asrock.com/MB/Intel/W480 Creator/index.asp
This makes the taichi garbage in comparison.

Do they Forsee a sudden rise in overclocking in the ws market for socket 1200.🧐 

Question is all the retail cpu here from newegg & mc??


----------



## newls1

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> Is that chip made in Vietnam?


thats where mine came from... that mean anything?


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

newls1 said:


> thats where mine came from... that mean anything?


Just curious how chips from different fabs behave.

Previous I tend to buy chips from Costa Rica, then Malaysia after the shutdown of Costa Rica fab...


----------



## shamino1978

86Jarrod said:


> I got mine stable at 5400 and 51 cache at 1.359 load llc7. I noticed a couple weird things. First it "seems" to be stable at 52 cache as well but scores about 100 pts less in r20 consistently with no errors. Second I get a 00 error on my hero if i try 5500 no matter what it seems. 5500 all core, just 4 cores, and even just 1 core. Maybe a bios bug?


the 5500 00 should be from internal pll voltage raising from 0.9 to 1.0v, manually set this to 0.9 in tweakers paradise.
some procs are sensitive to this internal rail but needs the right level for high freq
will change the threshold to something like 6GHz


----------



## Falkentyne

shamino1978 said:


> the 5500 00 should be from internal pll voltage raising from 0.9 to 1.0v, manually set this to 0.9 in tweakers paradise.
> some procs are sensitive to this internal rail but needs the right level for high freq
> will change the threshold to something like 6GHz


Shamino 
I have a question.

On the M12E, there is a 3 pin jumper called "Bios select", to the left of the I/O panel pins.

When I remove the Ln2 jumper to use it, when I jumper the 2 left side pins, the system comes on like usual, nothing changed.
When I jumper the two right side pins, I get CPU 00 instantly.

What's this 3 pin for?


----------



## shamino1978

Falkentyne said:


> Shamino
> I have a question.
> 
> On the M12E, there is a 3 pin jumper called "Bios select", to the left of the I/O panel pins.
> 
> When I remove the Ln2 jumper to use it, when I jumper the 2 left side pins, the system comes on like usual, nothing changed.
> When I jumper the two right side pins, I get CPU 00 instantly.
> 
> What's this 3 pin for?


its to flash the bios flash part manually with a tool. if ur bios LED position is bios 1 and you force the bios to bios 2 with jumper on 2-3 then you get 00. the jumper pos must match the led position if u want to run like taht, but its just for flashing bios with tool.


----------



## Falkentyne

shamino1978 said:


> its to flash the bios flash part manually with a tool. if ur bios LED position is bios 1 and you force the bios to bios 2 with jumper on 2-3 then you get 00. the jumper pos must match the led position if u want to run like taht, but its just for flashing bios with tool.


Thank you!


----------



## elmor

This is on a pretty good chip, 5.3G non-AVX was a bit unstable.


----------



## robertr1

For those who have been watching a lot of youtube, please don't use LLC8 on your chips to tune for daily stable.


----------



## cstkl1

robertr1 said:


> For those who have been watching a lot of youtube, please don't use LLC8 on your chips to tune for daily stable.


??? Arent we suppose to be searching to be incredible?? ?


----------



## ThrashZone

elmor said:


> This is on a pretty good chip, 5.3G non-AVX was a bit unstable.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osMrZNeguQk


Hi,
I wouldn't of thought 5.2 on water would be a big deal for 10900k :/
Have you done an evaluation on this chip yet like you did 10980xe ?


----------



## elmor

robertr1 said:


> For those who have been watching a lot of youtube, please don't use LLC8 on your chips to tune for daily stable.


Solid advice.



ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> I wouldn't of thought 5.2 on water would be a big deal for 10900k :/
> Have you done an evaluation on this chip yet like you did 10980xe ?


5.3 GHz is pretty tough. According to silicon lottery stats only the top 4% of 9900KS could do 5.2G. But the delta down to AVX stable frequencies seem to be smaller on the new chips. Only need about -1 offset on 10900X. 5.1G AVX2 Prime95 is pretty impressive I'd say.


----------



## ThrashZone

elmor said:


> Solid advice.
> 
> 
> 
> 5.3 GHz is pretty tough. According to silicon lottery stats only the top 4% of 9900KS could do 5.2G. But the delta down to AVX stable frequencies seem to be smaller on the new chips. Only need about -1 offset on 10900X. 5.1G AVX2 Prime95 is pretty impressive I'd say.


Hi,
Thanks what happened to silicon lottery they don't post here anymore ?


----------



## gtrlab

Falkentyne said:


> SP Score: 94


How does the system get this number? Does it depend on the VID?


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

Have any users tested highest all core frequency without hyperthreading enabled on their chips? Curious how high they will go on water without ht.


----------



## Falkentyne

10900k + NH-D15 + Thermal pigeon poop + 2x NF A14 - 3000 RPM @ Max RPM
Ambient temp: 28C

5 ghz, 4.7 cache, 1.250v, LLC: Turbo (=LLC6)--0.485 mOhm, load voltage unknown no VR VOUT on Z490 Aorus Master (estimated 1.128v from M12E same test on AIO):
Prime95 AVX1, 15k-15k in place using 29.8 build 6
Open bench.
Watts: 279W (Via VID, AC/DC Loadline 0.01 mOhms)
246W actual (from VRM)

Kryonaut: 98C
Thermalright TFX: 95C after 20 minutes.


----------



## Carillo

Is there a way to see SP quality with a MSI MEG z490i Unify motherboard ?


----------



## Falkentyne

Carillo said:


> Is there a way to see SP quality with a MSI MEG z490i Unify motherboard ?


I don't think so, at least not what I saw from someone's video.
Do you have this board?
If you do, you can go into your BIOS and see if you have some advanced VR settings called AC Loadline and DC Loadline.
If you do, set them to 1, or 0.01, whatever is smaller, the closest non-zero value.

Then, boot to windows, with POWER SAVING DISABLED, at 4700 mhz, 4800 mhz, 4900 mhz, 5000 mhz, 5100 mhz and 5200 mhz. Keep your cache 3 under your core. (maybe it can be even lower, but not any closer!!)
Then use the NEWEST version of HWInfo64, install the beta version on top of it, and go to sensors only, and post your CPU VID at EACH FREQUENCY, at full idle, at about 30-35C.

Need all the default VIDS from 4.7 ghz to 5.2 ghz to guess your quality.

If you can't set AC and DC Loadline to 0.01 mOhms (1 in the Gigabyte bios, 0.01 on Asus, not sure about Asrock, they had access in a test bios for z390), then not much we can do to help you.

You can ask MSI to expose these settings in a bios update. Not sure if they will listen or care. 
Tell them it is in the AMI UEFI Capsule, under "CPU power and performance-->power management control->Core VR Control->Core I/A Domain--The AC And DC loadlines are the ones you need access to for Core I/A Domain.


----------



## Carillo

Falkentyne said:


> Carillo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a way to see SP quality with a MSI MEG z490i Unify motherboard ?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think so, at least not what I saw from someone's video.
> Do you have this board?
> If you do, you can go into your BIOS and see if you have some advanced VR settings called AC Loadline and DC Loadline.
> If you do, set them to 1, or 0.01, whatever is smaller, the closest non-zero value.
> 
> Then, boot to windows, with POWER SAVING DISABLED, at 4700 mhz, 4800 mhz, 4900 mhz, 5000 mhz, 5100 mhz and 5200 mhz. Keep your cache 3 under your core. (maybe it can be even lower, but not any closer!!)
> Then use the NEWEST version of HWInfo64, install the beta version on top of it, and go to sensors only, and post your CPU VID at EACH FREQUENCY, at full idle, at about 30-35C.
> 
> Need all the default VIDS from 4.7 ghz to 5.2 ghz to guess your quality.
> 
> If you can't set AC and DC Loadline to 0.01 mOhms (1 in the Gigabyte bios, 0.01 on Asus, not sure about Asrock, they had access in a test bios for z390), then not much we can do to help you.
> 
> You can ask MSI to expose these settings in a bios update. Not sure if they will listen or care.
> Tell them it is in the AMI UEFI Capsule, under "CPU power and performance-->power management control->Core VR Control->Core I/A Domain--The AC And DC loadlines are the ones you need access to for Core I/A Domain.
Click to expand...

Thanks. My friend is booting it right now. He have two 10900K for testing. I or he will report back.


----------



## Talon2016

@86Jarrod that is an insanely good chip and score you have there. I guess the delidd really helped out. When I delidded my 8700K back then it came it life. The cores were 1-2 temp differences, and I gained an extra 100-200Mhz overclock. Getting rid of that heat and fast is key to getting these chips to come to life.


----------



## D-EJ915

cstkl1 said:


> If u decided to use avx offset.. it flux in few things that has no avx instruction..
> Hci memtest, overwatch etc.
> This happen in 8700k and according to my friend in his 9900k as well. A z270/390 board.
> So abit skeptical.
> 
> Also it has some amazing things. The ability to throttle cpu to boot into windows for high cpu clock
> 
> https://youtu.be/RuSHwZkTO0I


I had no issues with my 9900K on Z390 godlike but I only did benching on it not daily use, 52x CPU with -1 and -2 offset depending on bench. Scores matched my Apex Xi so don't think it was giving me the bug. I returned that 9900k so can't test it anymore, packed up the godlike for return too.


----------



## cstkl1

D-EJ915 said:


> cstkl1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If u decided to use avx offset.. it flux in few things that has no avx instruction..
> Hci memtest, overwatch etc.
> This happen in 8700k and according to my friend in his 9900k as well. A z270/390 board.
> So abit skeptical.
> 
> Also it has some amazing things. The ability to throttle cpu to boot into windows for high cpu clock
> 
> https://youtu.be/RuSHwZkTO0I
> 
> 
> 
> I had no issues with my 9900K on Z390 godlike but I only did benching on it not daily use, 52x CPU with -1 and -2 offset depending on bench. Scores matched my Apex Xi so don't think it was giving me the bug. I returned that 9900k so can't test it anymore, packed up the godlike for return too.
Click to expand...

On benching u get the proper scores. Its when gaming.. running hci etc.. doing stufff that has zero avx instruction like overwatch..


----------



## criskoe

Falkentyne said:


> 10900k + NH-D15 + Thermal pigeon poop + 2x NF A14 - 3000 RPM @ Max RPM
> Ambient temp: 28C
> 
> 5 ghz, 4.7 cache, 1.250v, LLC: Turbo (=LLC6)--0.485 mOhm, load voltage unknown no VR VOUT on Z490 Aorus Master (estimated 1.128v from M12E same test on AIO):
> Prime95 AVX1, 15k-15k in place using 29.8 build 6
> Open bench.
> Watts: 279W (Via VID, AC/DC Loadline 0.01 mOhms)
> 246W actual (from VRM)
> 
> Kryonaut: 98C
> Thermalright TFX: 95C after 20 minutes.


Wowzers thats HOT!


----------



## Falkentyne

criskoe said:


> Wowzers thats HOT!


https://i.imgur.com/cIBvtSD.jpg

On the AIO + TFX, I can run FMA3 (AVX2) 15K in place prime95 at 1.270v bios set (1.137-1.146v load) and get the same temps as the 1.250v AVX1 small FFT 15k with NH-D15 / TFX.


----------



## criskoe

Falkentyne said:


> https://i.imgur.com/cIBvtSD.jpg
> 
> On the AIO + TFX, I can run FMA3 (AVX2) 15K in place prime95 at 1.270v bios set (1.137-1.146v load) and get the same temps as the 1.250v AVX1 small FFT 15k with NH-D15 / TFX.


Interesting. I wouldn't of expected that much difference with NH-D15 vs AIO.

I also always find it interesting how certain thermal pastes seem to yield different results depending on the user.

Jesus. TFX $75 to get 2 grams or $105 for 6 grams to Canada. Yeah no thanks. Thats crazy! LMAO


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Been on hedt for a long time the original space heater platform so this is nothing new 
What is new elmor setting manual core/ cache to 1.45v and llc-4 and it only uses 1.27v lol that's alot of vdroop 
No wonder some I've read are using llc-7


----------



## elmor

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Been on hedt for a long time the original space heater platform so this is nothing new
> What is new elmor setting manual core/ cache to 1.45v and llc-4 and it only uses 1.27v lol that's alot of vdroop
> No wonder some I've read are using llc-7


The chip is drawing 250A+ at this point. Lower load-line/higher LLC will require a higher load-voltage, it's not better. 1.45V set dropping down to 1.2V is healthy.


----------



## Falkentyne

elmor said:


> The chip is drawing 250A+ at this point. Lower load-line/higher LLC will require a higher load-voltage, it's not better. 1.45V set dropping down to 1.2V is healthy.


Elmor, I sent shamino an interesting picture about my own patented prime95 window lay out 
In the meantime, I have a question to ask. 

If a game, let's say, Minecraft, puts a 100% load on one thread of one core (no load on the second thread), and about a 40% load on another thread for another core, and that's it...How does this affect voltages?
One core is being fully used, another core partially used, but the voltage won't drop very much because the total current load isn't very high?
But how does this affect what is going to the physical core in question? Because that one physical core is drawing a lot of current all to itself, isn't it ?

(Let's keep it easy and say I am using 1.350v Bios set, LLC7 at 5.3 ghz).

Thanks Elmor, sorry if this is a.......strange question


----------



## elmor

Falkentyne said:


> Elmor, I sent shamino an interesting picture about my own patented prime95 window lay out
> In the meantime, I have a question to ask.
> 
> If a game, let's say, Minecraft, puts a 100% load on one thread of one core (no load on the second thread), and about a 40% load on another thread for another core, and that's it...How does this affect voltages?
> One core is being fully used, another core partially used, but the voltage won't drop very much because the total current load isn't very high?
> But how does this affect what is going to the physical core in question? Because that one physical core is drawing a lot of current all to itself, isn't it ?
> 
> (Let's keep it easy and say I am using 1.350v Bios set, LLC7 at 5.3 ghz).
> 
> Thanks Elmor, sorry if this is a.......strange question



From the VRM controller point of view there's no difference, all a single package. What it looks like on-chip with the metal layers for power distribution? Not sure, I'd assume each core has its own dedicated supply path from the top metal layer.


----------



## D-EJ915

cstkl1 said:


> On benching u get the proper scores. Its when gaming.. running hci etc.. doing stufff that has zero avx instruction like overwatch..


It's not going to make a difference so don't worry about it, people think monitoring software is gospel but the it can't poll fast enough to show the real data lol.


----------



## Falkentyne

elmor said:


> From the VRM controller point of view there's no difference, all a single package. What it looks like on-chip with the metal layers for power distribution? Not sure, I'd assume each core has its own dedicated supply path from the top metal layer.


Appreciate all your help! I was trying to figure out a problem many people report, "Internal parity errors" in minecraft. Apparently, if your vcore is high enough to pass small FFT prime95, and cinebench R15 and AIDA64 Stress FPU with no problems, you can still get internal parity errors in minecraft unless you increase vcore a little more. Because of MC Putting 100% loads on a single core. (many gamers have reported this and just think its some sort of minecraft bug).

I tried to research this WHEA corrected error and all I can find is some strange stuff about Haswell and some Intel erratum about some 'overflow being over-reported' or something weird. What I *CAN* tell you is that, over a year ago, Apex Legends had the EXACT Same problem (but most gamers didn't know to look in windows event viewer or have HWinfo64 WHEA running). It was so bad in Apex Legends that some people got it on pure stock systems. Me and a few others did tests with Oriostorm, the Apex legends programmer from Respawn, and he determined that this seems to be some sort of bug in the processor itself, only happening under certain conditions, and he tried to contact Intel about it but they were like "we don't have bugs. it's your code" or something. So he created a "new code path" to try to avoid the bug condition happening, which GREATLY improved things. And now the game is about as Stable as Battlefield 5 is (if you have enough vcore to avoid CPU Cache L0 errors, which are bad errors). 

But minecraft.... :/

This internal parity error happens most either when loading the game (100% load on multiple cores at once during mojang screen) or when on a multiplayer server with a LOT Of players in the lobby.
(and the only fix is to increase vcore even more).

Well I guess i just....rambled...


----------



## ratchet4234

From previous 14nm intel chips 1.4v is fine ive gone up to 1.425v.
Personally i dont mind taking a bit of a risk i ran a 6700k like that for 1 year plus then the watercooling pump died on me.


----------



## ratchet4234

elmor said:


> The chip is drawing 250A+ at this point. Lower load-line/higher LLC will require a higher load-voltage, it's not better. 1.45V set dropping down to 1.2V is healthy.


If a chip drawed 250A your house would be on fire cable to handle 250A is like 50mm2 or something ridiculous the power supply cables on your psu are 1mm2 roughly if a chip really drew 250A your insulation on all the cables would melt and things would start shorting out. And the motherboard would melt too.

I think you mean 250 watts but these sorta things shouldn't be mixed up especially when overclocking.


----------



## cstkl1

D-EJ915 said:


> cstkl1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> On benching u get the proper scores. Its when gaming.. running hci etc.. doing stufff that has zero avx instruction like overwatch..
> 
> 
> 
> It's not going to make a difference so don't worry about it, people think monitoring software is gospel but the it can't poll fast enough to show the real data lol.
Click to expand...

Guess gaming not your thing. 
Yes it does. Back in the day 8700k + msi (cant remember which mobo now but it was one below godlike) + gtx1080.. the flux cause inconsistent fps. Just leaving it offset zero.. issue was resolved. Was using offset -2. 
Game = overwatch fps fixed at 240. Custom setting.

Hci.. well i use consistent turnaround of 100% as indicator for long term stability as well. It was downclocking making each 100% runtime vary. 

Sorry i dont like trump mantra. “ if u dont see it, it doesnt exist” . So its a no to msi.


----------



## cstkl1

Falkentyne said:


> elmor said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the VRM controller point of view there's no difference, all a single package. What it looks like on-chip with the metal layers for power distribution? Not sure, I'd assume each core has its own dedicated supply path from the top metal layer.
> 
> 
> 
> Appreciate all your help! I was trying to figure out a problem many people report, "Internal parity errors" in minecraft. Apparently, if your vcore is high enough to pass small FFT prime95, and cinebench R15 and AIDA64 Stress FPU with no problems, you can still get internal parity errors in minecraft unless you increase vcore a little more. Because of MC Putting 100% loads on a single core. (many gamers have reported this and just think its some sort of minecraft bug).
> 
> I tried to research this WHEA corrected error and all I can find is some strange stuff about Haswell and some Intel erratum about some 'overflow being over-reported' or something weird. What I *CAN* tell you is that, over a year ago, Apex Legends had the EXACT Same problem (but most gamers didn't know to look in windows event viewer or have HWinfo64 WHEA running). It was so bad in Apex Legends that some people got it on pure stock systems. Me and a few others did tests with Oriostorm, the Apex legends programmer from Respawn, and he determined that this seems to be some sort of bug in the processor itself, only happening under certain conditions, and he tried to contact Intel about it but they were like "we don't have bugs. it's your code" or something. So he created a "new code path" to try to avoid the bug condition happening, which GREATLY improved things. And now the game is about as Stable as Battlefield 5 is (if you have enough vcore to avoid CPU Cache L0 errors, which are bad errors).
> 
> But minecraft.... 😕
> 
> This internal parity error happens most either when loading the game (100% load on multiple cores at once during mojang screen) or when on a multiplayer server with a LOT Of players in the lobby.
> (and the only fix is to increase vcore even more).
> 
> Well I guess i just....rambled... /forum/images/smilies/frown.gif
Click to expand...

Alot of the whea bsod is from uncore/mesh with vccin. Common in 4790k, and current x299. 

X299 the uncore offset if set wrongly can result in lag like response situation.


----------



## 8051

Carillo said:


> Totaly agree with you. Im most interested in a strong IMC. Hope to find one that can match my 8086K IMC  I dont care so much about high core clocks,I would be happy with a cool 5ghz


Was that 5.5 Ghz/5.1 Ghz core/uncore 4900Mhz. RAM setup an LN2 run?


----------



## Falkentyne

ratchet4234 said:


> If a chip drawed 250A your house would be on fire cable to handle 250A is like 50mm2 or something ridiculous the power supply cables on your psu are 1mm2 roughly if a chip really drew 250A your insulation on all the cables would melt and things would start shorting out. And the motherboard would melt too.
> 
> I think you mean 250 watts but these sorta things shouldn't be mixed up especially when overclocking.


It's 250 amps. have you looked in Asus EC In hwinfo64? CPU's draw amps. Watts= volts * Amps. CPU's draw high amps but very low volts, thus high watts.

So for example:
1.19v * 250 amps=297 watts.
See?

And I don't think you know who Elmor is. He's as legendary around here as Shamino. He used to work for Asus. He's an engineer.
So I think he knows a bit more than you do.


----------



## JackCY

Maybe they think that 12V is going straight into the CPU 

Even on 2V Vccin CPUs when you push 200W that's 100A of input current. Let alone on CPUs with VRM output being <1.4V you get even crazier currents.
Of course the traces and connections are made as short as possible and as big as possible with as many pins as possible to carry the current to avoid voltage loss and heat due to resistance.


----------



## hemon

Hi,

I've the i9-10900k with the Asus ROG STRIX Z490-F GAMING and an AIO Cooler and I would like to (try to) overclock the cpu to 5,2 Ghz. Please, can someone explain me what I have to change in the BIOS next to CPU Ratio and CPU Voltage? With witch voltage should I beginn?

Also I noticed that the voltage (VCORE) on HWMonitor and CPU-Z is 1.256 but in the Bios the voltage is 1.35. Why it is so? Which is the "real" voltage?

Thank you!


----------



## Carillo

8051 said:


> Was that 5.5 Ghz/5.1 Ghz core/uncore 4900Mhz. RAM setup an LN2 run?


No. Watercooling.


----------



## newls1

hemon said:


> Hi,
> 
> I've the i9-10900k with the Asus ROG STRIX Z490-F GAMING and an AIO Cooler and I would like to (try to) overclock the cpu to 5,2 Ghz. Please, can someone explain me what I have to change in the BIOS next to CPU Ratio and CPU Voltage? With witch voltage should I beginn?
> 
> Also I noticed that the voltage (VCORE) on HWMonitor and CPU-Z is 1.256 but in the Bios the voltage is 1.35. Why it is so? Which is the "real" voltage?
> 
> Thank you!


you are going to need a full custom water setup to maintain 5.2Ghz all core IMHO. The temps will be to high for the "possible" volts you will need to achieve this desired OC... BUT..... of course we can try it. 1st thing i would do is set your ram speeds LOW, to avoid this being any potential error causing event. Then set your cache ratio to x43 (for now).... Set SVID behavior to "trained", set all cores to 52x, and SA/IO voltage to "auto" (which should give you 1.312v) since we are using SVID to reach your OC, keep CPU/Cache voltage set to "auto" Set LLC to LVL4 <----IMPORTANT.. save and reboot. Load up HWinfo64 and report back with a screenie of your Core0-9 VID's and Vcore please. Then run aida64 (fpu,cache,cpu) stress test, and snap a pic of the VID's and Vcore while 100% loaded. Report back with stabilty and temps please


----------



## robertr1

A few tips for those on Maximum boards trying to max out cpu. My info is from having spent a lot of time testing and tuning on a Z390 Apex and this was corroborated by other Apex users also. While I'm sure some things have changed but the general principles should apply:

- Don't leave switching frequency on auto. Hardset it avoid had it changing on reboot. On the Z390 Apex 500khz (lowest allowed) was the best. 1000khz being the worst. 1k needed 20-30mv more for the same stability as 500khz
- Max cpu current to 140%
- Change phases to Extreme/Daily Optimized 
- On the z390 apex, with the above tune the different in vmin under load (p95 small avx) was negligible between LLC4 - LLC6 meaning that you could run LLC6 which meant a lower set voltage
- Fixed/static vcore was not anymore stable on adaptive. Adaptive thus is recommended 
- Avoid offset on asus and stick to adaptive

How to find the best switching frequency on a Maximus board?
- set phases to extreme/extreme or extreme/daily optimized 
- pick a llc between 4-6 and stick to it (stay away from 7-8)
- Set the lowest switching frequency the board allows
- set a static/fix vcore and load up prime 95 small avx at whatever all core frequency your cooling can handle and keep the temps below 95c. Run it for a 20min cycle
- Now keep all things as is and bump up the switching frequency by 100khz. If it crashes, move on. If it passes, lower vcore by 10mv and try it again (5mv if you're real tedious). Keep flooring the vcore and then find the vmin 
- Use that as your baseline for the next frequency test

Sounds like a lot but you can get most of it done within a day and you don't need to be glued into your pc. Once you do the above, you pretty much have your cpu dialed in. Then up the uncore until unstable given the same vcore. It's never worth adding more vcore just to get uncore up. However, uncore matters in reducing mem latency and bumping some bandwidth so it should be maxed out also.


----------



## hemon

I just can't get an OC of 5.1 with my 10900k. 
I also tried with 1.42v without success. 

But it's strange that CPU-Z, HWMonitor give me another voltage, much lower than the bios voltage (about 1.24 or 1.26 vs 1.4. Is this behaviour normal?! Now they say 1.18v where I'm at 1.32v with a stable 5.0 OC. I use a fixed voltage. On AI Suite (ASUS) is the voltage 1.305 at idle and 1.245 at load. I'm sure that this is not normal. What is your opinion? Should I do something?


----------



## Falkentyne

hemon said:


> I just can't get an OC of 5.1 with my 10900k. I also tried with 1.42v without success. But it's strange that CPU-Z, HWMonitor and AI Suite give me another voltage, much lower than the bios voltage (about 1.24 or 1.26 vs 1.4. Is this behaviour normal?! Now they say 1.18v where I'm at 1.32v with a stable 5.0 OC. I use a fixed voltage.


Loadline calibration will make your voltage drop at load. Higher LLC makes it drop less but generates ripple which could crash you and make you need a higher specific LOAD voltage to remain stable under a stress test, than a lower LLC (at the same load voltage point). So having a medium vdroop is healthy.

https://www.overclock.net/forum/6-i...0-vrm-discussion-thread-398.html#post27860326

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


----------



## hemon

Falkentyne said:


> Loadline calibration will make your voltage drop at load. Higher LLC makes it drop less but generates ripple which could crash you and make you need a higher specific LOAD voltage to remain stable under a stress test, than a lower LLC (at the same load voltage point). So having a medium vdroop is healthy.
> 
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/6-i...0-vrm-discussion-thread-398.html#post27860326
> 
> https://elmorlabs.com/index.php/2019-09-05/vrm-load-line-visualized/


So you mean I have to set the LLC higher? It is at Level 4 now.

What should I do in order to have a fixed 1.34v?


----------



## roco_smith

newls1 said:


> im having a terrible time trying to get a 5.1ghz stable on the 10900k. Im @ 1.25v SA and 1.25 VCCIO upto 1.35vcore with LLC @ LVL7 (asus maximus formula) and still cant get past 30secs into aida64 stress test (only cpu, fpu, and cache selected) wth am i doing wrong? Its not temp related... my waterloop is very strong, even has serial d5 pumps and 2 420mm rads in push pull... temps are getting in the 70c range in a 66f room


 is look like you got a bad batch or you paid for a overprice motherboard that doesn't do is job


----------



## newls1

roco_smith said:


> is look like you got a bad batch or you paid for a overprice motherboard that doesn't do is job


incorrect.... that thread is old news, im at 5.2 @ 1.279v


----------



## Falkentyne

hemon said:


> So you mean I have to set the LLC higher? It is at Level 4 now.
> 
> What should I do in order to have a fixed 1.34v?


What is the LOWEST absolute **LOAD** vcore you need to be stable during whatever stress test you're doing? Not bios voltage, but load voltage, but using a Loadline Calibration setting of Level 4 or Level 5 LLC? Yes I am aware you will need a higher bios voltage if you use LLC4 (more vdroop) than LLC5 (a bit less vdroop), but I am NOT asking that. 

Is it 1.34v load?


----------



## Esenel

@robertr1
Thanks!
350 Switching Frequency allowed me to drop quite a lot.
But still testing.


----------



## hemon

Falkentyne said:


> What is the LOWEST absolute **LOAD** vcore you need to be stable during whatever stress test you're doing? Not bios voltage, but load voltage, but using a Loadline Calibration setting of Level 4 or Level 5 LLC? Yes I am aware you will need a higher bios voltage if you use LLC4 (more vdroop) than LLC5 (a bit less vdroop), but I am NOT asking that.
> 
> Is it 1.34v load?


The Asus programm says 1.243v load (bios voltage is now 1.320v with LLC4) @ 5.0 ghz. At idle I'm at 1.314v.


----------



## Falkentyne

hemon said:


> The Asus programm says 1.243v load (bios voltage is now 1.320v with LLC4) @ 5.0 ghz. At idle I'm at 1.314v.


Then what is the problem? You know your minimum load voltage and your system is stable, right?
So what's the problem?


----------



## ThrashZone

elmor said:


> The chip is drawing 250A+ at this point. Lower load-line/higher LLC will require a higher load-voltage, it's not better. 1.45V set dropping down to 1.2V is healthy.


Hi,
Don't doubt it's healthy but is whack none the less to enter such a high core/ cache voltage and it's still in the yellow type and not red in bios 

Sorry if I missed it but what memory kit are you using ?


----------



## Falkentyne

robertr1 said:


> A few tips for those on Maximum boards trying to max out cpu. My info is from having spent a lot of time testing and tuning on a Z390 Apex and this was corroborated by other Apex users also. While I'm sure some things have changed but the general principles should apply:
> 
> - Don't leave switching frequency on auto. Hardset it avoid had it changing on reboot. On the Z390 Apex 500khz (lowest allowed) was the best. 1000khz being the worst. 1k needed 20-30mv more for the same stability as 500khz
> - Max cpu current to 140%
> - Change phases to Extreme/Daily Optimized
> - On the z390 apex, with the above tune the different in vmin under load (p95 small avx) was negligible between LLC4 - LLC6 meaning that you could run LLC6 which meant a lower set voltage
> - Fixed/static vcore was not anymore stable on adaptive. Adaptive thus is recommended
> - Avoid offset on asus and stick to adaptive
> 
> How to find the best switching frequency on a Maximus board?
> - set phases to extreme/extreme or extreme/daily optimized
> - pick a llc between 4-6 and stick to it (stay away from 7-8)
> - Set the lowest switching frequency the board allows
> - set a static/fix vcore and load up prime 95 small avx at whatever all core frequency your cooling can handle and keep the temps below 95c. Run it for a 20min cycle
> - Now keep all things as is and bump up the switching frequency by 100khz. If it crashes, move on. If it passes, lower vcore by 10mv and try it again (5mv if you're real tedious). Keep flooring the vcore and then find the vmin
> - Use that as your baseline for the next frequency test
> 
> Sounds like a lot but you can get most of it done within a day and you don't need to be glued into your pc. Once you do the above, you pretty much have your cpu dialed in. Then up the uncore until unstable given the same vcore. It's never worth adding more vcore just to get uncore up. However, uncore matters in reducing mem latency and bumping some bandwidth so it should be maxed out also.


Robert,
So far I spent about 3 hours messing with this, on my Maximus 12 Extreme and my i9 10900k.
Testing at "around" 1.235v Bios set, and LLC6, which is 0.485 mOhms of vdroop. 5 ghz core and 4.7 ghz cache ratio.
Load voltage is 1.119v at load running Prime95 29.8 build 6, small FFT with AVX1 (AVX2 disabled). Which I know is below my tested vmin already of 1.250v Bios set, LLC6 (1.128v load).

I am using HWinfo64 sensors only to look for corrected WHEA errors.

Trying to test this gives totally random results boot to boot. Not only is it EXTREMELY temp sensitive (a 2C rise in ambient made a test that PASSED 20 minutes fail with a CPU Cache L0 error), but I can't get anything consistent.

First, the threads don't crash. I haven't seen a thread drop yet. 
What I see is either: 

1) CPU Cache L0 error randomly.
2) BSOD with either system service exception or IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL.

Obviously if I raise vcore to 1.250v in bios, it just runs 30 minutes with no problem at 1.128v load, but I want to test switching frequency like you said.

The problem is I get nothing consistent and repeatable.
For example,

One run at 1.235v Bios set, 300 khz, the system just BSOD's 6 minutes into the test.
So i sent it to 1000 khz and i got an L0 error after about 16 minutes.
But the threads never crash.

The slow increase in ambient temperature from it being the morning seems to be making more of an impact than switching frequency...

Two hours ago, I got 1.235v to pass 20 minutes at 300 khz AND at 1000 khz.
Now I can't get either to pass. 
As I am writing this I'm at 1.240v now. (Still showing up as 1.119v load, sensor resolution is too small).

I think the only meaningful way to test this is to disable hyperthreading to take the IMC out of the picture completely. The IMC controls hyperthreaded cores, and it looks like you have to be -super- unstable for the threads to actually crash. Instead you simply get an L0 error or BSOD, which is not helpful at all.

And no, changing IO and SA isn't helping matters much. I could try backing off the cache ratio, e.g. setting it to x43, but this will take until Christmas to determine anything at this rate...
so 3 total hours of testing and gotten nowhere...


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL is memory related I believe 

system service exception I believe is security related to meltdown or spectre app access denied :/


----------



## robertr1

@Falkentyne set mem to jedec, io/sa to auto. Set your cpu voltages as below:

https://imgur.com/U4QAUZZ

Ones you want to hardset: DMI, PPL Term, CPU standby, PCH core voltage. Ignore the rest (leave on auto). 

Put a table fan on the vrm's so you know the temps are under control with side panel off if you see that they're rising too much/too fast with the side panel open. I did my testing in winter with a thermometer next to me in the same place and would open/close window to keep the ambient a constant. 

Unless there's a significant bug with your chip/board/bios HT should be fully stable.


----------



## Falkentyne

robertr1 said:


> @Falkentyne set mem to jedec, io/sa to auto. Set your cpu voltages as below:
> 
> https://imgur.com/U4QAUZZ
> 
> Ones you want to hardset: DMI, PPL Term, CPU standby, PCH core voltage. Ignore the rest (leave on auto).
> 
> Put a table fan on the vrm's so you know the temps are under control with side panel off if you see that they're rising too much/too fast with the side panel open. I did my testing in winter with a thermometer next to me in the same place and would open/close window to keep the ambient a constant.
> 
> Unless there's a significant bug with your chip/board/bios HT should be fully stable.


FYI I got an L0 error at 12 minutes in at 1.245v Bios set LLC6 @ 300 khz. Testing 1.250v LLC6 @ 800 khz now (my usual settings).

Ok...well....
When I have hyperthreading enabled, and this applies to BOTH my i9 9900k on Z390 Aorus Master and my 10900k, I tend to get CPU Cache L0 errors before I get actual program crashes. I noticed this originally in Realbench 2.56 over a year ago. Too low vcore=CPU Cache L0 error at 51/47, but Realbench never ever reported instability. Same thing with Cinebench R20 (especially when doing higher frequency tests, like when over 80C).

Then i disabled hyperthreading and dropped the vcore lower (like 30mv or something). This time no L0 errors (L0 errors have to do with the virtualized instruction register store---used for hyperthreaded cores), but now I got the expected Clock watchdog timeout BSOD (frozen cores crash) or WHEA Uncorrectable Error, stuff you expect.


Some of those voltage rails don't exist on Z490.
Core PLL Voltage isn't here or is controlled by something else (Note that "Internal PLL Voltage" is not the same thing, as this is part of the clipped sequence of "Internal core pll, internal gt pll, internal SA PLL, internal MC PLL, internal ring PLL", used for subzero stuff)

PLL Termination voltage controls standby voltage also.
DMI voltage cannot be changed. Requires some pin shoved through the socket.

Last night, I changed PLL Termination to 1.3v, and then changed the "Tweaker's paradise" version of Standby Voltage also to 1.30v. Screwed around with minecraft.
When I changed them back to Auto, I got "00". Retry and safe boot: 00
Had to clear CMOS. Not going through that again. 

Anyway I need to keep increasing vcore and its already 83 degrees F in my room, and 1.250v just gave an L0 error also.
Going to mess around with lowering cache ratio to 43 and some other things.

I think you are way oversimplifying things. I've tested this stuff almost every week for literally a -year- on my 9900k, and dealing with L0s and hyperthreded cores isn't as easy as you think. It's very very messy.
On my i9 9900k for example, I found a great way to test your IMC without AVX. I found that at 5 ghz core, 4.7 cache on that system, if my IO and SA were set wrong, I would get (Guess it...) Cpu cache L0 errors on the 112k-112k AVX Disabled in-place FFT Prime95 test! Or the threads would crash randomly (no particular cores either, like the expected "weakest" core failing!), or a BSOD. But 12k-20K in place with AVX disabled ran perfectly. 

What was the smoking gun for me was, I had Voltage set to 1.270v in BIOS, LLC Turbo (=LLC6) and got these random errors on 112k avx disabled.
So i raised vcore slowly...and I went up to 1.290v ((!!!!)) and they were still happening at 112k avx disabled in-place FFT! I had to set it at 1.295v (a huge vcore increase!) to stop them.

So...I started experimenting more. 

When i set VCCIO to 1.20v and VCCSA to 1.25v: 100% stable on 112k-112k at 1.270v set in BIOS, and LLC equal to your LLC6! I was able to drop the vcore so much just by doing that. Of course AVX enabled small FFT was unstable but thats not the point here. 

Even with these locked in settings, I had found my vmins for testing Realbench 2.56 at 5.1 ghz core, 4.7 cache on my 9900k. Temp dependent of course (BIG TIME), but if I went below 1.320v Bios set with LLC6......guess what? L0 errors randomly usually after 30 minutes (the core had to heat up first).

Yes disabling XMP is a good idea but I really don't want to throw my whole day away with all this mess. I have other things I want to do. Like, you know...video games? Chatting with my friends on discord?

There are a few things I'll try.


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

Falkentyne said:


> FYI I got an L0 error at 12 minutes in at 1.245v Bios set LLC6 @ 300 khz. Testing 1.250v LLC6 @ 800 khz now (my usual settings).
> 
> Ok...well....
> When I have hyperthreading enabled, and this applies to BOTH my i9 9900k on Z390 Aorus Master and my 10900k, I tend to get CPU Cache L0 errors before I get actual program crashes. I noticed this originally in Realbench 2.56 over a year ago. Too low vcore=CPU Cache L0 error at 51/47, but Realbench never ever reported instability. Same thing with Cinebench R20 (especially when doing higher frequency tests, like when over 80C).
> 
> Then i disabled hyperthreading and dropped the vcore lower (like 30mv or something). This time no L0 errors (L0 errors have to do with the virtualized instruction register store---used for hyperthreaded cores), but now I got the expected Clock watchdog timeout BSOD (frozen cores crash) or WHEA Uncorrectable Error, stuff you expect.
> 
> 
> Some of those voltage rails don't exist on Z490.
> Core PLL Voltage isn't here or is controlled by something else (Note that "Internal PLL Voltage" is not the same thing, as this is part of the clipped sequence of "Internal core pll, internal gt pll, internal SA PLL, internal MC PLL, internal ring PLL", used for subzero stuff)
> 
> PLL Termination voltage controls standby voltage also.
> DMI voltage cannot be changed. Requires some pin shoved through the socket.
> 
> Last night, I changed PLL Termination to 1.3v, and then changed the "Tweaker's paradise" version of Standby Voltage also to 1.30v. Screwed around with minecraft.
> When I changed them back to Auto, I got "00". Retry and safe boot: 00
> Had to clear CMOS. Not going through that again.
> 
> Anyway I need to keep increasing vcore and its already 83 degrees F in my room, and 1.250v just gave an L0 error also.
> Going to mess around with lowering cache ratio to 43 and some other things.



Have you tried adding a tick or two of vdimm?


----------



## Falkentyne

XGS-Duplicity said:


> Have you tried adding a tick or two of vdimm?


I edited my last post. I'm at XMP settings. 3200 mhz 14-14-34, except at 1T and tightened subs. I'm not pushing RAM. And my RAM is at 1.40v already on purpose (only needs 1.35v. long story on that, was testing LinX residuals and gave my findings to Shamino).

Anyway @Robert1 ,XGS-Duplicity setting VCCIO to 1.05v and VCCSA to 1.10v allowed me to pass 20 minutes of Prime95 AVX1 small FFT without an L0 error at 1.250v. 1.10v IO and 1.15v SA gave an L0 error.

BTW I asked a former engineer about the "L0" cache and got this on Hardforum:
from Phasenoise



> The L0 cache is the virtualized register store which sits on the core. It allows each thread to think it is working directly upon real registers, but it isn't. In fact, nothing really does anymore - what the compiler spits out as "EAX" for example will end up just being an entry in this register bank like any other (except the CPU knows a thread called it EAX, so it can preserve logic of course).
> This is an extension and generalization of the register renaming concept. The CPU can reduce data shuffling by performing this indirection. It also makes HT possible, since two threads both think they have all the registers, but in reality they both just have indexes into the cache.
> And as you'd expect, HT basically doubles the work since two threads are feeding operands, and the procunits are more actively retiring instructions out of it.
> 
> The failure mechanism can differ because you're now placing additional work in this component, and it is a place where coherency checking is performed. Operational faults can be detected in this stage, but not necessarily as easily later. Uncaught computational problems drift downstream with the variety of effects you note.
> HT may also activate more coherency checking, since there is more bookkeeping to manage thread affinity. So - I'd speculate a combination of simply higher load in this stage coupled with possibly more checking enabled as well. This results in bit errors getting caught more consistently and directly reported as such.
> 
> Edit to clarify: This is speculation - I have zero inside knowledge on any of these chips.


----------



## robertr1

@Falkentyne take a screenshot of your turboV screen. We can see the voltages there. You can also adjust from there.


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

Falkentyne said:


> I edited my last post. I'm at XMP settings. 3200 mhz 14-14-34, except at 1T and tightened subs. I'm not pushing RAM. And my RAM is at 1.40v already on purpose (only needs 1.35v. long story on that, was testing LinX residuals and gave my findings to Shamino).
> 
> Anyway @*Robert1* ,XGS-Duplicity setting VCCIO to 1.05v and VCCSA to 1.10v allowed me to pass 20 minutes of Prime95 AVX1 small FFT without an L0 error at 1.250v. 1.10v IO and 1.15v SA gave an L0 error.
> 
> BTW I asked a former engineer about the "L0" cache and got this on Hardforum:
> from Phasenoise



What happens if you just try default xmp settings without changing to 1T?


----------



## Falkentyne

robertr1 said:


> @Falkentyne take a screenshot of your turboV screen. We can see the voltages there. You can also adjust from there.


I'll do this later. I'm on my laptop right now, in bed, still not feeling well. (I am disabled with a lot of back swelling also. I have to deal with these things for years). All this is really so much work for me. 
I'll get the turbov shot later for you ok? Anyway 1.250v LLC6 @ 1.05v VCCIO/ 1.10v VCCSA passed 23 minutes then I canceled. It's already 85F in my room (29-30C), temps are starting to cause very bad issues when you are at your absolute vmins!! Prime95 small FFT FMA3 (15K) @ 1.270v Bios set LLC6 just got to 97C in 6 minutes...I need to turn on an AC to continue this stuff and I'm in bed on my laptop.....


----------



## Falkentyne

XGS-Duplicity said:


> What happens if you just try default xmp settings without changing to 1T?


On the Aorus Master and 9900k, no difference when I did that at 3200 mhz. None.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Did you get any batch numbers... to your comparisons ?


----------



## jcde7ago

newls1 said:


> you are going to need a full custom water setup to maintain 5.2Ghz all core IMHO.


Simply not true, a 360mm AIO is fine for pretty much every 10900K @ 5.2Ghz all-core except for the worst of the worst chips unless someone is literally doing nothing but 24x7 benchmarking/stress tests...most people are just going to be gaming 99% of the time. 

My CPU is SP63 with a 5.2Ghz all-core stabiltiy @ 1.270v load in every benchmark/game i've thrown at it and it's in the low 50s C for the majority of games I play at 3440x1440 @ 144hz.


----------



## Falkentyne

robertr1 said:


> @Falkentyne take a screenshot of your turboV screen. We can see the voltages there. You can also adjust from there.


I disabled XMP and still got a quick L0 error at 1.230v LLC6. Ambients are too warm now (30C). Now I'm going to set my cache ratio from 47 to 43 and try again (1.230v LLC6).

I haven't forgotten about turboV. Going to do that when XMP is back on since timings are back at stock, XMP isnt the problem.


----------



## robertr1

Falkentyne said:


> I'll do this later. I'm on my laptop right now, in bed, still not feeling well. (I am disabled with a lot of back swelling also. I have to deal with these things for years). All this is really so much work for me.
> I'll get the turbov shot later for you ok? Anyway 1.250v LLC6 @ 1.05v VCCIO/ 1.10v VCCSA passed 23 minutes then I canceled. It's already 85F in my room (29-30C), temps are starting to cause very bad issues when you are at your absolute vmins!! Prime95 small FFT FMA3 (15K) @ 1.270v Bios set LLC6 just got to 97C in 6 minutes...I need to turn on an AC to continue this stuff and I'm in bed on my laptop.....


Health first man. This stuff is just a hobby after all. Yeah, ambients aren't fun to deal with so maybe late night/early morning would be best.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Did you get any batch numbers... to your comparisons ?


All the 10900Ks I've seen from the pre-order were X016D812 from Vietnam


----------



## ThrashZone

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> All the 10900Ks I've seen from the pre-order were X016D812 from Vietnam


Hi,
Thank you :thumb:
Mine is similar but ....E724


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Thank you :thumb:
> Mine is similar but ....E724


One thing I was wondering why those media bench chips were from China with "V" prefix.


----------



## Falkentyne

robertr1 said:


> @Falkentyne take a screenshot of your turboV screen. We can see the voltages there. You can also adjust from there.





ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Thank you :thumb:
> Mine is similar but ....E724


X016E731 here. Vietnam (Newegg Preorder). Note that that chip is in my Aorus Master, not the M12E.


----------



## ThrashZone

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> One thing I was wondering why those media bench chips were from China with "V" prefix.


Hi,
Maybe just shipping thing some tariff bouncing around didn't bother for samples only retail from VN


Falkentyne said:


> X016E731 here. Vietnam (Newegg Preorder). Note that that chip is in my Aorus Master, not the M12E.


Hi,
Wow we're pretty close on the egg chip mine was from micro center.
I'll have to double check the op on it's performance.


----------



## Falkentyne

robertr1 said:


> Health first man. This stuff is just a hobby after all. Yeah, ambients aren't fun to deal with so maybe late night/early morning would be best.


Ok here is Turbo Vcore. Back at 1.250v with XMP. 1.230v with XMP disabled and x43 cache lasted a few minutes then BSOD


----------



## newls1

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Maybe just shipping thing some tariff bouncing around didn't bother for samples only retail from VN
> 
> 
> Hi,
> Wow we're pretty close on the egg chip mine was from micro center.
> I'll have to double check the op on it's performance.


do you happen to live in the ATL area?


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

Just canceled my APEX XII order. Cannot stand the delay.


----------



## ThrashZone

newls1 said:


> do you happen to live in the ATL area?


Hi,
No Texas.


OLDFATSHEEP said:


> Just canceled my APEX XII order. Cannot stand the delay.


Hi,
Pretty much why I went with formula get it in one week 

Apex delay was stupid long plus got a few days longer in a few hours lol so they have no clue when it will be around 
Guess demand is high on amazon ?

Might add the top of the 10900k is nearly flat.


----------



## Falkentyne

robertr1 said:


> Health first man. This stuff is just a hobby after all. Yeah, ambients aren't fun to deal with so maybe late night/early morning would be best.


Ok I'm completely done testing. I think my last 3 weeks of testing this stuff is enough.

First, on the Maximus XII Extreme, I can't see any real difference between 1000 khz and 300 khz. In AIDA64 "Stress FPU" I already tested this at 1.170v LLC4 vs 1.175v LLC4. 1.175v LLC4 lasted 30 minutes on BOTH 1000 khz and 300 khz. 1.170v khz failed both, with 1000 khz failing in 8 minutes and 300 khz failing in 18 minutes. This is too 'margin of error' so for the purpose of this I can say that is a wash. If 300 khz is more stable vs 1000, the AIDA64 Stress FPU test I can say is 5mv at best.

Second: Prime95 5 ghz core, 4.7 cache. 1.250v bios set, LLC6...

While I did all my senseless ramblings, I completely forgot that I have TWO chips. The ES supplied with the board, and the retail Newegg one I bought, which is slightly worse quality (VIDS at 4.7-5.1 ghz at ACDC LL=0.01 mOhms are exactly 5mv below the ES chip, but 5.2 ghz is 20mv *above* the ES chip, which means that's where it falls off, and I can actually load and play Minecraft on the ES chip at 5.3 ghz, 4.9 cache, 1.380v Bios set + LLC7, while even 1.40v Bios set, LLC=Extreme (7)= Gigabyte gives CPU Cache L0 errors while loading minecraft.

Also I did a few tests yesterday on the retail chip (hooked up to the Aorus master at 5 ghz, 4.7 cache, 1.250v Bios set, LLC=Turbo--identical to the ES, except different RAM is used, and air cooling this time), and with NH-D15 + Thermalright TFX, temps stabilized at 95C at Prime95 small FFT AVX 15K-15K in place FFT. But on two 1 hour runs, one time the system BSOD's, and the second time---GUESS WHAT?

CPU Cache L0 error. I did 3 total runs--never did any threads crash. It was always L0 or BSOD at the borderline voltage point (i used 1.250v LLC6 (Turbo) on both since the VIDS on both chips are within 5mv of each other until x52 where the retail falls off).

I think that proves my point here. At least on THESE 10 core 20 thread chips, you are going to get a CPU Cache L0 error before your threads crash. Your threads will only crash if you were VERY unstable, usually insta-crash thread unstable, and you'll probably also get L0 errors there too.

Please note that all BSOD's "look" like RAM related BSOD's--- IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL, SYSTEM_SERVICE_EXCEPTION, KERNAL_SECURITY_TRAP_FAILURE, are the usual ones.
No CLOCK WATCHDOG TIMEOUT (0x101) or WHEA uncorrectable errors (0x124) unless your vcore is even lower than this.

The only way to do this sort of switching frequency test without the L0 cache involved like this is to completely disable hyperthreading

Anyway I put my time in. I'm done now.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Yeah that giga board didn't do too well with that chip did it
Hopefully mine will work better in the formula.


----------



## Talon2016

Both retail chips I got from Newegg and Newegg Business are X013F055 batch#. Identical. 

One is SP 103 and other is SP 86. The SP 103 is about 60 mV better. 

I have a third chip coming from OC UK that should be here on Friday.

Both running on Asus Maximus Hero XII. Pic with 1.2v BIOS and LLC5.


----------



## Falkentyne

Talon2016 said:


> Both retail chips I got from Newegg and Newegg Business are X013F055 batch#. Identical.
> 
> One is SP 103 and other is SP 86. The SP 103 is about 60 mV better.
> 
> I have a third chip coming from OC UK that should be here on Friday.
> 
> Both running on Asus Maximus Hero XII. Pic with 1.2v BIOS and LLC5.


Nice chip Talon! You're 'the guy from notebookreview right?


What does your 86 SP (the worst chip) chip take to do to do realbench 2.56 at 5 ghz, 4.7 cache and LLC5? (Bios voltage setting, please).


----------



## Talon2016

Falkentyne said:


> Nice chip Talon! You're 'the guy from notebookreview right?
> 
> 
> What does your 86 SP (the worst chip) chip take to do to do realbench 2.56 at 5 ghz, 4.7 cache and LLC5? (Bios voltage setting, please).


Yes I am. After I got my chip I let my brother have that other CPU (unopened lol) and he put it into his rig. I will have him run Realbench 2.56 soon and see what we can get him down to for at least a 30 minute run. After about 10 min temps seem to his max value as the AIO heats up and then remains stable for me. I'll probably do a longer overnight run eventually, but I've found if you can pass 30 min you are definitely in the ballpark of 24/7 stability. I am testing this new voltage in BFV now as that is also a pretty demanding test contrary to belief that games aren't a good stress test. BFV and BF1 are absolutely instability detectors.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Pretty much why I went with formula get it in one week
> 
> Apex delay was stupid long plus got a few days longer in a few hours lol so they have no clue when it will be around
> Guess demand is high on amazon ?
> 
> Might add the top of the 10900k is nearly flat.



My order was on Newegg. It has been 20 days and Newegg says they still haven't got any stock.

Just grabbed my Godlike, will test it tomorrow.


----------



## Falkentyne

Talon2016 said:


> Yes I am. After I got my chip I let my brother have that other CPU (unopened lol) and he put it into his rig. I will have him run Realbench 2.56 soon and see what we can get him down to for at least a 30 minute run. After about 10 min temps seem to his max value as the AIO heats up and then remains stable for me. I'll probably do a longer overnight run eventually, but I've found if you can pass 30 min you are definitely in the ballpark of 24/7 stability. I am testing this new voltage in BFV now as that is also a pretty demanding test contrary to belief that games aren't a good stress test. BFV and BF1 are absolutely instability detectors.


Another instability detector NO ONE knows about is joining the Hypixel Minecraft server and just afking (partially) in the lobby. Free "CPU Internal Parity Errors" for you, at voltages that would normally pass Realbench 2.56, Prime95 small FFT with AVX disabled (not avx enabled, that will always pass MC), Cinebench R20 looping and so on. You need to have HWinfo sensors only window open to see it (much easier if you have Rivatuner statistics server installed and use HWinfo's RTSS plugin, which is easy, just enable the WHEA to show up).

Found out the reason is because MC puts a 100% load on *ONE* CPU thread, creating a situation similar to Apex Legends at launch, before Oriostorm did a new code path, after I and a few others helped him (but he said these parity errors were some bug in Intel CPU's under a rare set of instruction circumstances, that somehow require a lot of voltage to not happen)

BTW my chip is SP 94, if you remember, and I seem to be able to pass RB 2.56 at 1.230v Bios set, LLC5, although I Just ran it at 1.225v Bios set LLC5 for 15 minutes with no problems, but that's the absolute LOWEST I can go. And you said your worse chip is 60mv worse than your best one? (How did you get that? The prediction value in BIOS between the two chps? Or did you run some other test on it?). So I set mine to 30mv higher than yours, since 86-->94-->103 is like in the middle, see?


----------



## SoldierRBT

Talon2016 said:


> Both retail chips I got from Newegg and Newegg Business are X013F055 batch#. Identical.
> 
> One is SP 103 and other is SP 86. The SP 103 is about 60 mV better.
> 
> I have a third chip coming from OC UK that should be here on Friday.
> 
> Both running on Asus Maximus Hero XII. Pic with 1.2v BIOS and LLC5.


Awesome chip. Have you tried 5.3GHz? 

I got my 10900K today but Newegg hasn’t shipped my Z490 Apex. I don’t know if I should cancel it and grab a Z490 Hero in Amazon...


----------



## SoldierRBT

Falkentyne said:


> Talon2016 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I am. After I got my chip I let my brother have that other CPU (unopened lol) and he put it into his rig. I will have him run Realbench 2.56 soon and see what we can get him down to for at least a 30 minute run. After about 10 min temps seem to his max value as the AIO heats up and then remains stable for me. I'll probably do a longer overnight run eventually, but I've found if you can pass 30 min you are definitely in the ballpark of 24/7 stability. I am testing this new voltage in BFV now as that is also a pretty demanding test contrary to belief that games aren't a good stress test. BFV and BF1 are absolutely instability detectors.
> 
> 
> 
> Another instability detector NO ONE knows about is joining the Hypixel Minecraft server and just afking (partially) in the lobby. Free "CPU Internal Parity Errors" for you, at voltages that would normally pass Realbench 2.56, Prime95 small FFT with AVX disabled (not avx enabled, that will always pass MC), Cinebench R20 looping and so on. You need to have HWinfo sensors only window open to see it (much easier if you have Rivatuner statistics server installed and use HWinfo's RTSS plugin, which is easy, just enable the WHEA to show up).
> 
> Found out the reason is because MC puts a 100% load on *ONE* CPU thread, creating a situation similar to Apex Legends at launch, before Oriostorm did a new code path, after I and a few others helped him (but he said these parity errors were some bug in Intel CPU's under a rare set of instruction circumstances, that somehow require a lot of voltage to not happen)
> 
> BTW my chip is SP 94, if you remember, and I seem to be able to pass RB 2.56 at 1.230v Bios set, LLC5, although I Just ran it at 1.225v Bios set LLC5 for 15 minutes with no problems, but that's the absolute LOWEST I can go. And you said your worse chip is 60mv worse than your best one? (How did you get that? The prediction value in BIOS between the two chps? Or did you run some other test on it?). So I set mine to 30mv higher than yours, since 86-->94-->103 is like in the middle, see?
Click to expand...

That’s interesting. I play Apex since day one and I’d always had WHEA errors when playing. I’m running 1.38v LLC5 stable in prime95 non-AVX small ffts, Realbench and Apex would still throw whea errors. I even tried 1.45v LLC5 and same thing. I believe after Season 4 the game felt much better and haven’t seen any whea errors since then.


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

SoldierRBT said:


> Awesome chip. Have you tried 5.3GHz?
> 
> I got my 10900K today but Newegg hasn’t shipped my Z490 Apex. I don’t know if I should cancel it and grab a Z490 Hero in Amazon...



z490 apex comes out june 5th on amazon last time i checked, maybe the date will be similar for newegg?


----------



## Falkentyne

SoldierRBT said:


> That’s interesting. I play Apex since day one and I’d always had WHEA errors when playing. I’m running 1.38v LLC5 stable in prime95 non-AVX small ffts, Realbench and Apex would still throw whea errors. I even tried 1.45v LLC5 and same thing. I believe after Season 4 the game felt much better and haven’t seen any whea errors since then.


If you get Internal Parity Errors in Apex Legends you really need more vcore. Avoiding Internal Parity Errors in Minecraft is harder (you need even MORE vcore) than in Apex, so if you still get them in Apex you need more voltage. You can also try a stronger LLC with slightly reduced idle voltage, Apex may like that. Once you reach a certain voltage point you won't get errors anymore.


----------



## D-EJ915

cstkl1 said:


> Guess gaming not your thing.
> Yes it does. Back in the day 8700k + msi (cant remember which mobo now but it was one below godlike) + gtx1080.. the flux cause inconsistent fps. Just leaving it offset zero.. issue was resolved. Was using offset -2.
> Game = overwatch fps fixed at 240. Custom setting.
> 
> Hci.. well i use consistent turnaround of 100% as indicator for long term stability as well. It was downclocking making each 100% runtime vary.
> 
> Sorry i dont like trump mantra. “ if u dont see it, it doesnt exist” . So its a no to msi.


I just looked around where people were talking about downclocks on forums like ROG and Gigabyte plus over on reddit I couldn't find anything that supported this being a bug but just normal behaviour for overwatch and people not knowing what games do or don't use what technologies since they don't advertise them or list them anywhere.

Sorry for continued off-topic but I wanted to see if this was an actual problem with msi boards or not.


----------



## SoldierRBT

Falkentyne said:


> If you get Internal Parity Errors in Apex Legends you really need more vcore. Avoiding Internal Parity Errors in Minecraft is harder (you need even MORE vcore) than in Apex, so if you still get them in Apex you need more voltage. You can also try a stronger LLC with slightly reduced idle voltage, Apex may like that. Once you reach a certain voltage point you won't get errors anymore.


Apex had serious issues like disconnects, stuttering, crashes to desktop, etc, and WHEA errors were the only thing that was killing me for almost a year. After season 4 update, I've never had a crash, disconnect or whea errors like before. I'm still running 5.3GHz 1.380v LLC5 no issues. I had a disconnect a few days a go playing ranked but started the game again and was back into the match.


----------



## cstkl1

D-EJ915 said:


> cstkl1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guess gaming not your thing.
> Yes it does. Back in the day 8700k + msi (cant remember which mobo now but it was one below godlike) + gtx1080.. the flux cause inconsistent fps. Just leaving it offset zero.. issue was resolved. Was using offset -2.
> Game = overwatch fps fixed at 240. Custom setting.
> 
> Hci.. well i use consistent turnaround of 100% as indicator for long term stability as well. It was downclocking making each 100% runtime vary.
> 
> Sorry i dont like trump mantra. â€œ if u dont see it, it doesnt existâ€ÂÂÂÂÂ . So its a no to msi.
> 
> 
> 
> I just looked around where people were talking about downclocks on forums like ROG and Gigabyte plus over on reddit I couldn't find anything that supported this being a bug but just normal behaviour for overwatch and people not knowing what games do or don't use what technologies since they don't advertise them or list them anywhere.
> 
> Sorry for continued off-topic but I wanted to see if this was an actual problem with msi boards or not.
Click to expand...

Np. Alot of ppl dont check or dont know. 
And most ppl dont use hci. 
That was the true indicator. Even called the owner of the site just to confirm. 
Msi FAE said its not a problem. They followed as per intel spec. Since falken said he saw the samething on giga.. maybe its more asus did something out of spec. You know cause they have to be incredible and such. 

Btw did u even google.. i search “msi avx offset” the first hit was this
https://www.google.com.my/amp/s/amp...si_z390_carbon_avx_offset_applying_to_nonavx/

https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/the-avx-offset-problem.428855/

Alot of ppl have the avx bug.. 

Oh yeah you can even see it in desktop. It will downclock to avx speed. 

Some ppl there are confused with cstate with asus.

Btw i apologize if i sound cranky/edgy. Not having a board and cpu atm kindda pushingbmy sanity.


----------



## D-EJ915

cstkl1 said:


> Np. Alot of ppl dont check or dont know.
> And most ppl dont use hci.
> That was the true indicator. Even called the owner of the site just to confirm.
> Msi FAE said its not a problem. They followed as per intel spec. Since falken said he saw the samething on giga.. maybe its more asus did something out of spec. You know cause they have to be incredible and such.
> 
> Btw did u even google.. i search “msi avx offset” the first hit was this
> https://www.google.com.my/amp/s/amp...si_z390_carbon_avx_offset_applying_to_nonavx/
> 
> https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/the-avx-offset-problem.428855/
> 
> Alot of ppl have the avx bug..
> 
> Oh yeah you can even see it in desktop. It will downclock to avx speed.
> 
> Some ppl there are confused with cstate with asus.
> 
> Btw i apologize if i sound cranky/edgy. Not having a board and cpu atm kindda pushingbmy sanity.


I actually tested this just now on my 9700k and z390 godlike and had 0 issues. I installed overwatch on it just to test. I ran windowed and fullscreen 1080p and 4k and it showed in hwinfo64 that it downclocked to 50x from 52x with no stuttering or frame drops so it is working as intended. There is no bug this is just how it works and proves the point that people have no idea what they are talking about, your first post even is an example where all of the replies are people saying so much. I really wanted to believe you but this is just total crap.

edit: even installing battle.net while copying overwatch files is clocking down on apex from 52 to 50 lol. There is no problem.


----------



## Falkentyne

D-EJ915 said:


> I actually tested this just now on my 9700k and z390 godlike and had 0 issues. I installed overwatch on it just to test. I ran windowed and fullscreen 1080p and 4k and it showed in hwinfo64 that it downclocked to 50x from 52x with no stuttering or frame drops so it is working as intended. There is no bug this is just how it works and proves the point that people have no idea what they are talking about, your first post even is an example where all of the replies are people saying so much.


Do YOU know what you're talking about?
Overwatch does *NOT* use AVX instructions. Neither does Apex Legends. Just for your information. I know because I'm one of the people who helped the Respawn programmer fix the Internal Parity Error bugs on skylake arch (incl 9900k at the time) in Apex Legends (check out the patch notes from last March or April 2019...my name's on the patch notes), that was making the game crash on so many people's systems, even stock systems, and he said he does NOT use AVX in this game. Yet it still triggers an AVX downclock, and he theorized that because AVX is an extension of SSE2, it's possible something (else) that is installed causes the system to downclock. 

And was Speed Shift enabled or disabled?


----------



## cstkl1

D-EJ915 said:


> cstkl1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Np. Alot of ppl dont check or dont know.
> And most ppl dont use hci.
> That was the true indicator. Even called the owner of the site just to confirm.
> Msi FAE said its not a problem. They followed as per intel spec. Since falken said he saw the samething on giga.. maybe its more asus did something out of spec. You know cause they have to be incredible and such.
> 
> Btw did u even google.. i search â€œmsi avx offsetâ€Â the first hit was this
> https://www.google.com.my/amp/s/amp...si_z390_carbon_avx_offset_applying_to_nonavx/
> 
> https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/the-avx-offset-problem.428855/
> 
> Alot of ppl have the avx bug..
> 
> Oh yeah you can even see it in desktop. It will downclock to avx speed.
> 
> Some ppl there are confused with cstate with asus.
> 
> Btw i apologize if i sound cranky/edgy. Not having a board and cpu atm kindda pushingbmy sanity.
> 
> 
> 
> I actually tested this just now on my 9700k and z390 godlike and had 0 issues. I installed overwatch on it just to test. I ran windowed and fullscreen 1080p and 4k and it showed in hwinfo64 that it downclocked to 50x from 52x with no stuttering or frame drops so it is working as intended. There is no bug this is just how it works and proves the point that people have no idea what they are talking about, your first post even is an example where all of the replies are people saying so much.
Click to expand...

True true. I overclock 8700k to 8ghz and it downclock to 7.8. It made 10900k look stupid. 

Atleast now you noticed the downclock does occur but enforcing the narrative it doesnt matter because its only from 5.2 to 5ghz. 

Dude I am not gonna waste time with ya cause all i can tell you my friend and i became a master/gm because of equipment. ( got the ping down to 10ms (custom vpn to an azure server.. even made sure we had the same ip umbrella to the BRAS). gsync monitor, 240fps custom setting @1440p) all to make sure our timings for input lag is consistent. This was with a 8700k on hero and 8700k ok msi. 

Betcha if i said killer nic cause packet losses once in awhile which cause ping spike.. you are gonna start overwatch play a session and tell me it doesnt bother you = hence non issue.

Whats funny. Alot of ppl in the world think overwatch uses avx because their board downclock.


----------



## D-EJ915

Falkentyne said:


> Do YOU know what you're talking about?
> Overwatch does *NOT* use AVX instructions. Neither does Apex Legends. Just for your information. I know because I'm one of the people who helped the Respawn programmer fix the Internal Parity Error bugs on skylake arch (incl 9900k at the time) in Apex Legends (check out the patch notes from last March or April 2019...my name's on the patch notes), that was making the game crash on so many people's systems, even stock systems, and he said he does NOT use AVX in this game. Yet it still triggers an AVX downclock, and he theorized that because AVX is an extension of SSE2, it's possible something (else) that is installed causes the system to downclock.
> 
> And was Speed Shift enabled or disabled?


I have no idea I am not a blizzard programmer. This guy is saying that it is a MSI bug but clearly it's not. Tested on Apex XI 1502 latest bios does the same thing, start overwatch cpu shows 50x, play game, 50x. speed shift set off in both systems, 2 different system loads. I've got a modded Apex IX I can test too if you have doubts lol.



cstkl1 said:


> True true. I overclock 8700k to 8ghz and it downclock to 7.8. It made 10900k look stupid.
> 
> Atleast now you noticed the downclock does occur but enforcing the narrative it doesnt matter because its only from 5.2 to 5ghz.


You said this is an MSI bug when it's not it has nothing to do with MSI.


----------



## cstkl1

Falkentyne said:


> D-EJ915 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I actually tested this just now on my 9700k and z390 godlike and had 0 issues. I installed overwatch on it just to test. I ran windowed and fullscreen 1080p and 4k and it showed in hwinfo64 that it downclocked to 50x from 52x with no stuttering or frame drops so it is working as intended. There is no bug this is just how it works and proves the point that people have no idea what they are talking about, your first post even is an example where all of the replies are people saying so much.
> 
> 
> 
> Do YOU know what you're talking about?
> Overwatch does *NOT* use AVX instructions. Neither does Apex Legends. Just for your information. I know because I'm one of the people who helped the Respawn programmer fix the Internal Parity Error bugs on skylake arch (incl 9900k at the time) in Apex Legends (check out the patch notes from last March or April 2019...my name's on the patch notes), that was making the game crash on so many people's systems, even stock systems, and he said he does NOT use AVX in this game. Yet it still triggers an AVX downclock, and he theorized that because AVX is an extension of SSE2, it's possible something (else) that is installed causes the system to downclock.
> 
> And was Speed Shift enabled or disabled?
Click to expand...

Bro that dude first started the reply
Msi had no such bug
Then made a caveat if there is ppl are too anal with hwinfo etc
Then change to it has no affect.. because [email protected] no issue. 
Curious whats his next defensive reply. 

Its not flux consistently as well. Its going up down up down like my kids who just ran out of the house the playground see-saw.


----------



## cstkl1

D-EJ915 said:


> Falkentyne said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do YOU know what you're talking about?
> Overwatch does *NOT* use AVX instructions. Neither does Apex Legends. Just for your information. I know because I'm one of the people who helped the Respawn programmer fix the Internal Parity Error bugs on skylake arch (incl 9900k at the time) in Apex Legends (check out the patch notes from last March or April 2019...my name's on the patch notes), that was making the game crash on so many people's systems, even stock systems, and he said he does NOT use AVX in this game. Yet it still triggers an AVX downclock, and he theorized that because AVX is an extension of SSE2, it's possible something (else) that is installed causes the system to downclock.
> 
> And was Speed Shift enabled or disabled?
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea I am not a blizzard programmer and you said you aren't either so how do you know? The guy is saying that it is a bug but clearly it's not. Tested on Apex XI 1502 latest bios does the same thing, start overwatch cpu shows 50x, play game, 50x. speed shift set off in both systems, 2 different system loads.
Click to expand...

Hero x, strix x299, rampage omega. 

8700k,7820x and 9900x no issue. Gpu were
Titan X maxwell sli, asus strix 1080ti, asus 1080ti poseidon, 

The game engine might have been updated. Told ya 2 years + ago. 1st or 2nd season. No avx. 


Just run hci. Simple.

Edit just checked my conversation with hci. 1st october 2017.


----------



## Falkentyne

cstkl1 said:


> Hero x, strix x299, rampage omega.
> 
> 8700k,7820x and 9900x no issue. Gpu were
> Titan X maxwell sli, asus strix 1080ti, asus 1080ti poseidon, asus strix 2080ti, msi 2080ti trio.


Um...I was replying to that one guy, not to you 
But you quoted me...i wasn't attacking you. I was defending you.


----------



## D-EJ915

Falkentyne said:


> Um...I was replying to that one guy, not to you
> But you quoted me...i wasn't attacking you. I was defending you.


No defending anybody here man, I'm just testing because I've never heard of this "MSI AVX bug" before. It does the same thing on my Asus board so I'm not sure how it is an MSI bug.



cstkl1 said:


> Hero x, strix x299, rampage omega.
> 
> 8700k,7820x and 9900x no issue. Gpu were
> Titan X maxwell sli, asus strix 1080ti, asus 1080ti poseidon,
> 
> The game engine might have might have updated. Told ya 2 years + ago. 1st or 2nd season. No avx.
> 
> Just run hci. Simple.


I imagine it's been updated a lot. Doesn't seem to be an MSI specific bug though which is what I was questioning.


----------



## cstkl1

D-EJ915 said:


> Falkentyne said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um...I was replying to that one guy, not to you /forum/images/smilies/frown.gif
> But you quoted me...i wasn't attacking you. I was defending you.
> 
> 
> 
> No defending anybody here man, I'm just testing because I've never heard of this "MSI AVX bug" before. It does the same thing on my Asus board so I'm not sure how it is an MSI bug.
> 
> 
> 
> cstkl1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hero x, strix x299, rampage omega.
> 
> 8700k,7820x and 9900x no issue. Gpu were
> Titan X maxwell sli, asus strix 1080ti, asus 1080ti poseidon,
> 
> The game engine might have might have updated. Told ya 2 years + ago. 1st or 2nd season. No avx.
> 
> Just run hci. Simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I imagine it's been updated a lot. Doesn't seem to be an MSI specific bug though which is what I was questioning.
Click to expand...

Hci. Just run it.


----------



## cstkl1

Falkentyne said:


> cstkl1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hero x, strix x299, rampage omega.
> 
> 8700k,7820x and 9900x no issue. Gpu were
> Titan X maxwell sli, asus strix 1080ti, asus 1080ti poseidon, asus strix 2080ti, msi 2080ti trio.
> 
> 
> 
> Um...I was replying to that one guy, not to you /forum/images/smilies/frown.gif
> But you quoted me...i wasn't attacking you. I was defending you.
Click to expand...

Sorry i know. The mobile version of ocn.. in ios is super buggy. Sorry.


----------



## D-EJ915

cstkl1 said:


> Hci. Just run it.


For giggles I pulled out the old "nobody should buy this":

i7740x and EVGA X299 dark 1.23 bios with my HEDT load on it.

52x mult with -2 offset.

Same thing goes to 50x while playing which seals it this is not an MSI bug at all.


----------



## cstkl1

D-EJ915 said:


> cstkl1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hci. Just run it.
> 
> 
> 
> For giggles I pulled out the old "nobody should buy this"
> 
> 7740x and EVGA X299 dark.
> 
> 52x mult with -2 offset.
> 
> Same thing goes to 50x while playing. This is not an MSI bug at all, that's total crap lol.
Click to expand...

on hci?? 
nobody said its ONLY on msi. 

falken stated he has seen it on gigabyte. 
i stated i tested in on z370 msi and another friend on z390 msi said its still there.

if thats the case aint gonna buy evga. what else you got??


----------



## D-EJ915

cstkl1 said:


> on hci??
> nobody said its ONLY on msi.
> 
> falken stated he has seen it on gigabyte.
> i stated i tested in on z370 msi and another friend on z390 msi said its still there.
> 
> if thats the case aint gonna buy evga. what else you got??


You were the one that said MSI motherboards had an AVX offset bug? So Falken says Gigabyte has it, well I tested and Asus and EVGA have it too doesn't seem like a bug to me, seems like intended behaviour. I can slap this 7740x in my Asrock OCF or Apex 6 and see if it does it there too lol, only brand I don't have boards for is gigabyte and I guess supermicro or biostar but nobody uses those.



cstkl1 said:


> errr msi always has that quirk with avx





cstkl1 said:


> If u decided to use avx offset.. it flux in few things that has no avx instruction..
> Hci memtest, overwatch etc.
> This happen in 8700k and according to my friend in his 9900k as well. A z270/390 board.
> So abit skeptical.
> 
> Also it has some amazing things. The ability to throttle cpu to boot into windows for high cpu clock
> 
> https://youtu.be/RuSHwZkTO0I


----------



## cstkl1

D-EJ915 said:


> cstkl1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> on hci??
> nobody said its ONLY on msi.
> 
> falken stated he has seen it on gigabyte.
> i stated i tested in on z370 msi and another friend on z390 msi said its still there.
> 
> if thats the case aint gonna buy evga. what else you got??
> 
> 
> 
> You were the one that said MSI motherboards had an AVX offset bug? So Falken says Gigabyte has it, well I tested and Asus and EVGA have it too doesn't seem like a bug to me, seems like intended behaviour.
> 
> 
> 
> cstkl1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> errr msi always has that quirk with avx
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cstkl1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If u decided to use avx offset.. it flux in few things that has no avx instruction..
> Hci memtest, overwatch etc.
> This happen in 8700k and according to my friend in his 9900k as well. A z270/390 board.
> So abit skeptical.
> 
> Also it has some amazing things. The ability to throttle cpu to boot into windows for high cpu clock
> 
> https://youtu.be/RuSHwZkTO0I
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

you are changing the narrative to suit your arguement. i said a bug i noticed in msi which my friend z390 also has. also stated msi fae said its as per intel spec. it doesnt happen on my z370 hero 8700k @5.1ghz offset 2. 

dude you tested overwatch. thats about it. 

hci?? 
desktop idle??
heck csgo (based on some ppl saying it does)


----------



## D-EJ915

cstkl1 said:


> you are changing the narrative to suit your arguement. i said a bug i noticed in msi which my friend z390 also has. also stated msi fae said its as per intel spec. it doesnt happen on my z370 hero 8700k @5.1ghz offset 2.
> 
> dude you tested overwatch. thats about it.
> 
> hci??
> desktop idle??
> heck csgo (based on some ppl saying it does)


I quoted your posts, the guy said he was thinking of buying MSI and you said MSI has AVX quirk, not that it is generic quirk for this platform lol so you are the one changing your story. Generic quirk is fine and is proven but has nothing to do with MSI or Gigabyte or Asus or EVGA. 

End result is buy what board you want, if you use AVX offset you'll see it take effect when you think it shouldn't.


----------



## Falkentyne

I've seen the AVX offset issue in non Avx games, applications and even clicking the windows start menu happen on:

MSI GT73VR laptop

Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Master.

I did not bother testing this on my Z490 Aorus Master (The lack of die sense vcore/VR VOUT and no current/amps monitoring, and no idea what each loadline calibration step is is infuriating me badly), or on the Maximus 12 extreme, but once I calm down from getting BSOD's all day because I didn't realize the Master is setting different LLC's than the M12E (except Ultra Extreme=LLC8), ill probably check.


----------



## cstkl1

D-EJ915 said:


> cstkl1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are changing the narrative to suit your arguement. i said a bug i noticed in msi which my friend z390 also has. also stated msi fae said its as per intel spec. it doesnt happen on my z370 hero 8700k @5.1ghz offset 2.
> 
> dude you tested overwatch. thats about it.
> 
> hci??
> desktop idle??
> heck csgo (based on some ppl saying it does)
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted your posts, the guy said he was thinking of buying MSI and you said MSI has AVX quirk, not that it is generic quirk for this platform lol. Generic quirk is fine and is proven but has nothing to do with MSI or Gigabyte or Asus or EVGA.
Click to expand...

the exact reply to him was.. he was talking ass about msi unify vs asus formula. 
i stated msi has some magic . and if it wasnt for the avx bug i noticed in z370 and my friends z390.. would havd bought msi ace z490 since is dirt cheap here. 

for some odd reason you opted the most tedius way is by downloading overwatch .. booting up the game and playing the game 

when hci is easy. 
literally the easiest screenshot or even doing a desktop video with 1min prime avx and hci few minutes is way easier...and requires credibility i trust you had offset enabled. but i will cause doubt this is a fight of ego. just seeking truth. 

but you kept opting to overwatch for some odd reason. 

asus does not have this bug. 
put aside overwatch for the moment and lets concentrate on hci for the moment.

z370 hero, x299 strix, x299 rampage omega.


----------



## D-EJ915

cstkl1 said:


> the exact reply to him was.. he was talking ass about msi unify vs asus formula.
> i stated msi has some magic . and if it wasnt for the avx bug i noticed in z370 and my friends z390.. would havd bought msi ace z490 since is dirt cheap here.
> 
> for some odd reason you opted the most tedius way is by downloading overwatch .. booting up the game and playing the game
> 
> when hci is easy.
> literally the easiest screenshot or even doing a desktop video with 1min prime avx and hci few minutes is way easier...and requires credibility i trust you had offset enabled. but i will cause doubt this is a fight of ego. just seeking truth.
> 
> but you kept opting to overwatch for some odd reason.
> 
> asus does not have this bug.
> put aside overwatch for the moment and lets concentrate on hci for the moment.
> 
> z370 hero, x299 strix, x299 rampage omega.


I already had overwatch installed, it's all good man was just a misunderstanding. I actually spent like 20 minutes earlier today reading forums about overwatch and avx because I was curious lol.


----------



## cstkl1

Falkentyne said:


> I've seen the AVX offset issue in non Avx games, applications and even clicking the windows start menu happen on:
> 
> MSI GT73VR laptop
> 
> Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Master.
> 
> I did not bother testing this on my Z490 Aorus Master (The lack of die sense vcore/VR VOUT and no current/amps monitoring, and no idea what each loadline calibration step is is infuriating me badly), or on the Maximus 12 extreme, but once I calm down from getting BSOD's all day because I didn't realize the Master is setting different LLC's than the M12E (except Ultra Extreme=LLC8), ill probably check.


i too will get to the bottom of this and show him side by side. once my cpu and mobo comes will go to the shop grab an msi and run hci. so far no msi board arrived. only strix & hero.


----------



## D-EJ915

cstkl1 said:


> i too will get to the bottom of this and show him side by side. once my cpu and mobo comes will go to the shop grab an msi and run hci. so far no msi board arrived. only strix & hero.


Nice, would be interesting to see if issue still persists or not.


----------



## cstkl1

D-EJ915 said:


> cstkl1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> i too will get to the bottom of this and show him side by side. once my cpu and mobo comes will go to the shop grab an msi and run hci. so far no msi board arrived. only strix & hero.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice, would be interesting to see if issue still persists or not.
Click to expand...

the other reason y i call it a bug cause of its behavior. 

it down-clocks on flux
it sometimes even down-clocks only on few cores at a time flux at 100% load in hci.. its like watching a wave effect.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

cstkl1 said:


> i too will get to the bottom of this and show him side by side. once my cpu and mobo comes will go to the shop grab an msi and run hci. so far no msi board arrived. only strix & hero.


I just tested my GENG XI with an avx offset=2. Sometimes it also downclocked to avx when idle on desktop. I checked the task manager, when it came to avx, most of the time dwm.exe or ntoskrnl.exe popped up on the top. I guess some of the system softwares use AVX? Maybe its better to use another non-avx OS to test but I don't have one at hand.


----------



## cstkl1

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> cstkl1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> i too will get to the bottom of this and show him side by side. once my cpu and mobo comes will go to the shop grab an msi and run hci. so far no msi board arrived. only strix & hero.
> 
> 
> 
> I just tested my GENG XI with an avx offset=2. Sometimes it also downclocked to avx when idle on desktop. I checked the task manager, when it came to avx, most of the time dwm.exe or ntoskrnl.exe popped up on the top. I guess some of the system softwares use AVX? Maybe its better to use another non-avx OS to test but I don't have one at hand.
Click to expand...

Lets just make this simple
Lets use what everybody should have

Hci memtest

Use 6.0 and above. 7.0 pro doesnt seem to work with dang wang but way faster in loading. 

Man you guys are working up my OCD. Close to losing my mind here. No board. No cpu. Just sold everything.


----------



## hemon

To all of you: can you post please your OC settings? I mean for example Ghz, bios and load voltage, LLC and if on air, aio or water and temps.

This could help to understand where is the potential of the cpu. Thanks!


----------



## newls1

Not sure if this falls into the same catagory as this "argument" is going in, but if I set an avx offset in the bios of my formulaXII even tho all cores are told to run at 52x and i apply a -1 avx offset, as soon as i get into windows, cpu is running @ 5.1 NOT 5.2. Is this what you all are talking about?


----------



## cstkl1

newls1 said:


> Not sure if this falls into the same catagory as this "argument" is going in, but if I set an avx offset in the bios of my formulaXII even tho all cores are told to run at 52x and i apply a -1 avx offset, as soon as i get into windows, cpu is running @ 5.1 NOT 5.2. Is this what you all are talking about?


no. its about programs/games that has no avx.. but theres a weird throttle flux.. ( not on all cores).. example try hci. asus will hold. benching softwares generally u wont see this. cause they tend to be strict since theres scoring at the end.


----------



## ThrashZone

hemon said:


> To all of you: can you post please your OC settings? I mean for example Ghz, bios and load voltage, LLC and if on air, aio or water and temps.
> 
> This could help to understand where is the potential of the cpu. Thanks!


Hi,
Three ways to fry and egg


----------



## aerotracks

Joining the club with 10900k on Z490 Gaming Plus from MSI


----------



## newls1

great chip you have there


----------



## Carillo

Testing my first 10900K chip. Sp 63, paired with a Maximus Formula( receiving my Apex tomorrow) Only 15 degree watertemp, but still not bad for a SP63 chip


----------



## Talon2016

Great results from you guys! 5.5Ghz, wow! That is insane! These chips are pretty incredible. 

How did you get 5.5Ghz to boot? I can't seem to get it to boot even with a single core selected to 5.5Ghz, yet does 5.4Ghz no issue with lowish voltage. I get post code 00 if I try 5.5Ghz.

On Asus Hero


----------



## SoldierRBT

Carillo said:


> Testing my first 10900K chip. Sp 63, paired with a Maximus Formula( receiving my Apex tomorrow) Only 15 degree watertemp, but still not bad for a SP63 chip


You receiving the Z490 Apex tomorrow? Where did you purchase it? My Newegg order hasn't even ship. I already have 2 10900K without motherboard


----------



## Esenel

Carillo said:


> Testing my first 10900K chip. Sp 63, paired with a Maximus Formula( receiving my Apex tomorrow) Only 15 degree watertemp, but still not bad for a SP63 chip


Did you test these settings in Prime 29.8 small FFT nonAVX or just CB15?


----------



## Carillo

Talon2016 said:


> Great results from you guys! 5.5Ghz, wow! That is insane! These chips are pretty incredible.
> 
> How did you get 5.5Ghz to boot? I can't seem to get it to boot even with a single core selected to 5.5Ghz, yet does 5.4Ghz no issue with lowish voltage. I get post code 00 if I try 5.5Ghz.
> 
> On Asus Hero


You have to enter Tweakers Paradise, and set CPU PLL to 0.9 to be able to boot 5,5. Do that, and it will boot


----------



## Nizzen

My 10900k @ Asus Formula
1.27v @ 5300mhz Ek watercooling

SP 83

second 10900k is SP 63.

Looks like they are pretty much equal in core overclocking.

Haven't tried memory OC.

Asus Z490 xii Apex arriving tomorow


----------



## Carillo

SoldierRBT said:


> You receiving the Z490 Apex tomorrow? Where did you purchase it? My Newegg order hasn't even ship. I already have 2 10900K without motherboard


Yes, we got 3 boards from a contact in Taiwan via Danmark. The last 3 avalible it seems


----------



## Falkentyne

aerotracks said:


> Joining the club with 10900k on Z490 Gaming Plus from MSI


Please update your CPU-Z so it read Vcore instead of VID.
Also make sure in your MSI you set voltage to "VCC_Sense" not socket sense.
Also, your idle voltage isnt important. Can you show your vcore readout during full load?
If the newest CPU-Z wont show "CPU Voltage" properly, use Hwinfo64.

Thank you.



Talon2016 said:


> Great results from you guys! 5.5Ghz, wow! That is insane! These chips are pretty incredible.
> 
> How did you get 5.5Ghz to boot? I can't seem to get it to boot even with a single core selected to 5.5Ghz, yet does 5.4Ghz no issue with lowish voltage. I get post code 00 if I try 5.5Ghz.
> 
> On Asus Hero


Change Internal PLL Voltage to 0.9v, from auto.


----------



## aerotracks

Falkentyne said:


> Please update your CPU-Z so it read Vcore instead of VID.
> Also make sure in your MSI you set voltage to "VCC_Sense" not socket sense.
> Also, your idle voltage isnt important. Can you show your vcore readout during full load?
> If the newest CPU-Z wont show "CPU Voltage" properly, use Hwinfo64.
> 
> Thank you.


Not sure what to make of this, the HWinfo64 shown in the screen is not the right HWinfo64? I will look into the newest version of CPU-Z.
I'm not able to find VCC_Sense in BIOS, are you sure the Z490 Gaming Plus has this option?

5200 needs 1.240V LLC1, 5300 1.290V LLC1.


----------



## Falkentyne

aerotracks said:


> Not sure what to make of this, the HWinfo64 shown in the screen is not the right HWinfo64? I will look into the newest version of CPU-Z.
> I'm not able to find VCC_Sense in BIOS, are you sure the Z490 Gaming Plus has this option?
> 
> 5200 needs 1.240V LLC1, 5300 1.290V LLC1.


Thank you for the bios settings.
Did you update your CPU-Z? You're not using the newest version.


----------



## ThrashZone

Nizzen said:


> My 10900k @ Asus Formula
> 1.27v @ 5300mhz Ek watercooling
> 
> SP 83
> 
> second 10900k is SP 63.
> 
> Looks like they are pretty much equal in core overclocking.
> 
> Haven't tried memory OC.
> 
> Asus Z490 xii Apex arriving tomorow


Hi,
Terrible quality screen shot but awesome score :thumb:

Really nice score there aerotracks :thumb:


----------



## aerotracks

Falkentyne said:


> Thank you for the bios settings.
> Did you update your CPU-Z? You're not using the newest version.


Yes I did, and it's confusing. CPU-Z most of the time reports about 10mV more than VIN2 and at a different granularity. The VIN2 Sensor in HWInfo64 clearly is a VCore readout, as it idles to 0.768V and then goes to proper load volts at stock defaults.

Edit: Figured it out. CPU-Z has 2mV granularity and HWInfo64 has 16mV granularity, but both sensors grab the same read point.



ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Really nice score there aerotracks :thumb:


Thank you!


----------



## Carillo

Esenel said:


> Did you test these settings in Prime 29.8 small FFT nonAVX or just CB15?


Only quick and dirty testing. Will be swapping motherboard tomorrow, and i also have more cpus to bin. When i have found the best IMC, i will start stresstesting.


----------



## Esenel

Carillo said:


> Only quick and dirty testing. Will be swapping motherboard tomorrow, and i also have more cpus to bin. When i have found the best IMC, i will start stresstesting.


Ah I see.

For me the Daisy Chain boards seem to be the limitation.
But 4133 is now doable after some new bios versions from shamino.

But I am also wating for two further CPUs.
Let's see how long :-D


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

Just tried my new MB today. All core 5100MHz @1.28V MSI LLC4, NB Clock 4800MHz. Seems to be a lame chip...

Mem 4600MHz 17-17-17-35 @1.58V IO=1.35V SA=1.4V


----------



## 86Jarrod

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> Just tried my new MB today. All core 5100MHz @1.28V MSI LLC4, NB Clock 4800MHz. Seems to be a lame chip...
> 
> Mem 4600MHz 17-17-17-35 @1.58V IO=1.35V SA=1.4V


2 or 4 dimm?


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

86Jarrod said:


> 2 or 4 dimm?


its 2 DIMM


----------



## 86Jarrod

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> its 2 DIMM


Nice timings! I can't get my quad past 4000 on the hero. I have a max extreme coming next thurs to see if it clocks any diff.


----------



## hemon

aerotracks said:


> Not sure what to make of this, the HWinfo64 shown in the screen is not the right HWinfo64? I will look into the newest version of CPU-Z.
> I'm not able to find VCC_Sense in BIOS, are you sure the Z490 Gaming Plus has this option?
> 
> 5200 needs 1.240V LLC1, 5300 1.290V LLC1.


Thank you for posting this!

Do you men 1.240V load or bios setting? Fixed or adaptive voltage? 5200 on all the cores, right?


----------



## Esenel

86Jarrod said:


> OLDFATSHEEP said:
> 
> 
> 
> its 2 DIMM
> 
> 
> 
> Nice timings! I can't get my quad past 4000 on the hero. I have a max extreme coming next thurs to see if it clocks any diff.
Click to expand...

4DIMM 4133 on the Formula.
Not fully tuned yet.

A lot SA needed.
My guess is due to Daisy Chain.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

86Jarrod said:


> Nice timings! I can't get my quad past 4000 on the hero. I have a max extreme coming next thurs to see if it clocks any diff.


They are also having a hard timing tweaking the Extreme XII, very poor ram OC.

I think all of the venders are still working on the BIOS now.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

Esenel said:


> 4DIMM 4133 on the Formula.
> Not fully tuned yet.
> 
> A lot SA needed.
> My guess is due to Daisy Chain.


how's the SA?


----------



## Esenel

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> Esenel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4DIMM 4133 on the Formula.
> Not fully tuned yet.
> 
> A lot SA needed.
> My guess is due to Daisy Chain.
> 
> 
> 
> how's the SA?
Click to expand...

I did not test the minimum yet.
But SA is 1.345V at the moment.
IO 1.340V.
VDIMM 1.475V.
That is how it passes GSAT.

I know that this kit can do sharper timings on 4133 with the M11H with 1.40VDIMM and 1.261V IO/SA.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

Esenel said:


> I did not test the minimum yet.
> But SA is 1.345V at the moment.
> IO 1.340V.
> VDIMM 1.475V.
> That is how it passes GSAT.
> 
> I know that this kit can do sharper timings on 4133 with the M11H with 1.40VDIMM and 1.261V IO/SA.


That's completely mild... for XMP 4800 those vendors even apply 1.6V on SA.


----------



## aerotracks

hemon said:


> Thank you for posting this!
> 
> Do you men 1.240V load or bios setting? Fixed or adaptive voltage? 5200 on all the cores, right?


BIOS Setting, but with LLC1 load volts should be fairly close to that as well.

I did some more testing at 5.3, that's where things get toasty


----------



## hemon

aerotracks said:


> BIOS Setting, but with LLC1 load volts should be fairly close to that as well.
> 
> I did some more testing at 5.3, that's where things get toasty


Sorry for the noob question: what is the difference between LLC1 and LLC4? I have LLC4 @1.340v for 5.0 and I should seit LLC7 @1.290v for 5.1v.


----------



## aerotracks

LLC1 has very little drop, LLC8 has the biggest drop. This is for MSI boards.

I use LLC1 to get an idea of frequency scaling with Cinebench. For daily use, I would recommend LLC4.


----------



## hemon

aerotracks said:


> LLC1 has very little drop, LLC8 has the biggest drop. This is for MSI boards.
> 
> I use LLC1 to get an idea of frequency scaling with Cinebench. For daily use, I would recommend LLC4.


Thank you for the reply! 

And what is better for durability as a 24h oc, LLC1 or LLC7?


----------



## aerotracks

Don't use LLC1 for daily OC.


----------



## ThrashZone

aerotracks said:


> LLC1 has very little drop, LLC8 has the biggest drop. This is for MSI boards.
> 
> I use LLC1 to get an idea of frequency scaling with Cinebench. For daily use, I would recommend LLC4.


Hi,
ASUS boards are opposite 
llc-8 is no vdroop 
llc-1 is a ton 
Think elmor used manual core/ cache 1.45v and llc-4 and got 1.27v under load at 5.3 just that is a ton of vdroop.


----------



## hemon

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> ASUS boards are opposite
> llc-8 is no vdroop
> llc-1 is a ton
> Think elmor used manual core/ cache 1.45v and llc-4 and got 1.27v under load at 5.3 just that is a ton of vdroop.


Thank you for noting this because actually I was reading the opposite.

So I should better use LLC7 instead of LLC4 for 24h OC, right? LLC4 is suggested from the MOBO for OC.


----------



## BlueEarth

hemon said:


> Thank you for noting this because actually I was reading the opposite.
> 
> So I should better use LLC7 instead of LLC4 for 24h OC, right? LLC4 is suggested from the MOBO for OC.


Use lowest LLC possible while keeping the voltage under your comfortable limit. For example I will choose 1.4 with LLC 3 than 1.3 with LLC7 (Asus board).


----------



## hemon

BlueEarth said:


> Use lowest LLC possible while keeping the voltage under your comfortable limit. For example I will choose 1.4 with LLC 3 than 1.3 with LLC7 (Asus board).


Can I ask you to explain this, please? Because I'm reading online that the LLC should be as low as possible for a 24h OC and for my ASUS is LLC7.


----------



## newls1

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> ASUS boards are opposite
> llc-8 is no vdroop
> llc-1 is a ton
> Think elmor used manual core/ cache 1.45v and llc-4 and got 1.27v under load at 5.3 just that is a ton of vdroop.


Im using the SVID of "trained" with LLC4 and get core VID of 1.408 and Vcore at load of 1.279v... so very similiar


----------



## BlueEarth

hemon said:


> Can I ask you to explain this, please? Because I'm reading online that the LLC should be as low as possible for a 24h OC and for my ASUS is LLC7.


For Asus LLC 1 is lowest LLC7 is highest. Hence I prefer LLC 3 even though voltage at 1.4v since I'm still comfortable with 1.4v than setting voltage at 1.3v only but requires LLC7.


----------



## ThrashZone

hemon said:


> Thank you for noting this because actually I was reading the opposite.
> 
> So I should better use LLC7 instead of LLC4 for 24h OC, right? LLC4 is suggested from the MOBO for OC.


Hi,
Yes llc-4 is pretty common llc to use 
At benchmarking i usually up it to llc-5 or 6 but everyday stuff llc-1 or 4 or just leave it on auto and let the board/ chip do it's thing just depends on how well the two work



newls1 said:


> Im using the SVID of "trained" with LLC4 and get core VID of 1.408 and Vcore at load of 1.279v... so very similiar


Hi,
Yeah only reason I can see elmor might use higher 1.45v is just to have extra otherwise watchdog bsod seeing he is using manual override instead of adaptive or offset ?

Very different from 9940x lol put 1.45v into that and better get a fire extinguisher ready :devil:


----------



## TK421

Falken says 9900K max safe amp is 193, what's for 10900K? 240A?


----------



## hemon

BlueEarth said:


> For Asus LLC 1 is lowest LLC7 is highest. Hence I prefer LLC 3 even though voltage at 1.4v since I'm still comfortable with 1.4v than setting voltage at 1.3v only but requires LLC7.


Wait, for ASUS "llc-8 is no vdroop, llc-1 is a ton" (see above). So LLC7 should be the lowest, and not the highest!?

So, again the question after tests: for a safe 24h OC should I use 1.34v LLC4 or 1.29v LLC6? The temps are the same.


----------



## ThrashZone

hemon said:


> Wait, for ASUS "llc-8 is no vdroop, llc-1 is a ton" (see above). So LLC7 should be the lowest, and not the highest!?
> 
> So, again the question after tests: for a safe 24h OC should I use 1.34v LLC4 or 1.29v LLC6? The temps are the same.


Hi,
Just keep in mind I come from hedt world where vdroop is on input voltage/ vccin and llc-6 = 0.030+- vdroop.


----------



## aerotracks

hemon said:


> Can I ask you to explain this, please? Because I'm reading online that the LLC should be as low as possible for a 24h OC and for my ASUS is LLC7.


That's why you should always mention the vendor. ASUS LLC levels are opposite of MSI.
On ASUS, you want to be running LLC5 or 6 for daily OC.


----------



## arrow0309

Esenel said:


> 4DIMM 4133 on the Formula.
> Not fully tuned yet.
> 
> A lot SA needed.
> My guess is due to Daisy Chain.


Hi, you guys know if the newer Z490 Aorus boards are still T-Topology?
I wonder how are they going with 4 dimms.



hemon said:


> Wait, for ASUS "llc-8 is no vdroop, llc-1 is a ton" (see above). So LLC7 should be the lowest, and not the highest!?
> 
> So, again the question after tests: for a safe 24h OC should I use 1.34v LLC4 or 1.29v LLC6? The temps are the same.


LLC8 is the highest LLC and the lowest vdrop
LLC1 is the lowest LLC and the highest vdrop 

You better use the LLC4 or LLC5 (many people say), I don't really know exactly long term wise, I'm using LLC6 right now on the bloody HEDT, and used the highest LLC1 on the OC Formula's (which is zero vdrop, contrary to the Asus boards) with a 4790K @4.9ghz years ago for long periods, nothing bad happened.


----------



## arrow0309

BlueEarth said:


> Use lowest LLC possible while keeping the voltage under your comfortable limit. For example I will choose 1.4 with LLC 3 than 1.3 with LLC7 (Asus board).


Exaggerated 
Anyway LLC5 seems the sweet spot (even if I'm using the LLC6 right now).



ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Yes llc-4 is pretty common llc to use
> At benchmarking i usually up it to llc-5 or 6 but everyday stuff llc-1 or 4 or just leave it on auto and let the board/ chip do it's thing just depends on how well the two work
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> Yeah only reason I can see elmor might use higher 1.45v is just to have extra otherwise watchdog bsod seeing he is using manual override instead of adaptive or offset ?
> 
> Very different from 9940x lol put 1.45v into that and better get a fire extinguisher ready :devil:


Lol


----------



## cstkl1

aerotracks said:


> Falkentyne said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please update your CPU-Z so it read Vcore instead of VID.
> Also make sure in your MSI you set voltage to "VCC_Sense" not socket sense.
> Also, your idle voltage isnt important. Can you show your vcore readout during full load?
> If the newest CPU-Z wont show "CPU Voltage" properly, use Hwinfo64.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what to make of this, the HWinfo64 shown in the screen is not the right HWinfo64? I will look into the newest version of CPU-Z.
> I'm not able to find VCC_Sense in BIOS, are you sure the Z490 Gaming Plus has this option?
> 
> 5200 needs 1.240V LLC1, 5300 1.290V LLC1.
Click to expand...

In msi its called “cpu core voltage monitor”
Default is vcc sense afaik. 
Its just above the option to set vcore.


----------



## BlueEarth

hemon said:


> Wait, for ASUS "llc-8 is no vdroop, llc-1 is a ton" (see above). So LLC7 should be the lowest, and not the highest!?
> 
> So, again the question after tests: for a safe 24h OC should I use 1.34v LLC4 or 1.29v LLC6? The temps are the same.


You want vdroop. So I vote for 1.34v with LLC4.
I would even go 1.4v LLC 3 if that is stay stable.


----------



## hemon

BlueEarth said:


> You want vdroop. So I vote for 1.34v with LLC4.
> I would even go 1.4v LLC 3 if that is stay stable.


Thanks all of you for the patience with me.

So, now I tried 1.38v LLC3 and it seems to be stable. I passed Cinebench R20 and RealBench. Later I will try with a lover voltage.

With 1.38v LLC3 I'm running 53x for 4cores, 51x for 8 cores and 50x for 10 cores. For 51 with all the cores I need to use LLC7 1.29v - I haven't tried to find a better LLC level, so it could works with a lower LLC. Which voltage could I try to use at LLC4 for 5.1 if I have 1.29v at LLC7? Temps are now max 80c and max 87c @5.1. I use the Corsair AIO 115i Pro.

voltage = bios voltage

EDIT: I passed Cinebench R15, R20 and RealBench with @5.1 (53x for 4 cores, 51 for 10 cores, or 51 all core) with LLC3 1.44 bios voltage (for info: min voltage during R20: 1.184). Temps max (package) 88c. Is the cpu good or bad?


----------



## Sleakcavi

Finally got my chip from Newegg yesterday and installed in my Formula. Full custom loop and wanted to post my V/F table and SP value. SP 110 seems to be pretty good from what I've seen. Havent tried OC yet but at stock my hottest core was 61 in R20 before TAU kicks in and then I drop to 50c. What should I try for here?


----------



## ThrashZone

Sleakcavi said:


> Finally got my chip from Newegg yesterday and installed in my Formula. Full custom loop and wanted to post my V/F table and SP value. SP 110 seems to be pretty good from what I've seen. Havent tried OC yet but at stock my hottest core was 61 in R20 before TAU kicks in and then I drop to 50c. What should I try for here?


Hi,
Nice 
Do the full cpu test here download all render files when asked
10 core might take 45 minutes to complete full test.

https://opendata.blender.org/

Be sure to have hwinfo running as sensors only option too before running opendata

https://www.hwinfo.com/download.php


----------



## Sleakcavi

ThrashZone said:


> Sleakcavi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finally got my chip from Newegg yesterday and installed in my Formula. Full custom loop and wanted to post my V/F table and SP value. SP 110 seems to be pretty good from what I've seen. Havent tried OC yet but at stock my hottest core was 61 in R20 before TAU kicks in and then I drop to 50c. What should I try for here?
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> Nice
> Do the full cpu test here download all render files when asked
> 10 core might take 45 minutes to complete full test.
> 
> https://opendata.blender.org/
> 
> Be sure to have hwinfo running as sensors only option too before running opendata
> 
> https://www.hwinfo.com/download.php
Click to expand...

Are you asking to do that at stock speeds or when i start over clocking? No idea where to start as far as all core and uncore


----------



## ThrashZone

Sleakcavi said:


> Are you asking to do that at stock speeds or when i start over clocking? No idea where to start as far as all core and uncore


Hi,
Yeah stock optimized defaults.


----------



## Sleakcavi

what am I looking for while its running besides whea errors?


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Mostly just temperatures and waiting for the test to complete.


----------



## Falkentyne

Sleakcavi said:


> Finally got my chip from Newegg yesterday and installed in my Formula. Full custom loop and wanted to post my V/F table and SP value. SP 110 seems to be pretty good from what I've seen. Havent tried OC yet but at stock my hottest core was 61 in R20 before TAU kicks in and then I drop to 50c. What should I try for here?


Congratulations on a winner!


----------



## Sleakcavi

Falkentyne said:


> Congratulations on a winner!


Thank you! It seemed like a winner when I saw the SP based on other responses here. What do you suggest for a starting point for all core OC and Uncore? Temps haven't been an issue and I'm gonna run the blender as suggested. But I see you all over reddit and we have spoken here once or twice and would value your input!


----------



## ThrashZone

Sleakcavi said:


> Thank you! It seemed like a winner when I saw the SP based on other responses here. What do you suggest for a starting point for all core OC and Uncore? Temps haven't been an issue and I'm gonna run the blender as suggested. But I see you all over reddit and we have spoken here once or twice and would value your input!


Hi,
Post your batch number it's on the box.


----------



## Sleakcavi

ThrashZone said:


> Sleakcavi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you! It seemed like a winner when I saw the SP based on other responses here. What do you suggest for a starting point for all core OC and Uncore? Temps haven't been an issue and I'm gonna run the blender as suggested. But I see you all over reddit and
> 
> Hi,
> Post your batch number it's on the box.
> 
> 
> 
> Batch is X016E724
Click to expand...


----------



## ThrashZone

Sleakcavi said:


> ThrashZone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Batch is X016E724
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> That's what my batch number is :thumb:
> Say you have a formula also if so thread is over here I haven't got my board yet though
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/6-i...og-maximus-xii-formula-z490-board-thread.html
Click to expand...


----------



## Esenel

arrow0309 said:


> Hi, you guys know if the newer Z490 Aorus boards are still T-Topology?
> I wonder how are they going with 4 dimms.


All boards seem to be Daisy Chain.
But today I achieved 4x8 4266 17-18-18-38-350-2T on the Formula.

In the evening I will train RTL/IOL.


GSAT stable.

But I guess higher on Daisy Chain?
Could be hard or impossible.


----------



## hemon

So, now I tried 1.38v LLC3 and it seems to be stable. I passed Cinebench R20 and RealBench. Later I will try with a lover voltage.

With 1.38v LLC3 I'm running 53x for 4cores, 51x for 8 cores and 50x for 10 cores. For 51 with all the cores I need to use LLC7 1.29v - I haven't tried to find a better LLC level, so it could works with a lower LLC. Which voltage could I try to use at LLC4 for 5.1 if I have 1.29v at LLC7? Temps are now max 80c and max 87c @5.1. I use the Corsair AIO 115i Pro.

voltage = bios voltage

EDIT: I passed Cinebench R15, R20 and RealBench with @5.1 (53x for 4 cores, 51 for 10 cores, or 51 all core) with LLC3 1.44 bios voltage (for info: min voltage during R20: 1.184). Temps max (package) 88c. Is the cpu good or bad? Opinions? 

Sorry for the double post!


----------



## BlueEarth

hemon said:


> So, now I tried 1.38v LLC3 and it seems to be stable. I passed Cinebench R20 and RealBench. Later I will try with a lover voltage.
> 
> With 1.38v LLC3 I'm running 53x for 4cores, 51x for 8 cores and 50x for 10 cores. For 51 with all the cores I need to use LLC7 1.29v - I haven't tried to find a better LLC level, so it could works with a lower LLC. Which voltage could I try to use at LLC4 for 5.1 if I have 1.29v at LLC7? Temps are now max 80c and max 87c @5.1. I use the Corsair AIO 115i Pro.
> 
> voltage = bios voltage
> 
> EDIT: I passed Cinebench R15, R20 and RealBench with @5.1 (53x for 4 cores, 51 for 10 cores, or 51 all core) with LLC3 1.44 bios voltage (for info: min voltage during R20: 1.184). Temps max (package) 88c. Is the cpu good or bad? Opinions?


Well if you need 1.44 I guess you should increase LLC by one notch and lower the voltage.


----------



## hemon

BlueEarth said:


> Well if you need 1.44 I guess you should increase LLC by one notch and lower the voltage.


Well, my problem is the temp: I've 88-89c @5.1 and I would like to reach 80-85c. @5.0 I reach 79-80c which is ok. Is there a solution for that? +LLC and -voltage?


----------



## Falkentyne

hemon said:


> So, now I tried 1.38v LLC3 and it seems to be stable. I passed Cinebench R20 and RealBench. Later I will try with a lover voltage.
> 
> With 1.38v LLC3 I'm running 53x for 4cores, 51x for 8 cores and 50x for 10 cores. For 51 with all the cores I need to use LLC7 1.29v - I haven't tried to find a better LLC level, so it could works with a lower LLC. Which voltage could I try to use at LLC4 for 5.1 if I have 1.29v at LLC7? Temps are now max 80c and max 87c @5.1. I use the Corsair AIO 115i Pro.
> 
> voltage = bios voltage
> 
> EDIT: I passed Cinebench R15, R20 and RealBench with @5.1 (53x for 4 cores, 51 for 10 cores, or 51 all core) with LLC3 1.44 bios voltage (for info: min voltage during R20: 1.184). Temps max (package) 88c. Is the cpu good or bad? Opinions?
> 
> Sorry for the double post!


What board is this again? What is the MAXIMUM LLC level on this board? 7 or 8?

If the max level is 8, (but not 7), Can you pass Cinebench R20 at 5.2 ghz core, 4.7 or 4.8 ghz cache(ring), 1.270v set in BIOS, LLC7? Please have HWINFO64 sensors only window open and check for CPU Cache L0 errors while running the test.


----------



## hemon

Falkentyne said:


> What board is this again? What is the MAXIMUM LLC level on this board? 7 or 8?
> 
> If the max level is 8, (but not 7), Can you pass Cinebench R20 at 5.2 ghz core, 4.7 or 4.8 ghz cache(ring), 1.270v set in BIOS, LLC7? Please have HWINFO64 sensors only window open and check for CPU Cache L0 errors while running the test.


I've the Asus ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, the max LLC level is 7. 

I can pass at 5.1 ghz and standard cache ring (46 surely) and 1.290v (fixed) in bios. I tried 1.280v but I have a blue screen. The temps are 88-89c - the same as at 1.44v with LLC3.


----------



## Falkentyne

hemon said:


> I've the Asus ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, the max LLC level is 7.
> 
> I can pass at 5.1 ghz and standard cache ring (46 surely) and 1.290v (fixed) in bios. I tried 1.280v but I have a blue screen. The temps are 88-89c - the same as at 1.44v with LLC3.


Ugh, so your chip doing 5.2 ghz @ 1.270v LLC7 in Cinebench R20 is impossible, then? 

I was sure you should be able to run that, but if 5.1 ghz 1.280v LLC7 crashes you, then I guess not :/


----------



## hemon

Falkentyne said:


> Ugh, so your chip doing 5.2 ghz @ 1.270v LLC7 in Cinebench R20 is impossible, then?
> 
> I was sure you should be able to run that, but if 5.1 ghz 1.280v LLC7 crashes you, then I guess not :/


Well, it is possible that I can pass that BUT the temps would be for me too high AND I noticed than I can have a blue screen with Abbeyy Fine Reader OCR converting a PDF (!) but PASSING without problems more than one Cinebench R15, R20 and RealBench. How could it be possible that Abbeyy Fine Reader OCR is more demanding for bench than the other programs?! Another question: Is there a solution for to lower the temps in order to use 5.1? +LLC and -voltage should higher the temps, or not?!


----------



## D-EJ915

hemon said:


> Well, it is possible that I can pass that BUT the temps would be for me too high AND I noticed than I can have a blue screen with Abbeyy Fine Reader OCR converting a PDF (!) but PASSING without problems more than one Cinebench R15, R20 and RealBench. How could it be possible that Abbeyy Fine Reader OCR is more demanding for bench than the other programs?! Another question: Is there a solution for to lower the temps in order to use 5.1? +LLC and -voltage should higher the temps, or not?!


End result is basically the same with high LLC and lower voltage vs low LLC and higher voltage since your load voltage will end up being about the same.


----------



## cstkl1

been reading alot of stuff you wrote about vid, loadline etc. 
question what is asus loadline resistance levels? is loadline 4= 1.1?? cause saw some places you said use loadline 3.. so 8 =0 whats 1 to 7 values?? 
max vid.. is that the vid we see in v/f for 5.3ghz or 5.2??


----------



## Falkentyne

cstkl1 said:


> been reading alot of stuff you wrote about vid, loadline etc.
> question what is asus loadline resistance levels? is loadline 4= 1.1?? cause saw some places you said use loadline 3.. so 8 =0 whats 1 to 7 values??
> max vid.. is that the vid we see in v/f for 5.3ghz or 5.2??


LLC1=1.7 mOhms (Intel spec for 4, 6 core CML, 35W 8 core CML)
LLC2=1.457 
LLC3=1.1 mOhms (Intel spec for 125W 10 core, 8 core CML)
LLC4=0.97
LLC5=.7275
LLC6=.485
LLC7=.2425
LLC8=ggwp


----------



## cstkl1

Falkentyne said:


> cstkl1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> been reading alot of stuff you wrote about vid, loadline etc.
> question what is asus loadline resistance levels? is loadline 4= 1.1?? cause saw some places you said use loadline 3.. so 8 =0 whats 1 to 7 values??
> max vid.. is that the vid we see in v/f for 5.3ghz or 5.2??
> 
> 
> 
> LLC3=1.1
> LLC4=0.97
> LLC5=.7275
> LLC6-.485
Click to expand...

1,2 and 7?? 
so default 3?? but asus sets at 4??


----------



## Falkentyne

cstkl1 said:


> 1,2 and 7??
> so default 3?? but asus sets at 4??


Edited my post.

Yes Asus sets 4. 3 is extremely droopy. All Intel default loadlines are extremely droopy.

4 is great for transients. 5 is probably more suitable for people afraid of high idle voltages, overall not really far off from 4's transient performance. 6 is excellent for PC gaming.
7 has limited uses. Maybe gaming at high volts (1.35v) where you have a sharp voltage minimum floor.
8 should only be used for testing transient response and never long term.


----------



## Carillo

Got my Apex Xii today. Just one thing to say, Apex is Apex. 

4800 cl17.17.17.34.1T. 1.35 IO/1.385 SA


----------



## cstkl1

Falkentyne said:


> cstkl1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1,2 and 7??
> so default 3?? but asus sets at 4??
> 
> 
> 
> Edited my post.
> 
> Yes Asus sets 4. 3 is extremely droopy. All Intel default loadlines are extremely droopy.
> 
> 4 is great for transients. 5 is probably more suitable for people afraid of high idle voltages, overall not really far off from 4's transient performance. 6 is excellent for PC gaming.
> 7 has limited uses. Maybe gaming at high volts (1.35v) where you have a sharp voltage minimum floor.
> 8 should only be used for testing transient response and never long term.
Click to expand...

ty. and that 1.52 vid.. is it in relation to v/f @ 52/53??


----------



## Falkentyne

cstkl1 said:


> ty. and that 1.52 vid.. is it in relation to v/f @ 52/53??


This idk. Sorry.


----------



## 8051

Falkentyne said:


> LLC1=1.7 mOhms (Intel spec for 4, 6 core CML, 35W 8 core CML)
> LLC2=1.457
> LLC3=1.1 mOhms (Intel spec for 125W 10 core, 8 core CML)
> LLC4=0.97
> LLC5=.7275
> LLC6=.485
> LLC7=.2425
> LLC8=ggwp


Is LLC just a simple pull up resistor to Vcc? Or some sort of circuit that varies that varies the resistance dynamically?


----------



## Falkentyne

8051 said:


> Is LLC just a simple pull up resistor to Vcc? Or some sort of circuit that varies that varies the resistance dynamically?


I can't answer that  @shamino1978


----------



## ThrashZone

aerotracks said:


> Not sure what to make of this, the HWinfo64 shown in the screen is not the right HWinfo64? I will look into the newest version of CPU-Z.
> I'm not able to find VCC_Sense in BIOS, are you sure the Z490 Gaming Plus has this option?
> 
> 5200 needs 1.240V LLC1, 5300 1.290V LLC1.


Hi,
Did you ever post you chips batch number on the box ?
If not what is it


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

Falkentyne said:


> Edited my post.
> 
> Yes Asus sets 4. 3 is extremely droopy. All Intel default loadlines are extremely droopy.
> 
> 4 is great for transients. 5 is probably more suitable for people afraid of high idle voltages, overall not really far off from 4's transient performance. 6 is excellent for PC gaming.
> 7 has limited uses. Maybe gaming at high volts (1.35v) where you have a sharp voltage minimum floor.
> 8 should only be used for testing transient response and never long term.


I got the reason. Asus BIOS uses socket sense for VCore setting, but report die sense to the software. MSI uses VCC sense in the BIOS for VCore and reports VCC sense to software, so the BIOS settings are a little different. I managed to stablize 5G @1.2V LLC4 VCC sense.


----------



## Nizzen

Carillo said:


> Got my Apex Xii today. Just one thing to say, Apex is Apex.
> 
> 4800 cl17.17.17.34.1T. 1.35 IO/1.385 SA


Yes this new Apex xii is crazy for memory OC 

Great job!

This is "24/7" settings and it looks like extreme to me, if you compare to other boards LOL

I love Apex xii


----------



## Nizzen

Z490 is fun 🙂


----------



## elmor

Carillo said:


> Got my Apex Xii today. Just one thing to say, Apex is Apex.
> 
> 4800 cl17.17.17.34.1T. 1.35 IO/1.385 SA


Great result! Have been working on some 1T stuff myself. I think it should yield the best performance for 24/7, still to be proven though.



8051 said:


> Is LLC just a simple pull up resistor to Vcc? Or some sort of circuit that varies that varies the resistance dynamically?


With a digital controller it's just a register setting. On analog controllers it's usually controlled by a resistor value connected to one of the controller pins.



Nizzen said:


> Z490 is fun 🙂


Those are some nice toys


----------



## hemon

Yesterday I tried the OC settings of Hardwareluxx (https://www.hardwareluxx.de/index.php/galerie/komponenten/prozessoren/intel-cml-s-oc-screenshot.html --- see pic of Hardwareluxx) with adaptive voltage 1.298 and +0.391 offset voltage; the result: 1.689v. Then I tried a bench, I just started it and I immediately (!) stopped it since I noticed the very high voltage showed in the program (I mean not the setting, but below under "CPU core voltage" as in the pic). So now the question: Could it be that I somehow damaged the CPU because of this? After that I made tests and the cpu is just stable and normal as before. 
I hope you can understand my paranoia and can help me with this question.


----------



## Nizzen

elmor said:


> Carillo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got my Apex Xii today. Just one thing to say, Apex is Apex.
> 
> 4800 cl17.17.17.34.1T. 1.35 IO/1.385 SA
> 
> 
> 
> Great result! Have been working on some 1T stuff myself. I think it should yield the best performance for 24/7, still to be proven though.
> 
> 
> 
> 8051 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is LLC just a simple pull up resistor to Vcc? Or some sort of circuit that varies that varies the resistance dynamically?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With a digital controller it's just a register setting. On analog controllers it's usually controlled by a resistor value connected to one of the controller pins.
> 
> 
> 
> Nizzen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Z490 is fun 🙂
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those are some nice toys /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
Click to expand...

Does "SP" actually tell something about OC capability?

I have one sp 83 and one 63. Overclocks pretty much the same on water. Maybe it's different on ln2? 😛


----------



## Falkentyne

hemon said:


> Yesterday I tried the OC settings of Hardwareluxx (https://www.hardwareluxx.de/index.php/galerie/komponenten/prozessoren/intel-cml-s-oc-screenshot.html --- see pic of Hardwareluxx) with adaptive voltage 1.298 and +0.391 offset voltage; the result: 1.689v. Then I tried a bench, I just started it and I immediately (!) stopped it since I noticed the very high voltage showed in the program (I mean not the setting, but below under "CPU core voltage" as in the pic). So now the question: Could it be that I somehow damaged the CPU because of this? After that I made tests and the cpu is just stable and normal as before.
> I hope you can understand my paranoia and can help me with this question.


Did you test the minimum required voltage point? If the minimum required voltage (meaning: 10mv below that before when you tested it) is no longer stable, then its degraded. If that point is still the same, then its not degraded. You just have to know those points (it is more helpful if you have more than one test (example, VMIN at 5 ghz, Vmin at 5.1 ghz , 2 points), etc.

And be careful about entering millivolts. +30mv=0.030v. NOT .30v. 100mv=0.1v


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Math is pretty clear not sure what you expected the voltage to be it showed the total on the screen shot and you did it anyway :/
Good thing it was adaptive and not manual override.


----------



## Carillo

elmor said:


> Great result! Have been working on some 1T stuff myself. I think it should yield the best performance for 24/7, still to be proven though.
> 
> Thanks!I did try to get RTL 62/62 IOL 7/7 stable, but kept failing at around 50%.( Not done yet. Only got a couple of hours last night) IMC seems to pretty OK. It's a SP63 chip. Not sure if that number even means anything ? All chips i currently have, is showing SP 63 using both Formula and Apex
> 
> Do you know if there are training issues using 4933 and 5000 ? Been trying to tweek my Apex xi profiles(That was stable with my 8086K), but a lot of inconsistency. Both Mode 1 and Mode 2 used. Tried 5000 cl18.22.22.42, with auto settings, and it passed HCI, so im pretty sure the IMC is up to the task. The memory kit i know will do 4933 cl17, and 5000 cl17. At least using Apex Xi


----------



## Esenel

Brought only 6°C.
Better than nothing 😄

Now waiting for a frame.


----------



## ThrashZone

Esenel said:


> Brought only 6°C.
> Better than nothing 😄
> 
> Now waiting for a frame.


Hi,
Which die frame and delid tool are you using ?


----------



## Esenel

ThrashZone said:


> Esenel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brought only 6°C.
> Better than nothing 😄
> 
> Now waiting for a frame.
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> Which die frame and delid tool are you using ?
Click to expand...

Rockit Kit for delidding.

But there are no frames yet.
Waiting for one.


----------



## ThrashZone

Esenel said:


> Rockit Kit for delidding.
> 
> But there are no frames yet.
> Waiting for one.


Hi,
Rockit 88 or which ever is for 1151 socket ?


----------



## hemon

Falkentyne said:


> Did you test the minimum required voltage point? If the minimum required voltage (meaning: 10mv below that before when you tested it) is no longer stable, then its degraded. If that point is still the same, then its not degraded. You just have to know those points (it is more helpful if you have more than one test (example, VMIN at 5 ghz, Vmin at 5.1 ghz , 2 points), etc.
> 
> And be careful about entering millivolts. +30mv=0.030v. NOT .30v. 100mv=0.1v


Yes, everything is in the norm as before that mist.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Anyone get the intel tuning plan ?

I tried to create a account but never got the one time account activation link to use 
Did it this morning so maybe Monday intel will send the link it's not in junk folder :/
Only 20 bucks also saw one for 9940x for 30 bucks.


----------



## Falkentyne

hemon said:


> Yes, everything is in the norm as before that mist.


So if you go 10mv lower on the voltage, you are not stable, right?

If this is the exact same as before, you are fine. I just want to verify that you are 100% sure you checked this. (especially at higher clock speeds like 5.1 and 5.2 ghz).


----------



## hemon

Falkentyne said:


> So if you go 10mv lower on the voltage, you are not stable, right?
> 
> If this is the exact same as before, you are fine. I just want to verify that you are 100% sure you checked this. (especially at higher clock speeds like 5.1 and 5.2 ghz).


Like before, I can be on 5.1 stable @ LLC3: 1.44v. I haven't checked 5.2 because the temps would be just too high, so I'm not interested. At 5.1 I reach 88-89c, so for a 24h OC it is for me too much. On the contrast, at 5.0 I have max 80c which is fine for me. I use the AIO Corsair H115i Pro with Pump @Balance.

For info: with "stable" I mean that I can pass always more than one Cinebench R15, R20, ASUS RealBench AND a big OCR conversion with ABBEYY FineReader. Then for example I can pass R15, R20 and RealBench with 1.36v @5.0 (load voltage: 1.136) or 1.42v @5.1 but NOT the OCR conversion! So, the first three programs are for me personally NOT a guarantee that the system is stable.


----------



## Falkentyne

Then you should be okay, then.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Anyone get the intel tuning plan ?
> 
> I tried to create a account but never got the one time account activation link to use
> Did it this morning so maybe Monday intel will send the link it's not in junk folder :/
> Only 20 bucks also saw one for 9940x for 30 bucks.


I returned my burned 9700K for full refund last year.


----------



## ThrashZone

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> I returned my burned 9700K for full refund last year.


Hi,
Any delay on intel sending the account link to activate your account ?


----------



## Esenel

ThrashZone said:


> Esenel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rockit Kit for delidding.
> 
> But there are no frames yet.
> Waiting for one.
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> Rockit 88 or which ever is for 1151 socket ?
Click to expand...

Yes the one which had the complete 9th Gen kit.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Any delay on intel sending the account link to activate your account ?


Nope I remember that was instant.


----------



## AeonMW2

hello! i'm running 10900K with Gigabyte Vision G
5.1 all core under air (Noctua NHD-15S)
3800 16-17-17-35 RAM

minimum voltage i need for stable 5.1:
vCore in bios 1.38
vCore at idle 1.415
vCore at 100% load in Cinebench R20 is 1.33
vCore in Battlefield 5 1.36-1.38
VCCIO 1.23
VCCSA 1.33
LLC at LOW

temperatures:
R20 ~85-90
AIDA FPU ~90
Battlefield 5 ~80-84

is this safe settings for 24/7? voltages looks kinda high for me (tho 1.415 only at idle so it should be fine, right?)


----------



## Falkentyne

AeonMW2 said:


> hello! i'm running 10900K with Gigabyte Vision G
> 5.1 all core under air (Noctua NHD-15S)
> 3800 16-17-17-35 RAM
> 
> minimum voltage i need for stable 5.1:
> vCore in bios 1.38
> vCore at idle 1.415
> vCore at 100% load in Cinebench R20 is 1.33
> vCore in Battlefield 5 1.36-1.38
> VCCIO 1.23
> VCCSA 1.33
> LLC at LOW
> 
> temperatures:
> R20 ~85-90
> AIDA FPU ~90
> Battlefield 5 ~80-84
> 
> is this safe settings for 24/7? voltages looks kinda high for me (tho 1.415 only at idle so it should be fine, right?)


Run this and check your minimum lowest voltage given when running Cinebench R20 or realbench 2.56 and Battlefield 5 then report back.
Note that if you ran hwinfo64 at all, you MUST reboot before using this or it will report 0's. You can't run this in the same windows session as hwinfo64 or another monitoring tool.

The voltages you reported are not accurate at all (in fact they are way off, you will see), so use this tool.

I'm guessing your actual load voltages are between 1.210v (1210mv) and 1.255v (1255mv).


----------



## AeonMW2

Falkentyne said:


> Run this and check your minimum lowest voltage given when running Cinebench R20 or realbench 2.56 and Battlefield 5 then report back.
> Note that if you ran hwinfo64 at all, you MUST reboot before using this or it will report 0's. You can't run this in the same windows session as hwinfo64 or another monitoring tool.
> 
> The voltages you reported are not accurate at all (in fact they are way off, you will see), so use this tool.
> 
> I'm guessing your actual load voltages are between 1.210v (1210mv) and 1.255v (1255mv).


how do I use this tool? and why is it more accurate?


----------



## Falkentyne

AeonMW2 said:


> how do I use this tool? and why is it more accurate?


Run it and press 0.

Gigabyte doesnt have proper voltage die sense enabled. This tool will read vcore and current like Z390 gb boards VR Out.


----------



## AeonMW2

Falkentyne said:


> Run it and press 0.
> 
> Gigabyte doesnt have proper voltage die sense enabled. This tool will read vcore and current like Z390 gb boards VR Out.


indeed. R20:

is this any good?


----------



## Falkentyne

AeonMW2 said:


> indeed. R20:
> 
> is this any good?


Yes. you were at 1.274v at heavy load.

Can you lower your voltage more and still be stable?


----------



## AeonMW2

Falkentyne said:


> Yes. you were at 1.274v at heavy load.
> 
> Can you lower your voltage more and still be stable?


1.36 in bios was unstable
1.38 is fine
not sure about 1.365-1.375, may try it later


----------



## hemon

Falkentyne said:


> Yes. you were at 1.274v at heavy load.
> 
> Can you lower your voltage more and still be stable?


I think, it was just like with my cpu at 5.1 - or definitely not more than 1.282v. But the temps... how it can be possible that you have on air the same temps like me where I have an AIO Corsair H115i Pro?!


----------



## Falkentyne

Hmm.
Seems like an SP 74 quality chip then, possibly SP 63.
My SP 94 can go down to 1.183v load at 5.1 ghz

The chip in my GB Master (unknown SP but its lower than 94) can do about 1.235v load at 5.1g. I can check again when I am not in bed.


----------



## Falkentyne

hemon said:


> I think, it was just like with my cpu at 5.1 - or definitely not more than 1.282v. But the temps... how it can be possible that you have on air the same temps like me where I have an AIO Corsair H115i Pro?!


I have two CPUs. ES is on Arctic LF II 360 and Asus, the retail is on Noctua NH-d15 and Gigabyte.
I'm giving results from the retail. The 1.183v load @ 5.1g is the ES (on AIO)


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Wasn't a sp 110 chip/ combo only 94 and this morning was 92 
Cooling score also dropped from 176 to 166 

Guess tomorrow sp will be in the 80's... lol :thumb:

Default clocks 5.1 turbo on R20 dropped at the end to 4.1 lol got 6280 
Thought this thing would crush my poor old 7900x score that got 6438.

M.2 setup stinks on the formula asus didn't leave enough room for a real heatsink so if the 970 evo doesn't get cooled well it's going back.
Transferring a system image to the m.2 now started out on a 860 pro.


----------



## Sleakcavi

@Falkentyne you mentioned in a thread I saw having an engineering VF tool that showed you possibly what vcore you needed under load for different frequencies? Can you share it? I've gotten my SP 110 stable at 5.3ghz in everything but the opendata blender benchmark that throws a L0 Cache error in HWinfo on the 2nd render. Trying to figure out what my min vcore is and I'm hitting a wall. I can run BF V and R20 looping, real bench, OCCT, and AIDA but not blender benchmark. FWIW my load vcore is around 1.27V to be stable in heavy AVX loads. Been working on finding the right adaptive and or manual set vcore and LLC. But I get worried when I see 1.43V max in HWinfo idle voltages in adaptive.


----------



## Falkentyne

Sleakcavi said:


> @Falkentyne you mentioned in a thread I saw having an engineering VF tool that showed you possibly what vcore you needed under load for different frequencies? Can you share it? I've gotten my SP 110 stable at 5.3ghz in everything but the opendata blender benchmark that throws a L0 Cache error in HWinfo on the 2nd render. Trying to figure out what my min vcore is and I'm hitting a wall. I can run BF V and R20 looping, real bench, OCCT, and AIDA but not blender benchmark. FWIW my load vcore is around 1.27V to be stable in heavy AVX loads. Been working on finding the right adaptive and or manual set vcore and LLC. But I get worried when I see 1.43V max in HWinfo idle voltages in adaptive.


No, not allowed, sorry. 5.3 ghz has no new VID data anymore (it's higher than the highest official single core turbo ratio), so Pcode is used to estimate it.
What does your VF points say in your BIOS for 5.2 ghz? I'm sure if that is your LOAD voltage at 5.3 ghz you're going to be stable in everything (if you can cool the chip).

What's your temps? At 5.3 ghz, you are going to be GREATLY temp limited. Temps go above 90, your stability just nose dives hard.
You can try lowering VCCIO and VCCSA to reduce L0 errors. If your RAM and IMC can tolerate it, go as low as 0.950 VCCIO and 1.05v VCCSA. Seems like SSE2 instructions benefit more from higher SA/IO while AVX/FMA3 benefit more from lower. You could also try messing with the VRM switching frequencies but I couldn't get anything substantial from that that was scientifically repeatable (nothing scientific about running the same test twice, first time you get an L0 in 8 minutes, next time it's 30 minutes...)


----------



## Sleakcavi

Falkentyne said:


> No, not allowed, sorry. 5.3 ghz has no new VID data anymore (it's higher than the highest official single core turbo ratio), so Pcode is used to estimate it.
> 
> What's your temps? At 5.3 ghz, you are going to be GREATLY temp limited. Temps go above 90, your stability just nose dives hard.
> You can try lowering VCCIO And VCCSA to reduce L0 errors. If your RAM and IMC can tolerate it, go as low as 0.950 VCCIO and 1.05v VCCSA. Seems like SSE2 instructions benefit more from higher SA/IO while AVX/FMA3 benefit more from lower.


I'm on a custom loop. at 1.270 Load I don't go over 81-82C Max core. Only time I've seen above 90 is my 8 hour real bench run stress test and that was 1 core that hit 91 the rest were mid to high 80s. That was with a heat soaked loop from the GPU adding heat as well. Also on my corsair kit it auto set my IO/SA to 1.15 so I can try lowering that to see how it affects it. Lately I've been testing my 4266 CL 19 royal Trident Z kit so I'll have to swap it out again.

Also I've posted pictures of my V/F from bios and it actually says 1.334 for 5.3 and 1.319 for 5.2


----------



## Talon2016

Got another 10900K for testing, SP 80. Not a bad chip honestly. But passing 5.3Ghz all core and 5.1Ghz cache on CB20 without error took 1.410v at LLC6. Passed once with 1.4v no error, but then error after that. It's probably above average 10900K, but not exceptional. Will be selling open boxed locally.

Edit: This did 6900 Multi on CB20.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Talon2016 said:


> Got another 10900K for testing, SP 80. Not a bad chip honestly. But passing 5.3Ghz on CB20 without error took 1.410v at LLC6. Passed once with 1.4v no error, but then error after that. It's probably above average 10900K, but not exceptional. Will be selling open boxed locally.



The responsible way to bin, respect!


----------



## ThrashZone

Sleakcavi said:


> I'm on a custom loop. at 1.270 Load I don't go over 81-82C Max core. Only time I've seen above 90 is my 8 hour real bench run stress test and that was 1 core that hit 91 the rest were mid to high 80s. That was with a heat soaked loop from the GPU adding heat as well. Also on my corsair kit it auto set my IO/SA to 1.15 so I can try lowering that to see how it affects it. Lately I've been testing my 4266 CL 19 royal Trident Z kit so I'll have to swap it out again.
> 
> Also I've posted pictures of my V/F from bios and it actually says 1.334 for 5.3 and 1.319 for 5.2


Hi,
Did elmors settings and got on R20 at 6800 single core score 539
3600 xmp 1 he was much higher
5.3 and 4.9 cache manual core/ cache voltage 1.45v vid 1.404 lol 
vcore shows min 1.252 max 1.43v


----------



## Falkentyne

Sleakcavi said:


> I'm on a custom loop. at 1.270 Load I don't go over 81-82C Max core. Only time I've seen above 90 is my 8 hour real bench run stress test and that was 1 core that hit 91 the rest were mid to high 80s. That was with a heat soaked loop from the GPU adding heat as well. Also on my corsair kit it auto set my IO/SA to 1.15 so I can try lowering that to see how it affects it. Lately I've been testing my 4266 CL 19 royal Trident Z kit so I'll have to swap it out again.
> 
> Also I've posted pictures of my V/F from bios and it actually says 1.334 for 5.3 and 1.319 for 5.2


1.334v for 5.3=try to get your load voltage to 1.334v and your errors should disappear completely. Then work on lowering it 10mv at a time.

How did you do so far with 0.95v and 1.05v IO/SA on the original 1.270v load settings, first?


----------



## Falkentyne

Sleakcavi said:


> I'm on a custom loop. at 1.270 Load I don't go over 81-82C Max core. Only time I've seen above 90 is my 8 hour real bench run stress test and that was 1 core that hit 91 the rest were mid to high 80s. That was with a heat soaked loop from the GPU adding heat as well. Also on my corsair kit it auto set my IO/SA to 1.15 so I can try lowering that to see how it affects it. Lately I've been testing my 4266 CL 19 royal Trident Z kit so I'll have to swap it out again.
> 
> Also I've posted pictures of my V/F from bios and it actually says 1.334 for 5.3 and 1.319 for 5.2


Did reducing IO/SA to 0.95/1.05v help you with the L0 errors?
Or did you just have to raise vcore instead?


----------



## Sleakcavi

I havent tried with my other ram yet. Have my 4266mhz 19 CL trident royal Z in there right now. The XMP is 1.4V DRAM and it runs SA/IO around 1.35... its bdie ram and I wanna tighten the timings and use it. No idea where to start for voltage for SA/IO. For the time being I've settled on 5.3 with -1 AVX offset to keep errors from popping and it loads BFV and does all the benches stable so I'm happy now. Temps never over 80c in benchmarks and load voltage stays around 1.252 or less for 5.2 AVX loads.


----------



## Falkentyne

Sleakcavi said:


> I havent tried with my other ram yet. Have my 4266mhz 19 CL trident royal Z in there right now. The XMP is 1.4V DRAM and it runs SA/IO around 1.35... its bdie ram and I wanna tighten the timings and use it. No idea where to start for voltage for SA/IO. For the time being I've settled on 5.3 with -1 AVX offset to keep errors from popping and it loads BFV and does all the benches stable so I'm happy now. Temps never over 80c in benchmarks and load voltage stays around 1.252 or less for 5.2 AVX loads.


Well are you still getting those L0 errors with the new RAM, in Blender?

If you are, try reducing IO/SA slowly, as low as it will go and see if that helps.
I've found that lower IO/SA can help with L0 errors on AVX instructions but higher IO/SA can help with L0 errors on SSE2 instructions. It's all really weird and thats' why I'm asking you to test it for yourself. I can't tell you what settings you need. Everyone's system is going to be different in this case.


----------



## Sleakcavi

No errors as it stands now with my "expensive" RAM. Also it's a 4 dimm kit vice a 2 dimm kit. Like I said I'm happy for now I just like to tinker. And hearing the world record chip was 117SP and I'm at 110SP just makes me want to tinker more and see what this puppy has.

On another note cause I've forgotten. Is 1.43 max vcore logged in HWinfo a bad thing? I know its not the load Vcore but I saw it when trying to set an adaptive vcore. I'm sure manual vcore will be OK cause the difference is down volting while at idle but who really cares lol


----------



## Sleakcavi

Here is a run I just did. Please keep in mind this is with AI optimized settings in BIOS. It has done a damn good job with just setting XMP and AI and leaving everything else on auto. I may just leave it like that because it requires less tinkering and I'm able to game and stream which is mainly what this rig is for when I'm not playing with squeezing performance for benchmarks.

Just noticed it has my vcore showing weird...most times it was 1.252 I hit print screen at a weird time I guess


----------



## Falkentyne

Sleakcavi said:


> No errors as it stands now with my "expensive" RAM. Also it's a 4 dimm kit vice a 2 dimm kit. Like I said I'm happy for now I just like to tinker. And hearing the world record chip was 117SP and I'm at 110SP just makes me want to tinker more and see what this puppy has.
> 
> On another note cause I've forgotten. Is 1.43 max vcore logged in HWinfo a bad thing? I know its not the load Vcore but I saw it when trying to set an adaptive vcore. I'm sure manual vcore will be OK cause the difference is down volting while at idle but who really cares lol


I'm rather confused now.
Are you saying that with your......uh..."non expensive" ram, you got L0 errors in Blender, with the exact same CPU Voltage and loadline calibration level used, and then when you switched RAM to more expensive RAM, you did not get L0 errors in Blender?

I'm not trying to be difficult but you're a bit all over the place in your posts and its hard to follow exactly what you're doing.

What was the difference in DDR memory voltage, VCCIO and VCCSA values on your "L0" in Blender RAM, versus the IO/SA values in your "expensive" RAM? (I see 1.31v IO and 1.41v SA in your last screenshot).


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

Falkentyne said:


> I'm rather confused now.
> Are you saying that with your......uh..."non expensive" ram, you got L0 errors in Blender, with the exact same CPU Voltage and loadline calibration level used, and then when you switched RAM to more expensive RAM, you did not get L0 errors in Blender?
> 
> I'm not trying to be difficult but you're a bit all over the place in your posts and its hard to follow exactly what you're doing.
> 
> What was the difference in DDR memory voltage, VCCIO and VCCSA values on your "L0" in Blender RAM, versus the IO/SA values in your "expensive" RAM? (I see 1.31v IO and 1.41v SA in your last screenshot).


IO&SA=1.35&1.4 might be a little low for 4DIMM IMO. Besides, it is Daisy Chain. Some boards can only do 4133 with 4DIMM.


----------



## ThrashZone

Sleakcavi said:


> Here is a run I just did. Please keep in mind this is with AI optimized settings in BIOS. It has done a damn good job with just setting XMP and AI and leaving everything else on auto. I may just leave it like that because it requires less tinkering and I'm able to game and stream which is mainly what this rig is for when I'm not playing with squeezing performance for benchmarks.
> 
> Just noticed it has my vcore showing weird...most times it was 1.252 I hit print screen at a weird time I guess


Hi,
Actually by core usage is pretty good plus skater tweaks on cpu power stuff
core 0 = 52 & 10 under it and manual 1.4v 
49 cache
3600 xmp 1
R20 6825 
Single core 546 
Crazy vid's highest nearly 1.5v min 1.331
Vcore min 1.208 max 1.385 
Temp spread 69-77c


----------



## Sleakcavi

Falkentyne said:


> I'm rather confused now.
> Are you saying that with your......uh..."non expensive" ram, you got L0 errors in Blender, with the exact same CPU Voltage and loadline calibration level used, and then when you switched RAM to more expensive RAM, you did not get L0 errors in Blender?
> 
> I'm not trying to be difficult but you're a bit all over the place in your posts and its hard to follow exactly what you're doing.
> 
> What was the difference in DDR memory voltage, VCCIO and VCCSA values on your "L0" in Blender RAM, versus the IO/SA values in your "expensive" RAM? (I see 1.31v IO and 1.41v SA in your last screenshot).


Sorry that's because I go all over the place tinkering and messing around with settings to score higher in benchmarks. Also I don't think it helps when I post from mobile if I'm away from the PC because it is stress testing.

When I was getting L0 errors I was set on 1.38 LLC 4 manual vcore with my Corsair 3200MHz Dominator Platinum RAM 32GB 2 DIMM kit. I tried adaptive and to set what I thought was correct and a bit over what the AI tab says in BIOS to see if it was a low vcore issue and I was seeing idle voltage up to 1.431V. I didn't like that so I backed off.

I since have switched to my Trident Royal Z 4266mhz RAM and you could see in the last SS i posted what the voltages are. I cannot run it with the AI overclock in blender due to L0 errors at 5.3Ghz. To solve the issue I set a -1 AVX offset and left everything else in AI Optimized. I get no errors now. I guess my big question is since I know it can do 5.3 in most stress tests besides blender I assume its a vcore issue. How can I translate AI adaptive voltage it sets into doing it myself and being able to raise the vcore without getting crazy high idle voltage? Or should I go manual and just find my Vmin for blender since it seems to be the hardest to not get errors in?


----------



## shamino1978

Sleakcavi said:


> Sorry that's because I go all over the place tinkering and messing around with settings to score higher in benchmarks. Also I don't think it helps when I post from mobile if I'm away from the PC because it is stress testing.
> 
> When I was getting L0 errors I was set on 1.38 LLC 4 manual vcore with my Corsair 3200MHz Dominator Platinum RAM 32GB 2 DIMM kit. I tried adaptive and to set what I thought was correct and a bit over what the AI tab says in BIOS to see if it was a low vcore issue and I was seeing idle voltage up to 1.431V. I didn't like that so I backed off.
> 
> I since have switched to my Trident Royal Z 4266mhz RAM and you could see in the last SS i posted what the voltages are. I cannot run it with the AI overclock in blender due to L0 errors at 5.3Ghz. To solve the issue I set a -1 AVX offset and left everything else in AI Optimized. I get no errors now. I guess my big question is since I know it can do 5.3 in most stress tests besides blender I assume its a vcore issue. How can I translate AI adaptive voltage it sets into doing it myself and being able to raise the vcore without getting crazy high idle voltage? Or should I go manual and just find my Vmin for blender since it seems to be the hardest to not get errors in?


use the vf pt offset for 53x and or 54x 
since 53x is cpu 'default', adaptive values may get ignored -> you have to read up about adaptive voltage behavior to learn more about this if u wanna
but high mem + hi core, im not sure if just adding vcore will get you over this, remember the hotter the proc runs, the lesser the mem oc potential plus the higher the VCCSA needed. it is similar behavior as to core/ring with regards to vcore.


----------



## Falkentyne

Sleakcavi said:


> Sorry that's because I go all over the place tinkering and messing around with settings to score higher in benchmarks. Also I don't think it helps when I post from mobile if I'm away from the PC because it is stress testing.
> 
> When I was getting L0 errors I was set on 1.38 LLC 4 manual vcore with my Corsair 3200MHz Dominator Platinum RAM 32GB 2 DIMM kit. I tried adaptive and to set what I thought was correct and a bit over what the AI tab says in BIOS to see if it was a low vcore issue and I was seeing idle voltage up to 1.431V. I didn't like that so I backed off.
> 
> I since have switched to my Trident Royal Z 4266mhz RAM and you could see in the last SS i posted what the voltages are. I cannot run it with the AI overclock in blender due to L0 errors at 5.3Ghz. To solve the issue I set a -1 AVX offset and left everything else in AI Optimized. I get no errors now. I guess my big question is since I know it can do 5.3 in most stress tests besides blender I assume its a vcore issue. How can I translate AI adaptive voltage it sets into doing it myself and being able to raise the vcore without getting crazy high idle voltage? Or should I go manual and just find my Vmin for blender since it seems to be the hardest to not get errors in?


Ok, as I said, try lowering your VCCIO and VCCSA voltages, without the AVX offset.
It would help a *LOT* if you used manual voltage first. Trying to use adaptive voltage when you have no idea what your true vMIN is is just asking for it. I would start with 1.360v+ LLC6, which I "am guessing" would drop you down to about 1.26v at full load. That's what I would do if I were you, but you are free to do as you wish. I'm only giving you my suggestion.

First, find a vmin that doesnt just BSOD you quickly when in Blender. Once you find something like 1.34v LLC6, 1.35v LLC6, 1.36v LLC6, 1.37v LLC6, etc, where you start getting CPU L0 errors but no outright instant BSOD in Blender, stop there and start reducing both your VCCIO and VCCSA voltages by about 50mv each and try again. See if lowering them helps reduce the L0 errors. You probably won't be able to touch 0.95v IO and 1.05v SA as I think the IMC would just not like the RAM anymore, but since you want to find the vMin, this is what I suggest you do and what I would do in your position.


Shamino's post is excellent but you need to know your vMin first. And speaking of Blender, do you also get CPU Cache L0 errors running Realbench 2.56? 2.56 is transient heavy.

Have you tried 1.38v LLC4 with the Trident Royalz already, in Blender? Still L0 errors there ?

Anyway, hope you get results. I've done limited testing of L0 errors at lower overclocks, and while they are mostly vcore related, I found that lower IO/SA helps with AVX related L0 errors slightly, while higher IO/SA helps with "SSE2" errors slightly. These tests were done on Prime95 small FFT with AVX disabled (SSE2) and on 15K AVX FFT (in-place fixed). But I guess that isn't conclusive enough. On the small FFT AVX disabled test, I did an absurd 5 ghz, 1.225v Bios set + LLC5. And I started at 1.02v VCCIO and 1.05v VCCSA and got L0 errors after like 10 minutes. Raising my IO/SA to 1.28 IO and 1.30v SA (I did not try lower steps--I'm lazy) prevented any IO / SA errors and I left it running over 30 minutes, in a rather hot room (Intentionally) to make sure those L0 errors were gone.

However in my small FFT AVX test (done at 5 ghz but a much higher vcore setting), done at 1.250v Bios set, LLC: Level 6, I had IO/SA at 1.02v and 1.05v. Got L0 errors one 18 minute test, and a BSOD in the next test which lasted 35 minutes then BSOD (System service exception). Then I reduced IO to 0.95v and kept SA at 1.05v, and the test ran 48 minutes until I canceled it. (this entire test required me to keep the ambients cooler because its AVX obviously to begin with. temps were 88C max in all three runs).

I was using 2x16 GB, CL14 3200 mhz RAM at 3200 mhz, 14-14-34 1T and tight timings btw.

Good luck  If you choose to do the reduced IO/SA tests.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Yeah pretty weird I'm doing better on 3600 than 4k memory wise.


----------



## aerotracks

cstkl1 said:


> In msi its called “cpu core voltage monitor”
> Default is vcc sense afaik.
> Its just above the option to set vcore.


Thanks for looking into it, my board doesn't have it unfortunately. Stuck with crappy VCore readout then.


----------



## cstkl1

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Wasn't a sp 110 chip/ combo only 94 and this morning was 92
> Cooling score also dropped from 176 to 166
> 
> Guess tomorrow sp will be in the 80's... lol /forum/images/smilies/thumb.gif
> 
> Default clocks 5.1 turbo on R20 dropped at the end to 4.1 lol got 6280
> Thought this thing would crush my poor old 7900x score that got 6438.
> 
> M.2 setup stinks on the formula asus didn't leave enough room for a real heatsink so if the 970 evo doesn't get cooled well it's going back.
> Transferring a system image to the m.2 now started out on a 860 pro.


U got to do couple of runs. Last time i bothered with r20.. think was my 8700k.. started first run like 37xx and it steadied at 3892 at the end. Also when i compared my [email protected] Mesh 32 vs [email protected] on cb15 and some 3dmark timeSpy cpu score.. the quad rams bandwidth do give advantage on synthethic scores like these. 
Is your case airflow that bad?? I run my xpg pro on pcie adapters with its default heatsink.. they dont go more than 44c 

Been playing with some z370 and 8700k . Asus.. seriously updated all their bios to follow intel spec. Wait comp looks so empty and sad. 😢


----------



## Falkentyne

Sleakcavi said:


> Sorry that's because I go all over the place tinkering and messing around with settings to score higher in benchmarks. Also I don't think it helps when I post from mobile if I'm away from the PC because it is stress testing.
> 
> When I was getting L0 errors I was set on 1.38 LLC 4 manual vcore with my Corsair 3200MHz Dominator Platinum RAM 32GB 2 DIMM kit. I tried adaptive and to set what I thought was correct and a bit over what the AI tab says in BIOS to see if it was a low vcore issue and I was seeing idle voltage up to 1.431V. I didn't like that so I backed off.
> 
> I since have switched to my Trident Royal Z 4266mhz RAM and you could see in the last SS i posted what the voltages are. I cannot run it with the AI overclock in blender due to L0 errors at 5.3Ghz. To solve the issue I set a -1 AVX offset and left everything else in AI Optimized. I get no errors now. I guess my big question is since I know it can do 5.3 in most stress tests besides blender I assume its a vcore issue. How can I translate AI adaptive voltage it sets into doing it myself and being able to raise the vcore without getting crazy high idle voltage? Or should I go manual and just find my Vmin for blender since it seems to be the hardest to not get errors in?


Ok I just did my own testing for you.
Swapped out my 2x16 GB 3200 CL14 sticks @ 3200, for my 2x8 GB Patriot Steel Viper 4000 19-19-39's.

Switched to other BIOS on a fresh cmos, Enabled XMP for 4000 mhz default timings.
and nothing else except 5.3 ghz core, 4.9 ghz ring, LLC: level 6 and fixed voltage: 1.390v Bios set. Nothing else was changed (besides setting VRM Switching Freq to 500).

VCCIO and VCCSA were set via XMP to 1.30v automatically.

Ran Cinebench R20 @ 1.279-1.270v load
CPU Cache L0 error on the second run (6900 points). Temps: 88C

Stopped and set VCCIO to 1.20v and VCCSA left at 1.30v
Ran CB R20 again, 6900 points (1.279v load)
CPU Cache L0 error on the second run. Temps: 88C

Set VCCIO and VCCSA both to 1.20v.
Looped it for 10 minutes (CB: 6925). Only after I reached 10 minutes did an L0 error finally appear. Temps: 91C. (1.270v-1.279v load).

So yes, IO and SA voltages can affect when you get an L0 error when you are close to your Vmin. You may need lower IO/SA (AVX), higher IO/SA (SSE2) or just higher vcore (easy way out).


----------



## ThrashZone

cstkl1 said:


> U got to do couple of runs. Last time i bothered with r20.. think was my 8700k.. started first run like 37xx and it steadied at 3892 at the end. Also when i compared my [email protected] Mesh 32 vs [email protected] on cb15 and some 3dmark timeSpy cpu score.. the quad rams bandwidth do give advantage on synthethic scores like these.
> Is your case airflow that bad?? I run my xpg pro on pcie adapters with its default heatsink.. they dont go more than 44c
> 
> Been playing with some z370 and 8700k . Asus.. seriously updated all their bios to follow intel spec. Wait comp looks so empty and sad. 😢


Hi,
Just did a CDM test m.2 61 temp 1 and temp 2 was 69 lol 
My little blower style cooler never went over 45c on either temp sensors.


----------



## cstkl1

ThrashZone said:


> cstkl1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> U got to do couple of runs. Last time i bothered with r20.. think was my 8700k.. started first run like 37xx and it steadied at 3892 at the end. Also when i compared my [email protected] Mesh 32 vs [email protected] on cb15 and some 3dmark timeSpy cpu score.. the quad rams bandwidth do give advantage on synthethic scores like these.
> Is your case airflow that bad?? I run my xpg pro on pcie adapters with its default heatsink.. they dont go more than 44c
> 
> Been playing with some z370 and 8700k . Asus.. seriously updated all their bios to follow intel spec. Wait comp looks so empty and sad. 😢
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> Just did a CDM test m.2 61 temp 1 and temp 2 was 69 lol
> My little blower style cooler never went over 45c on either temp sensors.
Click to expand...

Wth. Thats insane. Looks like yoursafe bet is with a nvme pcie adapter.


----------



## cstkl1

Falkentyne said:


> Sleakcavi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry that's because I go all over the place tinkering and messing around with settings to score higher in benchmarks. Also I don't think it helps when I post from mobile if I'm away from the PC because it is stress testing.
> 
> When I was getting L0 errors I was set on 1.38 LLC 4 manual vcore with my Corsair 3200MHz Dominator Platinum RAM 32GB 2 DIMM kit. I tried adaptive and to set what I thought was correct and a bit over what the AI tab says in BIOS to see if it was a low vcore issue and I was seeing idle voltage up to 1.431V. I didn't like that so I backed off.
> 
> I since have switched to my Trident Royal Z 4266mhz RAM and you could see in the last SS i posted what the voltages are. I cannot run it with the AI overclock in blender due to L0 errors at 5.3Ghz. To solve the issue I set a -1 AVX offset and left everything else in AI Optimized. I get no errors now. I guess my big question is since I know it can do 5.3 in most stress tests besides blender I assume its a vcore issue. How can I translate AI adaptive voltage it sets into doing it myself and being able to raise the vcore without getting crazy high idle voltage? Or should I go manual and just find my Vmin for blender since it seems to be the hardest to not get errors in?
> 
> 
> 
> Ok I just did my own testing for you.
> Swapped out my 2x16 GB 3200 CL14 sticks @ 3200, for my 2x8 GB Patriot Steel Viper 4000 19-19-39's.
> 
> Switched to other BIOS on a fresh cmos, Enabled XMP for 4000 mhz default timings.
> and nothing else except 5.3 ghz core, 4.9 ghz ring, LLC: level 6 and fixed voltage: 1.390v Bios set. Nothing else was changed (besides setting VRM Switching Freq to 500).
> 
> VCCIO and VCCSA were set via XMP to 1.30v automatically.
> 
> Ran Cinebench R20 @ 1.279-1.270v load
> CPU Cache L0 error on the second run (6900 points). Temps: 88C
> 
> Stopped and set VCCIO to 1.20v and VCCSA left at 1.30v
> Ran CB R20 again, 6900 points (1.279v load)
> CPU Cache L0 error on the second run. Temps: 88C
> 
> Set VCCIO and VCCSA both to 1.20v.
> Looped it for 10 minutes (CB: 6925). Only after I reached 10 minutes did an L0 error finally appear. Temps: 91C. (1.270v-1.279v load).
> 
> So yes, IO and SA voltages can affect when you get an L0 error when you are close to your Vmin. You may need lower IO/SA (AVX), higher IO/SA (SSE2) or just higher vcore (easy way out).
Click to expand...

I had that sort of error in the past. It will always be koed by prime with a worker thread stop for no reason. 
Yeah vrm switching frequency will allow it to go slightly further but will bsod. 
Normally just blame this as either
1. Cpu and board combi limit
2. Some temps somewhere triggering something 
3. Not worth the time cause the wattage temp seem to be goin haywire. Use to think it was some current demand issue. 

Saw this for [email protected] offset 0.. [email protected] ( but this was slight easier to overcome to a degree when i switch to rampage omega.. )

So guess i am expecting same-thing in z490.

I once tried pll bandwidth. Short story DO NOT TRUST that asus note saying use 6 or 8.. killed a 8700k. How.. the cpu works but two threads the cpu temp just rocketed and stayed there.


----------



## ogider

I have to stop reading this topic. : D (Depression) According to tradition, my CPU is very bad. I just finished testing for p95 small fft no avx.
10900k+MSI z490 Unify
1.260V during load is needed for stability.
And this is only 5.0GHz with 1.32 SA and 1.30 IO LLC6

Only one question ... I have set cache clock just 200MHz less than core clock. Could this be a factor that forces me to increase voltage during the small fft no avx test to run correctly? Or it doesn't matter for this test?

My memory setting I m 100% sure that they are stable. Long memtest and gsat tests


----------



## ThrashZone

cstkl1 said:


> Wth. Thats insane. Looks like yoursafe bet is with a nvme pcie adapter.


Hi,
Yeah since I doubt I'll ever sli sounds like a good thing to look into 
Got any suggestions for a m.2 pci-e card way out of my pay grade


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
5.3 & 5.0 cache pulled 6849 & 557 single core on r20.


Spoiler


----------



## Nizzen

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> 5.3 & 5.0 cache pulled 6849 & 557 single core on r20.
> 
> 
> Spoiler


Nice result 

Did you try the new bios?

https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?118328-Asus-Z490-stuff

I'm using 0606 on Apex xii atm


----------



## ThrashZone

Nizzen said:


> Nice result
> 
> Did you try the new bios?
> 
> https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?118328-Asus-Z490-stuff


Hi,
Not until they offer .cap files nope.
I'll wait for official channel


----------



## newls1

where is 0607?


----------



## ThrashZone

newls1 said:


> where is 0607?


Hi,
XII extreme board released so I guess formula will get something sooner or later.


----------



## Nizzen

newls1 said:


> where is 0607?


Only for Extreme atm. 

0606 works pretty good for both Formula and Apex here


----------



## Nizzen

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Not until they offer .cap files nope.
> I'll wait for official channel


Can't be better than from Shamino


----------



## ThrashZone

Nizzen said:


> Can't be better than from Shamino


Hi,
.cap file would be better so there it can be better


----------



## newls1

Nizzen said:


> Only for Extreme atm.
> 
> 0606 works pretty good for both Formula and Apex here


thank you for input. By chance, have you tested 0606 vs 0041 for 4x8gb b-die setups?


----------



## 86Jarrod

0606 on HERO works fine so far.


----------



## cstkl1

ThrashZone said:


> cstkl1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wth. Thats insane. Looks like yoursafe bet is with a nvme pcie adapter.
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> Yeah since I doubt I'll ever sli sounds like a good thing to look into
> Got any suggestions for a m.2 pci-e card way out of my pay grade /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
Click to expand...

i was using a usd4 for years. heck even took out the i/o bracket and just slotted it into the pcie. lol. 

https://www.amazon.com/Adapter-Cont...1&keywords=nvme+adapter&qid=1591054142&sr=8-8

something like this one. no idea y amazon so expensive. 
some of them come with alu heatsink bit i just used the adata default thin profile heatsink.


----------



## truth hurts

x015e217 sp84 vid 1.28v @ 52 48 llc4 

manual oc 54 51 @ 1.38v llc7


----------



## cstkl1

D-EJ915 said:


> cstkl1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> i too will get to the bottom of this and show him side by side. once my cpu and mobo comes will go to the shop grab an msi and run hci. so far no msi board arrived. only strix & hero.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice, would be interesting to see if issue still persists or not.
Click to expand...

Just grabbed a 8700k and m10h. Updated to latest bios 
Something changed. Its now doing the samething as msi. 
Throttles to avx offset clock during hci 
X299 strix/rampage 7820x/9900x doesnt do this as off two week ago when i sold them. 

It wasnt like this when it was launched. It was the msi z370 gaming 5 vs hero X. 

So now i am stummped


----------



## warbucks

I installed my XII Formula and 10900k today. Currently benching Prime95 small fft, going on 60 minutes now running at 5.2ghz, 1.26vcore under load, and LLC5. I run dual 360 rads in a custom loop and temps are hovering around 78-80C. SP rating in bios is listed as 78.


----------



## Falkentyne

warbucks said:


> I installed my XII Formula and 10900k today. Currently benching Prime95 small fft, going on 60 minutes now running at 5.2ghz, 1.26vcore under load, and LLC5. I run dual 360 rads in a custom loop and temps are hovering around 78-80C. SP rating in bios is listed as 78.


AVX enabled small FFT or AVX disabled?


----------



## warbucks

Falkentyne said:


> AVX enabled small FFT or AVX disabled?


That was with AVX disabled. Working on AVX enabled right now.


----------



## MazrimCF

86Jarrod said:


> 0606 on HERO works fine so far.


I'm on a Hero with 0606 and anytime I try SVID Best Case it BSOD every single time


----------



## Falkentyne

MazrimCF said:


> I'm on a Hero with 0606 and anytime I try SVID Best Case it BSOD every single time


What vcore voltage mode? SVID best case scenario should be the default setting at auto.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
I'm pretty much using trained seems okay.


----------



## newls1

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> I'm pretty much using trained seems okay.


this..... seemed to work best for me as well


----------



## MazrimCF

Falkentyne said:


> What vcore voltage mode? SVID best case scenario should be the default setting at auto.


Everything at default except XMP that's at II for this Dom Plat 3200. Yesterday I switched fans on this crappy enermax 360 to some noctua's in a failed attemp to lower idle temps and I went SVID= Best Case and MCE= No limits and CBR20 crashed WHEA error after like 15 sec. I went back into bios turned MCE to Auto still crashed set SVID to auto and everything worked. Today I swtiched MCE to No Limit and CB r20 ran in a loop for 20 min rebooted put MCE to auto and SVID to Best case CB BSOD after 10 sec.


----------



## Falkentyne

MazrimCF said:


> Everything at default except XMP that's at II for this Dom Plat 3200. Yesterday I switched fans on this crappy enermax 360 to some noctua's in a failed attemp to lower idle temps and I went SVID= Best Case and MCE= No limits and CBR20 crashed WHEA error after like 15 sec. I went back into bios turned MCE to Auto still crashed set SVID to auto and everything worked. Today I swtiched MCE to No Limit and CB r20 ran in a loop for 20 min rebooted put MCE to auto and SVID to Best case CB BSOD after 10 sec.


I see. It's possble SVID Auto is using a trained setting then when everything else is auto, but uses Best Case as soon as you take manual control of the CPU multiplier (I haven't exactly tested this behavior).


----------



## MazrimCF

Falkentyne said:


> I see. It's possble SVID Auto is using a trained setting then when everything else is auto, but uses Best Case as soon as you take manual control of the CPU multiplier (I haven't exactly tested this behavior).


I did notice that under Best Case the system's fans are very slow to react to the temp spike of CB and with this cooler unable to keep the cpu under 40c at idle if windows didn't pull the plug I was going to anyway.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
With a setting that states Lets bios optimize on enhancement then if the bios is screwed so will be the oc.
Problem is switching this to anything else is actually worse lol so we are screwed no matter.

HEDT was easy compared to this mess z490 bios.

Three tRFC settings only one on x299
Instead of just T1-T2-T3 on x299 you get Mode 1-2 & Command rate 1n-2n-3n-n:1
Three tWTR listing too while memory config app only shows 2

So yeah not really impressed with these bios at all or maybe it just needs a better memory config version that is not from asus because all their software is like VD to an os.


----------



## cstkl1

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> With a setting that states Lets bios optimize on enhancement then if the bios is screwed so will be the oc.
> Problem is switching this to anything else is actually worse lol so we are screwed no matter.
> 
> HEDT was easy compared to this mess z490 bios.
> 
> Three tRFC settings only one on x299
> Instead of just T1-T2-T3 on x299 you get Mode 1-2 & Command rate 1n-2n-3n-n:1
> Three tWTR listing too while memory config app only shows 2
> 
> So yeah not really impressed with these bios at all or maybe it just needs a better memory config version that is not from asus because all their software is like VD to an os.


If your sticks are bdie. Focus on dram clk.


----------



## ThrashZone

cstkl1 said:


> If your sticks are bdie. Focus on dram clk.


Hi,
Love too but tWTR keeps changing to 14 all three if setting frequency over 3600c16 so personal settings are being totally ignored.


----------



## shamino1978

MazrimCF said:


> I'm on a Hero with 0606 and anytime I try SVID Best Case it BSOD every single time


SVID Best Case when youre on adaptive mode on the 10900k with all esle auto is wayyyy too optimistic. 
basically you're telling the processor that your board has zero impedance so no vdroop, and in reality your vrm loadline is say 1.1MOhm. the vid it will request for is so low that you wont output enough voltage, the guardband you have to play with is NOT that big.
SVid trained is part of the AI algo, that sets a predicted AC DC LL value taking into account freq, cpu/cooler characteristics/vrm ll value. it is not a fixed preset.


----------



## hemon

I have as fixed bios voltage 1.38 LLC3 and if I set adaptive bios voltage 1.38 LLC3 the load and idle voltage is much higher, is this normal? What can I do in order to fix this?


----------



## shamino1978

hemon said:


> I have as fixed bios voltage 1.38 LLC3 and if I set adaptive bios voltage 1.38 LLC3 the load and idle voltage is much higher, is this normal? What can I do in order to fix this?


there have been many attempts to explain adaptive voltage, heres my latest attempt, scroll down to the adaptive voltage portion
https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?106375-MCE-explanations-and-others&p=744768#post744768


----------



## robertr1

So lessons from Z390 Apex adaptive tuning and SVID behavior. 9900k @ 5.2 1.34v max set adaptive voltage with LLC 6. "Best case" has been my daily stable since Jan so I know it's behavior but I was intrigued to try out the diff settings as it's been a while since I messed with SVID. Below are results from earlier today with the above as the starting point. 

SVID: Best case. R15 runs. Max voltage 1.332v. load voltage 1.270v < my daily setup 
SVID: Typical. Thermal throttle with 1.385v max. Load voltage 1.335v
SVID: Worst case. Didn't bother running as idle max was 1.42v+! 
SVID: Intel default. "over voltage message on bios initialization" 

It would seem that if you want to your voltage stay below the max set adaptive voltage, it only does that in SVID = Best Case

Each mode there after gets progressively worse and your idle and load voltages will keep jumping up.

Before using adaptive, I had found my voltage floor with fixed voltage and then tuned adaptive to match that. My current setup of adaptive matches the behavior of my fixed setup. I daily adaptive with cstates enabled so I get voltage drop at idle.

edit: in hindsight I should have recorded the idle vid for each to see how much ac/dc offset was being applied but forgot to do it. I wonder if there's a way to show this in the bios when selecting the different options before committing @Shamino ? like a field that next to the setting that shows "+/- offset" to be applied on the fly?


----------



## Falkentyne

shamino1978 said:


> there have been many attempts to explain adaptive voltage, heres my latest attempt, scroll down to the adaptive voltage portion
> https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?106375-MCE-explanations-and-others&p=744768#post744768


I still have this on my bookmarks


----------



## shamino1978

robertr1 said:


> edit: in hindsight I should have recorded the idle vid for each to see how much ac/dc offset was being applied but forgot to do it. I wonder if there's a way to show this in the bios when selecting the different options before committing @Shamino ? like a field that next to the setting that shows "+/- offset" to be applied on the fly?


u mean readback the current AC , DC LL value and display it like the rest of the 'current values'? yes, perhaps we can do that in future. 
like i explained in the post, the so-called offset from it depends on not just the value but the current drawn, so the "offset" it applies is different idle vs load.


----------



## Falkentyne

shamino1978 said:


> u mean readback the current AC , DC LL value and display it like the rest of the 'current values'? yes, perhaps we can do that in future.
> like i explained in the post, the so-called offset from it depends on not just the value but the current drawn, so the "offset" it applies is different idle vs load.


Is he checking this on Z390? I think LLC should be level 2 if SVID is set to worst case or intel's fail safe. Low mOhm Vcore LLC + High mOhm ACLL is asking for trouble...
Is Adaptive offset=0.00v or Auto? Offset should be set to 0.00v (or+-0.05v if 0.00 cannot be set)

I think I need to go back to sleep


----------



## MazrimCF

shamino1978 said:


> MazrimCF said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm on a Hero with 0606 and anytime I try SVID Best Case it BSOD every single time
> 
> 
> 
> SVID Best Case when youre on adaptive mode on the 10900k with all esle auto is wayyyy too optimistic.
> basically you're telling the processor that your board has zero impedance so no vdroop, and in reality your vrm loadline is say 1.1MOhm. the vid it will request for is so low that you wont output enough voltage, the guardband you have to play with is NOT that big.
> SVid trained is part of the AI algo, that sets a predicted AC DC LL value taking into account freq, cpu/cooler characteristics/vrm ll value. it is not a fixed preset.
Click to expand...

My mistake then as I was applying what little I knew about z390 to try and find out what is the reason my chip will not go pass 4.9 not even in a burst. I have an SP 98 chip but the cooler seems to be the limiting factor so I was grasping a straws.


----------



## cstkl1

Falkentyne said:


> shamino1978 said:
> 
> 
> 
> there have been many attempts to explain adaptive voltage, heres my latest attempt, scroll down to the adaptive voltage portion
> https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?106375-MCE-explanations-and-others&p=744768#post744768
> 
> 
> 
> I still have this on my bookmarks /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
Click to expand...

i got in on pdf in my ibooks. some of yours too.


----------



## cstkl1

shamino1978 said:


> robertr1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> edit: in hindsight I should have recorded the idle vid for each to see how much ac/dc offset was being applied but forgot to do it. I wonder if there's a way to show this in the bios when selecting the different options before committing @Shamino ? like a field that next to the setting that shows "+/- offset" to be applied on the fly?
> 
> 
> 
> u mean readback the current AC , DC LL value and display it like the rest of the 'current values'? yes, perhaps we can do that in future.
> like i explained in the post, the so-called offset from it depends on not just the value but the current drawn, so the "offset" it applies is different idle vs load.
Click to expand...

or the ohm values on loadline1-8?? for ac/dc??
if i am understanding this right. 
or a loadline prediction value based on max current set or preset?? .. on max load .. vcore load prediction??


----------



## shamino1978

cstkl1 said:


> or the ohm values on loadline1-8?? for ac/dc??
> if i am understanding this right.
> or a loadline prediction value based on max current set or preset?? .. on max load .. vcore load prediction??


im not sure i understand the question, but just picture it this way.
the cpu doesnt know what the mobo LL is. you tell it what it is via ac dc ll.
you dont need to be honest to it, most times you WONT want to be honest to it. (people will blame the board to be 'overvolting' if it is honest, try it yourself, set LLC3 and set ac and dc ll to 1.1mohm, see what volt u get)
so the difference between ur mb ll vs what u program to ac dc ll is the "under volt" you are used to be seeing, thinking thats the default voltage.

in terms of cpu "offsetting" with ac dc ll values, it is dynamically doing this perpetually all the time, svid is persistently ongoing, it will keep requesting diff volts from controller.
so there is no prediction based on max current, if load now is 50A, it will use 50A to calculate a vid to request for, the next second load is 150A, then it will use 150A to request for a new calculated vid.


----------



## robertr1

shamino1978 said:


> im not sure i understand the question, but just picture it this way.
> the cpu doesnt know what the mobo LL is. you tell it what it is via ac dc ll.
> you dont need to be honest to it, most times you WONT want to be honest to it. (people will blame the board to be 'overvolting' if it is honest, try it yourself, set LLC3 and set ac and dc ll to 1.1mohm, see what volt u get)
> so the difference between ur mb ll vs what u program to ac dc ll is the "under volt" you are used to be seeing, thinking thats the default voltage.
> 
> in terms of cpu "offsetting" with ac dc ll values, it is dynamically doing this perpetually all the time, svid is persistently ongoing, it will keep requesting diff volts from controller.
> so there is no prediction based on max current, if load now is 50A, it will use 50A to calculate a vid to request for, the next second load is 150A, then it will use 150A to request for a new calculated vid.


I think a simplification will help here.

The best use of adaptive I've come across on my z390 Apex was using "best case" and setting the max voltage I want the chip to draw and the using LLC as you would with static. The main purpose to let the voltage fluctuate based on workload but not to exceed set max. 

So that's a great use case because I could not get offset voltage to behave in that matter on the Apex or the GB Pro board. Thus adaptive is great and I really suggest people use it. 

However, once you go beyond this, then you're basically having a use case overlap with offset and I'm not sure what the actual difference is between adaptive and offset if the set voltage in the is going to be blown out anyway based on my example above. Then you're just trying to manage the ac/dc boost and using loadline to compensate for the excessive boost on AC/DC. Your "set adaptive" voltage at that point doesn't seem to serve much of a purpose.


----------



## shamino1978

robertr1 said:


> I think a simplification will help here.
> 
> The best use of adaptive I've come across on my z390 Apex was using "best case" and setting the max voltage I want the chip to draw and the using LLC as you would with static. The main purpose to let the voltage fluctuate based on workload but not to exceed set max.
> 
> So that's a great use case because I could not get offset voltage to behave in that matter on the Apex or the GB Pro board. Thus adaptive is great and I really suggest people use it.
> 
> However, once you go beyond this, then you're basically having a use case overlap with offset and I'm not sure what the actual difference is between adaptive and offset if the set voltage in the is going to be blown out anyway based on my example above. Then you're just trying to manage the ac/dc boost and using loadline to compensate for the excessive boost on AC/DC. Your "set adaptive" voltage at that point doesn't seem to serve much of a purpose.


this is what is not working well for 10900k, base case , you would need to set LLC 6 or so at defaults to be stable on 10900k, if u can be stable at defaults at best case with auto LLC such as 2 or 3, then u have a magnificent cpu, i have not come across one yet.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
0607 bios is pretty bad unless bsod blue is what you're going for 

Pretty good profile on 0403 didn't import it or anything just reentered manually

Page in nonpage area right off the bat on xpm 1
System exception without xmp at all
Back on 0403.


----------



## Falkentyne

shamino1978 said:


> this is what is not working well for 10900k, base case , you would need to set LLC 6 or so at defaults to be stable on 10900k, if u can be stable at defaults at best case with auto LLC such as 2 or 3, then u have a magnificent cpu, i have not come across one yet.


LOL I don't think any CPU is capable of that. You would need one hell of a guardband to survive the initial load voltage.

Typical 5 ghz prime95 AVX load for example, assume VCPU @ 5 ghz=1.20v, LLC Level 2, IOUT 200A...
That would be 980mv request at ambient (30C) after vdrop.
Even with TVB slowly temp boost raising VCPU, that would be an instant crash anyway.

And a super high SP chip won't help because that just means vCPU would be much lower (let's say a SP 120 chip has 1.150v vCPU @ 5 ghz. Then you're looking at 930mv request...)


----------



## reflex75

robertr1 said:


> SVID: Best case. R15 runs. Max voltage 1.332v. load voltage 1.270v < my daily setup
> SVID: Typical. Thermal throttle with 1.385v max. Load voltage 1.335v
> SVID: Worst case. Didn't bother running as idle max was 1.42v+!
> SVID: Intel default. "over voltage message on bios initialization"


I am alos at 5.2Ghz with a 9900ks on a Maximus XI H.
But I use Typical with LLC5 for lower voltage and better transient response.
What I miss on my Asus motherboard Z390 is to create my own SVID behaviour curve!
Let's say something betwin Best case and Typical, with the possibility of fine tuning...


----------



## shamino1978

reflex75 said:


> I am alos at 5.2Ghz with a 9900ks on a Maximus XI H.
> But I use Typical with LLC5 for lower voltage and better transient response.
> What I miss on my Asus motherboard Z390 is to create my own SVID behaviour curve!
> Let's say something betwin Best case and Typical, with the possibility of fine tuning...


Just set ac dc ll in internal pwr mgt to what you want say start with 0.5 and trim up or down


----------



## ogider

Falkentyne said:


> Typical 5 ghz prime95 AVX load for example, )


Small video from my 5.0 with avx test. 1.243V during this load.
(occt is like 10% less power draw than p95 I think.

https://streamable.com/rp2inh


----------



## cstkl1

shamino1978 said:


> Just set ac dc ll in internal pwr mgt to what you want say start with 0.5 and trim up or down


me now super confuse. isnt 0.5 in ac/dc 50mohm??
thought it wrote in the bios
edit. 
me stupid 
nuff said . didnt read the description in the bios properly


----------



## Falkentyne

cstkl1 said:


> me now super confuse. isnt 0.5 in ac/dc 50mohm??
> thought it wrote in the bios
> edit.
> me stupid
> nuff said . didnt read the description in the bios properly


Asus BIOS: 0.5 mOhm is 0.5 mOhm.

If you set 50 mOhm you wouldn't have a CPU anymore


----------



## AeonMW2

Any idea how much VCCIO and VCCSA do i need for 2x8 kit of Viper Steel b-die 4400 cl 19 on an i9 10900K? mobo is Vision G
Auto settings are dangerously high.
Tried 1.3 SA and 1.25 IO, memtest 400% stable but PC randomly freezing, so i suppose it's not enough.
Whats max safe (I mean TOTALLY safe for 24/7) vccio/vccsa for 10900K?


----------



## Falkentyne

AeonMW2 said:


> Any idea how much VCCIO and VCCSA do i need for 2x8 kit of Viper Steel b-die 4400 cl 19 on an i9 10900K? mobo is Vision G
> Auto settings are dangerously high.
> Tried 1.3 SA and 1.25 IO, memtest 400% stable but PC randomly freezing, so i suppose it's not enough.
> Whats max safe (I mean TOTALLY safe for 24/7) vccio/vccsa for 10900K?


Try 1.35v IO and 1.40v SA and see if your freezing stops.
And how much DDR memory voltage did you set here??


----------



## AeonMW2

1.45 vDRAM
1.35v/1.40v just for testing, it's not considered safe 24/7, right?

upd: i'm running XMP, since it's in QVL list. but auto VCCIO and VCCSA are way too high


----------



## newls1

AeonMW2 said:


> 1.45 vDRAM
> 1.35v/1.40v just for testing, it's not considered safe 24/7, right?
> 
> upd: i'm running XMP, since it's in QVL list. but auto VCCIO and VCCSA are way too high


i wouldnt think you would need much more then 1.3 on either of them for only pushing 2 sticks....


----------



## patrickbc

Is my OC any good?

So I've tried OC'ing before, but im really not that adapt in it yet, and with a new chip, I really dont know if my OC would be considered good/bad/unsafe/ok or whatever... So hope you guys can share your opinion.

10900k
ASUS Z490-h
OCCT NON AVX, 2 hours small, passed stable (temps around 85-90)
OCCT AVX 2, 45 min small, passed stable. (temps around 95-100)
OCCT ABX 2, 1 hour large, passed stable. (temps around 60-65)

All core sync: 52
AVX offset: 2
LLC: 6
CPU voltage: Manuel 1.370
DRAM voltage: 1.500
VCCIO: 1.280
VCCSA: 1.290
BLCK Aware Adaptive Voltage: Disabled
Silicon Prediction (SP): 94
Cooler Prediction: Around 170-180
All current limits etc etc: OFF

CPU-Z
Core Voltage: 1.272 (reported under OCCT NON AVX small)
HWinfo64
Vcore (motherboard): 1.412 (reported under OCCT NON AVX small)
VCCSA: 1.312 (reported under OCCT NON AVX small)
VCCIO:1.312 (reported under OCCT NON AVX small)


----------



## AeonMW2

hemon said:


> I think, it was just like with my cpu at 5.1 - or definitely not more than 1.282v. But the temps... how it can be possible that you have on air the same temps like me where I have an AIO Corsair H115i Pro?!


https://youtu.be/k8II0NoI6cc?t=652


----------



## Falkentyne

AeonMW2 said:


> 1.45 vDRAM
> 1.35v/1.40v just for testing, it's not considered safe 24/7, right?
> 
> upd: i'm running XMP, since it's in QVL list. but auto VCCIO and VCCSA are way too high


I've been at 1.40 VCCIO and 1.50v VCCSA for 2 weeks now deliberately, and no problems.
And I'll tell you this right now.

On my Z390 Master, the 4000 mhz patriot steel viper sticks were NOT stable if I had VCCIO and VCCSA lower than 1.35v and 1.40v. I would fail prime95 112k-112k AVX disabled if they were at 1.30v/1.35v. They needed 1.35/1.40v to not fail 112k AVX disabled. DDRV was not the problem.


The Intel docs also do not have an upper limit for IO/SA anymore. For BGA chips it has 1.520v but none for LGA. So if you need a certain amount of IO/SA to stop freezing issues or crashes you need to use it.


----------



## ThrashZone

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> 5.3 & 5.0 cache pulled 6849 & 557 single core on r20.
> 
> 
> Spoiler





Nizzen said:


> Nice result
> 
> *Did you try the new bios?*
> 
> https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?118328-Asus-Z490-stuff
> 
> I'm using 0606 on Apex xii atm





Nizzen said:


> Only for Extreme atm.
> 
> *0606 works pretty good for both Formula and Apex here*





newls1 said:


> *thank you for input. By chance, have you tested 0606 vs 0041 for 4x8gb b-die setups*?


Hi,
I don't believe this 0041 fix could be in 0607 seeing I tried 4x8 4000 b-die option and failed like a rock didn't even post. 3600c16 is b-die. xmp 1 though was it again xmp 2 instead ?
But @shamino1978 never commented/ confirmed.


----------



## roooo

Hi all,


just out of curiosity: did anyone check how far the CPU can be pushed when disabling 1 or 2 cores?






Cheers,
roooo-


----------



## newls1

patrickbc said:


> Is my OC any good?
> 
> So I've tried OC'ing before, but im really not that adapt in it yet, and with a new chip, I really dont know if my OC would be considered good/bad/unsafe/ok or whatever... So hope you guys can share your opinion.
> 
> 10900k
> ASUS Z490-h
> OCCT NON AVX, 2 hours small, passed stable (temps around 85-90)
> OCCT AVX 2, 45 min small, passed stable. (temps around 95-100)
> OCCT ABX 2, 1 hour large, passed stable. (temps around 60-65)
> 
> All core sync: 52
> AVX offset: 2
> LLC: 6
> CPU voltage: Manuel 1.370
> DRAM voltage: 1.500
> VCCIO: 1.280
> VCCSA: 1.290
> BLCK Aware Adaptive Voltage: Disabled
> Silicon Prediction (SP): 94
> Cooler Prediction: Around 170-180
> All current limits etc etc: OFF
> 
> CPU-Z
> Core Voltage: 1.272 (reported under OCCT NON AVX small)
> HWinfo64
> Vcore (motherboard): 1.412 (reported under OCCT NON AVX small)
> VCCSA: 1.312 (reported under OCCT NON AVX small)
> VCCIO:1.312 (reported under OCCT NON AVX small)


Temps are on edge of instability at full load, so i would work on a better loop, or figure out a better cooling setup, but looks okay. Why Vdimm @ 1.5v? you pushing B-die with high freq/ low CL?


----------



## 8051

Falkentyne said:


> I've been at 1.40 VCCIO and 1.50v VCCSA for 2 weeks now deliberately, and no problems.
> And I'll tell you this right now.
> 
> On my Z390 Master, the 4000 mhz patriot steel viper sticks were NOT stable if I had VCCIO and VCCSA lower than 1.35v and 1.40v. I would fail prime95 112k-112k AVX disabled if they were at 1.30v/1.35v. They needed 1.35/1.40v to not fail 112k AVX disabled. DDRV was not the problem.
> 
> The Intel docs also do not have an upper limit for IO/SA anymore. For BGA chips it has 1.520v but none for LGA. So if you need a certain amount of IO/SA to stop freezing issues or crashes you need to use it.


Would insufficient VCCIO and VCCSA have any effect on core or uncore overclocking? Thanks again Falkentyne your info on Coffeelake has been invaluable in getting my 9700k overclocks stable.


----------



## Falkentyne

8051 said:


> Would insufficient VCCIO and VCCSA have any effect on core or uncore overclocking? Thanks again Falkentyne your info on Coffeelake has been invaluable in getting my 9700k overclocks stable.


It can, since the uncore affects memory bandwidth and the IMC and is very sensitive to hyperthreading stability. But you have to test this on your own. There is no formula for this sort of stuff.


----------



## Nizzen

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> I don't believe this 0041 fix could be in 0607 seeing I tried 4x8 4000 b-die option and failed like a rock didn't even post. 3600c16 is b-die. xmp 1 though was it again xmp 2 instead ?
> But @shamino1978 never commented/ confirmed.


So 4x8GB 4000mhz not working on Formula?

I have the 4x 4000c15 kit, so have to try it in this weekend. Will swtch over to the formula  Apex xii just boots EVERYTHING


----------



## newls1

Nizzen said:


> So 4x8GB 4000mhz not working on Formula?
> 
> I have the 4x 4000c15 kit, so have to try it in this weekend. Will swtch over to the formula  Apex xii just boots EVERYTHING


on the bios your board will likely have pre flashed (0403)... It is terrible for 4x8 setups, and when i say terrible, i mean TERRIBLE. Shamino helped us out by releasing (i guess the word might be "Special") bios'es for us to try and for me, 0041 proved to be my ticket to get 4133 CL17 4x8Gb.. 0403 wouldnt even post with that.


----------



## patrickbc

*patrickbc*



newls1 said:


> Temps are on edge of instability at full load, so i would work on a better loop, or figure out a better cooling setup, but looks okay. Why Vdimm @ 1.5v? you pushing B-die with high freq/ low CL?


Not at all actually, mediocore hynix corsair memory at 3600 mhz, I have also lowered the DRAM Voltage to 1.400v now. SA 1.280v now IO 1.250v
LLC, Vcore and especially SA/IO looks safe to you? Dont wanna ruin my chip after a year 

Temp under heavy cpu games/program are 55-60 degress


----------



## newls1

patrickbc said:


> Not at all actually, mediocore hynix corsair memory at 3600 mhz, I have also lowered the DRAM Voltage to 1.400v now. SA 1.280v now IO 1.250v
> LLC, Vcore and especially SA/IO looks safe to you? Dont wanna ruin my chip after a year
> 
> Temp under heavy cpu games/program are 55-60 degress


im surprised that ram needed more then 1.35v... but 1.4 should be well and fine. You never stated what your dram OC is, so im only assuming here. I ran my 64GB's of DJR @ 3733MHz @ 1.45 and was totally happy with it.


----------



## cstkl1

Arghh when i see these kindda challegences 4x8gb cant do this and that.. trigger trigger..

30 units [email protected] should i.. wife might kill me though.. 

So it seems current viet cpus are either week 14 or 16. Nothing newer yet


----------



## Circaflex

This might be a silly question, but can I use this cooler as a way of testing to make sure my mobo and cpu are not DOA? I usually like to test before hand as I am watercooling and realized I dont have any spare air coolers at the moment. https://www.newegg.com/intel-bxts15a/p/N82E16835203026 I want something super simple to install without much mounting hardware. I know the push pins usually are terrible, but this is just to get a single boot up before I rip apart the GPU and install the waterblock.


10900k btw


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Default turbo is 5.1 on the 10900k


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Circaflex said:


> This might be a silly question, but can I use this cooler as a way of testing to make sure my mobo and cpu are not DOA? I usually like to test before hand as I am watercooling and realized I dont have any spare air coolers at the moment. https://www.newegg.com/intel-bxts15a/p/N82E16835203026 I want something super simple to install without much mounting hardware. I know the push pins usually are terrible, but this is just to get a single boot up before I rip apart the GPU and install the waterblock.


Don't see why not. Should be good just for testing boot ups and such.


----------



## Circaflex

MrTOOSHORT said:


> Don't see why not. Should be good just for testing boot ups and such.


Awesome, thanks.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Circaflex said:


> Awesome, thanks.



no problem.

Looks like you are getting a beastly rig going! I'll be installing my 10900k and MXIIE tonight or tomorrow. Will be fun.


----------



## Circaflex

MrTOOSHORT said:


> no problem.
> 
> Looks like you are getting a beastly rig going! I'll be installing my 10900k and MXIIE tonight or tomorrow. Will be fun.


Thank you! It feels so good to be building a rig again, all new water gear and a rig. I am beyond excited. I am also pleased at how the community responds to n00b questions and it makes me feel great returning to one of my hobbies. I cant wait to put it together, bench it, break it, troubleshoot it and game. 

I am thinking this ram would work well, G.SKILL TridentZ Series 32GB (2 x 16GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 4000 (PC4 32000) Intel Z370 Desktop Memory Model F4-4000C19D-32GTZSW, someone in another thread recommended DDR4000 rather than 3200


----------



## ThrashZone

Circaflex said:


> Thank you! It feels so good to be building a rig again, all new water gear and a rig. I am beyond excited. I am also pleased at how the community responds to n00b questions and it makes me feel great returning to one of my hobbies. I cant wait to put it together, bench it, break it, troubleshoot it and game.
> 
> I am thinking this ram would work well, G.SKILL TridentZ Series 32GB (2 x 16GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 4000 (PC4 32000) Intel Z370 Desktop Memory Model F4-4000C19D-32GTZSW, someone in another thread recommended DDR4000 rather than 3200


Hi,
Turbo clock was just a reminder 
Other than that default turbo clocks are a bit disappointing on how much it throttles R20 drops to 4.1 lol towards the end totally tanking score.

By core usage 5.1 x 10 or all core 5.1 works so much better.


----------



## Circaflex

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Turbo clock was just a reminder
> Other than that default turbo clocks are a bit disappointing on how much it throttles R20 drops to 4.1 lol towards the end totally tanking score.
> 
> By core usage 5.1 x 10 or all core 5.1 works so much better.


I am not quite sure I follow


----------



## ThrashZone

Circaflex said:


> I am not quite sure I follow


Hi,
Which part 
The disappointing default clock throttling or the reminder about what the default turbo clock is ?
On a cheap air cooler I wouldn't get too crazy is about all I was saying yes any cooler will be okay to see if everything words as MrTOOSHORT said.


----------



## Circaflex

Oh, I understand now. That CPU cooler was just for a first boot to ensure no DOA; everything else will be under watercooling (CPU and GPU).


----------



## ThrashZone

Circaflex said:


> Oh, I understand now. That CPU cooler was just for a first boot to ensure no DOA; everything else will be under watercooling (CPU and GPU).


Hi,
Yeah I understood that it was just for limited use 
I'll have to check out your build log :thumb:


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

Tried my 10900K on APEX XII with 0607 BIOS:

*CORE:*

Batch X016D812, ASUS SP:79
5.2GHz and 50x cache @1.4V BIOS set LLC6, 1.29V under R20 LOAD.

*IMC:*

2x8GB B-die: 4700 17-17-35 2T VDIMM=1.55V IO=1.35V SA=1.48V Pass original TM5

Micron 2x16GB C9BLL: 4900 18-24-44 2t VDIMM=1.62V IO=1.4V SA=1.63V Pass original TM5


----------



## hemon

AeonMW2 said:


> https://youtu.be/k8II0NoI6cc?t=652


Thank you for the link!

Anyway, I could pass at 5.1 R20 (and R15) with 80c many times without a problem BUT than I have a BSBD converting a PDF into OCR with ABBEYY FineReader. So it could be that you too have a not stable system thinking that R20 is good for testing stability.


----------



## criskoe

10900k & MXIIE up and going. 

Quick first OC. Basically auto everything so far. 

CPU ratio X 51
AVX 0
Uncore X 47
All Power Limits removed
Power Saving Cstates Disabled
All Voltages and everything else Auto

Doesnt seem too bad. 20 min P95 Small FFT No AVX. 

I wonder how much i can drop off these auto settings.


----------



## newls1

criskoe said:


> 10900k & MXIIE up and going.
> 
> Quick first OC. Basically auto everything so far.
> 
> CPU ratio X 51
> AVX 0
> Uncore X 47
> All Power Limits removed
> Power Saving Cstates Disabled
> All Voltages and everything else Auto
> 
> Doesnt seem too bad. 20 min P95 Small FFT No AVX.
> 
> I wonder how much i can drop off these auto settings.


Very nice i9 you have there.. What is the SP rating of it?


----------



## Falkentyne

criskoe said:


> 10900k & MXIIE up and going.
> 
> Quick first OC. Basically auto everything so far.
> 
> CPU ratio X 51
> AVX 0
> Uncore X 47
> All Power Limits removed
> Power Saving Cstates Disabled
> All Voltages and everything else Auto
> 
> Doesnt seem too bad. 20 min P95 Small FFT No AVX.
> 
> I wonder how much i can drop off these auto settings.


Can you pass avx1 enabled prime at those same exact auto settings?

If not, can you pass avx1 enabled prime at a load voltage of 1.181v (equalized)---to get there, try 1.315v Bios set + LLC6---should get you there. Remember: AVX1, not avx2, so disable AVX2 in options.


----------



## ThrashZone

hemon said:


> Thank you for the link!
> 
> Anyway, I could pass at 5.1 R20 (and R15) with 80c many times without a problem BUT than I have a BSBD converting a PDF into OCR with ABBEYY FineReader. So it could be that you too have a not stable system thinking that R20 is good for testing stability.


Hi,
No cinebench is not a good test for stability 
It does give you a quick idea how well your cooling is doing

Best I've found is a combination 
Blender using some of their free rendering demo files

Quick check demo file BMW 3 minutes and long classroom there is also pavilion Barcelona are a litle longer
Just install blender and extract all on the demo files and file/ point blender to where the file is and render image or animation if you want to loop the file until canceled 
https://www.blender.org/download/demo-files/

Another blender is an easy to run opendata has a quick and full cpu test easier than falling off a log to run this one full test about 40 minutes quick about 10.
https://www.blender.org/download/demo-files/

Other test is aida64 stress test not free but you can get cheap offerings off ebay 3.us run until you want to stop.

ASUS Realbench is free and good to use 
https://rog.asus.com/rog-pro/realbench-v2-leaderboard/

Last is just good old gaming.


----------



## criskoe

Falkentyne said:


> Can you pass avx1 enabled prime at those same exact auto settings?
> 
> If not, can you pass avx1 enabled prime at a load voltage of 1.181v (equalized)---to get there, try 1.315v Bios set + LLC6---should get you there. Remember: AVX1, not avx2, so disable AVX2 in options.


Well ill tell you one thing for sure. Im not going down my OCD past of trying to get P95 AVX 8 hour passes like I did with my 9900KS in the past. LOL Such a waste of time.

But as for what you asked. 

It wont pass on the auto voltage settings. fails at about 4 min mark. BSOD. The load voltage drops all the way down to 1.137V with the P95 AVX1 load. According to the bios when on auto it sets LLC to 4.

I gave your settings a try. Core Ratio-51 1.315v Bios set + LLC6. I also changed Uncore to X48

P95 Small FFT AVX1 20min @ 282W & 237A Yowsers! LOL 

@Falkentyne Where did you come with these numbers? What do they mean? Good. Bad? Where would you go from here? No scientific work loads for me. Just gaming.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Yeah you can run p95 all day and die in 5 minutes or less gaming.


----------



## Falkentyne

criskoe said:


> Well ill tell you one thing for sure. Im not going down my OCD past of trying to get P95 AVX 8 hour passes like I did with my 9900KS in the past. LOL Such a waste of time.
> 
> But as for what you asked.
> 
> It wont pass on the auto voltage settings. fails at about 4 min mark. BSOD. The load voltage drops all the way down to 1.137V with the P95 AVX1 load. According to the bios when on auto it sets LLC to 4.
> 
> I gave your settings a try. Core Ratio-51 1.315v Bios set + LLC6. I also changed Uncore to X48
> 
> P95 Small FFT AVX1 20min @ 282W & 237A Yowsers! LOL
> 
> @Falkentyne Where did you come with these numbers? What do they mean? Good. Bad? Where would you go from here? No scientific work loads for me. Just gaming.


Oh, presets I have saved for various vmins for testing my own binned 10900k. My ES needs 1.181v load with LLC6 to pass 5.1 ghz AVX1 small FFT. And that's right at the 240 amp limit too. So I wanted to see if your chip could also.
Realbench 2.56 @ 5.2 ghz requires 1.365v Bios LLC6 set for 1.265v load. Any lower is not stable and generates L0 errors. With transient tweaking, 1.243v-1.250v load is possible but not with LLC6.

What's your SP on your chip? Mine is 94. I'm guessing yours is over 100?

ALso if you can do ONE big favor for me it would be very very helpful!

At LLC6, what is the LOWEST BIOS voltage set (and load voltage vcore) that you can pass 30 minutes of Realbench 2.56 @ 5.2 ghz, without a CPU Cache L0 error in HWinfo64? (important not to get any of those).
That would help compare mine with yours. Mine: 1.365v Bios set LLC=6 = 1.265v full load. With transients reduced I can get it down to 1.243v load. You can use Asus TurboVcore to change vcore in windows if that helps any.


----------



## hemon

I would like to use an adaptive voltage and it would be great if you can help me to translate the constant voltage into the adaptive voltage.

Actually, I use LLC3 1.370v bios voltage (1.136 load voltage). If I set 1.230 adaptive voltage the temps are abnormal: 75c vs 88c. What can I do in order to reach the same temps as with constant voltage?


----------



## criskoe

Falkentyne said:


> Oh, presets I have saved for various vmins for testing my own binned 10900k. My ES needs 1.181v load with LLC6 to pass 5.1 ghz AVX1 small FFT. And that's right at the 240 amp limit too. So I wanted to see if your chip could also.
> Realbench 2.56 @ 5.2 ghz requires 1.365v Bios LLC6 set for 1.265v load. Any lower is not stable and generates L0 errors. With transient tweaking, 1.243v-1.250v load is possible but not with LLC6.
> 
> What's your SP on your chip? Mine is 94.


Myn is only 88. Kinda confusing really when comparing my idle VIDs and VF points to other peoples. Seems my numbers are great up until 53. That is compared to your screen shots of your VF points. 

My 5.0 idle VID is 1.175
My 5.1 idle VID is 1.205


----------



## Falkentyne

criskoe said:


> Myn is only 88. Kinda confusing really when comparing my idle VIDs and VF points to other peoples. Seems my numbers are great up until 53. That is compared to your screen shots of your VF points.
> 
> My 5.0 idle VID is 1.175
> My 5.1 idle VID is 1.205


Yeah I expected that. My idle VID is 30mv higher than yours at both of those. I'm guessing my SP is higher because it's an ES chip. But your VID's are lower so please run the test I mentioned last edited post.
Anyway please check my previous post because I edited it and asked a really important question if you can test something for me. (please).

From your chip's VIDS, I would start at 1.330v LLC6 for your Realbench 2.56 test for me at 5.2 ghz. If you don't get any cpu cache L0 errors in 15 minutes, use Asus turbo Vcore to reduce vcore by 10mv and start it again. This is just a rough guess. Record what load voltage you have before you start getting L0 errors. This may take awhile but hey it's not prime95!!


----------



## criskoe

Falkentyne said:


> Yeah I expected that. My idle VID is 30mv higher than yours at both of those. I'm guessing my SP is higher because it's an ES chip. But your VID's are lower so please run the test I mentioned last edited post.
> Anyway please check my previous post because I edited it and asked a really important question if you can test something for me. (please).
> 
> From your chip's VIDS, I would start at 1.330v LLC6 for your Realbench 2.56 test for me at 5.2 ghz. If you don't get any cpu cache L0 errors in 15 minutes, use Asus turbo Vcore to reduce vcore by 10mv and start it again. This is just a rough guess. Record what load voltage you have before you start getting L0 errors. This may take awhile but hey it's not prime95!!


After getting a golden 9900KS i was pretty sure i was going to lose the 10900K lottery bad. LOL. Felt it was inevitable that I would end up with a dud but seems this cpu is decent so far 

Yeah I saw you edited your post. What Ring do you want me to do with 5.2? 49? Ill run those test later today for sure and report back.


----------



## ThrashZone

criskoe said:


> 10900k & MXIIE up and going.
> 
> Quick first OC. Basically auto everything so far.
> 
> CPU ratio X 51
> AVX 0
> Uncore X 47
> All Power Limits removed
> Power Saving Cstates Disabled
> All Voltages and everything else Auto
> 
> Doesnt seem too bad. 20 min P95 Small FFT No AVX.
> 
> I wonder how much i can drop off these auto settings.


Hi,
Nice here are my v-v offsets


----------



## Falkentyne

criskoe said:


> After getting a golden 9900KS i was pretty sure i was going to lose the 10900K lottery bad. LOL. Felt it was inevitable that I would end up with a dud but seems this cpu is decent so far
> 
> Yeah I saw you edited your post. What Ring do you want me to do with 5.2? 49? Ill run those test later today for sure and report back.


I tested 4.8 ring.


----------



## criskoe

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Nice here are my v-v offsets


Yeah see i dont get that. My numbers are lower then that yet my SP rating is lower? Like my 5200Mhz VF point 7 is almost 40mv lower. Im starting to believe these SP ratings are bugged.


----------



## ThrashZone

criskoe said:


> Yeah see i dont get that. My numbers are lower then that yet my SP rating is lower? Like my 5200Mhz VF point 7 is almost 40mv lower. Im starting to believe these SP ratings are bugged.


Hi,
Indeed I wouldn't put much thought into it 
About like windows experience index score should be ignored and eventually dumped in 10.


----------



## criskoe

Falkentyne said:


> I tested 4.8 ring.


How much ram you have and how much did you select for your realbench test?

What amount do you want me to test?


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Usually test half the amount of ram you have installed is good enough for RB stress test.


----------



## Falkentyne

criskoe said:


> How much ram you have and how much did you select for your realbench test?
> 
> What amount do you want me to test?


defaults. 4 gb i think? i have 32gb ram. I always use the defaults.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Testing 4gb's is nothing to go by.
32 installed 16gb is a real test.


----------



## criskoe

Falkentyne said:


> Yeah I expected that. My idle VID is 30mv higher than yours at both of those. I'm guessing my SP is higher because it's an ES chip. But your VID's are lower so please run the test I mentioned last edited post.
> Anyway please check my previous post because I edited it and asked a really important question if you can test something for me. (please).
> 
> From your chip's VIDS, I would start at 1.330v LLC6 for your Realbench 2.56 test for me at 5.2 ghz. If you don't get any cpu cache L0 errors in 15 minutes, use Asus turbo Vcore to reduce vcore by 10mv and start it again. This is just a rough guess. Record what load voltage you have before you start getting L0 errors. This may take awhile but hey it's not prime95!!


My idle VID @ 5.2 is 1.255V in case you care. Whats yours? Also what voltage do you need to pass P95 Small FFT NO AVX @ 5.2??? Can you pass it with the same 1.365V Bios set LLC=6?
I started the test right away soon as windows booted so i didn't really give it time to idle. 

Alright So I tested the settings you asked. Core 52 - Ring 48 - 1.330v LLC6 - Realbench 2.56 30 Min. I used 16gb of ram as I have 32gb. Didnt throw and HWinfo64 whea errors. Lowest load voltage is 1.234V. Seemed to sit on that mark the entire time. 

GPU is dumping heat into the loop so temps are a bit higher then normal CPU only tests it seems. I have to go do some things for a bit. Ill try to see if I can go any lower latter. Also only 30 min doesnt feel like enough time to really know if its stable or not. I usually like to let it run for much longer.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
I'm using about 270w at 5.2 lol llc-4 vcore 1.4v 1.375 load


----------



## criskoe

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> I'm using about 270w at 5.2 lol llc-4 vcore 1.4v 1.375 load


Yeah these little suckers can sure drink the juice! lol. 

My 5.1 LLC6 P95 Small FFT AVX test @ 1.181V Load was sucking up to 282W! LMAO


----------



## ThrashZone

criskoe said:


> Yeah these little suckers can sure drink the juice! lol.
> 
> My 5.1 P95 Small FFT AVX test @ 1.81V Load was sucking up to 282W! LMAO


Hi,
According to the v-f 5.3 should drink the same voltage right = no way Jose think again


----------



## criskoe

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> According to the v-f 5.3 should drink the same voltage right = no way Jose think again


This juice has me wondering its longevity. 

Did you end up grabbing the performance tuning plan?


----------



## ThrashZone

criskoe said:


> Did you end up grabbing the performance tuning plan?


Hi,
Yeah they finally sent the verify link and was able to purchase the plan little over 20.us just delayed big time in sending it to me.

https://tuningplan.intel.com/purchase-a-plan


----------



## Falkentyne

criskoe said:


> My idle VID @ 5.2 is 1.255V in case you care. Whats yours? Also what voltage do you need to pass P95 Small FFT NO AVX @ 5.2??? Can you pass it with the same 1.365V Bios set LLC=6?
> I started the test right away soon as windows booted so i didn't really give it time to idle.
> 
> Alright So I tested the settings you asked. Core 52 - Ring 48 - 1.330v LLC6 - Realbench 2.56 30 Min. I used 16gb of ram as I have 32gb. Didnt throw and HWinfo64 whea errors. Lowest load voltage is 1.234V. Seemed to sit on that mark the entire time.
> 
> GPU is dumping heat into the loop so temps are a bit higher then normal CPU only tests it seems. I have to go do some things for a bit. Ill try to see if I can go any lower latter. Also only 30 min doesnt feel like enough time to really know if its stable or not. I usually like to let it run for much longer.


Hi,
I'm not asking for a stable stress test. That takes way too long. I just need to see how low you can go on vcore without getting a L0 error in 15 minutes. It's a quick way to find your vmin without it taking all day.
Also use the default for RB 2.56, which is 4 GB, please. Not 16 GB. Remember I am not looking for a 24/7 stress test. Just a fast estimation of your vmin.

Can you pass 15 minutes of 1.30v Bios set LLC6 without a L0 error in RB 2.56? (remember use the default 4 GB RAM preset. We want speed here, not a stress test).

And to answer your question, the absolute lowest I can go on prime95 small FFT no AVX is 1.234v load @ 5.2 ghz, as mentioned. Any lower=L0 errors. Also my cooling is not as good as yours.

Remember you can use Asus turbovcore to change voltage in windows.


----------



## cstkl1

you guys actually buy into that.. a intel plat partner retailer can rma just about everything delided etc etc as long there is no physical damage.


----------



## Falkentyne

criskoe said:


> My idle VID @ 5.2 is 1.255V in case you care. Whats yours? Also what voltage do you need to pass P95 Small FFT NO AVX @ 5.2??? Can you pass it with the same 1.365V Bios set LLC=6?
> I started the test right away soon as windows booted so i didn't really give it time to idle.
> 
> Alright So I tested the settings you asked. Core 52 - Ring 48 - 1.330v LLC6 - Realbench 2.56 30 Min. I used 16gb of ram as I have 32gb. Didnt throw and HWinfo64 whea errors. Lowest load voltage is 1.234V. Seemed to sit on that mark the entire time.
> 
> GPU is dumping heat into the loop so temps are a bit higher then normal CPU only tests it seems. I have to go do some things for a bit. Ill try to see if I can go any lower latter. Also only 30 min doesnt feel like enough time to really know if its stable or not. I usually like to let it run for much longer.


Forgot to answer, my idle VID at 5.2 ghz is 1.300v at 29C. Sorry.
You have a great chip. The big question is how low you can go on vcore @ 5.2g in RB 2.56 before L0 errors start popping up quickly. Your VID is 45mv lower than mine, so it should be about....I'm guessing 1.210v load when you start getting issues. If you can get below that you have a golden chip, regardless of the SP!! Now you see why we're doing quick and dirty tests.


----------



## ThrashZone

cstkl1 said:


> you guys actually buy into that.. a intel plat partner retailer can rma just about everything delided etc etc as long there is no physical damage.


Hi,
Yeah I've done normal rma twice last year on 9940x without a policy so lots of info intel wants for rma but 20.bucks not a big deal for an extra here it is intel thing


----------



## cstkl1

ThrashZone said:


> cstkl1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you guys actually buy into that.. a intel plat partner retailer can rma just about everything delided etc etc as long there is no physical damage.
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> Yeah I've done normal rma twice last year on 9940x without a policy so lots of info intel wants for rma but 20.bucks not a big deal for an extra here it is intel thing /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
Click to expand...

Btw curious how is anybody turbo boosting to 5.2/5.3 since theres no intel tubo manager monitor software anymore..

Curious.


----------



## Nizzen

cstkl1 said:


> Btw curious how is anybody turbo boosting to 5.2/5.3 since theres no intel tubo manager monitor software anymore..
> 
> Curious.


You can monitor with hwinfo beta

Most of us set all core 5100-5400mhz with 10900k. Depends on cooling. Both my 10900k does 5300mhz @ ~1.3v load with EK watercooling.


----------



## cstkl1

Nizzen said:


> cstkl1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Btw curious how is anybody turbo boosting to 5.2/5.3 since theres no intel tubo manager monitor software anymore..
> 
> Curious.
> 
> 
> 
> You can monitor with hwinfo beta
> 
> Most of us set all core 5100-5400mhz with 10900k. Depends on cooling. Both my 10900k does 5300mhz @ ~1.3v load with EK watercooling.
Click to expand...

what i meant.. say if u didnt do 5.3ghz prime small full avx stable.. but have a headroom in your loadline for per core usage say 53 or 54 on two core. it wont work afaik since windows native will load all core. 
so whatcha gonna do. does the stock even shows.. again since theres no software to set the affinity like we saw in earlier releases in x299..


----------



## shamino1978

cstkl1 said:


> what i meant.. say if u didnt do 5.3ghz prime small full avx stable.. but have a headroom in your loadline for per core usage say 53 or 54 on two core. it wont work afaik since windows native will load all core.
> so whatcha gonna do. does the stock even shows.. again since theres no software to set the affinity like we saw in earlier releases in x299..


windows 1909 should be fast core aware so will prioritize loads on fast cores, leaving slow cores to sleep if possible. you will also need cstates enabled, without cstates, cores cannot go into higher cstates and by core usage wont work.


----------



## ThrashZone

cstkl1 said:


> Btw curious how is anybody turbo boosting to 5.2/5.3 since theres no intel tubo manager monitor software anymore..
> 
> Curious.


Hi,
I don't know I haven't seen any 5.2 or 5.3 turbo 
Only 5.1+- a little on optimized defaults.

If you saw anything over 5.1 max clock they probably used by core usage and set that 5.2-... clock into it that way.
Elmor's video showed by core usage with 5.4 x4 cores and 5.1 or so on 6 cores.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Looks like a 5100MHz chip here. Maybe a delid is needed to get 5.2GHz. Nothing to sneeze at, just not a 5.3er. Not too worried about it, might go for another chip soon.


----------



## ThrashZone

MrTOOSHORT said:


> Looks like a 5100MHz chip here. Maybe a delid is needed to get 5.2GHz. Nothing to sneeze at, just not a 5.3er. Not too worried about it, might go for another chip soon.


Hi,
What's your SP rating ?


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> What's your SP rating ?


SP 63


----------



## ThrashZone

MrTOOSHORT said:


> SP 63


Hi,
Can you post a bios v-f page ?



Spoiler


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Can you post a bios v-f page ?
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler




Doesn't look as good as yours.


----------



## ThrashZone

MrTOOSHORT said:


> Doesn't look as good as yours.


Hi,
Yeah that's going to need a lot of Canada cooling 

If these bios ever get better I might be able to get better tests going right now it's a mess lord only knows what is wrong 4x8gb kit was first thought but tried with just 2x8gb and was oddly worse lol 

Finally got 4k mhz going on 0403 bios but it's still pretty bad on 5.3 so memory still messing stuff up.
@MrTOOSHORT 
Forgot to ask what batch # that came from ?
Mine was from batch # X016E724


----------



## Falkentyne

MrTOOSHORT said:


> Looks like a 5100MHz chip here. Maybe a delid is needed to get 5.2GHz. Nothing to sneeze at, just not a 5.3er. Not too worried about it, might go for another chip soon.


I don't mean to be rude or anything, but you do realize showing us the vcore at full idle means absolutely nothing, right?

Can you tell us what the vcore was at maximum load? That would be a lot more helpful. Like on mine I can get , via bios voltage and LLC (just for example here): 1.341v at idle, use LLC4 and it drops to 1.181v at full load...


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Yeah that's going to need a lot of Canada cooling
> 
> If these bios ever get better I might be able to get better tests going right now it's a mess lord only knows what is wrong 4x8gb kit was first thought but tried with just 2x8gb and was oddly worse lol
> 
> Finally got 4k mhz going on 0403 bios but it's still pretty bad on 5.3 so memory still messing stuff up.
> 
> @MrTOOSHORT
> Forgot to ask what batch # that came from ?
> Mine was from batch # X016E724


X016D744


----------



## Falkentyne

MrTOOSHORT said:


> X016D744


So what was the vcore at full load?


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
V-F 1.36v
Cpu-z 1.35v
Sure it wasn't too far off those readings.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Falkentyne said:


> So what was the vcore at full load?


1.27v


----------



## Falkentyne

MrTOOSHORT said:


> 1.27v


Ah, 5.1 @ 1.27v load 
Do you crash or get Cpu Cache L0 errors (in hwinfo64 at the very bottom) if you try to reduce the load voltage?


----------



## owikh84

10900K SP78
Batch X016E875

MAXIMUS XII FORMULA BIOS 0606

Core/Cache | BIOS set/load vCore | LLC
5.0/4.7 | 1.175v/ 1.172v | LLC8
5.1/4.7 | 1.200v/ 1.199v | LLC8
5.2/4.7 | 1.275v/ 1.270v | LLC8

Results are based on CB R20 stable. Will try LLC6/LLC4 later...


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Falkentyne said:


> Ah, 5.1 @ 1.27v load
> Do you crash or get Cpu Cache L0 errors (in hwinfo64 at the very bottom) if you try to reduce the load voltage?


Haven't tried to lower voltage too much yet, but no errors with 1.27v at least.


----------



## Falkentyne

MrTOOSHORT said:


> Haven't tried to lower voltage too much yet, but no errors with 1.27v at least.


Try to go lower. Your chip may be better than you think. Someone binned 11 SP 63 chips. One of them could do 5.3 ghz at 1.3v LLC7. The worst could not do 5.1 ghz @ 1.25v... And they were all SP 63.
So some have a very large voltage guardband but high VID and some have barely any...


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Falkentyne said:


> Try to go lower. Your chip may be better than you think. Someone binned 11 SP 63 chips. One of them could do 5.3 ghz at 1.3v LLC7. The worst could not do 5.1 ghz @ 1.25v... And they were all SP 63.
> So some have a very large voltage guardband but high VID and some have barely any...


Yes I do have some hope. I did see some 63s ppl were talking about doing pretty good. Will do some more testing and also wait for more bios releases. Might delid it soon, maybe tomorrow. This could help with the temps.


----------



## criskoe

Falkentyne said:


> Hi,
> I'm not asking for a stable stress test. That takes way too long. I just need to see how low you can go on vcore without getting a L0 error in 15 minutes. It's a quick way to find your vmin without it taking all day.
> Also use the default for RB 2.56, which is 4 GB, please. Not 16 GB. Remember I am not looking for a 24/7 stress test. Just a fast estimation of your vmin.
> 
> Can you pass 15 minutes of 1.30v Bios set LLC6 without a L0 error in RB 2.56? (remember use the default 4 GB RAM preset. We want speed here, not a stress test).
> 
> And to answer your question, the absolute lowest I can go on prime95 small FFT no AVX is 1.234v load @ 5.2 ghz, as mentioned. Any lower=L0 errors. Also my cooling is not as good as yours.
> 
> Remember you can use Asus turbovcore to change voltage in windows.


Sorry just making sure I read our posts right and am not mixing things up. Your chip needs @ 5.2 ghz you need 1.265v for Real bench and 1.234 for P95 small fft no Avx? Surprised at the 30mv more needed for real bench over prime. Did you find that scale also for 5.1, 5.0?

Also I had I bit of time so I tried to lower it more to 1.30V bios LLC 6 and at the 10 min mark I just strait bsod.No L0 errors first either. Just strait 
Bsod. 

I wonder if I’m making a rookie mistake by leaving XMP on with auto vccio and vccsa voltages while doing this. It’s just a slower 3200 MHz kit. Got any input on what I should set that as static for now and work it down later? It’s a 4x8gb cl16 kit. All I have right now.


----------



## cstkl1

MrTOOSHORT said:


> ThrashZone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> Can you post a bios v-f page ?
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't look as good as yours./forum/images/smilies/frown.gif
Click to expand...

As long its not 5.3vid 1.56 etc. thats the worst ones. Blessed intel sent those to alot of reviewers.


----------



## cstkl1

MrTOOSHORT said:


> Falkentyne said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try to go lower. Your chip may be better than you think. Someone binned 11 SP 63 chips. One of them could do 5.3 ghz at 1.3v LLC7. The worst could not do 5.1 ghz @ 1.25v... And they were all SP 63.
> So some have a very large voltage guardband but high VID and some have barely any...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I do have some hope. I did see some 63s ppl were talking about doing pretty good. Will do some more testing and also wait for more bios releases. Might delid it soon, maybe tomorrow. This could help with the temps.
Click to expand...

ExtremeIT youtube. His sp63 flying with apex on cb runs


----------



## Falkentyne

1


criskoe said:


> Sorry just making sure I read our posts right and am not mixing things up. Your chip needs @ 5.2 ghz you need 1.265v for Real bench and 1.234 for P95 small fft no Avx? Surprised at the 30mv more needed for real bench over prime. Did you find that scale also for 5.1, 5.0?
> 
> Also I had I bit of time so I tried to lower it more to 1.30V bios LLC 6 and at the 10 min mark I just strait bsod.No L0 errors first either. Just strait
> Bsod.
> 
> I wonder if I’m making a rookie mistake by leaving XMP on with auto vccio and vccsa voltages while doing this. It’s just a slower 3200 MHz kit. Got any input on what I should set that as static for now and work it down later? It’s a 4x8gb cl16 kit. All I have right now.


Nice! What's the lowest you can go without L0 errors or BSOD? I'm assuming 1.310v Bios set or 1.320v Bios set, LLC6, right?

Yes I found all my stable points.
RealBench 2.56 needs more voltage than avx disabled prime95 small FFT and Cinebench R20 because the transient voltage dips are much more violent in RB. A lower LLC and higher vdroop would reduce this gap.

All below were at LLC6.

5 ghz --1.128v load (AVX prime95 small FFT), 1.143v load (FMA3 prime95 small). Bare minimum load voltages. Obviously RB 2.56, CB R20 would require just slightly less than AVX small FFT. Also obvious that prime95 small FFT AVX disabled would run at a slightly lower load voltage stable than 1.128v load (untested--no need to test this).

5.1 ghz --1.181v load (AVX small FFT prime95), obviously realbench and CB R20 can go slightly lower than this---but untested.

5.2 ghz --1.234v load --Prime95 small FFT avx disabled, cinebench R20 (loops 1 hour), 1.265v (Realbench R20).

5.3 ghz ---too hot to stress test, but CB R20 needs about 1.320v load voltage. Cannot loop. Gets to 100C fast. Any lower=cpu cache l0 errors or bsod. Battlefield 5 is stable if voltage remains ABOVE 1.330v during map loads/server joins that load cpu up to 90-100% (very bursty). Also BF5 is rock stable also at 1.380v Bios set LLC7, as this keeps load voltage always above 1.332v.


----------



## criskoe

Falkentyne said:


> 1
> 
> Nice! What's the lowest you can go without L0 errors or BSOD? I'm assuming 1.310v Bios set or 1.320v Bios set, LLC6, right?
> 
> Yes I found all my stable points.
> RealBench 2.56 needs more voltage than avx disabled prime95 small FFT and Cinebench R20 because the transient voltage dips are much more violent in RB. A lower LLC and higher vdroop would reduce this gap.
> 
> All below were at LLC6.
> 
> 5 ghz --1.128v load (AVX prime95 small FFT), 1.143v load (FMA3 prime95 small). Bare minimum load voltages. Obviously RB 2.56, CB R20 would require just slightly less than AVX small FFT. Also obvious that prime95 small FFT AVX disabled would run at a slightly lower load voltage stable than 1.128v load (untested--no need to test this).
> 
> 5.1 ghz --1.181v load (AVX small FFT prime95), obviously realbench and CB R20 can go slightly lower than this---but untested.
> 
> 5.2 ghz --1.234v load --Prime95 small FFT avx disabled, cinebench R20 (loops 1 hour), 1.265v (Realbench R20).
> 
> 5.3 ghz ---too hot to stress test, but CB R20 needs about 1.320v load voltage. Cannot loop. Gets to 100C fast. Any lower=cpu cache l0 errors or bsod. Battlefield 5 is stable if voltage remains ABOVE 1.330v during map loads/server joins that load cpu up to 90-100% (very bursty). Also BF5 is rock stable also at 1.380v Bios set LLC7, as this keeps load voltage always above 1.332v.


This is great info thanks. For your bare min voltages above. How long are your said tests for. 1 hour? After moving away and dropping p95 avx tests from my stability gauntlet. I usually use 30 min to 1 hour p95 no avx or cinebench runs to get voltage vmin. Once I’ve found that I then add 5 to 10mv for a bit of extra stability in case Then as a final I run 4 hour P95 NO AVX. 4 hour Cinebench R20 loop. And 8 hour Realbench and then move on with my life. Sound good enough yeah?

Ok well something is changed. I was trying different core ratios earlier playing with 5.0 and 5.1. Not sure what but I went back to 1.330v LLC 6 @5.2 and was going to work down .005 with Asus turbo every 15 min and see what happens. And well right around the 15 min mark I bsod.  back at the Bios-1.330v and Load 1.234v I passed 30 min yesterday. I guess it was a luck pass? Lol only difference is my place is a bit warm right now. Ambients are up 5c. So max core temps are 85 vs 80. That’s really all that has changed. Unless me changing the bios lots has gweebed something out. 

You think my vccio and vccsa have anything to do with this. It’s xmp 1 auto voltage. 3200 cl16 4x8gb. Auto voltage sets it at 1.152v for both. And according to hwinfo they both fluctuate between 1.152v and 1.184v. I’d imagine this value would be more then enough for this slow ram. Could it be too high causing issues?

Also side question. You personally for your everyday use. Which LLC do you personally prefer to use with your chips going forward. LLC4 or LLC6?


----------



## criskoe

Falkentyne said:


> 1
> 
> Nice! What's the lowest you can go without L0 errors or BSOD? I'm assuming 1.310v Bios set or 1.320v Bios set, LLC6, right?
> 
> Yes I found all my stable points.
> RealBench 2.56 needs more voltage than avx disabled prime95 small FFT and Cinebench R20 because the transient voltage dips are much more violent in RB. A lower LLC and higher vdroop would reduce this gap.
> 
> All below were at LLC6.
> 
> 5 ghz --1.128v load (AVX prime95 small FFT), 1.143v load (FMA3 prime95 small). Bare minimum load voltages. Obviously RB 2.56, CB R20 would require just slightly less than AVX small FFT. Also obvious that prime95 small FFT AVX disabled would run at a slightly lower load voltage stable than 1.128v load (untested--no need to test this).
> 
> 5.1 ghz --1.181v load (AVX small FFT prime95), obviously realbench and CB R20 can go slightly lower than this---but untested.
> 
> 5.2 ghz --1.234v load --Prime95 small FFT avx disabled, cinebench R20 (loops 1 hour), 1.265v (Realbench R20).
> 
> 5.3 ghz ---too hot to stress test, but CB R20 needs about 1.320v load voltage. Cannot loop. Gets to 100C fast. Any lower=cpu cache l0 errors or bsod. Battlefield 5 is stable if voltage remains ABOVE 1.330v during map loads/server joins that load cpu up to 90-100% (very bursty). Also BF5 is rock stable also at 1.380v Bios set LLC7, as this keeps load voltage always above 1.332v.


For now I’ve gone back to just trying to find a fully stress stable 5.1 before I play around push for 5.2. 

Comparing your voltages and the difference between our idle vids and V-Fs I decided to try for Core 51. Ring 48. LLC4 @ 1.163 Load voltage. P95 Small FFT No AVX. And well after 1.5 hours into the test I got a L0 cache error. So seems even though my vid is 45mv lower it doesn’t translate into the same gains as lower stable voltage. Thought you would like to know.


----------



## hemon

criskoe said:


> For now I’ve gone back to just trying to find a fully stress stable 5.1 before I play around push for 5.2.
> 
> Comparing your voltages and the difference between our idle vids and V-Fs I decided to try for Core 51. Ring 48. LLC4 @ 1.163 Load voltage. P95 Small FFT No AVX. And well after 1.5 hours into the test I got a L0 cache error. So seems even though my vid is 45mv lower it doesn’t translate into the same gains as lower stable voltage. Thought you would like to know.


Which is your bios voltage? Did you changed something else in order to reach 5.1 stable?


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Noticed this add on craigslist after buying mine at micro center 
They had a hero board and it was gone while I was returning a x299 mother board 
Batch is probably the same as mine only 1500.us board and chip 

https://houston.craigslist.org/sop/d/houston-intel-10th-gen-i-k-and/7127457871.html


----------



## warbucks

MrTOOSHORT said:


> Looks like a 5100MHz chip here. Maybe a delid is needed to get 5.2GHz. Nothing to sneeze at, just not a 5.3er. Not too worried about it, might go for another chip soon.


Not bad. I plan to delid mine soon. I believe the Rockitcool kit for the 9th gen will work for delid on these. De8auer has a direct die frame being produced right now so it should be available shortly. That'll be going on after the delid.

Enjoying the rain in Edmonton?


----------



## warbucks

owikh84 said:


> 10900K SP78
> Batch X016E875
> 
> MAXIMUS XII FORMULA BIOS 0606
> 
> Core/Cache | BIOS set/load vCore | LLC
> 5.0/4.7 | 1.175v/ 1.181v | LLC8
> 5.1/4.7 | 1.200v/ 1.199v | LLC8
> 5.2/4.7 | 1.275v/ 1.270v | LLC8
> 
> Results are based on CB R20 stable. Will try LLC6/LLC4 later...


My chip is also SP78 and voltages look identical for the same clock speeds as yours.


----------



## ThrashZone

warbucks said:


> My chip is also SP78 and voltages look identical for the same clock speeds as yours.


Hi,
What's your batch number ?


----------



## Nizzen

Is there any "proof" that High SP is any better than the "low" SP on the cpu's?

Looks to me than SP 63 and SP 80's is pretty much equal in cpu frequency and "voltage" needed. Or did I miss something?


----------



## Falkentyne

Nizzen said:


> Is there any "proof" that High SP is any better than the "low" SP on the cpu's?
> 
> Looks to me than SP 63 and SP 80's is pretty much equal in cpu frequency and "voltage" needed. Or did I miss something?


Yes high SP is in general better than low SP, but there are variances in chips with the exact same SP due to guardband and leakage. You can get a SP63 chip that clocks better than a SP78, for example.

SP is being read incorrectly on some chips, especially if you get the same VF points for the first 3 or 4 points. To fix that, update the BIOS, press F1 for intel default power limits, then power off,
Clear CMOS, then power back on, press F1 for intel default power limits, boot to windows without changing anything, run prime95 small FFT with AVX DISABLED for 5 minutes, then boot back to BIOS. This should fix SP on the latest BIOS. SVID Support must be enabled.

Also, yes, someone has binned SP 63 chips, and the best one did 5.3 ghz @ 1.30v Bios set LLC7, and the worst one could not do 5.1 ghz @ 1.25v Bios set LLC7.

Probably voltage guardband tolerances. A large guardband means you have large overclocking headroom. It's very hard to test for guardband since this requires a delta between VF value and crash at load value, and cooling capability affects this greatly too. You will also notice that at 5.2 ghz, the worst chips will request about 1.54v @ 5.2-5.3 ghz. Also notice that no matter the SP of the chip, if you set adaptive or offset voltage with +0.00v offset, LLC to level 3, and AC Loadline to 1.1 mOhms and boot windows at 5.2-5.3 ghz, the Vcore will be between 1.35v (very high SP) to 1.57v (worst SP). There is a reason for that.


----------



## warbucks

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> What's your batch number ?


X013F070


----------



## newls1

my 10900k batch is X016E724 and im at 5.3GHz @ 1.40 bios set, LLC6 and loaded down Vcore is 1.292v. If anyone cares :h34r-smi


----------



## Nizzen

Sp83
#X016E896
5300mhz

CB20 1.28v load @ llc 8 (no vdrop) Asus Apex xii


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Trying 0607 bios again looks like V-F voltages got cleaned up a bit on the lower who cares clocks SP92 still and so is 5.2 & 5.3 clock listings.


----------



## owikh84

warbucks said:


> My chip is also SP78 and voltages look identical for the same clock speeds as yours.





owikh84 said:


> 10900K SP78
> Batch X016E875
> 
> MAXIMUS XII FORMULA BIOS 0606
> 
> Core/Cache | BIOS set/load vCore | LLC
> 5.0/4.7 | 1.175v/ 1.172v | LLC8
> 5.1/4.7 | 1.200v/ 1.199v | LLC8
> 5.2/4.7 | 1.275v/ 1.270v | LLC8
> 
> Results are based on CB R20 stable. Will try LLC6/LLC4 later...


Core/Cache | BIOS set/load vCore | LLC
5.2/5.0 | 1.375v/ 1.270v | LLC6

Short test RB v2.56v 4GB 15mins and CB 20:


----------



## criskoe

@Falkentyne 

Well my cpu even though it has lower vid it is not better then yours. So I don’t know what that means regarding theses vids. 

Core 51 cache 48 

P95 Small FFT NO AVX

LLC4

Load 1.163V = Failed L0 Cache Hierarchy Error @ 1.5 hours into test. 
Load 1.172V = Failed L0 Cache Hierarchy Error @ 1.75 hours into test.
Load 1.181V = Failed L0 Cache Hierarchy Error @ 1.75 hours into test.


----------



## Falkentyne

criskoe said:


> @Falkentyne
> 
> Well my cpu even though it has lower vid it is not better then yours. So I don’t know what that means regarding theses vids.
> 
> Core 51 cache 48
> 
> P95 Small FFT NO AVX
> 
> LLC4
> 
> Load 1.163V = Failed L0 Cache Hierarchy Error @ 1.5 hours into test.
> Load 1.172V = Failed L0 Cache Hierarchy Error @ 1.75 hours into test.
> Load 1.181V = Failed L0 Cache Hierarchy Error @ 1.75 hours into test.


Those are already pretty exhaustive results. You've been putting in some work.
Using LLC4 means your transients are pretty splendid. Won't be transient response holding you back there.

And BTW never say your chip is worse than mine without being sure. I only tested prime95 for like 15 minutes at 1.181v load @ 5.1 ghz AVX enabled. (I did not test avx disabled at all). I was at the 245 amp limit here so I didn't dare leave it running past 15 minutes. I was at LLC6 too so my transiets were probably worse. I just didn't want to set a 1.4v bios voltage or something for a lower LLC. Because i'm weird.

Drop cache to x47 to make sure you aren't being limited by cache first. If x47 doesn't help then you know you're not at your cache limit at all. Also please keep in mind that when AVX is disabled, VCCIO and VCCSA can have a HUGE impact (at least several C in temp range worth) on if you get L0 errors or not in prime95. Try it for yourself. 

I found increasing IO and SA reduced L0 cache errors at borderline settings with AVX *disabled* but *increased* them with AVX enabled! And I don't have enough craziness or OCD left in me to see if you could increase "one" and decrease the "other" to reduce BOTH at the same time!


----------



## cstkl1

criskoe said:


> @Falkentyne
> 
> Well my cpu even though it has lower vid it is not better then yours. So I don’t know what that means regarding theses vids.
> 
> Core 51 cache 48
> 
> P95 Small FFT NO AVX
> 
> LLC4
> 
> Load 1.163V = Failed L0 Cache Hierarchy Error @ 1.5 hours into test.
> Load 1.172V = Failed L0 Cache Hierarchy Error @ 1.75 hours into test.
> Load 1.181V = Failed L0 Cache Hierarchy
> Error @ 1.75 hours into test.


can you check in hwinfo the cpu max amp vs cpu power vs 12v rail.. at the point of the trigger..since your did a long stress. do u mind loging them.


----------



## criskoe

Falkentyne said:


> Those are already pretty exhaustive results. You've been putting in some work.
> Using LLC4 means your transients are pretty splendid. Won't be transient response holding you back there.
> 
> And BTW never say your chip is worse than mine without being sure. I only tested prime95 for like 15 minutes at 1.181v load @ 5.1 ghz AVX enabled. (I did not test avx disabled at all). I was at the 245 amp limit here so I didn't dare leave it running past 15 minutes. I was at LLC6 too so my transiets were probably worse. I just didn't want to set a 1.4v bios voltage or something for a lower LLC. Because i'm weird.
> 
> Drop cache to x47 to make sure you aren't being limited by cache first. If x47 doesn't help then you know you're not at your cache limit at all. Also please keep in mind that when AVX is disabled, VCCIO and VCCSA can have a HUGE impact (at least several C in temp range worth) on if you get L0 errors or not in prime95. Try it for yourself.
> 
> I found increasing IO and SA reduced L0 cache errors at borderline settings with AVX *disabled* but *increased* them with AVX enabled! And I don't have enough craziness or OCD left in me to see if you could increase "one" and decrease the "other" to reduce BOTH at the same time!


Yeah I’m sticking with LLC4. I like a healthy v droop. So going forward that’s what I’m gunna make work for a final OC. 

Right now I’ve reset XMP off and dropped Cache to stock 43. To rule out ram. Cache and vccio and vccsa. 

Trying 1.181V again and seeing if I can pass 2H. 

If it passes I’ll then go back and try 1.172 and then 1.163 and so on. Once I’ve found base I’ll work on XMP and vccio and vccsa and cache. 

I’ve got a few other projects going on that I’m working on around the house so checking in every 2 hours is no big deal. I don’t mind running these tests. I also like to put a new cpu through the ringer when I first get it anyways to make sure it’s not a dud.


----------



## criskoe

cstkl1 said:


> can you check in hwinfo the cpu max amp vs cpu power vs 12v rail.. at the point of the trigger..since your did a long stress. do u mind loging them.


51 core 48 cache 1.181v load LLC4 P95 Sm FFT No AVX

Max Cpu current was 180A, Max CPU Package Power 231W and 12v rail min was 12.040V 

How can I log it for the exact time of cache error tho?


----------



## cstkl1

double post*


----------



## cstkl1

criskoe said:


> 1.181v load LLC4
> 
> Max Cpu current was 180A, Max CPU Package Power 231W and 12v rail min was 12.040V
> 
> How can I log it for the exact time of cache error tho?


just a hunch. just realize theres no need to log. 

12v rail solid.
keep watching every-time when you come back 
and see did the max amp increase followed by power.


----------



## criskoe

cstkl1 said:


> just a hunch. just realize theres no need to log.
> 
> 12v rail solid.
> keep watching every-time when you come back
> and see did the max amp increase followed by power.


Yup I screen shot every test. Pass or fail so I can compare and look for variances and anomalies. I also keep event viewer open so I can see time stamp of whea error so I know exactly fail time. I’m pretty thorough. Lol. 

Yeah this PSU is very solid. Even on my 5.1 P95 Sml FFT AVX run pulling 237 amps and 282w the 12v rail never drops below 12.040v

It’s approaching 1.5 h in with XMP off and cache reduced now. Failed last time at 1.75 hours


----------



## cstkl1

criskoe said:


> cstkl1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> just a hunch. just realize theres no need to log.
> 
> 12v rail solid.
> keep watching every-time when you come back
> and see did the max amp increase followed by power.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup I screen shot every test. Pass or fail so I can compare and look for variances and anomalies. I also keep event viewer open so I can see time stamp of whea error so I know exactly fail time. Iâ€™️m pretty thorough. Lol.
> 
> Yeah this PSU is very solid. Even on my 5.1 P95 Sml FFT AVX run pulling 237 amps and 282w the 12v rail never drops below 12.040v
> 
> Itâ€™️s approaching 1.5 h in with XMP off and cache reduced now. Failed last time at 1.75 hours
Click to expand...

So every fail had the 180amp max??


----------



## criskoe

5.1 core 43 cache - 1.181v load p95 sm ffts no avx failed again at 1.75 hours L0 cache error. This was with stock vccio 1.0v and vccsa 1.05v Temp Max 79c

Gunna try one more thing before I move on to upping the core past 1.181v. Gunna try jacking the vccio to 1.2 and vccsa to 1.25 se what happens.


----------



## criskoe

cstkl1 said:


> So every fail had the 180amp max??


Sometime after 1.5 and 1.75 hours yes. L0 errors. Haven’t been able to get 5.1 to test longer then that so far. I can get crazy low voltages to pass for 30 min no problem. But I’m shooting for full stability runs now.


----------



## Nizzen

Looks like 10900k gives more performance per $ than 3900x in games 

*gaming only plattform*


----------



## Falkentyne

criskoe said:


> Sometime after 1.5 and 1.75 hours yes. L0 errors. Haven’t been able to get 5.1 to test longer then that so far. I can get crazy low voltages to pass for 30 min no problem. But I’m shooting for full stability runs now.


Look at the prime95 window logs and see on which FFT size it fails. Is it always the same FFT size, or close to it? Is it on pentium 4 or Type 1?
If you can find it always failing on a certain range repeatedly, you can save a lot of time and test just that range in custom (make sure in-place is checked). Example: 56K-64K in-place.


----------



## criskoe

Falkentyne said:


> Look at the prime95 window logs and see on which FFT size it fails. Is it always the same FFT size, or close to it? Is it on pentium 4 or Type 1?
> If you can find it always failing on a certain range repeatedly, you can save a lot of time and test just that range in custom (make sure in-place is checked). Example: 56K-64K in-place.


Fantastic advice. Thanks. Never thought about that. Current run @ 1.181v again but this time with 1.2 vccio and 1.25 vccsa currently at the 1.5 hour mark. Max temps still top at 79c. Should know in the next 30 min here.

For p95 worker #s how do they translate to each core? Worker 1 and 2 = core 0? Worker 3 and 4 = core 1? Worker 5 and 6 = core 2? Ect ect?


----------



## Falkentyne

criskoe said:


> Fantastic advice. Thanks. Never thought about that. Current run @ 1.181v again but this time with 1.2 vccio and 1.25 vccsa currently at the 1.5 hour mark. Max temps still top at 79c. Should know in the next 30 min here.
> 
> For p95 worker #s how do they translate to each core? Worker 1 and 2 = core 0? Worker 3 and 4 = core 1? Worker 5 and 6 = core 2? Ect ect?


Yeah, exactly like that. The APIC ID , that you can find in "Windows event viewer-->System", where the L0 errors are logged, and where you can see which thread logged the error, goes in order also, #0,#1 is for Core 0, #2 and #3 are for core 1, #4 and #5 are for core 2, etc. Obviously if hyperthreading is disabled, it's just 1 APIC ID per core (starting at 0 again).


----------



## criskoe

Falkentyne said:


> Those are already pretty exhaustive results. You've been putting in some work.
> Using LLC4 means your transients are pretty splendid. Won't be transient response holding you back there.
> 
> And BTW never say your chip is worse than mine without being sure. I only tested prime95 for like 15 minutes at 1.181v load @ 5.1 ghz AVX enabled. (I did not test avx disabled at all). I was at the 245 amp limit here so I didn't dare leave it running past 15 minutes. I was at LLC6 too so my transiets were probably worse. I just didn't want to set a 1.4v bios voltage or something for a lower LLC. Because i'm weird.
> 
> Drop cache to x47 to make sure you aren't being limited by cache first. If x47 doesn't help then you know you're not at your cache limit at all. Also please keep in mind that when AVX is disabled, VCCIO and VCCSA can have a HUGE impact (at least several C in temp range worth) on if you get L0 errors or not in prime95. Try it for yourself.
> 
> I found increasing IO and SA reduced L0 cache errors at borderline settings with AVX *disabled* but *increased* them with AVX enabled! And I don't have enough craziness or OCD left in me to see if you could increase "one" and decrease the "other" to reduce BOTH at the same time!


So playing with VCCIO and VCCSA has seemed to clearly do something as ive finally been able to pass my consistent L0 errors at the 1.5-1.75 hour mark in P95 Small FFT NO AVX.

I went a bit further this time and I stopped it at 2.5 hour mark. 

I did the same LLC4 load 1.181V but this time with VCCIO @ 1.20 Bios and VCCSA @ 1.250 Bios. This Is even with XMP off and cache at 43. So these values seem to be important even when not dialing in the ram. 


Findings so far***

LLC 4 - Ratio X 51 Core 1.181v Load Cache 43 XMP OFF tests. 

Stock = 1.0v VCCIO and 1.05 VCCSA = L0 Error @ 1.75 Hour mark
Auto XMP = 1.15 VCCIO and 1.15 VCCSA = L0 Error @ 1.75 Hour mark
Manual = 1.20 VCCIO and 1.25 VCCSA = Pass @ 2.5 Hour mark

Gunna start dropping from 1.181v and see how low i can go with these VCCIO and VCCSA values.


----------



## Falkentyne

criskoe said:


> So playing with VCCIO and VCCSA has seemed to clearly do something as ive finally been able to pass my consistent L0 errors at the 1.5-1.75 hour mark in P95 Small FFT NO AVX.
> 
> I went a bit further this time and I stopped it at 2.5 hour mark.
> 
> I did the same LLC4 load 1.181V but this time with VCCIO @ 1.20 Bios and VCCSA @ 1.250 Bios. This Is even with XMP off and cache at 43. So these values seem to be important even when not dialing in the ram.
> 
> 
> Findings so far***
> 
> LLC 4 - Ratio X 51 Core 1.181v Load Cache 43 XMP OFF tests.
> 
> Stock = 1.0v VCCIO and 1.05 VCCSA = L0 Error @ 1.75 Hour mark
> Auto XMP = 1.15 VCCIO and 1.15 VCCSA = L0 Error @ 1.75 Hour mark
> Manual = 1.20 VCCIO and 1.25 VCCSA = Pass @ 2.5 Hour mark
> 
> Gunna start dropping from 1.181v and see how low i can go with these VCCIO and VCCSA values.


So my previous findings were perfect huh? L0 errors reduced (instead you just get a crashed thread) in AVX with lower IO/SA, but at the cost of increased L0 errors.
L0 errors reduced in non-avx with higher IO/SA but at the cost of increased AVX L0 errors.

Now---let's see if you have enough OCD to figure out if ONE Of the two values raised by itself helps reduce L0 errors! The end game of course, is to see if a high value of one, combined with a low value of another, helps reduce BOTH AVX L0 errors and AVX disabled L0 errors--if the memory controller can actually function like that (instead of having to 'pick and choose.)

You can try starting with 1.0v VCCIO and 1.25v VCCSA  Or if XMP is off, 0.95v VCCIO and 1.25v VCCSA.
You need to determine if both values need to be close to each other or if one (or the other) directly affects AVX or Non-AVX, without requiring the other companion value to be set close to it.

Obviously of course--if the memory controller can't handle such values it won't matter. So it would only matter if the memory controller can actually handle it.
One way I found to test this personally is with 112K-112K in-place AVX Disabled (I mentioned this to you before).


----------



## criskoe

Falkentyne said:


> So my previous findings were perfect huh? L0 errors reduced (instead you just get a crashed thread) in AVX with lower IO/SA, but at the cost of increased L0 errors.
> L0 errors reduced in non-avx with higher IO/SA but at the cost of increased AVX L0 errors.
> 
> Now---let's see if you have enough OCD to figure out if ONE Of the two values raised by itself helps reduce L0 errors! The end game of course, is to see if a high value of one, combined with a low value of another, helps reduce BOTH AVX L0 errors and AVX disabled L0 errors--if the memory controller can actually function like that (instead of having to 'pick and choose.)
> 
> You can try starting with 1.0v VCCIO and 1.25v VCCSA  Or if XMP is off, 0.95v VCCIO and 1.25v VCCSA.
> You need to determine if both values need to be close to each other or if one (or the other) directly affects AVX or Non-AVX, without requiring the other companion value to be set close to it.
> 
> Obviously of course--if the memory controller can't handle such values it won't matter. So it would only matter if the memory controller can actually handle it.
> One way I found to test this personally is with 112K-112K in-place AVX Disabled (I mentioned this to you before).


Yup I’ll end up working those values once I find my vmin. I’m gunna work vccio first. Then move to vccsa. I got extra time right now plus biggest reason I broke down and bought this platform was for the fun of tweaking it. 

So this is interesting. I went back down to 1.163 Load that had a L0 error @ 1.5 hour mark before with 1.15 vccio and 1.15 vccsa. But testing now with the higher values. 

And this time it bsod in 20 min. Lol. Confusing. Strange that it made it much longer on lower vccio and vccsa values. I wonder if there is a sweet spot in deltas between Load vcore and vccio and vccsa. Like they need to be no more then X amount apart in value like some older platforms with certain voltages. 

Trying 1.172 now.


----------



## cstkl1

criskoe said:


> Falkentyne said:
> 
> 
> 
> So my previous findings were perfect huh? L0 errors reduced (instead you just get a crashed thread) in AVX with lower IO/SA, but at the cost of increased L0 errors.
> L0 errors reduced in non-avx with higher IO/SA but at the cost of increased AVX L0 errors.
> 
> Now---let's see if you have enough OCD to figure out if ONE Of the two values raised by itself helps reduce L0 errors! The end game of course, is to see if a high value of one, combined with a low value of another, helps reduce BOTH AVX L0 errors and AVX disabled L0 errors--if the memory controller can actually function like that (instead of having to 'pick and choose.)
> 
> You can try starting with 1.0v VCCIO and 1.25v VCCSA /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif Or if XMP is off, 0.95v VCCIO and 1.25v VCCSA.
> You need to determine if both values need to be close to each other or if one (or the other) directly affects AVX or Non-AVX, without requiring the other companion value to be set close to it.
> 
> Obviously of course--if the memory controller can't handle such values it won't matter. So it would only matter if the memory controller can actually handle it.
> One way I found to test this personally is with 112K-112K in-place AVX Disabled (I mentioned this to you before).
> 
> 
> 
> Yup Iâ€™️ll end up working those values once I find my vmin. Iâ€™️m gunna work vccio first. Then move to vccsa. I got extra time right now plus biggest reason I broke down and bought this platform was for the fun of tweaking it. /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> So this is interesting. I went back down to 1.163 Load that had a L0 error @ 1.5 hour mark before with 1.15 vccio and 1.15 vccsa. But testing now with the higher values.
> 
> And this time it bsod in 20 min. Lol. Confusing. Strange that it made it much longer on lower vccio and vccsa values. I wonder if there is a sweet spot in deltas between Load vcore and vccio and vccsa. Like they need to be no more then X amount apart in value like some older platforms with certain voltages.
> 
> Trying 1.172 now.
Click to expand...

Doesnt sound right. Your amp went up.. from 180 to 181. 
Either that particular test stresses more or you need more vcore. 
That 1.172v shouldnt work

What was your vcore set.. 1.35v or 1.355v ?? For that 1.181.

Vccio changes dmi voltage btw. You should go back to that 1.181v 

Use asus turboVcore since you are not bsoding 
Just remember to up dmi one notch above vccio voltage.

Also u need to do hci test to reconfirm ram stability with those changes.

Also hey y is your pll bandwidth at 1.184?? Not at default 0.6??
Is this trait for 10900k only?? Just saw that.


----------



## criskoe

cstkl1 said:


> Doesnt sound right. Your amp went up.. from 180 to 181.
> Either that particular test stresses more or you need more vcore.
> That 1.172v shouldnt work
> 
> What was your vcore set.. 1.35v or 1.355v ?? For that 1.181.
> 
> Vccio changes dmi voltage btw. You should go back to that 1.181v
> 
> Use asus turboVcore since you are not bsoding
> Just remember to up dmi one notch above vccio voltage.
> 
> Also u need to do hci test to reconfirm ram stability with those changes.
> 
> Also hey y is your pll bandwidth at 1.184?? Not at default 0.6??
> Is this trait for 10900k only?? Just saw that.


Yup 1.172v didn’t work. L0 at 1.5h

For 1.181 bios set 1.355 LLC4 

I went back to 1.181 but this time I re enabled XMP and cache 48. Left vccio 1.2 and vccsa 1.25 and tried to re run 2.5 test again and nope. L0 error is back. So it’s pretty Clear it’s just not enough vcore @1.181 for 5.1 runs longer then 1.5h. 

I’m gunna just have to boost it. 

Sorry what is DMI?

As for cpu pll I don’t know. It’s just set on auto. And that values doesn’t change even if I do 50x or 51x or even 52x.


----------



## Falkentyne

cstkl1 said:


> Doesnt sound right. Your amp went up.. from 180 to 181.
> Either that particular test stresses more or you need more vcore.
> That 1.172v shouldnt work
> 
> What was your vcore set.. 1.35v or 1.355v ?? For that 1.181.
> 
> Vccio changes dmi voltage btw. You should go back to that 1.181v
> 
> Use asus turboVcore since you are not bsoding
> Just remember to up dmi one notch above vccio voltage.
> 
> Also u need to do hci test to reconfirm ram stability with those changes.
> 
> Also hey y is your pll bandwidth at 1.184?? Not at default 0.6??
> Is this trait for 10900k only?? Just saw that.


DMI voltage is too complicated to explain here. Goes back to a pin being inserted into the socket. Please read the HWbot forum post about it in detail, you'll have to search for it on your own.
PLL OC voltage (PLL bandwidth) is bugged on older motherboards in hwinfo64. It reads half the value, so 1.2v (default) is 0.6v, so there you go. 1.184 is just rounding (it's 1.2v).
If you have PLL OC Voltage on your older board showing up as 0.6v, absolutely do *NOT* change PLL bandwidth to make it read as 1.2v because you are actually putting it at 2.4v ! These settings are used for subzero and very high clocks.


----------



## cstkl1

Falkentyne said:


> cstkl1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesnt sound right. Your amp went up.. from 180 to 181.
> Either that particular test stresses more or you need more vcore.
> That 1.172v shouldnt work
> 
> What was your vcore set.. 1.35v or 1.355v ?? For that 1.181.
> 
> Vccio changes dmi voltage btw. You should go back to that 1.181v
> 
> Use asus turboVcore since you are not bsoding
> Just remember to up dmi one notch above vccio voltage.
> 
> Also u need to do hci test to reconfirm ram stability with those changes.
> 
> Also hey y is your pll bandwidth at 1.184?? Not at default 0.6??
> Is this trait for 10900k only?? Just saw that.
> 
> 
> 
> DMI voltage is too complicated to explain here. Goes back to a pin being inserted into the socket. Please read the HWbot forum post about it in detail, you'll have to search for it on your own.
> PLL OC voltage (PLL bandwidth) is bugged on older motherboards in hwinfo64. It reads half the value, so 1.2v (default) is 0.6v, so there you go. 1.184 is just rounding (it's 1.2v).
> If you have PLL OC Voltage on your older board showing up as 0.6v, absolutely do *NOT* change PLL bandwidth to make it read as 1.2v because you are actually putting it at 2.4v ! These settings are used for subzero and very high clocks.
Click to expand...

Hence my 3 dead 8700ks in 2017 lol

Finally that mystery solved.


----------



## Falkentyne

cstkl1 said:


> Hence my 3 dead 8700ks in 2017 lol
> 
> Finally that mystery solved.


F

Are you serious? Wow....Sorry for your loss


----------



## criskoe

Falkentyne said:


> DMI voltage is too complicated to explain here. Goes back to a pin being inserted into the socket. Please read the HWbot forum post about it in detail, you'll have to search for it on your own.
> PLL OC voltage (PLL bandwidth) is bugged on older motherboards in hwinfo64. It reads half the value, so 1.2v (default) is 0.6v, so there you go. 1.184 is just rounding (it's 1.2v).
> If you have PLL OC Voltage on your older board showing up as 0.6v, absolutely do *NOT* change PLL bandwidth to make it read as 1.2v because you are actually putting it at 2.4v ! These settings are used for subzero and very high clocks.


Cool good to know thanks. 

Yeah I’m pretty sure I’ve exhausted trying everything with 1.181 and below. It’s just pretty clear at this point I’m just not fully stable at that voltage and I have to boost it. I’m probably being too optimistic to believe I could really be multiple hour long stress test stable 5.1 @ 1.181v or below. 

Trying 1.190v now and up. If I get higher then 1.375 bios I might try to switch to LLC 5 for lower idle voltages and deal with a bit higher transients.


----------



## cstkl1

criskoe said:


> Yup 1.172v didn’t work. L0 at 1.5h
> 
> For 1.181 bios set 1.355 LLC4
> 
> I went back to 1.181 but this time I re enabled XMP and cache 48. Left vccio 1.2 and vccsa 1.25 and tried to re run 2.5 test again and nope. L0 error is back. So it’s pretty Clear it’s just not enough vcore @1.181 for 5.1 runs longer then 1.5h.
> 
> I’m gunna just have to boost it.
> 
> Sorry what is DMI?
> 
> As for cpu pll I don’t know. It’s just set on auto. And that values doesn’t change even if I do 50x or 51x or even 52x.


You are inbetween 1.355 and 1.36v hmm go 1.36v
(Again amazing that i can calculate that now thanks to falken literally preaching everywhere on the internet educating ppl ) 
Go up on vcore bro until u see the max amp stays at 181..

Dont run ram xmp atm. Lockdown on the cpu core clock.

You might be just at the edge to 182amp but the loadline with vcore set faulting. So go up


----------



## cstkl1

Falkentyne said:


> F
> 
> Are you serious? Wow....Sorry for your loss


All was delided. Rmaed. Zero loss. Hence y i mention if you buy from a plat intel reseller. They can settle it for you. 
This was literally first week when cpu was launched. 
Pll bandwidth effects
Your temps go up. 
Two cpus dts sensor died and just stays at 90c on 2 cores
Third cpu just wont boot anymore. 
All thanks to asus description on the pll bandwidth (use 6-8 for BEST overclocking) So i went for BEST to be the BEST. Lol. ( only on the third cpu i realized it was this setting.. ????)


----------



## Falkentyne

cstkl1 said:


> All was delided. Rmaed. Zero loss. Hence y i mention if you buy from a plat intel reseller. They can settle it for you.
> This was literally first week when cpu was launched.
> Pll bandwidth effects
> Your temps go up.
> Two cpus dts sensor died and just stays at 90c on 2 cores
> Third cpu just wont boot anymore.
> All thanks to asus description on the pll bandwidth (use 6-8 for BEST overclocking) So i went for BEST to be the BEST. Lol. ( only on the third cpu i realized it was this setting.. ????)


Yeah. Best=subzero, like 6.5 ghz at -130C to make the board boot or stabilize.


----------



## criskoe

cstkl1 said:


> You are inbetween 1.355 and 1.36v hmm go 1.36v
> (Again amazing that i can calculate that now thanks to falken literally preaching everywhere on the internet educating ppl )
> Go up on vcore bro until u see the max amp stays at 181..
> 
> Dont run ram xmp atm. Lockdown on the cpu core clock.
> 
> You might be just at the edge to 182amp but the loadline with vcore set faulting. So go up




Yeah Im going up now. Trying 1.190V 
Its 1.25 hr in so far. interesting thing is the max amps right now is 184??? The more voltage makes amps go up. Not sure how i can make it stay at 181 while increasing voltage? I cant see how that is possible. 

Different question. Usually does 5.0 to 5.1 require more VCCIO and VCCSA with same ram and XMP settings?? 

Cause when I first got this cpu i was able to pass 5 hour P95 Small FFT NO AVX run easy on my very first try just guessing values from reading the threads. 

Core - 5.0 
Cache - 47 
XMP 1 - ON 
LLC - 4 
Load voltage - 1.128V 
VCCIO - AUTO 1.15V
VCCSA - AUTO 1.15V


----------



## cstkl1

criskoe said:


> Yeah Im going up now. Trying 1.190V
> Its 1.25 hr in so far. interesting thing is the max amps right now is 184??? The more voltage makes amps go up. Not sure how i can make it stay at 181 while increasing voltage? I cant see how that is possible.
> 
> Different question. Usually does 5.0 to 5.1 require more VCCIO and VCCSA with same ram and XMP settings??
> 
> Cause when I first got this cpu i was able to pass 5 hour P95 Small FFT NO AVX run easy on my very first try just guessing values from reading the threads.
> 
> Core - 5.0
> Cache - 47
> XMP 1 - ON
> LLC - 4
> Load voltage - 1.128V
> VCCIO - AUTO 1.15V
> VCCSA - AUTO 1.15V


i am basing the max amp as a guard (not sure using this term correctly) for spikes. 
so generally you be averaging lower but hitting 184.. the more the amp.. the lower the vcore on load .. so u definitely want more going up on voltage set in bios. so as-long each run u get the same max amp..

as for vcore. if the previous set had hit 184 amp your vcore would be lower than 1.181 for the same max power but it couldnt causes that was the vmin.( again not sure its the right terminology)

after reading alot from falken etc. was redoing my oc for my bro comp. because that dude a typical gamer.. i set his a PL in his bios for P0 at his non avx load with 56sec burts on P1 for avx load. since using offset for him. Norm avx load like cb20 is below the p0 .. his comp stable like a nut. will nvr bsod with this. the cpu power value was taken from running latest prime smal avx and non avx for 4 hours each. 
thats where i noticed the l0 and amp thing. just a presumption here btw. but once the max stayed .. no errors etc. could be a fluke but works.


----------



## criskoe

cstkl1 said:


> i am basing the max amp as a guard (not sure using this term correctly) for spikes.
> so generally you be averaging lower but hitting 184.. the more the amp.. the lower the vcore on load .. so u definitely want more going up on voltage set in bios. so as-long each run u get the same max amp..
> 
> as for vcore. if the previous set had hit 184 amp your vcore would be lower than 1.181 for the same max power but it couldnt causes that was the vmin.( again not sure its the right terminology)
> 
> after reading alot from falken etc. was redoing my oc for my bro comp. because that dude a typical gamer.. i set his a PL in his bios for P0 at his non avx load with 56sec burts on P1 for avx load. since using offset for him. Norm avx load like cb20 is below the p0 .. his comp stable like a nut. will nvr bsod with this. the cpu power value was taken from running latest prime smal avx and non avx for 4 hours each.
> thats where i noticed the l0 and amp thing. just a presumption here btw. but once the max stayed .. no errors etc. could be a fluke but works.


Ok I think I understand what you mean. 

So the bump up helped. I bumped it up 10mv to 1.365v Bios. Still LLC4. But with XMP enabled with 48 cache. 

Passed the 1.5-1.75 hour error mark. Stopped it at 2.5h again. Interesting thing is even though i bumped it 10mv. HWinfo still registered a small dip to 1.181v. Im not certain but i think i noticed it when i checked it around the 1.75 hour mark. For almost the whole test it sat on 1.190v. So i think with 1.355v bios its actually dipping below 1.181v and hwinfo isnt catching it. So maybe all i needed was 5mv. Oh well im not about to chase 5mv. lol. 

Gunna try and work down these VCCIO and VCCSA voltages now on 4 hour runs and finish it off with a 4 hour R20 and 8 hour real bench and call it a day for 5.1


----------



## Falkentyne

criskoe said:


> Ok I think I understand what you mean.
> 
> So the bump up helped. I bumped it up 10mv to 1.365v Bios. Still LLC4. But with XMP enabled with 48 cache.
> 
> Passed the 1.5-1.75 hour error mark. Stopped it at 2.5h again. Interesting thing is even though i bumped it 10mv. HWinfo still registered a small dip to 1.181v. Im not certain but i think i noticed it when i checked it around the 1.75 hour mark. For almost the whole test it sat on 1.190v. So i think with 1.355v bios its actually dipping below 1.181v and hwinfo isnt catching it. So maybe all i needed was 5mv. Oh well im not about to chase 5mv. lol.
> 
> Gunna try and work down these VCCIO and VCCSA voltages now on 4 hour runs and finish it off with a 4 hour R20 and 8 hour real bench and call it a day for 5.1


What happens if you decrease VCCIO low, like down to 1.0v, but put VCCSA at 1.450v?

Does this help at all? 

I tried VCCIO 1.450v and VCCSA 1.10v on my 9900k in LinX 0.9.6 at a borderline setting where I was messing with transients and it made the residual stability worse than normal (AVX2), only passed 15 out of 20.
Then I tried VCCIO 1.0v and VCCSA 1.450v and residual stability was unchanged from my two tests earlier (passed 18 of 20, the control was passing 19 of 20, so that could be margin of error).


----------



## cstkl1

criskoe said:


> Ok I think I understand what you mean.
> 
> So the bump up helped. I bumped it up 10mv to 1.365v Bios. Still LLC4. But with XMP enabled with 48 cache.
> 
> Passed the 1.5-1.75 hour error mark. Stopped it at 2.5h again. Interesting thing is even though i bumped it 10mv. HWinfo still registered a small dip to 1.181v. Im not certain but i think i noticed it when i checked it around the 1.75 hour mark. For almost the whole test it sat on 1.190v. So i think with 1.355v bios its actually dipping below 1.181v and hwinfo isnt catching it. So maybe all i needed was 5mv. Oh well im not about to chase 5mv. lol.
> 
> Gunna try and work down these VCCIO and VCCSA voltages now on 4 hour runs and finish it off with a 4 hour R20 and 8 hour real bench and call it a day for 5.1


btw since the loadline dip kindda massive. your might as well take advatange using offset 2

generally found offset 1 non ax about the same as vcore for avx load.. 

all dependent on that 5.3ghz amp.. the bigger the difference with the 184.. the better.


----------



## criskoe

Falkentyne said:


> What happens if you decrease VCCIO low, like down to 1.0v, but put VCCSA at 1.450v?
> 
> Does this help at all?
> 
> I tried VCCIO 1.450v and VCCSA 1.10v on my 9900k in LinX 0.9.6 at a borderline setting where I was messing with transients and it made the residual stability worse than normal (AVX2), only passed 15 out of 20.
> Then I tried VCCIO 1.0v and VCCSA 1.450v and residual stability was unchanged from my two tests earlier (passed 18 of 20, the control was passing 19 of 20, so that could be margin of error).


I’ll give it a shot after I get these down one at a time. I’m dropping vccio first back down to the XMP auto level of 1.15. if it passes I’ll drop the vccsa as well to the XMP auto level or 1.15 and keep alternating them down till L0 start to appear in more memory controller stress tests like we talked about before. Probably do a Karhu ram test for good measure overnight


----------



## criskoe

cstkl1 said:


> btw since the loadline dip kindda massive. your might as well take advatange using offset 2
> 
> generally found offset 1 non ax about the same as vcore for avx load..
> 
> all dependent on that 5.3ghz amp.. the bigger the difference with the 184.. the better.


Sorry what do you mean about offset? I’m gunna just run a 24/7 static oc. I don’t bother use cstates or offsets. Never have. 

Sorry I realize that your probably talking about something different. I’m not running any avx offset. It’s 0. 

Are you saying I should run a 5.2 with a avx1 offset?


----------



## cstkl1

criskoe said:


> Sorry what do you mean about offset? I’m gunna just run a 24/7 static oc. I don’t bother use cstates or offsets. Never have.
> 
> Sorry I realize that your probably talking about something different. I’m not running any avx offset. It’s 0.
> 
> Are you saying I should run a 5.2 with a avx1 offset?


Yeah cause loadline droop is based on amp
So 5.2-5.3ghz no avx will use less amp than your 5.1ghz avx so they can use higher vcore. Their wattage also should be way less hence the temps will be lower than your 5.1ghz avx load..

So y not right when its like foc. So try 52 offset 1 or even better 53 offset 2. That means on avx loads u get 51.. when its not u get 52 or 53.. on all cores.
This stability requires testing via prime on small fft with all avx disabled. Maintain the same vcore 1.365v 

Now I am really jealous of your cpu.

If its 53 offset 2 or 52 offset 1 

@ 51 avx load you be 1.19v amp 184 max .. 219W...
@ 53 or 52 non avx just estimate here.. amp 156 so 1.21v .. 194W on load 
The lower the amp for the non avx load the bigger the offset you can use.. while maintaining 51 avx load @1.19v


----------



## criskoe

cstkl1 said:


> Yeah cause loadline droop is based on amp
> So 5.2-5.3ghz no avx will use less amp than your 5.1ghz avx so they can use higher vcore. Their wattage also should be way less hence the temps will be lower than your 5.1ghz avx load..
> 
> So y not right when its like foc. So try 52 offset 1 or even better 53 offset 2. That means on avx loads u get 51.. when its not u get 52 or 53.. on all cores.
> This stability requires testing via prime on small fft with all avx disabled. Maintain the same vcore 1.365v
> 
> Now I am really jealous of your cpu.
> 
> If its 53 offset 2 or 52 offset 1
> 
> @ 51 avx load you be 1.19v amp 184 max .. 219W...
> @ 53 or 52 non avx just estimate here.. amp 156 so 1.21v .. 194W on load
> The lower the amp for the non avx load the bigger the offset you can use.. while maintaining 51 avx load @1.19v



Ok I see what you mean.

But no need to be jealous of my cpu. Unfortunately I think you’ve miss read my test posts. My p95 5.1 runs are NO AVX. Or am I again miss understanding what your saying?


 I’m not shooting for P95 AVX stability. I’m not doing anything scientific with this rig.


----------



## cstkl1

criskoe said:


> Ok I see what you mean.
> 
> But no need to be jealous of my cpu. Unfortunately I think youâ€™️ve miss read my test posts. My p95 5.1 runs are NO AVX. Or am I again miss understanding what your saying?
> 
> 
> /forum/images/smilies/frown.gif Iâ€™️m not shooting for P95 AVX stability. Iâ€™️m not doing anything scientific with this rig.


ah then its the other way arnd. if u have avx bsod you need to set offset. 

everything now uses avx in someway even booting into windows. its just how severe



this is what i am saying btw say if you were 5ghz avx load 1.152v 220amp ... bios set 1.365
the person could do 5.1ghz offset 1.. so at 5.1ghz he is 184 amp 1.186v on load.

assumption. offset amp ratio based on 8700k offset 2 loadline @ 0.97mohm

the ratio should be bigger since intel optimizes every iteration of 14nm with higher clocks.

btw i would use po/p1 limit to 220 if i was you so if there was a sudden avx instruction that exceeded your 184amp.. it will throttle down instead of bsod. since you did a non avx stresstest with offset 0


----------



## criskoe

cstkl1 said:


> ah then its the other way arnd. if u have avx bsod you need to set offset.
> 
> everything now uses avx in someway even booting into windows. its just how severe
> 
> 
> this is what i am saying btw say if you were 5ghz avx load 1.152v 220amp ... bios set 1.365
> the person could do 5.1ghz offset 1.. so at 5.1ghz he is 184 amp 1.186v on load.
> 
> assumption. offset amp ratio based on 8700k offset 2 loadline @ 0.97mohm
> 
> the ratio should be bigger since intel optimizes every iteration of 14nm with higher clocks.


Ok yeah I completely understand what you mean now. Great info. Thank you. That graph makes it much easier to understand. 

Yeah I’ll end up doing 4 hour cinebench R20 and blender loops and real bench run overnight 8hr for my avx stability. I steer away from trying to be rock solid p95 avx stable these days. I used to go down that rabbit hole. But found it’s just unnecessary. At least for how I use my rig. (100% gaming)


----------



## cstkl1

criskoe said:


> Ok yeah I completely understand what you mean now. Great info. Thank you. That graph makes it much easier to understand.
> 
> Yeah I’ll end up doing 4 hour cinebench R20 and blender loops and real bench run overnight 8hr for my avx stability. I steer away from trying to be rock solid p95 avx stable these days. I used to go down that rabbit hole. But found it’s just unnecessary. At least for how I use my rig. (100% gaming)


Totally agree with you. If u use offset it will trigger without even loading anything avx stress. Hence you loose out the 5.1ghz. 

I learned and realize i was silly as well since my bro games as well so what i did for his 8700k instead of 5.1ghz offset 2 with po/pl 158/188 56sec burst. 

Did 5.1ghz offset 0 with po/pl 158. Tested minor avx load aka aida and realbench stays at 51 power less than 158. Tested insane p95 small fft full avx.. worker just stops after downclocking. 

Without the limit. Bsod on that p95 small fft full avx.

7 units of 10900k only came into the country .. owi had one. 1 went to a render company sp100.. 1 was sold on e platform paired with a silly giga mobo.. 1 went over the china sea to another state. 1 went to to state bordering singapore... 2 other disappeared to the unknown.


----------



## criskoe

DAMMIT!. LOL I print screened the 4 hour pass and forgot to actually save it before I rebooted to the bios. LOL. hahaha. Oh well I wrote all the info down.

Core 5.1 / Cache 48 / XMP 1 
LLC 4 / Bios 1.365V / VCCIO - 1.15V / VCCSA - 1.15V (Down From 1.20v/1.25v) Seems all I actually needed was the 10mv boost to vcore after all) LOL
P95 Small FFT NO AVX. Pass 4 hours. 
Load - 1.190V (HWinfo showed min 1.181V) Peak 237W & 183A Max core 82C / Ambient 24C

Gunna see if this will pass cinebench, Blender and realbench tests. 

Anyways Im gunna stop clogging this thread with my play by play. Ill post when ive finalized my fully stable 5.1  

Thanks @cstkl1 and @Falkentyne for all the tips and inputs.


----------



## newls1

Im pretty sure Falkentyne could overclock a rock if we pump voltage in it, he'll find a way to stabilize it, dudes that good.


----------



## Falkentyne

newls1 said:


> Im pretty sure Falkentyne could overclock a rock if we pump voltage in it, he'll find a way to stabilize it, dudes that good.


:/


----------



## cstkl1

criskoe said:


> DAMMIT!. LOL I print screened the 4 hour pass and forgot to actually save it before I rebooted to the bios. LOL. hahaha. Oh well I wrote all the info down.
> 
> Core 5.1 / Cache 48 / XMP 1
> LLC 4 / Bios 1.365V / VCCIO - 1.15V / VCCSA - 1.15V (Down From 1.20v/1.25v) Seems all I actually needed was the 10mv boost to vcore after all) LOL
> P95 Small FFT NO AVX. Pass 4 hours.
> Load - 1.190V (HWinfo showed min 1.181V) Peak 237W & 183A Max core 82C / Ambient 24C
> 
> Gunna see if this will pass cinebench, Blender and realbench tests.
> 
> Anyways Im gunna stop clogging this thread with my play by play. Ill post when ive finalized my fully stable 5.1
> 
> Thanks @cstkl1 and @Falkentyne for all the tips and inputs.


Dude your logging helped alot with the screenshots. It affirmed a few things. This is gonna shorten my time when i get a 10900k that so scarce atm.. i got better chance finding a tiger.


----------



## newls1

Falkentyne said:


> :/


why that face? it was a compliment!


----------



## newls1

im having a weird issue, and you smart people can prob lead me in the right direction. 1sr issue ive had now with my setup, and it is this. When playing farcry5, sometimes, not all the time.. i get a crash-to-desktop.. no error, no bsod, no nothing, just crashes out of game right to the desktop. what is this a sign of possibly? ive stress tested this my OC and ram for what seems forever, and thankfully everything always passes, but a simple game is causing me an issue! any quick ideas?


----------



## Falkentyne

newls1 said:


> im having a weird issue, and you smart people can prob lead me in the right direction. 1sr issue ive had now with my setup, and it is this. When playing farcry5, sometimes, not all the time.. i get a crash-to-desktop.. no error, no bsod, no nothing, just crashes out of game right to the desktop. what is this a sign of possibly? ive stress tested this my OC and ram for what seems forever, and thankfully everything always passes, but a simple game is causing me an issue! any quick ideas?


IMC failures with respect to hyperthreading (L0 register store)

did you do a prime95 112k-112k in-place FFT, AVX disabled test for 30 minutes-1 hour and look for CPU Cache L0 errors in HWinfo64 ?


----------



## criskoe

newls1 said:


> im having a weird issue, and you smart people can prob lead me in the right direction. 1sr issue ive had now with my setup, and it is this. When playing farcry5, sometimes, not all the time.. i get a crash-to-desktop.. no error, no bsod, no nothing, just crashes out of game right to the desktop. what is this a sign of possibly? ive stress tested this my OC and ram for what seems forever, and thankfully everything always passes, but a simple game is causing me an issue! any quick ideas?


Even if youve run a gauntlet of synthetic bench stress tests you can still possibly be not completely stable with your current values. Also how long did you run your stress tests for? And what stress tests did you run?

Over the last few days putting my system through the ringer. I’ve discovered that I can pass 30min to 1.5 hour synthetic stress tests with very low voltages and show no problems or L0 errors. But truth is I found voltage values that were stable for short 30 min to 1 hour runs were not actually stable and showed problems and L0 errors would start to pop up as the tests got longer. Multi hour tests. So what seemed like my lowest stable voltages really actually we’re not enough for true stability and in the end required bump ups in voltages in order to pass prolonged stress tests. 4-8 hours. These extended stress tests required anywhere from 20-30mv higher bios values in order to pass with no L0 errors at least in my case.

A very quick easy way to make sure it’s not your OC is to just load setup defaults/no overclock and play the game for a while. If you don’t crash to desktop anymore, well you have to go back and re tweak your oc unfortunately..


----------



## Baasha

newls1 said:


> im having a weird issue, and you smart people can prob lead me in the right direction. 1sr issue ive had now with my setup, and it is this. When playing farcry5, sometimes, not all the time.. i get a crash-to-desktop.. no error, no bsod, no nothing, just crashes out of game right to the desktop. what is this a sign of possibly? ive stress tested this my OC and ram for what seems forever, and thankfully everything always passes, but a simple game is causing me an issue! any quick ideas?


this is a random guess but sometimes when the PC is otherwise stable but CTDs in a couple of games, could be a pagefile issue - increase pagefile size and see. also, are you oc'ing RAM?


----------



## Falkentyne

criskoe said:


> Even if youve run a gauntlet of synthetic bench stress tests you can still possibly be not completely stable with your current values. Also how long did you run your stress tests for? And what stress tests did you run?
> 
> Over the last few days putting my system through the ringer. I’ve discovered that I can pass 30min to 1.5 hour synthetic stress tests with very low voltages and show no problems or L0 errors. But truth is I found voltage values that were stable for short 30 min to 1 hour runs were not actually stable and showed problems and L0 errors would start to pop up as the tests got longer. Multi hour tests. So what seemed like my lowest stable voltages really actually we’re not enough for true stability and in the end required bump ups in voltages in order to pass prolonged stress tests. 4-8 hours. These extended stress tests required anywhere from 20-30mv higher bios values in order to pass with no L0 errors at least in my case.
> 
> A very quick easy way to make sure it’s not your OC is to just load setup defaults/no overclock and play the game for a while. If you don’t crash to desktop anymore, well you have to go back and re tweak your oc unfortunately..


CTD with no error is almost always Prime95 in-place fixed 112K-112K AVX disabled failure. Almost always. (Or 256k-512K AVX disabled, not in place, failure, but this may be memory instability more than the IMC not liking you very much).


----------



## criskoe

Falkentyne said:


> CTD with no error is almost always Prime95 in-place fixed 112K-112K AVX disabled failure. Almost always. (Or 256k-512K AVX disabled, not in place, failure, but this may be memory instability more than the IMC not liking you very much).


So this is fixed with more vcore? No? 

I was normally doing 112k-384k. Is 112k in place better?


----------



## Falkentyne

criskoe said:


> So this is fixed with more vcore? No?
> 
> I was normally doing 112k-384k. Is 112k in place better?


384K puts barely any load on vcore. Good for testing RAM only.

112K puts equal load on both vcore/L3 cache and RAM (IMC). I tested it. My RAM modules heat up to 51C when doing 112k-112k in-place FFT. And vcore vdroop was almost the same. And transients are worse at 112K than small FFT.

Small FFT=RAM temps hardly move.


----------



## newls1

alright, thanks guys.. when I get off shift in the morning, ill run these tests. thanks


----------



## ogider

Put 5-6 cycles testmem5 with 1usmus_v3 profile. arround 50 min maybe less.
And giev info about results  Or maybe u did that test already when checking memory OC?


----------



## criskoe

Falkentyne said:


> 384K puts barely any load on vcore. Good for testing RAM only.
> 
> 112K puts equal load on both vcore/L3 cache and RAM (IMC). I tested it. My RAM modules heat up to 51C when doing 112k-112k in-place FFT. And vcore vdroop was almost the same. And transients are worse at 112K than small FFT.
> 
> Small FFT=RAM temps hardly move.


Ok. So if one were to get errors on that test. More vcore or vccio/vccsa to resolve said errors?


----------



## Falkentyne

criskoe said:


> Ok. So if one were to get errors on that test. More vcore or vccio/vccsa to resolve said errors?


Completely depends. Usually vcore, but if more +15mv vcore doesn't help, then its VCCIO/SA/Dram/dram timings related.


----------



## cstkl1

newls1 said:


> im having a weird issue, and you smart people can prob lead me in the right direction. 1sr issue ive had now with my setup, and it is this. When playing farcry5, sometimes, not all the time.. i get a crash-to-desktop.. no error, no bsod, no nothing, just crashes out of game right to the desktop. what is this a sign of possibly? ive stress tested this my OC and ram for what seems forever, and thankfully everything always passes, but a simple game is causing me an issue! any quick ideas?


what is your core clock and cache clock at?
also are you using offset


----------



## newls1

cstkl1 said:


> what is your core clock and cache clock at?
> also are you using offset


53 48 no avx offset, sa/io at 1.35, dram @ 4133 1.45v, cpu 1.410 and llc6


----------



## criskoe

cstkl1 said:


> Dude your logging helped alot with the screenshots. It affirmed a few things. This is gonna shorten my time when i get a 10900k that so scarce atm.. i got better chance finding a tiger.


Cool well im glad at least someone appreciates screenshots with as much details as possible. I know i sure do. I really wish people shared more details and screen shots of their findings myself. Instead of just posting stuff like 5.2ghz cinebench stable with just a shot of their score.. Dont get me wrong. High scores are cool in all but I really wish people would just take a few extra min to give more really important info like LLC value. Load Voltages. VCCIO and VCCSA values and ram speeds they are running. And also how long they are running these bench marks. Are they looping for extended periods of time? Or they just surviving the run to get the highest score. I get some people are just looking for the highest benchmark scores and are not after actual stability which is totally fine. But still adding this info really can help other people what to expect. Far too many times i see posts (other threads) of unrealistic low voltages with claims of stability with out any actual details or screen shots. Ends up making people feel like they got a dud cpu when theirs doesnt even come close to those values and also waste time chasing these values that almost no one can get.. Bios voltage, Load Voltage, LLC value, Test run and length with a screenshot confirming should be the absolute min info given by anyone sharing results imo. LOL. Pics or it didnt happen! LOL. Jokes aside. I get that everyone isnt as ocd or thorough with their testing which is fine but People please share more basic info and screenshots when you share your results. It helps the community more then I think people realize. 

Anyways on to the important stuff. My personal 5.1 OC basically final. Might try to work the VCCIO and VCCSA down a bit but im really not too concerned with what they are at now. 

I should add that I was able to pass multiple stress tests with a 30mv lower bios voltage for 1 hour long tests. Only when i started testing longer then 1 hour did i start having L0 issues. Ended up trying to change multiple different things like XMP, Cache ratios VCCIO and VCCSA values only for it to end up just needing more vcore. Obviously situations and cpus will differ and as falkentyne pointed out, there are some specific tests you can run to help narrow down what you might be running into.

10900k
SP 88
Batch X016F024 Vietnam

Maximus XII Exteme Bios 0607
XMP1
DDR4 3200 Cl16  slow i know  Ill try to get my hands on some CL14 if i can find a good deal) 
CPU Ratio - 51
Cache - 48
AVX Offset - 0
All Cstates disabled and All Power Limits Removed

LLC - 4
Bios Voltage 1.365V Stable ( Bios 1.335v L0 error fail @ 1.5H / Bios 1.345v L0 error Fail @ 1.75H / 1.355v L0 error Fail @ 1.75H )
VCCIO - 1.15V
VCCSA - 1.15V

HWiNFO Load Min - 1.181V ( 1.190V AVG ) Stable

Tests Passed

4 Hour loop Cinebench R20 
8 Hour P95 Small FFT NO AVX
8 hour Realbench 2.56 16gb ( Half Of Ram ) 

Screen Shots just before test ended but still fully loaded attached with more details like Ambient and max temps. I hope that this info might help someone out when they get their cpu 

Now time to see if I can keep 5.2ghz at reasonable temp levels for everyday use. So far Core 52 Cache 49 LLC6/1.335 Bios = 1.234V Load can pass 1 hour but again L0 cache errors pop up just over 1 hour into tests. My guess is its going to be the same thing, its going to require 30mv more to fully be stable and put me at LLC6/1.365V Bios = 1.261V Load in order to pass extended tests. Not sure i can keep my temps below my personal limit of 85c at that voltage. I like to stay under that for a 24/7 daily OC. I really doubt thats gunna happen. Oh well im very happy with my 5.1 results.


----------



## cstkl1

newls1 said:


> 53 48 no avx offset, sa/io at 1.35, dram @ 4133 1.45v, cpu 1.410 and llc6


Are those rams hci stable?? Thought 4x8gb bdies were an issue. Even their validation atm is up to 4kc15., interesting. Afaik ok bdie 4dimm 8gb sticks..only msi @4266
Also holy crap batman 5.3 should be using insane amount of amps..


----------



## cstkl1

Falkentyne said:


> criskoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> So this is fixed with more vcore? No?
> 
> I was normally doing 112k-384k. Is 112k in place better?
> 
> 
> 
> 384K puts barely any load on vcore. Good for testing RAM only.
> 
> 112K puts equal load on both vcore/L3 cache and RAM (IMC). I tested it. My RAM modules heat up to 51C when doing 112k-112k in-place FFT. And vcore vdroop was almost the same. And transients are worse at 112K than small FFT.
> 
> Small FFT=RAM temps hardly move.
Click to expand...

spend the whole day on this
vccio/vcssa 1.05

holy pope. dude y it seems to have an effect on vcssa only on non avx. avx load no issue. i tested with a 8700k with offset.. @4.9ghz it cruised with avx 3 hours. non avx failed in 45min. bumped up vcssa to it can immitate the stock 0.95/1.05 pairing.. still running. 

on a brightside there maybe hope of me getting a 10900k by next week. or play arnd with a dozen 10700k. 

also extreme pretty cheap atm but if has a screwed up m.2. it wont be able to accomadate two m.2, optane, soundcard. the two dimm m.2 kindda useless with it reducing the gpu to 8x.. hows dat extreme. y cant they make a board like formula with vrms like extreme. win win .


----------



## criskoe

cstkl1 said:


> spend the whole day on this
> vccio/vcssa 1.05
> 
> holy pope. dude y it seems to have an effect on vcssa only on non avx. avx load no issue. i tested with a 8700k with offset.. @4.9ghz it cruised with avx 3 hours. non avx failed in 45min. bumped up vcssa to it can immitate the stock 0.95/1.05 pairing.. still running.
> 
> on a brightside there maybe hope of me getting a 10900k by next week. or play arnd with a dozen 10700k.
> 
> also extreme pretty cheap atm but if has a screwed up m.2. it wont be able to accomadate two m.2, optane, soundcard. the two dimm m.2 kindda useless with it reducing the gpu to 8x.. hows dat extreme. y cant they make a board like formula with vrms like extreme. win win .


What do you mean by imitate stock pairing? Like vccsa slightly higher? Example 1.10/1.15?


There is supposed to be a xii Extreme glacial released at some point. No details about exactly what glacial means. But my guess is it’s gunna come with some massive mono block.


----------



## cstkl1

criskoe said:


> What do you mean by imitate stock pairing? Like vccsa slightly higher? Example 1.10/1.15?
> 
> 
> There is supposed to be a xii Extreme glacial released at some point. No details about exactly what glacial means. But my guess is it’s gunna come with some massive mono block.


Stock is vccio 0.95, vcssa 1.05
So i did 1.05/1.15 now.

The glacial.. hard pass. I think it was the z270 extreme and it was owikh84. There was contact issues with the monoblock.. he had to buy 3 just to find one thats almost 100.. take note of “almost”.. 

Also does the 90A 16 phases need to be cooled by water?

I just dont get why the extreme m.2 config so badly designed. Asus so proud of the dimm m.2 that only useful for benchmarks.
But its really insane for wc. 8x2a rad headers, two pumps.


----------



## criskoe

cstkl1 said:


> Stock is vccio 0.95, vcssa 1.05
> So i did 1.05/1.15 now.
> 
> The glacial.. hard pass. I think it was the z270 extreme and it was owikh84. There was contact issues with the monoblock.. he had to buy 3 just to find one thats almost 100.. take note of “almost”..
> 
> Also does the 90A 16 phases need to be cooled by water?
> 
> I just dont get why the extreme m.2 config so badly designed. Asus so proud of the dimm m.2 that only useful for benchmarks.
> But its really insane for wc. 8x2a rad headers, two pumps.


I see what you mean. 

Yeah I personally wouldn’t want a mono block either. As for the VRM. I don’t think it needs water. Even when I was pushing 237A to the cpu, the VRM was only like 53c. 

As for the m.2 config. How is the formula better?


----------



## Shawnb99

cstkl1 said:


> I just dont get why the extreme m.2 config so badly designed. Asus so proud of the dimm m.2 that only useful for benchmarks.
> But its really insane for wc. 8x2a rad headers, two pumps.


I hate the stupid Dimm m.2 card. Damn thing doesn’t cool for ****, drives in it run around 10-20 degrees higher then my other M.2 card.
Just a poor design really


----------



## cstkl1

Shawnb99 said:


> I hate the stupid Dimm m.2 card. Damn thing doesn’t cool for ****, drives in it run around 10-20 degrees higher then my other M.2 card.
> Just a poor design really


Yeah every other mobo via pch u can run
3 x nvme
Or 
2x nvme with a soundcard and optane. I need my optane for my hdd and soundcard. 

Extreme config.. its a no without sacrificing gpu lane
Also the choices for config so limited. Every other mobo u get to do 2-3 diff configs to suit your hardware etc.


----------



## criskoe

cstkl1 said:


> Yeah every other mobo via pch u can run
> 3 x nvme
> Or
> 2x nvme with a soundcard and optane. I need my optane for my hdd and soundcard.
> 
> Extreme config.. its a no without sacrificing gpu lane
> Also the choices for config so limited. Every other mobo u get to do 2-3 diff configs to suit your hardware etc.


I see. I didn’t realize the formula had m.2 slot on the back of the board.


----------



## ThrashZone

criskoe said:


> I see. I didn’t realize the formula had m.2 slot on the back of the board.


Hi,
Yep dumbest thing I've ever seen 
Have to cut a hole in the back of the case to access the silly thing or have to remove the board lol :thumb:


----------



## criskoe

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Yep dumbest thing I've ever seen
> Have to cut a hole in the back of the case to access the silly thing or have to remove the board lol :thumb:


I’d imagine zero airflow or room for a heat sink doesn’t help it either.


----------



## Esenel

cstkl1 said:


> newls1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 53 48 no avx offset, sa/io at 1.35, dram @ 4133 1.45v, cpu 1.410 and llc6
> 
> 
> 
> Are those rams hci stable?? Thought 4x8gb bdies were an issue. Even their validation atm is up to 4kc15., interesting. Afaik ok bdie 4dimm 8gb sticks..only msi @4266
Click to expand...

Asus Formula:
Can do 4x8 4266 17-17-17-37-340-2T.
1.52VDIMM - 1.36 IO - 1.40 SA.
400% HCI - 1h GSAT - 1h Prime 29.8 non AVX Custom.


----------



## ThrashZone

criskoe said:


> I’d imagine zero airflow or room for a heat sink doesn’t help it either.


Hi,
Yeah I don't know what those dip engineers were thinking lol


----------



## cstkl1

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Yeah I don't know what those dip engineers were thinking lol





criskoe said:


> I’d imagine zero airflow or room for a heat sink doesn’t help it either.


hey hey hey.. extreme cant do 

2 nvme drives + 1 optane and one soundcard 

while formula i be like if i dont care about this m.2.. i can use the pcie lane with adapter.... and such.. even with its stock config no issue.. so theres like 3 ways to do it...


----------



## ThrashZone

cstkl1 said:


> hey hey hey.. extreme cant do
> 
> 2 nvme drives + 1 optane and one soundcard
> 
> while formula i be like if i dont care about this m.2.. i can use the pcie lane with adapter.... and such.. even with its stock config no issue.. so theres like 3 ways to do it...


Hi,
I'd add a fourth = use a regular 2.5" ssd 
Sata I switched back to 860 pro
I've seen no real advantage to m.2 except on performance test 8-9-10 no other gives a crap
I'll keep them around for storage but that's it not for os anymore.


----------



## Shawnb99

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Yep dumbest thing I've ever seen
> Have to cut a hole in the back of the case to access the silly thing or have to remove the board lol :thumb:


Quite a few of the higher end 490 boards seem to have that. I don't know what they were thinking adding that. Really such a stupid place to put it. Specially considering it likely ends up using the PCIE lanes anyways so better off using an add on card instead.

Then again the EK block on the formula boards could of been designed better as well, at the very least change the location of the ports so it's not an impossible bend to the CPU.


----------



## Nizzen

Esenel said:


> Asus Formula:
> Can do 4x8 4266 17-17-17-37-340-2T.
> 1.52VDIMM - 1.36 IO - 1.40 SA.
> 400% HCI - 1h GSAT - 1h Prime 29.8 non AVX Custom.


Please post Aida 64 Aida memorybench


----------



## cstkl1

Nizzen said:


> Please post Aida 64 Aida memorybench


He did [email protected] formula thread


----------



## ThrashZone

Shawnb99 said:


> Quite a few of the higher end 490 boards seem to have that. I don't know what they were thinking adding that. Really such a stupid place to put it. Specially considering it likely ends up using the PCIE lanes anyways so better off using an add on card instead.
> 
> Then again the EK block on the formula boards could of been designed better as well, at the very least change the location of the ports so it's not an impossible bend to the CPU.


Hi,
Yeah not sure which one is supposed to be sata either really it say _1 but _2 is the only one that shows an option to be switched to x4 m.2 speed.
_3 I guess shares pci-e slot 3 period.
But m.2_1 has no options at all in bios so assume it's sata mode automatically.


----------



## Shawnb99

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Yeah not sure which one is supposed to be sata either really it say _1 but _2 is the only one that shows an option to be switched to x4 m.2 speed.
> _3 I guess shares pci-e slot 3 period.
> But m.2_1 has no options at all in bios so assume it's sata mode automatically.


Yeah that's another complaint I have with Asus manuals and not being very clear what slot shares what. I always have to triple check before I'm sure. The _ for spaces doesn't help< i understand why they use that format but still not easy for readability. Switching between normal spaces and that takes me a few seconds to click in. 

I'm sure smoking a joint while doing it doesn't help...


----------



## Esenel

cstkl1 said:


> Nizzen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please post Aida 64 Aida memorybench /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> 
> 
> He did [email protected] formula thread
Click to expand...

I also wanted to add HCI, GSAT and Prime screen, but this forum always takes a random amount of uploads it accepts...


----------



## ThrashZone

Shawnb99 said:


> Yeah that's another complaint I have with Asus manuals and not being very clear what slot shares what. I always have to triple check before I'm sure. The _ for spaces doesn't help< i understand why they use that format but still not easy for readability. Switching between normal spaces and that takes me a few seconds to click in.
> 
> I'm sure smoking a joint while doing it doesn't help...


Hi,
I mean I posted an image still is vague which one is what lol 
https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=353028&d=1591711015


----------



## Shawnb99

Just a waste of a slot and ugly as well. Well not as ugly as whatever they did to the Apex, not a fan of that X shapped PCB. God that's ugly


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Most disappointing is no room for a real heatsink 
M.2 board cover doesn't do very well on 970 m.2's at all.
Did get a pci-e slot card but I don't like it either.


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

Esenel said:


> I also wanted to add HCI, GSAT and Prime screen, but this forum always takes a random amount of uploads it accepts...



It's easier to upload the images to imgur and then use the insert image feature to link the image's imgur url.


----------



## Shawnb99

Yeah I'm not impressed with the last 2 versions of Asus MB's. Really only got my Apex for their bios.


----------



## cstkl1

Esenel said:


> I also wanted to add HCI, GSAT and Prime screen, but this forum always takes a random amount of uploads it accepts...


can you test something...

Latest Prime set custom fft 112 avx disabled..
its doing some weird stuff


----------



## Falkentyne

cstkl1 said:


> can you test something...
> 
> Latest Prime set custom fft 112 avx disabled..
> its doing some weird stuff


Were you the guy who said Far Cry 5 was crashing to desktop randomly or was it that newls guy or whatever his name was?

What was the result of your prime95 112K AVX disabled FFT's in place testing?
What "weird" stuff are you talking about here, exactly? Elaborate, please?

If you get L0 errors or crashed threads you either need more vcore or more VCCIO/SA (usually SA).
You can figure out which by seeing if you pass small FFT (all loops) first with no L0 errors.
Then if you get an L0 error on 112K or a thread dies, increase vcore by 10mv. 15mv max.
If you pass, success. If you still fail, you have an IMC related problem.

Assuming you did the following:

Download prime95 29.8 from the official mersenne website.
Click stress test, click small then click custom. Make sure in-place is checked.

Enter 112k-112k. Disable both AVX options. Start the test. Rearrange the windows so you can see the results of each thread otherwise you can't see when a thread crashes.
Have hwinfo64 running with sensors only and monitor for cpu cache L0 errors.

Rearranging the prime95 windows is so helpful. I actually have them side by side lined up in 10x2 and can see the output from each window


----------



## Nizzen

Shawnb99 said:


> Yeah I'm not impressed with the last 2 versions of Asus MB's. Really only got my Apex for their bios.


What else than performance do you need? I have Apex xi and Apex xii just for the performance. Looks I don't care.


----------



## cstkl1

Falkentyne said:


> Were you the guy who said Far Cry 5 was crashing to desktop randomly or was it that newls guy or whatever his name was?
> 
> What was the result of your prime95 112K AVX disabled FFT's in place testing?


Not me.. its dat news1 dude. 

Hmm fft112 a strange one in non avx load.
In avx is nothing interesting
Its saying certain ram timings a No with l0 error but those timings no issue with hci.. one clear example is trefi.. in avx load no issue maxed out. 
In non avx load a l0 error
Tfaw as well. 

Not using my bdies atm but hmm really interesting. 
Its so sensitive to vccio/vcssa pairing.


----------



## Shawnb99

Nizzen said:


> What else than performance do you need? I have Apex xi and Apex xii just for the performance. Looks I don't care.


The Dimm M.2 I could of done without, just runs to hot. On board would of been nicer if possible. On the XII just not a fan of that X shapped PCB. Otherwise it's a great board.


----------



## Falkentyne

cstkl1 said:


> Not me.. its dat news1 dude.
> 
> Hmm fft112 a strange one in non avx load.
> In avx is nothing interesting
> Its saying certain ram timings a No with l0 error but those timings no issue with hci.. one clear example is trefi.. in avx load no issue maxed out.
> In non avx load a l0 error
> Tfaw as well.
> 
> Not using my bdies atm but hmm really interesting.
> Its so sensitive to vccio/vcssa pairing.


I edited my last post whhile you were replying
Yes, 112k non-AVX in-place stresses several things at once.

1) Transients (slightly worse transients than small FFT; 80K small FFT seems to be the hardest to pass of small FFT), so if you barely pass small FFT you can fail this one.
2) Tests RAM/IMC---look at your RAM temps. They get much higher with 112k-112k than small FFT, that means the RAM is being probed and sexually violated.
3) 112K starts hitting the L3 cache when you run out of L2 per thread. IMC is heavily involved in L3 cache because part of this is used for the "L0" cache, which is the virtualized register store for duplicated instruction registers, where each thread has to appear as a physical core to the operating system.

112K FFT In-Place, AVX disabled is a really important test. I'm the first person in the universe to discover this. Totally by accident too (Was troubleshooting FMA3 112K crashing on my 9900k a long time ago). @shamino1978


----------



## cstkl1

Falkentyne said:


> I edited my last post whhile you were replying
> Yes, 112k non-AVX in-place stresses several things at once.
> 
> 1) Transients (slightly worse transients than small FFT; 80K small FFT seems to be the hardest to pass of small FFT), so if you barely pass small FFT you can fail this one.
> 2) Tests RAM/IMC---look at your RAM temps. They get much higher with 112k-112k than small FFT, that means the RAM is being probed and sexually violated.
> 3) 112K starts hitting the L3 cache when you run out of L2 per thread. IMC is heavily involved in L3 cache because part of this is used for the "L0" cache, which is the virtualized register store for duplicated instruction registers, where each thread has to appear as a physical core to the operating system.
> 
> 112K FFT In-Place, AVX disabled is a really important test. I'm the first person in the universe to discover this. Totally by accident too (Was troubleshooting FMA3 112K crashing on my 9900k a long time ago). @shamino1978


But y only in avx disabled issues pop up showing l0 error

Its literally nothing when avx enabled. 

Its almost making me now doubt the sacred hci..

Btw i am testing with a cpu that gone thousand of hours of torture.. so its stability not vcore related.


----------



## Falkentyne

cstkl1 said:


> But y only in avx disabled issues pop up showing l0 error
> 
> Its literally nothing when avx enabled.
> 
> Its almost making me now doubt the sacred hci..
> 
> Btw i am testing with a cpu that gone thousand of hours of torture.. so its stability not vcore related.


HCI isn't sacred. And why do you think everyone (who is smart) tells you you need more than one method of stress testing?
Something can hit RAM hard and the RAM can be stable. Something can hit the L1 and L2 and cores hard and be stable. Something can hit the IMC and fail.

I keep telling people this and they seem to keep forgetting. Have you ever noticed if you disable Hyperthreading, you NEVER get a Cpu Cache L0 error?

VCCIO and VCCSA affect AVX and non AVX differently. How and why I don't know. I found that when borderline, lowering VCCIO can reduce L0 errors on AVX (it can make it more likely a thread actually crashes rather than reports a L0 error--so I can't be certain that is a true stability improvement) and Increasing VCCSA can reduce errors on Non AVX, where the thread doesn't even crash at all. But how and why I have no idea. Nor do I know if there is a problem with having IO and SA too far away from each other, but I do know they are both signal rails and one functions on an "input buffer or rail" and another on an "output buffer or signal rail"--and thats the most I know. I know nothing else. Only Intel would know this.

Increase VCCSA and leave VCCIO alone. Do the L0 errors go away?
Yes I am fully aware it takes hours to test this stuff. How do you think I learned this stuff? I had to run repeated nonstop tests for MONTHS.

Remember your CPU Core can be stable (if you pass AVX you're above your vMin) but the IMC can still be unstable...the IMC is a VERY complicated piece of Intel engineering


----------



## cstkl1

Falkentyne said:


> cstkl1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But y only in avx disabled issues pop up showing l0 error
> 
> Its literally nothing when avx enabled.
> 
> Its almost making me now doubt the sacred hci..
> 
> Btw i am testing with a cpu that gone thousand of hours of torture.. so its stability not vcore related.
> 
> 
> 
> HCI isn't sacred. And why do you think everyone (who is smart) tells you you need more than one method of stress testing?
> Something can hit RAM hard and the RAM can be stable. Something can hit the L1 and L2 and cores hard and be stable. Something can hit the IMC and fail.
> 
> I keep telling people this and they seem to keep forgetting. Have you ever noticed if you disable Hyperthreading, you NEVER get a Cpu Cache L0 error?
> 
> VCCIO and VCCSA affect AVX and non AVX differently. How and why I don't know. I found that when borderline, lowering VCCIO can reduce L0 errors on AVX (it can make it more likely a thread actually crashes rather than reports a L0 error--so I can't be certain that is a true stability improvement) and Increasing VCCSA can reduce errors on Non AVX, where the thread doesn't even crash at all. But how and why I have no idea. Nor do I know if there is a problem with having IO and SA too far away from each other, but I do know they are both signal rails and one functions on an "input buffer or rail" and another on an "output buffer or signal rail"--and thats the most I know. I know nothing else. Only Intel would know this.
> 
> Increase VCCSA and leave VCCIO alone. Do the L0 errors go away?
> Yes I am fully aware it takes hours to test this stuff. How do you think I learned this stuff? I had to run repeated nonstop tests for MONTHS.
> 
> Remember your CPU Core can be stable (if you pass AVX you're above your vMin) but the IMC can still be unstable...the IMC is a VERY complicated piece of Intel engineering /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
Click to expand...

you have intrigued me dude.. owikh can tell u once i am intrigued.. i get triggered... 

yeah i am testing that out too.. vcssa up but it has a upper limit based on where vccio is at. 

vcssa vs secondary ram timings vs dram clk. ( last part asus exclusive and only with bdie i can test those out as bdie can use training of way lower presets right down to jdec even though its running at 4k++ .. )

theres this atm as well and its only at multi 50 and above. samething happen with my 7820x 5ghz with mesh 32 4kc17.. 

fft112 would have been helpful if i knew about this back then.


----------



## newls1

Falkentyne said:


> I edited my last post whhile you were replying
> Yes, 112k non-AVX in-place stresses several things at once.
> 
> 1) Transients (slightly worse transients than small FFT; 80K small FFT seems to be the hardest to pass of small FFT), so if you barely pass small FFT you can fail this one.
> 2) Tests RAM/IMC---look at your RAM temps. They get much higher with 112k-112k than small FFT, that means the RAM is being probed and sexually violated.
> 3) 112K starts hitting the L3 cache when you run out of L2 per thread. IMC is heavily involved in L3 cache because part of this is used for the "L0" cache, which is the virtualized register store for duplicated instruction registers, where each thread has to appear as a physical core to the operating system.
> 
> 112K FFT In-Place, AVX disabled is a really important test. I'm the first person in the universe to discover this. Totally by accident too (Was troubleshooting FMA3 112K crashing on my 9900k a long time ago). @shamino1978


Sir, im about to start this process but simple question before I start: I updated to the BETA Hwinfo64 cause I didnt see my DRAM Temp readings, nor could I find that option in the "hidden" options either in the regular version, and this BETA wont show my dram temp either. What am I missing? would like to be able to monitor my B-Die as I stress them. Is it possible these patriot 4400's dont have a sensor?


----------



## Falkentyne

newls1 said:


> Sir, im about to start this process but simple question before I start: I updated to the BETA Hwinfo64 cause I didnt see my DRAM Temp readings, nor could I find that option in the "hidden" options either in the regular version, and this BETA wont show my dram temp either. What am I missing? would like to be able to monitor my B-Die as I stress them. Is it possible these patriot 4400's dont have a sensor?


Sorry you have to ask hwinfo programmer, not me. I don't know.

If "reset layout" in options doesn't work, or "show values" or whatever its called I simply don't know. I have nothing to do with HWinfo.


----------



## newls1

Falkentyne said:


> Sorry you have to ask hwinfo programmer, not me. I don't know.
> 
> If "reset layout" in options doesn't work, or "show values" or whatever its called I simply don't know. I have nothing to do with HWinfo.


okie dokie, ill keep digging. thanks buddy


----------



## Esenel

cstkl1 said:


> can you test something...
> 
> Latest Prime set custom fft 112 avx disabled..
> its doing some weird stuff


Like this?


----------



## Falkentyne

Esenel said:


> Like this?


As long as you remembered to check "in-place", then yes.


----------



## Nizzen

Shawnb99 said:


> The Dimm M.2 I could of done without, just runs to hot. On board would of been nicer if possible. On the XII just not a fan of that X shapped PCB. Otherwise it's a great board.


I have 2x adata sx8200pro on Apex x299 m.2 dimm slot. Never running hot. Not a problem on Apex xi either. Here I have one samsung 960pro. On Xii z490 I just using sata ssd for benchmarking


----------



## Esenel

Falkentyne said:


> Esenel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like this?
> 
> 
> 
> As long as you remembered to check "in-place", then yes.
Click to expand...

Custom.
FFT checkbox.
Checkbox for no AVX2.
Ceckbox for no AVX.


----------



## ThrashZone

Shawnb99 said:


> The Dimm M.2 I could of done without, just runs to hot. On board would of been nicer if possible. On the XII just not a fan of that X shapped PCB. Otherwise it's a great board.


Hi,
x299 apex m.2 dimm was okay it at least had a m.2 fan port so and enough room for one of these blower style m.2 heatsinks 

https://www.amazon.com/Advancing-Ge...2+coolers&qid=1563300019&s=electronics&sr=1-3


----------



## opt33

newls1 said:


> Sir, im about to start this process but simple question before I start: I updated to the BETA Hwinfo64 cause I didnt see my DRAM Temp readings, nor could I find that option in the "hidden" options either in the regular version, and this BETA wont show my dram temp either. What am I missing? would like to be able to monitor my B-Die as I stress them. Is it possible these patriot 4400's dont have a sensor?


Most non-commercial RAM wont have Dimm TS (thermal sensors), ie Patriot viper steel isnt going to have them. Some ECC ram does and can be read with aida64 after checking dimm thermal sensor support under file/preferences/stability. Most that measure memory temps use an IR gun.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
You can pretty much assume you need a fan on the dimms


----------



## cstkl1

Esenel said:


> Like this?


Nice. Its really heating up your ram..Dude i pmed ya.


----------



## cstkl1

Falkentyne said:


> Esenel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like this?
> 
> 
> 
> As long as you remembered to check "in-place", then yes.
Click to expand...

so use fft or use alot of ram??

btw hci is correct. retested it. its tested the turnaround or some internal algo. 
changed to a diff dram clk. all good again. 
seriously for me this is THE test for vcssa


----------



## Falkentyne

cstkl1 said:


> so use fft or use alot of ram??
> 
> btw hci is correct. retested it. its tested the turnaround or some internal algo.
> changed to a diff dram clk. all good again.
> seriously for me this is THE test for vcssa


You're confusing me. What is the best test?
And I already told you. check "In place fixed FFT". I said this like four times now. It's annoying to repeat myself over and over.

You cannot set RAM when using in-place. It's impossible.


----------



## cstkl1

Falkentyne said:


> cstkl1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> so use fft or use alot of ram??
> 
> btw hci is correct. retested it. its tested the turnaround or some internal algo.
> changed to a diff dram clk. all good again.
> seriously for me this is THE test for vcssa
> 
> 
> 
> You're confusing me. What is the best test?
> And I already told you. check "In place fixed FFT". I said this like four times now. It's annoying to repeat myself over and over.
> 
> You cannot set RAM when using in-place. It's impossible.
Click to expand...

been testing both. 
not saying best test. found 112 test on turnaround. not main/secondary timing with vccio/vcssa.


----------



## Falkentyne

cstkl1 said:


> been testing both.
> not saying best test. found 112 test on turnaround. not main/secondary timing with vccio/vcssa.


Unfortunately I know absolutely nothing about memory overclocking. Besides...uh set the mains, a few subs, trfc, trefi and then copy other people's tertiaries and pray it works XD
Sorry if I seemed rude, but you gotta understand you cant ask me about memory anything. I hardly know anything worthwhile. I'm sure you know far more than I do.

If you find anything helpful with 112K L0 errors, and what RAM timings (RAM timings??) to reduce them or IO/SA, please let me know.
The one thing I do know is if you get L0 errors in small FFT, that's usually vcore  Although higher VCCSA can reduce them or raise the temperature at which they appear.


----------



## cstkl1

Falkentyne said:


> Unfortunately I know absolutely nothing about memory overclocking. Besides...uh set the mains, a few subs, trfc, trefi and then copy other people's tertiaries and pray it works XD
> Sorry if I seemed rude, but you gotta understand you cant ask me about memory anything. I hardly know anything worthwhile. I'm sure you know far more than I do.
> 
> If you find anything helpful with 112K L0 errors, and what RAM timings (RAM timings??) to reduce them or IO/SA, please let me know.
> The one thing I do know is if you get L0 errors in small FFT, that's usually vcore  Although higher VCCSA can reduce them or raise the temperature at which they appear.


no problem dude. you are posting literally everywhere sharing..

btw tested the crap out of this the whole night

it doesnt do any form of ram stability. hci bless you. 

its pure vcssa. 

might get a 10900k today or just grab a 10700k( alot of stock came in for this one) with either extreme or formula.. ( extreme hmm just wondering does it clock cpu slightly better..hmm)
so will revisit this. fft112 will get to the bottom off it.


----------



## YoungChris

Have we seen any lottery losers yet? Like with last gen, there were chips as bad as 4.9ghz 1.45v all core stable.


----------



## warbucks

Falkentyne said:


> Unfortunately I know absolutely nothing about memory overclocking. Besides...uh set the mains, a few subs, trfc, trefi and then copy other people's tertiaries and pray it works XD
> Sorry if I seemed rude, but you gotta understand you cant ask me about memory anything. I hardly know anything worthwhile. I'm sure you know far more than I do.
> 
> If you find anything helpful with 112K L0 errors, and what RAM timings (RAM timings??) to reduce them or IO/SA, please let me know.
> The one thing I do know is if you get L0 errors in small FFT, that's usually vcore  Although higher VCCSA can reduce them or raise the temperature at which they appear.


I ran this same test and it's been helpful to find instability requiring a tweak to vcore that was very subtle.

Unrelated question for you, what's the ideal switching frequency we should use on the XII boards(I'm using the Formula)?


----------



## ThrashZone

YoungChris said:


> Have we seen any lottery losers yet? Like with last gen, there were chips as bad as 4.9ghz 1.45v all core stable.


Hi,
Biggest looser is asus bios they pretty much do what they want too.


----------



## Nizzen

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Biggest looser is asus bios they pretty much do what they want too.


What do you mean? Explain this please


----------



## ThrashZone

Nizzen said:


> What do you mean? Explain this please


Hi,
Can't stop the throttling 
Just 5.1 drops to 4.0 on R20 and that's using all core 5.1 on a 60 second test.
Never seen that before can't say I like it either


----------



## ThrashZone

Nizzen said:


> What do you mean? Explain this please





ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Can't stop the throttling
> Just 5.1 drops to 4.0 on R20 and that's using all core 5.1 on a 60 second test.
> Never seen that before can't say I like it either


Hi,
Looks like all core is just broken 
Only option that doesn't throttle like crazy is By core usage it actually doesn't throttle the clocks say first line 51 and second 10 basically all core 5.1.


----------



## Nizzen

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Can't stop the throttling
> Just 5.1 drops to 4.0 on R20 and that's using all core 5.1 on a 60 second test.
> Never seen that before can't say I like it either


Have looped R20 here with 10900k on xii Apex. No throttle.


----------



## Falkentyne

Nizzen said:


> Have looped R20 here with 10900k on xii Apex. No throttle.


No throttling here either. Just CPU Cache L0 errors if not enough vcore, or too high temps.
I think he doesn't know how to overclock. And he's blaming the motherboard and BIOS. Sounds like a college kid who gets hardware from free money but doesn't know how to use it properly.

Maybe he didn't max power limits? Or maybe he disabled MCE instead of leaving it at auto?
Disabling MCE forces the system to honor all power limits until you manually max them out yourself.
This is even written in the ROG guide by Shamino.

MCE at auto will use intel default power limits UNTIL you customize a clock ratio, then it disables the power limits for you (since if you're overclocking you clearly don't want to run at TDP).
But if you DISABLE MCE, you need to set everything manually...overclocking basics, bro.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Falkentyne said:


> No throttling here either. Just CPU Cache L0 errors if not enough vcore, or too high temps.
> I think he doesn't know how to overclock. And he's blaming the motherboard and BIOS. Sounds like a college kid who gets hardware from free money but doesn't know how to use it properly.
> 
> Maybe he didn't max power limits? Or maybe he disabled MCE instead of leaving it at auto?
> Disabling MCE forces the system to honor all power limits until you manually max them out yourself.
> This is even written in the ROG guide by Shamino.
> 
> MCE at auto will use intel default power limits UNTIL you customize a clock ratio, then it disables the power limits for you (since if you're overclocking you clearly don't want to run at TDP).
> But if you DISABLE MCE, you need to set everything manually...overclocking basics, bro.


Please stop talking down to people on this forum. Insulting them gets you no where on this forum. You look like a knowledgeable person and I appreciate the good work you put here. But the disrespecting of others makes myself just want to scroll past all of your posts(informative ones too) instead of taking the time to read them. Thanks.


----------



## Falkentyne

MrTOOSHORT said:


> Please stop talking down to people on this forum. Insulting them gets you no where on this forum. You look like a knowledgeable person and I appreciate the good work you put here. But the disrespecting of others makes myself just want to scroll past all of your posts(informative ones too) instead of taking the time to read them. Thanks.


Talking down people in the forum? You and Thrashzone have done nothing but ***** about the Bios, about some strange random thing on a board, and about Shamino nonstop, when the problem is people's incompetence at overclocking and their inability to admit it and learn, and if a problem actually does result, proper debugging, video recording and a few non teenage level social skills to get the bug to be reproduced and then fixed.. You are on my ignore list now. Do not contact me again.


----------



## Talon2016

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Biggest looser is asus bios they pretty much do what they want too.


Nah, my Asus Z490 Hero XII is rock solid board. I am able to overclock my 10900K to 5.35Ghz without issue in CB20. No throttle, no issue. It's possible you got a dud and need to RMA, but I think it's more likely user error. 

Sounds like you left current limits in place. You need to max out current limit.


----------



## shaolin95

MrTOOSHORT said:


> Please stop talking down to people on this forum. Insulting them gets you no where on this forum. You look like a knowledgeable person and I appreciate the good work you put here. But the disrespecting of others makes myself just want to scroll past all of your posts(informative ones too) instead of taking the time to read them. Thanks.


That is how he roles then when you call him out, he acts like the victim. He even followed me to Hardocp to post crap about me. Shame that he has such attitude.


----------



## shaolin95

Talon2016 said:


> Nah, my Asus Z490 Hero XII is rock solid board. I am able to overclock my 10900K to 5.35Ghz without issue in CB20. No throttle, no issue. It's possible you got a dud and need to RMA, but I think it's more likely user error.
> 
> Sounds like you left current limits in place. You need to max out current limit.


Nice. That and the Formula are the boards I am debating about..IF I can ever find aa 10900k that is :/


----------



## newls1

its nice and cloudy outside right now ...... :grouphug:


----------



## Falkentyne

newls1 said:


> its nice and cloudy outside right now ...... :grouphug:


I'll trade your clouds for my 37C ambient temps right now. Quarantine, California heat wave and protests. What can possibly go wrong?


----------



## newls1

Falkentyne said:


> I'll trade your clouds for my 37C ambient temps right now. Quarantine, California heat wave and protests. What can possibly go wrong?


Yeah, those are some nasty temps. We get extremely hot here in the ATL area so I have one of those portable A/C units in my computer room... my rads love it when that cold air gets sucked through them and my cpu and gpu and well... now a vrm section love it more


----------



## ThrashZone

Talon2016 said:


> Nah, my Asus Z490 Hero XII is rock solid board. I am able to overclock my 10900K to 5.35Ghz without issue in CB20. No throttle, no issue. It's possible you got a dud and need to RMA, but I think it's more likely user error.
> 
> Sounds like you left current limits in place. You need to max out current limit.


Hi,
Thanks yeah I got a bios text file from newis1 oddly mostly on auto/ all core is working now 5.2/ cache 48 not sure why manual core/ cache voltage would mess it up 
Manual 1.45v.... like skatter youtube video used if you want to see what it does 0607 bios


----------



## newls1

so it is working now? your PM said it wasnt and you were over this board?


----------



## ThrashZone

newls1 said:


> so it is working now? your PM said it wasnt and you were over this board?


Hi,
I hadn't looked at your text file yet.
I still have until 6-30 to return the board


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
I believe this setting is why auto or disabled just borks everything
ASUS MultiCore Enhancement [Enabled – Remove All limits]


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Thinking of the Formula now while I wait a few weeks for the replacement Extreme. I can get it locally here at memoryexpress. Looks like a solid board too.


----------



## ThrashZone

MrTOOSHORT said:


> Thinking of the Formula now while I wait a few weeks for the replacement Extreme. I can get it locally here at memoryexpress. Looks like a solid board too.


Hi,
Just forget x299 stuff lol z490 different animal


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Just forget x299 stuff lol z490 different animal


I didn't have issues with the bios, mostly just memory clocking. It was sorted with my new 2x16gb sticks. I also have a 9900k/Apex X, so I am familiar with the settings on z490 already. Those leds being all crooked and badly soldered made me send the Extreme back for RMA. $1100(cad), has to be perfect imo.


----------



## cstkl1

Esenel said:


> Like this?


i just recheck your screenshot

you one crazy dude.....
3x360 radiator and a 420 mora

PICs dude. show us that setup..


----------



## cstkl1

MrTOOSHORT said:


> I didn't have issues with the bios, mostly just memory clocking. It was sorted with my new 2x16gb sticks. I also have a 9900k/Apex X, so I am familiar with the settings on z490 already. Those leds being all crooked and badly soldered made me send the Extreme back for RMA. $1100(cad), has to be perfect imo.


did newegg replied??

do you have an option to enable/disable dimm m.2 nvme??

havent seen anybody with ace/godlike posting other than benchers.

edit: nvrmind found the screenshot. extreme confirmed.


----------



## aDyerSituation

I'll be able to buy one of these one day..maybe 2021


----------



## ThrashZone

MrTOOSHORT said:


> I didn't have issues with the bios, mostly just memory clocking. It was sorted with my new 2x16gb sticks. I also have a 9900k/Apex X, so I am familiar with the settings on z490 already. Those leds being all crooked and badly soldered made me send the Extreme back for RMA. $1100(cad), has to be perfect imo.


Hi,
Yeah I forgot about you having z390 
I've had x99 & x299 so newbie here sorry I've said it a few times this platform is new to me
Funny same critic hides my posts here but replies on HWBOT and ROG forums cripes can the jerk make up his mind which lol


----------



## cstkl1

aDyerSituation said:


> I'll be able to buy one of these one day..maybe 2021


yo dude.long time no see.. time for upgrade. time for the 5.ghz

although i got a feeling gonna miss the extra pcie lanes..


----------



## warbucks

shaolin95 said:


> Nice. That and the Formula are the boards I am debating about..IF I can ever find aa 10900k that is :/


CPU stock is nonexistent right now. Good luck!


----------



## warbucks

MrTOOSHORT said:


> Thinking of the Formula now while I wait a few weeks for the replacement Extreme. I can get it locally here at memoryexpress. Looks like a solid board too.


I've got the Formula. I also picked mine up from Memory Express in Edmonton.


----------



## warbucks

MrTOOSHORT said:


> I didn't have issues with the bios, mostly just memory clocking. It was sorted with my new 2x16gb sticks. I also have a 9900k/Apex X, so I am familiar with the settings on z490 already. Those leds being all crooked and badly soldered made me send the Extreme back for RMA. $1100(cad), has to be perfect imo.


Can you post a screenshot of asrock timing config? I'm interested in what timings you're running with those 2x16gb sticks. I have a b-die 2x16gb kit as well 3733C17 that is likely similar to your [email protected]


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
He rma'ed the board already so it might take a while for that request.


----------



## Esenel

cstkl1 said:


> Esenel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like this?
> 
> 
> 
> i just recheck your screenshot
> 
> you one crazy dude.....
> 3x360 radiator and a 420 mora
> 
> PICs dude. show us that setup..
Click to expand...

Nothing special.


----------



## ThrashZone

Esenel said:


> Nothing special.


HI,
A lot nicer than my ghetto rigs 
https://www.overclock.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=352768&d=1591568616


----------



## aDyerSituation

cstkl1 said:


> yo dude.long time no see.. time for upgrade. time for the 5.ghz
> 
> although i got a feeling gonna miss the extra pcie lanes..


eh, I didn't even use them haha. Wish I could find a 10900k in stock that isn't $900


----------



## cstkl1

aDyerSituation said:


> eh, I didn't even use them haha. Wish I could find a 10900k in stock that isn't $900


i actually wanted 10980xe. cannot find them. way cheaper than this upgrade.


----------



## shaolin95

aDyerSituation said:


> eh, I didn't even use them haha. Wish I could find a 10900k in stock that isn't $900


dang it I just got the alert but as soon as I click add to cart it was gone :/


----------



## Nizzen

Direct die kits arrived today  Direct in the socket 
Love from XOC Norway


----------



## ThrashZone

Nizzen said:


> Direct die kits arrived today  Direct in the socket
> Love from XOC Norway


Hi,

Waiting for rockit cool :thumb:
Guess this is the delid kit just waiting on the direct die mount
https://rockitcool.myshopify.com/collections/10th-gen/products/10th-gen-copper-upgrade-kit


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Norway gets everything first. I should move there. Visit Nizzen and have some tea.


----------



## criskoe

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> 
> Waiting for rockit cool :thumb:
> Guess this is the delid kit just waiting on the direct die mount
> https://rockitcool.myshopify.com/collections/10th-gen/products/10th-gen-copper-upgrade-kit


Is there anyway to get ahold of this company? I’ve emailed them twice over 3 weeks to a month ago with questions as well as sent tweets yada yada. They never reply. Just had simple question regarding shipping. 

Doesn’t give me much confidence in the event I need support regarding a issue or problem.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Hurry, Apex XII is at Newegg.ca, just ordered one!


----------



## ThrashZone

MrTOOSHORT said:


> Hurry, Apex XII is at Newegg.ca, just ordered one!


Hi,
Done and dusted :thumb:


----------



## ThrashZone

criskoe said:


> Is there anyway to get ahold of this company? I’ve emailed them twice over 3 weeks to a month ago with questions as well as sent tweets yada yada. They never reply. Just had simple question regarding shipping.
> 
> Doesn’t give me much confidence in the event I need support regarding a issue or problem.


Hi,
I've never tried to contact them I have gotten the rockit88 2066 delid kit from them no issues with anything.
Not sure I'm mean it says 10th gen but doesn't say 1200 socket 
Video shows a huge chip way bigger than a 10900k is.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Done and dusted :thumb:


nice, I can sleep well tonight!


----------



## warbucks

Nizzen said:


> Direct die kits arrived today  Direct in the socket
> Love from XOC Norway


Ohhhh looks like a whole lot of fun will ensue. Rockitcool should have the direct die frame soon which I'll grab once available.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Me getting to order the Apex, I feel like VIP Norway today!


----------



## ThrashZone

MrTOOSHORT said:


> nice, I can sleep well tonight!


Hi,
lol great timing man got that formula amazon return ticket printed out yesterday and was really not sure what to do now it's clear


----------



## tiefox

Nizzen said:


> Direct die kits arrived today  Direct in the socket
> Love from XOC Norway


What exactly are those ? and how can I get one ?  ( I'm in Denmark )


----------



## Nizzen

tiefox said:


> Nizzen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Direct die kits arrived today /forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif Direct in the socket /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> Love from XOC Norway
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly are those ? and how can I get one ? /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif ( I'm in Denmark )
Click to expand...

http://supercoolcomputer.com/

https://www.clockemup.com/cpu-block-direct-die-gen10th/

Love from Norway 🙂


----------



## criskoe

Seen as i posted the my 5.1 OC with screen shots I Thought Id also throw this here for any new comer just looking for a modest 5.0GHZ OC. I finalized my 5.0 profile and got everything real world stable. Figured these values and screen shots may help anyone interested. 
10900k
SP 88

Maximus XII Exteme Bios 0607

5.0 Ghz Manual

CPU Ratio - 50
Cache - 47
AVX Offset - 0
All Cstates disabled and All Power Limits Removed

LLC - 4
Bios Voltage -1.275V 
Idle Voltage -1.261V
VCCIO - 1.15V
VCCSA - 1.15V

Load V Min - 1.119V Stable  

Tests Passed

4 Hour loop Cinebench R20
8 Hour P95 Small FFT NO AVX
8 hour Realbench 2.56 16gb ( Half Of Ram )

Again Screen Shots just before test ended but still fully loaded. I hope that this info might help someone out.


----------



## cstkl1

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> lol great timing man got that formula amazon return ticket printed out yesterday and was really not sure what to do now it's clear


thats nice
shop said on tuesday.. kav your stuff coming soon today
called.. has it arrived yet.. nope
called wednesday nope .. supplier say enroute
called thursday .. said nope supplier said delivery issue.. so told them since lockdown over and interstate travel is back.. i will go into my bmw.. and floor it for a norm 4 hour trip i can do it in 2 plus hours at 200km/h.. .. he laughed.. eventhough i was serious and was willing to waste gas money and might die.. ( trucks and bus just treat highways like their own dont they)....
called now..get a sms saying call you later...

called another shop who was willing to give me a deal.. take the extreme.. choose any 10700k i want.. aka open it.. ( they do a lot of rig builds).. and when the i9 comes in.. trade top up... ( except his board price is around usd 150 more...usd 1k...) 

i actually dont like the i7. defeats the pupose i let go my 9900x and they are not guaranteed of anything.. i was willing to be content even at 4.9-5ghz for 10900k as long the RAMS go up to 4133-4266.. cause like hey we were doing 4k ram on x299 3 years ago...

so what ya think i should do.. wait or take the second offer.. pay extra.. be a sad dude clocking ram which not guaranteed to work on i9 on a i7.. and then switch??

in here u do not take the mobo first. cause when limited cpu situation they will force you to buy with mobo. example there is one i9 now available which is with a giga.. which i rather jump off a roof then trust their mobo...

so advice me bro.. 
ppl give me wisdom.


----------



## tiefox

Nizzen said:


> http://supercoolcomputer.com/
> 
> https://www.clockemup.com/cpu-block-direct-die-gen10th/
> 
> Love from Norway 🙂


That is amazing! Still cant figure out how to order one


----------



## ThrashZone

cstkl1 said:


> thats nice
> shop said on tuesday.. kav your stuff coming soon today
> called.. has it arrived yet.. nope
> called wednesday nope .. supplier say enroute
> called thursday .. said nope supplier said delivery issue.. so told them since lockdown over and interstate travel is back.. i will go into my bmw.. and floor it for a norm 4 hour trip i can do it in 2 plus hours at 200km/h.. .. he laughed.. eventhough i was serious and was willing to waste gas money and might die.. ( trucks and bus just treat highways like their own dont they)....
> called now..get a sms saying call you later...
> 
> called another shop who was willing to give me a deal.. take the extreme.. choose any 10700k i want.. aka open it.. ( they do a lot of rig builds).. and when the i9 comes in.. trade top up... ( except his board price is around usd 150 more...usd 1k...)
> 
> i actually dont like the i7. defeats the pupose i let go my 9900x and they are not guaranteed of anything.. i was willing to be content even at 4.9-5ghz for 10900k as long the RAMS go up to 4133-4266.. cause like hey we were doing 4k ram on x299 3 years ago...
> 
> so what ya think i should do.. wait or take the second offer.. pay extra.. be a sad dude clocking ram which not guaranteed to work on i9 on a i7.. and then switch??
> 
> in here u do not take the mobo first. cause when limited cpu situation they will force you to buy with mobo. example there is one i9 now available which is with a giga.. which i rather jump off a roof then trust their mobo...
> 
> so advice me bro..
> ppl give me wisdom.


Hi,
I personally wouldn't do anything until I had a chip in my hands first 

Hell you might see a 10980xe first and solve your original want, which was my first want too 10900k just showed up first so snatched it up and got a board after
Lunch tomorrow get to return that board at Kohl's and save 100.us on an apex which I'll need it for more ram but not right away though I'll play with this 3600c16 2x8 and see what it can do I don't really need 32gb 2x16 kit that I know of.


----------



## Carillo

4 Apex xii in stock over here in Norway  

https://www.komplett.no/product/115...el-socket/asus-rog-maximus-xii-apex-hovedkort


----------



## Falkentyne

criskoe said:


> Seen as i posted the my 5.1 OC with screen shots I Thought Id also throw this here for any new comer just looking for a modest 5.0GHZ OC. I finalized my 5.0 profile and got everything real world stable. Figured these values and screen shots may help anyone interested.
> 10900k
> SP 88
> 
> Maximus XII Exteme Bios 0607
> 
> 5.0 Ghz Manual
> 
> CPU Ratio - 50
> Cache - 47
> AVX Offset - 0
> All Cstates disabled and All Power Limits Removed
> 
> LLC - 4
> Bios Voltage -1.275V
> Idle Voltage -1.261V
> VCCIO - 1.15V
> VCCSA - 1.15V
> 
> Load V Min - 1.119V Stable
> 
> Tests Passed
> 
> 4 Hour loop Cinebench R20
> 8 Hour P95 Small FFT NO AVX
> 8 hour Realbench 2.56 16gb ( Half Of Ram )
> 
> Again Screen Shots just before test ended but still fully loaded. I hope that this info might help someone out.


Interesting settings. Mine also passes RB 2.56 at your settings. Hitting it with 112k-112k in-place AVX disabled right now at your exact 5 ghz settings.

Btw, AVX 15k in-place enabled is insta-crash right? I think you will need 1.330v bios set LLC4 to pass AVX 15K right? (in other words, load Vcore must NOT drop below 1.128v)?
(Yes I know you don't care about AVX, but I think your chip is acting identically to mine, based on all the tests you're doing. I tried 1.320v LLC4 in AVX 15K-15K, it was running fine but I got a CPU L0 cache error after 20 minutes, and I saw my vcore showing as 1.110v-1.119v, and I knew that was a bit too low...)


----------



## Carillo

tiefox said:


> That is amazing! Still cant figure out how to order one


Just contact Rawee Oodvong on Facebook. He will ship to you. Still in stock, as far as i know 

As you can see, it does the trick


----------



## tiefox

Carillo said:


> Just contact Rawee Oodvong on Facebook. He will ship to you. Still in stock, as far as i know
> 
> As you can see, it does the trick


Yep! thanks! ordered mine! should get here next week!


----------



## CENS

Hi sry in advance for being direct, because I honestly skipped parts of the 80 pages... did some folks get like SP 110+ CPUs in this thread? Or does anyone know anyone that has one? I‘m willing to pay a pretty penny for the chip or trade for a 5.3GHz Chip plus cash. Regarding price I‘m talking the region of a new chip plus mobo. Just pm me with info on the chip.


----------



## Nizzen

CENS said:


> Hi sry in advance for being direct, because I honestly skipped parts of the 80 pages... did some folks get like SP 110+ CPUs in this thread? Or does anyone know anyone that has one? I‘m willing to pay a pretty penny for the chip or trade for a 5.3GHz Chip plus cash. Regarding price I‘m talking the region of a new chip plus mobo. Just pm me with info on the chip.


SP looks like overrated to me. Some got SP 63 and can do 5.5ghz all core. I have 63 and 83, and they do pretty much the same in overclocking. 5300mhz @ 1.28v load


----------



## ThrashZone

Nizzen said:


> SP looks like overrated to me. Some got SP 63 and can do 5.5ghz all core. I have 63 and 83, and they do pretty much the same in overclocking. 5300mhz @ 1.28v load


Hi,
Yeah just asus version of windows experience index assessment
Everyone like to spot a bigfoot but it means little


----------



## criskoe

Falkentyne said:


> Interesting settings. Mine also passes RB 2.56 at your settings. Hitting it with 112k-112k in-place AVX disabled right now at your exact 5 ghz settings.
> 
> Btw, AVX 15k in-place enabled is insta-crash right? I think you will need 1.330v bios set LLC4 to pass AVX 15K right? (in other words, load Vcore must NOT drop below 1.128v)?
> (Yes I know you don't care about AVX, but I think your chip is acting identically to mine, based on all the tests you're doing. I tried 1.320v LLC4 in AVX 15K-15K, it was running fine but I got a CPU L0 cache error after 20 minutes, and I saw my vcore showing as 1.110v-1.119v, and I knew that was a bit too low...)


I like these settings. Its a nice modest OC with a great performance vs heat vs voltage. For my set up it seems the difference between 5.0ghz and 5.1ghz is .062V needed to pass extended long 4-8 hour tests and 10C in temps. I can pass 5.1ghz tests at as low as 1.163V but for only about 1 hour. Trying to run these longer 4-8 hour tests will result in a L0 error deep into the test unless i make the vmin 1.181V for 5.1

So yes seems my cpu is VERY similar if not the same as your ES sample. 

Yes AVX1 15k in-place gives a L0 within 5 min at my LLC4-1.275v bios profile. Not that I dont care about AVX. I just dont want to allow my inner OCD this time get me thinking that I need to chase prime AVX stability. LOL. The 3 extended 4 and 8 hour tests that I ran there give me perfect real world stability. Like you have said many times. Unless you are doing scientific workloads, AVX prime stability is not needed on this platform.


----------



## Falkentyne

criskoe said:


> I like these settings. Its a nice modest OC with a great performance vs heat vs voltage. For my set up it seems the difference between 5.0ghz and 5.1ghz is .062V needed to pass extended long 4-8 hour tests and 10C in temps. I can pass 5.1ghz tests at as low as 1.163V but for only about 1 hour. Trying to run these longer 4-8 hour tests will result in a L0 error deep into the test unless i make the vmin 1.181V for 5.1
> 
> So yes seems my cpu is VERY similar if not the same as your ES sample.
> 
> Yes AVX1 15k in-place gives a L0 within 5 min at my LLC4-1.275v bios profile. Not that I dont care about AVX. I just dont want to allow my inner OCD this time get me thinking that I need to chase prime AVX stability. LOL. The 3 extended 4 and 8 hour tests that I ran there give me perfect real world stability.


Your chip is slightly better than mine.
I noticed in your CB R20 test, you and I drew exactly the same amps at the same load vcore (1.128v). CPU Package power was identical too. We're both on water.
But your CPU VRM measured power is 14W higher than mine. You're drawing 186W while I am drawing 174W. Even though Amps and vcore are the exact same. Your chip is a slightly lower VID than mine so it is running a little hotter. But slightly more stable overall. Prime95 AVX at your vcore settings BSODs on mine in less than 2 minutes with an L0 error first. Yours lasts 5 minutes. Thus ur more stable 

Overall the silicon may be similar.

New test for you:

What's the absolute lowest load vcore you can pass CB R20 at, at 5.3 ghz, with 5 repeated runs of CB, without a CPU L0 error, at 5.3 ghz core, 4.9 ghz cache, using LLC6? (start at 1.360v LLC6 then test then work your way up).


----------



## criskoe

Falkentyne said:


> Your chip is slightly better than mine.
> I noticed in your CB R20 test, you and I drew exactly the same amps at the same load vcore (1.128v). CPU Package power was identical too. We're both on water.
> But your CPU VRM measured power is 14W higher than mine. You're drawing 186W while I am drawing 174W. Even though Amps and vcore are the exact same. Your chip is a slightly lower VID than mine so it is running a little hotter. But slightly more stable overall. Prime95 AVX at your vcore settings BSODs on mine in less than 2 minutes with an L0 error first. Yours lasts 5 minutes. Thus ur more stable
> 
> Overall the silicon may be similar.
> 
> New test for you:
> 
> What's the absolute lowest load vcore you can pass CB R20 at, at 5.3 ghz, with 5 repeated runs of CB, without a CPU L0 error, at 5.3 ghz core, 4.9 ghz cache, using LLC6? (start at 1.360v LLC6 then test then work your way up).


Yeah those extended test were hard to keep my office ambient level even. The room kept heating up like crazy. Id every once in a while have to open the window to vent out some of the heat but then close it so the room didnt get super cold and skew the tests. At one point according to the room thermometer it hit 28c. LOL. Seems my temp probes at the case intake is usually about 2 c lower then the whole room temp. I also wanted to run the tests with a warmer room temp then i normally have it to make sure stability stays and heat wont become a issue in the warmer months. . All my test were done with case closed up (011 XL) and side panels on like a normal day to day scenario

Ill play with some 5.3 now and see how low it takes to pass 5 CB loops.


----------



## Falkentyne

criskoe said:


> Yeah those extended test were hard to keep my office ambient level even. The room kept heating up like crazy. Id every once in a while have to open the window to vent out some of the heat but then close it so the room didnt get super cold and skew the tests. At one point according to the room thermometer it hit 28c. LOL. Seems my temp probes at the case intake is usually about 2 c lower then the whole room temp. I also wanted to run the tests with a warmer room temp then i normally have it to make sure stability stays and heat wont become a issue in the warmer months. . All my test were done with case closed up (011 XL) and side panels on like a normal day to day scenario
> 
> Ill play with some 5.3 now and see how low it takes to pass 5 CB loops.


Thank you very much. I appreciate you letting me compare your lottery winner chip with mine.
BTW I think I figured out why your SP is lower than mine despite you having a slightly better chip.
It's because your 5.3 ghz VF point has a higher voltage than your 5.2 point (I forgot I think your 5.2 point was 1.384v? and your 5.3 was 1.416v?).
On mine, my 5.2 and 5.3 points are exactly the same (1.394v). I'm not sure why that is but I've seen other retail chips with the same 5.2 and 5.3 points also.
The higher 5.3 VID on yours throws off the SP comparison. My chip should probably be SP 84 probably.

At 5.3, 4.9 cache and Cinebench R20 I start getting L0 errors if my load vcore drops below 1.305v, although I can complete sometimes 1 loop before the errors appear.
(I think this is at 1.405v LLC6).

Between 1.305-1.320v, it depends on if I can keep the load temps below 95C or not 

Above 1.330v, I don't get any more errors but I can't control the temps anymore


----------



## criskoe

Falkentyne said:


> Thank you very much. I appreciate you letting me compare your lottery winner chip with mine.
> BTW I think I figured out why your SP is lower than mine despite you having a slightly better chip.
> It's because your 5.3 ghz VF point has a higher voltage than your 5.2 point (I forgot I think your 5.2 point was 1.384v? and your 5.3 was 1.416v?).
> On mine, my 5.2 and 5.3 points are exactly the same (1.394v). I'm not sure why that is but I've seen other retail chips with the same 5.2 and 5.3 points also.
> The higher 5.3 VID on yours throws off the SP comparison. My chip should probably be SP 84 probably.
> 
> At 5.3, 4.9 cache and Cinebench R20 I start getting L0 errors if my load vcore drops below 1.305v, although I can complete sometimes 1 loop before the errors appear.
> (I think this is at 1.405v LLC6).
> 
> Between 1.305-1.320v, it depends on if I can keep the load temps below 95C or not
> 
> Above 1.330v, I don't get any more errors but I can't control the temps anymore


My VF points are
5.1 - 1.284v
5.2 - 1.364v
5.3 - 1.418v

Alright so I ran a bunch of different tests. 

Core X 53 
Cache X 49

Lowest consistent Cinebench R20 Single pass voltage it can survive without L0 errors is 
LLC 6
Bios Vcore 1.390V
VCCIO 1.15V
VCCIO 1.15V
Load Vcore 1.279V @ 198A



Lowest consistent Cinebench R20 Five passes voltage it can survive without L0 errors is 
LLC6
Bios Vcore 1.420V
VCCIO 1.15V
VCCSA 1.15V
Load Vcore 1.305 @208A


----------



## Falkentyne

criskoe said:


> My VF points are
> 5.1 - 1.284v
> 5.2 - 1.364v
> 5.3 - 1.418v
> 
> Alright so I ran a bunch of different tests.
> 
> Core X 53
> Cache X 49
> 
> Lowest consistent Cinebench R20 Single pass voltage it can survive without L0 errors is
> LLC 6
> Bios Vcore 1.390V
> VCCIO 1.15V
> VCCIO 1.15V
> Load Vcore 1.279V @ 198A
> 
> 
> 
> Lowest consistent Cinebench R20 Five passes voltage it can survive without L0 errors is
> LLC6
> Bios Vcore 1.420V
> VCCIO 1.15V
> VCCSA 1.15V
> Load Vcore 1.305 @208A


Interesting. Our results seem to be virtually identical for 5.3 L0 floors in both scenarios!

At 5.3/4.9, 1.390v Bios set L6, my Asus EC VRM CPU power is 263w, 206 amps (1 run then cool down), then 265W, 208 amps. Your run was at 198A for the single run (my CPU Package power is identical to yours though). I scored 6900 CB. I was like only 2C hotter after the single run, than yours. If my temps reach 90C however I can't even pass 1 loop. But I topped out at 85 or 86C.

For 1.420v Bios set L6 (I just used TurboV to set it),
The 5 loop run (had it set to 640 seconds in preferences then canceled the test after the 5th run, score CB 6929), I capped out at 219 Amps, 301 watts VRM CPU power(!) while your 5 loop run capped at 208 amps and 271 watts VRM power. Wow....(My CPU Packge Power was 309W to your 304W, package power=VID * Amps btw).
My temps were 4C hotter than yours after this 5 nonstop loop run.

This is incredible. It's like our chips are almost completely identical. I use more power than you at 5.3 ghz 1.390/1.420 LLC6 (VRM measured CPU power), but less power than you at 5 ghz 1.275v L4, in CB...I guess you're slightly more stable than me at 5 ghz (since I BSOD in 30 seconds to 1 minute (higher vrm switching frequency seems to delay it a few seconds) in 15K AVX1 Prime while you last 5 minutes before you get an L0), but at 5.3 ghz, I use more power this time and the chips seem to equalize almost exactly. Exact same floor before L0 and loops...

That being said I did beat your CB scores, but I do have meltdown and spectre patches disabled. Maybe that tiny speed boost also hurts stability slightly too even though I passed this.

Thanks for your detailed tests!
(if you want to play Battlefield 5 without L0 errors or BSOD when map is loading,try 1.370v LLC7 btw. BF5 has massive transients at map loads making it worse than cinebench R20 despite less amps).

Fascinating. Thank you for running these tests!!!


----------



## criskoe

Falkentyne said:


> Interesting. Our results seem to be virtually identical for 5.3 L0 floors in both scenarios!
> 
> At 5.3/4.9, 1.390v Bios set L6, my Asus EC VRM CPU power is 263w, 206 amps (1 run then cool down), then 265W, 208 amps. Your run was at 198A for the single run (my CPU Package power is identical to yours though). I scored 6900 CB. I was like only 2C hotter after the single run, than yours. If my temps reach 90C however I can't even pass 1 loop. But I topped out at 85 or 86C.
> 
> For 1.420v Bios set L6 (I just used TurboV to set it),
> The 5 loop run (had it set to 640 seconds in preferences then canceled the test after the 5th run, score CB 6929), I capped out at 219 Amps, 301 watts VRM CPU power(!) while your 5 loop run capped at 208 amps and 271 watts VRM power. Wow....(My CPU Packge Power was 309W to your 304W, package power=VID * Amps btw).
> My temps were 4C hotter than yours after this 5 nonstop loop run.
> 
> This is incredible. It's like our chips are almost completely identical. I use more power than you at 5.3 ghz 1.390/1.420 LLC6 (VRM measured CPU power), but less power than you at 5 ghz 1.275v L4, in CB...I guess you're slightly more stable than me at 5 ghz (since I BSOD in 30 seconds to 1 minute (higher vrm switching frequency seems to delay it a few seconds) in 15K AVX1 Prime while you last 5 minutes before you get an L0), but at 5.3 ghz, I use more power this time and the chips seem to equalize almost exactly. Exact same floor before L0 and loops...
> 
> That being said I did beat your CB scores, but I do have meltdown and spectre patches disabled. Maybe that tiny speed boost also hurts stability slightly too even though I passed this.
> 
> Thanks for your detailed tests!
> (if you want to play Battlefield 5 without L0 errors or BSOD when map is loading,try 1.370v LLC7 btw. BF5 has massive transients at map loads making it worse than cinebench R20 despite less amps).
> 
> Fascinating. Thank you for running these tests!!!


No worries. At some point I wanted to do some 5.3 tests just to see. Too high for a daily oc for me tho. 

Yeah I dont have meltdown and spectre patches disabled. Do you personally leave then dissabled all the time? Or do you use something to toggle them on and off? Does a program like that exsist?

Also My ram is also only 3200 CL16. Isnt your CL14? Im sure that would also add a bit of points. For the 5.3 tests what do you have your VCCIO and VCCSA at?


----------



## Falkentyne

criskoe said:


> No worries. At some point I wanted to do some 5.3 tests just to see. Too high for a daily oc for me tho.
> 
> Yeah I dont have meltdown and spectre patches disabled. Do you personally leave then dissabled all the time? Or do you use something to toggle them on and off? Does a program like that exsist?
> 
> Also My ram is also only 3200 CL16. Isnt your CL14? Im sure that would also add a bit of points.


RAM barely adds points to CB. Cache adds more points than RAM. I have patches disabled permanently. I used inspectre, and a registry edit just in case inspectre missed anything. https://support.microsoft.com/en-us...ive-execution-side-channel-vulnerabilities-in

Even on my 9900k I had them disabled permanently and if a microcode came out (like C6/CA/D2) that destroyed performance even with patches disabled, I modded the BIOS and flashed the old faster microcodes on...


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

criskoe said:


> No worries. At some point I wanted to do some 5.3 tests just to see. Too high for a daily oc for me tho.
> 
> Yeah I dont have meltdown and spectre patches disabled. Do you personally leave then dissabled all the time? Or do you use something to toggle them on and off? Does a program like that exsist?
> 
> Also My ram is also only 3200 CL16. Isnt your CL14? Im sure that would also add a bit of points.


Yes use this to enable or disable:


----------



## cstkl1

MrTOOSHORT said:


> Yes use this to enable or disable:




dude. y u didnt tell. didnt even noticed it in the manual cause like everyboard norm to have it

extreme has no rear fan header.


----------



## philhalo66

What are the temps like on this? Really considering replacing my 9900k with one because temps on this thing are out of control even with 360mm aio. Seen that jayz2cents said it ran significantly cooler but id rather get info from actual users.


----------



## SuperMumrik

Direct die cooling @5,4Ghz HT on and 5,5 With HT off.
Max temp 69 with HT and 64 HT off during run

http://supercoolcomputer.com/


Love from Norway


----------



## criskoe

SuperMumrik said:


> Direct die cooling @5,4Ghz HT on and 5,5 With HT off.
> Max temp 69 with HT and 64 HT off during run
> 
> http://supercoolcomputer.com/
> 
> 
> Love from Norway


Wana share your voltage and LLC values?


----------



## SuperMumrik

criskoe said:


> Wana show voltage and LLC values?



1,[email protected] and 1,[email protected] with LLC 8 (Apex)


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Nice, glad I have an Apex coming next week.


----------



## philhalo66

SuperMumrik said:


> Direct die cooling @5,4Ghz HT on and 5,5 With HT off.
> Max temp 69 with HT and 64 HT off during run
> 
> http://supercoolcomputer.com/
> 
> 
> Love from Norway


o.o wow! I got my 9900k at 5ghz 1.25V and even with a 360MM AIO it pushing 90C...


----------



## criskoe

Falkentyne said:


> RAM barely adds points to CB. Cache adds more points than RAM. I have patches disabled permanently. I used inspectre, and a registry edit just in case inspectre missed anything. https://support.microsoft.com/en-us...ive-execution-side-channel-vulnerabilities-in
> 
> Even on my 9900k I had them disabled permanently and if a microcode came out (like C6/CA/D2) that destroyed performance even with patches disabled, I modded the BIOS and flashed the old faster microcodes on...


Well I ran that inspectre program and it said that meltdown was not protected but spectre was. So I disabled Spectre and re ran test at 5.4 and the score was still 6850 ish. HMMMM 

What version of R20 are you running? Also are you changing the priority of cinebench? If not. What priority is it setting for you by default?


----------



## criskoe

philhalo66 said:


> o.o wow! I got my 9900k at 5ghz 1.25V and even with a 360MM AIO it pushing 90C...


Keep in mind he is running direct die and my guess is he has a monster custom loop to get those temps. Do not expect anything close to this with just a AIO.


----------



## Nizzen

criskoe said:


> Keep in mind he is running direct die and my guess is he has a monster custom loop to get those temps. Do not expect anything close to this with just a AIO.


The loop is not that crazy. Direct die and Gallium is just that good on 10900k 

Big tnx to our Thai xoc friends


----------



## criskoe

Nizzen said:


> The loop is not that crazy. Direct die and Gallium is just that good on 10900k
> 
> Big tnx to our Thai xoc friends


Its your rig? Whats the loop consist of?


----------



## Nizzen

criskoe said:


> Its your rig? Whats the loop consist of?


 It's @SuperMumrik


----------



## criskoe

Nizzen said:


> It's @SuperMumrik


oh comment sounded like it was either your rig or you knew what the loop consisted of.


----------



## Nizzen

criskoe said:


> oh comment sounded like it was either your rig or you knew what the loop consisted of.


SuperMumrik and Carillo is my friends here in Norway. We are pretty much neighbors


----------



## SuperMumrik

criskoe said:


> oh comment sounded like it was either your rig or you knew what the loop consisted of.



He is my friend 
It's "only" a 360x60 with push and a 240x65 push/pull with a D5 pump and ML Pro fans spinning at low speed


----------



## criskoe

SuperMumrik said:


> He is my friend
> It's "only" a 360x60 with push and a 240x65 push/pull with a D5 pump and ML Pro fans spinning at low speed


Nice, good to know that it doesn't require a monster loop then!

Sorry to drill you with questions but do you know what your coolant and ambient temps are? Im assuming looping cinebench for a longer period of time would be higher yeah? Can you actually keep that stable at that voltage for extended test loops and not generate L0 errors? Or is this just for a benchmarking score run?


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Room ambient goes a long way to better cooling.

Like see some better close ups of the direct die water block


----------



## criskoe

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Room ambient goes a long way to better cooling.
> 
> Like see some better close ups of the direct die water block


Here in canada you can put on your parka and open up all the windows and get a free 10c drop in temps easy. Right now where im at my office has a 17c delta to the temps just outside the window :0 Some months you could even get more. LMAO.


----------



## Falkentyne

criskoe said:


> Well I ran that inspectre program and it said that meltdown was not protected but spectre was. So I disabled Spectre and re ran test at 5.4 and the score was still 6850 ish. HMMMM
> 
> What version of R20 are you running? Also are you changing the priority of cinebench? If not. What priority is it setting for you by default?


You rebooted after, right?
Keep in mind I also did the registry changes on the link I gave you from microsoft as well, but I don't know if they do anything more than what inspectre does.
I'm also using 1T command rate on the RAM so if you're at 2T that might make a difference (despite the CAS 14 vs 16 difference, you can try that also, along with tRFC =272 and tREFI=32767).


----------



## criskoe

Falkentyne said:


> You rebooted after, right?
> Keep in mind I also did the registry changes on the link I gave you from microsoft as well, but I don't know if they do anything more than what inspectre does.
> I'm also using 1T command rate on the RAM so if you're at 2T that might make a difference (despite the CAS 14 vs 16 difference, you can try that also, along with tRFC =272 and tREFI=32767).


I didnt change any of the reg. Just ran the program and restarted. I re ran app after to double check and it looked to work. Says not protected now. 

Yeah im only using 2T.

Really curious tho dude. What version of R20 are you running? Ive seen people with R20.000 and R20.060. Which one you using? Also are you changing the priority of cinebench? If not. What priority is it setting for you by default? Changing the priority level can boost the score.


----------



## tiefox

Nizzen said:


> The loop is not that crazy. Direct die and Gallium is just that good on 10900k
> 
> Big tnx to our Thai xoc friends


Is Gallium better then conductonaut ?

I have 3x420mm loop + MCP35X2 as a pumps ( better flow than dual d5 next )

But my 10900k is a not a good overclocker. 5.1hz @ 1.43 v
I can also see some thermal throttling happening, hopefully with direct die I can go a bit higher on the clock


----------



## Falkentyne

criskoe said:


> I didnt change any of the reg. Just ran the program and restarted. I re ran app after to double check and it looked to work. Says not protected now.
> 
> Yeah im only using 2T.
> 
> Really curious tho dude. What version of R20 are you running? Ive seen people with R20.000 and R20.060. Which one you using? Also are you changing the priority of cinebench? If not. What priority is it setting for you by default? Changing the priority level can boost the score.


I changed nothing. And I just ran it. It's 20.060. I don't change priority otherwise hwinfo64 wouldn't update while running. I only changed priority on my laptop. Probably all the small RAM timing differences I guess.


----------



## criskoe

Falkentyne said:


> I changed nothing. And I just ran it. It's 20.060. I don't change priority otherwise hwinfo64 wouldn't update while running. I only changed priority on my laptop. Probably all the small RAM timing differences I guess.


Reason I ask is the default priority for Cinebench for me is "below normal" 

Is that what you get? 

Also I can change cinebench all the way to "High" and hwinfo64 updates fine. " Realtime" does lag everything out tho.


----------



## SuperMumrik

criskoe said:


> Nice, good to know that it doesn't require a monster loop then!
> 
> Sorry to drill you with questions but do you know what your coolant and ambient temps are? Im assuming looping cinebench for a longer period of time would be higher yeah? Can you actually keep that stable at that voltage for extended test loops and not generate L0 errors? Or is this just for a benchmarking score run?



Ambient are 26C atm, but we are in Norway so it will drop to more reasonable temprature soon enough. When the loop is fully saturated it't around 10 degrees delta T.
I'm not sure what I need to be fully stable yet since @*Carillo* de-lidded it yesterday and I'm working on my ram speed/timings (4700cl17 before delid).
EDIT: Temp wise; It will get higher, but not by much


Aiming at 5,5Ghz without HT with fast memory since I only game , but I'm having a issue with AVX offset.
AVX 0 everything is peachy, but ofc its not [email protected] if I hit it with a real AVX load. If I set negative 1 AVX (like I want to) I get random blue screens(without AVX load). Really wierd 
Bios 0606



Hard to get a picture of the block since there is a fan zip-tied in front of it


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Before you run or extract all on a benchmark... just make sure you go to properties first and use unblock before and it should run better.


----------



## philhalo66

criskoe said:


> Nice, good to know that it doesn't require a monster loop then!
> 
> Sorry to drill you with questions but do you know what your coolant and ambient temps are? Im assuming looping cinebench for a longer period of time would be higher yeah? Can you actually keep that stable at that voltage for extended test loops and not generate L0 errors? Or is this just for a benchmarking score run?


I have to 2nd that. i just watched the kitguru video reviewing the maximus xii hero and he pushed a 10900k to 5.1ghz 1.35v and the cpu topped out at 72 with a 360mm aio. thats super impressive.


----------



## criskoe

philhalo66 said:


> I have to 2nd that. i just watched the kitguru video reviewing the maximus xii hero and he pushed a 10900k to 5.1ghz 1.35v and the cpu topped out at 72 with a 360mm aio. thats super impressive.


I was curious and went to check out that video. Another interesting thing is his chip is only a 63 sp.

But something to take with a grain of salt. He doesnt tell you what his ambient temps are and the 72c value its just on a single cinebench pass. Single pass will barely heat up that aio. But once the aio liquid temps raise up from a actual sustained load the temps my guess would be at least 10c higher. 

Dont get me wrong tho. These chips stock are much better then the 9900k cooling wise for sure. No doubt about that.


----------



## ThrashZone

criskoe said:


> Reason I ask is the default priority for Cinebench for me is "below normal"
> 
> Is that what you get?
> 
> Also I can change cinebench all the way to "High" and hwinfo64 updates fine. " Realtime" does lag everything out tho.


Hi,
Looks about right for 5.3 heck mine was 6949.
I did not have MCE enabled though mine was running as by core usage 5.3


----------



## criskoe

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Before you run or extract all on a benchmark... just make sure you go to properties first and use unblock before and it should run better.


Sorry what are you saying? LOL


----------



## ThrashZone

criskoe said:


> Sorry what are you saying? LOL


Hi,
You asked how to prioritize benchmarks and I said how unblock them in the properties before you run or install them.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Same goes for utilities


----------



## criskoe

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Same goes for utilities


Strange. I dont have that unblock button.


----------



## ThrashZone

criskoe said:


> Strange. I dont have that unblock button.


Hi,
Downloads typically will show the unblock

If you don't you will get a user account control popup every time you run the file

The warning popup will also show a box to check to not show the warning anymore 
Using that does not help it only stops the warning windows still sort of blocks the app it just doesn't give the warning anymore.

Download a fresh R20 and see what it shows on the zip folder it's in.


----------



## criskoe

SuperMumrik said:


> Ambient are 26C atm, but we are in Norway so it will drop to more reasonable temprature soon enough. When the loop is fully saturated it't around 10 degrees delta T.
> I'm not sure what I need to be fully stable yet since @*Carillo* de-lidded it yesterday and I'm working on my ram speed/timings (4700cl17 before delid).
> EDIT: Temp wise; It will get higher, but not by much


Dam man thats pretty dam good for 26c ambient and the rads you have. Id imagine your coolant temps with ml pros and low fan speeds gotta be in the 30C then no? 

I have 2 EK 360 PE rads and at 21C ambient and 25C coolant temp i get 83C max for just 5.3 as opposed to your 5.4.

So if i were to add 5C to my ambient to match yours at 26c it would put my coolant temp at 30C which would put my max temp at 88C!  

Thats a hefty 17C drop! And thats not even considering the Higher voltage and speed your running. That little direct die sure doing a good job i guess. Pretty nice man!


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Downloads typically will show the unblock
> 
> If you don't you will get a user account control popup every time you run the file
> 
> The warning popup will also show a box to check to not show the warning anymore
> Using that does not help it only stops the warning windows still sort of blocks the app it just doesn't give the warning anymore.
> 
> Download a fresh R20 and see what it shows on the zip folder it's in.


Just do this:


----------



## ThrashZone

MrTOOSHORT said:


> Just do this:


Hi,
Yeah that will stop the UAC warnings but doesn't elevate the apps privileges.
Using a administrator account already elevates everything installed but unblocking the app in the zip folder before helps more than killing the warnings I believe.


----------



## criskoe

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Yeah that will stop the UAC warnings but doesn't elevate the apps privileges.
> Using a administrator account already elevates everything installed but unblocking the app in the zip folder before helps more than killing the warnings I believe.


Is your cinebench like this by default? Stock for myn is "below normal" 

i tried the Unblock and the UAC thing and it doesnt seem to affect scores. 

Upping the priority a notch or 2 can sure boost scores tho. Almost 100 points. lol


----------



## ThrashZone

criskoe said:


> Is your cinebench like this by default? Stock for myn is "below normal"
> 
> i tried the Unblock and the UAC thing and it doesnt seem to affect scores.
> 
> Upping the priority a notch or 2 can sure boost scores tho. Almost 100 points. lol


Hi,
I don't know what it's priority is I never do that but some do and it should help switching to high.


----------



## Falkentyne

criskoe said:


> Reason I ask is the default priority for Cinebench for me is "below normal"
> 
> Is that what you get?
> 
> Also I can change cinebench all the way to "High" and hwinfo64 updates fine. " Realtime" does lag everything out tho.


That's the score I got.
I guess it's your windows install. I disable everything not nailed down. I use Shutup 10 and disable everything that isn't absolutely needed. I play video games and I want my FPS.
And I have nothing loaded at startup except the AMD drivers, but the creative super x-fi control panel does appear then it unloads or something. And I don't know the default priority. I'm in bed and cant be bothered to check. Sorry.


----------



## criskoe

Falkentyne said:


> That's the score I got.
> I guess it's your windows install. I disable everything not nailed down. I use Shutup 10 and disable everything that isn't absolutely needed. I play video games and I want my FPS.
> And I have nothing loaded at startup except the AMD drivers, but the creative super x-fi control panel does appear then it unloads or something. And I don't know the default priority. I'm in bed and cant be bothered to check. Sorry.


its all good bud. I realized that at the end of the day it doesnt matter. Ive never been big on scores. Just took a step back and realized im chasing something I dont care about. LOL

Ill take more FPS tho  Ill take a look at that shutup 10 and try to trim some fat in the OS.


----------



## Carillo

tiefox said:


> Is Gallium better then conductonaut ?
> 
> I have 3x420mm loop + MCP35X2 as a pumps ( better flow than dual d5 next )
> 
> But my 10900k is a not a good overclocker. 5.1hz @ 1.43 v
> I can also see some thermal throttling happening, hopefully with direct die I can go a bit higher on the clock


According to thai overclockers that have compared the two, yes  From what i have tested, its very good. But i dont have data to confirm the statement.


----------



## Carillo

SP 63, seems ok. 5.6 ghz 1.335V


----------



## Sleakcavi

Finally got around to tuning my overclock (5.3GHZ all core/4.8GHZ cache) after many frustrating hours of Cache L0 errors in the blender 2.83 benchmark. If anyone hasn't seen my previous posts the chip is a SP110. I am running on the Maximus XII Formula with the 0607 Bios. My load V is around 1.270-1.279 depending on the severity of the load. I did a lot of research on adaptive voltage because I do like my chip to drop voltage under no load. I settled on adaptive setting of 1.355V set in BIOS @ LLC6. I've attached a shot of mid testing in R20 just for reference on my temps and the load voltage. Its a rather hot day today in my room so my coolant temperature is approaching 30c where it normally sits around 26-27c and I've been testing all day so it really hasn't cooled down much. I've attempted 5.4GHZ but I just don't have the cooling required to get it stable with the voltage I think it needs (I've tried 1.31V load and my loop couldn't keep up even in non-avx testing) I'm happy with where I am and will probably just keep it here. Thanks to all the constructive criticism and help I've gotten here I feel much better about testing and my process.


----------



## Esenel

Carillo said:


> SP 63, seems ok


Could you do an Aida Bench screenshot please? 🙂


----------



## Carillo

Esenel said:


> Could you do an Aida Bench screenshot please? 🙂


yes


----------



## Falkentyne

tiefox said:


> Is Gallium better then conductonaut ?
> 
> I have 3x420mm loop + MCP35X2 as a pumps ( better flow than dual d5 next )
> 
> But my 10900k is a not a good overclocker. 5.1hz @ 1.43 v
> I can also see some thermal throttling happening, hopefully with direct die I can go a bit higher on the clock


Gallium is solid at room temperature (Hard solid, even more solid than indium) so it cannot be used.
Even if you heated it up and then applied it, it would harden afterwards, making it worthless and possibly risking damage to the CPU when it expands (just like how LM in delidded chips can NOT be used for Subzero runs!)

Gallium (68% ratio) is used as one of the eutectic compounds in Galinstan, which when combined with Indium (22%) and Tin (10%), lowers the melting point substantially of all three metals, down to about -8C or something.
Unfortunately, alloys always lose thermal conductivity when they are combined with other metals, compared to their base original metals.

All the stuff you buy commercially, Conductonaut, Silver King, Liquid Pro/Ultra, whatever, has a thermal conductivity between 16 W/mk to 30 W/mk, depending on percentage of indium, tin and gallium ratio, and possibly infuence of other trace metals like antimony (though those are usually used to change wetting properties or oxidiation resistance). The numbers you see, like 73 w/mk or 80 w/mk, are total, complete utter dogcrap hogwash.

Do the math. Pure gallium by itself is 40 w/mk, indium (which is a lower ratio than gallium in LM) is 81.8 W/mk and Tin is 66.8 w/mk (and tin is just 10%).
When you make an alloy, the entire w/mk of the substance is lowered, and it gets lowered more, the more metals that are added to the alloy. So yeah.... 
I believe some time ago someone tested one of these and got somewhere about 20w/mk. No links and I don't remember the details. 

Conductonaut's advertised 73 w/mk are TOTAL COMPLETE BULL. Thermalright Silver King's w/mk is even more bull. 79W/mk...LOL...2 w/mk lower than pure indium...

If that still doesn't make sense, I have my own homemade Galinstan (16.5 w/mk) and it's at worst, 2C worse than conductonaut. Yeah. 16.5 w/mk 2C worse than "73 w/mk". Marketing, guys...

Here you guys clearly don't believe me so maybe I'll let the metallurgists give the proof I need.

Gold + Tin Alloy.



> For example, the thermal conductivity of AuSn (80/20) solder is 57 W/mK which is lower than the conductivity of either of the parent metals of gold (315 W/mK) or tin (66 W/mK)


https://www.electronics-cooling.com/2006/08/thermal-conductivity-of-solders/

I hope this educates you guys on the power of viral marketing and why ALL of you should be making your OWN liquid metal instead of spending $40 for 5 grams of Conductonaut...hell, 150 grams of Galinstan raw metals only cost me $80 WITH a syringe pack too.....how much would 150 grams of conductonaut cost you?


----------



## Esenel

Carillo said:


> Esenel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could you do an Aida Bench screenshot please? 🙂
> 
> 
> 
> yes /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
Click to expand...

Thanks.
Haha crazy.

Is this GSAT/Memtest stable?


----------



## Carillo

Esenel said:


> Thanks.
> Haha crazy.
> 
> Is this GSAT/Memtest stable?


Those memory settings is HCI stable with 1.28Io / 1.335 SA


----------



## Esenel

Carillo said:


> Esenel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> Haha crazy.
> 
> Is this GSAT/Memtest stable?
> 
> 
> 
> Those memory settings is HCI stable with 1.28Io / 1.335 SA /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
Click to expand...

That's a really nice setup.
Congrats.


----------



## ThrashZone

Carillo said:


> SP 63, seems ok. 5.6 ghz 1.335V


Hi,
Nice Apex I'll see mine hopefully Wednesday :thumb:


----------



## Carillo

Esenel said:


> That's a really nice setup.
> Congrats.


Thanks  



ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Nice Apex I'll see mine hopefully Wednesday :thumb:


Thanks  . Awsome motherboard, hands down


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Yeah I should of just swapped the vrm water block off the formula amazon wouldn't have noticed


----------



## criskoe

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Yeah I should of just swapped the vrm water block off the formula amazon wouldn't have noticed


I get your probably joking but Yea people Dont do that. LOL. 

Some other sucker will end up with a stripped board.

Ive received 2 times cablemod kits fulfilled by amazon with the stock PSU cables jamed back into the box. Some awesome person bought the cables and took out the sleeved cables and then just returned their stock cables and got their money back. That crap is just super dishonest and hurts everyone in the long run.

So amazon clearly re sells returned stuff.


----------



## ThrashZone

criskoe said:


> I get your probably joking but Yea people Dont do that. LOL.
> 
> Some other sucker will end up with a stripped board.
> 
> Ive received 2 times cablemod kits fulfilled by amazon with the stock PSU cables jamed back into the box. Some awesome person bought the cables and took out the sleeved cables and then just returned their stock cables and got their money back. That crap is just super dishonest and hurts everyone in the long run.
> 
> *So amazon clearly re sells returned stuff*.


Hi,
Of course they do 
Yeah I was just kidding though but I sure would like a water block on the apex vrm's


----------



## Circaflex

My 100900k stock hits 60C under water, does that sound right or should I remount?


----------



## DOMINATION2

Hi, please help me, how i can check vid on asrock extreme4?


----------



## ThrashZone

DOMINATION2 said:


> Hi, please help me, how i can check vid on asrock extreme4?


Hi,
hwinfo ? coretemp ?
https://www.hwinfo.com/download.php

http://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/core_temp.html


----------



## cstkl1

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> hwinfo ? coretemp ?
> https://www.hwinfo.com/download.php
> 
> http://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/core_temp.html


hmm i think those like us who use rog board cannot help others. the asus board has nailed down on power delivery.. literally we are tinkering on smaller issues.,


----------



## DOMINATION2

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> hwinfo ? coretemp ?
> https://www.hwinfo.com/download.php
> 
> http://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/core_temp.html


I have both. In Core temp VID 0.8250V, but in hwinfo so many sensor...


----------



## newls1

was thinking about delidding my 10900k, is it time and effort worth it for cpu that obviously has solder? I already have the rockit88 tool, just need to order more liquid metal as im out.


----------



## aerotracks

I wouldn't do it unless you plan to go direct-die. Obviously you get 7-8°C during heavy stresstest from delid+relid during heavy stress test, but in an actual gaming load it's barely a few °C you gain.

New 10900KF arrived, it improves on my 10900k


----------



## criskoe

newls1 said:


> was thinking about delidding my 10900k, is it time and effort worth it for cpu that obviously has solder? I already have the rockit88 tool, just need to order more liquid metal as im out.







Shows the difference with a single sample. Obviously every chip improvement may be a bit more or less but it should give you a idea. Most likely between 6-8C.


----------



## Circaflex

Whats the max voltage one should use under water with a 10900k? other than cpu vcore, what other voltages should you tinker with to be stable? I am at 5.1 now using auto vcore, but id like to manually tune it.


----------



## truth hurts

Circaflex said:


> Whats the max voltage one should use under water with a 10900k? other than cpu vcore, what other voltages should you tinker with to be stable? I am at 5.1 now using auto vcore, but id like to manually tune it.


i dont know if only there was a place where people could share their settings and voltages


----------



## newls1

Circaflex said:


> Whats the max voltage one should use under water with a 10900k? other than cpu vcore, what other voltages should you tinker with to be stable? I am at 5.1 now using auto vcore, but id like to manually tune it.


5.1 should be pretty easy on a decent motherboard and cooling. what does "Auto" give you for voltage unloaded and loaded? if i was to guess a starting point for you, i'd manually enter 1.285v and a LLC of 6 (asus board LLC numbers) and see if that will be stable. With that LLC I think you will load to 1.250ish Vcore. OCing is all trial and error and takes lots of time and aggravation!


----------



## TheDoctor46

Hi all,

I've been having a read through this thread trying to determine what CPU features I need to disable in order to overclock my 10900k. Coming from a 6700k some of the terms in the BIOS are unfamiliar to me and I need to make sure I've disabled all the features that are likely to interfere with manually overclocking. These two screens in particular are the problem.



Have I got all the boost and dynamic stuff disabled? As for the power and current limits what shall I do with those, bearing in mind they require a numerical input. Also the AC/DC Loadline is something that I need info on as well.



Do you think any of this needs to be disabled. I know the LLC needs to be set.

There is also an option when inputting core voltage as either "VCC sense" or "socket sense" is either of these preferable when inputting the cpucore?

I couldn't find conclusive answers on a lot of these settings here. Most of the thread is specific to every other motherboard than the one I have.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Not sure but on asus boards if turbo is disabled you won't get past 3.7


----------



## Yesil

Hello,

I just got a new CPU and recently tried to get into overclocking. I've read up relatively much on the different aspects of CPU overclocking. I've tried to get a good oc on my 10900k since I got it but I seem to hit a wall past x50.

At x49 cpu multiplier (all core), I have to go 1.30v vcore (1.217v load, LLC4) for stability. Pushing more voltage naturally increases stability at x50 (1.39 vcore in bios, 1.296 vcore load) and I can get past prime 95 small ffts (no AVX), but x51 doesn't seem possible at any "reasonable"(?) load voltage? Might I be doing something wrong or is my chip just not good enough for a x51 all core clock? Stability issues at x51 is almost purely L0 error and eventual BSOD crash. I've read here that changing VCCIO and VCCSA might help with L0 errors, but that hasn't changed it.

ASUS Z490-E mobo (0606 bios, SP score 63 so I guess that gives a decent hint to oc quality). Worth mentioning that my cache ratio is at x43 and using XMP profile (MCE Enabled - Disables Intel specs).

Greatly appreciate any and all help.


----------



## Falkentyne

Yesil said:


> Hello,
> 
> I just got a new CPU and recently tried to get into overclocking. I've read up relatively much on the different aspects of CPU overclocking. I've tried to get a good oc on my 10900k since I got it but I seem to hit a wall past x50.
> 
> At x49 cpu multiplier (all core), I have to go 1.30v vcore (1.217v load, LLC4) for stability. Pushing more voltage naturally increases stability at x50 (1.39 vcore in bios, 1.296 vcore load) and I can get past prime 95 small ffts (no AVX), but x51 doesn't seem possible at any "reasonable"(?) load voltage? Might I be doing something wrong or is my chip just not good enough for a x51 all core clock? Stability issues at x51 is almost purely L0 error and eventual BSOD crash. I've read here that changing VCCIO and VCCSA might help with L0 errors, but that hasn't changed it.
> 
> ASUS Z490-E mobo (0606 bios, SP score 63 so I guess that gives a decent hint to oc quality). Worth mentioning that my cache ratio is at x43 and using XMP profile (MCE Enabled - Disables Intel specs).
> 
> Greatly appreciate any and all help.


Try to give up on prime95, and try realbench 2.56 stress test for 4 hours at 5.1 ghz Bios set 1.35v and LLC6, or 1.40v set and LLC5, and see if you can pass that without L0 errors.


----------



## AeonMW2

I wonder what's better for pure gaming: my 5.1 all core static OC, or something dynamic like:

1-2 cores 5.3
3-6 cores 5.1
7-8 cores 5.0
9-10 cores 4.9

the latter gives me noticable better temperatures and lower noise, and i'm not sure if there is any perfomance difference


----------



## ThrashZone

AeonMW2 said:


> I wonder what's better for pure gaming: my 5.1 all core static OC, or something dynamic like:
> 
> 1-2 cores 5.3
> 3-6 cores 5.1
> 7-8 cores 5.0
> 9-10 cores 4.9
> 
> the latter gives me noticable better temperatures and lower noise, and i'm not sure if there is any perfomance difference


Hi,
By core usage seems ideal used it on x299 7900x and 9940x works perfectly 
Frequency at these high clocks doesn't matter 50 by core usage x10 if stress hits one or all they will turbo to 5.0..... and stay there until project... is done.


----------



## cstkl1

Falkentyne said:


> Try to give up on prime95, and try realbench 2.56 stress test for 4 hours at 5.1 ghz Bios set 1.35v and LLC6, or 1.40v set and LLC5, and see if you can pass that without L0 errors.


curious what ram speeds you are running on both z490??


----------



## Yesil

Falkentyne said:


> Try to give up on prime95, and try realbench 2.56 stress test for 4 hours at 5.1 ghz Bios set 1.35v and LLC6, or 1.40v set and LLC5, and see if you can pass that without L0 errors.


Thank you so much for the help!

Alright, doing Realbench 2.56 instead.

1.341v load, 1.350v in Bios (LLC6), seemed stable at first but got a L0 error 42 mins in, so I didn't finish a 4 hour run.
1.350v load, 1.4v in Bios (LLC5), finished 4 hour run with no L0 errors.

I'm a bit amazed you could figure out a load line and a voltage that would make it stable, amazing!

Any idea what kind of voltage and LLC might give a stable x52 oc given that my cooling can handle it?


----------



## Falkentyne

Yesil said:


> Thank you so much for the help!
> 
> Alright, doing Realbench 2.56 instead.
> 
> 1.341v load, 1.350v in Bios (LLC6), seemed stable at first but got a L0 error 42 mins in, so I didn't finish a 4 hour run.
> 1.350v load, 1.4v in Bios (LLC5), finished 4 hour run with no L0 errors.
> 
> I'm a bit amazed you could figure out a load line and a voltage that would make it stable, amazing!
> 
> Any idea what kind of voltage and LLC might give a stable x52 oc given that my cooling can handle it?


Don't have that processor so I do not know. I could probably get away with Realbench 2.56 at 1.390v Bios set + LLC6 at 5.3 ghz if I disable 2 cores on mine (ok it ran for 1 loop (load voltage: 1.297v) then I stopped the test since I was already at 93C and climbing so no thanks  , so you can clearly see i can't tell you what your chip is capable of. (trying to see if I can do RB 2.5.6 at 5.4 ghz (I'm in dreamland) with 2 cores disabled without BSOD'ing. right now I am failing at it Ok i give up. 5.4 ghz with 2 cores disabled+ 1.450v LLC6 is an *instant* clock watchdog timeout in Realbench 2.56 ). I can only take a random guess based on what you say works and what you say crashes you. But I gave a typical 'worst case' scenario for what most 10700K's "Should" be able to pass at 5.1 ghz, since 10900k's are going to be much better binned (obvious if you disable 2 cores on a 10900k and compare).

LLC5 has better transients than LLC6 so thats why raising the VID and increasing the vdroop to compensate for the higher VID helps youget more stable.
On higher end boards, the transients are better at more aggressive loadlines so increasing bios vcore and reducing the LLC will have a smaller effect (but still has an effect) than on lower end boards (VID=voltage the CPU is asking for, using a fixed vcore overrides the default VID and the voltage you set is what the CPU is requesting from the VRM, before vdroop)


----------



## newls1

Yesil said:


> Thank you so much for the help!
> 
> Alright, doing Realbench 2.56 instead.
> 
> 1.341v load, 1.350v in Bios (LLC6), seemed stable at first but got a L0 error 42 mins in, so I didn't finish a 4 hour run.
> 1.350v load, 1.4v in Bios (LLC5), finished 4 hour run with no L0 errors.
> 
> *I'm a bit amazed you could figure out a load line and a voltage that would make it stable, amazing!*
> 
> Any idea what kind of voltage and LLC might give a stable x52 oc given that my cooling can handle it?


Cause the dude is that good!


----------



## Yesil

Falkentyne said:


> Don't have that processor so I do not know. I could probably get away with Realbench 2.56 at 1.390v Bios set + LLC6 at 5.3 ghz if I disable 2 cores on mine (ok it ran for 1 loop (load voltage: 1.297v) then I stopped the test since I was already at 93C and climbing so no thanks  , so you can clearly see i can't tell you what your chip is capable of. (trying to see if I can do RB 2.5.6 at 5.4 ghz (I'm in dreamland) with 2 cores disabled without BSOD'ing. right now I am failing at it Ok i give up. 5.4 ghz with 2 cores disabled+ 1.450v LLC6 is an *instant* clock watchdog timeout in Realbench 2.56 ). I can only take a random guess based on what you say works and what you say crashes you. But I gave a typical 'worst case' scenario for what most 10700K's "Should" be able to pass at 5.1 ghz, since 10900k's are going to be much better binned (obvious if you disable 2 cores on a 10900k and compare).
> 
> LLC5 has better transients than LLC6 so thats why raising the VID and increasing the vdroop to compensate for the higher VID helps youget more stable.
> On higher end boards, the transients are better at more aggressive loadlines so increasing bios vcore and reducing the LLC will have a smaller effect (but still has an effect) than on lower end boards (VID=voltage the CPU is asking for, using a fixed vcore overrides the default VID and the voltage you set is what the CPU is requesting from the VRM, before vdroop)


I disabled two cores and up'd the vcore to 1.45 vcore Bios (1.412v load, LLC5) with x52, goes through Realbench for one loop and no errors. Tried same vcore and LLC at x53, instant BSOD (unexpected_kernel_mode_trap).

What's a maximum vcore at load that's safe? I tried searching around but haven't found anything. Would be good to know if one is to try and trial and error for stable clocks and voltages.



newls1 said:


> Cause the dude is that good!


Evidently!



cstkl1 said:


> curious what ram speeds you are running on both z490??


Not sure if this question was aimed at me or Falkentyne? I'll answer just incase it was aimed at me: 3200CL14 at XMP, it's ADATA XPG Spectrix D60.


----------



## Falkentyne

Yesil said:


> I disabled two cores and up'd the vcore to 1.45 vcore Bios (1.412v load, LLC5) with x52, goes through Realbench for one loop and no errors. Tried same vcore and LLC at x53, instant BSOD (unexpected_kernel_mode_trap).
> 
> What's a maximum vcore at load that's safe? I tried searching around but haven't found anything. Would be good to know if one is to try and trial and error for stable clocks and voltages.
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently!
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure if this question was aimed at me or Falkentyne? I'll answer just incase it was aimed at me: 3200CL14 at XMP, it's ADATA XPG Spectrix D60.


Is this a 10900k with 2 cores disabled (8C/16T?). 1.45v bios LLC5 for x52 with 2 cores disabled is pretty high voltage 
I was able to at least do 1 loop of RB with 1.390v (Bios) LLC6, which was 1.297v load.


And what motherboard is this? A Strix or Prime?
With 2 cores disabled, that's probably around 170 amps of current in Realbench 2.56 if you set 1.45v LLC5, so your real voltage would be probably around 1.368v load on that case, but if your board doesn't show "Die-sense", it's going to report the voltage higher than it really is.

I can do 1.390v LLC6 with two cores disabled in Realbench 2.56 at 5.3 ghz/4.9 cache (Load voltage was 1.297v) if I keep temps down somehow, but right now I can't (tried it, got to 93C After 1 loop so I canceled it). Cinebench R20 is much easier on the temps.


----------



## Yesil

Falkentyne said:


> Is this a 10900k with 2 cores disabled (8C/16T?). 1.45v bios LLC5 for x52 with 2 cores disabled is pretty high voltage
> I was able to at least do 1 loop of RB with 1.390v (Bios) LLC6, which was 1.297v load.
> 
> 
> And what motherboard is this? A Strix or Prime?
> With 2 cores disabled, that's probably around 170 amps of current in Realbench 2.56 if you set 1.45v LLC5, so your real voltage would be probably around 1.368v load on that case, but if your board doesn't show "Die-sense", it's going to report the voltage higher than it really is.
> 
> I can do 1.390v LLC6 with two cores disabled in Realbench 2.56 at 5.3 ghz/4.9 cache (Load voltage was 1.297v) if I keep temps down somehow, but right now I can't (tried it, got to 93C After 1 loop so I canceled it). Cinebench R20 is much easier on the temps.


10900k with 2 cores disabled, yes (hyperthreading is on, 8C/16T). I didn't try to push down the voltage anything (i.e. sub 1.45v with 2 cores disabled), I'll try that tomorrow.

It's a Z490-E Strix. Would the "die-sense" show in HWInfo64? I can't seem to find it there?

My temps at said vcore (1.45 bios, LLC5) was around 80 deg running Realbench 2.56.

Worth mentioning if relevant/interesting: I tried 1.425v in bios (1.385v load, LLC5) with 8 cores (temp around 76-78) and did two loops of Realbench 2.56 before closing, no L0 error. At 1.40 in Bios I get instant BSOD.


----------



## Falkentyne

Yesil said:


> 10900k with 2 cores disabled, yes (hyperthreading is on, 8C/16T). I didn't try to push down the voltage anything (i.e. sub 1.45v with 2 cores disabled), I'll try that tomorrow.
> 
> It's a Z490-E Strix. Would the "die-sense" show in HWInfo64? I can't seem to find it there?
> 
> My temps at said vcore (1.45 bios, LLC5) was around 80 deg running Realbench 2.56.
> 
> Worth mentioning if relevant/interesting: I tried 1.425v in bios (1.385v load, LLC5) with 8 cores (temp around 76-78) and did two loops of Realbench 2.56 before closing, no L0 error. At 1.40 in Bios I get instant BSOD.


Is all of this at x52 (5200 mhz) or x53 (5300 mhz?) Just so I don't follow and get confused.

Die sense is a maximus XI only feature (reserved for premium brand line). I think MSI has vcc_sense/socket sense in some of their boards also (I believe Godlike, Unify and Ace have it).
For all other boards, if HWinfo64 does not allow you to read the VRM and get the "VR VOUT" voltage reading, you can't use it.


----------



## Yesil

Falkentyne said:


> Is all of this at x52 (5200 mhz) or x53 (5300 mhz?) Just so I don't follow and get confused.
> 
> Die sense is a maximus XI only feature (reserved for premium brand line). I think MSI has vcc_sense/socket sense in some of their boards also (I believe Godlike, Unify and Ace have it).
> For all other boards, if HWinfo64 does not allow you to read the VRM and get the "VR VOUT" voltage reading, you can't use it.


All of this is x52 all core (minus 2 cores since I disabled them).

Ah, okay. Nope, no "VR VOUT" for me sadly.


----------



## lordkahless

Hello,

I have a 10900K that I have not tested yet but sent into Silicon Lottery for delidding. They binned it for me. Curious what anyone thinks of these results and settings. This will be going into a Maximus XII Extreme with triple 360mm rads.

Guaranteed stable (by silicon lottery) at:
4 cores 5ghz
3 cores 5.1ghz
3 cores 5.2ghz

Under heavy load 1.35v Bios
1.26V socket sense
1.17 Die sense
XMPII
Avx instruction negative offset 1
Cpu core ratio: by core usage
Turbo ratio limit 0: 52
Turbo ratio cores 0:3
Turbo ratio limit 1: 51
Turbo ratio cores 1: 51
Turbo ratio cores 1: 6
Turbo ratio limit 2: 50
Turbo ratio cores 2: 10

LLC: 3
Long duration power limit 230
Short duration power limit 230
Manual mode CPU voltage overide 1.35

I have 4x8 32gb Gskill 4000cl15 to add to this build


----------



## Falkentyne

Yesil said:


> All of this is x52 all core (minus 2 cores since I disabled them).
> 
> Ah, okay. Nope, no "VR VOUT" for me sadly.


Hmm ok I just did a few tests for you
2 cores disabled, x52/x49, LLC5, 1.40v Bios set-->Realbench 2.56 easy (1.279v load). This would probably have also easily passed with all cores enabled too (10/20)
2 cores disabled, x53/x49, 1.390v Bios set LLC6-->Realbench 2.56 (1.291v load), worked

Hyperthreading disabled, all cores enabled, x54/x49, 1.390v Bios set LLC6-->RB 2.56 easy, Cinebench R20 easy, Minecraft--instant clock watchdog timeout BSOD trying to load it (probably because I have VCCIO at 0.95v and VCCSA at 1.05v, I'm REALLY pushing things here). I raised VCCIO and VCCSA and no more clock watchdog timeouts/BSOD's, but I got random Internal Parity Errors (and one MC crash back to launcher) when MC was loading.

1.40v Bios set LLC6 HT Off, all cores--Minecraft didn't insta-BSOD anymore (even at 0.95v VCCIO, 1.05v VCCSA).

Going to reboot and try x52/x49 LLC5 1.40v bios set LLC5 with all cores and HT enabled.


----------



## Falkentyne

Yesil said:


> All of this is x52 all core (minus 2 cores since I disabled them).
> 
> Ah, okay. Nope, no "VR VOUT" for me sadly.


Absolute lowest I can go at x52 / x49 all cores with HT on is 1.390v LLC5 in Realbench 2.56 (passed 32 minutes then I stopped so I could play video games, temps got to 93C, lowest vcore point was 1.243v-1.252v, die-sense. Could have lowered temps more by opening the front case door (5C or so). Trying 1.385v gave a L0 error in 15 minutes at 91C (min vcore 1.234v-1.243v). Funny that disabling 2 cores gave me about 100 mhz. (and that was a a less than 10 minute fast test so no idea if 2 cores disabled was really stable, I don't have all day--want to use my computer actually).


----------



## Yesil

Falkentyne said:


> Absolute lowest I can go at x52 / x49 all cores with HT on is 1.390v LLC5 in Realbench 2.56 (passed 32 minutes then I stopped so I could play video games, temps got to 93C, lowest vcore point was 1.243v-1.252v, die-sense. Could have lowered temps more by opening the front case door (5C or so). Trying 1.385v gave a L0 error in 15 minutes at 91C (min vcore 1.234v-1.243v). Funny that disabling 2 cores gave me about 100 mhz. (and that was a a less than 10 minute fast test so no idea if 2 cores disabled was really stable, I don't have all day--want to use my computer actually).


I tried x52 / x43 all cores with HT on, lowest vcore without L0 error throwing off is 1.490v in bios LLC5 (1.439v load) during Realbench 2.56 (did 2 loops). Tried upping VCCIO and VCCSA to 1.1v respectively 1.15v as well. Temps around 90-91 deg (it's a pretty cold day in Sweden).

Is your 1.390v during load or Bios vcore? You have a 10900k too, right?

I'll try some 8C/16T with different voltages later again, I think I missed something yesterday.



Falkentyne said:


> Hmm ok I just did a few tests for you
> 2 cores disabled, x52/x49, LLC5, 1.40v Bios set-->Realbench 2.56 easy (1.279v load). This would probably have also easily passed with all cores enabled too (10/20)
> 2 cores disabled, x53/x49, 1.390v Bios set LLC6-->Realbench 2.56 (1.291v load), worked
> 
> Hyperthreading disabled, all cores enabled, x54/x49, 1.390v Bios set LLC6-->RB 2.56 easy, Cinebench R20 easy, Minecraft--instant clock watchdog timeout BSOD trying to load it (probably because I have VCCIO at 0.95v and VCCSA at 1.05v, I'm REALLY pushing things here). I raised VCCIO and VCCSA and no more clock watchdog timeouts/BSOD's, but I got random Internal Parity Errors (and one MC crash back to launcher) when MC was loading.
> 
> 1.40v Bios set LLC6 HT Off, all cores--Minecraft didn't insta-BSOD anymore (even at 0.95v VCCIO, 1.05v VCCSA).
> 
> Going to reboot and try x52/x49 LLC5 1.40v bios set LLC5 with all cores and HT enabled.


Thanks for taking the time to test this! I'll use this to compare to my attempts. Your chip looks to be better binned, though. SP score 94 or? If it's the chip in the original post.


----------



## Falkentyne

Yesil said:


> I tried x52 / x43 all cores with HT on, lowest vcore without L0 error throwing off is 1.490v in bios LLC5 (1.439v load) during Realbench 2.56 (did 2 loops). Tried upping VCCIO and VCCSA to 1.1v respectively 1.15v as well. Temps around 90-91 deg (it's a pretty cold day in Sweden).
> 
> Is your 1.390v during load or Bios vcore? You have a 10900k too, right?
> 
> I'll try some 8C/16T with different voltages later again, I think I missed something yesterday.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for taking the time to test this! I'll use this to compare to my attempts. Your chip looks to be better binned, though. SP score 94 or? If it's the chip in the original post.


Yes, its 94 but it's more like SP 86-84 more realistically because x53 doesn't have its own separate VID, it uses the same VID as x52 so that "inflates" the SP (but needs a lot more voltage, e.g. x53 needs about 1.320v-1.330v load to bench on, and gets too hot so thats gaming only, basically). I tested my chip against crisoke's chip and at x53, his and my chip (he is SP 88) needs the exact same voltage to not get L0's in cinebench R20...

It was 1.390v set in BIOS, llc5, x52/x49. x52/x48 may allow 5-10mv less vcore though. load was 1.252v load during RB 2.56 and got to 93C, although I could lower those temps to 88C by opening the front case door (a bit down to 1.243 and 1.261v), and I'm using a 360 AIO...

If my load was 1.439v I would have been at 100C in no time flat...like....probably within 5 seconds....amazed you were only at 91C.....what cooling do you have?


----------



## cstkl1

@Esenel
you crazy

now i understand why shamino was impressed
theres no training in the bios for 4266 4x8gb
rtl init was 120!!

theres only 2 ways i think of you found that. 
1. ported from z390
2. hmm this abit tedious but doubt u did that so dont want to educate a overvolting sensitive lurker
and the third. 
3. super lucky.. basically god bless you

since theres no training. will brute force via voltages on vcssa/vccio. something i aint prep to do

dude. literally if u were infront me now i will bow down and hail you as king.


----------



## Yesil

Falkentyne said:


> Yes, its 94 but it's more like SP 86-84 more realistically because x53 doesn't have its own separate VID, it uses the same VID as x52 so that "inflates" the SP (but needs a lot more voltage, e.g. x53 needs about 1.320v-1.330v load to bench on, and gets too hot so thats gaming only, basically). I tested my chip against crisoke's chip and at x53, his and my chip (he is SP 88) needs the exact same voltage to not get L0's in cinebench R20...
> 
> It was 1.390v set in BIOS, llc5, x52/x49. x52/x48 may allow 5-10mv less vcore though. load was 1.252v load during RB 2.56 and got to 93C, although I could lower those temps to 88C by opening the front case door (a bit down to 1.243 and 1.261v), and I'm using a 360 AIO...
> 
> If my load was 1.439v I would have been at 100C in no time flat...like....probably within 5 seconds....amazed you were only at 91C.....what cooling do you have?


I got an NZXT X63 (push config), using NT-H1 thermal paste. Printscreen of HWInfo: https://imgur.com/q6q8Ndd

Do you have any knowledge of whether a 1.430v during load (x52, LLC5, 1.49v in Bios) is safe for 24/7 granted it holds up to stability tests or should I just be happy with x51 at lower voltages in the above post?


----------



## newls1

Yesil said:


> I got an NZXT X63 (push config), using NT-H1 thermal paste. Printscreen of HWInfo: https://imgur.com/q6q8Ndd
> 
> Do you have any knowledge of whether a 1.430v during load (x52, LLC5, 1.49v in Bios) is safe for 24/7 granted it holds up to stability tests or should I just be happy with x51 at lower voltages in the above post?


my first question is how do you cool a 10900 @ 1.430v at full tilt! jesus lord. 2ndly, thats really very high voltage for full load, even tho its NOT voltage that degrades a cpu, its amps, but at that voltage, the amp draw is going to be pretty large, and i would be extremely leary to run that. but thats me.... If you cant get a given OC stable under full load @ 1.385 or lower, it just wouldnt be worth it to me. *so far* my 53x OC @ 1.415v LLC6 nets me 1.323 under full tilt and my watercooling is more then ample to cool that.


----------



## Falkentyne

Yesil said:


> I got an NZXT X63 (push config), using NT-H1 thermal paste. Printscreen of HWInfo: https://imgur.com/q6q8Ndd
> 
> Do you have any knowledge of whether a 1.430v during load (x52, LLC5, 1.49v in Bios) is safe for 24/7 granted it holds up to stability tests or should I just be happy with x51 at lower voltages in the above post?


Probably not safe. But I don't know alot about the new VID and max safe voltage system on z490 because its different than z390.
But I don't like 1.430v load on all cores. 1.330v load is pushing it already. 1.430v load i think is too much. Even if your 'true' load vcore is 50mv lower than that (And I'm guessing its more like 1.380v not 1.430v, by guessing the power draw and your bios voltage, im guessing LLC5 is 0.7 mOhms loadline, and you are pulling 190 amps in RB 2.56 maybe,

1490mv - (0.7 * 190)=maybe 1.357v. idk. You saw mine. 140mv drop on mine so maybe yours is 140mv drop too, maybe slightly more or less i really dont know man. sorry).


----------



## Yesil

newls1 said:


> my first question is how do you cool a 10900 @ 1.430v at full tilt! jesus lord. 2ndly, thats really very high voltage for full load, even tho its NOT voltage that degrades a cpu, its amps, but at that voltage, the amp draw is going to be pretty large, and i would be extremely leary to run that. but thats me.... If you cant get a given OC stable under full load @ 1.385 or lower, it just wouldnt be worth it to me. *so far* my 53x OC @ 1.415v LLC6 nets me 1.35ish under full tilt and my watercooling is more then ample to cool that.


I don't know how it manages but it does. Lower ambient temperature is probably a contributing factor? It's like 20 Celsius here in Sweden at the moment, so it's pretty cool still considering it's mid June. I guess my 10900k just isn't capable of "decent" voltages with an oc over 51.



Falkentyne said:


> Probably not safe. But I don't know alot about the new VID and max safe voltage system on z490 because its different than z390.
> But I don't like 1.430v load on all cores. 1.330v load is pushing it already. 1.430v load i think is too much. Even if your 'true' load vcore is 50mv lower than that (And I'm guessing its more like 1.380v not 1.430v, by guessing the power draw and your bios voltage, im guessing LLC5 is 0.7 mOhms loadline, and you are pulling 190 amps in RB 2.56 maybe,
> 
> 1490mv - (0.7 * 190)=maybe 1.357v. idk. You saw mine. 140mv drop on mine so maybe yours is 140mv drop too, maybe slightly more or less i really dont know man. sorry).


Ah, I see. Like I mentioned above, guess I'll have to drop down to x51 and use that. Since z490-E doesn't have die-sense, I assume you'd have to use a multimeter to check the voltage during load for actual voltage then?

No need to apologize, you've helped and explained more than I expected to get. Thanks!


----------



## TheDoctor46

Seems as though 1.25v under load is not enough for x51, unless I have something that is royally screwing things up somewhere else.

If that's the case I don't think there's much point pursuing this overclock when you consider the temperature issues and minimal performance to be gained.


----------



## newls1

TheDoctor46 said:


> Seems as though 1.25v under load is not enough for x51, unless I have something that is royally screwing things up somewhere else.
> 
> If that's the case I don't think there's much point pursuing this overclock when you consider the temperature issues and minimal performance to be gained.


thats subjective to your own opinion. 51x was nice, but 53x is much more fun. Get your cooling under control, then try again.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Pretty wild for 5.2


----------



## TheDoctor46

newls1 said:


> thats subjective to your own opinion. 51x was nice, but 53x is much more fun. Get your cooling under control, then try again.


It's a corsair h110i which should be more than enough to cool 51.

My point really was that voltage and temperature is already high and I'm not even stable at 51 yet so there's no room to go any further, which kind of defeats the purpose.

Even with better cooling the voltage required to get 52 and 53 would be way too high for me to consider using full time. Chip degradation does happen over the years even though people will swear blind that it doesn't. All in all I think this is a case where the headroom for overclocking is so small and the performance gain so small that I don't really think it's worth all the bad things that accompany it.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Yep thermals will dictate how far you can go coming from x299 this isn't as bad as that


----------



## newls1

TheDoctor46 said:


> It's a corsair h110i which should be more than enough to cool 51.
> 
> My point really was that voltage and temperature is already high and I'm not even stable at 51 yet so there's no room to go any further, which kind of defeats the purpose.
> 
> Even with better cooling the voltage required to get 52 and 53 would be way too high for me to consider using full time. Chip degradation does happen over the years even though people will swear blind that it doesn't. All in all I think this is a case where the headroom for overclocking is so small and the performance gain so small that I don't really think it's worth all the bad things that accompany it.


im not an AIO fan, i cant actually stand them. if i had the choice between an AIO or a highend heatsink, i'd choose the heatsink all day long for the peace and mind of ZERO failure chances. People will argue that AIO's are great, blah, blah.... I raise the BS flag, cause watercooling is about full customization and "REAL" radiators with "REAL" flow rates... AIO's are worthless. If you can afford it, try a ful custom waterloop, then try to OC again... temps will be different. I have ~ 800-1000$ in my watercooling, but if you invest 3-400$ its well worth it, and most parts can be broken down, cleaned and installed into another build, and another build, and another build..... So not a waste of money.


----------



## criskoe

Yesil said:


> I got an NZXT X63 (push config), using NT-H1 thermal paste. Printscreen of HWInfo: https://imgur.com/q6q8Ndd
> 
> Do you have any knowledge of whether a 1.430v during load (x52, LLC5, 1.49v in Bios) is safe for 24/7 granted it holds up to stability tests or should I just be happy with x51 at lower voltages in the above post?


Yikes. I wouldn't run that 24/7. But thats me.


----------



## Yesil

criskoe said:


> Yikes. I wouldn't run that 24/7. But thats me.


So I'm assuming it's beyond the spectrum of what's considered a "safe voltage". What would you personally consider is a maximum safe voltage for 24/7 usage?


----------



## Falkentyne

newls1 said:


> im not an AIO fan, i cant actually stand them. if i had the choice between an AIO or a highend heatsink, i'd choose the heatsink all day long for the peace and mind of ZERO failure chances. People will argue that AIO's are great, blah, blah.... I raise the BS flag, cause watercooling is about full customization and "REAL" radiators with "REAL" flow rates... AIO's are worthless. If you can afford it, try a ful custom waterloop, then try to OC again... temps will be different. I have ~ 800-1000$ in my watercooling, but if you invest 3-400$ its well worth it, and most parts can be broken down, cleaned and installed into another build, and another build, and another build..... So not a waste of money.


I'm considering buying an Eisbaer Extreme 280mm AIO to mess around with it and put on some 2x140mm 3000 RPM noctua fans on it, since it's basically a prefilled and preassembled custom loop anyway (Flow rate 340 L/H).
Would be interesting to compare it with my liquid freezer II 360. But it's a big fat $300...


----------



## newls1

just not a fan!


----------



## criskoe

Yesil said:


> So I'm assuming it's beyond the spectrum of what's considered a "safe voltage". What would you personally consider is a maximum safe voltage for 24/7 usage?


Honestly "safe voltage" is very subjective to each user. Intel has not come right out and said X = Safe. 

You will find every user has a different value they are comfortable with. 

With that being said there is a simple equation that can help you stay within intels stock curve which is something like Voltage - Amps x Line load = Intel spec voltage. With the equation you can compare to what you running. @Falkentyne might should be able to explain it better. 

Again tho. Intel has not confirmed that this is even safe. So again it is up to you what is considered "Safe"

For me. That value is too high. Id personally steer towards keeping LOAD voltage under 1.35 for 24/7 use. But even then, you never know when your cpu might pop. They will all be different. Degradation is a real thing but is proven that happens at different levels to values per cpu samples. There isnt a exact number. If you cant afford to lose that cpu. Like you need it to last a long time. It might be best you not push it so hard. But if you dont care and are ok in replacing it at any time then go balls to the wall man! 

If i were in your situation Id tone it down to 5.1 for 24/7 as id bear to guess that the voltage requirements for 5.1 to 5.2 increase alot..


----------



## Yesil

criskoe said:


> Honestly "safe voltage" is very subjective to each user. Intel has not come right out and said X = Safe.
> 
> You will find every user has a different value they are comfortable with.
> 
> With that being said there is a simple equation that can help you stay within intels stock curve which is something like Voltage - Amps x Line load = Intel spec voltage. With the equation you can compare to what you running. @Falkentyne might should be able to explain it better.
> 
> Again tho. Intel has not confirmed that this is even safe. So again it is up to you what is considered "Safe"
> 
> For me. That value is too high. Id personally steer towards keeping LOAD voltage under 1.35 at the very most for 24/7 use.
> 
> If i were in your situation Id tone it down to 5.1 for 24/7 as id bear to guess that the voltage requirements for 5.1 to 5.2 increase alot..


Falkentyne showed that calculation in a previous comment. I assume the current in amps is calculated by dividing CPU package power (W) with Vcore (V) (during 100% load)?

Yeah, understandable. The reason I ask is because you guys are more experienced and can probably make assumptions based off of experience. So I'll trust your 1.35v and keep my CPU around there. Thanks!


----------



## criskoe

Yesil said:


> Falkentyne showed that calculation in a previous comment. I assume the current in amps is calculated by dividing CPU package power (W) with Vcore (V) (during 100% load)?
> 
> Yeah, understandable. The reason I ask is because you guys are more experienced and can probably make assumptions based off of experience. So I'll trust your 1.35v and keep my CPU around there. Thanks!


Keep in mind that 1.35V also isnt a sure thing. You never know when your cpu might pop. They will all be different. Degradation is a real thing and is proven that it happens at different levels per cpu samples. There isnt a exact number. If you cant afford to lose that cpu. Like you need it to last a long time. It might be best you not push it so hard. But if you dont care and are ok in replacing it at any time then go balls to the wall man! 

Ive seen people run cpus at crazy high voltages for years and it was fine. 

Temperature really is a factor here aswell that needs to be considered. The cooler you can keep the cpu, the better fpr higher voltages. But pushing the limits on both at the same time will become a problem in my opinion.


----------



## Yesil

criskoe said:


> Keep in mind that 1.35V also isnt a sure thing. You never know when your cpu might pop. They will all be different. Degradation is a real thing and is proven that it happens at different levels per cpu samples. There isnt a exact number. If you cant afford to lose that cpu. Like you need it to last a long time. It might be best you not push it so hard. But if you dont care and are ok in replacing it at any time then go balls to the wall man!
> 
> Ive seen people run cpus at crazy high voltages for years and it was fine.
> 
> Temperature really is a factor here aswell that needs to be considered. The cooler you can keep the cpu, the better fpr higher voltages. But pushing the limits on both at the same time will become a problem in my opinion.



With 1.35v during full load temps are around 74-76 (5,1 GHz, LLC5), gaming doesn't push it up above 65 at max (iirc?). 

If it dies, it dies. I'll just replace if it degrades too much, but that doesn't mean I won't take precaution and try to get it to last for a couple of years at least.


----------



## Falkentyne

criskoe said:


> Honestly "safe voltage" is very subjective to each user. Intel has not come right out and said X = Safe.
> 
> You will find every user has a different value they are comfortable with.
> 
> With that being said there is a simple equation that can help you stay within intels stock curve which is something like Voltage - Amps x Line load = Intel spec voltage. With the equation you can compare to what you running. @Falkentyne might should be able to explain it better.
> 
> Again tho. Intel has not confirmed that this is even safe. So again it is up to you what is considered "Safe"
> 
> For me. That value is too high. Id personally steer towards keeping LOAD voltage under 1.35 for 24/7 use.
> 
> If i were in your situation Id tone it down to 5.1 for 24/7 as id bear to guess that the voltage requirements for 5.1 to 5.2 increase alot..


It's different on 10th gen. It's no longer exactly max ACLL * Amps anymore - default VRM LLC.
Shamino tried to explain it to me but my brain went pear shaped.

He said that DC Loadline won't show the actual VID being requested from the controller unless DCLL is set to 0.01 mOhms (and ACLL is set to what you need it to be). And AC Loadline is also used to calculate power and current, so when ACLL differs from DCLL, the current reading is skewed. So if you want to see the actual VID, setting DCLL to 0.01 and ACLL to whatever you want it to be will accomplish that, but then CPU Package Power reporting will be thrown off.

Here, with Master @shamino1978 's permission I"ll just tell you what he wrote. Then I'll leave you guys to figure it out for yourself. If he doesn't want me to share it I'll delete the post and edit it.



> ac ll is also used to calculate power and current, so when it differs from dc ll the current read is skewed. What I saw was that if you want to see the actual vid, setting dc ll to 0.01 and ac ll to what you want or need accomplishes that, but current reporting will be skewed. The vid you read back appears to be an approximation of vout by thecpu calculating volt from acdcll values and current, thus we see vid drop down under heavy load when in actual fact it rises to compensate for droop





> So my point is that vid reading is misleading unless dc ll is 0, it does not show the actual vid requested from the controller, you can however use it with your acdcll values and current to work backwards to see what it is actually requesting





> Amount of vdroop cpu thinks = dc ll x current
> 
> Actual vid from controller = sw vid reading + amt of vdroop cpu thinks
> 
> Well to be exact this value needs to be subtracted by 200mv as you know of the svid 1.72v , which means right at boot cpu requests for 200 mv offset, and thereafter requests for vid with 200mv less
> 
> With regards to "safe voltage" questions popping up all the time . Think about it, why did intel increase vid to 1.72v? See the 53* vid at 0.01acdcll for these sp 63 chips? Add 15mv more for the avx vid. What do you get? 1.57v at 0 loadline, tgats what the cpu would request by itself, at zero loadline! This is without any user intervention, and best case scenario! They should ponder this for themselves


Looks like the SP63 chips are trying to set a 1.52v-1.57v LOAD voltage (at least) with default Loadline calibration (1.1 mOhms or Level 3 LLC) at the highest VID point....(5200 or 5300 mhz)

Uh...yep...that's EXACTLY what it's trying to do (On the chip that can't do 5.3 ghz stable and can't run realbench stable at 5.2 ghz 1.40v LLC Turbo, without reaching 100C...).

I just set ACLL : 1.1 mOhms, DCLL: 1.1 mOhms, loadline calibration: Standard (1.1 mOhms). At 5200 mhz,
On my Z490 Aorus master: 

Idle VR VOUT was 1.305v-1.315v.
Load VR VOUT was.............


wait for it.....

1.496v @ 207 amps and 308W power POUT. In CPU-Z "bench CPU".

Did I stutter? I said 1.496v LOAD VR VOUT.

That's because the VID cap is 1.720v not 1.520v (1.520v +200mv).
Max VID reported at full load was 1.515v.

I'm done. You guys are on your own.


----------



## criskoe

Yesil said:


> With 1.35v during full load temps are around 74-76 (5,1 GHz, LLC5), gaming doesn't push it up above 65 at max (iirc?).
> 
> If it dies, it dies. I'll just replace if it degrades too much, but that doesn't mean I won't take precaution and try to get it to last for a couple of years at least.


These values seem good. Id stick to that.


----------



## Falkentyne

The VIDS when loading Minecraft were 1.511v to 1.620v on random cores and VR VOUT was 1.537v, amps 210.5A, power POUT 323W.

As I said, I'm done.


----------



## criskoe

Falkentyne said:


> It's different on 10th gen. It's no longer exactly max ACLL * Amps anymore - default VRM LLC.
> Shamino tried to explain it to me but my brain went pear shaped.
> 
> He said that DC Loadline won't show the actual VID being requested from the controller unless DCLL is set to 0.01 mOhms (and ACLL is set to what you need it to be). And AC Loadline is also used to calculate power and current, so when ACLL differs from DCLL, the current reading is skewed. So if you want to see the actual VID, setting DCLL to 0.01 and ACLL to whatever you want it to be will accomplish that, but then CPU Package Power reporting will be thrown off.
> 
> Here, with Master @shamino1978 's permission I"ll just tell you what he wrote. Then I'll leave you guys to figure it out for yourself. If he doesn't want me to share it I'll delete the post and edit it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like the SP63 chips are trying to set a 1.52v-1.57v LOAD voltage (at least) with default Loadline calibration (1.1 mOhms or Level 3 LLC) at the highest VID point....(5200 or 5300 mhz)
> 
> Uh...yep...that's EXACTLY what it's trying to do (On the chip that can't do 5.3 ghz stable and can't run realbench stable at 5.2 ghz 1.40v LLC Turbo, without reaching 100C...).
> 
> I just set ACLL : 1.1 mOhms, DCLL: 1.1 mOhms, loadline calibration: Standard (1.1 mOhms). At 5200 mhz,
> On my Z490 Aorus master:
> 
> Idle VR VOUT was 1.305v-1.315v.
> Load VR VOUT was.............
> 
> 
> wait for it.....
> 
> 1.496v @ 207 amps and 308W power POUT. In CPU-Z "bench CPU".
> 
> Did I stutter? I said 1.496v LOAD VR VOUT.
> 
> That's because the VID cap is 1.720v not 1.520v (1.520v +200mv).
> Max VID reported at full load was 1.515v.
> 
> I'm done. You guys are on your own.


Well I appreciate your effort... LOL.

Id imagine that these intel stock values also take power limits into consideration as well.. So by removing the power limits it changes everything in what is "OK" 

Anyways all good man.


----------



## Talon2016

Tested a Z490 Ace as I was considering switch for PCIE 4.0 'support' moving forward compared to my Hero XII. Holy hell what a total POS. That board was requiring 70mV higher than my Hero XII for 5.0Ghz all cores. I can set a stable 1.2v BIOS for 1.11v load with LLC5 on my Hero XII. Even at 1.24v BIOS with LLC6 on the Ace, I was sitting 30mV higher with vdroop than my XII, then the extra 40mV set at the BIOS level and I was still randomly logging WHEA errors while playing Battlefield V and 1. Whatever Asus has done with their Z490 boards to make them this good, it's worth going Asus this round from my limited testing. I promptly ripped that motherboard out and rebuilt with my Asus board. After a day and a half of testing, tweaking, I could not figure out the huge diffrence. Also the BIOS on the Ace is severely lacking.


----------



## Falkentyne

Talon2016 said:


> Tested a Z490 Ace as I was considering switch for PCIE 4.0 'support' moving forward compared to my Hero XII. Holy hell what a total POS. That board was requiring 70mV higher than my Hero XII for 5.0Ghz all cores. I can set a stable 1.2v BIOS for 1.11v load with LLC5 on my Hero XII. Even at 1.24v BIOS with LLC6 on the Ace, I was sitting 30mV higher with vdroop than my XII, then the extra 40mV set at the BIOS level and I was still randomly logging WHEA errors while playing Battlefield V and 1. Whatever Asus has done with their Z490 boards to make them this good, it's worth going Asus this round from my limited testing. I promptly ripped that motherboard out and rebuilt with my Asus board. After a day and a half of testing, tweaking, I could not figure out the huge diffrence. Also the BIOS on the Ace is severely lacking.


Did you use a fixed voltage and the same loadline calibration level? And did you set MSI vcore to "VCC_Sense?"

Also keep in mind the very latest HWinfo64 beta version SHOULD read VR VOUT on the Intersil 69269 boards, so you can use VR VOUT to make sure your MSI is running at the same vcore as the Asus.
That is assuming that "VCC_Sense" in the MSI Bios isn't already setting the vcore sensor to die-sense (VR VOUT)--and that I have NO way to know or find out obviously.

Otherwise, if MSI was using "socket sense" on the ace, there's your 30mv+ higher because the voltage is being read wrong....

were the temps higher also on the MSI? That would show if it was using higher or lower vcore actually (if you didn't check VR VOUT In hwinfo64 or make sure the VCC_Sense was reading right or wrong).

BTW you can calculate if VCC_sense is reading vcore with die-sense or not.
Just take the bios voltage in milivolts, like 1.30=1.300mv.

Set loadline calibration to "mode 3" which SHOULD be CLOSE to 0.5 mOhms.


Then take a guess as to a load test. Let's say cinebench R20 will use 150 amps (or just look at Current IOUT or VR VOUT if it's in hwinfo64 and you dont even have to read the rest of my post).
In my estimation, that will be about 150 amps of load.

So you take 1300mv - (150 * 0.5)=1.225v load.
You can do the math on vcore vs what you set in BIOS and see if msi is reporting VR VOUT as vcore if voltage mode is set to "VCC_Sense" in the BIOS instead of "Socket sense".

Since the Hero reads die sense already, you can calibrate it to get 1.225v also. Then see if both are stable at that voltage.


----------



## AeonMW2

I just tried to set everything in BIOS at full stock. Auto voltage, auto frequency (tho Vision G is keeping all core at 4.9 all the time at stock).
And run prime95 small fft's non avx SINGLE THREAD.
And holy ****, i've seen 1.55 max load vcore
tho at low amps (1 core is like 25w?)
I think i'll hold on to my plans for adaptive vcore with per-core OC, and just stick to 5.1 all core @ 1.25v load for now.


----------



## roooo

Falkentyne said:


> I'm considering buying an Eisbaer Extreme 280mm AIO to mess around with it and put on some 2x140mm 3000 RPM noctua fans on it, since it's basically a prefilled and preassembled custom loop anyway (Flow rate 340 L/H).
> Would be interesting to compare it with my liquid freezer II 360. But it's a big fat $300...


I just got that sucker yesterday. It is my first watercooling gear, I've been running a NH-D15 for ages. Massive piece of gear. I'm running 10900KF @ 52x 10C/20T Cache 47x at Vcore_BIOS 1.38V LLC6, no AVX Offset but throttling enabled for Tpackage>=95C. The Eisbaer got my average CB20 package temps from 76 down to 68C and max temps from 93 to 88C. RB2.56 would crash during the rendering stuff with the NH-D15 while it finished with the Eisbaer. I'm mostly using Linux, where I did some encrypted compression of 8GB data and average package temps went from 68 to 65, max temps from 85 to 79. This was at roughly 25C room temperature. 

My impressions of the Eisbaer so far: Great piece of gear! It can be tuned whisper quiet, which is very important for me. I only saw a 1..2C temp difference (=measurement uncertainty) between the lowest and the 2nd or higher pump speed level but then I'm only using the CPU block. The fans are inaudible at idle (I currently have the case open and sitting on my desk), but I suspect the throughput could be better. That's why I ordered 4x 140mm 2000 RPM Noctua fans this noon, see how much they gain... 

I did not do any long-term stability tests of the CPU yet because I'll be aiming at delidding and disabling 2..3 cores anyway - I hardly do heavily MT stuff so the clocks are what I'm after. 


Cheers,
r.


----------



## Esenel

cstkl1 said:


> @Esenel
> you crazy
> 
> now i understand why shamino was impressed
> theres no training in the bios for 4266 4x8gb
> rtl init was 120!!
> 
> theres only 2 ways i think of you found that.
> 1. ported from z390
> 2. hmm this abit tedious but doubt u did that so dont want to educate a overvolting sensitive lurker
> and the third.
> 3. super lucky.. basically god bless you
> 
> since theres no training. will brute force via voltages on vcssa/vccio. something i aint prep to do
> 
> dude. literally if u were infront me now i will bow down and hail you as king.


Luck.
Trial and error.
I have now a better RAM kit which is performing worse :-D

So beyond 4266 is driving me crazy :-/


----------



## SoldierRBT

Got my Apex Z490 today. Tested 2 10900K BIOS 0607 LLC5 Quick 30 minutes test each

1st SP78 does 5.2GHz / 4.7GHz cache 1.279v under load prime95 small FFTs Non-AVX 29.8 Max temp: 80C
2nd SP85 does 5.2GHz / 4.7GHz cache 1.261v underload prime95 small FFTs Non-AVX 29.8 Max temp: 81C

Both chips look okay. The SP85 a little bit better with voltage. Didn't have time to test IMC


----------



## cstkl1

Esenel said:


> Luck.
> Trial and error.
> I have now a better RAM kit which is performing worse :-D
> 
> So beyond 4266 is driving me crazy :-/


from what i can see first thing is to guesstimate the rtl

069 better at rtl training. it doesnt do crazy edge @init 65. 

rtl afaik 4100c17 right up to 4266 c17 uses the same rtl. only diff is the iol.. 4300 should be using 4266 iol.. 


with init iol makes life easier slightly as the bios can train to lowest. 

trace centering option makes things worst on daisy. i plug back to z370 to see the difference. 

truly stumped.

for me to boot to 4266.. i have to train at 4200 first 
havent used those mem algo you used cause tested at 4k.. things go haywire.


----------



## Esenel

cstkl1 said:


> Esenel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Luck.
> Trial and error.
> I have now a better RAM kit which is performing worse 😄
> 
> So beyond 4266 is driving me crazy :-/
> 
> 
> 
> from what i can see first thing is to guesstimate the rtl
> 
> 069 better at rtl training. it doesnt do crazy edge @init 65.
> 
> rtl afaik 4100c17 right up to 4266 c17 uses the same rtl. only diff is the iol.. 4300 should be using 4266 iol..
> 
> 
> with init iol makes life easier slightly as the bios can train to lowest.
> 
> trace centering option makes things worst on daisy. i plug back to z370 to see the difference.
> 
> truly stumped.
> 
> for me to boot to 4266.. i have to train at 4200 first
> havent used those mem algo you used cause tested at 4k.. things go haywire.
Click to expand...

Trace Centering doesn't really boot for me.
What improved in the new bios?

I am still on 0606.


----------



## ThrashZone

Esenel said:


> Trace Centering doesn't really boot for me.
> What improved in the new bios?
> 
> I am still on 0606.


Hi,
Stick with 0606 I just flashed it too 

0069 well I used it yesterday morning and when I restored a system image using winpe recovery environment system wouldn't boot to the os 
Switched to bios 0607 and all is good 
Flashed 0606 and all is good 
So there is something messed up in 0069. haven't tried 0063 or what ever it is I was about to but saw the 0069 updated and did it instead


----------



## cstkl1

Esenel said:


> Trace Centering doesn't really boot for me.
> What improved in the new bios?
> 
> I am still on 0606.


nothing. 
just init iol for those pll who cant do math. lol
about the same as 062

trace centering works to boot. but i see more errors on hci. 

secondary issue.. z490 asus seem to have odd behavior towards odd ratio. 
thats gonna make 4300 truly difficult. 

i wish somebody with msi can post a memtweakit (no sure msi works with it) 
why the heck 4266 needs so much tinkering compared to 4200 and below.

really dont want to brute force 4266 with voltages with 4200 pretty good atm.


----------



## newls1

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Stick with 0606 I just flashed it too
> 
> 0069 well I used it yesterday morning and when I restored a system image using winpe recovery environment system wouldn't boot to the os
> Switched to bios 0607 and all is good
> Flashed 0606 and all is good
> So there is something messed up in 0069. haven't tried 0063 or what ever it is I was about to but saw the 0069 updated and did it instead


where did you see these bioses? (0069?)


----------



## Nizzen

newls1 said:


> ThrashZone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> Stick with 0606 I just flashed it too
> 
> 0069 well I used it yesterday morning and when I restored a system image using winpe recovery environment system wouldn't boot to the os
> Switched to bios 0607 and all is good
> Flashed 0606 and all is good
> So there is something messed up in 0069. haven't tried 0063 or what ever it is I was about to but saw the 0069 updated and did it instead
> 
> 
> 
> where did you see these bioses? (0069?)
Click to expand...

Best place on earth for Apex Owners:

https://community.hwbot.org/topic/196740-rog-maximus-xii-apex/


----------



## newls1

i dont have an apex.. formula Xii is what I use


----------



## Falkentyne

newls1 said:


> i dont have an apex.. formula Xii is what I use


https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?118328-Asus-Z490-stuff


----------



## Avacado

Nizzen said:


> Best place on earth for Apex Owners:
> 
> https://community.hwbot.org/topic/196740-rog-maximus-xii-apex/


How dare you! LOL


----------



## tiefox

Ok guys, I received a couple of days ago my direct die waterblock, I can now run my 10900k on all core 5.4ghz @ 1.625 vcore ( SP 63, terrible terrible chip ), those settings it will run HOT but stay 2 degrees away from thermal throttling....

This direct die block is amazing, previously was only able to do 5.1ghz @ 1.385 vcore and was hitting high 85+ degrees on r20 runs, with the new direct die block same settings it went down to 69 degrees max.


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

Has anyone compared z490 memory latency to z390 memory latency at identical frequency/timings with the same kit on similar performing motherboards? z490 looks slower compared to z390. Was watching buildzoid videos and everything he showed above 4000mhz had over 40ns latency even though timings were tight as hell, regardless of if it was 2 dimm or 4 dimm.


----------



## Falkentyne

tiefox said:


> Ok guys, I received a couple of days ago my direct die waterblock, I can now run my 10900k on all core 5.4ghz @ 1.625 vcore ( SP 63, terrible terrible chip ), those settings it will run HOT but stay 2 degrees away from thermal throttling....
> 
> This direct die block is amazing, previously was only able to do 5.1ghz @ 1.385 vcore and was hitting high 85+ degrees on r20 runs, with the new direct die block same settings it went down to 69 degrees max.


Load or idle volts? You gave voltages but didn't say if they are set in BIOS or measured at full load? If those are bios voltages, they mean absolutely nothing because we don't know what loadline calibration you are using nor how much current you're pulling (which affects vdroop at a certain LLC), so please give us full load voltages.

And if those are load voltages...theres no way any chip could be that bad as to require 1.385v LOAD at 5.1 ghz. 5.2, maybe...


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

XGS-Duplicity said:


> Has anyone compared z490 memory latency to z390 memory latency at identical frequency/timings with the same kit on similar performing motherboards? z490 looks slower compared to z390. Was watching buildzoid videos and everything he showed above 4000mhz had over 40ns latency even though timings were tight as hell, regardless of if it was 2 dimm or 4 dimm.


Z490 is about 2ns slower than z390. Might be due to the new IMC. But the bandwidth is much higher.


----------



## tiefox

Falkentyne said:


> Load or idle volts? You gave voltages but didn't say if they are set in BIOS or measured at full load? If those are bios voltages, they mean absolutely nothing because we don't know what loadline calibration you are using nor how much current you're pulling (which affects vdroop at a certain LLC), so please give us full load voltages.
> 
> And if those are load voltages...theres no way any chip could be that bad as to require 1.385v LOAD at 5.1 ghz. 5.2, maybe...



Sorry, im a bit of a noob.

So this is what I set on the bios, on p95 non avx I get 1.465 on hwinfo on load @ 5.4ghz with bios 1.625 and LLC 6 on a M12 extreme board 0607 bios


So far, from all the 10900k overclocks I have seen my chip seems to be the worse of them all, really terrible. the direct die made it "manageable" 

Im also running 2x16gb @ 4000 cas 19, cache is between 48-50 and 1.2 v io and 1.25 sa


----------



## Falkentyne

tiefox said:


> Sorry, im a bit of a noob.
> 
> So this is what I set on the bios, on p95 non avx I get 1.465 on hwinfo on load @ 5.4ghz with bios 1.625 and LLC 6 on a M12 extreme board 0607 bios
> 
> 
> So far, from all the 10900k overclocks I have seen my chip seems to be the worse of them all, really terrible. the direct die made it "manageable"
> 
> Im also running 2x16gb @ 4000 cas 9, cache is between 48-50 and 1.2 v io and 1.25 sa


That's actually good for 5.4 ghz.

But your 5.1 ghz load was awful. Was 1.385v the load or bios voltage at 5.1 ghz? I can't imagine any chip being that bad...?
BTW CAS *9* at 4000 mhz is impossible. Not even LN2 cooled RAM can do that. Maybe you meant Cas 19?


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> Z490 is about 2ns slower than z390. Might be due to the new IMC. But the bandwidth is much higher.


Thank you for confirming this. hmmm ok so does this mean ipc/chip quality has gone backwards? They are trading about 2ns for only 1gbs extra across the board in bandwidth. Did they make their imcs slower just so people could boot higher frequencies easier to make the claim that their imcs are stronger this generation around? I wonder if the same performance can be had on z390 with lower frequency than a z490 config? Timings/NS/clock cycles are the same, latency should be roughly the same right since we are dealing with the same frequency/timings, assuming the same cache ratios are used right? 

So basically intel makes their ram perform worse on z490 compared to z390 so if users still want the latency they were getting before, they end up needing to spend extra money on a better ram kit. 

clock cycles don't magically take longer to perform when the values are the same, the clock cycle IS the measure of time it takes. I guess the only explanation is IPC got worse. 2ns latency less on z490 is the equivalent of over 600mhz cache speed latency on z390. This means at the same ram timings/frequency as z490, you can get identical latency with 600mhz less cache on z390....... 

Where is that z390 apex at lol?

EDIT: Then again the memory benchmarks you posted show 17-18-18 vs 17-17-17 so I supposed that will account for .4ns to .5ns. So its more of a 400-500mhz cache measure of latency difference, between the 2 chipsets. 

Now here is the THE THING TO PAY ATTENTION TO. If core for core, frequency wise, z490 performs worse than z390 (measure 10700k vs 9900K) and latency got worse for all of z490, Are we really getting higher frequencies increased performance compared to last generation? No we aren't, we are getting the same performance or less but it requires you to clock higher frequency to hit the same numbers. It takes a 10700k @ 5.2ghz to outperform my 9900k @ 5ghz in cbr20, both 8c/16t chips yet the 10700k is supposed to be superior because its an even more matured version of the architecture. They are raising the frequency requirements and/or voltage requirements to hit the same or less performance as z390. One really good thing though is that the 10700k is cheaper than the 9900k. This generations IPC is literally zero performance improvement over last generation respective comparisons with the exception of core count and pricing, i do welcome the pricing adjustment. However, refreshes have historically offered 10%-15% increase, What happened? Why was none of this covered by reviewers lol?


----------



## tiefox

Falkentyne said:


> That's actually good for 5.4 ghz.
> 
> But your 5.1 ghz load was awful. Was 1.385v the load or bios voltage at 5.1 ghz? I can't imagine any chip being that bad...?
> BTW CAS *9* at 4000 mhz is impossible. Not even LN2 cooled RAM can do that. Maybe you meant Cas 19?


sorry typo, cas 19..


going back to 5.1 and redoing some tests to see the actual vcore, 1.385 was in bios.

I guess I should not daily run at 5.4 at that voltage


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

XGS-Duplicity said:


> Thank you for confirming this. hmmm ok so does this mean ipc/chip quality has gone backwards? They are trading about 2ns for only 1gbs extra across the board in bandwidth. Did they make their imcs slower just so people could boot higher frequencies easier to make the claim that their imcs are stronger this generation around? I wonder if the same performance can be had on z390 with lower frequency than a z490 config? Timings/NS/clock cycles are the same, latency should be roughly the same right since we are dealing with the same frequency/timings, assuming the same cache ratios are used right?
> 
> So basically intel makes their ram perform worse on z490 compared to z390 so if users still want the latency they were getting before, they have spend extra money on a better ram kit.
> 
> clock cycles don't magically take longer to perform when the values are the same, the clock cycle IS the measure of time it takes. I guess the only explanation is IPC got worse. 2ns latency less on z490 is the equivalent of over 600mhz cache speed latency on z390. This means at the same ram timings/frequency as z490, you can get identical latency with 600mhz less cache on z390, W T F? Glad i didn't buy into z490.
> 
> Where is that z390 apex at lol?
> 
> EDIT: Then again the memory benchmarks you posted show 17-18-18 vs 17-17-17 so I supposed that will account for .4ns to .5ns. So its more of a 400-500mhz cache measure of latency difference, between the 2 chipsets.


17-18-18 or 17-17-17 does not matter. 9900K is even 0.5ns faster than 8086K so the conclusion should be all right.

Maybe they have improved the IMC for higher OC freq. You can see the highest ram freq improved around 600MHz on Z490 over Z390.

Though Z390 APEX was on the market, Z390 GENE was the "real Z390 APEX"


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> 17-18-18 or 17-17-17 does not matter. 9900K is even 0.5ns faster than 8086K so the conclusion should be all right.
> 
> Maybe they have improved the IMC for higher OC. You can see the highest ram freq improved around 600MHz on Z490 over Z390.
> 
> Though Z390 APEX was on the market, Z390 GENE was the "real Z390 APEX"



NICE RESULTS! That's why I want an apex lol. The marketers here have been trying to sell me on a gene for the last few days but I'm not spending any more money unless its for a z390 apex. If i got the gene, i'd just be disappointed its not an apex. I want to accomplish great feats like Carillo, that guy is pro. Sick result, you are like the only person i've seen go that high on the gene. Everything else I see in all the threads and on reddit is 4600 max and most users hover around 4200-4400 it seems. Though maybe i'm not looking around hard enough. i gotta get an apex.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

XGS-Duplicity said:


> They been trying to sell me on a gene for a hot minute. I'm not spending any more money unless its for a z390 apex. If i got the gene, i'd just be disappointed its not an apex. I want to accomplish great feats like Carillo, that guy is pro. Can't do what he does on a gene, gotta have the apex.


You will need a good MB, a good IMC and good sticks for 5000. I am having two M12As, one can do 4800 easily while another cant. You might need to bin between several MBs, CPUs, and ram sticks. Lots of work.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

XGS-Duplicity said:


> NICE RESULTS! That's why I want an apex lol. The marketers here have been trying to sell me on a gene for the last few days but I'm not spending any more money unless its for a z390 apex. If i got the gene, i'd just be disappointed its not an apex. I want to accomplish great feats like Carillo, that guy is pro. Sick result, you are like the only person i've seen go that high on the gene. Everything else I see in all the threads and on reddit is 4600 max and most users hover around 4200-4400 it seems. Though maybe i'm not looking around hard enough. i gotta get an apex.


Most people don't dare to try higher IO/SA volt. But if you want the car run faster you need to feed the car with more gas. IMO any 2-DIMM board should be good for mem OC


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> You will need a good MB, a good IMC and good sticks for 5000. I am having two M12As, one can do 4800 easily while another cant. You might need to bin between several MBs, CPUs, and ram sticks. Lots of work.


can you tell me if my IMC is good enough to warrant an apex purchase?

I can do stable on 4 dimms with 9900k with cache between 4.85ghz-4.9ghz... ram kit is 4x8GB [email protected]
3933 14-14-14-30-2T 35.0ns
3900 14-14-14-30-2T 35.0ns
3533 13-12-12-28-1T 35.1ns
4133 15-15-15-32-2T 36.3ns (motherboard won't let rtl/iol adjustment at 4000 and above)
i can do other configurations in between these but only listed the best.

My motherboard limits me to a good extent, i can bench all the way up to 4600 but can only get 4133 stable. 

These required over 1.5v vdimm and 1.3v sa/io each, probably because 4 dimms instead of 2. Maybe less voltage requirements on a different board with 2 slots?

Do you think my chip and ram sticks are good enough to utilize the apex all the way? I want to make sure that if I do buy one that it makes 100% sense for me to do so. I can't $$$ afford to play the silicon lottery with chips/ram sticks for the foreseeable future otherwise I totally would because i love binning this stuff.


----------



## Falkentyne

XGS-Duplicity said:


> can you tell me if my IMC is good enough to warrant an apex purchase?
> 
> I can do stable on 4 dimms with 9900k with cache between 4.85ghz-4.9ghz... ram kit is 4x8GB [email protected]
> 3933 14-14-14-30-2T 35.0ns
> 3900 14-14-14-30-2T 35.0ns
> 3533 13-12-12-28-1T 35.1ns
> 4133 15-15-15-32-2T 36.3ns (motherboard won't let rtl/iol adjustment at 4000 and above)
> i can do other configurations in between these but only listed the best.
> 
> These required over 1.5v vdimm and 1.3v sa/io each, probably because 4 dimms instead of 2. Maybe less voltage requirements on a different board with 2 slots?
> 
> Do you think my chip and ram sticks are good enough to utilize the apex all the way? I want to make sure that if I do buy one that it makes 100% sense for me to do so.


You really should be asking this on the overclocking reddit discord group in the memory overclocking channel. Some of the world record holders are there (including people who did CAS 11 @ 4000).
And you seem every bit as skilled as they are, besides having one of the worst possible boards for memory overclocking. I'd say go for it.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

XGS-Duplicity said:


> can you tell me if my IMC is good enough to warrant an apex purchase?
> 
> I can do stable on 4 dimms with 9900k with cache between 4.85ghz-4.9ghz... ram kit is 4x8GB [email protected]
> 3933 14-14-14-30-2T 35.0ns
> 3900 14-14-14-30-2T 35.0ns
> 3533 13-12-12-28-1T 35.1ns
> 4133 15-15-15-32-2T 36.3ns (motherboard won't let rtl/iol adjustment at 4000 and above)
> i can do other configurations in between these but only listed the best.
> 
> My motherboard limits me to a good extent, i can bench all the way up to 4600 but can only get 4133 stable.
> 
> These required over 1.5v vdimm and 1.3v sa/io each, probably because 4 dimms instead of 2. Maybe less voltage requirements on a different board with 2 slots?
> 
> Do you think my chip and ram sticks are good enough to utilize the apex all the way? I want to make sure that if I do buy one that it makes 100% sense for me to do so. I can't $$$ afford to play the silicon lottery with chips/ram sticks for the foreseeable future.


Cant tell since some IMCs are good at 2-DIMM while others good at 4-DIMM. You might find some literature for pairing and binning the sticks.

I suggest buy one MSI Z390I for a try. This board is cheap, and it is also the WR RAM freq holder of Z390.


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

Falkentyne said:


> You really should be asking this on the overclocking reddit discord group in the memory overclocking channel. Some of the world record holders are there (including people who did CAS 11 @ 4000).
> And you seem every bit as skilled as they are, besides having one of the worst possible boards for memory overclocking. I'd say go for it.


I honestly think i've had a lot of luck and very good teachers on this forum(yourself, gen. , wirerat etc etc). It often feels like there is a force in the ether or whatever teaching me at times through telepathy or something(is that even real? i dunno lol). I think I have some skill or at least I think i'm getting the hang of things but i cannot confidently say that i'm as versed or skilled as world record holders or pro ocers. One day I hope to be great like those guys though. One day I hope to gain employment in this industry. I'd love to bin ram sticks for 40 hours a week as a job/career path or w/e if i could make a decent living off it. 

I'll pass on discord/reddit invite, reddit strikes me as a behavioral modification class that users aren't aware they are partaking in. If you don't side with what appears to be anonymouse/random users in threads, they call you mentally ill by default(reddit in general, not the oc group). Seems like a cult where people are brainwashed to police each others morals or some****. God forbid you say enough **** people disagree with or don't like, they put a muzzle over your mouth/fingers/keyboard through the use of downvoting you to negative karma to prevent you from posting any comments at all. It's rather a disgusting social platform that is so clearly trying to subtly and slowly condition users. Also, these "services" all share your personal information with each other and leverage it in more ways than we know. If you violate the rules on one site, they punish you and give you hell on another website or "service" within their partnered network of websites. It seems as though they are trying to condition users to believe in "karma" and attempting to shape their morals. You know what I say to that? screw that, I decide my own morals, nobody else and I don't need to participate in that crap. Had it happen to me when I logged onto discord after not using it for months, some schmuck starts trying to do a personality profile on me and then tries to verbally bully me for something I said on reddit 2 weeks prior. Homie don't play dat, i'll pass.

O yeah, i almost forgot the OC subreddit mods got me permabanned on all of reddit for sharing helpful SAFE within official intel-spec overclocking information. So to hell with all overclocking subreddit moderators, bunch of sissy powertripping adolescent losers with tiny peckers.

Sorry rant over .

but yeah, I like it here. I feel like i'm apart of something that isn't synthetic if you know what I mean. I know sometimes I clutter threads with lots of posts but i'm trying to work on post quality these days to at least be more of a contributor than I previously was.


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> Cant tell since some IMCs are good at 2-DIMM while others good at 4-DIMM. You might find some literature for pairing and binning the sticks.
> 
> I suggest buy one MSI Z390I for a try. This board is cheap, and it is also the WR RAM freq holder of Z390.


Interesting, I was not aware that some imcs are better for 2 dimm and some are better for 4 dimm. I thought only board played a role in that aspect. I like that I learn something new every day here. I'll have to do more research. Thanks for the advices.


----------



## Nizzen

XGS-Duplicity said:


> Has anyone compared z490 memory latency to z390 memory latency at identical frequency/timings with the same kit on similar performing motherboards? z490 looks slower compared to z390. Was watching buildzoid videos and everything he showed above 4000mhz had over 40ns latency even though timings were tight as hell, regardless of if it was 2 dimm or 4 dimm.


It is a bit slower, but can run higher mem speed.

buildzoid is a noob on memory OC, so no supprize he got bad results. Ask @Carillo for good results. The real memory oc guru here 🙂


----------



## Betroz

Nizzen said:


> It is a bit slower, but can run higher mem speed.


So read/write memory bandwith is more important than memory latency? Like for BF5 fps.


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

Betroz said:


> So read/write memory bandwith is more important than memory latency? Like for BF5 fps.


At the same frequencies/timings, you get about 1gb per second more across the board for reads/writes/copy on average on z490 compared to z390, but at least 2ns slower latency. So if you are on z490 and do cl18-4600 or something, you are actually getting z390's cl19 or cl20 4600 latency. The 1gb extra across the board is less impactful for gaming performance where as the 2ns latency difference impacts 1% lows substantially. I don't understand why they needed a new chipset/socket, almost all of the decent to good overclocking boards could have handled 10th gen chips ezpz. Is this intels plan? Make performance worse for refreshes AND require a new chipset? z390 could already hit 5ghz on memory, i'm not sure what the purpose of z490 chipset is. 

Could the extra 1gb sec bandwidth across the board be a result of the performance difference of the extra cores/threads count on the 10900k compared to 9900k/8086k?


----------



## Betroz

Maybe the work Intel has done on the IMC in the 10900K is early prep for future CPUs with DDR5 support?


----------



## Falkentyne

tiefox said:


> sorry typo, cas 19..
> 
> 
> going back to 5.1 and redoing some tests to see the actual vcore, 1.385 was in bios.
> 
> I guess I should not daily run at 5.4 at that voltage


Hi, did you find your load voltage at that 1.385v bios at 5.1 ghz?
I'm trying to compare it to my bad chip. And you tested prime95 small FFT AVX disabled, and realbench R20 ?


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

Betroz said:


> Maybe the work Intel has done on the IMC in the 10900K is early prep for future CPUs with DDR5 support?


Not possible, they won't be using the same cpu architecture when ddr5 is released so why prep on a retail release? Doesn't make sense from a developmental or a consumer perspective imo. ddr5 is/will be a different architecture compared to ddr4 as well.


----------



## ThrashZone

Betroz said:


> Maybe the work Intel has done on the IMC in the 10900K is early prep for future CPUs with DDR5 support?


Hi,
You'd think but I sadly doubt it 
Would be nice if they did make it compatible and cheaper of course.


----------



## tiefox

Falkentyne said:


> Hi, did you find your load voltage at that 1.385v bios at 5.1 ghz?
> I'm trying to compare it to my bad chip. And you tested prime95 small FFT AVX disabled, and realbench R20 ?


Ok, was doing some more tests, I think im getting the hang of it.

at 5.1 with 1.385 set on the bios, runing prime95 I got 1.296v on hwinfo during prime execution


after tunning alot with adaptive voltage I manage to get 5.4ghz with 0.085v offset, -1 avx
It throttles a bit on prime95
But I get 1.465v on hwinfo when executing prime


probably not 100% stable, but good enough for gaming I guess


----------



## Falkentyne

tiefox said:


> Ok, was doing some more tests, I think im getting the hang of it.
> 
> at 5.1 with 1.385 set on the bios, runing prime95 I got 1.296v on hwinfo during prime execution
> 
> 
> after tunning alot with adaptive voltage I manage to get 5.4ghz with 0.085v offset, -1 avx
> It throttles a bit on prime95
> But I get 1.465v on hwinfo when executing prime
> 
> 
> probably not 100% stable, but good enough for gaming I guess


Thank you for checking.

Were you running prime95 @ 5.1 ghz with FMA3/AVX enabled or AVX disabled? I thought you said avx disabled originally, but now I don't know...because 1.296v at load is a VERY high voltage needed to pass prime95 with avx completely disabled at just 5.1 ghz. Thats what I would expect an average 5.2 ghz chip to pass prime95 at (AVX disabled).

You can disable AVX and AVX2 in prime95 29.8 beta 6.

1.296v I can see being needed for a very bad sample for AVX enabled prime95 @ 5.1, but if AVX is disabled (check disable avx and avx2 in the stress test options), you should be able to reduce voltage at load to at least 1.250v I think.


----------



## tiefox

Falkentyne said:


> Thank you for checking.
> 
> Were you running prime95 @ 5.1 ghz with FMA3/AVX enabled or AVX disabled? I thought you said avx disabled originally, but now I don't know...because 1.296v at load is a VERY high voltage needed to pass prime95 with avx completely disabled at just 5.1 ghz. Thats what I would expect an average 5.2 ghz chip to pass prime95 at (AVX disabled).
> 
> You can disable AVX and AVX2 in prime95 29.8 beta 6.
> 
> 1.296v I can see being needed for a very bad sample for AVX enabled prime95 @ 5.1, but if AVX is disabled (check disable avx and avx2 in the stress test options), you should be able to reduce voltage at load to at least 1.250v I think.


Running prime 26.6, as far as I understand it has no avx support


----------



## criskoe

tiefox said:


> Running prime 26.6, as far as I understand it has no avx support


You should still use prime95 29.8 beta 6.

And if you wana do no avx test just uncheck the avx boxes before running the test.


----------



## TheDoctor46

I'm using prime 26.6 as well and my 10900 isn't even quite stable at 1.31v HWinfo readout, ~1.258v under load @5.1GHz

I guess I could use more aggressive LLC setting in order to use a lower set voltage, but the next setting results in significantly less Vdroop so I wonder whether the processor is going to degrade quicker with this setting as the voltage transitions between loaded and unloaded?


----------



## JoeRambo

XGS-Duplicity said:


> At the same frequencies/timings, you get about 1gb per second more across the board for reads/writes/copy on average on z490 compared to z390, but at least 2ns slower latency.


The way memory accesses work - they need to check L3 cache, to see if cache line in question is there. On L3 miss requests go to memory.
Now L3 speed on Skylake architecture depends on uncore speed and the amount of L3 cache partitions the chip has ( L3 is partitioned by last address bits, and the more partitions there are, requests on average will have to go more hops = more latency. Transiting 4C->6->8->10 we have seen L3 cache latency grow @ same uncore speed, but it was compensated somewhat by rising uncore speeds).

Now why the jump is so large 2ns, i have no idea, but maybe it is somehow related to what Anandtech found with core-core communications
https://images.anandtech.com/doci/15785/2 - 10900K Core-to-Core_575px.png

It could be that some L3 slices are not treated same way and slow down average access to memory speeds?


----------



## tiefox

criskoe said:


> You should still use prime95 29.8 beta 6.
> 
> And if you wana do no avx test just uncheck the avx boxes before running the test.


getting the same 1,456 vcore when running p96 29.8 with avx off


----------



## criskoe

tiefox said:


> getting the same 1,456 vcore when running p96 29.8 with avx off


Yeah I just meant the newer version of P95 has more under the hood then just the added AVX. It has some other enhancements to its code from what I understand. So Its best to just use it.

But yes you should most likely get the same Load values.


----------



## ThrashZone

tiefox said:


> getting the same 1,456 vcore when running p96 29.8 with avx off


Vcore are you sure that isn't vid that gets that high ?


----------



## tiefox

ThrashZone said:


> Vcore are you sure that isn't vid that gets that high ?


Yeah, I'm sure, my chip is a bit hungry for volts 

But that is also on 5.4ghz


----------



## ThrashZone

tiefox said:


> Yeah, I'm sure, my chip is a bit hungry for volts
> 
> But that is also on 5.4ghz


Hi,
Just making sure


----------



## ViTosS

Falkentyne said:


> You really should be asking this on the overclocking reddit discord group in the memory overclocking channel. Some of the world record holders are there (including people who did CAS 11 @ 4000).
> And you seem every bit as skilled as they are, besides having one of the worst possible boards for memory overclocking. I'd say go for it.


Can you pass me that discord group link? I need to have sure if my RAM OC problem is IMC related or lottery of RAM.


----------



## Falkentyne

ViTosS said:


> Can you pass me that discord group link? I need to have sure if my RAM OC problem is IMC related or lottery of RAM.


https://discord.gg/FNsBkX


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

ViTosS said:


> Can you pass me that discord group link? I need to have sure if my RAM OC problem is IMC related or lottery of RAM.


Would you mind finding out what criteria they base their decision on and share it here please?


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

ViTosS said:


> Can you pass me that discord group link? I need to have sure if my RAM OC problem is IMC related or lottery of RAM.


To bin the IMC, the only simple way is to buy an MSI Z490 board, use “Memory Force” to fix a ram signal level, say 27 clicks, fix VCCIO to 1.35V, and find out what kind of VCCSA your processor needs to control that ram signal level.

Or you can compare the ram signal level of your sticks with others, under the same ram oc sittings.


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> To bin the IMC, the only simple way is to buy an MSI Z490 board, use “Memory Force” to fix a ram signal level, say 27 clicks, fix VCCIO to 1.35V, and find out what kind of VCCSA your processor needs to control that ram signal level.
> 
> Or you can compare the ram signal level of your sticks with others, under the same ram oc sittings.


What's vccsa criteria?

What vccsa levels determine what level of quality of imc?


for example, 

what if it took 1.3v sa?
what if it took 1.35v sa?
etc etc 

Or perhaps, what average level of vccsa does an average imc use here, what average level of vccsa does a golden imc user here etc

Is that feature only available on msi z490 boards or do z390 boards have it as well?


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

XGS-Duplicity said:


> What's vccsa criteria?
> 
> What vccsa levels determine what level of quality of imc?
> 
> 
> for example,
> 
> what if it took 1.3v sa?
> what if it took 1.35v sa?
> etc etc
> 
> Or perhaps, what average level of vccsa does an average imc use here, what average level of vccsa does a golden imc user here etc
> 
> Is that feature only available on msi z490 boards or do z390 boards have it as well?


Its the feature only on MSI Z490 board. It is not easy to say your processor can control 4600 cl17 with only 1.35 SA or so, since the silicon lottery of ram sticks affects the signal purity.

Generally, if your current board cant reach 4600 with SR b-die, it is the board that limits the ram OC.


----------



## cstkl1

tiefox said:


> Ok guys, I received a couple of days ago my direct die waterblock, I can now run my 10900k on all core 5.4ghz @ 1.625 vcore ( SP 63, terrible terrible chip ), those settings it will run HOT but stay 2 degrees away from thermal throttling....
> 
> This direct die block is amazing, previously was only able to do 5.1ghz @ 1.385 vcore and was hitting high 85+ degrees on r20 runs, with the new direct die block same settings it went down to 69 degrees max.


Is dat from the thai dude??


----------



## cstkl1

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> Its the feature only on MSI Z490 board. It is not easy to say your processor can control 4600 cl17 with only 1.35 SA or so, since the silicon lottery of ram sticks affects the signal purity.
> 
> Generally, if your current board cant reach 4600 with SR b-die, it is the board that limits the ram OC.


Dis da sane truth. 

Alot of ppl dont know even with apex.. u might have to bin them.


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

ahhh alrite guys. I appreciate the responses here. I guess i'll pass on getting a new motherboard then, i'm not willing to bin boards.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

cstkl1 said:


> Dis da sane truth.
> 
> Alot of ppl dont know even with apex.. u might have to bin them.


cheers! :thumb:


----------



## ogider

XGS-Duplicity said:


> Has anyone compared z490 memory latency to z390 memory latency at identical frequency/timings with the same kit on similar performing motherboards? z490 looks slower compared to z390. Was watching buildzoid videos and everything he showed above 4000mhz had over 40ns latency even though timings were tight as hell, regardless of if it was 2 dimm or 4 dimm.



2x16GB f4-3200c14d-32gtz 10900k 5.0/4.7 + bclk 100.95
1.52V ddr4 / 1.30 sa / 1.29 io

can enter windows with 4600 cl 18-18-18- with this kit as well.


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

ogider said:


> 2x16GB f4-3200c14d-32gtz 10900k 5.0/4.7 + bclk 100.95
> 1.52V ddr4 / 1.30 sa / 1.29 io
> 
> can enter windows with 4600 cl 18-18-18- with this kit as well.


Do you have close to an identical setup on z390 to compare it vs? Another user compared apex xi 9900k + mem oc vs apex xII 10700k or 10900k mem oc, same timings/sticks, 2 ns difference. 


grats on the excellent dual rank result, very solid. I take it that would be around 35ns on z390 right? btw, what cache ratio are you using?


----------



## ogider

XGS-Duplicity said:


> Do you have close to an identical setup on z390 to compare it vs? Another user compared apex xi 9900k + mem oc vs apex xII 10700k or 10900k mem oc, same timings/sticks, 2 ns difference.
> 
> 
> grats on the excellent dual rank result, very solid. I take it that would be around 35ns on z390 right? btw, what cache ratio are you using?


4700 cache

I had z370 taichi with 8700k before this. Same memory kit.

was able to do 3700 c 14 14 14 cr1 with same latency.
cr2 max was 4000.


edit:

Another screen:
This one is just for testing max freq for my kit with max cl that I wanna play with.

Not tested for stability and all timings (they are very loose) on auto except cl 17 17 17.
Same kit 2x16GB


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

ogider said:


> 4700 cache
> 
> I had z370 taichi with 8700k before this. Same memory kit.
> 
> was able to do 3700 c 14 14 14 cr1 with same latency.
> cr2 max was 4000.


ahh rats, gotcha np. If you could categorize the 4333 mem oc, would you consider it memtest stable, gaming only stable or bench only stable? Very good dual ranked result. Are you able to stabilize 4400 or 4500/4533?


----------



## ncpneto

*10900k + Apex*

Hello experts!

I just got a 10900K and I have a doubt about the minimum load voltage required to run it at 52/49x.

From my tests I need at least 1.279 load voltage to have no errors and, from what I read in this forum thread, it seems a little high.

BIOS information (Apex):

SP score = 83
Non AVX V req = 1.369v
AVX V req = 1.397v
Cache V req = 1.293v

Vcore = 1.395v (manual)
LLC = 6

Memory still at Intel specs @ 2933mhz
vccio = 0.950
vccsa = 1,050

VID = 1.335v (24A) - 52/49x
VID = 1.220v (24A) - 50/47x

I performed the following tests at an ambient temperature of 27c:

15min of R20 (about 20 loops);
1 hour of P95 small FFTs - non AVX

Max CPU Current = 214A
Max CPU pkg pwr = 309W
Max Temp = 83c

I can run both tests from 1.234 to 1.270 load voltages and get a few errors: 1 to 3, but it is completely stable only at 1.279v.


Is this load voltage within the expected range? For example, I read that @Falkentyne can run the same tests without errors starting at 1.234v.

Thank you very much for your help!


----------



## ogider

XGS-Duplicity said:


> ahh rats, gotcha np. If you could categorize the 4333 mem oc, would you consider it memtest stable, gaming only stable or bench only stable? Very good dual ranked result. Are you able to stabilize 4400 or 4500/4533?


Memtest 250% done. Gsat 1 hour done testmem5 with 1usmus_v3 10 cycle done. All no errors.


I fight whole day with 4400 cl 16 16 16..but no luck....stress tests failed at arround 50%. So i give last extra 33MHz from bclk.
I dont whana leave 1.5-1.55V DDR4 voltage. Also didn't want to loosen the secound third and forth timings more strongly for only +100
Gonna try cl 17 setup after day or two.


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

ogider said:


> Memtest 250% done. Gsat 1 hour done testmem5 with 1usmus_v3 10 cycle done. All no errors.
> 
> 
> I fight whole day with 4400 cl 16 16 16..but no luck....stress tests failed at arround 50%. So i give last extra 33MHz from bclk.
> I dont whana leave 1.5-1.55V DDR4 voltage.


gotcha. very good sticks regardless. I think in few cases on z390 some people were able to get 4133 max on 16x2, so it seems we have a 200mhz improvement on frequency getting to 4333 which is really solid, just a cost of 2ns latency. Is cl14 3200 bin better than the cl17-19-19 3733 bin for 2x16gb? it seems the gskill 3200 2x16gb are really good for clocking up. 
edit: nm i'll look up the bin latency


----------



## Falkentyne

ncpneto said:


> Hello experts!
> 
> I just got a 10900K and I have a doubt about the minimum load voltage required to run it at 52/49x.
> 
> From my tests I need at least 1.279 load voltage to have no errors and, from what I read in this forum thread, it seems a little high.
> 
> BIOS information (Apex):
> 
> SP score = 83
> Non AVX V req = 1.369v
> AVX V req = 1.397v
> Cache V req = 1.293v
> 
> Vcore = 1.395v (manual)
> LLC = 6
> 
> Memory still at Intel specs @ 2933mhz
> vccio = 0.950
> vccsa = 1,050
> 
> VID = 1.335v (24A) - 52/49x
> VID = 1.220v (24A) - 50/47x
> 
> I performed the following tests at an ambient temperature of 27c:
> 
> 15min of R20 (about 20 loops);
> 1 hour of P95 small FFTs - non AVX
> 
> Max CPU Current = 214A
> Max CPU pkg pwr = 309W
> Max Temp = 83c
> 
> I can run both tests from 1.234 to 1.270 load voltages and get a few errors: 1 to 3, but it is completely stable only at 1.279v.
> 
> 
> Is this load voltage within the expected range? For example, I read that @Falkentyne can run the same tests without errors starting at 1.234v.
> 
> Thank you very much for your help!


I can't pass RB 2.56 @ 1.234v load. Only CB R20 and Prime95 small FFT (I only did 30 minute runs on each).

Realbench 2.56 is going to need about 20 more mv to pass than prime95 small FFT (No avx) or Cinebench R20 because the transients are worse. Also seems to run slightly hotter than small FFT or R20 too.
Pretty strange because on my 9900k and Master, small FFT (No avx) and cinebench R20 I think ran slightly hotter than RB 2.56, at least at 5.1 ghz (1.340v Bios set @ LLC "Turbo").

And um, your chip is above average. That's almost exactly what I need. You should be happy you have a better than average chip. Just your VID falls off a bit at x52 compared to mine and @criskoe 's chip

Mine needs 1.234v load to pass Prime95 small FFT (No AVX) and CB R20 at 52/49 on core/cache. 112k avx disabled needs significantly more. Realbench needs about 1.250v-1.261v load to pass, so a bit more for RB. That's like at my borderline point (otherwise doesn't 'fail' in the program, just cpu cache l0 errors. if I could keep temps under 85C, it might pass at 1.243v load but I can't). So I can get there in RB at 1.390v Bios set, LLC 5. Pretty close to yours.

Your VID is a tiny bit slightly higher than mine. The x50 VID seems to be the same. The x52 VID seems to be about 20mv higher than mine. Criskoe's x52 VID is I think slightly lower than mine but his x53 stability seems to be identical to mine (mentioned below). That might explain why I can avoid L0's in prime and CB @ 1.234v load at x52, but you need more volts, but i can't avoid them in Realbench 2.56 without more volts. RB 2.56 needs more volts 

I'm guessing your chip, my chip and @criskoe 's chip are all very, very similar, with you having a worse x52 point. You're still much better than my crappy retail chip--which has the same VID at x52 as yours (1.325v) BUT REQUIRES >(more than) 1.310v load (VR VOUT on a Z490 aorus master) to pass Realbench 2.56 !!!!!

If you can find out what Bios voltage @ LLC6, and what load voltage you need to pass *five repeated loops* of cinebench r20 @ 5.3 ghz/4.9 cache (don't try 5.0 cache, going to be harder to pass), let us know. @criskoe and I could pass 1 single loop of Cinebench R20 at 5.3 ghz at 1.390v (Bios set) LLC6, and 5 repeated loops (I think it was) at 1.410v LLC6 (or 1.415v, I forgot). His chip and mine are very similar.

I'm curious what yours can pass in cinebench r20 at x53 / x49. See if you can pass 5 loops of R20 at x53/x49 at 1.430v (Bios set) LLC6. You should be able to. Watch the cooling. If necessary, set (in cpu internal power management) overtemperature limit to 110C.


----------



## ncpneto

Falkentyne said:


> I can't pass RB 2.56 @ 1.234v load. Only CB R20 and Prime95 small FFT (I only did 30 minute runs on each).
> 
> Realbench 2.56 is going to need about 20 more mv to pass than prime95 small FFT (No avx) or Cinebench R20 because the transients are worse. Also seems to run slightly hotter than small FFT or R20 too.
> Pretty strange because on my 9900k and Master, small FFT (No avx) and cinebench R20 I think ran slightly hotter than RB 2.56, at least at 5.1 ghz (1.340v Bios set @ LLC "Turbo").
> 
> And um, your chip is above average. That's almost exactly what I need. You should be happy you have a better than average chip. Just your VID falls off a bit at x52 compared to mine and @criskoe 's chip
> 
> Mine needs 1.234v load to pass Prime95 small FFT (No AVX) and CB R20 at 52/49 on core/cache. 112k avx disabled needs significantly more. Realbench needs about 1.250v-1.261v load to pass, so a bit more for RB. That's like at my borderline point (otherwise doesn't 'fail' in the program, just cpu cache l0 errors. if I could keep temps under 85C, it might pass at 1.243v load but I can't). So I can get there in RB at 1.390v Bios set, LLC 5. Pretty close to yours.
> 
> Your VID is a tiny bit slightly higher than mine. The x50 VID seems to be the same. The x52 VID seems to be about 20mv higher than mine. Criskoe's x52 VID is I think slightly lower than mine but his x53 stability seems to be identical to mine (mentioned below). That might explain why I can avoid L0's in prime and CB @ 1.234v load at x52, but you need more volts, but i can't avoid them in Realbench 2.56 without more volts. RB 2.56 needs more volts
> 
> I'm guessing your chip, my chip and @criskoe 's chip are all very, very similar, with you having a worse x52 point. You're still much better than my crappy retail chip--which has the same VID at x52 as yours (1.325v) BUT REQUIRES >(more than) 1.310v load (VR VOUT on a Z490 aorus master) to pass Realbench 2.56 !!!!!
> 
> If you can find out what Bios voltage @ LLC6, and what load voltage you need to pass *five repeated loops* of cinebench r20 @ 5.3 ghz/4.9 cache (don't try 5.0 cache, going to be harder to pass), let us know. @criskoe and I could pass 1 single loop of Cinebench R20 at 5.3 ghz at 1.390v (Bios set) LLC6, and 5 repeated loops (I think it was) at 1.410v LLC6 (or 1.415v, I forgot). His chip and mine are very similar.
> 
> I'm curious what yours can pass in cinebench r20 at x53 / x49. See if you can pass 5 loops of R20 at x53/x49 at 1.430v (Bios set) LLC6. You should be able to. Watch the cooling. If necessary, set (in cpu internal power management) overtemperature limit to 110C.


Unfortunately, my 10900k isn't able to run at 5.3GHz. I was able to pass Cinebench R20 only 3 loops at [email protected] (1.376 load voltage). Max temp was 94c (ambient 27.5c). I got 1 error at pass #1, 2 errors at pass #2 and #3, and then R20 crashed... Only (maybe) a cooler room temperature to improve this scenario.


----------



## Circaflex

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> To bin the IMC, the only simple way is to buy an MSI Z490 board, use “Memory Force” to fix a ram signal level, say 27 clicks, fix VCCIO to 1.35V, and find out what kind of VCCSA your processor needs to control that ram signal level.
> 
> Or you can compare the ram signal level of your sticks with others, under the same ram oc sittings.


Can you elaborate more on Memory Force? I see this option in the bios, but I cannot find much information through search. There doesnt seem to be any settings for it in the BIOS in my case, it just shows a little progress bar type thing.


----------



## Falkentyne

ncpneto said:


> Unfortunately, my 10900k isn't able to run at 5.3GHz. I was able to pass Cinebench R20 only 3 loops at [email protected] (1.376 load voltage). Max temp was 94c (ambient 27.5c). I got 1 error at pass #1, 2 errors at pass #2 and #3, and then R20 crashed... Only (maybe) a cooler room temperature to improve this scenario.


What cooling are you using?


----------



## ncpneto

3x360mm


I might be able to run 5.3ghz if I delid it or go for direct die cooling.


----------



## criskoe

ncpneto said:


> 3x360mm
> 
> 
> I might be able to run 5.3ghz if I delid it or go for direct die cooling.


What CPU block are you using?


----------



## criskoe

ncpneto said:


> Hello experts!
> 
> I just got a 10900K and I have a doubt about the minimum load voltage required to run it at 52/49x.
> 
> From my tests I need at least 1.279 load voltage to have no errors and, from what I read in this forum thread, it seems a little high.
> 
> BIOS information (Apex):
> 
> SP score = 83
> Non AVX V req = 1.369v
> AVX V req = 1.397v
> Cache V req = 1.293v
> 
> Vcore = 1.395v (manual)
> LLC = 6
> 
> Memory still at Intel specs @ 2933mhz
> vccio = 0.950
> vccsa = 1,050
> 
> VID = 1.335v (24A) - 52/49x
> VID = 1.220v (24A) - 50/47x
> 
> I performed the following tests at an ambient temperature of 27c:
> 
> 15min of R20 (about 20 loops);
> 1 hour of P95 small FFTs - non AVX
> 
> Max CPU Current = 214A
> Max CPU pkg pwr = 309W
> Max Temp = 83c
> 
> I can run both tests from 1.234 to 1.270 load voltages and get a few errors: 1 to 3, but it is completely stable only at 1.279v.
> 
> 
> Is this load voltage within the expected range? For example, I read that @Falkentyne can run the same tests without errors starting at 1.234v.
> 
> Thank you very much for your help!


This voltage doesnt seem that high. Like falkentyne said your not too far off our above avg chips. In fact I feel like ive now seem more chips that are worse from people. You also have to remember that everyone has a different set of rules for what is stable. Some people dont run their stress tests for that long at all. Or their choice of stress test used is limited. Or the are just shooting bench score stable. I can concur with falkentyne that for some reason realbench requires more then P95 or cineb for some reason on this platform at 5.2 or higher. Not really sure why as this wasnt the case for 9th gen for me. 

And not to make things more confusing but your VCCIO and VCCSA will also play a role in stability as well. I wasnt able to pin down a exact formula but I am certain that these values change stability in certain situations. Even with out high ram OCs

Anyways with that being said, I wouldnt call your bad at all. But If you have found your not happy with what youve gotten in the lottery, there is not really many other options then rolling the dice and trying another CPU. Or just paying through the teeth and buying from a company that has already binned one to a value of your liking.


----------



## tiefox

cstkl1 said:


> Is dat from the thai dude??


Yep!


----------



## Esenel

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> Generally, if your current board cant reach 4600 with SR b-die, it is the board that limits the ram OC.


My Formula is doing 4533 -17-18-18-38-340 with 2x8.
4600 wasn't plug and play.
The sticks would be capable of 4600-17-18.

Still would love to see someone doing 4300-4500 4x8 😕

Do you know someone?


----------



## ThrashZone

Esenel said:


> My Formula is doing 4533 -17-18-18-38-340 with 2x8.
> 4600 wasn't plug and play.
> The sticks would be capable of 4600-17-18.
> 
> Still would love to see someone doing 4300-4500 4x8 😕
> 
> Do you know someone?


https://www.overclock.net/forum/28486458-post12645.html


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

Circaflex said:


> Can you elaborate more on Memory Force? I see this option in the bios, but I cannot find much information through search. There doesnt seem to be any settings for it in the BIOS in my case, it just shows a little progress bar type thing.


Run 2133 and get the length for the best case value, then there are following uses IMO:

1. Test which slot has better signal by using the same stick under the same parameters.
2. Bin the ram sticks using the same slot under the same parameters.

Then you can try to pair the best slot with your weaker stick, and the weakest slot with your best stick, you might be able to get higher freq.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

Esenel said:


> My Formula is doing 4533 -17-18-18-38-340 with 2x8.
> 4600 wasn't plug and play.
> The sticks would be capable of 4600-17-18.
> 
> Still would love to see someone doing 4300-4500 4x8 😕
> 
> Do you know someone?





ThrashZone said:


> https://www.overclock.net/forum/28486458-post12645.html


Thanks buddy.

For 4-DIMM, based on my experience, you will need much higher IO than 2-DIMM case for 4266+, like 1.45V or higher.

If you are OCing on Z390, the best case I've seen other people did is 4600 16-16. I have attached the picture with the forum logo on it.

On Z490, due to daisy chain, it is better to OC 2x16GB rather than 4x8GB. I don't see anyone done 4x8GB 4500+ with stability test yet. Somebody has done 4400 17-18 with 12min AIDA64 MEM test on Z490 Aorus Master.

TOPPC claims Z490 Godlike can do 4x8GB 4600 MT, but I have not seen anyone did that.


----------



## ThrashZone

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> Thanks buddy.
> 
> For 4-DIMM, based on my experience, you will need much higher IO than 2-DIMM case for 4266+, like 1.45V or higher.
> 
> If you are OCing on Z390, the best case I've seen other people did 4600 16-16. I have attached the picture with the forum logo on it.
> 
> On Z490, due to daisy chain, it is better to OC 2x16GB rather than 4x8GB. I don't see anyone done 4x8GB 4500+ with stability test yet. Somebody has done 4400 17-18 with 12min AIDA64 MEM test on Z490 Aorus Master.
> 
> TOPPC claims Z490 Godlike can do 4x8GB 4600 MT, but I have not seen anyone did that.


Hi,
No problem that's nice 2x16 kit you have there too bad it's 450.us with tax or I'd scoop it up


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> No problem that's nice 2x16 kit you have there too bad it's 450.us with tax or I'd scoop it up


Yeah. Since they have unlocked DR b-die, its a better choice to get one 2x16GB b-die kit. 2x16GB 3200C14 b-die kit can already do 4500 17-18 @1.5V with very good performance, and only costs around 220-250 usd.


----------



## Falkentyne

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> Yeah. Since they have unlocked DR b-die, its a better choice to get one 2x16GB b-die kit. 2x16GB 3200C14 b-die kit can already do 4500 17-18 @1.5V with very good performance, and only costs around 220-250 usd.


My 3200 CL14 2x16 gskill kit I bought two years ago absolutely cannot come close to that. 4300 CL 19-19-39 2T at 1.55v can load windows but throws instant testmem5 errors in the hundreds instantly on run.
Maybe A2 PCB might be able to do something like that. Shamino said mine are like old PCB that can't clock high since they were bought right when 9900k first came out. I'm limited to 15/15/36 @ 3733 or 16/16/36 @ 3866. Anything higher is impossible to stabilize without atrocious timings and voltages.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

Falkentyne said:


> My 3200 CL14 2x16 gskill kit I bought two years ago absolutely cannot come close to that. 4300 CL 19-19-39 2T at 1.55v can load windows but throws instant testmem5 errors in the hundreds instantly on run.
> Maybe A2 PCB might be able to do something like that. Shamino said mine are like old PCB that can't clock high since they were bought right when 9900k first came out. I'm limited to 15/15/36 @ 3733 or 16/16/36 @ 3866. Anything higher is impossible to stabilize without atrocious timings and voltages.


They did that with a 3200C14 kit produced in the 21st week of 2020 so it should definitely be the new PCB.

Different PCBs require different detailed parameters to run so probably they will not work on some earlier PCB layouts.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

Falkentyne said:


> My 3200 CL14 2x16 gskill kit I bought two years ago absolutely cannot come close to that. 4300 CL 19-19-39 2T at 1.55v can load windows but throws instant testmem5 errors in the hundreds instantly on run.
> Maybe A2 PCB might be able to do something like that. Shamino said mine are like old PCB that can't clock high since they were bought right when 9900k first came out. I'm limited to 15/15/36 @ 3733 or 16/16/36 @ 3866. Anything higher is impossible to stabilize without atrocious timings and voltages.


Try this DR G.Skill ODT, maybe helpful

wr 80
nom 34
park 120


----------



## ncpneto

criskoe said:


> This voltage doesnt seem that high. Like falkentyne said your not too far off our above avg chips. In fact I feel like ive now seem more chips that are worse from people. You also have to remember that everyone has a different set of rules for what is stable. Some people dont run their stress tests for that long at all. Or their choice of stress test used is limited. Or the are just shooting bench score stable. I can concur with falkentyne that for some reason realbench requires more then P95 or cineb for some reason on this platform at 5.2 or higher. Not really sure why as this wasnt the case for 9th gen for me.
> 
> And not to make things more confusing but your VCCIO and VCCSA will also play a role in stability as well. I wasnt able to pin down a exact formula but I am certain that these values change stability in certain situations. Even with out high ram OCs
> 
> Anyways with that being said, I wouldnt call your bad at all. But If you have found your not happy with what youve gotten in the lottery, there is not really many other options then rolling the dice and trying another CPU. Or just paying through the teeth and buying from a company that has already binned one to a value of your liking.





My CPU block is an EK-Velocity but, after reading your comments, I also think that the limit is not in the cooling system, since the maximum temperature is around 83c (27c room temp) on P95 (small non-avx ffts) for 1 hour at 5.2ghz.

To improve this is exactly what you said: "rolling the dice and trying another CPU".

I was hoping my chip would get at least 5.2GHz, which is what I got with my previous 9900k. So I'll keep this chip!

I thank you and @Falkentyne very much for your help!

Now I’m going to move on with the memory. I don't really like to mess with them, but let's see what I can get!


I have 2 kits to test:
2x16gb Galax HoF 4000cl19 and 2x16 GSkill Trident Z Royal 4000cl17


We'll see which one overclocks better.


----------



## Falkentyne

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> Try this DR G.Skill ODT, maybe helpful
> 
> wr 80
> nom 34
> park 120


Tried this at 3733, 15/15/15/36...

Instant crash. All 112k avx disabled prime95 threads crashed instantly, windows search service terminated then got irql bsod trying to reboot.
Almost destroyed my operating system, man. This is my video gaming system!!


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Restore a system image smart azz lol


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> Yeah. Since they have unlocked DR b-die, its a better choice to get one 2x16GB b-die kit. 2x16GB 3200C14 b-die kit can already do 4500 17-18 @1.5V with very good performance, and only costs around 220-250 usd.


Would you mind elaborating on what you mean by unlocking dr b-die?


----------



## Falkentyne

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Restore a system image smart azz lol


Piss off you low IQ lazy teenage bum brat. I had to take you off to ignore to read your worthless comment, so back you go. Go back to complaining about CAP files and bioses and get the hell out of MY thread you worthless little humocolous. (funny how people think I didn't make a system restore point first).


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

Falkentyne said:


> Tried this at 3733, 15/15/15/36...
> 
> Instant crash. All 112k avx disabled prime95 threads crashed instantly, windows search service terminated then got irql bsod trying to reboot.
> Almost destroyed my operating system, man. This is my video gaming system!!


have you tried 60/60/60/60/40/40?


----------



## Falkentyne

XGS-Duplicity said:


> have you tried 60/60/60/60/40/40?


Not trying anything anymore after what I just experienced.
Never in my life have I seen something so massively unstable...

I know nothing about memory overclocking and frankly I don't want to anymore. I do better just copying other people's timings and then seeing if my favorite 112k-112k avx disabled prime95 test passes. That's my test I discovered all by myself and I'm proud of it, while everyone else is running Memtestpro, HCI and Karhu. I get to be my own self.

I just reloaded the original profile, reduced DDR voltage from 1.475v to 1.425v, DDR VTT from .7375v to .7215v, and now 112k AVX disabled prime95 lasted 30 minutes. Now that wasn't hard. No messing around with weird PCB level mystical values I don't understand anymore for me. I don't like dealing with memory overclocking. CPU's are fun. Having all your prime95 threads insta-crash, you windows screen blink on and off like you're trapped in Silent Hill followed by a BSOD with no dump file created is ABSOLUTELY NOT FUN!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Talon2016

Testing 4x8gb 4400Mhz CL19 Trident Z sticks at 4000Mhz CL15-16-16-36-400 on my Z490 Hero. Mode 2 seems to work fine at 1.5v DRAM, 1.2 VCCIO/1.215v VCCSA. Did a memtest last night no issues, Realbench 2.56 stressed for an hour, no issues in BFV/BF1 which crash with unstable memory hella fast. I'll probably stop tweaking after this since I am chasing such small gains for possible instability or corruption. 

Model F4-4400C19D-16GTZKK -- Nice to see these have come way down in price. I paid $360 in 2018 for a kit, and $260 for another kit in 2019.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

Falkentyne said:


> Tried this at 3733, 15/15/15/36...
> 
> Instant crash. All 112k avx disabled prime95 threads crashed instantly, windows search service terminated then got irql bsod trying to reboot.
> Almost destroyed my operating system, man. This is my video gaming system!!


Then it might be something else...


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

XGS-Duplicity said:


> Would you mind elaborating on what you mean by unlocking dr b-die?


The timing settings you see are only a portion related to the ram. There are other parameters the motherboard vendors need to adjust, for the signal quality of the ram die, the motherboard, the IMC, etc..

You can try those by yourself but will waste you a lot of time.


----------



## Falkentyne

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> The timing settings you see are only a portion related to the ram. There are other parameters the motherboard vendors need to adjust, for the signal quality of the ram die, the motherboard, the IMC, etc..
> 
> You can try those by yourself but will waste you a lot of time.


I probably bought the worst possible Gskill 3200 CL14 dual rank b-die on the market. Too bad that was the only 2x16 GB available then and it was $350 back then, in late 2008.
Waiting for some decent 2x16 non-gskill good binned z490 b-die. Like...with a good PCB. Doesn't gskill suck at binning? I want teamgroup to make some 2x16 bins. They have some stuff but seems to only be available from OCUK...


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

Falkentyne said:


> I probably bought the worst possible Gskill 3200 CL14 dual rank b-die on the market. Too bad that was the only 2x16 GB available then and it was $350 back then, in late 2008.
> Waiting for some decent 2x16 non-gskill good binned z490 b-die. Like...with a good PCB. Doesn't gskill suck at binning? I want teamgroup to make some 2x16 bins. They have some stuff but seems to only be available from OCUK...


Someone recently showed the new gskill 2x16gb CL14 3200 bdie kit hits c16 4333 on z490, i forget which board though.


----------



## Falkentyne

Talon2016 said:


> Testing 4x8gb 4400Mhz CL19 Trident Z sticks at 4000Mhz CL15-16-16-36-400 on my Z490 Hero. Mode 2 seems to work fine at 1.5v DRAM, 1.2 VCCIO/1.215v VCCSA. Did a memtest last night no issues, Realbench 2.56 stressed for an hour, no issues in BFV/BF1 which crash with unstable memory hella fast. I'll probably stop tweaking after this since I am chasing such small gains for possible instability or corruption.
> 
> Model F4-4400C19D-16GTZKK -- Nice to see these have come way down in price. I paid $360 in 2018 for a kit, and $260 for another kit in 2019.


Battlefield 5 crashed my "Stable" Vega64 1700/1100 with -24mv P7 undervolt last night. Had to go down to -21mv. Battlefield 5 loves to crash anything. Especially your overclocks when you join a map and your all CPU core load jumps to 100% and if you aren't fully stable at 5.3 ghz....."CPU Cache L0 error" (or even a BSOD)...

I had to backup my settings folder because it got wiped before after a BSOD trying to load a map....Now I just re-copy my settings back when I see myself back at 60hz, WASD and non-inverted mouse after a BSOD  I use ESDF and inverted mouse.


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

I'll still give my money to gskill, patriot/teamgroup/hyperx don't even have products for sale that suit my needs. Corsair would be the runner up to gskill for me since they've got products that suit my needs but they are way overpriced and loose bins.


----------



## Falkentyne

XGS-Duplicity said:


> Someone recently showed the new gskill 2x16gb CL14 3200 bdie kit hits c16 4333 on z490, i forget which board though.


Probably A2 pcb. Shamino told me about that. Mine's not A2. I want one, though. (I'd be happy if I had something that could do 2x16 GB, 4000 mhz, 16/16/16/38, 1T).

Might explain why it's so hard to push these. I can't even run thaiphoon burner on it because it says "no valid SPD Eeprom". Yeah. Memory overclocking, man. 
Maybe I'll throw my hdd with my z490 gigabyte aorus master windows install into the M12E and go crazy with unstable memory on a disk I don't care about. What happens if you have two windows boot manager partitions on two different drives? Can you set one as active without it touching the other drive or messing something up? But I hate memory overclocking and I hate having to sit around playing on my laptop all day. (can't use my aorus master z490 as a backup because I have no disk drives left for it).


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

Falkentyne said:


> Probably A2 pcb. Shamino told me about that. Mine's not A2. I want one, though. (I'd be happy if I had something that could do 2x16 GB, 4000 mhz, 16/16/16/38, 1T).
> 
> Might explain why it's so hard to push these. I can't even run thaiphoon burner on it because it says "no valid SPD Eeprom". Yeah. Memory overclocking, man.
> Maybe I'll throw my hdd with my z490 gigabyte aorus master windows install into the M12E and go crazy with unstable memory on a disk I don't care about. What happens if you have two windows boot manager partitions on two different drives? Can you set one as active without it touching the other drive or messing something up? But I hate memory overclocking and I hate having to sit around playing on my laptop all day. (can't use my aorus master z490 as a backup because I have no disk drives left for it).


I recently read somewhere that thaiphoon burner misreports PCB type for alot of gskill, reporting as A0 pcb. THing is, A0 isn't used for RGB sticks if I recall correctly. If your sticks are trident z rgb, they are more than likely A2. I don't know anything about using multiple windows installs or how that stuff works. I just know that when I screw around too much overclocking my ram, sometimes I gotta reinstall windows LOL.


----------



## Falkentyne

XGS-Duplicity said:


> I recently read somewhere that thaiphoon burner misreports PCB type for alot of gskill, reporting as A0 pcb. THing is, A0 isn't used for RGB sticks if I recall correctly. If your sticks are trident z rgb, they are more than likely A2. I don't know anything about using multiple windows installs or how that stuff works. I just know that when I screw around too much, sometimes I gotta reinstall windows LOL.


I can't even run thaiphoon burner. Says no supported SMBUS or eeprom or something. And there's an update for registered users only.
Thaiphoon works on my Z490 Aorus Master though but I'm not pulling my sticks out to check them, but I checked my 2x8 GB 4000 Steel Vipers which are A0. Already seeing wear marks on the Gskill sticks from too many insertions and I already know from Nintendo DS carts what happens when wear marks get bad...


----------



## SoldierRBT

SP78 10900K 5.2GHz 1.270v underload quick 30 mins prime95 small FFTs. Tested 5 mins at 5.3GHz 1.35v underload.


----------



## criskoe

SoldierRBT said:


> SP78 10900K 5.2GHz 1.270v underload quick 30 mins prime95 small FFTs. Tested 5 mins at 5.3GHz 1.35v underload.


Nice dude. What are you using for cooling?


----------



## SoldierRBT

criskoe said:


> Nice dude. What are you using for cooling?


I'm using strong water cooling. MO-RA3 420 with 8x Noctua NF-A20 (200mm) fans


----------



## Falkentyne

SoldierRBT said:


> I'm using strong water cooling. MO-RA3 420 with 8x Noctua NF-A20 (200mm) fans


200mm fans....wow i didn't even know you could buy those for cooling...


----------



## criskoe

SoldierRBT said:


> I'm using strong water cooling. MO-RA3 420 with 8x Noctua NF-A20 (200mm) fans


Nice man. Mind sharing what CPU block?


----------



## SoldierRBT

criskoe said:


> Nice man. Mind sharing what CPU block?


Here's the list
MO-RA3 420 PRO
8x Noctua NF-A20
Heatkiller D5 Combo
Heatkiller IV Pro Copper/Nickel
EK fittings and soft tubing

I'm impress by this new 10900K. they run cooler than my 9900K. Even 1.270v underload on the 9900K will hit low 90s and I'm able to keep the 10900K below 80C at the same voltage. I got another 10900K SP85 will do 5.2GHz at the same voltage but runs 3-4C hotter and won't do 5.3GHz even 1.368v will crash.


----------



## Falkentyne

SoldierRBT said:


> Here's the list
> MO-RA3 420 PRO
> 8x Noctua NF-A20
> Heatkiller D5 Combo
> Heatkiller IV Pro Copper/Nickel
> EK fittings and soft tubing
> 
> I'm impress by this new 10900K. they run cooler than my 9900K. Even 1.270v underload on the 9900K will hit low 90s and I'm able to keep the 10900K below 80C at the same voltage. I got another 10900K SP85 will do 5.2GHz at the same voltage but runs 3-4C hotter and won't do 5.3GHz even 1.368v will crash.


Interesting different VID calibrations. Your higher SP chip clocks lower than the SP 78 (which can do 1.350v load @ 5.3 ghz?)
What's the VID on your chip that won't do 5.3 @ 1.368v load (at idle, 29C, etc?).


----------



## SoldierRBT

Falkentyne said:


> Interesting different VID calibrations. Your higher SP chip clocks lower than the SP 78 (which can do 1.350v load @ 5.3 ghz?)
> What's the VID on your chip that won't do 5.3 @ 1.368v load (at idle, 29C, etc?).


I didn't check the VID before swapping them. The SP85 showed WHEA errors when running CB R15 at 1.359v where the SP78 would show WHEA errors at around 1.305v underload. Also, The SP85 has worse IMC, I get random 55 code even with 1.45v SA with my 4400MHZ CL17 profile. The SP78 is solid at 1.375v SA.


----------



## ncpneto

SoldierRBT said:


> SP78 10900K 5.2GHz 1.270v underload quick 30 mins prime95 small FFTs. Tested 5 mins at 5.3GHz 1.35v underload.



Nice temps!
What was your room temperature?


I wonder why your cpu power consumption is so lower than mine. Probably because of ambient temp?!
Please, take a look at mine 20min P95 Small FFTs - NonAVX stress test: (still tuning ram voltages)


----------



## SoldierRBT

ncpneto said:


> Nice temps!
> What was your room temperature?
> 
> 
> I wonder why your cpu power consumption is so lower than mine. Probably because of ambient temp?!
> Please, take a look at mine 20min P95 Small FFTs - NonAVX stress test: (still tuning ram voltages)


My room temperature is 24-25c. Power consumption (Watts) can vary from chip to chip. There's a 10W difference (276W vs 287W) from the 2 10900K I have running at the same speed/voltage. It also depends on the temp (higher temp will give higher power consumption) and leakage. I'm not sure if high IO/SA voltage increase CPU power consumption. Try lower ram settings and set 1.05v/1.10v IO/SA and check power consumption.


----------



## Betroz

@Falkentyne : Have you seen any improvement in Battlefield 5 performance going from your old 9900K to the 10900K? Does the 2 extra cores boost fps, or is it just more Mhz that matter?


----------



## newls1

ncpneto said:


> Nice temps!
> What was your room temperature?
> 
> 
> I wonder why your cpu power consumption is so lower than mine. Probably because of ambient temp?!
> Please, take a look at mine 20min P95 Small FFTs - NonAVX stress test: (still tuning ram voltages)


holy SA/IO voltage batman!! Why so HIGH?


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
That's what presets do crank them both up.


----------



## Falkentyne

Betroz said:


> @Falkentyne : Have you seen any improvement in Battlefield 5 performance going from your old 9900K to the 10900K? Does the 2 extra cores boost fps, or is it just more Mhz that matter?


I didn't run any benchmarks, so I don't know. By feel or playability, no, and if something goes from 150 fps to 155 fps, you're not going to notice that when tanks and explosions are going off and someone shoots you in the eyeballs. BF5 doesn't need 20 threads. 9900k is more than enough for this game.


----------



## Falkentyne

newls1 said:


> holy SA/IO voltage batman!! Why so HIGH?


He's at 4500 17/17/38. Pretty aggressive, but seeing subtimings would be nice too. May not need 1.5v but I can see 1.4v being required. I've already seen 5000 mhz requiring 1.6v VCCSA.


----------



## Falkentyne

SoldierRBT said:


> My room temperature is 24-25c. Power consumption (Watts) can vary from chip to chip. There's a 10W difference (276W vs 287W) from the 2 10900K I have running at the same speed/voltage. It also depends on the temp (higher temp will give higher power consumption) and leakage. I'm not sure if high IO/SA voltage increase CPU power consumption. Try lower ram settings and set 1.05v/1.10v IO/SA and check power consumption.


That's true. It's common for chips that clock better to draw more power at exact same voltage/speed/loadline. Although Asus EC must be used to measure this because CPU Package Power is influenced by VID * Amps, not by what the CPU is actually pulling, as only amps is directly related to that.

Soldier, in Asus EC, did your worse chip (the one crashing at 5.3 ghz) use less power at the same vcore load than the better chip?


----------



## newls1

Falkentyne said:


> He's at 4500 17/17/38. Pretty aggressive, but seeing subtimings would be nice too. May not need 1.5v but I can see 1.4v being required. I've already seen 5000 mhz requiring 1.6v VCCSA.


ahhh, knew there had to be a reason :specool:


----------



## SoldierRBT

Falkentyne said:


> That's true. It's common for chips that clock better to draw more power at exact same voltage/speed/loadline. Although Asus EC must be used to measure this because CPU Package Power is influenced by VID * Amps, not by what the CPU is actually pulling, as only amps is directly related to that.
> 
> Soldier, in Asus EC, did your worse chip (the one crashing at 5.3 ghz) use less power at the same vcore load than the better chip?


The worse (SP85) runs about 10W higher and 3-4C hotter than the SP78 at the same speed/voltage. I wonder why it has higher SP. It probably needs lower voltage at 5-5.1GHz which I haven't tested. I'm gonna do more testing next week when I get another 10900K.


----------



## cstkl1

Betroz said:


> @Falkentyne : Have you seen any improvement in Battlefield 5 performance going from your old 9900K to the 10900K? Does the 2 extra cores boost fps, or is it just more Mhz that matter?


Just on gaming
Cores/thread speed

The game i only play is vermintide 2..
2080ti.. the gpu clock wont effect the game as much as cpu
Fps mention now will be at the Keep
7820x mesH 32 4.7ghz 4kc17 .. 13x-160
9900x mesh 30 4.5ghz 3733c17 15x-190
8700k @5.1 3400c17 2xx-270
10700k @5.1 4kc17 3xx-370

10900k?? Dis is y i got NEED dat cpu. For dis game.


----------



## SuperMumrik

My 5Ghz-3,3mesh,4000c16 tuned 7820x and 5Ghz 9900k-46ring, 4266c16 tuned was equal in bf with low settings with ultra mesh on [email protected]/900(1440p). 5,4Ghz-4,9ring with 4700c17 tuned 10900k are substantially faster in every aspect. Max, min and avg are waay higher (between 220-300fps for most part)


----------



## Betroz

SuperMumrik said:


> My 5Ghz-3,3mesh,4000c16 tuned 7820x and 5Ghz 9900k-46ring, 4266c16 tuned was equal in bf with low settings with ultra mesh on [email protected]/900(1440p). 5,4Ghz-4,9ring with 4700c17 tuned 10900k are substantially faster in every aspect. Max, min and avg are waay higher (between 220-300fps for most part)


Yes, but propably your 10900K is faster because you run the cores 400 Mhz faster. Having said that, the two extra cores SHOULD make some difference since BF5 multiplayer is using alot of threads. But as Falkentyne said, not all 20 of them (most of the time anyways). The 10900K with HT off vs 9900K with HT off in this game would be interesting to test.

Edit : and faster RAM speeds in your 10900K rig.


----------



## Nizzen

Betroz said:


> SuperMumrik said:
> 
> 
> 
> My 5Ghz-3,3mesh,4000c16 tuned 7820x and 5Ghz 9900k-46ring, 4266c16 tuned was equal in bf with low settings with ultra mesh on [email protected]/900(1440p). 5,4Ghz-4,9ring with 4700c17 tuned 10900k are substantially faster in every aspect. Max, min and avg are waay higher (between 220-300fps for most part)
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but propably your 10900K is faster because you run the cores 400 Mhz faster. Having said that, the two extra cores SHOULD make some difference since BF5 multiplayer is using alot of threads. But as Falkentyne said, not all 20 of them (most of the time anyways). The 10900K with HT off vs 9900K with HT off in this game would be interesting to test.
> 
> Edit : and faster RAM speeds in your 10900K rig.
Click to expand...

Compare the fps with my screens:
1080p dx12 ultra mesh, low the rest. Standard config file.
64 multiplayer


----------



## Esenel

You can say with the new 10900K + OC RAM a constant 195 FPS can be achieved.
With the 9900K it was on the edge.


----------



## Betroz

Esenel said:


> You can say with the new 10900K + OC RAM a constant 195 FPS can be achieved.
> With the 9900K it was on the edge.


Have you done that with HT off on the 10900K in BF5 aswell? Would be interesting to see the difference in performance.


----------



## Nizzen

Esenel said:


> You can say with the new 10900K + OC RAM a constant 195 FPS can be achieved.
> With the 9900K it was on the edge.


I'm getting higher fps with dx 12 with 20 series gpu's.
11 series gpu's works best with dx11.

Dx 12 is "shader buffering" at first. After a while the performance is great. Dx 12 likes sometimes overlays to be turned off. Like origin overlay.


----------



## Esenel

Nizzen said:


> Esenel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can say with the new 10900K + OC RAM a constant 195 FPS can be achieved.
> With the 9900K it was on the edge.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm getting higher fps with dx 12 with 20 series gpu's.
> 11 series gpu's works best with dx11.
> 
> Dx 12 is "shader buffering" at first. After a while the performance is great. Dx 12 likes sometimes overlays to be turned off. Like origin overlay.
Click to expand...

Higher yes.
But I think you get a more constant experience with DX11.
Less drops.


----------



## Nizzen

Esenel said:


> Nizzen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esenel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can say with the new 10900K + OC RAM a constant 195 FPS can be achieved.
> With the 9900K it was on the edge.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm getting higher fps with dx 12 with 20 series gpu's.
> 11 series gpu's works best with dx11.
> 
> Dx 12 is "shader buffering" at first. After a while the performance is great. Dx 12 likes sometimes overlays to be turned off. Like origin overlay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Higher yes.
> But I think you get a more constant experience with DX11.
> Less drops.
Click to expand...

No drops here 🙂


----------



## Esenel

Nizzen said:


> Esenel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nizzen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esenel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can say with the new 10900K + OC RAM a constant 195 FPS can be achieved.
> With the 9900K it was on the edge.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm getting higher fps with dx 12 with 20 series gpu's.
> 11 series gpu's works best with dx11.
> 
> Dx 12 is "shader buffering" at first. After a while the performance is great. Dx 12 likes sometimes overlays to be turned off. Like origin overlay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Higher yes.
> But I think you get a more constant experience with DX11.
> Less drops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No drops here 🙂
Click to expand...

😮
Lucky you 😉

I find Metro with DX12 unplayable.


----------



## Nizzen

Esenel said:


> Nizzen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esenel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nizzen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esenel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can say with the new 10900K + OC RAM a constant 195 FPS can be achieved.
> With the 9900K it was on the edge.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm getting higher fps with dx 12 with 20 series gpu's.
> 11 series gpu's works best with dx11.
> 
> Dx 12 is "shader buffering" at first. After a while the performance is great. Dx 12 likes sometimes overlays to be turned off. Like origin overlay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Higher yes.
> But I think you get a more constant experience with DX11.
> Less drops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No drops here 🙂
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 😮
> Lucky you 😉
> 
> I find Metro with DX12 unplayable.
Click to expand...

Format c:\ 

Something is wrong with youre computer.


----------



## opt33

It will be interesting to see when 3080ti comes out if 1440p/4k still mostly gpu bound or if 10900k or rocket lake if out, or ryzen 4000 makes a significant difference.


----------



## Nizzen

opt33 said:


> It will be interesting to see when 3080ti comes out if 1440p/4k still mostly gpu bound or if 10900k or rocket lake if out, or ryzen 4000 makes a significant difference.


1440p is already the new 1080p in many games with 2080ti 

I'm cpubound in BF V with 2x 2080ti in 4k dx11


----------



## ThrashZone

Nizzen said:


> 1440p is already the new 1080p in many games with 2080ti
> 
> I'm cpubound in BF V with 2x 2080ti in 4k dx11


Hi,
I'm wallet bound lol wish I have your deep pockets to sli 2080ti/..


----------



## Betroz

Nizzen said:


> I'm cpubound in BF V with 2x 2080ti in 4k dx11


Yes, with that slow 7980XE CPU at only 4600 Mhz...


----------



## opt33

Nizzen said:


> 1440p is already the new 1080p in many games with 2080ti
> 
> I'm cpubound in BF V with 2x 2080ti in 4k dx11


with 2x 2080ti not surprised cpu bound at 1440p  With my single lonely 2080ti ftw I didnt see much increase in fps in 4 games I play/benchmarked when upgraded from broadwell e 4.3ghz/3200c16 ram to 9900k 5ghz with 4133C16. and the few reviews didnt show much difference either at 1440P, but granted most reviews use 3200c16 ram which is unfortunate for true comparison sake. 

Just hope when 3080ti comes out, reviewers do better benchmarking with fully Oc'ed cpus and some higher end ram on cpus that can handle it...maybe convince some ram manufacturer to supply to promote sales, if it shows benefit....so I can tell which cpu I want when 3080ti with waterblock is available, should be ryzen 4000 vs 10900k/rocket lake vs keep 9900k.


----------



## Sleakcavi

I'm back...thanks to the help of folks here and other sources I've locked in my overclock for now. Settled at 5.3/4.8 and using my 4266mhz trident royal z ram that I tweaked quite a bit. I just received a Optimus Waterblock today and installed it and wow is it better than my corsair one (no surprise there) better mounting and my temps are waaaayyyy down. I attached a SS of how temps look in the middle of a run. I did pull off a 5.4ghz run in R20 with a load voltage around 1.3V and temps were still in the 80s but that was with 1.42V manual set in BIOS with LLC 6. It crashed in the middle of a blender run though so I need more voltage, I feel like I"m very close though.

Can someone please tell me what would be safe to run in the BIOS as far as LLC and manual voltage? Is LLC 7 safe for daily use? I don't want to experiment too much before I hear from some folks here but I would like to see what this chip can do now that I have a bit more headroom to play with thermally since I bought a better waterblock. Thanks!


----------



## cstkl1

opt33 said:


> with 2x 2080ti not surprised cpu bound at 1440p  With my single lonely 2080ti ftw I didnt see much increase in fps in 4 games I play/benchmarked when upgraded from broadwell e 4.3ghz/3200c16 ram to 9900k 5ghz with 4133C16. and the few reviews didnt show much difference either at 1440P, but granted most reviews use 3200c16 ram which is unfortunate for true comparison sake.
> 
> Just hope when 3080ti comes out, reviewers do better benchmarking with fully Oc'ed cpus and some higher end ram on cpus that can handle it...maybe convince some ram manufacturer to supply to promote sales, if it shows benefit....so I can tell which cpu I want when 3080ti with waterblock is available, should be ryzen 4000 vs 10900k/rocket lake vs keep 9900k.


99.5% reviewers are dumb
their overclock unstable
ram unstable or unoptimized (so its actually slower)

i wouldnt trust any of them except digital foundry who keeps it simple. and tells the truth.. "reviewa aint a simple min/max/average" .. you got to explain what you see during the benchmark.


----------



## newls1

Sleakcavi said:


> I'm back...thanks to the help of folks here and other sources I've locked in my overclock for now. Settled at 5.3/4.8 and using my 4266mhz trident royal z ram that I tweaked quite a bit. I just received a Optimus Waterblock today and installed it and wow is it better than my corsair one (no surprise there) better mounting and my temps are waaaayyyy down. I attached a SS of how temps look in the middle of a run. I did pull off a 5.4ghz run in R20 with a load voltage around 1.3V and temps were still in the 80s but that was with 1.42V manual set in BIOS with LLC 6. It crashed in the middle of a blender run though so I need more voltage, I feel like I"m very close though.
> 
> Can someone please tell me what would be safe to run in the BIOS as far as LLC and manual voltage? Is LLC 7 safe for daily use? I don't want to experiment too much before I hear from some folks here but I would like to see what this chip can do now that I have a bit more headroom to play with thermally since I bought a better waterblock. Thanks!


great chip you have there. I'd leave it alone now and enjoy it. To me, all looks just fine voltage wise. I run my 10900k @ 5.3 With 1.420 set in bios and LLC6 for a 1.32v @ load. You are way under that, so enjoy the great cpu you recieved.... BASTARD!!


----------



## Sleakcavi

newls1 said:


> great chip you have there. I'd leave it alone now and enjoy it. To me, all looks just fine voltage wise. I run my 10900k @ 5.3 With 1.420 set in bios and LLC6 for a 1.32v @ load. You are way under that, so enjoy the great cpu you recieved.... BASTARD!!


Its an SP 110 according to BIOS. I've been offered to take it off my hands already a few times. Not really willing to sell but it would be fun to see what it could do under LN2 or even chilled water. Someday I'll buy a chiller and figure it out... I guess I'll be happy with it at 5.3 and call it a day. I know I could do 5.4 but I don't think its worth the extra heat load or setting crazy idle voltage.


----------



## Falkentyne

Sleakcavi said:


> I'm back...thanks to the help of folks here and other sources I've locked in my overclock for now. Settled at 5.3/4.8 and using my 4266mhz trident royal z ram that I tweaked quite a bit. I just received a Optimus Waterblock today and installed it and wow is it better than my corsair one (no surprise there) better mounting and my temps are waaaayyyy down. I attached a SS of how temps look in the middle of a run. I did pull off a 5.4ghz run in R20 with a load voltage around 1.3V and temps were still in the 80s but that was with 1.42V manual set in BIOS with LLC 6. It crashed in the middle of a blender run though so I need more voltage, I feel like I"m very close though.
> 
> Can someone please tell me what would be safe to run in the BIOS as far as LLC and manual voltage? Is LLC 7 safe for daily use? I don't want to experiment too much before I hear from some folks here but I would like to see what this chip can do now that I have a bit more headroom to play with thermally since I bought a better waterblock. Thanks!


Are you worried about idle voltage?
LLC7 should be safe to use below 1.40v if you're on an Apex or Extreme, as long as you aren't stress testing 200 amp+ loads, but I wonder how the transients will worsen your minimum voltage floor required...


----------



## Falkentyne

Sleakcavi said:


> Its an SP 110 according to BIOS. I've been offered to take it off my hands already a few times. Not really willing to sell but it would be fun to see what it could do under LN2 or even chilled water. Someday I'll buy a chiller and figure it out... I guess I'll be happy with it at 5.3 and call it a day. I know I could do 5.4 but I don't think its worth the extra heat load or setting crazy idle voltage.


You can do 5.4 100% certain at 1.360v LLC6 with hyperthreading disabled. It will be 5.5 HT disabled that's going to be hard for you  You should disable HT and see how far you can go.
And no, don't bother with 5.4 HT enabled. Not worth risking degrading your chip when we don't even know what they can handle yet (all we know is that some SP63 chips want 1.5v LOAD VOLTAGE at 5.2 ghz. Yes...load voltage).

My SP 94 chip (seems to be about SP 88 capability, almost identical to @criskoe's chip) --the only reason it's SP94 is because 5.3 ghz has the exact same VF point as 5.2 ghz, which is odd but I've seen a few retails do that, including my crappy 10900k in my Gigabyte board right now) just did a Warzone run at 5.4 ghz/4.9, hyperthreading disabled, 1.410v Bios LLC6, in Warzone, no crashes stutters or issues.


----------



## SoldierRBT

Sleakcavi said:


> newls1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> great chip you have there. I'd leave it alone now and enjoy it. To me, all looks just fine voltage wise. I run my 10900k @ 5.3 With 1.420 set in bios and LLC6 for a 1.32v @ load. You are way under that, so enjoy the great cpu you recieved.... BASTARD!!
> 
> 
> 
> Its an SP 110 according to BIOS. I've been offered to take it off my hands already a few times. Not really willing to sell but it would be fun to see what it could do under LN2 or even chilled water. Someday I'll buy a chiller and figure it out... I guess I'll be happy with it at 5.3 and call it a day. I know I could do 5.4 but I don't think its worth the extra heat load or setting crazy idle voltage.
Click to expand...

Do you know what’s the lowest voltage it needs to pass CB R15 at 5.3Ghz all cores? What’s the VID of the chip at 5GHz all cores? It should be 1.160v-1.170v


----------



## criskoe

Sleakcavi said:


> I'm back...thanks to the help of folks here and other sources I've locked in my overclock for now. Settled at 5.3/4.8 and using my 4266mhz trident royal z ram that I tweaked quite a bit. I just received a Optimus Waterblock today and installed it and wow is it better than my corsair one (no surprise there) better mounting and my temps are waaaayyyy down. I attached a SS of how temps look in the middle of a run. I did pull off a 5.4ghz run in R20 with a load voltage around 1.3V and temps were still in the 80s but that was with 1.42V manual set in BIOS with LLC 6. It crashed in the middle of a blender run though so I need more voltage, I feel like I"m very close though.
> 
> Can someone please tell me what would be safe to run in the BIOS as far as LLC and manual voltage? Is LLC 7 safe for daily use? I don't want to experiment too much before I hear from some folks here but I would like to see what this chip can do now that I have a bit more headroom to play with thermally since I bought a better waterblock. Thanks!


Is this voltage stable for just a few back to back cinebench runs, or can you actually loop it for at least 2 hours and still be L0 Error free? I found for some reason at the 1.5-2Hr mark L0s cropped up and actually required more vcore to pass longer. with no errors . Have you run any other stress tests? Like a nice long run of realbench? Ive found that real bench can require more voltage then cinebench and P95 small fft no avx to pass as well.


----------



## Sleakcavi

Falkentyne said:


> You can do 5.4 100% certain at 1.360v LLC6 with hyperthreading disabled. It will be 5.5 HT disabled that's going to be hard for you  You should disable HT and see how far you can go.
> And no, don't bother with 5.4 HT enabled. Not worth risking degrading your chip when we don't even know what they can handle yet (all we know is that some SP63 chips want 1.5v LOAD VOLTAGE at 5.2 ghz. Yes...load voltage).
> 
> My SP 94 chip (seems to be about SP 88 capability, almost identical to @criskoe's chip) --the only reason it's SP94 is because 5.3 ghz has the exact same VF point as 5.2 ghz, which is odd but I've seen a few retails do that, including my crappy 10900k in my Gigabyte board right now) just did a Warzone run at 5.4 ghz/4.9, hyperthreading disabled, 1.410v Bios LLC6, in Warzone, no crashes stutters or issues.


I'm trying 5.4 now with HT disabled just to see how it is. This is a screenshot of my BIOS V/F page for reference also.


----------



## Falkentyne

Sleakcavi said:


> I'm trying 5.4 now with HT disabled just to see how it is. This is a screenshot of my BIOS V/F page for reference also.


Attached properly for convenience. (This is yours, not mine! Mine is worse).

Your idle VID (These are usually based on thermal velocity boost "Voltage optimizations" being disabled, thus 100C test point if TVB is enabled) are (almost) 75-100mv lower than me and criskoe's... o.o
OOF.... (my 5.1. is 1.305v I think and 5.2 is 1.394v..., Criskoe's VF is like 1.379v for 5.2....)


----------



## Sleakcavi

criskoe said:


> Is this voltage stable for just a few back to back cinebench runs, or can you actually loop it for at least 2 hours and still be L0 Error free? I found for some reason at the 1.5-2Hr mark L0s cropped up and actually required more vcore to pass longer. with no errors . Have you run any other stress tests? Like a nice long run of realbench? Ive found that real bench can require more voltage then cinebench and P95 small fft no avx to pass as well.


My voltage for 5.3 is rock solid. I've done the full 2.83 Blender open data benchmark 33min 52 seconds. 8 hours of RB 2.56. and looped R20 for 1 hour. I don't really use P95 as a stress test for this generation based on the guide posted here.


----------



## Sleakcavi

Falkentyne said:


> You can do 5.4 100% certain at 1.360v LLC6 with hyperthreading disabled. It will be 5.5 HT disabled that's going to be hard for you  You should disable HT and see how far you can go.
> And no, don't bother with 5.4 HT enabled. Not worth risking degrading your chip when we don't even know what they can handle yet (all we know is that some SP63 chips want 1.5v LOAD VOLTAGE at 5.2 ghz. Yes...load voltage).
> 
> My SP 94 chip (seems to be about SP 88 capability, almost identical to @criskoe's chip) --the only reason it's SP94 is because 5.3 ghz has the exact same VF point as 5.2 ghz, which is odd but I've seen a few retails do that, including my crappy 10900k in my Gigabyte board right now) just did a Warzone run at 5.4 ghz/4.9, hyperthreading disabled, 1.410v Bios LLC6, in Warzone, no crashes stutters or issues.


Here is the 5.4 no HT run. I'm going to try 5.5 at this voltage and see what happens. since everything seems to be in order


----------



## criskoe

Sleakcavi said:


> My voltage for 5.3 is rock solid. I've done the full 2.83 Blender open data benchmark 33min 52 seconds. 8 hours of RB 2.56. and looped R20 for 1 hour. I don't really use P95 as a stress test for this generation based on the guide posted here.


Awesome dude. Is this your first chip? Like did you buy more then one cpu to get this?? 

Either way. Like buddy said. thats a real nice chip. Take care of it


----------



## criskoe

Falkentyne said:


> Attached properly for convenience. (This is yours, not mine! Mine is worse).
> 
> Your idle VID (These are usually based on thermal velocity boost "Voltage optimizations" being disabled, thus 100C test point if TVB is enabled) are (almost) 75-100mv lower than me and criskoe's... o.o
> OOF.... (my 5.1. is 1.305v I think and 5.2 is 1.394v..., Criskoe's VF is like 1.379v for 5.2....)


My 88 VFs are
51 - 1.284
52 - 1.364
53 - 1.418


----------



## Sleakcavi

criskoe said:


> Awesome dude. Is this your first chip? Like did you buy more then one cpu to get this??
> 
> Either way. Like buddy said. thats a real nice chip. Take care of it


I got this retail from Newegg day 1 preorder actually. This was the first and only one I've bought. Like I said earlier I got a lot of offers from PM on this chip from a few of the sites I frequent. But there is no way I'm gonna give it up. 

Just finished the 5.5 no HT run at 1.36 LLC6 and it made it through 3 loops no problems.


----------



## criskoe

Sleakcavi said:


> I got this retail from Newegg day 1 preorder actually. This was the first and only one I've bought. Like I said earlier I got a lot of offers from PM on this chip from a few of the sites I frequent. But there is no way I'm gonna give it up.
> 
> Just finished the 5.5 no HT run at 1.36 LLC6 and it made it through 3 loops no problems.


LOL thats pretty awesome. How many rads are you running with that optimus? Im assuming 1 d5 as well?

Wait a sec... why is the cinebench scores so low on that last screen shot? Something isnt right. Edit**** NM i realized you have hyper threading off? DUH. lol Sorry


----------



## Sleakcavi

criskoe said:


> Sleakcavi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I got this retail from Newegg day 1 preorder actually. This was the first and only one I've bought. Like I said earlier I got a lot of offers from PM on this chip from a few of the sites I frequent. But there is no way I'm gonna give it up.
> 
> Just finished the 5.5 no HT run at 1.36 LLC6 and it made it through 3 loops no problems.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL thats pretty awesome. How many rads are you running with that optimus? Im assuming 1 d5 as well?
Click to expand...

I have 1 420mm rad, and 2 360mm fat boys in my level 20 xt case. And yes a D5 pump. My 2080ti is in the loop too...way over kill I think but I had the room so why not?

On a side note 5.6 HT disabled is a no go even at 1.41 LLC 6. It instalocks the cpu hard so 5.5 seems to be the limit of my chip. I'm gonna try RB 2.56 for 15 mins to see if it can pass it.


----------



## Sleakcavi

As far as CB being low probably my background programs. It also runs it in below normal priority unless I change it and since I don't change it everytime I don't mess with it to keep scores consistent.


----------



## criskoe

Sleakcavi said:


> I have 1 420mm rad, and 2 360mm fat boys in my level 20 xt case. And yes a D5 pump. My 2080ti is in the loop too...way over kill I think but I had the room so why not?
> 
> On a side note 5.6 HT disabled is a no go even at 1.41 LLC 6. It instalocks the cpu hard so 5.5 seems to be the limit of my chip. I'm gonna try RB 2.56 for 15 mins to see if it can pass it.


Nice. you said you swapped out a corsair block for the optimus right? Did you go foundation or signature? What was the actual temp gain from block to block at the same ambient of course...


----------



## criskoe

Sleakcavi said:


> As far as CB being low probably my background programs. It also runs it in below normal priority unless I change it and since I don't change it everytime I don't mess with it to keep scores consistent.


Yeah I also forgot you had HT off. LOL. Yeah my scores arent as high as falkentynes either. I also have 3200 ram and cinebench defaults to below normal priority aswell for some re.


----------



## Sleakcavi

criskoe said:


> Sleakcavi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have 1 420mm rad, and 2 360mm fat boys in my level 20 xt case. And yes a D5 pump. My 2080ti is in the loop too...way over kill I think but I had the room so why not?
> 
> On a side note 5.6 HT disabled is a no go even at 1.41 LLC 6. It instalocks the cpu hard so 5.5 seems to be the limit of my chip. I'm gonna try RB 2.56 for 15 mins to see if it can pass it.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice. you said you swapped out a corsair block for the optimus right? Did you go foundation or signature? What was the actual temp gain from block to block at the same ambient of course...
Click to expand...

I went foundation copper. I've noticed about 5-7C lower temps depending on core or package readings at the same ambient and same water temps. Using Kryonaught as paste on both.. I could maybe attribute that to a better mount with more pressure along with better material. I'm not sure but its much nicer than corsair thats for sure....maybe the RGB was heating up the block 🤣


----------



## criskoe

Sleakcavi said:


> I went foundation copper. I've noticed about 5-7C lower temps depending on core or package readings at the same ambient and same water temps. Using Kryonaught as paste on both.. I could maybe attribute that to a better mount with more pressure along with better material. I'm not sure but its much nicer than corsair thats for sure....maybe the RGB was heating up the block 🤣


Did your foundation come with the newer springless mount or the older style with the springs? Also did you leave the center oring in our take it out? I read it can sometimes help flow without compromising temp performance for some.


----------



## Sleakcavi

It is the springless mount which I think is great. Good mounting pressure and it was very flat. I managed to pass RB 2.56 at 5.5/4.8 No HT enabled. It was only a 15 minute run but I just wanted to try to validate the OC quickly. Also I saw that I forgot to lower the vcore back down from my 5.6 run so it was set at 1.41 BIOS LLC 6. Not bad temps for a load Vcore of 1.332 according to HWinfo. My 2080Ti is overclocked as well so with all that heat in the loop and averaging high 60s low 70s on the cores and package is amazing.

EDIT: I also included my RAM config for anyone curious as well. My normal 4266 C19 made it to that... Its actually the 4266mhz samsung b-die profile from my XII Formula. I just had to bump DRAM V to 1.5 to get it to pass benchmarks. Also I lowered IO/SA down from what the profile had as well.


----------



## criskoe

Yeah. Im waffling back n forth as to when rockit cool releases their direct die frame whether or not to go for it. I want to but unfortunately I own a EK magnitude block already and you cant direct die with it on these asus boards due to its larger body and frame. Even with the stock IHS the frame sits just above the inner row of caps on these Z490 asus boards and there is little to no space to go lower. Im almost positive that it will make contact and damage the caps If i tried. So other then buying the direct die frame I would also have to buy a different cpu block. Was kinda bummed out when I realized this with my 9900KS as the XI asus boards have basically the same cap layout. 

But if I end up going for it I will pick up a foundation cause it will clear the caps.


----------



## cstkl1

criskoe said:


> Yeah. Im waffling back n forth as to when rockit cool releases their direct die frame whether or not to go for it. I want to but unfortunately I own a EK magnitude block already and you cant direct die with it due to its larger body and frame. Even with the stock IHS the frame sits just above the inner row of caps on these Z490 asus boards and there is little to no space to go lower. Im almost positive that it will make contact and damage the caps If i tried. So other then buying the direct die frame I would also have to buy a different cpu block. Was kinda bummed out when I realized this with my 9900KS as the XI asus boards have basically the same cap layout.
> 
> But if I end up going for it I will pick up a foundation cause it will clear the caps.


Having had direct D cooled many cpus and delid with ihs.. this time i not gonna. All of them except for the 8700k .. degraded mainly on imc over 24/7 use.. after a year or so the rams start erroring out and testing just shows imc degraded. The direct D ones.. its either tighten too tight or not enough. It always affect the imc.. always.


----------



## SuperMumrik

Wierd. I've been de-lidding(and dd on some) all my cpu's since ivy bridge (except 5820k and 5960x). Never degraded my IMC or anything else for that matter


----------



## Betroz

What is the expected frequency of a 10900K with something like a 280mm AIO like the Kraken X62 for 24/7 use? 5.0/5.1 Ghz with HT on and 5.2 Ghz with HT off?


----------



## criskoe

Betroz said:


> What is the expected frequency of a 10900K with something like a 280mm AIO like the Kraken X62 for 24/7 use? 5.0/5.1 Ghz with HT on and 5.2 Ghz with HT off?


Well depends on use (Gaming?) and how warm your comfortable running it but I feel like from what Ive seen around here that 

5.0 - 5.1 HT should be totally easy for the most part. 

5.2 is definitely doable BUT unless you receive a absolute dud of course.


----------



## Betroz

criskoe said:


> Well depends on use (Gaming?) and how warm your comfortable running it but I feel like from what Ive seen around here that


Mostly gaming Battlefield 5, which is very CPU demanding with 64 player online. I will use that game for stability testing, aswell as Realbench 2.56, and the maximum load temp I will allow is 95C, but will try to keep it around 70-75C during gameplay like I have with my 9900K.


----------



## criskoe

Betroz said:


> Mostly gaming Battlefield 5, which is very CPU demanding with 64 player online. I will use that game for stability testing, aswell as Realbench 2.56, and the maximum load temp I will allow is 95C, but will try to keep it around 70-75C during gameplay like I have with my 9900K.


yeah you should be able to do 5.1 or 5.2 with that no prob unless your get a really bad sample. ..


----------



## Falkentyne

criskoe said:


> yeah you should be able to do 5.1 or 5.2 with that no prob unless your get a really bad sample. ..


My retail is unstable at 5.2 even at 1.40v LLC Turbo...


----------



## Betroz

Falkentyne said:


> My retail is unstable at 5.2 even at 1.40v LLC Turbo...


I guess some CPUs are best left at stock speed (with power limits removed mind you). At least with an AIO. I would be happy with 10 cores at 5.0 Ghz with 1.225v at load or thereabout


----------



## Sleakcavi

Again like Criskoe and Falkentyne have both said it depends on the chip. Even with a 280mm AIO these chips run cooler than the 9900k because of the steps Intel took to reduce some of the heat. I know I'm the exception and not the rule because I won the lottery by some miracle, but I can do 5.2 core 4.8 cache at a load voltage of 1.199 according to HWinfo. Fully rock solid with 4266mhz ram and tightened timings that I posted a few posts back. Take a look at your chip and test it out. Falkentyne will also point out that the SP rating if you use an ASUS board isn't also accurate so give it a shot and see what happens. Good Luck!


----------



## roooo

roooo said:


> I just got that sucker yesterday. It is my first watercooling gear, I've been running a NH-D15 for ages. Massive piece of gear. I'm running 10900KF @ 52x 10C/20T Cache 47x at Vcore_BIOS 1.38V LLC6, no AVX Offset but throttling enabled for Tpackage>=95C. The Eisbaer got my average CB20 package temps from 76 down to 68C and max temps from 93 to 88C. RB2.56 would crash during the rendering stuff with the NH-D15 while it finished with the Eisbaer. I'm mostly using Linux, where I did some encrypted compression of 8GB data and average package temps went from 68 to 65, max temps from 85 to 79. This was at roughly 25C room temperature.
> 
> My impressions of the Eisbaer so far: Great piece of gear! It can be tuned whisper quiet, which is very important for me. I only saw a 1..2C temp difference (=measurement uncertainty) between the lowest and the 2nd or higher pump speed level but then I'm only using the CPU block. The fans are inaudible at idle (I currently have the case open and sitting on my desk), but I suspect the throughput could be better. That's why I ordered 4x 140mm 2000 RPM Noctua fans this noon, see how much they gain...
> 
> I did not do any long-term stability tests of the CPU yet because I'll be aiming at delidding and disabling 2..3 cores anyway - I hardly do heavily MT stuff so the clocks are what I'm after.
> 
> Cheers,
> r.


Hi all,

I want to give a brief update on the fan-modded Eisbaer. I replaced the two stock SilentWings3 ("SW3", pull) with 4x Noctua NF-A14 Industrial 2000RPM PWM ("NFA", push/pull) today. CPU settings as in my previous posting. I measured water temperature in the reservoir close to the water-in port with a Greisinger GTH-175 lab thermometer. This is because currently the only way to access water temps is through the refill socket. Ambient (room) temp was measured using a standard digital thermometer, deviation to the lab thermometer is roughly +-0.2K. dT = Max[T(ambient) - T(water)], with T(ambient) between 23.9 and 24.2°C; all temp values given are in °C. Math nerds please forgive me for incorrectly abbreviating DeltaT with dT ;-) CPU package temps were recorded using Linux sensors command reading the nct6775 probes with 0.5s intervall. All tests ran for 10min each, with the PC idling for about one hour prior to the first test. With the min. PWM setting in BIOS being 20%, the lowest RPM for the SW3 is around 250 while it is shy of 400 for the NF-A14. Pump was running at lowest setting but automatically ramped up to the 2nd PWM level at T>55°C, except for the last test, where it was running at max. speed. mprime is the Linux port of Prime95, it was run very conservatively at 5 Threads, small FFTs, AVX disabled.

Test--------------------------------------Tavg--Tmax--dT

[email protected], Ubuntu, Desktop Idle--45--63--n/a
[email protected], Ubuntu, Desktop Idle--40--54--4.8 
[email protected], Ubuntu, Desktop Idle-38--55--n/a
[email protected], Ubuntu mprime-------80--90--7.0

[email protected], Ubuntu, Desktop Idle---41--54--5.0 
[email protected], Ubuntu, Desktop Idle---39--56--2.9
[email protected], Ubuntu, Desktop Idle--37--49--1.2 
[email protected], Ubuntu mprime--------77--86--4.1
[email protected], Ubuntu mprime, [email protected] 77--85--4.1

Keep in mind that the water temps were measured at the reservoir/water-in port, so I expect temps to be ~1°C lower at the radiator-out. Which in turn means the dT are quite low. The four Noctuas at low RPM (400..600) still make for a decent silent setup and I'm quite a bit anal in this respect. However, at 2000RPM, the setup IS loud. But if you need the cooling performance, the Eisbaer equipped with proper fans can deliver. Gonna keep it.


Cheers,
r.


----------



## Falkentyne

roooo said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I want to give a brief update on the fan-modded Eisbaer. I replaced the two stock SilentWings3 ("SW3", pull) with 4x Noctua NF-A14 Industrial 2000RPM PWM ("NFA", push/pull) today. CPU settings as in my previous posting. I measured water temperature in the reservoir close to the water-in port with a Greisinger GTH-175 lab thermometer. This is because currently the only way to access water temps is through the refill socket. Ambient (room) temp was measured using a standard digital thermometer, deviation to the lab thermometer is roughly +-0.2K. dT = Max[T(ambient) - T(water)], with T(ambient) between 23.9 and 24.2°C; all temp values given are in °C. Math nerds please forgive me for incorrectly abbreviating DeltaT with dT ;-) CPU package temps were recorded using Linux sensors command reading the nct6775 probes with 0.5s intervall. All tests ran for 10min each, with the PC idling for about one hour prior to the first test. With the min. PWM setting in BIOS being 20%, the lowest RPM for the SW3 is around 250 while it is shy of 400 for the NF-A14. Pump was running at lowest setting but automatically ramped up to the 2nd PWM level at T>55°C, except for the last test, where it was running at max. speed. mprime is the Linux port of Prime95, it was run very conservatively at 5 Threads, small FFTs, AVX disabled.
> 
> Test--------------------------------------Tavg--Tmax--dT
> 
> [email protected], Ubuntu, Desktop Idle--45--63--n/a
> [email protected], Ubuntu, Desktop Idle--40--54--4.8
> [email protected], Ubuntu, Desktop Idle-38--55--n/a
> [email protected], Ubuntu mprime-------80--90--7.0
> 
> [email protected], Ubuntu, Desktop Idle---41--54--5.0
> [email protected], Ubuntu, Desktop Idle---39--56--2.9
> [email protected], Ubuntu, Desktop Idle--37--49--1.2
> [email protected], Ubuntu mprime--------77--86--4.1
> [email protected], Ubuntu mprime, [email protected] 77--85--4.1
> 
> Keep in mind that the water temps were measured at the reservoir/water-in port, so I expect temps to be ~1°C lower at the radiator-out. Which in turn means the dT are quite low. The four Noctuas at low RPM (400..600) still make for a decent silent setup and I'm quite a bit anal in this respect. However, at 2000RPM, the setup IS loud. But if you need the cooling performance, the Eisbaer equipped with proper fans can deliver. Gonna keep it.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> r.


Are you talking about the Eisbaer Extreme 280 AIO? I was going to buy that but I didn't think spending $300 (even on whats basically a custom loop prebuilt) would be worth it when I already have a liquid freezer II 360. Or maybe it would ...if I enjoy being parted with my money? :/


----------



## criskoe

Falkentyne said:


> My retail is unstable at 5.2 even at 1.40v LLC Turbo...


Seems most people have been able to do 5.1 or 5.2 for gaming use while keeping temps some what manageable with a decent aio is what I ment. But of course samples matter. 5.2 is possible but not every sample. Thats all I ment. Just going by what Ive seen around here and on forums. This of course can change as time goes on and more and more samples are released and people report values. With time things could get better or worse. At that point its anyone's guess. 

5.1 seems to be the most common right now tho.


----------



## Betroz

roooo said:


> I replaced the two stock SilentWings3 ("SW3", pull) with 4x Noctua NF-A14 Industrial 2000RPM PWM.


Any 120/140mm fan at 2000 rpm is loud, but I guess you have to experience it for yourself. For me such fans become too loud above ~13-1400 rpm. SilentWings 3 fans are more suited as case fans from what I know.


----------



## Thebc2

Falkentyne said:


> Yes high SP is in general better than low SP, but there are variances in chips with the exact same SP due to guardband and leakage. You can get a SP63 chip that clocks better than a SP78, for example.
> 
> 
> 
> SP is being read incorrectly on some chips, especially if you get the same VF points for the first 3 or 4 points. To fix that, update the BIOS, press F1 for intel default power limits, then power off,
> 
> Clear CMOS, then power back on, press F1 for intel default power limits, boot to windows without changing anything, run prime95 small FFT with AVX DISABLED for 5 minutes, then boot back to BIOS. This should fix SP on the latest BIOS. SVID Support must be enabled.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, yes, someone has binned SP 63 chips, and the best one did 5.3 ghz @ 1.30v Bios set LLC7, and the worst one could not do 5.1 ghz @ 1.25v Bios set LLC7.
> 
> 
> 
> Probably voltage guardband tolerances. A large guardband means you have large overclocking headroom. It's very hard to test for guardband since this requires a delta between VF value and crash at load value, and cooling capability affects this greatly too. You will also notice that at 5.2 ghz, the worst chips will request about 1.54v @ 5.2-5.3 ghz. Also notice that no matter the SP of the chip, if you set adaptive or offset voltage with +0.00v offset, LLC to level 3, and AC Loadline to 1.1 mOhms and boot windows at 5.2-5.3 ghz, the Vcore will be between 1.35v (very high SP) to 1.57v (worst SP). There is a reason for that.





I would keep the Arctic freezer, it’s the best out there. I am using an x73 with 6x noctua nf-a12x25 while I await my ekwb 360mm AIO to ship. At which will swap over the noctuas to it.











Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Thebc2

Betroz said:


> Any 120/140mm fan at 2000 rpm is loud, but I guess you have to experience it for yourself. For me such fans become too loud above ~13-1400 rpm. SilentWings 3 fans are more suited as case fans from what I know.




The noctua nf-a12x25 are amazingly quiet, even when I have 6 fired up at 2k rpm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Falkentyne

criskoe said:


> Seems most people have been able to do 5.1 or 5.2 for gaming use while keeping temps some what manageable with a decent aio is what I ment. But of course samples matter. 5.2 is possible but not every sample. Thats all I ment. Just going by what Ive seen around here and on forums. This of course can change as time goes on and more and more samples are released and people report values. With time things could get better or worse. At that point its anyone's guess.
> 
> 5.1 seems to be the most common right now tho.


I mean.....I set minecraft to logiin in offline mode at 5.2 /4.7, LLC Turbo, 1.40v bios set, see?
Then I loaded single player and afk'd in my cave.
THIS IS MINECRAFT.

30 minutes later I heard my case fan revving up and down repeatedly. Switched monitor inputs and got 'no signal'. 
Board was locked up.

Yeah.
Already bought the Intel processor replacement plan. Smoke em if you got em...


----------



## criskoe

Falkentyne said:


> I mean.....I set minecraft to logiin in offline mode at 5.2 /4.7, LLC Turbo, 1.40v bios set, see?
> Then I loaded single player and afk'd in my cave.
> THIS IS MINECRAFT.
> 
> 30 minutes later I heard my case fan revving up and down repeatedly. Switched monitor inputs and got 'no signal'.
> Board was locked up.
> 
> Yeah.
> Already bought the Intel processor replacement plan. Smoke em if you got em...


You ever try swapping the cpus in your different boards to see if they act differently?


----------



## Falkentyne

criskoe said:


> You ever try swapping the cpus in your different boards to see if they act differently?


No I don't want to deal with Thermalright TFX paste having to cure or risking bent pins. Removing CPU's is a lot of work because of the metal bar in my back and the swelling. Trying to avoid injuring myself further for non essential testing.

Also I don't think they will perform that differently, because I disabled hyper-threading on both chips and I know that disabling HT takes the IMC out of the picture and then most boards will not very very much on the CPU's true capabilities, especially with RAM/IMC completely out of the picture. A CPU that is stable at 1.20v load in one decent board is not suddenly going to need 1.30v in another decent board, if the IMC/RAM isn't a factor and temps are comperable.


----------



## newls1

Falkentyne said:


> I mean.....I set minecraft to logiin in offline mode at 5.2 /4.7, LLC Turbo, 1.40v bios set, see?
> Then I loaded single player and afk'd in my cave.
> THIS IS MINECRAFT.
> 
> 30 minutes later I heard my case fan revving up and down repeatedly. Switched monitor inputs and got 'no signal'.
> Board was locked up.
> 
> Yeah.
> Already bought the Intel processor replacement plan. Smoke em if you got em...


hold up, are you saying you degraded/broke your cpu cause 1.40v set in bios? Im 1.415v bios set, LLC6 and thought i was doing ok?


----------



## Falkentyne

newls1 said:


> hold up, are you saying you degraded/broke your cpu cause 1.40v set in bios? Im 1.415v bios set, LLC6 and thought i was doing ok?


I have two CPU's.
The ES chip is the good one. That's in my M12E.
The retail chip in my Z490 Aorus master is garbage and has always been garbage since day 1. Seems to be a full complete 100 mhz bin worse.


----------



## criskoe

newls1 said:


> hold up, are you saying you degraded/broke your cpu cause 1.40v set in bios? Im 1.415v bios set, LLC6 and thought i was doing ok?


No hes just pointing out his one sample cannot do 5.2 well even at 1.4V. Dont worry. LOL.

As for voltages. Idle bios voltages are not the biggest concern.. LOAD voltages at high amp draws are where it mostly matters. Like if you plan on running your CPU full throttle for days on end maxing out amp draw constantly, Running a higher LOAD voltage might not be the best idea. Gaming tho should be no problem.


----------



## newls1

criskoe said:


> No hes just pointing out his one sample cannot do 5.2 well even at 1.4V. Dont worry. LOL.
> 
> As for voltages. Idle bios voltages are not the biggest concern.. LOAD voltages at high amp draws are where it mostly matters. Like if you plan on running your CPU full throttle for days on end maxing out amp draw constantly, Running a higher LOAD voltage might not be the best idea. Gaming tho should be no problem.


Whew!! glad i interpreted that wrong! yeah the hardest load this pc gets is FC5 for 30-45min gaming sessions, then i get bored and shut her down. this 10900k pc only sees 2-3hrs of powered on time a week at most.


----------



## MazrimCF

*Mazrimcf*



Thebc2 said:


> I would keep the Arctic freezer, it’s the best out there. I am using an x73 with 6x noctua nf-a12x25 while I await my ekwb 360mm AIO to ship. At which will swap over the noctuas to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I really would like to know how that ekwd AIO performs I ordered it and the shipping date kept getting pushed back so I canceled and got the Inwin AIO 360 but I'm not feeling this big a** pump block


----------



## Betroz

newls1 said:


> this 10900k pc only sees 2-3hrs of powered on time a week at most.


Sooo...completely overkill CPU for your needs then  (the best kind...LOL)


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

MazrimCF said:


> I really would like to know how that ekwd AIO performs I ordered it and the shipping date kept getting pushed back so I canceled and got the Inwin AIO 360 but I'm not feeling this big a** pump block


Not so good as advertised by EK. X73/z73 and h150i XT are far better choices.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Yeah ek is just the master of overpricing.


----------



## Thebc2

We shall see. Gamers Nexus reviews and tear downs look good. I just don’t have the room or patience for a custom loop setup right now, but one day. So far I have tried a couple of different asetek based 360 AIO and they all performed the same roughly. I really wanted an artic freezer II 360 but they are impossible to find now. 






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## hemon

Hi,

I have at the moment (I need to do further tests) a stable bios voltage of 1.35v LLC3 @5.0 (53x6, 51x8, 50xAUTO) with a load voltage of 1.25v. I wanted to change from manual to adaptive voltage and I just set as adaptive voltage 1.25v. Now, I just ran Windows and I checked the voltage again without running any sort of stress test – I just installed a program – and I immediately noticed that the voltage went from 0.9v to max 1.59v which is of course way too much. SVID is "best-case".

On this I have 3 questions:

1. Is such a behavior about the difference between manual and adaptive voltage normal? I think not, but why does it happen?
2. How can I reach as max adaptive voltage the same load manual voltage?
3. Important! Can that voltage peak of 1.59v somehow degraded the cpu? Again, I did NOT any sort of stress test and the peak temp was 60c or lower.

Thanks!


----------



## Falkentyne

hemon said:


> Hi,
> 
> I have at the moment (I need to do further tests) a stable bios voltage of 1.35v LLC3 @5.0 (53x6, 51x8, 50xAUTO) with a load voltage of 1.25v. I wanted to change from manual to adaptive voltage and I just set as adaptive voltage 1.25v. Now, I just ran Windows and I checked the voltage again without running any sort of stress test – I just installed a program – and I immediately noticed that the voltage went from 0.9v to max 1.59v which is of course way too much. SVID is "best-case".
> 
> On this I have 3 questions:
> 
> 1. Is such a behavior about the difference between manual and adaptive voltage normal? I think not, but why does it happen?
> 2. How can I reach as max adaptive voltage the same load manual voltage?
> 3. Important! Can that voltage peak of 1.59v somehow degraded the cpu? Again, I did NOT any sort of stress test and the peak temp was 60c or lower.
> 
> Thanks!


Probably not.

I had 1.72v on my ES for an extremely short time (thankfully i was monitoring it hawk-eyed and saw it fast an did everything I could to stop execution of a prime95 (AVX disabled) batch file for a voltage vmin test that was done improperly via negative offsets rather than fixed vcore points, and I doubt it even started the actual test or I would have been at 100C instantly and locked up, and there was no apparent damage from what I've tested before and after.

The chips usually ask for up to 1.49-1.52v at worst case scenario at their highest turbo multipliers--with Loadline calibration at intel spec only (LLC3, 1.1 mOhms). Using any LLC higher than that however would violate spec and could raise vcore up to 1.6v or more.

You probably saw 1.59v because (I'm guessing) you were using LLC (possibly at 4), and your CPU was running a low load, so using the x52-x53 multiplier and the VID for it. You would not have seen that on an 8-10 core load.

I'm not sure if you can use adaptive voltage with this type of per core load you have set up. Adaptive voltage's minimum floor is based on the CPU VID, and a VID at x53 can go as high as 1.5v and I've seen a pure auto VID at intel fail safe AC/DC Loadline (1.1 mOhms) and 1.1 VRM Loadline(LLC3) request up to 1.56v at very light load and then drop down to 1.49v at heavy load.


----------



## hemon

Falkentyne said:


> Probably not.
> 
> I had 1.72v on my ES for an extremely short time (thankfully i was monitoring it hawk-eyed and saw it fast an did everything I could to stop execution of a prime95 (AVX disabled) batch file for a voltage vmin test that was done improperly via negative offsets rather than fixed vcore points, and I doubt it even started the actual test or I would have been at 100C instantly and locked up, and there was no apparent damage from what I've tested before and after.
> 
> The chips usually ask for up to 1.49-1.52v at worst case scenario at their highest turbo multipliers--with Loadline calibration at intel spec only (LLC3, 1.1 mOhms). Using any LLC higher than that however would violate spec and could raise vcore up to 1.6v or more.
> 
> You probably saw 1.59v because (I'm guessing) you were using LLC (possibly at 4), and your CPU was running a low load, so using the x52-x53 multiplier and the VID for it. You would not have seen that on an 8-10 core load.
> 
> I'm not sure if you can use adaptive voltage with this type of per core load you have set up. Adaptive voltage's minimum floor is based on the CPU VID, and a VID at x53 can go as high as 1.5v and I've seen a pure auto VID at intel fail safe AC/DC Loadline (1.1 mOhms) and 1.1 VRM Loadline(LLC3) request up to 1.56v at very light load and then drop down to 1.49v at heavy load.


Thank you for the reply.

Don't know… I'm not sure that the high voltage on adaptive depends of the Vcore at x53 since with the Asus AI OC there is also an adaptive voltage with 53x4, 51x6 and 50 AUTO but the voltage stays low (but maybe I understood you wrong). There must be something in the bios that should be changed, just why? The LLC level is 3 (on an ASUS board, which means "very low")

Anyway, this is a new chip (boxed) but the same 63 SP as the old (tray) and it is ocs waaay better than the old…

EDIT:

I found something very interesting!

The max "Operating Voltage" for i9-10900k is 2.0v as found in the 10th Generation Intel Processor Families: Datasheet, Volume 1 of 2 (https://www.intel.de/content/dam/ww...n-core-families-datasheet-vol-1-datasheet.pdf page 112)

For comparing: The max "Operating Voltage" for i9-9900k is 1.52v or 1.52 + Offset voltage= 1.72V (https://www.intel.com/content/www/u...core/8th-gen-core-family-datasheet-vol-1.html page 118 or here https://www.intel.com/content/www/u...0032392/processors/intel-core-processors.html)

So, I would say that my peak of 1.59v or your of 1.72v is absolutely safe.


----------



## AeonMW2

my 10900K in a Gigabyte Vision G peaks up to 1.55 v during light single thread load at full stock bios settings.
tho i'm not quite comfortable with this so I ended up locking 5.1 all core @ 1.25-1.27 under load / 1.37 max idle


----------



## skullbringer

So my 10900K with SP 69 (Noice!) that can do all core 5.1 GHz @ 1.275V (LLC 7), HT enabled, but CANNOT pass Prime95 v29 (AVX) SmallFFTs without hardware failure, is a complete dud then?

Yes?


----------



## criskoe

skullbringer said:


> So my 10900K with SP 69 (Noice!) that can do all core 5.1 GHz @ 1.275V (LLC 7), HT enabled, but CANNOT pass Prime95 v29 (AVX) SmallFFTs without hardware failure, is a complete dud then?
> 
> Yes?


No.

AVX prime requires ALOT of juice to pass. Dont get caught up in it.


----------



## skullbringer

criskoe said:


> No.
> 
> AVX prime requires ALOT of juice to pass. Dont get caught up in it.


With Primev26 it can do 5.1 GHz @ 1.275V barely with temps at 85-90C (240mm custom loop). I guess I am temperature limited, but would a good cpu not have much lower V/F at this point, like 1.225V?


----------



## criskoe

skullbringer said:


> With Primev26 it can do 5.1 GHz @ 1.275V barely with temps at 85-90C (240mm custom loop). I guess I am temperature limited, but would a good cpu not have much lower V/F at this point, like 1.225V?


1.275 Load? or bios voltage? You should try a higher bios voltage with a lower LLC. You will be able to have lower actual load voltage due to better transients which in turn will reduce the heat a bit. LLC 7 imo isnt the greatest. I personally would use only 6 and lower. I personally like using LLC4 or LLC5 for 5.0 and 5.1 and LLC 6 for 5.2 or 5.3

My personal 5.0 and 5.1 settings for my 88 chip is 

5.0 = LLC 4 bios 1.275 = 1.119V LOAD
5.1 = LLC 4 bios 1.365V = 1.181V LOAD

VDROOP is healthy and good. The stigma that its bad needs to go away. 

You chip isnt the greatest but 240mm isnt helping matters either really.


----------



## skullbringer

criskoe said:


> 1.275 Load? or bios voltage? You should try a higher bios voltage with a lower LLC. You will be able to have lower actual load voltage due to better transients which in turn will reduce the heat a bit. LLC 7 imo isnt the greatest. I personally would use only 6 and lower. I personally like using LLC4 or LLC5 for 5.0 and 5.1 and LLC 6 for 5.2 or 5.3
> 
> My personal 5.0 and 5.1 settings for my 88 chip is
> 
> 5.0 = LLC 4 bios 1.275 = 1.119V LOAD
> 5.1 = LLC 4 bios 1.365V = 1.181V LOAD
> 
> VDROOP is healthy and good. The stigma that its bad needs to go away.
> 
> You chip isnt the greatest but 240mm isnt helping matters either really.


THANK YOU!

Going from LLC7 to LLC5 gave me a felt 0.025V headroom, probably due to the better transient response you mentioned. 
Now under Prime95 v26 12 fft Load, 5.2 GHz @ 1.425V bios + LLC5 = 1.293V load which is actually 10min STABLE, as opposed to the 1.325V + LLC7 = 1.297V before that crashed within 1min.

My temps are around 100C average, but this 280mm loop is only my testbench and ambient temperature is 30C. 

Still wondering if I should try to get a better CPU though SP 63/69 seems very low looking through this thread...


----------



## Betroz

Is LLC4 about the same on the Z490 Apex as LLC5 was on the Z390 Apex?


----------



## Falkentyne

skullbringer said:


> So my 10900K with SP 69 (Noice!) that can do all core 5.1 GHz @ 1.275V (LLC 7), HT enabled, but CANNOT pass Prime95 v29 (AVX) SmallFFTs without hardware failure, is a complete dud then?
> 
> Yes?


You didn't answer the question criskoe asked you.
BIOS voltage or LOAD voltage?

"5.1 ghz, 1.275v LLC7", I am going to assume that's BIOS set voltage. I just checked this. In 12k small FFT AVX1 load, that's 1.225v load, >255 amps (amps is so high it turns grey) and 313W CPU VRM power. 92C in 1 minute. No wonder you can't pass that. 5.1 ghz at 1.315v Bios LLC6, and prime95 29.8 build 6 AVX1 15k FFT is 1.181v load and 243 amps and 286W VRM power and 93C (90C if I open the front case door on my define 7 XL). That may be hard for you to pass 15 minutes but you can try. My chip can barely manage that but it does. FMA3 fails in 2 minutes im talking about AVX1 not FMA3.



> Now under Prime95 v26 12 fft Load, 5.2 GHz @ 1.425V bios + LLC5 = 1.293V load which is actually 10min STABLE, as opposed to the 1.325V + LLC7 = 1.297V before that crashed within 1min.


Huh? what are you talking about here? prime95 26.6 (12k no AVX) or prime95 29.8? I don't think that AVX disabled prime95 at 5.2 ghz, 1.425v bios + LLC5 should reach 100C load at 1.293v though :/
and AVX at 1.293v load would probably be 300 amps and instant 100C in 2 seconds 

Do yourself a favor and just download 29.8 build 6 and get rid of 26.6. You can just disable AVX and FMA3 in 29.8 build 6 anyway. No need to even have 26.6 on your computer anymore.

Can you pass 5.2 ghz 1.390v Bios set + LLC6 in 12k small FFT 29.8, with AVX2/AVX disabled? (should be 1.243v load and 204 amps).


----------



## skullbringer

Falkentyne said:


> You didn't answer the question criskoe asked you.
> BIOS voltage or LOAD voltage?
> 
> "5.1 ghz, 1.275v LLC7", I am going to assume that's BIOS set voltage. I just checked this. In 12k small FFT AVX1 load, that's 1.225v load, >255 amps (amps is so high it turns grey) and 313W CPU VRM power. 92C in 1 minute. No wonder you can't pass that. 5.1 ghz at 1.315v Bios LLC6, and prime95 29.8 build 6 AVX1 15k FFT is 1.181v load and 243 amps and 286W VRM power and 93C (90C if I open the front case door on my define 7 XL). That may be hard for you to pass 15 minutes but you can try. My chip can barely manage that but it does. FMA3 fails in 2 minutes im talking about AVX1 not FMA3.
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? what are you talking about here? prime95 26.6 (12k no AVX) or prime95 29.8? I don't think that AVX disabled prime95 at 5.2 ghz, 1.425v bios + LLC5 should reach 100C load at 1.293v though :/
> and AVX at 1.293v load would probably be 300 amps and instant 100C in 2 seconds
> 
> Do yourself a favor and just download 29.8 build 6 and get rid of 26.6. You can just disable AVX and FMA3 in 29.8 build 6 anyway. No need to even have 26.6 on your computer anymore.
> 
> Can you pass 5.2 ghz 1.390v Bios set + LLC6 in 12k small FFT 29.8, with AVX2/AVX disabled? (should be 1.243v load and 204 amps).



sorry, thought it was obvious after my second comment, 1.275V thats load voltage with prime95 non-avx (v26), so 1.300V bios + llc7.

I ditched Prime95 v29.8 AVX after criskoe's suggestion to not get hung up on it. So again, talking about Prime95 v26 here. 

Regarding "I don't think that AVX disabled prime95 at 5.2 ghz, 1.425v bios + LLC5 should reach 100C load at 1.293v though":
This is in fact the case, maybe my cooling just sucks (280x45mm rad with push pull) and 30C ambient.

Will try the v29.8 build 6 now and try pass what you suggested, those values seem highly optimistic for my sp 63 chip though...

Edit:
Tried it (1.39V bios, LCC6, 52x, Prime95 v29.8b6 AVX2/AVX both disabled, running in-place): barely within 100C, 1.288V, 299W so 232A, but does NOT pass after 2 minutes:
https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=356730


----------



## Betroz

People expect too much if they think a 10900K @ 5.2 Ghz allcore with an AIO is going to pass Prime95 with reasonable vcore and temps.

Looking forward to test the 10900K myself sometime next week. I ordered an Apex board too, and will use a Patriot Viper Steel 4400 C19 kit. Cooler will be a Kraken X62 with two ML140 PRO fans. I hope I get a good sample...


----------



## Falkentyne

skullbringer said:


> sorry, thought it was obvious after my second comment, 1.275V thats load voltage with prime95 non-avx (v26), so 1.300V bios + llc7.
> 
> I ditched Prime95 v29.8 AVX after criskoe's suggestion to not get hung up on it. So again, talking about Prime95 v26 here.
> 
> Regarding "I don't think that AVX disabled prime95 at 5.2 ghz, 1.425v bios + LLC5 should reach 100C load at 1.293v though":
> This is in fact the case, maybe my cooling just sucks (280x45mm rad with push pull) and 30C ambient.
> 
> Will try the v29.8 build 6 now and try pass what you suggested, those values seem highly optimistic for my sp 63 chip though...
> 
> Edit:
> Tried it (1.39V bios, LCC6, 52x, Prime95 v29.8b6 AVX2/AVX both disabled, running in-place): barely within 100C, 1.288V, 299W so 232A, but does NOT pass after 2 minutes:
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=356730


What motherboard is this? I apologize if I missed this before.
Oh just realized you did LLC6 here 

LLC5 fails instantly at 1.390v Bios set?

I did LLC5 (1.390v + LLC5 bios set=1.243v load). (1390mv - (.7275 mOhm * 200 Amps)=1.244v load. Realbench 2.56 passes 30 minutes and prime95 avx disabled is no problem. (RB is harder to pass....even a tiny decrease to 1.385v Bios set, LLC5 may cause a random CPU Cache L0 error in hwinfo64 after 30 minutes).

Well your chip is stil better than my retail 10900k that's for sure (the better chip I mention is my ES chip). Can't do 5.2 ghz stable in anything except some games at more than 1.30v load voltage.....


----------



## ThrashZone

Betroz said:


> People expect too much if they think a 10900K @ 5.2 Ghz allcore with an AIO is going to pass Prime95 with reasonable vcore and temps.
> 
> Looking forward to test the 10900K myself sometime next week. I ordered an Apex board too, and will use a Patriot Viper Steel 4400 C19 kit. Cooler will be a Kraken X62 with two ML140 PRO fans. I hope I get a good sample...


Hi,
Depends on ambient.


----------



## skullbringer

Falkentyne said:


> What motherboard is this? I apologize if I missed this before.
> Oh just realized you did LLC6 here
> 
> LLC5 fails instantly at 1.390v Bios set?
> 
> I did LLC5 (1.390v + LLC5 bios set=1.243v load). (1390mv - (.7275 mOhm * 200 Amps)=1.244v load. Realbench 2.56 passes 30 minutes and prime95 avx disabled is no problem. (RB is harder to pass....even a tiny decrease to 1.385v Bios set, LLC5 may cause a random CPU Cache L0 error in hwinfo64 after 30 minutes).
> 
> Well your chip is stil better than my retail 10900k that's for sure (the better chip I mention is my ES chip). Can't do 5.2 ghz stable in anything except some games at more than 1.30v load voltage.....


It's a Maximus XII Apex (BIOS-0607)

I did LLC6 because you suggested LLC6  No biggie though, reran with LLC5 and this looks better, though still not the load Voltage you calculated, 1.261V according to hwinfo and cpu-z. It runs for about 3 minutes until the loop heats up to the point where cores get to 95C and workers stop due to hardware failure.
Just to verify, Prime95 v29.8b6 FFT 12, AVX* disabled, IN-PLACE, correct?


Huh, that's really interesting to know, that some retail chips can't even do 5.2 all-core. I assume you also have better cooling than me (280x45mm hwlabs rad, custom loop with EK everything else)?

I wonder if SP is even anything to go by or nah... Was debating whether to get one of those der8auer pretested CPUs from Caseking. They specify 5.1 GHz @ 1.3V Prime95 FFT12 stable, but sadly not if AVX* enabled or disabled...
Do you know if there exits a database of 10900Ks, with their SP, batch number and how far they clock, just so I can compare where my chip lands compared to others? I reccon lower midfield


----------



## ThrashZone

skullbringer said:


> It's a Maximus XII Apex (BIOS-0607)
> 
> I did LLC6 because you suggested LLC6  No biggie though, reran with LLC5 and this looks better, though still not the load Voltage you calculated, 1.261V according to hwinfo and cpu-z. It runs for about 3 minutes until the loop heats up to the point where cores get to 95C and workers stop due to hardware failure.
> Just to verify, Prime95 v29.8b6 FFT 12, AVX* disabled, IN-PLACE, correct?
> 
> 
> Huh, that's really interesting to know, that some retail chips can't even do 5.2 all-core. I assume you also have better cooling than me (280x45mm hwlabs rad, custom loop with EK everything else)?
> 
> I wonder if SP is even anything to go by or nah... Was debating whether to get one of those der8auer pretested CPUs from Caseking. They specify 5.1 GHz @ 1.3V Prime95 FFT12 stable, but sadly not if AVX* enabled or disabled...
> Do you know if there exits a database of 10900Ks, with their SP, batch number and how far they clock, just so I can compare where my chip lands compared to others? I reccon lower midfield


Hi,
Bad contact going on 78-92c core temp spread.


----------



## Falkentyne

skullbringer said:


> It's a Maximus XII Apex (BIOS-0607)
> 
> I did LLC6 because you suggested LLC6  No biggie though, reran with LLC5 and this looks better, though still not the load Voltage you calculated, 1.261V according to hwinfo and cpu-z. It runs for about 3 minutes until the loop heats up to the point where cores get to 95C and workers stop due to hardware failure.
> Just to verify, Prime95 v29.8b6 FFT 12, AVX* disabled, IN-PLACE, correct?
> 
> 
> Huh, that's really interesting to know, that some retail chips can't even do 5.2 all-core. I assume you also have better cooling than me (280x45mm hwlabs rad, custom loop with EK everything else)?
> 
> I wonder if SP is even anything to go by or nah... Was debating whether to get one of those der8auer pretested CPUs from Caseking. They specify 5.1 GHz @ 1.3V Prime95 FFT12 stable, but sadly not if AVX* enabled or disabled...
> Do you know if there exits a database of 10900Ks, with their SP, batch number and how far they clock, just so I can compare where my chip lands compared to others? I reccon lower midfield


Yes its correct. Your load vcore is probably slightly higher due to less power draw, Some chips will draw less or more current at identical settings than other chips. It is what it is.
I was at 91C after 15 minutes of 12k small FFT (or small FFT Preset) 29.8 b6, with AVX disabled.
Realbench 2.56 was 91C after 30 minutes also. Ambients were about 25C or so because its early morning. I could reduce temps by 5C by opening the front case door but I didn't want to.

Can you pass 30 minutes of Realbench 2.56 at 1.390v bios set, LLC5 at 5.2 ghz without a CPU Cache L0 error appearing in HWinfo64? If not do you know how high you need to raise the voltage or are you out of room?

No, my retail is on a gigabyte aorus master and has a NH-D15 with one 3000 RPM Noctua industrial 140mm fan and one fractal design 140mm case fan, because the other two 140mm 3000 rpm fans I have are in my case.
The ES is on a M12E and an arctic liquid freezer II 360 AIO. The retail chip is horrible. It's fine at 5.1 ghz (can pass everything except AVX enabled prime95) at about 1.250v load voltage, but 5.2 ghz just falls off a cliff. Maybe if I had decent cooling I could loop CB R20 for more than 30 minutes without 100C or BSOD's at 1.320v load at 5.2 ghz but no I can't................


----------



## skullbringer

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Bad contact going on 78-92c core temp spread.


Isn't that normal for Intel's 14nm++ hot cookie chips, when not delidded?

I'd argue the mount is pretty even and all of the die area is covered by tim, no?
https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=356762&thumb=1

Did a quick repaste with Kryonaut, again core 1 is about 12-14C cooler than core 4, so either I am really consistent at ******* up the block mount, or the cause is under the ihs...


----------



## ThrashZone

skullbringer said:


> Isn't that normal for Intel's 14nm++ hot cookie chips, when not delidded?
> 
> I'd argue the mount is pretty even and all of the dye area is covered by tim, no?
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=356762&thumb=1
> 
> Did a quick repaste with Kryonaut, again core 1 is about 12-14C cooler than core 4, so either I am really consistent at ******* up the block mount, or the cause is under the ihs...


Hi,
I'd say within 10c apart is doing pretty good less is better 
Thermal grizzly spread thin layer.


----------



## Falkentyne

skullbringer said:


> Isn't that normal for Intel's 14nm++ hot cookie chips, when not delidded?
> 
> I'd argue the mount is pretty even and all of the dye area is covered by tim, no?
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=356762&thumb=1
> 
> Did a quick repaste with Kryonaut, again core 1 is about 12-14C cooler than core 4, so either I am really consistent at ******* up the block mount, or the cause is under the ihs...


You're not applying paste right. You should have 6C temp delta (Realbench) to 10C (prime95 small FFT at 230 amps).
Please apply two diagonal intersecting lines going edge to edge on the IHS in the shape of a large X.

Doesn't have to be thick lines. Just lines. All the way to the diagonal edges.
You can also in addition, apply 4 very tiny drops to top middle, left edge middle, right edge middle and bottom edge middle to insure 100% coverage. Try that.

Then see if you can pass 30min to 1 hour of realbench 2.56 at 5.2 ghz, 1.390v to 1.410v bios set , + LLC5.


----------



## zlatanselvic

Hey GM,

Looking for a little advice on finding some stability with this chip. 

Asus Formula Motherboard - 0607 Bios
360mm X 60mm radiator for CPU
Chip SP 63
Liquid Metal/Delid/Copper IHS from Rockitcool


I can't seem to get 5.0GHZ stable on all core no matter what setting I try in CBR20. I can boot as high as 5.3ghz all-core. 

Currently I am at 1.35v VCore, SA and PLL @ 1.18. LLC4, all power limits removed/disabled ect. If I crank the voltage, I find magma level chip heat, or BSOD's with small movements/tweaks.


----------



## Falkentyne

zlatanselvic said:


> Hey GM,
> 
> Looking for a little advice on finding some stability with this chip.
> 
> Asus Formula Motherboard - 0607 Bios
> 360mm X 60mm radiator for CPU
> Chip SP 63
> Liquid Metal/Delid/Copper IHS from Rockitcool
> 
> 
> I can't seem to get 5.0GHZ stable on all core no matter what setting I try in CBR20. I can boot as high as 5.3ghz all-core.
> 
> Currently I am at 1.35v VCore, SA and PLL @ 1.18. LLC4, all power limits removed/disabled ect. If I crank the voltage, I find magma level chip heat, or BSOD's with small movements/tweaks.


PLL? what?


----------



## ThrashZone

zlatanselvic said:


> Hey GM,
> 
> Looking for a little advice on finding some stability with this chip.
> 
> Asus Formula Motherboard - 0607 Bios
> 360mm X 60mm radiator for CPU
> Chip SP 63
> Liquid Metal/Delid/Copper IHS from Rockitcool
> 
> 
> I can't seem to get 5.0GHZ stable on all core no matter what setting I try in CBR20. I can boot as high as 5.3ghz all-core.
> 
> Currently I am at 1.35v VCore, SA and PLL @ 1.18. LLC4, all power limits removed/disabled ect. If I crank the voltage, I find magma level chip heat, or BSOD's with small movements/tweaks.


Hi,
Sounds like the delid didn't go well or LM not spread well if heat is an issue.


----------



## skullbringer

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> I'd say within 10c apart is doing pretty good less is better
> Thermal grizzly spread thin layer.





Falkentyne said:


> You're not applying paste right. You should have 6C temp delta (Realbench) to 10C (prime95 small FFT at 230 amps).
> Please apply two diagonal intersecting lines going edge to edge on the IHS in the shape of a large X.
> 
> Doesn't have to be thick lines. Just lines. All the way to the diagonal edges.
> You can also in addition, apply 4 very tiny drops to top middle, left edge middle, right edge middle and bottom edge middle to insure 100% coverage. Try that.
> 
> Then see if you can pass 30min to 1 hour of realbench 2.56 at 5.2 ghz, 1.390v to 1.410v bios set , + LLC5.


I can get it to 12C max delta on Prime95 non-avx, not less.

It doesnt matter how I apply it, cross, line, dot, whatever the blocks pressure spreads the paste to a consistent thickness and as long as its not too little amount and the die area is covered, its the same result. 
To verify I tried your x-method, tried my line method where the die is, a big dot, manually spreading with tg included spreader tip all over the ihs, all same delta under prime (core 1 lowest, core 4 highest).

Tell me, am I ********, or is the solder of my chip below average quality?


Realbench doesnt even start for me, only says "Instability detected! (Luxmark)", tried Realbench download from 2 different sources, also set clock down to 4.8GHz, same error. Could my stoneage Quadro FX560 be the problem?


----------



## ThrashZone

skullbringer said:


> I can get it to 12C max delta on Prime95 non-avx, not less.
> 
> It doesnt matter how I apply it, cross, line, dot, whatever the blocks pressure spreads the paste to a consistent thickness and as long as its not too little amount and the die area is covered, its the same result.
> To verify I tried your x-method, tried my line method where the die is, a big dot, manually spreading with tg included spreader tip all over the ihs, all same delta under prime (core 1 lowest, core 4 highest).
> 
> Tell me, am I ********, or is the solder of my chip below average quality?
> 
> 
> Realbench doesnt even start for me, only says "Instability detected! (Luxmark)", tried Realbench download from 2 different sources, also set clock down to 4.8GHz, same error. Could my stoneage Quadro FX560 be the problem?


Hi,
10900k die is vertical not horizontal 
Last spread you showed covered more horizontal area.
12c is getting better


----------



## zlatanselvic

Falkentyne said:


> PLL? what?


Here are the settings below.


----------



## Falkentyne

skullbringer said:


> I can get it to 12C max delta on Prime95 non-avx, not less.
> 
> It doesnt matter how I apply it, cross, line, dot, whatever the blocks pressure spreads the paste to a consistent thickness and as long as its not too little amount and the die area is covered, its the same result.
> To verify I tried your x-method, tried my line method where the die is, a big dot, manually spreading with tg included spreader tip all over the ihs, all same delta under prime (core 1 lowest, core 4 highest).
> 
> Tell me, am I ********, or is the solder of my chip below average quality?
> 
> 
> Realbench doesnt even start for me, only says "Instability detected! (Luxmark)", tried Realbench download from 2 different sources, also set clock down to 4.8GHz, same error. Could my stoneage Quadro FX560 be the problem?


Instability detected (Luxmark) is a video issue. Nothing to do with CPU. No idea how to help.

Assuming the core numbers are 0-9 here (and not 1-10), core 1 is lowest in 100% of the chip samples. Even 9900k's were like this. It's always core #0 med, core 1 absolute coolest, core 2 hotter, core 3 medium core 4 hotter, core 5 cooler core 6 hotter or hottest, core 7 cooler, core 8/9/10 almost the same about 2C between those three cores. That's typical temp spread. Core 2, 4 and 6 are the three hottest cores with usually them being 1C to 2C apart from each other.

However you shoudn't have a 14C Delta at lower than 300 amps. That's for sure. In 240 amp FMA3 prime95 (5 ghz) I had 9C Delta. At 255 amp AVX1 prime95 (that LLC7 test I did for you I forgot, was it 1.270v LLC7 at 5.1 ghz?) that I cancelled because I was past max safe amps), it was 10C. I had 13C Delta once when I was dumb and ran FMA3 at a voltage I wasn't paying attention to when I meant to disable AVX, and somehow managed to be almost at 300 amps and 360W VRM CPU Power (not package power)---don't ask how that happened. Let's just say it went over 100C in no time flat, shall we?


----------



## zlatanselvic

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Sounds like the delid didn't go well or LM not spread well if heat is an issue.


I definitely saw a temp drop with liquid metal, and used the correct amount. (Thin layer, and no pooling, but enough to cover the die.) Applied a thin layer on the IHS side as well. I cleaned the surface accordingly. I've delidded an 8700k before and had good results. It just seems the chip I got is an extremely weak bin, even prior to de-lidding I couldn't find a stable 5.0ghz in CB R20.


----------



## zlatanselvic

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Sounds like the delid didn't go well or LM not spread well if heat is an issue.


I definitely saw a temp drop with liquid metal, and used the correct amount. (Thin layer, and no pooling, but enough to cover the die.) Applied a thin layer on the IHS side as well. I cleaned the surface accordingly. I've delidded an 8700k before and had good results. It just seems the chip I got is an extremely weak bin, even prior to de-lidding I couldn't find a stable 5.0ghz in CB R20. I postes SS of my bios settings above as well.


----------



## ThrashZone

zlatanselvic said:


> I definitely saw a temp drop with liquid metal, and used the correct amount. (Thin layer, and no pooling, but enough to cover the die.) Applied a thin layer on the IHS side as well. I cleaned the surface accordingly. I've delidded an 8700k before and had good results. It just seems the chip I got is an extremely weak bin, even prior to de-lidding I couldn't find a stable 5.0ghz in CB R20.


Hi,
Just checking LM can be a pain 
But yeah just try spreading the paste that is why grizzly comes with a spatula


----------



## zlatanselvic

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Just checking LM can be a pain
> But yeah just try spreading the paste that is why grizzly comes with a spatula


Totally agree with you, I actually put a bit too much in initially, and had to remove a bit before sealing it. Patience is key right, as that stuff is sensitive. I used quicksilver to remove the stock solder. That stuff is awesome btw. Way easier to use then a knife


----------



## ThrashZone

zlatanselvic said:


> Totally agree with you, I actually put a bit too much in initially, and had to remove a bit before sealing it. Patience is key right, as that stuff is sensitive. I used quicksilver to remove the stock solder. That stuff is awesome btw. Way easier to use then a knife


Hi,
Yeah I'm waiting on the rockit cool direct die frame 
Not sure why though this is just a 10 core gaming chip for me.


----------



## zlatanselvic

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Yeah I'm waiting on the rockit cool direct die frame
> Not sure why though this is just a 10 core gaming chip for me.


Same, every frame counts lol


----------



## Falkentyne

zlatanselvic said:


> Here are the settings below.


PLL OC Voltage is the only sensor hwinfo monitors and that's set by "PLL Bandwidth" in BIOS. Leave that at auto or "Default", default=level 0, which is 1.20v. Level 1 is safe but I would not go above level 1 period, unless you are on LN2.
PLL Termination is "VTT" but is shown in "Asus EC" section of HWinfo as "CPU Standby" and they seem to be linked. They also seem to be VERY different from the "CPU Standby voltage" in Tweaker's paradise. No need to change it. Why did you set it at 0.90v? Did it do anything for you? Set it back to auto (Should be 1.040v IIRC).


----------



## skullbringer

Falkentyne said:


> Instability detected (Luxmark) is a video issue. Nothing to do with CPU. No idea how to help.
> 
> Assuming the core numbers are 0-9 here (and not 1-10), core 1 is lowest in 100% of the chip samples. Even 9900k's were like this. It's always core #0 med, core 1 absolute coolest, core 2 hotter, core 3 medium core 4 hotter, core 5 cooler core 6 hotter or hottest, core 7 cooler, core 8/9/10 almost the same about 2C between those three cores. That's typical temp spread. Core 2, 4 and 6 are the three hottest cores with usually them being 1C to 2C apart from each other.
> 
> However you shoudn't have a 14C Delta at lower than 300 amps. That's for sure. In 240 amp FMA3 prime95 (5 ghz) I had 9C Delta. At 255 amp AVX1 prime95 (that LLC7 test I did for you I forgot, was it 1.270v LLC7 at 5.1 ghz?) that I cancelled because I was past max safe amps), it was 10C. I had 13C Delta once when I was dumb and ran FMA3 at a voltage I wasn't paying attention to when I meant to disable AVX, and somehow managed to be almost at 300 amps and 360W VRM CPU Power (not package power)---don't ask how that happened. Let's just say it went over 100C in no time flat, shall we?


Ran the benchmark in infinite mode, which got rid of the error at start, but crashed after 5mins. 

I also noticed that the IHS of my chip is offset about 1.5mm to the right and the ihs has some blemished that dont go away with isopropanol. All that with SP 63 imma probably send the chip back and try to get another one. 

Over on hwbot, many chips got 5.3-5.4 at the same voltage mine needs for 5.2 to not be stable.

Anyone have experience with pretested chips from caseking?


----------



## Falkentyne

skullbringer said:


> Ran the benchmark in infinite mode, which got rid of the error at start, but crashed after 5mins.
> 
> I also noticed that the IHS of my chip is offset about 1.5mm to the right and the ihs has some blemished that dont go away with isopropanol. All that with SP 63 imma probably send the chip back and try to get another one.
> 
> Over on hwbot, many chips got 5.3-5.4 at the same voltage mine needs for 5.2 to not be stable.
> 
> Anyone have experience with pretested chips from caseking?


Those are golden chips. And people are not going to post non golden chips. Some of those guys on the bot get tens of chips to test. One guy works for a company who gets hundreds from Intel. Only 5% of chips can do 5.4 ghz stable on water. 5 ghz:all. 5.1 ghz: most. 5.2 ghz: some. 5.3 ghz: few, 5.4 ghz: rare. 5.5 ghz: Player visits the Volcano God ™

A blemish on the IHS? If that's a particle, that could destroy temp spread.
Good luck with the RMA.


----------



## zlatanselvic

Falkentyne said:


> PLL OC Voltage is the only sensor hwinfo monitors and that's set by "PLL Bandwidth" in BIOS. Leave that at auto or "Default", default=level 0, which is 1.20v. Level 1 is safe but I would not go above level 1 period, unless you are on LN2.
> PLL Termination is "VTT" but is shown in "Asus EC" section of HWinfo as "CPU Standby" and they seem to be linked. They also seem to be VERY different from the "CPU Standby voltage" in Tweaker's paradise. No need to change it. Why did you set it at 0.90v? Did it do anything for you? Set it back to auto (Should be 1.040v IIRC).



Thank you, I flipped those back just now. I changed them due to a few YT videos of people hitting better clocks with those specific settings. I've been trying to get this chip to hit some stronger clocks since the initial batches came out. I got mine on the pre-order from newegg. I just did my Delid yesterday and refinished my loop. I just came from a 5.4ghz - 9900k. I know at this point it's just EPEEN points. I had figured that 10th gen would be hot due to it's 14nm architecture. I just didn't forsee my bin being this weak. I have literally the lowest result out of anyone that I've seen post lol.


----------



## Falkentyne

zlatanselvic said:


> Thank you, I flipped those back just now. I changed them due to a few YT videos of people hitting better clocks with those specific settings. I've been trying to get this chip to hit some stronger clocks since the initial batches came out. I got mine on the pre-order from newegg. I just did my Delid yesterday and refinished my loop. I just came from a 5.4ghz - 9900k. I know at this point it's just EPEEN points. I had figured that 10th gen would be hot due to it's 14nm architecture. I just didn't forsee my bin being this weak. I have literally the lowest result out of anyone that I've seen post lol.


Not lower than my retail. Crashes in CB R20 after awhile (or reaches 100C and crashes if i set temp limit to 115C) at 5.2 ghz, Bios set 1.400v, LLC: Turbo (Aorus Master). Can't run realbench at 5.2 ghz at 1.40v LLC Turbo either. (L0 errors). 5.1 ghz @ 1.250v at load voltage (forgot the bios setting, maybe it was 1.325v LLC:Turbo?) is 100% stable in realbench 2.56 however...I don't think your chip is worse than that.

What youtube videos?
Can you link me? Because I prowl on youtube every 15 minutes and never saw such videos. Just celebrities trying to overclock who don't know how to overclock


----------



## zlatanselvic

Falkentyne said:


> What youtube videos?
> Can you link me? Because I prowl on youtube every 15 minutes and never saw such videos. Just celebrities trying to overclock who don't know how to overclock























Here's the videos I used to help me. I believe the 2nd one was the one that had it.


----------



## Falkentyne

zlatanselvic said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cssbWlpmTho&t
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZUYZ8bUnnI&t
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZ_lT1m_98Y&t
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_67m2pz7Emo
> 
> 
> Here's the videos I used to help me. I believe the 2nd one was the one that had it.


I'll look at them but the second video has a Gigabyte Bios, not an Asus BIOS. And Gigabyte has different PLL Settings (although the "Overvoltage +mv" options are the same ones as the Asus ones in "Tweaker's paradise" that start at 0.900v). But PLL Termination Voltage on Asus (called VTT in hwinfo64) is called 'VCC VTT' on Gigabyte with no sensor in windows.

Looking at the others. Found nothing useful yet.
*Edit* his gigabyte board doesn't even have the PLL settings. My Z490 Master has them. His doesn't. Going to another video to look.


----------



## zlatanselvic

Falkentyne said:


> I'll look at them but the second video has a Gigabyte Bios, not an Asus BIOS. And Gigabyte has different PLL Settings (although the "Overvoltage +mv" options are the same ones as the Asus ones in "Tweaker's paradise" that start at 0.900v). But PLL Termination Voltage on Asus (called VTT in hwinfo64) is called 'VCC VTT' on Gigabyte with no sensor in windows.
> 
> Looking at the others. Found nothing useful yet.
> *Edit* his gigabyte board doesn't even have the PLL settings. My Z490 Master has them. His doesn't. Going to another video to look.


I've been scrounging for tweaks lol. I've debated getting another chip, but the gains don't really justify the means....


----------



## ThrashZone

zlatanselvic said:


> I've been scrounging for tweaks lol. I've debated getting another chip, but the gains don't really justify the means....


Hi,
Yeah saw on local micro center they had a 10900 same price as the k version 529.99 lol 
Thought at first it was 10900k lol and said dang do I need another :thinking:


----------



## Falkentyne

zlatanselvic said:


> I've been scrounging for tweaks lol. I've debated getting another chip, but the gains don't really justify the means....


Looked at all four. None of them had that PLL Termination that you changed. I have no idea where you found that.
And those videos were cringeworthy. Like worse than newbie overclocking. Like the one that said "USE LLC8 with manual voltage is recommended". Yikes...

I can also tell you that reducing PLL Term does nothing except make your system less stable. On Z390, Alex Ro said that raising PLL Term (VTT), not to be confused with DDR VTT, to 1.2v-1.3v, can help max out your cache overclock on air or water (he said that in two posts). Does nothing for the core itself. Usually this setting is used for sub-zero to avoid cold boot bugs or issues with high BCLK. Setting it to 0.9v I can only see having a negative effect on you. Hell i tried 0.850v while I was replying here, just to mess around, because I know Minecraft acts really...weird with the CPU Cache if it has too much affinity (even though it seems to run 100% on 1 cpu thread and partially on another, it seems to be using the cache in a weird way), and at 4.7 ghz, 4.4 cache, 1.145v Bios set, LLC4, Minecraft will generate internal parity errors on a multiplayer server and may randomly crash. Yet MC puts almost no real load on the CPU--like 30 amps max, so vcore isn't even stressed...

So I tried 3 things to mess around:
1) 4.7 ghz core 4.5 ghz cache. Minecraft just...rebooted the computer with no crash dump after awhile. Checked event log, after loading there was a critical error "Internal parity error". Usually these are just WHEA warnings and corrected. No idea it appeared after the reboot.

2) 4.8 ghz core, 4.5 cache (same 1.145v)--I know already thats not stable. Minecraft crashed after awhile (don't think it rebooted the system though).

3) 4.7 ghz/4.4 ghz (the normal settings), but PLL Termination=0.850v (Default is 1.040v). Minecraft rebooted the system after awhile and there was that critical "Internal Parity error" but not corrected. 

So yeah. Maybe you can raise VTT a little. But lowering it=bad.


----------



## zlatanselvic

Falkentyne said:


> Looked at all four. None of them had that PLL Termination that you changed. I have no idea where you found that.
> And those videos were cringeworthy. Like worse than newbie overclocking. Like the one that said "USE LLC8 with manual voltage is recommended". Yikes...
> 
> I can also tell you that reducing PLL Term does nothing except make your system less stable. On Z390, Alex Ro said that raising PLL Term (VTT), not to be confused with DDR VTT, to 1.2v-1.3v, can help max out your cache overclock on air or water (he said that in two posts). Does nothing for the core itself. Usually this setting is used for sub-zero to avoid cold boot bugs or issues with high BCLK. Setting it to 0.9v I can only see having a negative effect on you. Hell i tried 0.850v while I was replying here, just to mess around, because I know Minecraft acts really...weird with the CPU Cache if it has too much affinity (even though it seems to run 100% on 1 cpu thread and partially on another, it seems to be using the cache in a weird way), and at 4.7 ghz, 4.4 cache, 1.145v Bios set, LLC4, Minecraft will generate internal parity errors on a multiplayer server and may randomly crash. Yet MC puts almost no real load on the CPU--like 30 amps max, so vcore isn't even stressed...
> 
> So I tried 3 things to mess around:
> 1) 4.7 ghz core 4.5 ghz cache. Minecraft just...rebooted the computer with no crash dump after awhile. Checked event log, after loading there was a critical error "Internal parity error". Usually these are just WHEA warnings and corrected. No idea it appeared after the reboot.
> 
> 2) 4.8 ghz core, 4.5 cache (same 1.145v)--I know already thats not stable. Minecraft crashed after awhile (don't think it rebooted the system though).
> 
> 3) 4.7 ghz/4.4 ghz (the normal settings), but PLL Termination=0.850v (Default is 1.040v). Minecraft rebooted the system after awhile and there was that critical "Internal Parity error" but not corrected.
> 
> So yeah. Maybe you can raise VTT a little. But lowering it=bad.



Totally agree, I just hunted for the screengrabs of settings. I will try to adjust accordingly to see if I get a bit more.

Thanks again!


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

https://www.newegg.com/intel-core-i9-10900k-core-i9-10th-gen/p/N82E16819118122?Item=N82E16819118122

Newegg has stock now

Edit: Sold out in 15min LMAO


----------



## Betroz

Falkentyne said:


> Like worse than newbie overclocking. Like the one that said "USE LLC8 with manual voltage is recommended". Yikes...


Please explain why LLC8 with manual voltage is bad. 1.25 vcore LLC8 vs 1.40 vcore LLC4 for example. LLC5 was recommended for 9900K, but now LLC4 is recommended for 10900K, why?


----------



## Falkentyne

Betroz said:


> Please explain why LLC8 with manual voltage is bad. 1.25 vcore LLC8 vs 1.40 vcore LLC4 for example. LLC5 was recommended for 9900K, but now LLC4 is recommended for 10900K, why?


Your vmin increases drastically at LLC8 because of transients. You may reduce your average voltage but it's not your average voltage that determines how stable you are. It's your vmin.
LLC7 may be ok for gaming but much worse for stress testing than even LLC6. LLC8 should just be avoided. The highest a 24/7 LLC should be is 6. I have tested LLC7 to avoid Battlefield 5's terrible voltage drops when you try to load a map and it puts 100% cpu load on all cores at once. But unless you really need to, stick to 6 or lower.

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


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

can someone explain to me why a memory overclock will be stable using vcore llc high but not stable with vcore llc medium + increased voltage? Same vmin for both configs, even tried an extra tick/2 ticks over vmin, only the llc high stable.

EDIT: I may be asking this in the wrong place, will post in ddr4 stability thread


----------



## criskoe

Betroz said:


> Please explain why LLC8 with manual voltage is bad. 1.25 vcore LLC8 vs 1.40 vcore LLC4 for example. LLC5 was recommended for 9900K, but now LLC4 is recommended for 10900K, why?


LLC values will change from board to board. Not all boards handle this the same and are not created equal. Some do a better job then others with transients. To understand the benefits of using a lower LLC. You first must understand what transients are. Transients are VERY VERY small dips in the voltage that are so fast that all software monitoring programs cannot catch and will end up seen as instability and errors. You have to have very expensive equipment to monitor and see these dips and spikes. So in simple terms. A higher LLC value will require a higher actual LOAD voltage compared to a lower LLC value to be stable. This is simply because lower LLC values control these transients better. And Lower Load voltage will most always equate to lower power draw and less heat at a trade off to a bit higher idle voltage which really isnt as big of deal that some people seem to believe. 

Currently it seems with the XII asus boards the sweet spot for LLC and a solid 24/7 OC is between 4 and 6 depending on what OC frequency you are shooting for.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

XGS-Duplicity said:


> can someone explain to me why a memory overclock will be stable using vcore llc high but not stable with vcore llc medium + increased voltage? Same vmin for both configs, even tried an extra tick/2 ticks over vmin, only the llc high stable.
> 
> EDIT: I may be asking this in the wrong place, will post in ddr4 stability thread


LLC mid under light load the vcore is much higher than LLC high+low bios set volt. That means your CPU temp when mem testing will be higher.


----------



## newls1

Falkentyne said:


> Your vmin increases drastically at LLC8 because of transients. You may reduce your average voltage but it's not your average voltage that determines how stable you are. It's your vmin.
> LLC7 may be ok for gaming but much worse for stress testing than even LLC6. LLC8 should just be avoided. The highest a 24/7 LLC should be is 6. I have tested LLC7 to avoid Battlefield 5's terrible voltage drops when you try to load a map and it puts 100% cpu load on all cores at once. But unless you really need to, stick to 6 or lower.
> 
> https://elmorlabs.com/index.php/2019-09-05/vrm-load-line-visualized/





criskoe said:


> LLC values will change from board to board. Not all boards handle this the same and are not created equal. Some do a better job then others with transients. To understand the benefits of using a lower LLC. You first must understand what transients are. Transients are VERY VERY small dips in the voltage that are so fast that all software monitoring programs cannot catch and will end up seen as instability and errors. You have to have very expensive equipment to monitor and see these dips and spikes. So in simple terms. A higher LLC value will require a higher actual LOAD voltage compared to a lower LLC value to be stable. This is simply because lower LLC values control these transients better. And Lower Load voltage will most always equate to lower power draw and less heat at a trade off to a bit higher idle voltage which really isnt as big of deal that some people seem to believe.
> 
> Currently it seems with the XII asus boards the sweet spot for LLC is between 4 and 6 depending on what OC frequency you are shooting for.


This advice is what helped me get to 5.3. excellent advice and hope people with less knowledge (like myself) gain the opportunity to take this advice, and get a good 5.2+ OC on their cpus as well.


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> LLC mid under light load the vcore is much higher than LLC high+low bios set volt. That means your CPU temp when mem testing will be higher.


it's acdc-1/1 + vcore LLC high + 90mv offset VS acdc-1/1 + vcore LLC medium + 100mv offset. 10mv difference and temps are higher when using the vcore LLC high config by a couple degrees. Does LLC high handle fully loaded memory controller loads better than llc medium/low/standard/normal or something or does higher llc in general improve memory stability? Couldn't stabilize the same memory config on medium/low/standard/normal vcore llc at same or increased/decreased vmin with lower temps, only on high vcore llc. i'm fine with using the llc high, just curious if vcore llc somehow plays a role in memory oc stability when the imc is under full load.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

XGS-Duplicity said:


> it's acdc-1/1 + vcore LLC high + 90mv offset VS acdc-1/1 + vcore LLC medium + 100mv offset. 10mv difference and temps are higher when using the vcore LLC high config by a couple degrees. Does LLC high handle fully loaded memory controller loads better than llc medium/low/standard/normal or something or does higher llc in general improve memory stability? Couldn't stabilize the same memory config on medium/low/standard/normal vcore llc, only on high vcore llc. i'm fine with using the llc high, just curious if vcore llc somehow plays a role in memory oc stability when the imc is under full load.


Its not full load in memory tests, so LLC high+low V in BIOS wont be the same as LLC mid+high V inBIOS if you keep the vcore the same under heavy load.

It only about the temp. For example, decreasing the temp from -40c to -60c will boost around 100-150MHz mem freq.


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> Its not full load in memory tests, so LLC high+low V in BIOS wont be the same as LLC mid+high V inBIOS if you keep the vcore the same under heavy load.
> 
> It only about the temp. For example, decreasing the temp from -40c to -60c will boost around 100-150MHz mem freq.


the vcore LLC medium + 100mv offset configuration runs lower in temp than the vcore llc high + 90mv offset configuration BUT cannot be stabilized(this specific memory OC that is in my sig, cpu OC stable either llv/voltage config). It's not temperatures affecting stability here so we can take that out of the equation as the LLC high runs hotter and is stable. Does this mean that higher levels of vcore llc can directly increase memory overclock stability?


----------



## Betroz

criskoe said:


> Currently it seems with the XII asus boards the sweet spot for LLC and a solid 24/7 OC is between 4 and 6 depending on what OC frequency you are shooting for.


I am going to use the XII Apex board, which is supposed to handle LLC6 well. (LLC6 is what I'm currently using with my XI Apex and 9900K)
Thank you, and you too @Falkentyne


----------



## hemon

@Falkentyne what do you think about this? (I posted it before)

The max "Operating Voltage" for i9-10900k is 2.0v as found in the 10th Generation Intel Processor Families: Datasheet, Volume 1 of 2 (https://www.intel.de/content/dam/www...-datasheet.pdf page 112)

For comparing: The max "Operating Voltage" for i9-9900k is 1.52v or 1.52 + Offset voltage= 1.72V (https://www.intel.com/content/www/us...eet-vol-1.html page 118 or here https://www.intel.com/content/www/us...rocessors.html)

Max voltage for the 10900k seems to be 2.0v (and for the 9900k 1.52v) …did I understand it wrong or could it really be?!


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

XGS-Duplicity said:


> the vcore LLC medium + 100mv offset configuration runs lower in temp than the vcore llc high + 90mv offset configuration BUT cannot be stabilized(this specific memory OC that is in my sig, cpu OC stable either llv/voltage config). It's not temperatures affecting stability here so we can take that out of the equation as the LLC high runs hotter and is stable. Does this mean that higher levels of vcore llc can directly increase memory overclock stability?


If you have OCed your cpu, that would be another story. IMO your cpu might not be full stable @ llc mid+100mV offset.


----------



## Nizzen

Running 10900k LLc8 no vdrop on apex xii. 1.28v 5.3 ghz. We will see if it is dead until Rocketlake is here 😉

If it works, why bothering running something else 😄


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> If you have OCed your cpu, that would be another story. IMO your cpu might not be full stable @ llc mid+100mV offset.


That configuration was already stress tested several times in different ambient temperatures and stable. It's also stable with other higher latency memory overclocks such as cl15-3900/4000/4133, cl14-3700/3733. Regardless of the amount of voltage or whether vmin is met or exceeded, I need vcore LLC set to high in dvid voltage mode to be memtest stable for [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected] These 3 configs are the only 3 configs that do about 35 ns flat out with cache between 4.8/4.9 out of all my mem oc configs, they all require vcore llc set to high to be stable for me. Since no other variables were changed, This leads me to think/believe that higher levels of vcore llc can increase memory overclock stability, or at least when pushing lower latency profiles.


----------



## Falkentyne

XGS-Duplicity said:


> can someone explain to me why a memory overclock will be stable using vcore llc high but not stable with vcore llc medium + increased voltage? Same vmin for both configs, even tried an extra tick/2 ticks over vmin, only the llc high stable.
> 
> EDIT: I may be asking this in the wrong place, will post in ddr4 stability thread


System Agent apparently has a loadline calibration setting. Found it on VRM dumps. You're on your own there. Not touching that. Nor do I know what it does. And you need a VRM tool to even access it. Especially when system agent isn't tied to the core clock...

However this may have something to do with the random Internal Parity Errors you get with a load voltage of 1.119v @ 4.7 ghz core 4.4 ghz cache in Minecraft (multiplayer) with loadline calibration LLC4, while if you use LLC8 @ 1.119v you are rock stable. ....what the heck...

I suspect its something to do with the CPU cache ...but what do I know...


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

Falkentyne said:


> System Agent apparently has a loadline calibration setting. Found it on VRM dumps. You're on your own there. Not touching that. Nor do I know what it does. And you need a VRM tool to even access it. Especially when system agent isn't tied to the core clock...
> 
> However this may have something to do with the random Internal Parity Errors you get with a load voltage of 1.119v @ 4.7 ghz core 4.4 ghz cache in Minecraft (multiplayer) with loadline calibration LLC4, while if you use LLC8 @ 1.119v you are rock stable. ....what the heck...
> 
> I suspect its something to do with the CPU cache ...but what do I know...


cpu cache is at the same frequency for both configs(5.2core/4.8cache 8c/8t w/ [email protected]), the hotter temp high vcore llc is stable while the cooler temp medium vcore llc + voltage increase is unstable. Goes the same for 5.3/4.9 8c/8t @ [email protected]/3933, high vcore llc stable but medium/lower/standard/normal vcore llc + voltage increase unstable. Higher latency configs at even higher frequencies are fine regardless of the vcore llc used just so long as vmin is still met. So basically i think either higher vcore llc on adaptive/offset style overclocks increase stability for lower latency memory overclocks in general, or maybe it only improves things for aorus z-boards or something.


----------



## Falkentyne

hemon said:


> @Falkentyne what do you think about this? (I posted it before)
> 
> The max "Operating Voltage" for i9-10900k is 2.0v as found in the 10th Generation Intel Processor Families: Datasheet, Volume 1 of 2 (https://www.intel.de/content/dam/www...-datasheet.pdf page 112)
> 
> For comparing: The max "Operating Voltage" for i9-9900k is 1.52v or 1.52 + Offset voltage= 1.72V (https://www.intel.com/content/www/us...eet-vol-1.html page 118 or here https://www.intel.com/content/www/us...rocessors.html)
> 
> Max voltage for the 10900k seems to be 2.0v (and for the 9900k 1.52v) …did I understand it wrong or could it really be?!


First, your link is broken (check it)--error 404.
Second, that chip has a FIVR. That 2.0v is INPUT voltage, similar to VCCIN on haswell and HEDT (default is usually 1.8v).

1.52v + 200mv =1.72v absolute max VID is for both 9900k and 10700k/10900k.
Seems to be enabled by default (Offset mode "33h" command) on all boards. On 9900k, Gigabyte disabled this by default, limiting max VID to 1.520v.

This max VID is what AC Loadline is limited to in allowing a CPU to request a voltage *BEFORE VDROOP*. But it seems to be different on 10th gen than 9th gen (10th gen chips will request up to 1.50 LOAD VOLTAGE with AC/DC Loadline 1.1 mOhms and loadline calibration = 1.1 mOhms at their HIGHEST turbo multiplier, x52 or x53...*AFTER* vdroop....)


----------



## Falkentyne

XGS-Duplicity said:


> cpu cache is at the same frequency for both configs(5.2core/4.8cache 8c/8t w/ [email protected]), the hotter temp high vcore llc is stable while the cooler temp medium vcore llc + voltage increase is unstable. Goes the same for 5.3/4.9 8c/8t @ [email protected]/3933, high vcore llc stable but medium/lower/standard/normal vcore llc + voltage increase unstable. Higher latency configs at even higher frequencies are fine regardless of the vcore llc used just so long as vmin is still met. So basically i think either higher vcore llc on adaptive/offset style overclocks increase stability for lower latency memory overclocks in general, or maybe it only improves things for aorus z-boards or something.


Yeah but explain this to me. Please.

LLC8=worse transients than LLC4. Right? (ok, on your board, Ultra Extreme=worse transients than "Medium" LLC, right?).

Minecraft puts a TINY load on the CPU. Like...30 amps maximum. But it puts a 100% load on one thread of 1 core, and a partial load on a second core. But only 30 amps......

So explain this to me. Please. I know how smart you are so I know you can have a stab at this. Show me your true power.

1.145v Bios set + LLC4 = 1.119v load at 4.7 ghz 4.4 cache=minecraft generates random "Internal parity errors" and sometimes crashes when on a multiplayer server where one thread is running around 100% usage.
Needs about 1.175v bios set to NOT get any internal parity errors.

1.110v LLC8 (ultra extreme LLC) = No errors. 

Explain that to me. I'm waiting.
(while you're stuck on that (beats dealing with RTL's and IOL's right?), if you set minecraft to only run on 2 physical cores (4 threads), then you get absolutely no internal parity errors on the original settings (4.7/4.4, 1.145v Bios set + LLC4). Note also--a smoking gun--the internal parity errors happen on completely random threads--even those with no usage on them. They aren't linked to the core/thread with 100% usage...)


----------



## Falkentyne

Looks like I was completely right. No one here has a clue what's going on ....


----------



## TK421

Falkentyne said:


> Looks like I was completely right. No one here has a clue what's going on ....


falken, you once complained that intel doesn't have a guideline for calculating max safe VCCSA, did you ever figure this problem out?


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

Falkentyne said:


> Yeah but explain this to me. Please.
> 
> LLC8=worse transients than LLC4. Right? (ok, on your board, Ultra Extreme=worse transients than "Medium" LLC, right?).
> 
> Minecraft puts a TINY load on the CPU. Like...30 amps maximum. But it puts a 100% load on one thread of 1 core, and a partial load on a second core. But only 30 amps......
> 
> So explain this to me. Please. I know how smart you are so I know you can have a stab at this. Show me your true power.
> 
> 1.145v Bios set + LLC4 = 1.119v load at 4.7 ghz 4.4 cache=minecraft generates random "Internal parity errors" and sometimes crashes when on a multiplayer server where one thread is running around 100% usage.
> Needs about 1.175v bios set to NOT get any internal parity errors.
> 
> 1.110v LLC8 (ultra extreme LLC) = No errors.
> 
> Explain that to me. I'm waiting.
> (while you're stuck on that (beats dealing with RTL's and IOL's right?), if you set minecraft to only run on 2 physical cores (4 threads), then you get absolutely no internal parity errors on the original settings (4.7/4.4, 1.145v Bios set + LLC4). Note also--a smoking gun--the internal parity errors happen on completely random threads--even those with no usage on them. They aren't linked to the core/thread with 100% usage...)


Your cache is 100mhz too high maybe? i've had the most success with cache 400mhz behind the cores. bios default shows 47/43 so i follow that trend of spacing.

i just now decided to revisit turbo vcore llc with acdc-1/1 + dvid voltage mode. +00 offset = 5ghz and 4.6ghz cache. Turns out I can do 5.3ghz/4.9ghz cache with only +100mv offset as opposed to +150mv offset with high vcore llc. I think last year i thought it wasn't working right because i couldn't get into windows using turbo vcore llc/dvid mode but now that I think of it, i probably had my cache 100mhz too high back then.


----------



## Falkentyne

XGS-Duplicity said:


> Your cache is 100mhz too high maybe? i've had the most success with cache 400mhz behind the cores. bios default shows 47/43 so i follow that trend.
> 
> i just now decided to revisit turbo vcore llc with acdc-1/1 + dvid voltage mode. +00 offset = 5ghz and 4.6ghz cache. Turns out I can do 5.3ghz/4.9ghz cache with only +100mv offset as opposed to +150mv offset with high vcore llc. I think last year i thought it wasn't working right because i couldn't get into windows using turbo vcore llc/dvid mode but now that I think of it, i probably had my cache 100mhz too high back then.


Nope. I set the cache to x43 (4 below the core), same thing. So it can't be JUST the cache ratio. x43 helps "slightly" but it doesn't remove the issue totally. Now i haven't gone below x43 but still...
although what was funny is, using x43 cache and then running in WINDOWED MODE stopped the parity errors. (but not in fullscreen mode).

And it's not just the ES chip. The retail chip on the Z490 Master does the exact same thing. So it's not the asus board. It's ...something with the chips. And the 9900k does it too btw.
Hell you can test it yourself. Just go on hypixel or cubecraft (cubecraft is better since there's no low-load AFK jail cell) servers and just wait for the random errors.

It's something ---voltage-- related, but not related to the core specifically. It's stupid. Why? 

Minecraft crashes at 1.119v vcore at full load (with LLC4). Does NOT crash at LLC8 + 1.110v load. I'm serious. Left it running an hour. No Parity Errors. 


Still scratching your head?
How come small FFT AVX prime95 passes at 1.021v load? With 20C higher temps and like 100 amps more current? But MINECRAFT crashes at 1.119v LLC4 but NOT 1.10v LLC8 ??

Now I did see some 80 amp spikes randomly, but still...at worst that's 1.086v at 0.7275 mOhms of LLC (1145mv - (0.7275 * 80)). And transients should be worse at LLC8 than 4...

Unless the no vdroop LLC is reducing dips at super low loads, more than the transient penalty is from using LLC8 ....but again I'm telling you...so far only Minecraft acts like this.
(of course the instant fix is to set affinity to 2 physical cores (4 threads)--instant 100% fix). Setting affinty to 1 core (2 threads) makes the game run super slow--need 2 cores...doesn't matter which cores either...


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

Falkentyne said:


> Nope. I set the cache to x43 (4 below the core), same thing. So it can't be JUST the cache ratio. x43 helps "slightly" but it doesn't remove the issue totally. Now i haven't gone below x43 but still...
> although what was funny is, using x43 cache and then running in WINDOWED MODE stopped the parity errors. (but not in fullscreen mode).
> 
> And it's not just the ES chip. The retail chip on the Z490 Master does the exact same thing. So it's not the asus board. It's ...something with the chips. And the 9900k does it too btw.
> Hell you can test it yourself. Just go on hypixel or cubecraft (cubecraft is better since there's no low-load AFK jail cell) servers and just wait for the random errors.
> 
> It's something ---voltage-- related, but not related to the core specifically. It's stupid. Why?
> 
> Minecraft crashes at 1.119v vcore at full load (with LLC4). Does NOT crash at LLC8 + 1.110v load. I'm serious. Left it running an hour. No Parity Errors.
> 
> 
> Still scratching your head?
> How come small FFT AVX prime95 passes at 1.021v load? With 20C higher temps and like 100 amps more current? But MINECRAFT crashes at 1.119v LLC4 but NOT 1.10v LLC8 ??
> 
> Now I did see some 80 amp spikes randomly, but still...at worst that's 1.086v at 0.7275 mOhms of LLC (1145mv - (0.7275 * 80)). And transients should be worse at LLC8 than 4...
> 
> Unless the no vdroop LLC is reducing dips at super low loads, more than the transient penalty is from using LLC8 ....but again I'm telling you...so far only Minecraft acts like this.
> (of course the instant fix is to set affinity to 2 physical cores (4 threads)--instant 100% fix). Setting affinty to 1 core (2 threads) makes the game run super slow--need 2 cores...doesn't matter which cores either...


breadcrumbs are leading me to believe that higher levels of llc are just flat out better for handling certain loads but transients can still interfere sometimes?


----------



## Falkentyne

XGS-Duplicity said:


> breadcrumbs are leading me to believe that higher levels of llc are just flat out better for handling certain loads but transients can still interfere sometimes?


Yeah see if I had an oscilloscope I could see at least some stuff whats going on, although not what's happening to each independent core....


----------



## Falkentyne

XGS-Duplicity said:


> breadcrumbs are leading me to believe that higher levels of llc are just flat out better for handling certain loads but transients can still interfere sometimes?


Well setting x47 core and x41 (yes, x41) cache on my crappy chip helped the parity errors...guess you were right once again...
But still......why does Ultra extreme LLC help more than a steeper loadline? It's like the cache needs to be at a higher voltage than the core at some point?

I'll try x42 and x43 later.


----------



## btaylor11

*Max XII Extreme - BIOS Avoiding me!*

Hi, I'm new to the forum but an avid reader, here and every tech website there is. I built my son his first computer last year (9900k build w/2070 super) and I finally built one myself now. 
I was using a [email protected] on an ASUS P5E Workstation MB w/ 8GB ram and HD7970Ghz 3GB. I built that in early 2008. It lasted me 12 years. My goal was 10 years so i was able to save an extra 2 years to build my son a very good first computer and to really build a great new system for myself. I got a used 1080ti hybrid for a great deal. Plan to upgrade to 3080ti or whatever is below a titan next. I would have done a full custom loop and researched for a good 2 years. I have some of the parts but ended up not seeing the value other than aesthetics. It's a possibility in the future but I have used my budget and am happy where I am at. I have $2000 saved for a VR setup (Index seems the best bet) and new nVidia card in the future. I thought i was up to snuff but I am having issues, embarrassing issues which I can't find the answers to. First off here is my build to last me the next 10 years...
CPU ------> 10900k
AIO ------> NZXT Z73 kraken
CASE ----> Lian-Li D11XL 
FANS -----> 10x Corsair ML120 Mag-Lev Non-RGB
MB -------> ASUS MXII Extreme 
RAM ------> 64GB (2x32) GSkill CL18.3600 Trident Z RGB
OS -------> 970 Pro 512GB Win10 Pro NVMe
SSD ------> 950 Pro 1TB SATA
HDD ------> 640GB & 2TB WD, 6TB Seagate SATA
KB --------> Red Dragon K56 RGB Mechanical (Brown Switches)
MOUSE ---> Logitech g502 Proteus
GPU -------> nVidia 1080ti SeaHawk X Hybrid 
PSU -------> Corsair HX1000i PSU 
DISP ------> Acer XB273K.GP 4k.144hz(120hz) GSync-Compat. (Mis-Purchased but VERY happy i did, Excellent display...$549.99 $350 [email protected]) 

I bought almost everything from MicroCenter at retail prices not jacked up. I can't recommend them enough.

Firstly-I got into the BIOS and left everything alone. I got SP 98 and Cooling 178. The default settings had the vcore at 1.45v which was ridiculous in my opinion. After initially setting up windows 10 I have a VERY hard time getting into the BIOS again. I press the right keys but it loads into the desktop immediately. Using the recovery restart that's supposed to go to UEFI still takes me right to the desktop. I downloaded intel XTU and lowered the voltages down to 1.18v at 5.2Ghz All Cores and it works great and its stable doing R20 and prime95. I also used aida64 stress test. The temps get up to 68-75c using HWiNFO64. The preferred cores are 8 and 9. using CPU-Z. GPU-Z doesn't have any issues with my 1080ti. I used afterburner to auto clock it and it goes up to just under 2.0ghz. The VRAM memory is default. XMP 1 for RAM. Also-CAM software freezes the CPU Block display whenever i do just about anything other than nothing. Anyways i updated the BIOS and was able to get into it one more time. My processor SP is 98 and Cooling is 168 (-10) now. I figured i solved the problem and could now access the BIOS but nope, I can't get into it period now. I have tried so many things but by the time my monitor comes on i'm at the desktop. Keeping it turned on just shows a black screen until desktop is loaded. The beeper is sounding the VGA issue 1 long 3 short so i'm not sure if that is the problem. Has anyone else had this issue and/or am I just not up with the times. I really liked the standard bios with everything on a long screen in text and numbers. This new UEFI is very complex and no doubt i will learn what each and every thing does but i can't get into it to play around. Thank you if anyone reads this and has the same issue. Any advise i will try. I may seem hopeless but I work 2 jobs and any free time not with my son this is all i have. I will get this thing running the best it can but I am over my head and can admit it. I just need to get into the BIOS and i can start working at it.... Thank you!


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

Falkentyne said:


> Well setting x47 core and x41 (yes, x41) cache on my crappy chip helped the parity errors...guess you were right once again...
> But still......why does Ultra extreme LLC help more than a steeper loadline? It's like the cache needs to be at a higher voltage than the core at some point?
> 
> I'll try x42 and x43 later.


hmmmm i have no idea.


----------



## cstkl1

btaylor11 said:


> Hi, I'm new to the forum but an avid reader, here and every tech website there is. I built my son his first computer last year (9900k build w/2070 super) and I finally built one myself now.
> I was using a [email protected] on an ASUS P5E Workstation MB w/ 8GB ram and HD7970Ghz 3GB. I built that in early 2008. It lasted me 12 years. My goal was 10 years so i was able to save an extra 2 years to build my son a very good first computer and to really build a great new system for myself. I got a used 1080ti hybrid for a great deal. Plan to upgrade to 3080ti or whatever is below a titan next. I would have done a full custom loop and researched for a good 2 years. I have some of the parts but ended up not seeing the value other than aesthetics. It's a possibility in the future but I have used my budget and am happy where I am at. I have $2000 saved for a VR setup (Index seems the best bet) and new nVidia card in the future. I thought i was up to snuff but I am having issues, embarrassing issues which I can't find the answers to. First off here is my build to last me the next 10 years...
> CPU ------> 10900k
> AIO ------> NZXT Z73 kraken
> CASE ----> Lian-Li D11XL
> FANS -----> 10x Corsair ML120 Mag-Lev Non-RGB
> MB -------> ASUS MXII Extreme
> RAM ------> 64GB (2x32) GSkill CL18.3600 Trident Z RGB
> OS -------> 970 Pro 512GB Win10 Pro NVMe
> SSD ------> 950 Pro 1TB SATA
> HDD ------> 640GB & 2TB WD, 6TB Seagate SATA
> KB --------> Red Dragon K56 RGB Mechanical (Brown Switches)
> MOUSE ---> Logitech g502 Proteus
> GPU -------> nVidia 1080ti SeaHawk X Hybrid
> PSU -------> Corsair HX1000i PSU
> DISP ------> Acer XB273K.GP 4k.144hz(120hz) GSync-Compat. (Mis-Purchased but VERY happy i did, Excellent display...$549.99 $350 [email protected])
> 
> I bought almost everything from MicroCenter at retail prices not jacked up. I can't recommend them enough.
> 
> Firstly-I got into the BIOS and left everything alone. I got SP 98 and Cooling 178. The default settings had the vcore at 1.45v which was ridiculous in my opinion. After initially setting up windows 10 I have a VERY hard time getting into the BIOS again. I press the right keys but it loads into the desktop immediately. Using the recovery restart that's supposed to go to UEFI still takes me right to the desktop. I downloaded intel XTU and lowered the voltages down to 1.18v at 5.2Ghz All Cores and it works great and its stable doing R20 and prime95. I also used aida64 stress test. The temps get up to 68-75c using HWiNFO64. The preferred cores are 8 and 9. using CPU-Z. GPU-Z doesn't have any issues with my 1080ti. I used afterburner to auto clock it and it goes up to just under 2.0ghz. The VRAM memory is default. XMP 1 for RAM. Also-CAM software freezes the CPU Block display whenever i do just about anything other than nothing. Anyways i updated the BIOS and was able to get into it one more time. My processor SP is 98 and Cooling is 168 (-10) now. I figured i solved the problem and could now access the BIOS but nope, I can't get into it period now. I have tried so many things but by the time my monitor comes on i'm at the desktop. Keeping it turned on just shows a black screen until desktop is loaded. The beeper is sounding the VGA issue 1 long 3 short so i'm not sure if that is the problem. Has anyone else had this issue and/or am I just not up with the times. I really liked the standard bios with everything on a long screen in text and numbers. This new UEFI is very complex and no doubt i will learn what each and every thing does but i can't get into it to play around. Thank you if anyone reads this and has the same issue. Any advise i will try. I may seem hopeless but I work 2 jobs and any free time not with my son this is all i have. I will get this thing running the best it can but I am over my head and can admit it. I just need to get into the BIOS and i can start working at it.... Thank you!


Last two bios had that issue with freesync monitors. 
Plug in my pure scalarless gsync monitor no issue

What u can do is
Bios reset via i/o, load back your settings
1. Go to tweakers paradise disable realtime memory training
2. Go to dram timing disable mrc fast boot
3. Boot setting disable fast boot. 

It helps abit. But if your ram training takes long then you have to set rtl/iol yourself in ram which reduces training quite abit


----------



## hemon

btaylor11 said:


> Hi, I'm new to the forum but an avid reader, here and every tech website there is. I built my son his first computer last year (9900k build w/2070 super) and I finally built one myself now.
> I was using a [email protected] on an ASUS P5E Workstation MB w/ 8GB ram and HD7970Ghz 3GB. I built that in early 2008. It lasted me 12 years. My goal was 10 years so i was able to save an extra 2 years to build my son a very good first computer and to really build a great new system for myself. I got a used 1080ti hybrid for a great deal. Plan to upgrade to 3080ti or whatever is below a titan next. I would have done a full custom loop and researched for a good 2 years. I have some of the parts but ended up not seeing the value other than aesthetics. It's a possibility in the future but I have used my budget and am happy where I am at. I have $2000 saved for a VR setup (Index seems the best bet) and new nVidia card in the future. I thought i was up to snuff but I am having issues, embarrassing issues which I can't find the answers to. First off here is my build to last me the next 10 years...
> CPU ------> 10900k
> AIO ------> NZXT Z73 kraken
> CASE ----> Lian-Li D11XL
> FANS -----> 10x Corsair ML120 Mag-Lev Non-RGB
> MB -------> ASUS MXII Extreme
> RAM ------> 64GB (2x32) GSkill CL18.3600 Trident Z RGB
> OS -------> 970 Pro 512GB Win10 Pro NVMe
> SSD ------> 950 Pro 1TB SATA
> HDD ------> 640GB & 2TB WD, 6TB Seagate SATA
> KB --------> Red Dragon K56 RGB Mechanical (Brown Switches)
> MOUSE ---> Logitech g502 Proteus
> GPU -------> nVidia 1080ti SeaHawk X Hybrid
> PSU -------> Corsair HX1000i PSU
> DISP ------> Acer XB273K.GP 4k.144hz(120hz) GSync-Compat. (Mis-Purchased but VERY happy i did, Excellent display...$549.99 $350 [email protected])
> 
> I bought almost everything from MicroCenter at retail prices not jacked up. I can't recommend them enough.
> 
> Firstly-I got into the BIOS and left everything alone. I got SP 98 and Cooling 178. The default settings had the vcore at 1.45v which was ridiculous in my opinion. After initially setting up windows 10 I have a VERY hard time getting into the BIOS again. I press the right keys but it loads into the desktop immediately. Using the recovery restart that's supposed to go to UEFI still takes me right to the desktop. I downloaded intel XTU and lowered the voltages down to 1.18v at 5.2Ghz All Cores and it works great and its stable doing R20 and prime95. I also used aida64 stress test. The temps get up to 68-75c using HWiNFO64. The preferred cores are 8 and 9. using CPU-Z. GPU-Z doesn't have any issues with my 1080ti. I used afterburner to auto clock it and it goes up to just under 2.0ghz. The VRAM memory is default. XMP 1 for RAM. Also-CAM software freezes the CPU Block display whenever i do just about anything other than nothing. Anyways i updated the BIOS and was able to get into it one more time. My processor SP is 98 and Cooling is 168 (-10) now. I figured i solved the problem and could now access the BIOS but nope, I can't get into it period now. I have tried so many things but by the time my monitor comes on i'm at the desktop. Keeping it turned on just shows a black screen until desktop is loaded. The beeper is sounding the VGA issue 1 long 3 short so i'm not sure if that is the problem. Has anyone else had this issue and/or am I just not up with the times. I really liked the standard bios with everything on a long screen in text and numbers. This new UEFI is very complex and no doubt i will learn what each and every thing does but i can't get into it to play around. Thank you if anyone reads this and has the same issue. Any advise i will try. I may seem hopeless but I work 2 jobs and any free time not with my son this is all i have. I will get this thing running the best it can but I am over my head and can admit it. I just need to get into the BIOS and i can start working at it.... Thank you!


Did you tried with this? https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/drivers/nv-uefi-update-x64/


----------



## Betroz

@Falkentyne
I too have had a similar experience with parity errors, but while playing Battlefield 5. For me it was the cache/uncore that was the problem. More vcore and/or better cooling is probably what fixed it, either way the cache was the reason for the parity errors.

Edit : And of course not all CPUs can handle high cache clocks. My 9900K maxes out at 4600 Mhz on the cache, at least with my vcore setting and cooling.


----------



## btaylor11

Thank you for the responses I will try when I get home tonight!


----------



## beatlep

Hello, 
I don't know if my I9-10900K is very bad or what, but it needs 1.305v with LLC6 to be AVX stable at 5.1 GHZ.
I've seen here people with 5.2 ghz and only 1.250v.
My SP Score is 83 and i use an AIO NZXT X72.
I don't know if is my MB Asus Rog Strix Z490-E Gaming, my memory GSKILL 32 GB (2x16) [email protected] (17-18-18) or that i didn't configure the Bios well.

Here almost everyone has a Asus ROG Maximus XII Extreme or Maximus XII Formula?
These MB overclock better than the Strix Z490-E?

Sorry for my english xd


----------



## Falkentyne

beatlep said:


> Hello,
> I don't know if my I9-10900K is very bad or what, but it needs 1.305v with LLC6 to be AVX stable at 5.1 GHZ.
> I've seen here people wit 5.2 ghz and only 1.250v.
> My SP Score is 83 and i use an AIO NZXT X72.
> I don't know if is my MB Asus Rog Strix Z490-E Gaming, my memory GSKILL 32 GB (2x16) [email protected] (17-18-18) or that i didn't configure the Bios well.
> 
> Here almost everyone has a Asus ROG Maximus XII Extreme or Maximus XII Formula?
> These MB overclock better than the Strix Z490-E?
> 
> Sorry for my english xd


What is your stable LOAD point at 5.1 ghz? And what test are you using? That is all that matters. The Bios voltage means nothing.

Stop comparing yourself to people on HWbot, please. People usually only post their golden chips, not their bad ones, and some of those people bin their chips as they have access to many chips. One of those guys gets 1000 chip shipments from Intel to his company so he gets to bin what he wants (talked about it on their discord channel).

My SP94 needs 1.315v (Bios) LLC6 to be stable at 5.1 ghz (small FFT AVX1 prime95--and it gets above 90C so it's not coolable), but regular AVX loads require lower bios voltage than that. The stable "load" point at 5.1 ghz is 1.181v.

How much load voltage do you need to be stable at 5.1 ghz and what program are you using to test? Small FFT Prime95 AVX1 (I hope that's not what you're testing), Realbench 2.56 (better) or AIDA64 Stress FPU (good too)?
If you're passing "FMA3" at 5.1 ghz 1.305v Bios LLC6, that's an almost golden chip (load voltage would be 1.170v, even mine and Criskoe's chips will crash with that.


----------



## beatlep

Falkentyne said:


> What is your stable LOAD point at 5.1 ghz? And what test are you using? That is all that matters. The Bios voltage means nothing.
> 
> Stop comparing yourself to people on HWbot, please. People usually only post their golden chips, not their bad ones, and some of those people bin their chips as they have access to many chips. One of those guys gets 1000 chip shipments from Intel to his company so he gets to bin what he wants (talked about it on their discord channel).
> 
> My SP94 needs 1.315v (Bios) LLC6 to be stable at 5.1 ghz (small FFT AVX1 prime95--and it gets above 90C so it's not coolable), but regular AVX loads require lower bios voltage than that. The stable "load" point at 5.1 ghz is 1.181v.
> 
> How much load voltage do you need to be stable at 5.1 ghz and what program are you using to test? Small FFT Prime95 AVX1 (I hope that's not what you're testing), Realbench 2.56 (better) or AIDA64 Stress FPU (good too)?
> If you're passing "FMA3" at 5.1 ghz 1.305v Bios LLC6, that's an almost golden chip (load voltage would be 1.170v, even mine and Criskoe's chips will crash with that.


I tried LINX with AVX2 but i will try Realbench 2.56 or AIDA64 Stress FPU.
Thanks for the response.


----------



## Falkentyne

beatlep said:


> I tried LINX with AVX2 but i will try Realbench 2.56 or AIDA64 Stress FPU.
> Thanks for the response.


You didn't answer my question though.
What is your LOAD voltage at 5.1 ghz? (For gigabyte you can read VR VOUT in newest hwinfo64, for Asus, just read vcore sensor).


----------



## beatlep

Falkentyne said:


> You didn't answer my question though.
> What is your LOAD voltage at 5.1 ghz? (For gigabyte you can read VR VOUT in newest hwinfo64, for Asus, just read vcore sensor).


Where i read vcore sensor? In Asus Suite, in HWinfo?
I read it in CPUZ.

I'm not very familiar with this.


----------



## Falkentyne

beatlep said:


> Where i read vcore sensor? In Asus Suite, in HWinfo?
> I read it in CPUZ.
> 
> I'm not very familiar with this.


Asus motherboard, cpu-z, or hwinfo64 "Vcore" sensor is fine.


----------



## btaylor11

*Fixed!*



hemon said:


> Did you tried with this? https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/drivers/nv-uefi-update-x64/


I stopped home between jobs to try this. 

>>>>>> Guess what! It needed the update! I had no idea! Fixed the problem! Thank you for taking the time to help I am very grateful! <<<<<<<<

It turns out I really have a lot to learn. Thanks again for the quick solution and link. Wow such a simple fix too!
I am able to enter the BIOS no problem now. On top of that i don't have to re-enable HDR every time i use the computer. It just stays set and I don't have the wierd issues I was having with flickering, monitor turning off and on for no reason etc..
Back to work can't wait to get down and dirty with this 10900k and sweet MB. Thanks again!


----------



## beatlep

Falkentyne said:


> Asus motherboard, cpu-z, or hwinfo64 "Vcore" sensor is fine.


Maybe Linx is not the correct app to see the LOAD voltage but the vcore is even higher when i run it.
1.314v when i run LinX-v0.8.0 with AVX2.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

A new 10900K comes in:

SP 63 Maximus XII APEX BIOS-0054

Boot in Windows Volts
54/52 Vbios 1.54 LLC6 HT-on
55/52 Vbios 1.55 LLC6 HT-off

R20 Volts HT-on
51/50, BIOS VCore 1.32 LLC6, min R20 Load VCore 1.225V, 20 cycles passed
52/50. BIOS VCore 1.36 LLC6, min R20 Load VCore 1.261V, 20 cycles passed
53/50. BIOS VCore 1.41 LLC6, min R20 Load VCore 1.305V, 20 cycles passed


----------



## Falkentyne

beatlep said:


> Maybe Linx is not the correct app to see the LOAD voltage but the vcore is even higher when i run it.
> 1.314v when i run LinX-v0.8.0 with AVX2.


You are using an old version of LinX.

LinX is almost impossible to pass on anyone's system at 5.1 ghz. Because all residuals must match each loop (your residuals do not match). LinX passing requires a perfect system (using 35,000 sample size).
Also latest linx for this platform supported with CML (and CFL) is 0.9.7.

You should run this with 35000 sample size but you will not pass it.

https://hwtips.tistory.com/1611

To test your CPU see if you can run:

1) Prime95 29.8 build 6, 15K AVX (custom), in-place fixed FFT, size 15k-15k. AVX2 disabled, AVX1 enabled in options. 15 minutes. Look in "HWINFO64" at the bottom for "CPU Cache L0 error" (WHEA). If you can keep it below 100C, you can try 30 minutes. 

2) Realbench 2.56, 30 minute stress test.

3) Cinebench R20--->loop--CUSTOM TIME-->1800 seconds (Preferences)

Try your setting--BIOS--5.1 ghz, 1.305v, Loadline Level 6.

Can you do it?

Hope you can understand my english.


----------



## beatlep

Well, in a second pass vcore down to 1.296v.
This app is terrible, with fans at max 10cº more than any other app or game xd










For me if the PC don't crash with games is considered stable and i will let it at 1.305v with LLC6.
Thanks for all the responses.


----------



## Falkentyne

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> A new 10900K comes in:
> 
> SP 63 Maximus XII APEX BIOS-0054
> 
> Boot in Windows Volts
> 54/52 Vbios 1.54 LLC6 HT-on
> 55/52 Vbios 1.55 LLC6 HT-off
> 
> R20 Volts HT-on
> 51/50, BIOS VCore 1.32 LLC6, min R20 Load VCore 1.225V, 20 cycles passed
> 52/50. BIOS VCore 1.36 LLC6, min R20 Load VCore 1.261V, 20 cycles passed
> 53/50. BIOS VCore 1.41 LLC6, min R20 Load VCore 1.305V, 20 cycles passed


Your SP63 chip does better than @criskoe 's SP88 chip...very interesting (If I recall, he needed 1.420v Bios set, LLC6 at 5.3 ghz core, to pass Cinebench R20 for just 5 consecutive loops without CPU Cache L0 error).


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

Is it possible the SP rating is gauging the silicon characteristics for ln2 and not for ambient?


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

Falkentyne said:


> Your SP63 chip does better than @criskoe 's SP88 chip...very interesting (If I recall, he needed 1.420v Bios set, LLC6 at 5.3 ghz core, to pass Cinebench R20 for just 5 consecutive loops without CPU Cache L0 error).


I fell also very strange, this processor is much better than my SP79 10900k.

VID is definitely higher than SP79 in the VF chart, but the actual VCore needed is much lower. Probably the Asus SP score is based on the VID chart.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

XGS-Duplicity said:


> Is it possible the SP rating is gauging the silicon characteristics for ln2 and not for ambient?


Its probably related to the VID I think.


----------



## Betroz

For those that don't know this, Battlefield 5 multiplayer is a very good stability test - and it's fun! Play it on a server with 64 players for 2-3 hours. To test stability in professional programs, run Realbench 2.56 for 2+ hours


----------



## Falkentyne

XGS-Duplicity said:


> Is it possible the SP rating is gauging the silicon characteristics for ln2 and not for ambient?


SP is based on VID at 100C (or in other words, when Thermal Velocity Boost Voltage Optimizations--a setting even in your Z390 Aorus Master) are set to disabled.

The voltage predictions are based on your cooler score and what the AI thinks your processor needs for full load in small FFT AVX disabled prime95 (AVX disabled prediction) and AVX1 (not FMA3) enabled prime95 (AVX prediction). 

These seem very accurate (unless the guardband of the processor sucks or is HIGHLY golden compared to the VID, like oldfatsheep's), at 4.7 to 4.9 ghz. 

I *think* the reason the prediction falls off at 5 ghz and higher is because of temp skyrocketing. I don't think Asus AI can take into account that a chip that runs at 70C at 4.7 ghz may run at 100C at the predicted 'VID' point at 5.2 ghz, and the difference between 70C and 100C is 1.5mv * 30=45mv with "Thermal velocity boost voltage scaling" via "VID". So if my theory is correct, you would need 45mv more voltage (going from the prediction point) on average, if your chip is hitting 100C in a stress test at 5.3 ghz (while lets say it hit 70C at 4.7 ghz), with "respect" to the prediction it tells you. (this is only if the predicted points at 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9 ghz are fully accurate). So for example, the 5.2 ghz predicted point would probably work if the load voltage were 70C in the stress test...

Some chips seem to have the same "VF point" (VID) at 5.3. and 5.2...

I'm rambling again. I'm done.


----------



## criskoe

Falkentyne said:


> Your SP63 chip does better than @criskoe 's SP88 chip...very interesting (If I recall, he needed 1.420v Bios set, LLC6 at 5.3 ghz core, to pass Cinebench R20 for just 5 consecutive loops without CPU Cache L0 error).


EDIT. OPPS its not. I need 1.41V LLC6 1.305V load as well for 5.3 and 5 passes. I just double checked my screen shots. 

Interestingly enough is my 5.2 values are also the same but my 5.1 values needed is lower by alot. 5.1 I can get away with 1.181V So thats almost 40mv lower.

Seems my chip is fantastic up until 5.3 and higher. Which in all honesty im ok with. @ 5.3 things get real hot and the trade off isnt worth it for me.

But truth be said I didnt spend as much time on 5.3 then i did with 5.2 and lower with my testing. So im not actually sure what It would take to be full rock solid stable like my 5.0, 5,1 and 5.2 profiles are. Which all passes 8 hour P95 small fft no avx. 8 Hour realbench and 4 hour cinebench loops.


----------



## SoldierRBT

Got another 10900K today. SP63 Quick 30 minutes Prime95 Small FFT 5.2GHz at 1.288v underload. Very similar to the other 2 chips (SP78 and SP85).


----------



## Falkentyne

SoldierRBT said:


> Got another 10900K today. SP63 Quick 30 minutes Prime95 Small FFT 5.2GHz at 1.288v underload. Very similar to the other 2 chips (SP78 and SP85).


Nice, how low can you go on the voltage at 5.2 and still remain stable?


----------



## SoldierRBT

Falkentyne said:


> Nice, how low can you go on the voltage at 5.2 and still remain stable?


Lowered the voltage by -30mv in BIOS (1.261v underload) and got a WHEA error in the first 2 mins of the run. Here's the VID of them at 5.2GHz

SP78 - 1.330v (1.270v stable in prime95 small FFT 30 mins)
SP85 - 1.310v (1.261v stable in prime95 small FFT 30 mins)
SP63 - 1.370v (1.288v stable in prime95 small FFT 30 mins)


----------



## Falkentyne

SoldierRBT said:


> Lowered the voltage by -30mv in BIOS (1.261v underload) and got a WHEA error in the first 2 mins of the run. Here's the VID of them at 5.2GHz
> 
> SP78 - 1.330v (1.270v stable in prime95 small FFT 30 mins)
> SP85 - 1.310v (1.261v stable in prime95 small FFT 30 mins)
> SP63 - 1.370v (1.288v stable in prime95 small FFT 30 mins)


Interesting. Thank you.
Do you remember if the other two non-installed chips had the same "VF" point at 5.3 ghz as 5.2 ghz?
A VID at 5.3 ghz equal to the 5.2 ghz VID throws off the SP rating by more than a few points...(I think).


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

criskoe said:


> EDIT. OPPS its not. I need 1.41V LLC6 1.305V load as well for 5.3 and 5 passes. I just double checked my screen shots.
> 
> Interestingly enough is my 5.2 values are also the same but my 5.1 values needed is lower by alot. 5.1 I can get away with 1.181V So thats almost 40mv lower.
> 
> Seems my chip is fantastic up until 5.3 and higher. Which in all honesty im ok with. @ 5.3 things get real hot and the trade off isnt worth it for me.
> 
> But truth be said I didnt spend as much time on 5.3 then i did with 5.2 and lower with my testing. So im not actually sure what It would take to be full rock solid stable like my 5.0, 5,1 and 5.2 profiles are. Which all passes 8 hour P95 small fft no avx. 8 Hour realbench and 4 hour cinebench loops.


How's the IMC on this SP88 chip? IMC on my SP63 chip is terrible, 100-200 MHz lower than my SP79 chip.


----------



## criskoe

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> How's the IMC on this SP88 chip? IMC on my SP63 chip is terrible, 100-200 MHz lower than my SP79 chip.


i unfortunately dont have any high speed ram yet. Im keeping a eye out for a good deal to snatch some up. Im currently only running weak 3200. LOL. So I cant say at this point.


----------



## SoldierRBT

Falkentyne said:


> Interesting. Thank you.
> Do you remember if the other two non-installed chips had the same "VF" point at 5.3 ghz as 5.2 ghz?
> A VID at 5.3 ghz equal to the 5.2 ghz VID throws off the SP rating by more than a few points...(I think).


The SP78 which is the one I use (better IMC than the SP85) has a 5.2 VF point of 1.459v. The SP63 is 1.529v I think. The SP85 already sold it.


----------



## SuperMumrik

For what it's worth my Sp63 chip are way better than my 83 chip. 
It's a better overclocker (scales better with voltage). Sp63 chips IMC can do 4933 while the sp83 craps out at 4533.


----------



## cstkl1

Falkentyne said:


> Yeah but explain this to me. Please.
> 
> LLC8=worse transients than LLC4. Right? (ok, on your board, Ultra Extreme=worse transients than "Medium" LLC, right?).
> 
> Minecraft puts a TINY load on the CPU. Like...30 amps maximum. But it puts a 100% load on one thread of 1 core, and a partial load on a second core. But only 30 amps......
> 
> So explain this to me. Please. I know how smart you are so I know you can have a stab at this. Show me your true power.
> 
> 1.145v Bios set + LLC4 = 1.119v load at 4.7 ghz 4.4 cache=minecraft generates random "Internal parity errors" and sometimes crashes when on a multiplayer server where one thread is running around 100% usage.
> Needs about 1.175v bios set to NOT get any internal parity errors.
> 
> 1.110v LLC8 (ultra extreme LLC) = No errors.
> 
> Explain that to me. I'm waiting.
> (while you're stuck on that (beats dealing with RTL's and IOL's right?), if you set minecraft to only run on 2 physical cores (4 threads), then you get absolutely no internal parity errors on the original settings (4.7/4.4, 1.145v Bios set + LLC4). Note also--a smoking gun--the internal parity errors happen on completely random threads--even those with no usage on them. They aren't linked to the core/thread with 100% usage...)


Ok just caught up on this. 

I nvr touched minecraft. If you can guide me how to replicate this.. will try.


----------



## Falkentyne

cstkl1 said:


> Ok just caught up on this.
> 
> I nvr touched minecraft. If you can guide me how to replicate this.. will try.


Simple.
Set your bios for the 4.7, 4.8 or 4.9 ghz, with cache 3 below core, at the "Predicted" LLC4 bios voltage for non AVX. Whatever the "non AVX" predicted bios voltage is.
Example, 1.145v 4.7 ghz LLC4 (for example), or 1.180v 4.8 ghz LLC4.

Then enter windows and run a quick prime95 AVX disabled small FFT (29.8 build 6, avx disabled) just to make sure you're stable. (look for L0 errors in hwinfo64).
And look at your load voltage also and take note of that.

When you're done, load up Java minecraft multiplayer and go on Hypixel or cubecraft server (cubecraft is easier to do since it won't kick you to a low CPU usage room if you're afk) and just wait for the "Internal Parity Errors" to randomly build up. Look at the vcore while you're at it....

On my crappy chip, at 4.7 ghz (1.145v + LLC Medium (closest to LLC4), gigabyte board), I can stop the parity errors by setting cache to x41. With cache at x42 I don't get parity errors but minecraft randomly crashes almost like I am getting them. At x43 and x44 I do get them.

On my ES (a better chip), and Bios set 1.145v LLC4, I get them even at x42 cache, which is just stupid. Like...what... 
Load voltage in minecraft is about 1.119v.

However ...however......
If I set LLC8 (Ultra extreme) and 1.115v Bios set, Load vcore =1.110v, absolutely no parity errors on the server. Waited a whole hour for one...

Or if I do 1.175v + LLC4....

Notice minecraft is barely pulling any heavy load at all. Just 100% on 1 thread and partial loads jumping around other threads randomly. Average 30 amps of current.

Now, if you set minecraft "Affinity" to run on 4 threads (2 cores) only......you get no parity errors....

Hope I wasn't confusing...


----------



## cstkl1

Falkentyne said:


> Simple.
> Set your bios for the 4.7, 4.8 or 4.9 ghz, with cache 3 below core, at the "Predicted" LLC4 bios voltage for non AVX. Whatever the "non AVX" predicted bios voltage is.
> Example, 1.145v 4.7 ghz LLC4 (for example), or 1.180v 4.8 ghz LLC4.
> 
> Then enter windows and run a quick prime95 AVX disabled small FFT (29.8 build 6, avx disabled) just to make sure you're stable. (look for L0 errors in hwinfo64).
> And look at your load voltage also and take note of that.
> 
> When you're done, load up Java minecraft multiplayer and go on Hipixel or cubecraft server (cubecraft is easier to do since it won't kick you to a low CPU usage room if you're afk) and just wait for the "Internal Parity Errors" to randomly build up. Look at the vcore while you're at it....
> 
> On my crappy chip, at 4.7 ghz (1.145v + LLC Medium (closest to LLC4), gigabyte board), I can stop the parity errors by setting cache to x41. With cache at x42 I don't get parity errors but minecraft randomly crashes almost like I am getting them. At x43 and x44 I do get them.
> 
> On my ES (a better chip), and Bios set 1.145v LLC4, I get them even at x42 cache, which is just stupid. Like...what...
> Load voltage in minecraft is about 1.119v.
> 
> However ...however......
> If I set LLC8 (Ultra extreme) and 1.115v Bios set, Load vcore =1.110v, absolutely no parity errors on the server. Waited a whole hour for one...
> 
> Or if I do 1.175v + LLC4....
> 
> Notice minecraft is barely pulling any heavy load at all. Just 100% on 1 thread and partial loads jumping around other threads randomly. Average 30 amps of current.
> 
> Now, if you set minecraft "Affinity" to run on 4 threads (2 cores) only......you get no parity errors....
> 
> Hope I wasn't confusing...


sounds pretty direct. will do it in later evening. 

bios 07xx asus good stuff 4133 seems much better. tm5 passing it easier although massive vcssa. couldnt do this comsistenly on 0606.


----------



## Falkentyne

cstkl1 said:


> sounds pretty direct. will do it in later evening.
> 
> bios 07xx asus good stuff 4133 seems much better. tm5 passing it easier although massive vcssa. couldnt do this comsistenly on 0606.


btw hypixel not hipixel for the servers (you can google them).
mc.hypixel.net and play.cubecraft.net


----------



## TK421

Falkentyne said:


> btw hypixel not hipixel for the servers (you can google them).
> mc.hypixel.net and play.cubecraft.net



do you have any hunch to why the error happens?




going to start my 10900K build next month and just want to avoid problems like this


----------



## Falkentyne

TK421 said:


> do you have any hunch to why the error happens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> going to start my 10900K build next month and just want to avoid problems like this


Yes because the same thing happened in Apex Legends at release, and Respawn's programmer, Oriostorm, said it was an Intel CPU bug, which unfortunately required some chips to require voltages higher than stock (yes, some chips crashed at pure stock), and he worked around it with a new code path to try to avoid the collision of instruction sequences which would trigger it. My name was given credit in the patch notes, along with some others.

All I can really tell is that perhaps this "issue" is being triggered due to one single thread being put at heavy to full load while a partial load bounces around the other threads randomly (seems to always be the very last thread, e.g. Core #9, thread #1 (aka Thread #19) on a 10/20 CPU, with the up to 100% load. Another smaller load seems to bounce around between other threads.

It can happen in Single player also, but the CPU load on the last thread is much smaller, so it can take longer to happen.
Of course raising vcore high enough (like high enough to where it would pass prime95 small FFT AVX enabled) seems to be enough to prevent it, even though vcore when running minecraft is MUCH MUCH higher than prime95 (and the temps obviously much lower).

If it were just from the cache being run 'too high', then x47 core and x42 cache should NOT trigger it yet it does...
But minecraft does not use AVX to begin with. Neither does Apex Legends (Oriostorm said so himself).

*edit* yep, not a single AVX in minecraft.

I set BCDEDIT set xsavedisable 1 and then rebooted. Tried to run prime95 and the entire application crashed since AVX was disabled in windows.
ran minecraft, joined Cubecraft... got 1 internal parity error in 10 seconds (LOL).

(to remove that command its bcdedit /deletevalue xsavedisable ,and reboot.


----------



## hemon

btaylor11 said:


> I stopped home between jobs to try this.
> 
> >>>>>> Guess what! It needed the update! I had no idea! Fixed the problem! Thank you for taking the time to help I am very grateful! <<<<<<<<
> 
> It turns out I really have a lot to learn. Thanks again for the quick solution and link. Wow such a simple fix too!
> I am able to enter the BIOS no problem now. On top of that i don't have to re-enable HDR every time i use the computer. It just stays set and I don't have the wierd issues I was having with flickering, monitor turning off and on for no reason etc..
> Back to work can't wait to get down and dirty with this 10900k and sweet MB. Thanks again!


I'm glad that I could help 

Firstly I had no idea of that too – since I noticed only with the 10900k that I had a black screen with the displayport but not with HDMI. I saw that link somewhere just by random.


----------



## TK421

Falkentyne said:


> Yes because the same thing happened in Apex Legends at release, and Respawn's programmer, Oriostorm, said it was an Intel CPU bug, which unfortunately required some chips to require voltages higher than stock (yes, some chips crashed at pure stock), and he worked around it with a new code path to try to avoid the collision of instruction sequences which would trigger it. My name was given credit in the patch notes, along with some others.
> 
> All I can really tell is that perhaps this "issue" is being triggered due to one single thread being put at heavy to full load while a partial load bounces around the other threads randomly (seems to always be the very last thread, e.g. Core #9, thread #1 (aka Thread #19) on a 10/20 CPU, with the up to 100% load. Another smaller load seems to bounce around between other threads.
> 
> It can happen in Single player also, but the CPU load on the last thread is much smaller, so it can take longer to happen.
> Of course raising vcore high enough (like high enough to where it would pass prime95 small FFT AVX enabled) seems to be enough to prevent it, even though vcore when running minecraft is MUCH MUCH higher than prime95 (and the temps obviously much lower).
> 
> If it were just from the cache being run 'too high', then x47 core and x42 cache should NOT trigger it yet it does...
> But minecraft does not use AVX to begin with. Neither does Apex Legends (Oriostorm said so himself).
> 
> *edit* yep, not a single AVX in minecraft.
> 
> I set BCDEDIT set xsavedisable 1 and then rebooted. Tried to run prime95 and the entire application crashed since AVX was disabled in windows.
> ran minecraft, joined Cubecraft... got 1 internal parity error in 10 seconds (LOL).
> 
> (to remove that command its bcdedit /deletevalue xsavedisable ,and reboot.



Got it, I'll keep the info regarding the bug in mind when OCing.






Would you consider the chips that have errors on Apex or MC at 100% stock (or maybe 100% stock with just power limit removed) to be faulty?


----------



## Falkentyne

TK421 said:


> Got it, I'll keep the info regarding the bug in mind when OCing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you consider the chips that have errors on Apex or MC at 100% stock (or maybe 100% stock with just power limit removed) to be faulty?


No just low binned silicon with no voltage guardband.
I'm convinced minecraft is generating the same "bug" Apex Legends used to generate.

What's interesting is how the crashes are the exact same (when the game does crash) it's always "Exception access violation (Read/write/execute)."

Oriostorm said when he was debugging people's logs that the CPU was trying to access a memory location it had no permission to access, or trying to access a wrong location, like because a bit got changed somewhere.
Yes, raising vcore substantially higher fixed the problem, but he said it was due to some sort of bug and combination of instructions happening or something. You can go look at the year old "Apex legends crash thread" on the EA forums for all the discussion on that.

The parity error is this "error" being corrected since it's a WHEA "warning" (so the game doesn't see it)


----------



## JoeRambo

Java Minecraft runs on JVM and does garbage collection (GC) to collect memory references that are no longer accessible. There are various garbage collectors to do that, but modern JVM ( from Oracle ) use G1 GC algorithm by default.

The story how it does things is rather long, but what is important for "OC" community dealing with failures is:

1) It is multithreaded and by default will collect with plenty of threads ( this is important, cause if You put thread affinity on Minecraft, it will be limited to just those threads, reducing load when garbage collecting ).
2) It runs "rarely" <= depends on heap size and garbage allocation rate, and will look like 1CPU 100% Minecraft thread usage, when in fact it might have burst for say 50ms every 20s. Java games are all about garbage limiting, but they still do need to collect it once in a while.

So when GC runs there is sudden activity of memory traffic, in very specific pattern, heap regions of maybe 1MB size are live roots scanned, marked and decisions about compaction (basically copying every live thing to a new region) are made.

All this process is very cache happy by definition, regions fit L3 cache, just there is a ton of threads hitting it with reads and writes, Like memtest, but one that crashes if a single write error was not corrected and Java reference pointed to wrong place, resulting in access violation.


----------



## cstkl1

cstkl1 said:


> sounds pretty direct. will do it in later evening.
> 
> bios 07xx asus good stuff 4133 seems much better. tm5 passing it easier although massive vcssa. couldnt do this comsistenly on 0606.


errr this requires me to buy right.. err.. hmm no interest in this game...

testing the demo version.. 
hmm


----------



## cstkl1

played 5 minutes on demo running arround cutting trees.. dont see any error in hwinfo.
15 mins.. ok dats my limit on this graphic.. need therapy after this...


----------



## Falkentyne

cstkl1 said:


> played 5 minutes on demo running arround cutting trees.. dont see any error in hwinfo.
> 15 mins.. ok dats my limit on this graphic.. need therapy after this...


I said earlier single player wont work. It can take an hour or longer for it to happen in single player.
you dont need to "play"

you need to join a multiplayer server, not singleplayer.
I recommend cubecraft (play.cubecraft.net)
you just add the server to the list.

Just join it then sit afk around the spawn area.
The parity errors will start building up slowly.


----------



## cstkl1

Falkentyne said:


> I said earlier single player wont work. It can take an hour or longer for it to happen in single player.
> you dont need to "play"
> 
> you need to join a multiplayer server, not singleplayer.
> I recommend cubecraft (play.cubecraft.net)
> you just add the server to the list.
> 
> Just join it then sit afk around the spawn area.
> The parity errors will start building up slowly.


you got to pay for dat right.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

criskoe said:


> EDIT. OPPS its not. I need 1.41V LLC6 1.305V load as well for 5.3 and 5 passes. I just double checked my screen shots.
> 
> Interestingly enough is my 5.2 values are also the same but my 5.1 values needed is lower by alot. 5.1 I can get away with 1.181V So thats almost 40mv lower.
> 
> Seems my chip is fantastic up until 5.3 and higher. Which in all honesty im ok with. @ 5.3 things get real hot and the trade off isnt worth it for me.
> 
> But truth be said I didnt spend as much time on 5.3 then i did with 5.2 and lower with my testing. So im not actually sure what It would take to be full rock solid stable like my 5.0, 5,1 and 5.2 profiles are. Which all passes 8 hour P95 small fft no avx. 8 Hour realbench and 4 hour cinebench loops.


hi,

Thanks for the info. Just re-tested 5.2 GHz, ring 50x, with 4200 16-16-32 memory IO&SA 1.35. Die sense min 1.217V under load, passed 20 cycles of R20.

I also tested higher freq:

5.4 HT-on BIOS VCore 1.46V LLC6. Can test CPU-Z, but too hot to run R20.

5.5 HT-on BIOS VCore 1.53V LLC6. Boot in Windows only, didn't test. I am wondering how much higher will it be when HT-off

5.6 HT-on BIOS VCore 1.53V LLC6. Can post but Windows won't boot.


----------



## hemon

Hi guys, three questions: 

1. Do I have to change the Ring Ratio by my OC @5.0? Actually I have this: "Ring Ratio Bin: Auto", "Min CPU Cache Ratio: Auto" "Max CPU Cache Ratio: 47" (hwinfo64 says that the ring ratio is 47x). 

2. I noticed that if I leave 47 I have as load min voltage something like 1.2 but if I set "46" I have 1.1… is this normal? The temps are the same.

3. SVID Behaviour: "Best-case-szenario". It this right or it should be changed?

Thank you!


----------



## btaylor11

Hi guys thought i'd post my settings i've gotten to so far:
Setup: 10900k: SP98 / Cooling: 168 / CPU: All-Core Hold 53 / Cache: 46:46 / RAM: CL18/22/22/42 4000mhz
MB: Maximus XII Extreme

I'm able to be stable 5.3Ghz all cores with 1.305v . Voltage range is [1.304->1.323] Note: Preferred Cores 8/9 are 1.306/1.304, Looks like they know what they're doing as far as identifying them.
Temp running AIDA64 Stress test (No GPU/Disk Stress) for 15 minutes: Temp: 68c MIN / 71c MAX
I have [No Limits-Disable all Limits] for that setting. 

RAM: 64GB(32GBx2) GSkill Trident Z RGB 18/3600 1.35v XMP 1 and manually changed speed to 4000mhz, timings won't budge unstable w/ANY further changes.
I tried running at 4100mhz and seemed stable but about 5 minutes into stress test there was an error. I have not tried increasing voltage to RAM yet.

So far with 1.300v it was stable but it hung for just a second loading into desktop. Upped to 1.305 and absolutely no hang at any point for any reason.

Is this a good overclock and what things can i change to A: Increase Speed B: Lower Temps C: Improve RAM timings
I know i can do more but i feel like I've got a really good CPU bin so far. BIOS suggests running at 5.4ghz with 1.41v. However that is a huge increase for 100 Mhz which clearly isn't worth it.

PS: How do you list your system specs below post. Maybe i just need to poke around a bit to figure it out. Is it premium locked?

PPS: For the first time ever i'm concerned about smoking near the computer. I can see it being sucked up. Obviously this is bad, however has anyone had any issues with that? I am avoiding smoking near it from now on but occassionally it will happen.


----------



## Betroz

btaylor11 said:


> PPS: For the first time ever i'm concerned about smoking near the computer. I can see it being sucked up. Obviously this is bad, however has anyone had any issues with that? I am avoiding smoking near it from now on but occassionally it will happen.


Ehh what have you been smoking I wonder...


----------



## Falkentyne

btaylor11 said:


> Hi guys thought i'd post my settings i've gotten to so far:
> Setup: 10900k: SP98 / Cooling: 168 / CPU: All-Core Hold 53 / Cache: 46:46 / RAM: CL18/22/22/42 4000mhz
> MB: Maximus XII Extreme
> 
> I'm able to be stable 5.3Ghz all cores with 1.305v . Voltage range is [1.304->1.323] Note: Preferred Cores 8/9 are 1.306/1.304, Looks like they know what they're doing as far as identifying them.
> Temp running AIDA64 Stress test (No GPU/Disk Stress) for 15 minutes: Temp: 68c MIN / 71c MAX
> I have [No Limits-Disable all Limits] for that setting.
> 
> RAM: 64GB(32GBx2) GSkill Trident Z RGB 18/3600 1.35v XMP 1 and manually changed speed to 4000mhz, timings won't budge unstable w/ANY further changes.
> I tried running at 4100mhz and seemed stable but about 5 minutes into stress test there was an error. I have not tried increasing voltage to RAM yet.
> 
> So far with 1.300v it was stable but it hung for just a second loading into desktop. Upped to 1.305 and absolutely no hang at any point for any reason.
> 
> Is this a good overclock and what things can i change to A: Increase Speed B: Lower Temps C: Improve RAM timings
> I know i can do more but i feel like I've got a really good CPU bin so far. BIOS suggests running at 5.4ghz with 1.41v. However that is a huge increase for 100 Mhz which clearly isn't worth it.
> 
> PS: How do you list your system specs below post. Maybe i just need to poke around a bit to figure it out. Is it premium locked?
> 
> PPS: For the first time ever i'm concerned about smoking near the computer. I can see it being sucked up. Obviously this is bad, however has anyone had any issues with that? I am avoiding smoking near it from now on but occassionally it will happen.


Are you talking about BIOS voltage or LOAD voltage?....

1.30v BIOS voltage is unreal......
What loadline calibration?

The first part of your post sounds like LOAD voltages. Then the next part is acting like those are Bios voltages. And then it sounds like you're mentioning the per-core "VID" also.
Like we have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about here.

A 1.30v Bios voltage at 5.3 ghz would be like 1.20v at full load.....(at LLC6 or so).
So what is it then?
What's your BIOS voltage you set and loadline calibration?
What's your voltage at full load?


----------



## btaylor11

Falkentyne said:


> Are you talking about BIOS voltage or LOAD voltage?....
> 
> 1.30v BIOS voltage is unreal......
> What loadline calibration?
> 
> The first part of your post sounds like LOAD voltages. Then the next part is acting like those are Bios voltages. And then it sounds like you're mentioning the per-core "VID" also.
> Like we have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about here.
> 
> A 1.30v Bios voltage at 5.3 ghz would be like 1.20v at full load.....(at LLC6 or so).
> So what is it then?
> What's your BIOS voltage you set and loadline calibration?
> What's your voltage at full load?


I made a mistake->In the BIOS i have it set to *1.310*v. LLC4. Using HWiNFO64 Vcore is 1.310 / Core VIDs are a range 1.304:1.322 Max just did 15 min test again.
I have adaptive voltage turned OFF i believe but LLC may just overwrite that I'm not certain how that works.
Before i set the voltage manually/set all core 53 it would go up to 1.46 and 5.4ghz 80c+on its own.

If I am posting the wrong numbers I don't want to waste your time since you are basically a god at doing this. I will read up and try to make sure I can correctly answer.


----------



## btaylor11

Betroz said:


> Ehh what have you been smoking I wonder...


I plead the 5th


----------



## Falkentyne

btaylor11 said:


> I made a mistake->In the BIOS i have it set to *1.310*v. LLC4. Using HWiNFO64 Vcore is 1.310 / Core VIDs are a range 1.304:1.322 Max just did 15 min test again.
> I have adaptive voltage turned OFF i believe but LLC may just overwrite that I'm not certain how that works.
> Before i set the voltage manually/set all core 53 it would go up to 1.46 and 5.4ghz 80c+on its own.
> 
> If I am posting the wrong numbers I don't want to waste your time since you are basically a god at doing this. I will read up and try to make sure I can correctly answer.


What is the load voltage then??

1.30v LLC4 Bios set would be about 1.15v load voltage!! that is unheard of !!!!


----------



## criskoe

btaylor11 said:


> I made a mistake->In the BIOS i have it set to *1.310*v. LLC4. Using HWiNFO64 Vcore is 1.310 / Core VIDs are a range 1.304:1.322 Max just did 15 min test again.
> I have adaptive voltage turned OFF i believe but LLC may just overwrite that I'm not certain how that works.
> Before i set the voltage manually/set all core 53 it would go up to 1.46 and 5.4ghz 80c+on its own.
> 
> If I am posting the wrong numbers I don't want to waste your time since you are basically a god at doing this. I will read up and try to make sure I can correctly answer.


Just make it easy on yourself. Post some screenshots of your desktop with HWinfo64 open while running said tests. Saves a million questions.......


----------



## Circaflex

Still working on ring and memory timings


----------



## btaylor11

Falkentyne said:


> What is the load voltage then??
> 
> 1.30v LLC4 Bios set would be about 1.15v load voltage!! that is unheard of !!!!


Ok 
ASUS MXII EXTREME
SP: 98 COOLING: 168
https://valid.x86.fr/vls0fk

It overwrote my 5.3ghz
Apparently its using 1.252v under stress test
AIDA 64 the first 3 checked off 100% up to 76c
I haven't tuned it down as much as possible. I am doing that work now i guess it isn't exactly what i thought.
Edit: The validation link overwrote my 5.3ghz version. 5.4ghz is not worth it having to set 1.44v in bios to make it stable.

Should i attempt 5.4?
https://valid.x86.fr/4e1dlq


----------



## truth hurts

btaylor11 said:


> Ok
> ASUS MXII EXTREME
> SP: 98 COOLING: 168
> https://valid.x86.fr/vls0fk
> 
> It overwrote my 5.3ghz
> Apparently its using 1.252v under stress test
> AIDA 64 the first 3 checked off 100% up to 76c
> I haven't tuned it down as much as possible. I am doing that work now i guess it isn't exactly what i thought.
> Edit: The validation link overwrote my 5.3ghz version. 5.4ghz is not worth it having to set 1.44v in bios to make it stable.
> 
> Should i attempt 5.4?
> https://valid.x86.fr/4e1dlq


run corona benchmark and post the screen


----------



## Yesil

So I got my hands on a 10900k with 77 SP score that doesn't pass x51 at LLC5 1.4v Bios, 1.35v load (LLC5). My other 63 SP'd passes it, though. I guess SP score doesn't really tell the whole story? Or am I missing something here?


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

Yesil said:


> So I got my hands on a 10900k with 77 SP score that doesn't pass x51 at LLC5 1.4v Bios, 1.35v load (LLC5). My other 63 SP'd passes it, though. I guess SP score doesn't really tell the whole story? Or am I missing something here?


My SP79 only passed 51Core/50ring @BIOS VCore1.36V LLC6, very bad.


----------



## Falkentyne

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> My SP79 only passed 51Core/50ring @BIOS VCore1.36V LLC6, very bad.


Please try 51 core, 47 ring and re-test.
x50 ring may require your chip's vcore to be high enough to pass x53 or x54 core multiplier .....


----------



## Yesil

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> My SP79 only passed 51Core/50ring @BIOS VCore1.36V LLC6, very bad.


I'm running x43 ring and it still doesn't manage x51 at 1.35v load. I guess your 79 is better than my 77.


----------



## Falkentyne

Yesil said:


> I'm running x43 ring and it still doesn't manage x51 at 1.35v load. I guess your 79 is better than my 77.


What motherboard was used? (this matters because vcore measurements are not always accurate, that 1.35v could be as low as 1.25v real).
What program was used for this test and what test conditions/test options?


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

Falkentyne said:


> Please try 51 core, 47 ring and re-test.
> x50 ring may require your chip's vcore to be high enough to pass x53 or x54 core multiplier .....


Tried 49 ring on that chip, still the same...I may mainly use my SP63 chip


----------



## Falkentyne

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> Tried 49 ring on that chip, still the same...


Did you go lower than 49?
Your ring is so close to your core, what you are asking is a very tall ask.

When i had ring -200 mhz at just 4.7 ghz core, stability plummeted. I needed more vcore compared to -300 mhz.
Even at x53/x50, I was less stable than x53/x49.

So please test lower cache first.

As a basic rule, always set your cache at x43 and leave it there. Then overclock the core. Find your vmin first.
Then increase cache after.

Its the same rule for overclocking memory and CPU. Leave memory at default (2133 mhz) and overclock cpu first, then only enable XMP after you find your vmin.

This reduces the amount of work you need to do to find out what setting makes you less stable....


----------



## Yesil

Falkentyne said:


> What motherboard was used? (this matters because vcore measurements are not always accurate, that 1.35v could be as low as 1.25v real).
> What program was used for this test and what test conditions/test options?


SP63 and SP77 both had the same mobo, Asus ROG Strix Z490-E.

HWinfo64 for info, Realbench 2.56 for benchmarking (4 hour test 16 gb ram, SP66 passes while SP77 throws off L0 cache error 10 mins in). XMP-II set, only changed settings in Bios were MCE, x51 core ratio, x43 ring/cache (ring down disabled), vcore manual, LLC5 or LLC6 depending on vcore I'm trying.


----------



## Falkentyne

Yesil said:


> SP63 and SP77 both had the same mobo, Asus ROG Strix Z490-E.
> 
> HWinfo64 for info, Realbench 2.56 for benchmarking (4 hour test 16 gb ram, SP66 passes while SP77 throws off L0 cache error 10 mins in). XMP-II set, only changed settings in Bios were MCE, x51 core ratio, x43 ring/cache (ring down disabled), vcore manual, LLC5 or LLC6 depending on vcore I'm trying.


What was the vcore you set in BIOS??

Can you tell me your LLC you are using and the highest value of "CPU Current" (Amps) shown in Asus EC In hwinfo64 (if it is supported, it is possible it won't be shown) in each RB 2.56 test, at the LLC you used. Then I can probably guess your vcore at load.

If you said 1.40v in bios, set LLC6, realbench 2.56 should be around 1.31v at load. If you set LLC5, it should be about 1.27v at load.

You cant compare vcore from a strix or prime board to vcore from a Maximus board because they are measured differently and it will make your CPU look much worse than it really is.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

Falkentyne said:


> Did you go lower than 49?
> Your ring is so close to your core, what you are asking is a very tall ask.
> 
> When i had ring -200 mhz at just 4.7 ghz core, stability plummeted. I needed more vcore compared to -300 mhz.
> Even at x53/x50, I was less stable than x53/x49.
> 
> So please test lower cache first.
> 
> As a basic rule, always set your cache at x43 and leave it there. Then overclock the core. Find your vmin first.
> Then increase cache after.
> 
> Its the same rule for overclocking memory and CPU. Leave memory at default (2133 mhz) and overclock cpu first, then only enable XMP after you find your vmin.
> 
> This reduces the amount of work you need to do to find out what setting makes you less stable....


Thanks for the suggestion.

Yeah, I just know for sure that chip can do 5.1GHz core. Besides, memory OC sometimes require a little higher volt than 2133 case. I just usually validate chips based on 4200MHz ram so with the core can still be solid when OCing the ram. And I don't want my 10gen core run cache slower than 50x since around 90% of 10gen I saw can do 50x cache when core is 5.0~5.1 GHz stable.

I will find a way to dump that SP79 anyway


----------



## hemon

Hi guys, three questions: 

1. Do I have to change the Ring Ratio with my OC @5.0? Actually I have this: "Ring Ratio Bin: Auto", "Min CPU Cache Ratio: Auto" "Max CPU Cache Ratio: 47" (hwinfo64 says that the ring ratio is 47x). 

2. I noticed that if I leave 47 as Ring Ration, I have as load min voltage something like 1.2 but if I set "46" I have 1.1… is this normal? The temps are the same.

3. SVID Behaviour: "Best-case-szenario". It this right or it should be changed?

Thank you!


----------



## Falkentyne

hemon said:


> Hi guys, three questions:
> 
> 1. Do I have to change the Ring Ratio with my OC @5.0? Actually I have this: "Ring Ratio Bin: Auto", "Min CPU Cache Ratio: Auto" "Max CPU Cache Ratio: 47" (hwinfo64 says that the ring ratio is 47x).
> 
> 2. I noticed that if I leave 47 as Ring Ration, I have as load min voltage something like 1.2 but if I set "46" I have 1.1… is this normal? The temps are the same.
> 
> 3. SVID Behaviour: "Best-case-szenario". It this right or it should be changed?
> 
> Thank you!


CPU VID can change based on cache multiplier. On auto or offsets voltage modes, VID influences vcore (as well as offset voltage and loadlines).


----------



## Yesil

Falkentyne said:


> What was the vcore you set in BIOS??
> 
> Can you tell me your LLC you are using and the highest value of "CPU Current" (Amps) shown in Asus EC In hwinfo64 (if it is supported, it is possible it won't be shown) in each RB 2.56 test, at the LLC you used. Then I can probably guess your vcore at load.
> 
> If you said 1.40v in bios, set LLC6, realbench 2.56 should be around 1.31v at load. If you set LLC5, it should be about 1.27v at load.
> 
> You cant compare vcore from a strix or prime board to vcore from a Maximus board because they are measured differently and it will make your CPU look much worse than it really is.


This is for SP77:

x51, LLC5 and 1.4v in Bios
234W (this is under mobo sensors since the "Asus EC" only shows: CPU Standby, PLL Termination Voltage, VRM (temp), PCH (temp))
1.350v-1.359v load voltage

Also for SP77:
x52, LLC5, 1.49v in Bios (required for minimum stability, passes Realbench 2.56)
317W maximum power draw CPU (such as above)
1.430v load


A fast question: should I have VID behavior on Auto, Trained or Best-Case? Does it matter?

Another question: Okay so if vcore measurement across different boards may not be accurate, I assume that set Bios vcore doesn't equal between two different boards either?


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

Yesil said:


> This is for SP77:
> 
> x51, LLC5 and 1.4v in Bios
> 234W (this is under mobo sensors since the "Asus EC" only shows: CPU Standby, PLL Termination Voltage, VRM (temp), PCH (temp))
> 1.350v-1.359v load voltage
> 
> Also for SP77:
> x52, LLC5, 1.49v in Bios (required for minimum stability, passes Realbench 2.56)
> 317W maximum power draw CPU (such as above)
> 1.430v load
> 
> 
> A fast question: should I have VID behavior on Auto, Trained or Best-Case? Does it matter?
> 
> Another question: Okay so if vcore measurement across different boards may not be accurate, I assume that set Bios vcore doesn't equal between two different boards either?



ASUS BIOS VCore is similar to the socket sense VCore on MSI. The cpu-z vcore is similar to the vcc sense vcore on MSI. Gigabyte has a VR Vout which is also similar to the vcc sense of MSI


----------



## Falkentyne

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> ASUS BIOS VCore is similar to the socket sense VCore on MSI. The cpu-z vcore is similar to the vcc sense vcore on MSI. Gigabyte has a VR Vout which is also similar to the vcc sense of MSI


Vcc_sense on msi is not die-sense (vr vout). I saw someone's readout. They had like 30mv vcore rise vs idle at Mode 1 with vcc_sense on a unify. That means it's MLCC caps reading--the same as iTE 8792E on gigabyte boards.


----------



## skullbringer

Hey, I'm back!

Still no new CPU, but got myself another 480mm radiator to conquer those temps. Mounted it, filled the loop, ran some stress tests aaaaaand temps were ~20C higher than before. So what gives?!?!?!?
You know how I was on about being really consistent with my thermal paste application, and no matter what, I could not achieve core to core deltas < 12C?

Turns out, both issues have the same cause: ****ty CPU block mounting pressure. I kid you not, when I pressed on the block with my hand, temps dropped 20C. I let go, they go back up.
Lucky me also ran out of Kryonaut. So I tried Hyrdonaut, but because it is not as viscous as the former, the mounting pressure issue was exacerbated and temps were even worse.

So I went totally ham and pulled out my Conductonaut. 5 CPU block remounts and a few drops of blood later, this:

SP 63, 5.3 GHz all-core, 5 GHz cache, 1.415 V bios, LLC6 -> Cinebench R20 20 loops stable, 1.288 V load


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

Falkentyne said:


> Vcc_sense on msi is not die-sense (vr vout). I saw someone's readout. They had like 30mv vcore rise vs idle at Mode 1 with vcc_sense on a unify. That means it's MLCC caps reading--the same as iTE 8792E on gigabyte boards.


So it is "similar", not exactly same. MSI claims it is the same as ASUS die-sense, but a different name according to Intel design guide. Based on my experience, similar to your observation, Z490 GL can stabilize that SP79 chip 5.1GHz with 1.29V VCC sense, while M12A can stabilize that SP79 chip with 1.261V die sense.


----------



## Betroz

Die sense voltage is new to me. Is it okay to have it on auto for a 24/7 OC?


----------



## Falkentyne

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> So it is "similar", not exactly same. MSI claims it is the same as ASUS die-sense, but a different name according to Intel design guide. Based on my experience, similar to your observation, Z490 GL can stabilize that SP79 chip 5.1GHz with 1.29V VCC sense, while M12A can stabilize that SP79 chip with 1.261V die sense.


I forgot what forum it was on, I think it was that one famous dutch or german hardware forum, where they were discussing motherboards. One guy posted his voltages saying he had 30mv higher vcore at load than idle with Mode 1, with Vcc_sense, and was even higher with socket sense. Mode 1 is 0 mOhm loadline so the voltage should be the same as Bios voltage only (+/- 12mv at most).


----------



## Falkentyne

skullbringer said:


> Hey, I'm back!
> 
> Still no new CPU, but got myself another 480mm radiator to conquer those temps. Mounted it, filled the loop, ran some stress tests aaaaaand temps were ~20C higher than before. So what gives?!?!?!?
> You know how I was on about being really consistent with my thermal paste application, and no matter what, I could not achieve core to core deltas < 12C?
> 
> Turns out, both issues have the same cause: ****ty CPU block mounting pressure. I kid you not, when I pressed on the block with my hand, temps dropped 20C. I let go, they go back up.
> Lucky me also ran out of Kryonaut. So I tried Hyrdonaut, but because it is not as viscous as the former, the mounting pressure issue was exacerbated and temps were even worse.
> 
> So I went totally ham and pulled out my Conductonaut. 5 CPU block remounts and a few drops of blood later, this:
> 
> SP 63, 5.3 GHz all-core, 5 GHz cache, 1.415 V bios, LLC6 -> Cinebench R20 20 loops stable, 1.288 V load


Wow.
Those temps.....
so you put conductonaut between the IHS and block and there was no risk of it getting into the socket?
How did you fix the mounting pressure?
And I'm more impressed by that mechanical keyboard than by that Borg Assimilation contraption you built...


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

Falkentyne said:


> I forgot what forum it was on, I think it was that one famous dutch or german hardware forum, where they were discussing motherboards. One guy posted his voltages saying he had 30mv higher vcore at load than idle with Mode 1, with Vcc_sense, and was even higher with socket sense. Mode 1 is 0 mOhm loadline so the voltage should be the same as Bios voltage only (+/- 12mv at most).


That's interesting. If that is the case, it might not be a true die sense.

The vcc sense should be reported from the super IO socket that connects to the vcc socket of the processor, it is no way lower than the cap voltage.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

skullbringer said:


> Hey, I'm back!
> 
> Still no new CPU, but got myself another 480mm radiator to conquer those temps. Mounted it, filled the loop, ran some stress tests aaaaaand temps were ~20C higher than before. So what gives?!?!?!?
> You know how I was on about being really consistent with my thermal paste application, and no matter what, I could not achieve core to core deltas < 12C?
> 
> Turns out, both issues have the same cause: ****ty CPU block mounting pressure. I kid you not, when I pressed on the block with my hand, temps dropped 20C. I let go, they go back up.
> Lucky me also ran out of Kryonaut. So I tried Hyrdonaut, but because it is not as viscous as the former, the mounting pressure issue was exacerbated and temps were even worse.
> 
> So I went totally ham and pulled out my Conductonaut. 5 CPU block remounts and a few drops of blood later, this:
> 
> SP 63, 5.3 GHz all-core, 5 GHz cache, 1.415 V bios, LLC6 -> Cinebench R20 20 loops stable, 1.288 V load


HI have you tried to OC your ram over 4500MHz and see if R20 is still stable when BIOS 1.415V LLC6?


----------



## SuperMumrik

A bit harder to go sub 35ns on z490 compared to z390.


----------



## Betroz

SuperMumrik said:


> A bit harder to go sub 35ns on z490 compared to z390.


Using the same memory settings, but a slower cache of say, 4700 MHz, what is the latency then? ~37ns or so? (I get my 10900K tomorrow, so I will begin my own testing then)


----------



## SuperMumrik

Betroz said:


> Using the same memory settings, but a slower cache of say, 4700 MHz, what is the latency then? ~37ns or so? (I get my 10900K tomorrow, so I will begin my own testing then)


 A bit more "normal" core oc with x47 ring. Still good


----------



## skullbringer

Falkentyne said:


> Wow.
> Those temps.....
> so you put conductonaut between the IHS and block and there was no risk of it getting into the socket?
> How did you fix the mounting pressure?
> And I'm more impressed by that mechanical keyboard than by that Borg Assimilation contraption you built...


Depends how you define risk I suppose. As long as you don't apply too much, but only a very thin coat to both surfaces, it doesnt flow or move around. I've been running conductonaut in my work notebook for literally years now, docking, undocking, throwing it in backpacks, never had issues.
Since liquid metal is so thin and viscous, it requires less pressure to evenly build contact. But still I had to remount the block several times and crank the screws as tight as possible until I got core to core delta < 8 C. So I did not really fix it yet, but i'm considering replacing the plastic washers of the blocks standoffs with thinner ones.
It's a KBC Poker 2 with Cherry MX clear



OLDFATSHEEP said:


> HI have you tried to OC your ram over 4500MHz and see if R20 is still stable when BIOS 1.415V LLC6?


I'm running a 2x 8GB 3600 MHz CL 15 kit and the maximum I can get it to is 4266 MHz CL 18 for whatever reason. Anything higher hangs on qcode 55 during post


----------



## SoldierRBT

SP76 10900K 5.2GHz 1.243v underload quick 30 mins prime95 small FFTs.


----------



## Nizzen

SuperMumrik said:


> A bit harder to go sub 35ns on z490 compared to z390.


Nice result 🙂


----------



## Falkentyne

SoldierRBT said:


> SP76 10900K 5.2GHz 1.243v underload quick 30 mins prime95 small FFTs.


My friend, the big question is, can you pass realbench 2.56 at 1.243v under load at 5.2g?
That's the important question


----------



## SuperMumrik

Nizzen said:


> Nice result 🙂


Tnx mate


----------



## SoldierRBT

Falkentyne said:


> My friend, the big question is, can you pass realbench 2.56 at 1.243v under load at 5.2g?
> That's the important question


----------



## criskoe

SoldierRBT said:


>


Those are some great temps. What are you running for cooling? And whats your ambient?


----------



## Falkentyne

SoldierRBT said:


>


How are your temps so low? What's your cooling setup? I forgot.


----------



## criskoe

Falkentyne said:


> How are your temps so low? What's your cooling setup? I forgot.


LOL I just asked the same question. Those are sure some great temps. LOL


----------



## criskoe

SoldierRBT said:


> I'm using strong water cooling. MO-RA3 420 with 8x Noctua NF-A20 (200mm) fans


I just realized I already asked you. LOL. Mind sharing what CPU block your using? Your coolant temps must be just over ambient yeah?


----------



## SoldierRBT

criskoe said:


> SoldierRBT said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm using strong water cooling. MO-RA3 420 with 8x Noctua NF-A20 (200mm) fans
> 
> 
> 
> I just realized I already asked you. LOL. Mind sharing what CPU block your using? Your coolant temps must be just over ambient yeah?
Click to expand...

MO-RA3 420 PRO 
8x Noctua NF-A20
Heatkiller D5 Combo 
Heatkiller IV Pro Copper/Nickel 
EK fittings and soft tubing

I don’t know what’s my water temp. I’m using distilled water with Nuke -PHN Biocide. My ambient temperature is around 25-26C. 

CPU can do 5.3GHz prime95 small FFT around 1.314v underload. IMC seems better than my SP78. Currently testing 4600MHz CL17 1.30v IO 1.35v SA.


----------



## criskoe

SoldierRBT said:


> I'm using strong water cooling. MO-RA3 420 with 8x Noctua NF-A20 (200mm) fans





SoldierRBT said:


> MO-RA3 420 PRO
> 8x Noctua NF-A20
> Heatkiller D5 Combo
> Heatkiller IV Pro Copper/Nickel
> EK fittings and soft tubing
> 
> I don’t know what’s my water temp. I’m using distilled water with Nuke -PHN Biocide. My ambient temperature is around 25-26C.


Nice man. Is your gpu in the loop? Is this in a case or a open bench? Thanks for sharing.


----------



## SoldierRBT

criskoe said:


> Nice man. Is your gpu in the loop? Is this in a case or a open bench? Thanks for sharing.


Just the CPU. Waiting for new 3080 Ti to put it in the loop. Case is Lian Li O11 Dynamic.


----------



## Falkentyne

SoldierRBT said:


> MO-RA3 420 PRO
> 8x Noctua NF-A20
> Heatkiller D5 Combo
> Heatkiller IV Pro Copper/Nickel
> EK fittings and soft tubing
> 
> I don’t know what’s my water temp. I’m using distilled water with Nuke -PHN Biocide. My ambient temperature is around 25-26C.
> 
> CPU can do 5.3GHz prime95 small FFT around 1.314v underload. IMC seems better than my SP78. Currently testing 4600MHz CL17 1.30v IO 1.35v SA.


I'm assuming that's AVX DISABLED Prime95 small FFT and not AVX enabled.....right? 
If you can do AVX enabled small FFT at 1.314v I'll eat Criskoe for dinner.


----------



## ViTosS

SoldierRBT said:


> Just the CPU. Waiting for new 3080 Ti to put it in the loop. Case is Lian Li O11 Dynamic.


Nice! If you delid that CPU you can drop 7-10c. I saw someone posting his temps after delid a 10900k it was like 7-10c, maybe it was you and I'm confused


----------



## skullbringer

So this passed 20 loops of R20

SP 63, 5.3 GHz, 1.415 V bios, LLC6, 1.288V load
4266 MHz CL18-18-42-1T 1.5V 
1.1 V VCCIO
1.15 V SA

Any ideas on how I can get the RAM to clock higher? Even when just increasing CAS to 19 the system already hangs on 55.


----------



## Nizzen

ViTosS said:


> SoldierRBT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just the CPU. Waiting for new 3080 Ti to put it in the loop. Case is Lian Li O11 Dynamic.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice! If you delid that CPU you can drop 7-10c. I saw someone posting his temps after delid a 10900k it was like 7-10c, maybe it was you and I'm confused /forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
Click to expand...

We are 3 people here using direct die cooling from Supercoolcomputer 🙂

"water block Direct core"
Direct in socket is epic 😄


----------



## tiefox

Nizzen said:


> We are 3 people here using direct die cooling from Supercoolcomputer 🙂
> 
> "water block Direct core"
> Direct in socket is epic 😄


4 if you count me here from Denmark! got mine 2 weeks ago and results are impressive!


----------



## Falkentyne

skullbringer said:


> So this passed 20 loops of R20
> 
> SP 63, 5.3 GHz, 1.415 V bios, LLC6, 1.288V load
> 4266 MHz CL18-18-42-1T 1.5V
> 1.1 V VCCIO
> 1.15 V SA
> 
> Any ideas on how I can get the RAM to clock higher? Even when just increasing CAS to 19 the system already hangs on 55.


Set command rate to 2 then try cas 19?
Or enable trace centering? Not good with RAM stuff.


----------



## skullbringer

SuperMumrik said:


> A bit harder to go sub 35ns on z490 compared to z390.


Can you tell me what you did to get realtime memory tweaking running on the XII Apex? 

I have the bios setting enabled, but memtweakit only shows about page and AsrTC.exe throws address access violation errors.


----------



## SuperMumrik

Not to shabby =)


----------



## skullbringer

SuperMumrik said:


> Not to shabby =)


holy balls o.0

delidded? what load voltage? what memory kit, rev a2 b-die sr?


----------



## SuperMumrik

skullbringer said:


> holy balls o.0
> 
> delidded? what load voltage? what memory kit, rev a2 b-die sr?



Direct-die block from Supercool Computers. 1.34V ish(can go lower, but my AVX offset is bugged so i have to compesate a bit). Royal 4400cl18 (a2)


----------



## skullbringer

SuperMumrik said:


> Direct-die block from Supercool Computers. 1.34V ish(can go lower, but my AVX offset is bugged so i have to compesate a bit). Royal 4400cl18 (a2)


that is really damn impressive. I was panning to go direct die eventually, but now I cant wait for availability of direct die frames 

if that is 5.4 GHz under AVX, can you check if you can pass LinpackXtreme 10GB x 5 loops? I have found the transient loads to be my stability nemesis for 5.3 GHz with IHS


----------



## SuperMumrik

The avx test in occt is more than enough for my needs. If my computer is stable pushing really high framerates at bv5 and warzone at competitive settings with a 2080ti oc I'm happy 😊
I Need to find a bios that don't freeze my system when I use negative avx offset so I can run 5,5 ht off daily


----------



## skullbringer

SuperMumrik said:


> The avx test in occt is more than enough for my needs. If my computer is stable pushing really high framerates at bv5 and warzone at competitive settings with a 2080ti oc I'm happy 😊
> I Need to find a bios that don't freeze my system when I use negative avx offset so I can run 5,5 ht off daily


hm interesting, I guess tuning for your specific workload and usecase makes more and more sense, as heat density increases on these chips.

you're running the Apex, right? What bios version are you on? 
I'm on 0607 and I can do AVX offset fine, but on the other hand realtime memory training isn't working


----------



## SuperMumrik

skullbringer said:


> hm interesting, I guess tuning for your specific workload and usecase makes more and more sense, as heat density increases on these chips.
> 
> you're running the Apex, right? What bios version are you on?
> I'm on 0607 and I can do AVX offset fine, but on the other hand realtime memory training isn't working



Yes, Apex

I use 0703 and the one before was 0606 and both was janky with the avx offset.
Will try the latest official bios next.


Momory tuning works fine


----------



## TurricanM3

Falkentyne said:


> You cant compare vcore from a strix or prime board to vcore from a Maximus board because they are measured differently and it will make your CPU look much worse than it really is.


In what way?
This was on a Z490-E Strix, 5000 & 5200 (cpuz = load vcore):


----------



## Falkentyne

TurricanM3 said:


> In what way?
> This was on a Z490-E Strix, 5000 & 5200 (cpuz = load vcore):


Strix and Prime use "Socket sense" so LLC8 will have a much higher voltage at load compared to idle (even though LLC8 is a 0 mOhm loadline).
Maximus (and Gigabyte VR VOUT) report die-sense so LLC8 will show same voltage at load vs idle (0 mOhm again).

https://elmorlabs.com/index.php/2019-09-05/vrm-load-line-visualized/
https://www.overclock.net/forum/6-i...0-vrm-discussion-thread-398.html#post27860326
https://www.overclock.net/forum/27686004-post2664.html

As you can see, it is impossible for voltage to rise at load compared to idle with a 0 mOhm loadline. (Transient spikes cannot be reported on sensors--they are measured in **microseconds** or usec).


----------



## Talon2016

SP 83. Seems like a decent chip so far. 

1.39v BIOS with LLC5. Cooled with a single 280mm AIO so nothing exotic required.


----------



## Esenel

@Talon2016
Your's looking good.

My SP73 is doing also fine.
Delidded though.

5.3GHz + 5.0GHz Cache 350kHz Switching LLC6 Bios 1.455V - Load 1.323V. 4x8 4266 CL17

5.2GHz, rest the same with 1.390V bios and 1.279V under load. Only one dip to 1.270V.


----------



## skullbringer

this is the most I can muster with the IHS on a cool morning: 6970 pts CinebenchR20 

5.3 GHz, 1.435 Vcore bios, LLC5, 1.288 Vcore load (Cinebench R20)
5.0 GHz uncore
4533 MHz CL18-18-18-38-2T (2x 16GB 3400 CL14 TridentZ Neo kit), 1.5 Vmem
1.4 Vsa
1.32 Vio

Would love to get your input on subtimings, but my realtime memory tuning is still borked, even after a clean Windows reinstall :-/


----------



## ViTosS

Nizzen said:


> We are 3 people here using direct die cooling from Supercoolcomputer 🙂
> 
> "water block Direct core"
> Direct in socket is epic 😄


I've sent you a PM, check there if possible


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Lucked out and got another 10900k from newegg just now, auto notify a few minutes later. Hope to get a better one than my current.


----------



## Talon2016

MrTOOSHORT said:


> Lucked out and got another 10900k from newegg just now, auto notify a few minutes later. Hope to get a better one than my current.


I've had 4 so far. 

3 from Newegg
1 from OCUK before their price hike. 

In order from my first to last chip.

SP 103 (newegg), SP 88 (newegg), SP 80 (OC UK), SP 83 (newegg). 

The SP 103 is obviously the golden child and performs the highest with lowest voltage required at all steps up to 53x. 

My brother has the SP 88, it performed really well from what I remember. He doens't bother overclocking it beyond 5Ghz all cores at 1.25v BIOS LLC5

The SP 80 was meh. 

The SP 83 I tested was actually pretty decent until you got to 5.3Ghz where voltage requirement even for CB20 run at LLC5 shot way up. I think it needed 1.43v BIOS to pass. But Realbench stress test for 15-30 minutes was 50x 1.245v bios, 51x 1.315v bios, 52x 1.39v bios, all with LLC5 and 4000Mhz CL15 ram. I actually considered keeping this chip and flipping my SP 103 chip to someone that wants to push it hard.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Talon2016 said:


> I've had 4 so far.
> 
> 3 from Newegg
> 1 from OCUK before their price hike.
> 
> In order from my first to last chip.
> 
> SP 103 (newegg), SP 88 (newegg), SP 80 (OC UK), SP 83 (newegg).
> 
> The SP 103 is obviously the golden child and performs the highest with lowest voltage required at all steps up to 53x.
> 
> My brother has the SP 88, it performed really well from what I remember. He doens't bother overclocking it beyond 5Ghz all cores at 1.25v BIOS LLC5
> 
> The SP 80 was meh.
> 
> The SP 83 I tested was actually pretty decent until you got to 5.3Ghz where voltage requirement even for CB20 run at LLC5 shot way up. I think it needed 1.43v BIOS to pass. But Realbench stress test for 15-30 minutes was 50x 1.245v bios, 51x 1.315v bios, 52x 1.39v bios, all with LLC5 and 4000Mhz CL15 ram. I actually considered keeping this chip and flipping my SP 103 chip to someone that wants to push it hard.


Thanks for the info. I have the 10900k bookmarked and usually just see if it's in stock here and there(which is rarely). Kind of an impulse buy when I seen it in stock, like go go go! LoL I am quite happy with my current one, does 5.1Ghz no sweat. But what if the next one is golden, probably not though. Just taking a chance. Hope it's good. 

Either way, the not so better one will go in my son's PC. He has a 10400 which is pretty good honestly even with it's modest clocks. Still zippy.


----------



## Yesil

Talon2016 said:


> I've had 4 so far.
> 
> 3 from Newegg
> 1 from OCUK before their price hike.
> 
> In order from my first to last chip.
> 
> SP 103 (newegg), SP 88 (newegg), SP 80 (OC UK), SP 83 (newegg).
> 
> The SP 103 is obviously the golden child and performs the highest with lowest voltage required at all steps up to 53x.
> 
> My brother has the SP 88, it performed really well from what I remember. He doens't bother overclocking it beyond 5Ghz all cores at 1.25v BIOS LLC5
> 
> The SP 80 was meh.
> 
> The SP 83 I tested was actually pretty decent until you got to 5.3Ghz where voltage requirement even for CB20 run at LLC5 shot way up. I think it needed 1.43v BIOS to pass. But Realbench stress test for 15-30 minutes was 50x 1.245v bios, 51x 1.315v bios, 52x 1.39v bios, all with LLC5 and 4000Mhz CL15 ram. I actually considered keeping this chip and flipping my SP 103 chip to someone that wants to push it hard.


I've gotten my hands on a total of 5 10900ks and 4 were 63s and one 77. Maybe I'm just unlucky/you're lucky? Did you note the batch numbers?


----------



## skullbringer

Talon2016 said:


> I've had 4 so far.
> 
> 3 from Newegg
> 1 from OCUK before their price hike.
> 
> In order from my first to last chip.
> 
> SP 103 (newegg), SP 88 (newegg), SP 80 (OC UK), SP 83 (newegg).
> 
> The SP 103 is obviously the golden child and performs the highest with lowest voltage required at all steps up to 53x.
> 
> My brother has the SP 88, it performed really well from what I remember. He doens't bother overclocking it beyond 5Ghz all cores at 1.25v BIOS LLC5
> 
> The SP 80 was meh.
> 
> The SP 83 I tested was actually pretty decent until you got to 5.3Ghz where voltage requirement even for CB20 run at LLC5 shot way up. I think it needed 1.43v BIOS to pass. But Realbench stress test for 15-30 minutes was 50x 1.245v bios, 51x 1.315v bios, 52x 1.39v bios, all with LLC5 and 4000Mhz CL15 ram. I actually considered keeping this chip and flipping my SP 103 chip to someone that wants to push it hard.


Can you say what load Vcore the 103 chip needs for 53 stability under avx loads?


----------



## ThrashZone

MrTOOSHORT said:


> Thanks for the info. I have the 10900k bookmarked and usually just see if it's in stock here and there(which is rarely). Kind of an impulse buy when I seen it in stock, like go go go! LoL I am quite happy with my current one, does 5.1Ghz no sweat. But what if the next one is golden, probably not though. Just taking a chance. Hope it's good.
> 
> Either way, the not so better one will go in my son's PC. He has a 10400 which is pretty good honestly even with it's modest clocks. Still zippy.


Hi,
B & H photo.. came up with some 10900KFC is stock yesterday might have some 10900k popping up soon
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...TO_LOW&filters=fct_a_cpu-socket_3756:lga-1200

Even bestbuy popped up a couple days ago with 10900k in stock 

https://www.bestbuy.com/site/intel-...ked-desktop-processor/6411492.p?skuId=6411492

lol newegg price gouger 1k.us add to cart 
https://www.newegg.com/intel-core-i9-10900k-core-i9-10th-gen/p/N82E16819118122


----------



## skullbringer

Anyone have experience with silicon quality of 10900KF compared to 10900K? Do they clock better or worse?


----------



## Chargeit

Hey guys,

Got my 10900k / Msi Ace installed yesterday and want to know what everyone is using to monitor their hardware? I normally use Hwmonitor but it's not properly detecting my new hardware.

Thanks,


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

Chargeit said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> Got my 10900k / Msi Ace installed yesterday and want to know what everyone is using to monitor their hardware? I normally use Hwmonitor but it's not properly detecting my new hardware.
> 
> Thanks,


HWInfo64 is solid, may want to give it a shot.


----------



## Chargeit

XGS-Duplicity said:


> HWInfo64 is solid, may want to give it a shot.


Cool. Wasn't sure which monitoring programs were properly updated for these new cpu's.


----------



## TK421

skullbringer said:


> Anyone have experience with silicon quality of 10900KF compared to 10900K? Do they clock better or worse?


don't think there's any significant difference in terms of lottery range


----------



## Nizzen

skullbringer said:


> Anyone have experience with silicon quality of 10900KF compared to 10900K? Do they clock better or worse?


Noone knows yet, notveven siliconlottery.com. There is barly any 10900kf in stock or has been 🙂


----------



## D-EJ915

Don't think KF parts are out yet. Got a 10900k off newegg I think the board says it's 63 quality but it runs a lot cooler than my old 9900K I had so it's got that going for it but I haven't done much with it yet been extremely busy this week.


----------



## cstkl1

Incoming V batch now. Made in china. Week 17-20...


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

D-EJ915 said:


> Don't think KF parts are out yet. Got a 10900k off newegg I think the board says it's 63 quality but it runs a lot cooler than my old 9900K I had so it's got that going for it but I haven't done much with it yet been extremely busy this week.


This guy has one:



*https://www.overclock.net/forum/28497474-post864.html*


----------



## TK421

cstkl1 said:


> Incoming V batch now. Made in china. Week 17-20...



are there any consensus to which batch is good, or if the country of production matter?


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

TK421 said:


> are there any consensus to which batch is good, or if the country of production matter?


Batch affects the wafer quality (the area of good part), while the country code affects the quality of the TIM.


----------



## TK421

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> Batch affects the wafer quality (the area of good part), while the country code affects the quality of the TIM.



for 10900K which one is good then?


----------



## Thebc2

I wish I had the binning luck of some in this thread, 6 for 6 so far all SP 63, that being said there is a major variance in the SP 63 chips I have tested. I have one more on the way and I am calling it quits as I have had two 5.2 all core capable “daily” chips. One that has been as rock solid as they come at 5.2 compared to the others.

My best SP 63 does 52x all core/49x uncore at 1.45v in the bios, LLC6; 1.323v under load in p95 small ffts, no avx. No hardware errors running for 12+ hours, cpu temps in the high 90s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## TK421

Thebc2 said:


> I wish I had the binning luck of some in this thread, 6 for 6 so far all SP 63, that being said there is a major variance in the SP 63 chips I have tested. I have one more on the way and I am calling it quits as I have had two 5.2 all core capable “daily” chips. One that has been as rock solid as they come at 5.2 compared to the others.
> 
> My best SP 63 does 52x all core/49x uncore at 1.45v in the bios, LLC6; 1.323v under load in p95 small ffts, no avx. No hardware errors running for 12+ hours, cpu temps in the high 90s.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro



Batch and country?


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Thebc2 said:


> I wish I had the binning luck of some in this thread, 6 for 6 so far all SP 63, that being said there is a major variance in the SP 63 chips I have tested. I have one more on the way and I am calling it quits as I have had two 5.2 all core capable “daily” chips. One that has been as rock solid as they come at 5.2 compared to the others.
> 
> My best SP 63 does 52x all core/49x uncore at 1.45v in the bios, LLC6; 1.323v under load in p95 small ffts, no avx. No hardware errors running for 12+ hours, cpu temps in the high 90s.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Well I don't like these odds as I just bought another 10900k to try and beat my current one in oc. I run 5.1, but could get 5.2 with some effort. Maybe 1.3-1.325v load.


----------



## TK421

MrTOOSHORT said:


> Well I don't like these odds as I just bought another 10900k to try and beat my current one in oc. I run 5.1, but could get 5.2 with some effort. Maybe 1.3-1.325v load.


 where did you get them in stock




also what are those ram sticks you're using?


----------



## Thebc2

TK421 said:


> Batch and country?













That is my “golden sp63”, I have another from the identical batch# that can barely do 5.1 stable...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Betroz

This is my 24/7 settings. 5200 HT off, 4900 ring, 1.35v LLC6, 1.28v IO, 1.35v SA, 1.54 VDIMM set in BIOS. (VMIN for CPU is 1.27v in my testing, but i stays at 1.279v under load)


----------



## skullbringer

Thebc2 said:


> I wish I had the binning luck of some in this thread, 6 for 6 so far all SP 63, that being said there is a major variance in the SP 63 chips I have tested. I have one more on the way and I am calling it quits as I have had two 5.2 all core capable “daily” chips. One that has been as rock solid as they come at 5.2 compared to the others.
> 
> My best SP 63 does 52x all core/49x uncore at 1.45v in the bios, LLC6; 1.323v under load in p95 small ffts, no avx. No hardware errors running for 12+ hours, cpu temps in the high 90s.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I think cooling is your limiting factor. My chip is also SP63, but can do 5.3 GHz when kept below 80 C, so I bet your's could too.

What cooler and tim are you using, not delidded I assume? 

With liquid metal conductonaut tim I can do the following with my chip in prime95 small ffts, no avx:
24 C ambient => 5.3 GHz all core, 1.288V load (~ 75C average core temp)
26 C ambient => 5.2 GHz all core, 1.293V load (~ 83C average core temp)
28 C ambient => 5.2 GHz all core, 1.313V load (~ 94C average core temp)

BTW batch number is X019F943

Thats on a custom loop with 6x 120mm rad size. I feel like we are running against the side of a exponentially steeply increasing stability/heat curve and 80C core temp is the cutoff for "efficient stability at high clocks".


----------



## ThrashZone

TK421 said:


> where did you get them in stock
> 
> also what are those ram sticks you're using?


Hi,
Think he bought this kit 

https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-32gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820232668


----------



## cstkl1

based on some testing of 6 x 10900k china made
sp57 x 2, 63 x 2, 73, 81

all can do 5.1ghz 

5.2-5.3 the real problem for stable

















target achieved.. now its back to RAM RAM RAM..


----------



## arrow0309

Ya guys wanna give me a hand?


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Help with what your memory latency ?
Try asus memory timing tweak mode 2 is for lower latency mode 1 is for frequency.
But before use xmp 2 not 1.


----------



## arrow0309

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Help with what your memory latency ?
> Try asus memory timing tweak mode 2 is for lower latency mode 1 is for frequency.
> But before use xmp 2 not 1.


I was thinking about the vdram (1.5) too low? 
And / or the two sa and vccio (too high)? Thank you for the timings tip but I haven't touch any except for the 5 primary.


----------



## ThrashZone

arrow0309 said:


> I was thinking about the vdram (1.5) too low?
> And / or the two sa and vccio (too high)? Thank you for the timings tip but I haven't touch any except for the 5 primary.


Hi,
Only latency looks high to me 46 
I'd work on that 
Use asrock memory configurator to show us the timings being used version 4.3 works on z490.
Ignore the name with x99 it also works on x99 systems too where 4.4 doesn't so I named it like that


----------



## cstkl1

Talon2016 said:


> SP 83. Seems like a decent chip so far.
> 
> 1.39v BIOS with LLC5. Cooled with a single 280mm AIO so nothing exotic required.


do u mind showing me your v/f again . wanna jot down. noticed something.


----------



## arrow0309

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Only latency looks high to me 46
> I'd work on that
> Use asrock memory configurator to show us the timings being used version 4.3 works on z490.
> Ignore the name with x99 it also works on x99 systems too where 4.4 doesn't so I named it like that


Hi, 
But have you noticed I wasn't stable having hardware errors on the Aida64's stress test before, after less than 30 min?
However this are the timings you wanted:


----------



## cstkl1

vmin 1.2421.. just winged it...delid needed for this to be 24/7


----------



## arrow0309

Also went down to 4000 and lowered the sa / io to 1.260 / 1.250, seemed stable now (same primary timings).
Needs optimisation and I sincerely don't if to remain at 4000 or go back up to 4133.


----------



## ThrashZone

arrow0309 said:


> Also went down to 4000 and lowered the sa / io to 1.260 / 1.250, seemed stable now (same primary timings).
> Needs optimization and I sincerely don't if to remain at 4000 or go back up to 4133.


Hi,
I'd look at this threads postings very informative on timings to try here's just one 

https://www.overclock.net/forum/5-i...emory-stability-thread-1296.html#post28526432


----------



## TK421

Thebc2 said:


> That is my “golden sp63”, I have another from the identical batch# that can barely do 5.1 stable...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro



That's interesting because I have one from the same exact batch. Wonder if I should take my chances with it?









ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Think he bought this kit
> 
> https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-32gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820232668



Gotcha, ty.


This is b-die right?


----------



## cstkl1

the batches. 

they all do 5.1ghz vmin should be 1.17-1.27v

theres one nutty sp57 in there.


----------



## ThrashZone

TK421 said:


> That's interesting because I have one from the same exact batch. Wonder if I should take my chances with it?
> 
> 
> Gotcha, ty.
> 
> 
> This is b-die right?


Hi,
Think so tight tested latency timings 19-19-19 is a sign of b-die.

This doesn't work on z490 to know for sure or prove it other than tight timings.

http://www.softnology.biz/files.html


----------



## arrow0309

Anyone knows how this dual F4-3866C18D-32GTZR might perform?

Or the F4-3600C16D-32GTRS (better)?


----------



## Thebc2

cstkl1 said:


> the batches.
> 
> 
> 
> they all do 5.1ghz vmin should be 1.17-1.27v
> 
> 
> 
> theres one nutty sp57 in there.




Bugged VF curve, note the first few points match. Go through Falken’s reset procedure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Thebc2

skullbringer said:


> I think cooling is your limiting factor. My chip is also SP63, but can do 5.3 GHz when kept below 80 C, so I bet your's could too.
> 
> 
> 
> What cooler and tim are you using, not delidded I assume?
> 
> 
> 
> With liquid metal conductonaut tim I can do the following with my chip in prime95 small ffts, no avx:
> 
> 24 C ambient => 5.3 GHz all core, 1.288V load (~ 75C average core temp)
> 
> 26 C ambient => 5.2 GHz all core, 1.293V load (~ 83C average core temp)
> 
> 28 C ambient => 5.2 GHz all core, 1.313V load (~ 94C average core temp)
> 
> 
> 
> BTW batch number is X019F943
> 
> 
> 
> Thats on a custom loop with 6x 120mm rad size. I feel like we are running against the side of a exponentially steeply increasing stability/heat curve and 80C core temp is the cutoff for "efficient stability at high clocks".




Yes and no imo. And for the record my cooling is definitely a weak point. I am testing a few different 360mm AIOs at the moment to see which I am keeping, but all run in a push/pull config with 6x noctua af12x25 fans. My cooler score fluctuates between 165-181 depending on ambient and what workloads I am running.


Yes cooling matters, but the other variable here is the silicon quality itself and how much voltage the CPU needs to run stable at a given speed. What’s odd for me is my VF points across multiple chips are identical and yet the chips exhibit totally different stability characteristics at the same voltages. 

For example, one VF point I focus on is the 5200mhz one as my goal is for a stable 5.2-5.3 OC. On two (SP63) chips I see the same voltage of 1.499 for this VF point. But one chip can run all day and all night at 5.2ghz/1.45v bios while the other crashes immediately when I fire up Prime 95. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## ThrashZone

Thebc2 said:


> Bugged VF curve, note the first few points match. Go through Falken’s reset procedure.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Hi,
lol short story simply update bios no need for anything else.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

Thebc2 said:


> That is my “golden sp63”, I have another from the identical batch# that can barely do 5.1 stable...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Same Batch, same SP63. 5.3 all core 5100 ring 1.305V die sense under load. 4600C17 only needs 1.3V sa.


----------



## Talon2016

cstkl1 said:


> do u mind showing me your v/f again . wanna jot down. noticed something.


All of my chips are gone except my SP103 chip. Sold off my SP83 chip the other day with a Maximus Hero XII board that I had lying around after my Extreme came.


----------



## SoldierRBT

Talon2016 said:


> All of my chips are gone except my SP103 chip. Sold off my SP83 chip the other day with a Maximus Hero XII board that I had lying around after my Extreme came.


Did you see any improvement in OC going from Z490 Hero to Z490 Extreme? What voltage it needs for 5.3GHz?


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Extreme/ apex both have dual 8 pin cpu power so they have different power delivery than hero/ formula/... 
Does that make any real difference not really.

Best feature is dual bios the hero/ formula does not have.


----------



## TK421

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Extreme/ apex both have dual 8 pin cpu power so they have different power delivery than hero/ formula/...
> Does that make any real difference not really.
> 
> Best feature is dual bios the hero/ formula does not have.



can you actually benefit from better power delivery going from hero/formula -> apex/extreme on ambient/watercooling?


----------



## ThrashZone

TK421 said:


> can you actually benefit from better power delivery going from hero/formula -> apex/extreme on ambient/watercooling?


Hi,
Not really you'll always hit a thermal limit first.


----------



## Nizzen

There is one z490 MB worth buying:
Asus Apex xii 

Everything else is just compromises...


----------



## TK421

Nizzen said:


> There is one z490 MB worth buying:
> Asus Apex xii
> 
> Everything else is just compromises...



no pci-e gen 4, otherwise it's the best mb for z490 period


----------



## cstkl1

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> ASUS BIOS VCore is similar to the socket sense VCore on MSI. The cpu-z vcore is similar to the vcc sense vcore on MSI. Gigabyte has a VR Vout which is also similar to the vcc sense of MSI


asus is die sense, not socket sense

vcc = vr out suppose to be die sense
afaik
difference is asus is calibrated die sense.


----------



## cstkl1

TK421 said:


> no pci-e gen 4, otherwise it's the best mb for z490 period


what talkin is da u. all the mobos can have m.2 gen 4 like m12e. 
just get a gen4 nvme adapter. plug on 2nd pcie 16x .. done. same same puppy shame


----------



## TK421

cstkl1 said:


> what talkin is da u. all the mobos can have m.2 gen 4 like m12e.
> just get a gen4 nvme adapter. plug on 2nd pcie 16x .. done. same same puppy shame


 seems lacking in terms of signal integrity


https://wccftech.com/z490-motherboards-pcie-gen-4-support-detailed-asus-msi-asrock-gigabyte/








btw, there's a 104sp chip, would you consider this top binned?


----------



## cstkl1

TK421 said:


> seems lacking in terms of signal integrity
> 
> 
> https://wccftech.com/z490-motherboards-pcie-gen-4-support-detailed-asus-msi-asrock-gigabyte/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> btw, there's a 104sp chip, would you consider this top binned?


Got to see v/f.. if 5.1ghz 1.15v.. then yes. 

From china u can buy binned cpu sp118 etc..

Siliconlottery binnin is a joke.


----------



## TK421

cstkl1 said:


> what talkin is da u. all the mobos can have m.2 gen 4 like m12e.
> just get a gen4 nvme adapter. plug on 2nd pcie 16x .. done. same same puppy shame





cstkl1 said:


> Got to see v/f.. if 5.1ghz 1.15v.. then yes.
> 
> From china u can buy binned cpu sp118 etc..
> 
> Siliconlottery binnin is a joke.



how do I see the v/f curve?




got any link to the chinese binned cpus? how can I buy if I'm in the usa?


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

cstkl1 said:


> asus is die sense, not socket sense
> 
> vcc = vr out suppose to be die sense
> afaik
> difference is asus is calibrated die sense.


ASUS VCore in BIOS setting = socket sense

ASUS SuperIO report to software at default = die sense


----------



## zlatanselvic

Update:

After delidding my 10900k with minimal results, I noticed that my EKWB had some corossion inside of it (purchased new 3 months ago.) After getting an RMA block. I have been able to achieve much, much better results.


6500-6600 CBR20 results

5.1Ghz all core at 1.38v, vcore, all limits removed, auto voltage on all other settings, and load line calibration 4. I am seeing temps under stress testing around 77c - 80c max. I can boot as high as 5.3 all-core with some hefty voltages, but the heat is volcanic. I may try to get an extra 100mhz out of all-core, but this is my 24/7 machine. I'd prefer to keep voltages down below 1.4v.


I appreciate everyone's awesome data and feedback in here. Lots of awesome guidance when you're dialing things in!


----------



## cstkl1

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> ASUS VCore in BIOS setting = socket sense
> 
> ASUS SuperIO report to software at default = die sense



1.37v set LL4
voltage monitor die sense
bios report voltage 1.332v
hwinfo windows report 1.332v
idle amp 22
1.374-0.97x22/1000=1.348v

so nope.

if u mean bio set.. then should be.


----------



## cstkl1

TK421 said:


> how do I see the v/f curve?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> got any link to the chinese binned cpus? how can I buy if I'm in the usa?


china box cpu do not have international warantty 

and theres alot of questionable ones. i personally wont buy from there unless I AM there. 
every-time my friend who does etailer biz has to fly there.. cram everything he selects and qc himself into a container.

if u really want .. @owikh84 got da contact.


----------



## TK421

cstkl1 said:


> china box cpu do not have international warantty
> 
> and theres alot of questionable ones. i personally wont buy from there unless I AM there.
> every-time my friend who does etailer biz has to fly there.. cram everything he selects and qc himself into a container.
> 
> if u really want .. @*owikh84* got da contact.


so they're binned from tray CPUs? not retail boxed ones?




what do you think the 104sp chip is worth, at max?


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

cstkl1 said:


> 1.37v set LL4
> voltage monitor die sense
> bios report voltage 1.332v
> hwinfo windows report 1.332v
> idle amp 22
> 1.374-0.97x22/1000=1.348v
> 
> so nope.
> 
> if u mean bio set.. then should be.


Yeah I meant the value you set in the BIOS


----------



## cstkl1

TK421 said:


> so they're binned from tray CPUs? not retail boxed ones?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what do you think the 104sp chip is worth, at max?


u gonna faint. hold on sp118
usd 2.1k


seriously unless it has a vid 1.15 for 5.1ghz
theres nothing great about sp104.


----------



## Falkentyne

Just email silicon lottery and ask them to sell you a SP 110+ CPU
I'm sure they will be glad to bin one, show you the VF points and test it if you pay enough money. Money does talk...


----------



## cstkl1

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> Yeah I meant the value you set in the BIOS


V/f in asus bios. Take a screenshot here.

Lets see where your 5.1is at

That shows the potential.


----------



## TK421

cstkl1 said:


> u gonna faint. hold on sp118
> usd 2.1k
> 
> 
> seriously unless it has a vid 1.15 for 5.1ghz
> theres nothing great about sp104.





Falkentyne said:


> Just email silicon lottery and ask them to sell you a SP 110+ CPU
> I'm sure they will be glad to bin one, show you the VF points and test it if you pay enough money. Money does talk...





cstkl1 said:


> V/f in asus bios. Take a screenshot here.
> 
> Lets see where your 5.1is at
> 
> That shows the potential.







so that 104sp is not good or?


----------



## cstkl1

TK421 said:


> so that 104sp is not good or?


bro its not the sp rating only. u got to see with the v/f. it has to be scaled

so ok lets look at mine the points i only care
sp81 btw
4.3ghz @1.039v ( following old type vids this can go to 0.9x or 1v
5.1ghz @1.274v .. sp100 arnd 1.259v
5.2/5.3 1.408/1.4v again pointless as 5.2v arnd 0.1v more than 5.1 if theres a wall and scales back properly with 5.3.. but the increase in temps is alpt because the current of that extra v on 5.2
sp100 was 5.2/5.3 1.34-1.36v pointless.


so if u want fantastic sp

its got to be either
1v @4.3
1.15v @5.1v 
1.25v @5.2

or a cpu that scales well
[email protected]
[email protected]

first one is godlike. second one is what i am looking for. 5.1 to 5.2 diff 0.04-0.05v. cause like mine example i jumped from [email protected] (188amp) to prime small fft stable to [email protected]
(218amp) atleast 10amp there went to heat.


----------



## Falkentyne

cstkl1 said:


> V/f in asus bios. Take a screenshot here.
> 
> Lets see where your 5.1is at
> 
> That shows the potential.


My 5.1 of my SP94 chip is 1.305v VF Point. (idle VID at 30C is 1.235v).
So what does that mean ?


----------



## cstkl1

TK421 said:


> so that 104sp is not good or?


bro its not the sp rating only. u got to see with the v/f. it has to be scaled

so ok lets look at mine the points i only care
sp81 btw
4.3ghz @1.039v ( following old type vids this can go to 0.9x or 1v
5.1ghz @1.274v .. sp100 arnd 1.259v
5.2/5.3 1.408/1.4v again pointless as 5.2v arnd 0.1v more than 5.1 if theres a wall and scales back properly with 5.3.. but the increase in temps is alpt because the current of that extra v on 5.2
sp100 was 5.2/5.3 1.34-1.36v pointless.


so if u want fantastic sp

its got to be either vid
1v @4.3
1.15v @5.1v 
1.25v @5.2v 

or a cpu that scales well with vid
[email protected]
[email protected]

first one is godlike. second one is what i am looking for. 5.1 to 5.2 diff 0.04-0.05v. cause like mine example i jumped from [email protected] (188amp) to prime small fft stable to [email protected]
(218amp) atleast 10amp there went to heat. 
thats 218/188 vs 5.2/5.1.. 16percent on current to gain 2percent...


----------



## TK421

cstkl1 said:


> bro its not the sp rating only. u got to see with the v/f. it has to be scaled
> 
> so ok lets look at mine the points i only care
> sp81 btw
> 4.3ghz @1.039v ( following old type vids this can go to 0.9x or 1v
> 5.1ghz @1.274v .. sp100 arnd 1.259v
> 5.2/5.3 1.408/1.4v again pointless as 5.2v arnd 0.1v more than 5.1 if theres a wall and scales back properly with 5.3.. but the increase in temps is alpt because the current of that extra v on 5.2
> sp100 was 5.2/5.3 1.34-1.36v pointless.
> 
> 
> so if u want fantastic sp
> 
> its got to be either
> 1v @4.3
> 1.15v @5.1v
> 1.25v @5.2
> 
> or a cpu that scales well
> [email protected]
> [email protected]
> 
> first one is godlike. second one is what i am looking for. 5.1 to 5.2 diff 0.04-0.05v. cause like mine example i jumped from [email protected] (188amp) to prime small fft stable to [email protected]
> (218amp) atleast 10amp there went to heat.
> thats 218/188 vs 5.2/5.1.. 16percent on current to gain 2percent...





I'll take ask for the v/f curve, will report back.


Thanks for the advice


----------



## Falkentyne

cstkl1 said:


> bro its not the sp rating only. u got to see with the v/f. it has to be scaled
> 
> so ok lets look at mine the points i only care
> sp81 btw
> 4.3ghz @1.039v ( following old type vids this can go to 0.9x or 1v
> 5.1ghz @1.274v .. sp100 arnd 1.259v
> 5.2/5.3 1.408/1.4v again pointless as 5.2v arnd 0.1v more than 5.1 if theres a wall and scales back properly with 5.3.. but the increase in temps is alpt because the current of that extra v on 5.2
> sp100 was 5.2/5.3 1.34-1.36v pointless.
> 
> 
> so if u want fantastic sp
> 
> its got to be either vid
> 1v @4.3
> 1.15v @5.1v
> 1.25v @5.2v
> 
> or a cpu that scales well with vid
> [email protected]
> [email protected]
> 
> first one is godlike. second one is what i am looking for. 5.1 to 5.2 diff 0.04-0.05v. cause like mine example i jumped from [email protected] (188amp) to prime small fft stable to [email protected]
> (218amp) atleast 10amp there went to heat.
> thats 218/188 vs 5.2/5.1.. 16percent on current to gain 2percent...


Ok I should edit
5.1 VF=1.305v
5.2 VF=1.393v
5.3 VF=(same as 5.2....why)=.=

So....bad chip?


----------



## cstkl1

Falkentyne said:


> Ok I should edit
> 5.1 VF=1.305v
> 5.2 VF=1.393v
> 5.3 VF=(same as 5.2....why)=.=
> 
> So....bad chip?


at this moment i know 5.3 scales ok after 5.2 
so we need a low 5.1 and a 5.2 thats not big from 5.1..

the vid most probably is just based on a 56sec rule at 125x1.25..2 core from a vid 1.36-1.4v loadline 1.1miliohm for 56sec with nerfed tdp.. 

all the cpu can do 5.1 by just upping 0.1v from the vid 5.1.. lets take the worse one i saw sp57 1.374v .. so 188amp 1.47v L4.. 1.287v with reporting likely 1.27v.. for vmin. dats a insane r&d by intel. 

sidenote
now manage to replicate the 10700k 5.1/48
10900k 51|48 @vmin 1.17217 , vccio/vcssa 1.15v , 4000 [email protected]

norm before doing long run hci.. 1hr fft112, 5 run tm5, 1round hci.. 










this cpu seems to like vccio=vcssa.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Thanks for the good work @cstkl1.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

cstkl1 said:


> V/f in asus bios. Take a screenshot here.
> 
> Lets see where your 5.1is at
> 
> That shows the potential.


This is the SP63 chip and the VF points are really off


----------



## cstkl1

Falkentyne said:


> My 5.1 of my SP94 chip is 1.305v VF Point. (idle VID at 30C is 1.235v).
> So what does that mean ?


i guarantee its super-stable at 1.4v L4 set @5.1
whats your 4.3??(again going old school on this one)


----------



## cstkl1

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> This is the SP63 chip and the VF points are really off


all the sp63 looks alike. 

i think. again my assumption.. some batches instead of binning to check what they can do and set a vid..hence sp70-120 etc.. 

but follow a set vid. if it passes its programmed. 
its basically a intel template. they dont bin to see what it can do.. this is what i think sp63 are. they could be anything. 

but bro. look at your 5.1ghz vid. that aint a norm sp63.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

cstkl1 said:


> all the sp63 looks alike.
> 
> i think. again my assumption.. some batches instead of binning to check what they can do and set a vid..hence sp70-120 etc..
> 
> but follow a set vid. if it passes its programmed.
> its basically a intel template. they dont bin to see what it can do.. this is what i think sp63 are. they could be anything.
> 
> but bro. look at your 5.1ghz vid. that aint a norm sp63.


Yup. 5.3 VID is way higher than my SP79 but 5.1 VID was similar. I don't know if they really scan the wafer quality or actually test the chip, the chip quality of the SP63 chip is definitely better than my SP79


----------



## Falkentyne

cstkl1 said:


> i guarantee its super-stable at 1.4v L4 set @5.1
> whats your 4.3??(again going old school on this one)


SP is 94 but seems to be similar to @criskoe's SP88, maybe slightly worse than his. Definitely hotter at same v than his. My 5.3 ghz vmin for L0 errors in Realbench 2.56 with 1 test and then with 5 loops seems to be almost the same as his though.

4300 mhz is 1.064v

All VF points:

800 mhz: 0.774v
2500: 0.809v
3500: 0.939v
4300: 1.064v
4800: 1.179v
5100: 1.304v
5200: 1.393v
5300: 1.393v (???what)

5.1 ghz is stable in prime95 15k AVX small FFT at 1.181v load for 30 minutes. Other tests can go a little lower on the load voltage than this (cinebench r20, realbench 2.56, avx disabled prime95 etc).
prime95 15K FMA3 needs >1.20v load voltage (the 1.217v calculation looks fine for FMA3) but is too hot to test this, I cannot keep it under 100C. Amps would be over 255 here.


----------



## skullbringer

10900KF was finally available again in Germany, arrived today:
SP 95
Batch X025D686 

Btw are 10900K and 10900KF from the same batches, or are they separate batch number ranges, anyone know?

It seems to clock about 100 MHz higher than my SP 63 chip voltage for voltage. 
I also noticed the SP 95 has more droop (~10mV) and more amperage (~5%) per clock according to HWinfo. SP 63 10900K 1.415V bios + llc5 = 1.288V load, SP 95 10900KF 1.415V bios + llc5 = 1.279V load (Prime95 smallFFTs, no AVX), strange...

Also the SP 95 only needs 1.25V SA, whereas SP 63 needed 1.4V SA for 4400MHz CL17 (2x 8gb sr a0 b-die). 

Unfortunately realtime memory training is still borked for me, opened support case with Asus, so memory timings are quick and dirty.


----------



## Falkentyne

skullbringer said:


> 10900KF was finally available again in Germany, arrived today:
> SP 95
> Batch X025D686
> 
> Btw are 10900K and 10900KF from the same batches, or are they separate batch number ranges, anyone know?
> 
> It seems to clock about 100 MHz higher than my SP 63 chip voltage for voltage.
> I also noticed the SP 95 has more droop (~10mV) and more amperage (~5%) per clock according to HWinfo. SP 63 10900K 1.415V bios + llc5 = 1.288V load, SP 95 10900KF 1.415V bios + llc5 = 1.279V load (Prime95 smallFFTs, no AVX), strange...
> 
> Also the SP 95 only needs 1.25V SA, whereas SP 63 needed 1.4V SA for 4400MHz CL17 (2x 8gb sr a0 b-die).
> 
> Unfortunately realtime memory training is still borked for me, opened support case with Asus, so memory timings are quick and dirty.


More vdroop=more amps=common. Means the chip is more leaky=runs hotter/pulls more power.
Sometimes chips that pull less power and run cooler at same volts/frequency/LLC will be worse clockers....(but may do well on LN2)


----------



## reelfreak

I just got my 10900k a week ago from overclockers in UK. I finally started playing with the overclock a bit and just have it at a similar setting @criskoe posted a while back @ 5GHz, nothing special but I want to ramp it up and see what it can do without getting too toasty. Room as been 90F here in southern CA lately when I get home so not ideal for high temp stress tests this last week. I think I got a decent cpu for once if v/f points are a good indicator. There's so much info in this thread to absorb.  

SP is 94

Maximus XII Hero Bios 0607

5.0 Ghz Manual

CPU Ratio - 50
Cache - 47
AVX Offset - 0
All Cstates disabled and All Power Limits Removed

LLC - 4
Bios Voltage -1.29V
Idle Voltage -1.261V
VCCIO - 1.15V
VCCSA - 1.15V


----------



## Falkentyne

reelfreak said:


> I just got my 10900k a week ago from overclockers in UK. I finally started playing with the overclock a bit and just have it at a similar setting @criskoe posted a while back @ 5GHz, nothing special but I want to ramp it up and see what it can do without getting too toasty. Room as been 90F here in southern CA lately when I get home so not ideal for high temp stress tests this last week. I think I got a decent cpu for once if v/f points are a good indicator. There's so much info in this thread to absorb.
> 
> SP is 94
> 
> Maximus XII Hero Bios 0607
> 
> 5.0 Ghz Manual
> 
> CPU Ratio - 50
> Cache - 47
> AVX Offset - 0
> All Cstates disabled and All Power Limits Removed
> 
> LLC - 4
> Bios Voltage -1.29V
> Idle Voltage -1.261V
> VCCIO - 1.15V
> VCCSA - 1.15V


That is definitely a good chip.
Your SP94 is better than my SP94 and I think I know why.

Your 5.1 ghz VF Point is 1.249v while mine is 1.303v, and my 5.2 ghz VF is 1.393 while yours is 1.349v. I think what is inflating my SP (mine seems more like Criskoe's SP88, maybe mine should be SP86-88 actually from seeing his and my vmins we tested together where CPU Cache L0 errors start appearing) is that my 5.3 ghz VF point is identical to my 5.2 ghz VF Point (both are 1.393v) while yours is higher. So that's artificially inflating my SP. Not sure if that's because mine is an ES chip, but I have seen some other people with retail chips have the same VF point at 5.2 and 5.3 ghz.

To test your chip, try to find out the LOWEST load voltage at 5.2 ghz (not bios voltage), after vdroop, you need to pass Realbench 2.56 for 30 minutes without a "CPU Cache L0 error" appearing in HWInfo64's WHEA Section. That will show your true chip quality.
I'm going to take a guess you will be able to pass at 1.225v load voltage.


----------



## Baasha

Falkentyne said:


> *To test your chip, try to find out the LOWEST load voltage at 5.2 ghz (not bios voltage), after vdroop, you need to pass Realbench 2.56 for 30 minutes without a "CPU Cache L0 error" appearing in HWInfo64's WHEA Section. That will show your true chip quality.*


What is the RAM setting we should use to do this test? The options are 4GB, 8GB, 16GB etc. I have 32GB in my system....


----------



## cstkl1

reelfreak said:


> I just got my 10900k a week ago from overclockers in UK. I finally started playing with the overclock a bit and just have it at a similar setting @criskoe posted a while back @ 5GHz, nothing special but I want to ramp it up and see what it can do without getting too toasty. Room as been 90F here in southern CA lately when I get home so not ideal for high temp stress tests this last week. I think I got a decent cpu for once if v/f points are a good indicator. There's so much info in this thread to absorb.
> 
> SP is 94
> 
> Maximus XII Hero Bios 0607
> 
> 5.0 Ghz Manual
> 
> CPU Ratio - 50
> Cache - 47
> AVX Offset - 0
> All Cstates disabled and All Power Limits Removed
> 
> LLC - 4
> Bios Voltage -1.29V
> Idle Voltage -1.261V
> VCCIO - 1.15V
> VCCSA - 1.15V


Thats a good cpu. 
Would be interesting at this point to see vrm difference
Extreme will be easy 
[email protected] L4 vmin 1.155
[email protected] L4 vmin 1.225

L6.. seems to use less amps but hmm testing it atm. It doesnt feel strong and solid like L4

I like your cpu. 4.3vid looks good. So good potential
Its the same as a sp100 i saw except that has better 5.2/5.3 which i think is irrelevant.


----------



## Falkentyne

cstkl1 said:


> Thats a good cpu.
> Would be interesting at this point to see vrm difference
> Extreme will be easy
> [email protected] L4 vmin 1.155
> [email protected] L4 vmin 1.225
> 
> L6.. seems to use less amps but hmm testing it atm. It doesnt feel strong and solid like L4


Did you see my reply to your message this morning?



cstkl1 said:


> i guarantee its super-stable at 1.4v L4 set @5.1
> whats your 4.3??(again going old school on this one)


SP is 94 but seems to be similar to @criskoe's SP88, maybe slightly worse than his. Definitely hotter at same v than his. My 5.3 ghz vmin for L0 errors in Realbench 2.56 with 1 test and then with 5 loops seems to be almost the same as his though.

4300 mhz is 1.064v

All VF points:

800 mhz: 0.774v
2500: 0.809v
3500: 0.939v
4300: 1.064v
4800: 1.179v
5100: 1.304v
5200: 1.393v
5300: 1.393v (???what)

5.1 ghz is stable in prime95 15k AVX small FFT at 1.181v load for 30 minutes. Other tests can go a little lower on the load voltage than this (cinebench r20, realbench 2.56, avx disabled prime95 etc).
prime95 15K FMA3 needs >1.20v load voltage (the 1.217v calculation looks fine for FMA3) but is too hot to test this, I cannot keep it under 100C. Amps would be over 255 here.


----------



## cstkl1

Falkentyne said:


> SP is 94 but seems to be similar to @criskoe's SP88, maybe slightly worse than his. Definitely hotter at same v than his. My 5.3 ghz vmin for L0 errors in Realbench 2.56 with 1 test and then with 5 loops seems to be almost the same as his though.
> 
> 4300 mhz is 1.064v
> 
> All VF points:
> 
> 800 mhz: 0.774v
> 2500: 0.809v
> 3500: 0.939v
> 4300: 1.064v
> 4800: 1.179v
> 5100: 1.304v
> 5200: 1.393v
> 5300: 1.393v (???what)
> 
> 5.1 ghz is stable in prime95 15k AVX small FFT at 1.181v load for 30 minutes. Other tests can go a little lower on the load voltage than this (cinebench r20, realbench 2.56, avx disabled prime95 etc).
> prime95 15K FMA3 needs >1.20v load voltage (the 1.217v calculation looks fine for FMA3) but is too hot to test this, I cannot keep it under 100C. Amps would be over 255 here.


This. Ya i thought i should do more test on L6. Since thats the one you favor. L6 amp is way low. No idea y. 
L7 and L8 i get arnd the same amp with same vmin as my L4 vmin. 

The reason i chase for crazy stability is because of ram oc. It will influence vccio/vcssa stability. 

L6 also seems not very keen on high cache clock. Maybe because not enough spread between idle & load??

I normally will confirm stability with one multiplier down avx at the same vcore. But this time.. hmm got to think about dis. Its literally running 100c like u said.

Also your cpu =owikh84 sp82. Diff is the 52/53.


----------



## skullbringer

Falkentyne said:


> Did you see my reply to your message this morning?
> 
> 
> 
> SP is 94 but seems to be similar to @criskoe's SP88, maybe slightly worse than his. Definitely hotter at same v than his. My 5.3 ghz vmin for L0 errors in Realbench 2.56 with 1 test and then with 5 loops seems to be almost the same as his though.
> 
> 4300 mhz is 1.064v
> 
> All VF points:
> 
> 800 mhz: 0.774v
> 2500: 0.809v
> 3500: 0.939v
> 4300: 1.064v
> 4800: 1.179v
> 5100: 1.304v
> 5200: 1.393v
> 5300: 1.393v (???what)
> 
> 5.1 ghz is stable in prime95 15k AVX small FFT at 1.181v load for 30 minutes. Other tests can go a little lower on the load voltage than this (cinebench r20, realbench 2.56, avx disabled prime95 etc).
> prime95 15K FMA3 needs >1.20v load voltage (the 1.217v calculation looks fine for FMA3) but is too hot to test this, I cannot keep it under 100C. Amps would be over 255 here.


Have you ever tested LinpackXtreme with the same settings as prime95 avx? 
The transient loads in linpack are really high, needing even more voltage, or lower llc than prime95, in my expereince


----------



## SuperMumrik

Chilled water tests


----------



## skullbringer

SuperMumrik said:


> Chilled water tests


damn, I want a direct die cooling solution so bad. 

how did you buy it from supercoolcomputer? I cant seem to find it on their store


----------



## SuperMumrik

skullbringer said:


> damn, I want a direct die cooling solution so bad.
> 
> how did you buy it from supercoolcomputer? I cant seem to find it on their store



Contact them directly on facebook. That's what we did


----------



## kevinsw0rld

Maybe I'm doing something wrong but the silicon prediction is wildly off on my new 10900KF. On my other 10900Ks if I set my voltage to what it says in the NonAVX, it at least will complete Blender/BMW.

It wasn't so successful on this chip.

On this chip, the NonAVX recommended 1.376V @L4 but it was no good. Here's what I did to get stable -

10900k - SP 94
Asus Apex
G.SKILL 32GB(2x16) CL19 4000 RAM

Ai Overclock Tuner: XMP II
CPU Core/Cache Voltage: Manual Mode
CPU Core Voltage Override: 1.400
AVX Instruction Core Ratio Negative Offset: 0
CPU Core Ratio: All-Core Ratio Limit
CPU Load-line Calibration: Level 4

Stress tested passed -
Real Bench 2.56 - 1 Hour, Up to 16GB RAM

HWiNFO64 v6.27-4190 (while running Prime 95 torture test)
Vcore- (Current 1.234V, Minimum 1.217V, Maximum 1.376V<idle voltage)
Core 0-7- 76-81 C

I can't seem to get 5.3ghz to even pass Blender/BMW. I tried up to 1.440(BIOS) LLC4. Blender would crash after a dozen squares. Any suggestions here? or am I just outta luck for 5.3ghz.


----------



## kevinsw0rld

Digging deep in the threads and trying some things that's mentioned before...



Falkentyne said:


> If you can find out what Bios voltage @ LLC6, and what load voltage you need to pass *five repeated loops* of cinebench r20 @ 5.3 ghz/4.9 cache (don't try 5.0 cache, going to be harder to pass), let us know. @criskoe and I could pass 1 single loop of Cinebench R20 at 5.3 ghz at 1.390v (Bios set) LLC6, and 5 repeated loops (I think it was) at 1.410v LLC6 (or 1.415v, I forgot). His chip and mine are very similar.
> 
> I'm curious what yours can pass in cinebench r20 at x53 / x49. See if you can pass 5 loops of R20 at x53/x49 at 1.430v (Bios set) LLC6. You should be able to. Watch the cooling. If necessary, set (in cpu internal power management) overtemperature limit to 110C.


I was able to get 

x53/x49 LLC6 at 1.390V(BIOS) to complete cinebench r20 twice. Blue screened on the third try.
x53/x49 LLC6 at 1.415V(BIOS) completed cinebench r20 twice. On the third try, the application closed down. 
x53/x49 LLC6 at 1.430V(BIOS) completed 5 loops. I had to turn my h150i to extreme (max fans, max pump).

While having my AIO set to max fan and max pump, I went back to x53/x49 LLC6 at 1.415V and it completed 5 times without any issues. I'm assuming I'm reaching thermal limits before my fan curve kicks in and the app closes?? I also opened up Blender and attempted to render BMW and it closed mid way. Tempted to try x53/x49 LL6 at 1.430V for Blender...scared of temps though.

x53/x49 @ LL6 at 1.415V(BIOS) was getting 1.305 at load. I forgot to look at what was load at 1.430V.

Edit - 
While my fan and pump was set to max, I went back to 1.490V and was able to complete cinebench r20 5x.


----------



## Falkentyne

kevinsw0rld said:


> Maybe I'm doing something wrong but the silicon prediction is wildly off on my new 10900KF. On my other 10900Ks if I set my voltage to what it says in the NonAVX, it at least will complete Blender/BMW.
> 
> It wasn't so successful on this chip.
> 
> On this chip, the NonAVX recommended 1.376V @L4 but it was no good. Here's what I did to get stable -
> 
> 10900k - SP 94
> Asus Apex
> G.SKILL 32GB(2x16) CL19 4000 RAM
> 
> Ai Overclock Tuner: XMP II
> CPU Core/Cache Voltage: Manual Mode
> CPU Core Voltage Override: 1.400
> AVX Instruction Core Ratio Negative Offset: 0
> CPU Core Ratio: All-Core Ratio Limit
> CPU Load-line Calibration: Level 4
> 
> Stress tested passed -
> Real Bench 2.56 - 1 Hour, Up to 16GB RAM
> 
> HWiNFO64 v6.27-4190 (while running Prime 95 torture test)
> Vcore- (Current 1.234V, Minimum 1.217V, Maximum 1.376V<idle voltage)
> Core 0-7- 76-81 C
> 
> I can't seem to get 5.3ghz to even pass Blender/BMW. I tried up to 1.440(BIOS) LLC4. Blender would crash after a dozen squares. Any suggestions here? or am I just outta luck for 5.3ghz.


Hi,

Try 1.420v Bios set + LLC6 for 5.3 ghz and see if you can pass blender. Watch the temps.
If you can, slowly work your way down. Remember to watch HWinfo64 carefully for "CPU Cache L0 errors" appearing as those appearing means you are close to a BSOD.
You can also try Realbench 2.56 at 1.420v Bios set + LLC6, remember again to watch for CPU Cache L0 errors. You will get those rather than the application just crashing on you, usually.


----------



## Falkentyne

kevinsw0rld said:


> Digging deep in the threads and trying some things that's mentioned before...
> 
> 
> 
> I was able to get
> 
> x53/x49 LLC6 at 1.390V(BIOS) to complete cinebench r20 twice. Blue screened on the third try.
> x53/x49 LLC6 at 1.415V(BIOS) completed cinebench r20 twice. On the third try, the application closed down.
> x53/x49 LLC6 at 1.430V(BIOS) completed 5 loops. I had to turn my h150i to extreme (max fans, max pump).
> 
> While having my AIO set to max fan and max pump, I went back to x53/x49 LLC6 at 1.415V and it completed 5 times without any issues. I'm assuming I'm reaching thermal limits before my fan curve kicks in and the app closes?? I also opened up Blender and attempted to render BMW and it closed mid way. Tempted to try x53/x49 LL6 at 1.430V for Blender...scared of temps though.
> 
> x53/x49 @ LL6 at 1.415V(BIOS) was getting 1.305 at load. I forgot to look at what was load at 1.430V.


Interesting. What is the SP quality of your chip?

Bonus points: if you can take a screenshot if the "VF Points" of your BIOS (screenshot or camera) and then post that here too


----------



## kevinsw0rld

Falkentyne said:


> Hi,
> 
> Try 1.420v Bios set + LLC6 for 5.3 ghz and see if you can pass blender. Watch the temps.
> If you can, slowly work your way down. Remember to watch HWinfo64 carefully for "CPU Cache L0 errors" appearing as those appearing means you are close to a BSOD.
> You can also try Realbench 2.56 at 1.420v Bios set + LLC6, remember again to watch for CPU Cache L0 errors. You will get those rather than the application just crashing on you, usually.


As always thanks for the steps.

This is a noob question but I can't seem to find the CPU Cache L0 errors. It's in hwinfo64 somewhere?

Also, I tried 1.420vBIOS LL6 and it did about 2/3 of BMW render and abruptly closes. Ran RealBench 2.56 and PC blue screened after 3-4 mins in. Temp seems ok since I still have my 360mm AIO set pump and fans set to max.


----------



## kevinsw0rld

Falkentyne said:


> Interesting. What is the SP quality of your chip?
> 
> Bonus points: if you can take a screenshot if the "VF Points" of your BIOS (screenshot or camera) and then post that here too


10900kf SP 94

I'm not sure if the V/F Point Offset changes with my settings. I have it currently set to 5300 L6.


----------



## Falkentyne

kevinsw0rld said:


> As always thanks for the steps.
> 
> This is a noob question but I can't seem to find the CPU Cache L0 errors. It's in hwinfo64 somewhere?
> 
> Also, I tried 1.420vBIOS LL6 and it did about 2/3 of BMW render and abruptly closes. Ran RealBench 2.56 and PC blue screened after 3-4 mins in. Temp seems ok since I still have my 360mm AIO set pump and fans set to max.


CPU Cache L0 errors will be at the very bottom of HWinfo64 "sensors only" where it says "WHEA". You are 100% likely to see L0 errors before BSOD'ing. L0 errors are corrupted instruction registers in the "hyperthreaded" (logical) cores, as each instruction register has to be duplicated. They don't happen with hyperthreading disabled because there are no virtualized cores.


----------



## Baasha

Falkentyne said:


> Hi,
> 
> Try 1.420v Bios set + LLC6 for 5.3 ghz and see if you can pass blender. Watch the temps.
> If you can, slowly work your way down. Remember to watch HWinfo64 carefully for "CPU Cache L0 errors" appearing as those appearing means you are close to a BSOD.
> You can also try Realbench 2.56 at 1.420v Bios set + LLC6, remember again to watch for CPU Cache L0 errors. You will get those rather than the application just crashing on you, usually.


What is the advantage of LLC4 vs LLC6? My BIOS says "LLC4: Recommended for Overclocking" but my 5.2Ghz OC is on LLC6.


----------



## Falkentyne

kevinsw0rld said:


> 10900kf SP 94
> 
> I'm not sure if the V/F Point Offset changes with my settings. I have it currently set to 5300 L6.


If you rename and save your original image as "JPG", it can be shown as a clickable thumbnail here. For some reason, bitmap (BMP) files don't work right.

Here are my VF points.

800 mhz: 0.774v
2500: 0.809v
3500: 0.939v
4300: 1.064v
4800: 1.179v
5100: 1.304v
5200: 1.393v
5300: 1.393v (yeah. I know)

They are similar to yours, except your 4.8 and 5.1 ghz points are lower than mine. That 5.2 ghz wall though...it is interesting that both your chip and my chip have the exact same VID at 5.2 and 5.3 ghz. Odd. (mine is an ES though). Strange that my SP is also 94. Seems to be very related to the 5.3 ghz point being the same as 5.2 ghz point.

I uploaded your picture for you as JPEG.


----------



## Falkentyne

Baasha said:


> What is the advantage of LLC4 vs LLC6? My BIOS says "LLC4: Recommended for Overclocking" but my 5.2Ghz OC is on LLC6.


LLC6 has slightly worse "Vmin" from transients, but it can reduce your idle voltage. 

I recommend LLC6 for gaming because transients are not as bad when gaming as when stress testing.
Also, another strange thing I have found out is that a higher LLC can help issues with "Certain" games that hammer the cache extremely hard, for reasons I can't explain, but it seems LLC affects both cache and core (the voltages are linked), and can help when certain games cause "CPU Internal Parity WHEA errors" by hammering one single thread to 100% (or close to 100%) and then alternating loads on other threads. Minecraft is notorious for this. I heard red dead redemption 2 can show similar issues. In these games, it is actually -bad- to use a very droopy (steep) LLC because cache voltage will drop too low from the games hammering the cache so hard (again I do not know why and cannot explain why nor do I have equipment to measure this).


----------



## kevinsw0rld

Thanks for the advice. I'll remember to change my screenshots to jpg from now on.

As a test, I turned on the AC and pointed a fan at the intake fans on my case. Changed it to 1.445v (BIOS) and LLC6. Ran Blender and it went about half way before closing.

1.445v (BIOS) and LLC6
hwinfo64 shows -
total errors - 0
Vcore (idle) - 1.430v
Vcore (load) - 1.323v
Core 0-9 temp - 89-95.

I'm probably not going to use 5.3ghz as daily but for science, should I keep going to see if I can complete Blender? lol

Also, I saw your comment on LLC6 better for games, if I go back to 5.2ghz, should I aim for LLC6 or LLC4?


----------



## kevinsw0rld

kevinsw0rld said:


> Thanks for the advice. I'll remember to change my screenshots to jpg from now on.
> 
> As a test, I turned on the AC and pointed a fan at the intake fans on my case. Changed it to 1.445v (BIOS) and LLC6. Ran Blender and it went about half way before closing.
> 
> 1.445v (BIOS) and LLC6
> hwinfo64 shows -
> total errors - 0
> Vcore (idle) - 1.430v
> Vcore (load) - 1.323v
> Core 0-9 temp - 89-95.
> 
> I'm probably not going to use 5.3ghz as daily but for science, should I keep going to see if I can complete Blender? lol
> 
> Also, I saw your comment on LLC6 better for games, if I go back to 5.2ghz, should I aim for LLC6 or LLC4?


For science, I ended up gradually increasing the bios voltage. Ended up with 1.465v (BIOS) and LLC6 and Blender only complete 307/510 before locking up my system. There were a few times at lower voltage(maybe at like 1.455v) Blender would just close somewhere half way. I have the temp unlocked to 115 and some of the cores were reaching 100 so I don't think I want to push it anymore. Time to go back down to 5.2 ghz. Your thoughts on staying at LLC4 vs LLC6 for 5.2 ghz? Just gaming and streaming (x264).


----------



## Falkentyne

kevinsw0rld said:


> Thanks for the advice. I'll remember to change my screenshots to jpg from now on.
> 
> As a test, I turned on the AC and pointed a fan at the intake fans on my case. Changed it to 1.445v (BIOS) and LLC6. Ran Blender and it went about half way before closing.
> 
> 1.445v (BIOS) and LLC6
> hwinfo64 shows -
> total errors - 0
> Vcore (idle) - 1.430v
> Vcore (load) - 1.323v
> Core 0-9 temp - 89-95.
> 
> I'm probably not going to use 5.3ghz as daily but for science, should I keep going to see if I can complete Blender? lol
> 
> Also, I saw your comment on LLC6 better for games, if I go back to 5.2ghz, should I aim for LLC6 or LLC4?


I think LLC6 works well on these boards, unless you need that extra vmin.
Did you try Realbench 2.56 at 1.430v bios set yet? 
Most likely those will generate L0 errors.

Was your cache at x43 when you ran blender?

Try raising VCCIO, VCCSA a little bit, (maybe +50 to 100mv higher for both) and set PLL Termination Voltage to 1.20v and then try Blender again.


----------



## kevinsw0rld

Falkentyne said:


> I think LLC6 works well on these boards, unless you need that extra vmin.
> Did you try Realbench 2.56 at 1.430v bios set yet?
> Most likely those will generate L0 errors.
> 
> Was your cache at x43 when you ran blender?
> 
> Try raising VCCIO, VCCSA a little bit, (maybe +50 to 100mv higher for both) and set PLL Termination Voltage to 1.20v and then try Blender again.


I didn't get a chance to test with RealBench at anything higher then 1.420V. I'll find sometime and go back and give it a try. Normally I run Blender for 1HR as the last obstacle to deem as stable. For just this test, if I go back and try 1.425v-1.465v, how long should I be testing it for? 15min, 30min, 1hr, or longer? Got a feeling I won't pass 15 mins anyways.


----------



## kevinsw0rld

Falkentyne said:


> I think LLC6 works well on these boards, unless you need that extra vmin.
> Did you try Realbench 2.56 at 1.430v bios set yet?
> Most likely those will generate L0 errors.
> 
> Was your cache at x43 when you ran blender?
> 
> Try raising VCCIO, VCCSA a little bit, (maybe +50 to 100mv higher for both) and set PLL Termination Voltage to 1.20v and then try Blender again.




Same results. Goes about 1/3 of the way and app closes. No errors in hwinfo64. I've been leaving SA/IO on auto cause I heard the z490 does a decent job at it. I added a ss of the settings I put in. Also, just for ease of mind, I turned off the XMPII profile and set the ram back to AUTO, same deal... can't complete Blender.


----------



## Falkentyne

kevinsw0rld said:


> Same results. Goes about 1/3 of the way and app closes. No errors in hwinfo64. I've been leaving SA/IO on auto cause I heard the z490 does a decent job at it. I added a ss of the settings I put in. Also, just for ease of mind, I turned off the XMPII profile and set the ram back to AUTO, same deal... can't complete Blender.


Where's your screenshot?
The IO/SA settings are important.

What happens if you disable hyperthreading at 1.420v bios?
Blender should pass fine then. Try that and see.
Don't forget about realbench 2.56 as that's important. As always look for CPU Cache L0 errors when running realbench 2.56.

You may have simply hit a hard wall which means 5.2 ghz is going to be your max bench frequency and 5.3 ghz will be a gaming frequency only.
(and maybe 5.4 ghz with HT disabled).


----------



## Nizzen

Falkentyne said:


> Where's your screenshot?


Never seen any screenshots from you in this thread. Only text


----------



## Falkentyne

Nizzen said:


> Never seen any screenshots from you in this thread. Only text


And all you've done is troll, post lies and completely useless drivel and intentionally ignore people.


----------



## skullbringer

I've been struggling with temps all day yesterday. This is the max I can get Cinebench R20 5 loop stable:

all-core - 53
ring - 51
vcore bios - 1.420 V
llc - 6
vcore load - 1.314 V
vccsa - 1.20 V
vccio - 1.15 V

First screenshot is from 6th loop of CR20. I have a GPU in the mail that can do OpenCL, so I can run Realbench 2.56 stresstest...


Sadly what seemed CR20 stable on the first day, I can no longer reproduce:
all-core - 54
ring - 50
vcore bios - 1.500 V
llc - 5

I think it is temperature related. As you can see in the second screenshot, I could keep all cores below 85C 2 days ago. Today, core temps are instantly above 90C when I run those settings and Cinebench instantly closes or the system freezes on the first run.

Heat transfer from the IHS to the waterblock is still the culprit, I mount the block 10 times the exact same way with conductonaut and temp spread is 15 C between them. Makes me feel like a ****** haha 
Then there is also ambient temperature and water temperature which I cant monitor precisely...

With good cooling 54 HT on and 55 HT off should be doable with this chip I think. 


I'm in contact with supercoolcomputer for their mark 5 direct core block. They reccon 135 USD including dhl worldwide shipping. Is that in line with what you guys payed?


----------



## cstkl1

kevinsw0rld said:


> Maybe I'm doing something wrong but the silicon prediction is wildly off on my new 10900KF. On my other 10900Ks if I set my voltage to what it says in the NonAVX, it at least will complete Blender/BMW.
> 
> It wasn't so successful on this chip.
> 
> On this chip, the NonAVX recommended 1.376V @L4 but it was no good. Here's what I did to get stable -
> 
> 10900k - SP 94
> Asus Apex
> G.SKILL 32GB(2x16) CL19 4000 RAM
> 
> Ai Overclock Tuner: XMP II
> CPU Core/Cache Voltage: Manual Mode
> CPU Core Voltage Override: 1.400
> AVX Instruction Core Ratio Negative Offset: 0
> CPU Core Ratio: All-Core Ratio Limit
> CPU Load-line Calibration: Level 4
> 
> Stress tested passed -
> Real Bench 2.56 - 1 Hour, Up to 16GB RAM
> 
> HWiNFO64 v6.27-4190 (while running Prime 95 torture test)
> Vcore- (Current 1.234V, Minimum 1.217V, Maximum 1.376V<idle voltage)
> Core 0-7- 76-81 C
> 
> I can't seem to get 5.3ghz to even pass Blender/BMW. I tried up to 1.440(BIOS) LLC4. Blender would crash after a dozen squares. Any suggestions here? or am I just outta luck for 5.3ghz.


dont use avx offset. that 5.2 not stable. your offset is.


----------



## cstkl1

skullbringer said:


> I've been struggling with temps all day yesterday. This is the max I can get Cinebench R20 5 loop stable:
> 
> all-core - 53
> ring - 51
> vcore bios - 1.420 V
> llc - 6
> vcore load - 1.314 V
> vccsa - 1.20 V
> vccio - 1.15 V
> 
> First screenshot is from 6th loop of CR20. I have a GPU in the mail that can do OpenCL, so I can run Realbench 2.56 stresstest...
> 
> 
> Sadly what seemed CR20 stable on the first day, I can no longer reproduce:
> all-core - 54
> ring - 50
> vcore bios - 1.500 V
> llc - 5
> 
> I think it is temperature related. As you can see in the second screenshot, I could keep all cores below 85C 2 days ago. Today, core temps are instantly above 90C when I run those settings and Cinebench instantly closes or the system freezes on the first run.
> 
> Heat transfer from the IHS to the waterblock is still the culprit, I mount the block 10 times the exact same way with conductonaut and temp spread is 15 C between them. Makes me feel like a ****** haha
> Then there is also ambient temperature and water temperature which I cant monitor precisely...
> 
> With good cooling 54 HT on and 55 HT off should be doable with this chip I think.
> 
> 
> I'm in contact with supercoolcomputer for their mark 5 direct core block. They reccon 135 USD including dhl worldwide shipping. Is that in line with what you guys payed?


bitspower premium summit. good stuff for heatsink waterblock. two cpus already. the spread pretty good. 

thats a pretty good cpu btw.


----------



## Nizzen

Falkentyne said:


> And all you've done is troll, post lies and completely useless drivel and intentionally ignore people.


Looks like you got triggered 

What lies?

Truth hurts?


----------



## SuperMumrik

skullbringer said:


> With good cooling 54 HT on and 55 HT off should be doable with this chip I think.
> 
> 
> I'm in contact with supercoolcomputer for their mark 5 direct core block. They reccon 135 USD including dhl worldwide shipping. Is that in line with what you guys payed?



I'm gaming with x55 HT off with fast ram and ring. it's really satisfying 

Seems right. We ordered multiple blocks so we could share the shipping cost. 
Thought it was mark 6, but I might be wrong


----------



## cstkl1

Nizzen said:


> Looks like you got triggered
> 
> What lies?
> 
> Truth hurts?


curious what lies as well.. cause heck your screenshots are pretty good for ram oc...

anyway

solved the issue for 52.. it was a particular ram related timing and had to bump vccio/vcssa to 1.2 from 1.15( stable for 51)










also this shed some light .. hope its gonna help on da 4133 ..


----------



## skullbringer

SuperMumrik said:


> I'm gaming with x55 HT off with fast ram and ring. it's really satisfying
> 
> Seems right. We ordered multiple blocks so we could share the shipping cost.
> Thought it was mark 6, but I might be wrong


sweet thanks! he just said about new version with "0.2mm fin, 0.2mm groove" for 10900k

now I'm just hoping dhl does its job and the package doesn't get stuck in German customs *crosses fingers*


----------



## SuperMumrik

skullbringer said:


> sweet thanks! he just said about new version with "0.2mm fin, 0.2mm groove" for 10900k
> 
> now I'm just hoping dhl does its job and the package doesn't get stuck in German customs *crosses fingers*



It took 3 working days to Norway with DHL Express


----------



## nebbx

Test


----------



## nebbx

Hi!
I'm totally new in it, so there's a question.. is that potentially a good chip? https://pasteboard.co/JgPV6XT.jpg


----------



## nebbx

Sorry for spaming.... I thought previous msg didn't went through


----------



## Nizzen

nebbx said:


> Hi!
> I'm totally new in it, so there's a question.. is that potentially a good chip? https://ibb.co/42SnYJ1


Upload picture on this site. This link looks like spam/virus link...


----------



## criskoe

nebbx said:


> I'm totally new in it, so there's a question.. is that potentially a good chip? https://ibb.co/42SnYJ1


By going by those VFs, Upto 5.1 looks decent but the jump from 5.1 to 5.2 is pretty MASSIVE.... and your 5.3 value is most likely bugged like some other chips we see around here so your SP rating is probably over inflated. . Honestly tho, your really going to have to give it some tests to know for sure. VFs and SP ratings can be helpful but they are not 100% true.... Do your self a favor and take sometime and read through this thread from the beginning.... LOTS of info and screenshots here of different cpu samples to get you started...


----------



## Nizzen

nebbx said:


> Hi!
> I'm totally new in it, so there's a question.. is that potentially a good chip? https://pasteboard.co/JgPV6XT.jpg


What is the lowest voltage you need on 5300mhz with LLC8 in Cinebench r20?

My SP63 does 1.27v load on 5300mhz on Apex xii.


----------



## cstkl1

nebbx said:


> Hi!
> I'm totally new in it, so there's a question.. is that potentially a good chip? https://pasteboard.co/JgPV6XT.jpg


yes. 5.1 is easy. 5.2 as long you got a good cooler. 5.3 u got to have fantastic cooler.. delid/direct die cooling etc.. 
fantastic ones 5.1 nearer to 1.2v 
i think we had one here sp110 [email protected] vid
guessing that sp118 5.1 is at 1.2v vid

what i am currently hunting a 5.2 vid thats 0.04-0.05v from 5.1...


----------



## SuperMumrik

[email protected],7 HT off


----------



## skullbringer

SuperMumrik said:


> [email protected],7 HT off


damn, when you decrease heat density (turning off HT), have an effective way of getting rid of the heat (direct core), and add sub-ambient cooling (chilled water), comet lake clocks like a mothertrucker! o.0


----------



## SuperMumrik

skullbringer said:


> SuperMumrik said:
> 
> 
> 
> [email protected],7 HT off
> 
> 
> 
> damn, when you decrease heat density (turning off HT), have an effective way of getting rid of the heat (direct core), and add sub-ambient cooling (chilled water), comet lake clocks like a mothertrucker! o.0
Click to expand...

Truth be told. Ht on/off doesn't really make that much of a difference in temps. I just don't wanna fry it with high vcore before I know the chip 😊


----------



## skullbringer

Nizzen said:


> What is the lowest voltage you need on 5300mhz with LLC8 in Cinebench r20?
> 
> My SP63 does 1.27v load on 5300mhz on Apex xii.


why would you use llc8?


----------



## Nizzen

skullbringer said:


> why would you use llc8?


Because it works very well for me 

My 9900k from day 1 aint dead yet with llc8. Maybe I'll go for Llc 6 so I can use higher ring. 
Asus Apex with LLc8 is a winner for me. 

The question is: why use something else if it's works flawless on 5300mhz @ 1.28v llc8 

In therory lower llc may be better, but in practice I'm not so shure. Pleace convince me othervice


----------



## cstkl1

skullbringer said:


> why would you use llc8?


never seen cpu degrade from llc.
normally mobo vrm

but this time arnd all of us rocking mobos that can oc a 10980xe .. lol


----------



## criskoe

With this posted a few weeks back. 



SuperMumrik said:


> He is my friend
> It's "only" a 360x60 with push and a 240x65 push/pull with a D5 pump and ML Pro fans spinning at low speed





SuperMumrik said:


> [email protected],7 HT off


Am I reading that wrong. Min/max 10/46c? How is this possible.


----------



## Nizzen

criskoe said:


> With this posted a few weeks back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I reading that wrong. Min/max 10/46c? How is this possible.


He connected the waterciller into the loop now


----------



## SuperMumrik

criskoe said:


> With this posted a few weeks back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I reading that wrong. Min/max 10/46c? How is this possible.



This is with chilled water  Max/min are correct.

For reference: 



Direct-die block from Supercool Computer ROCKS


----------



## criskoe

SuperMumrik said:


> This is with chilled water  Max/min are correct.
> 
> For reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDjL3w78mEs
> Direct-die block from Supercool Computer ROCKS


You must be running the fluid close to what 5C now or lower with a drop in temps like that.

Your 23c lower then your 5.4ghz screen shots @ 1.32V and now running 5.7 @ assuming much higher V

I think some of the credit goes to the chiller and not just that super computer direct die. Lol.


----------



## SuperMumrik

criskoe said:


> You must be running the fluid close to what 5C now? with a drop in temps like that.



yeah, thereabouts 
Did you see the Der8auer yt? It's useless with chilled water without the block


----------



## TurricanM3

Got a new chip. SP113 seems pretty high


----------



## criskoe

SuperMumrik said:


> yeah, thereabouts
> Did you see the Der8auer yt? It's useless with chilled water without the block


I did. He was using the mono block. No direct die. A more interesting comparison would be if he direct die with a actual standalone cpu block like a Optimus or ek mag. So yeah. Not sure if expectations are that great.


----------



## criskoe

TurricanM3 said:


> Got a new chip. SP113 seems pretty high


Nice dude. What’s your VFs points say for that bad boy.


----------



## Baasha

@skullbringer I don't understand how your AIDA64 scores are better than mine with worse timings (C17 vs C16)? Both of us are at 4400Mhz. Have you tuned your subtimings as well?


----------



## TurricanM3

criskoe said:


> Nice dude. What’s your VFs points say for that bad boy.


Something is f***ed up. This is what it looks like after uefi update:



1.62v xD

?!


----------



## SuperMumrik

criskoe said:


> I did. He was using the mono block. No direct die. A more interesting comparison would be if he direct die with a actual standalone cpu block like a Optimus or ek mag. So yeah. Not sure if expectations are that great.



Not directly comparable, but we used the "direct die-frame" on the 9900k with ek evo and that was just a hassle (memory channel drop-outs due to uneven pressure) for very little gain.


----------



## kevinsw0rld

Falkentyne said:


> Where's your screenshot?
> The IO/SA settings are important.
> 
> What happens if you disable hyperthreading at 1.420v bios?
> Blender should pass fine then. Try that and see.
> Don't forget about realbench 2.56 as that's important. As always look for CPU Cache L0 errors when running realbench 2.56.
> 
> You may have simply hit a hard wall which means 5.2 ghz is going to be your max bench frequency and 5.3 ghz will be a gaming frequency only.
> (and maybe 5.4 ghz with HT disabled).


For some reason I changed the .png file to .jpg and it loads in the "drag files here to attach!" and then disappears. Didn't noticed it didn't attach. I've attached the png file for viewing.



cstkl1 said:


> dont use avx offset. that 5.2 not stable. your offset is.


My AVX offset is set to 0 which means it's not being used right? Am I missing something here?

Falkentyn, for science, last night I turned off XMP, set cache to x43, left IO/SA and PLL Termination on auto, attempted 1.420V to 1.460V and still couldn't get Blender to complete. A few times the PC didn't crash, it was getting cache errors 1 in Hwinfo64.

I could go back today to do the same tests but with Realbench 2.56 instead. Anything else I should try?


----------



## Falkentyne

TurricanM3 said:


> Something is f***ed up. This is what it looks like after uefi update:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.62v xD
> 
> ?!


Set your cpu to 5.2 ghz. For now, try 1.40v Set in BIOS. LLC7.
DISABLE C-states, speedstep, eist, speedshift (in advanced cpu configuration)

This is for test purpose.

Boot to windows. Run HWinfo sensors only.
At full idle, nothing running, take a picture of your HWinfo64 with 'CPU VID' showing.
Post screenshot here of the "VID" shown in hwinfo of all of the cores.
It is important that the CPU is fully idle.
You can remove that vcore and LLC after. This is just to make sure you can load windows without BSOD.

Thank you.


----------



## Falkentyne

kevinsw0rld said:


> For some reason I changed the .png file to .jpg and it loads in the "drag files here to attach!" and then disappears. Didn't noticed it didn't attach. I've attached the png file for viewing.
> 
> 
> 
> My AVX offset is set to 0 which means it's not being used right? Am I missing something here?
> 
> Falkentyn, for science, last night I turned off XMP, set cache to x43, left IO/SA and PLL Termination on auto, attempted 1.420V to 1.460V and still couldn't get Blender to complete. A few times the PC didn't crash, it was getting cache errors 1 in Hwinfo64.
> 
> I could go back today to do the same tests but with Realbench 2.56 instead. Anything else I should try?


AVX offset at "0" is correct.
That screenshot was before you disabled XMP right?  IO/SA should be 0.950v and 1.050v if XMP is disabled.
And min/max cache 43.
I'll try to let someone else help. Because I have no idea. Might be a hard wall.
Did you disable hyperthreading and then run Blender?

And yes, (with HT enabled), try realbench 2.56, default Ram settings, 30 minute test (or even 15min) is fine, and check for L0 errors.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

Baasha said:


> @skullbringer I don't understand how your AIDA64 scores are better than mine with worse timings (C17 vs C16)? Both of us are at 4400Mhz. Have you tuned your subtimings as well?


He's running 1T.

Your latency should also have a very large room to improve


----------



## skullbringer

Baasha said:


> @skullbringer I don't understand how your AIDA64 scores are better than mine with worse timings (C17 vs C16)? Both of us are at 4400Mhz. Have you tuned your subtimings as well?



I think the biggest difference in latency is caused by my 1T command rate vs. your 2T. 
But yes, I think that screenshot also had secondaries tuned


----------



## skullbringer

Nizzen said:


> Because it works very well for me
> 
> My 9900k from day 1 aint dead yet with llc8. Maybe I'll go for Llc 6 so I can use higher ring.
> Asus Apex with LLc8 is a winner for me.
> 
> The question is: why use something else if it's works flawless on 5300mhz @ 1.28v llc8
> 
> In therory lower llc may be better, but in practice I'm not so shure. Pleace convince me othervice





cstkl1 said:


> never seen cpu degrade from llc.
> normally mobo vrm
> 
> but this time arnd all of us rocking mobos that can oc a 10980xe .. lol


it's not the load voltage or vrm I would be worried about, but the sudden, brief voltage spike when the cpu gets unloaded (e.g. when a benchmark has finished)

not gonna say chips will certainly die of it, but chances are higher, so why risk it? 

especially if you can get even better stability due to higher Vmin during loading, when using lower LLC and higher bios Voltage.


----------



## skullbringer

Falkentyne said:


> I think LLC6 works well on these boards, unless you need that extra vmin.
> Did you try Realbench 2.56 at 1.430v bios set yet?
> Most likely those will generate L0 errors.
> 
> Was your cache at x43 when you ran blender?
> 
> Try raising VCCIO, VCCSA a little bit, (maybe +50 to 100mv higher for both) and set PLL Termination Voltage to 1.20v and then try Blender again.


what is setting pll termination voltage good for specifically, could you explain please?


----------



## Falkentyne

skullbringer said:


> what is setting pll termination voltage good for specifically, could you explain please?


PLL Term, although used for cold bug removal, can allow cache to be raised a bit higher without needing as much of an increase in vcore. Maybe a 10mv-15mv vcore improvement at up to 1.25v PLL Termin.
This does nothing if cache is not holding your core frequency back (example if your cache is at x43, it's clearly not holding you back).

To test this, set Cache to a certain speed you want. Example, x49. If you get random (not quick/common--if you get them fast you are TOO unstable) CPU Cache L0 errors or Internal Parity Errors, set cache to x43. If these errors stop completely at x43 (remember, these can be random and very erratic, and sometimes you can run a test for 1 hour at x49, get no errors, then run it again and get 2 errors during that time frame--the good old RNG luck), then you can try PLL Term 1.25v at x49 and re-test. If the errors then stop (repeated testing) then you know it helped.


----------



## Falkentyne

skullbringer said:


> it's not the load voltage or vrm I would be worried about, but the sudden, brief voltage spike when the cpu gets unloaded (e.g. when a benchmark has finished)
> 
> not gonna say chips will certainly die of it, but chances are higher, so why risk it?
> 
> especially if you can get even better stability due to higher Vmin during loading, when using lower LLC and higher bios Voltage.


I would strongly advise you NOT to listen to Nizzen. He has no clue what he's talking about. He's a troll.
I blocked him permanently. He's made outlandish claims about chips then when asked for proof he intentionally ignores people. I was wondering why he was acting so weird months ago. Now I know why.
Permanent block--forever.


----------



## sabishiihito

10900KF SP 63

Today testing 5.2/4.5 LLC7 for Cinebench R20 I got down to 1.28v BIOS set starting from 1.36v and using TurboV Core to lower .02v after each successful run. Board is a Maximus XII Apex running 0607, vcore reading Socket Sense. Corsair H150i RGB Pro with old SP120 non-RGB fans.


----------



## ThrashZone

skullbringer said:


> it's not the load voltage or vrm I would be worried about, but the sudden, brief voltage spike when the cpu gets unloaded (e.g. when a benchmark has finished)
> 
> not gonna say chips will certainly die of it, but chances are higher, so why risk it?
> 
> especially if you can get even better stability due to higher Vmin during loading, when using lower LLC and higher bios Voltage.


Hi,
llc-8 is zero spike it's constant voltage 
Anything below is spiking llc 4 recommended is a ton of spike might be healthy so says asus/.... but lets get what spiking is lol it's vid jumping and dropping faster than light


----------



## Falkentyne

sabishiihito said:


> 10900KF SP 63
> 
> Today testing 5.2/4.5 LLC7 for Cinebench R20 I got down to 1.28v BIOS set starting from 1.36v and using TurboV Core to lower .02v after each successful run. Board is a Maximus XII Apex running 0607, vcore reading Socket Sense. Corsair H150i RGB Pro with old SP120 non-RGB fans.


Please use HWinfo64 "Sensors only" and check the WHEA section at the very bottom for CPU Cache L0 errors.
That looks a lot like 1.234v load voltage which is extremely good for SP63. Makes me wonder what your 5.2 ghz "VF" point is.

Can you take a picture of your BIOS "VF points" section and upload it? (Remember to convert the file to JPG and then you can attach it as a preview).


----------



## skullbringer

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> llc-8 is zero spike it's constant voltage
> Anything below is spiking llc 4 recommended is a ton of spike might be healthy so says asus/.... but lets get what spiking is lol it's vid jumping and dropping faster than light


there is no such thing as a constant voltage. 
also a downward "spike" - what you are probably talking about with low LLCs - only causes instability. an upward "spike" with high LLCs however can degrade or kill your CPU

just take a look: 
https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/load-l...or a short period,the transistors on the chip.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Yeah 
x299 was more straight forward with where voltage fluctuations came from but was dealing with much higher voltage vccin near 1.2v
So yeah I get vid and llc but vid is still voltage whether it drops a little or a lot really is a spike on/ off load.. like you said.


----------



## RickyyM

My chip has a SP score if 89. I have a few questions...

I have a custom loop with a 360 and a 480 dedicated to CPU... is 5.4ghz all core, at [email protected] too much? Max core temp is 74C, I get 0 errors in hw64...

Also for cache I have it at 5.0ghz cache voltage is ~1.35, is that okay?

I tried to get it to 5.5ghz but I’m not comfortable upping the voltage even though I have some temperate head room.


----------



## Falkentyne

skullbringer said:


> there is no such thing as a constant voltage.
> also a downward "spike" - what you are probably talking about with low LLCs - only causes instability. an upward "spike" with high LLCs however can degrade or kill your CPU
> 
> just take a look:
> https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/load-l...or a short period,the transistors on the chip.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMIh8dTdJwI


Didn't I tell you not to listen to thrashzone? he's a troll. Shamino hates him also.

Trust hardware engineers, not trolls.

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


----------



## ThrashZone

Falkentyne said:


> Didn't I tell you not to listen to thrashzone? he's a troll. Shamino hates him also.
> 
> Trust hardware engineers, not trolls.
> 
> https://elmorlabs.com/index.php/2019-09-05/vrm-load-line-visualized/


Hi,
Go telling your mommy lol :thumb:


----------



## skullbringer

RickyyM said:


> My chip has a SP score if 89. I have a few questions...
> 
> I have a custom loop with a 360 and a 480 dedicated to CPU... is 5.4ghz all core, at [email protected] too much? Max core temp is 74C, I get 0 errors in hw64...
> 
> Also for cache I have it at 5.0ghz cache voltage is ~1.35, is that okay?
> 
> I tried to get it to 5.5ghz but I’m not comfortable upping the voltage even though I have some temperate head room.


looks like a good chip.
what is your load voltage and current at? what benchmark are you testing?


----------



## Nizzen

Falkentyne is just mad about his life, because he don't have the hardware he is talking about. That's why he don't provide any pictures, screenshots etc about results. 
He just find numbers in the air, and provide them as "facts" 

Stay strong, stay safe and wash youre hands


----------



## skullbringer

Falkentyne said:


> Didn't I tell you not to listen to thrashzone? he's a troll. Shamino hates him also.
> 
> Trust hardware engineers, not trolls.
> 
> https://elmorlabs.com/index.php/2019-09-05/vrm-load-line-visualized/


first of all, lol there are a lot of people on here not to listen to apparently 
secondly, thanks but I can think on my own, just making sure questionable opinions don't get spread
thirdly, thank you for linking that elmor article, very informative


----------



## ThrashZone

Nizzen said:


> Falkentyne is just mad about his life, because he don't have the hardware he is talking about. That's why he don't provide any pictures, screenshots etc about results.
> He just find numbers in the air, and provide them as "facts"
> 
> Stay strong, stay safe and wash youre hands


Hi,
He just plagiarizes his boyfriends on hwbot and rog forums lol


----------



## RickyyM

skullbringer said:


> looks like a good chip.
> what is your load voltage and current at? what benchmark are you testing?


Cinebench r15 and r20. 

1.408 load voltage, hwinfo64 reports max 209A. 

Think I’m fine for 24/7 use?


----------



## Falkentyne

RickyyM said:


> My chip has a SP score if 89. I have a few questions...
> 
> I have a custom loop with a 360 and a 480 dedicated to CPU... is 5.4ghz all core, at [email protected] too much? Max core temp is 74C, I get 0 errors in hw64...
> 
> Also for cache I have it at 5.0ghz cache voltage is ~1.35, is that okay?
> 
> I tried to get it to 5.5ghz but I’m not comfortable upping the voltage even though I have some temperate head room.


What did you use to test your chip at 5.4 ghz 1.43v LLC6 ?
And what is your cooling?

If you are actually stable that's more like SP 100+...


----------



## TurricanM3

Falkentyne said:


> Set your cpu to 5.2 ghz. For now, try 1.40v Set in BIOS. LLC7.
> DISABLE C-states, speedstep, eist, speedshift (in advanced cpu configuration)
> 
> This is for test purpose.
> 
> Boot to windows. Run HWinfo sensors only.
> At full idle, nothing running, take a picture of your HWinfo64 with 'CPU VID' showing.
> Post screenshot here of the "VID" shown in hwinfo of all of the cores.
> It is important that the CPU is fully idle.
> You can remove that vcore and LLC after. This is just to make sure you can load windows without BSOD.
> 
> Thank you.


I'm just curious.
Why do you want to know? How does that help?


----------



## Falkentyne

TurricanM3 said:


> I'm just curious.
> Why do you want to know? How does that help?


Shows the VID in windows while fully idle (e.g. at 30C).
Showing the picture (VF point) is important too because it shows the "100C" calibration point (Not getting into that now).

It takes only <5 minutes to do this.
Set vcore to 1.40v, LLC7, 5.2 ghz, disable c-states, speedshift, etc (so no downclocking at idle). That should take you 1 minute to do.
Boot windows, load HWinfo64, take a screenshot of HWinfo64 for the CPU VID on the cores, upload it here or on imgur.

Then finally go into BIOS go to "VF points", take a picture of the VF point window, either with bios screenshot feature or your phone and post it.


----------



## sabishiihito

Falkentyne said:


> Please use HWinfo64 "Sensors only" and check the WHEA section at the very bottom for CPU Cache L0 errors.
> That looks a lot like 1.234v load voltage which is extremely good for SP63. Makes me wonder what your 5.2 ghz "VF" point is.
> 
> Can you take a picture of your BIOS "VF points" section and upload it? (Remember to convert the file to JPG and then you can attach it as a preview).


Sure thing. I got 1 Cache error at 1.28v set; closed HWinfo64 and raised volts to 1.30v and re-ran R20 and it passed with no errors.


----------



## TurricanM3

Falkentyne said:


> Shows the VID in windows while fully idle (e.g. at 30C).
> Showing the picture (VF point) is important too because it shows the "100C" calibration point (Not getting into that now).
> 
> It takes only <5 minutes to do this.
> Set vcore to 1.40v, LLC7, 5.2 ghz, disable c-states, speedshift, etc (so no downclocking at idle). That should take you 1 minute to do.
> Boot windows, load HWinfo64, take a screenshot of HWinfo64 for the CPU VID on the cores, upload it here or on imgur.
> 
> Then finally go into BIOS go to "VF points", take a picture of the VF point window, either with bios screenshot feature or your phone and post it.


I understood what you mean. But why do you want to know that?


----------



## Falkentyne

TurricanM3 said:


> I understood what you mean. But why do you want to know that?


Hi,
You have been reading this thread haven't you? It's like I'm asking for state secrets or something :/ You could have posted this information by now and some of us would have been able to determine if you have a golden "Low SP" CPU or not, or if your SP is bugged. Even in posts right above yours there is information. Some people have had SP 110 CPU's suddenly turn into SP 63 CPU's after a BIOS update...knowing the windows idle VID at 5.2 ghz would help since VID doesn't change with bios updates (only with AC/DC loadline values).

Anyway to answer your question, it gives us an idea of the CPU quality and whether the "VF point" shown in the BIOS (the bios screenshot I asked for of "VF points") is bugged somehow compared to the "Windows CPU IDLE VID" shown in hwinfo64 at 5.2 ghz.


----------



## skullbringer

RickyyM said:


> Cinebench r15 and r20.
> 
> 1.408 load voltage, hwinfo64 reports max 209A.
> 
> Think I’m fine for 24/7 use?


1.43V bios + LLC 6 should result in much lower load voltage, like about 1.338V

Still being 5.4 GHz stable in Cinebench at 74C is a very impressive cooler for that voltage.

To answer your question, yes you are fine. 
These chips get so unstable when they are hot, you almost cannot degrade them by setting too high of a voltage for long term use, because they will get unstable and crash long before.

You might as well try to get 5.5 stable, but I'm fairly confident as soon as temps go above 80C you will hit a wall.

Instead to validate stability for 24/7 use, which Cinebench really doesnt say much over, you could try running Realbench 2.56 for half an hour or 20 loops of LinpackXtreme. Looking forward to seeing if your Chip is really 5.4 24/7 stable.

One more thing: In your first post you were saying about cache voltage. Cache scales mostly with vcore. I assume you mean vccio or sa and they mostly help with high memory clocks, vccio might help cache a bit. But 1.35V is also fine here, anything up to 1.4


----------



## skullbringer

Hey, AsrTC 4.0.3 works!

This is the max I can get out of my 2x 8GB Samsung b-die A0 kit.

tCWL is probably the biggest reason why I cant get <35ns latency, but that's just A0 pcb's...


----------



## Nizzen

skullbringer said:


> Hey, AsrTC 4.0.3 works!
> 
> This is the max I can get out of my 2x 8GB Samsung b-die A0 kit.
> 
> tCWL is probably the biggest reason why I cant get <35ns latency, but that's just A0 pcb's...


Is this 3600c15 kit?

Nice result


----------



## skullbringer

Nizzen said:


> Is this 3600c15 kit?
> 
> Nice result


yes, this one: https://www.gskill.com/search?keywords=f4-3600c15d-16gtz

thank you


----------



## SuperMumrik

skullbringer said:


> Hey, AsrTC 4.0.3 works!
> 
> This is the max I can get out of my 2x 8GB Samsung b-die A0 kit.
> 
> tCWL is probably the biggest reason why I cant get <35ns latency, but that's just A0 pcb's...



Nice one! :thumb:
Real shame those sticks don't have the A2 pcb


----------



## RickyyM

skullbringer said:


> 1.43V bios + LLC 6 should result in much lower load voltage, like about 1.338V
> 
> Still being 5.4 GHz stable in Cinebench at 74C is a very impressive cooler for that voltage.
> 
> To answer your question, yes you are fine.
> These chips get so unstable when they are hot, you almost cannot degrade them by setting too high of a voltage for long term use, because they will get unstable and crash long before.
> 
> You might as well try to get 5.5 stable, but I'm fairly confident as soon as temps go above 80C you will hit a wall.
> 
> Instead to validate stability for 24/7 use, which Cinebench really doesnt say much over, you could try running Realbench 2.56 for half an hour or 20 loops of LinpackXtreme. Looking forward to seeing if your Chip is really 5.4 24/7 stable.
> 
> One more thing: In your first post you were saying about cache voltage. Cache scales mostly with vcore. I assume you mean vccio or sa and they mostly help with high memory clocks, vccio might help cache a bit. But 1.35V is also fine here, anything up to 1.4


HwInfo64 reported 1.408 as max voltage but during load CPUZ reports ~1.35 voltage. 

Yeah cooling is OP. CPU loop has a 480mm and a 360mm radiator on top of that, the CPU water block is mounted directly to the die itself.. All it took was sanding down a 9th gen direct die kit and and some screws and it worked flawlessly. Mounting pressure was a bit tricky but once I figured that out it was smooth sailing. 

I will run realbench 2.56 tomorrow and try to fiddle with 5.5. What would be the maximum voltage you’d use? Or is it more of a temperature thing? 80-85c seems to be the border line.


----------



## skullbringer

RickyyM said:


> HwInfo64 reported 1.408 as max voltage but during load CPUZ reports ~1.35 voltage.
> 
> Yeah cooling is OP. CPU loop has a 480mm and a 360mm radiator on top of that, the CPU water block is mounted directly to the die itself.. All it took was sanding down a 9th gen direct die kit and and some screws and it worked flawlessly. Mounting pressure was a bit tricky but once I figured that out it was smooth sailing.
> 
> I will run realbench 2.56 tomorrow and try to fiddle with 5.5. What would be the maximum voltage you’d use? Or is it more of a temperature thing? 80-85c seems to be the border line.


then ~1.35 V is the load voltage. You can also see min and max in HWinfo as Vcore in the motherboard sensors section.

Depending on the source, maximum Vcore suggested for 24/7 is 1.4V - 1.45V, so you still have some headroom.

Honestly I don't know how direct die behaves with increased temperatures and voltages. It's not only about how hot the cores get according to the sensors, but also how good the heat flow away from the cores is. 

It may sound stupid, but cores showing 75 C with a bad cooler might be less stable than cores showing 80 C with a good cooler, from my experience at least


Impressive that you got a 9th gen direct die frame working with 10th gen! 
did you measure z height and how much you need to sand down or did you just wing it?


----------



## Nizzen

This cpu does 5300mhz on 1.28v load if someone want to compare "vf points" from bios


----------



## ThrashZone

Nizzen said:


> This cpu does 5300mhz on 1.28v load if someone want to compare "vf points" from bios


Hi,
Yeah I got 1.403
Not sure what vcore does at 5.3 I just use manual and 1.45v so way more than needed llc-4 sometimes 5, temps okay so who cares.
5.4 maybe later after i get my new test bench setup


----------



## ThrashZone

skullbringer said:


> Hey, AsrTC 4.0.3 works!
> 
> This is the max I can get out of my 2x 8GB Samsung b-die A0 kit.
> 
> tCWL is probably the biggest reason why I cant get <35ns latency, but that's just A0 pcb's...


Hi,
Nice don't believe I ever seen tCKE at 2 ever it seems always at 6 through 8 so that's wild :thumb:


----------



## RickyyM

skullbringer said:


> then ~1.35 V is the load voltage. You can also see min and max in HWinfo as Vcore in the motherboard sensors section.
> 
> Depending on the source, maximum Vcore suggested for 24/7 is 1.4V - 1.45V, so you still have some headroom.
> 
> Honestly I don't know how direct die behaves with increased temperatures and voltages. It's not only about how hot the cores get according to the sensors, but also how good the heat flow away from the cores is.
> 
> It may sound stupid, but cores showing 75 C with a bad cooler might be less stable than cores showing 80 C with a good cooler, from my experience at least
> 
> 
> Impressive that you got a 9th gen direct die frame working with 10th gen!
> did you measure z height and how much you need to sand down or did you just wing it?


Just winged it hahahah. Kept going until the die was visibly higher then the frame. The frame is very thin, over tightening the screws actually pivots the edges near the die and makes them go upward preventing contact. Screws have to be perfectly tightened and then getting block mounting pressure right is key. 

At first I tried without the frame but it was nearly impossible to get it to boot.


----------



## Vaporware

Nizzen said:


> This cpu does 5300mhz on 1.28v load if someone want to compare "vf points" from bios


Here you go.


----------



## RickyyM

Yeah I’m not sure 5.5 is gonna be possible... I went all the way to 1.49 and it couldn't even do finish cinebench, temps were still under 80C though...


Here's cinebench at 5.4ghz all core, [email protected] and bios.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

SuperMumrik said:


> Nice one! :thumb:
> Real shame those sticks don't have the A2 pcb


New batches are A2 PCB.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

skullbringer said:


> Hey, AsrTC 4.0.3 works!
> 
> This is the max I can get out of my 2x 8GB Samsung b-die A0 kit.
> 
> tCWL is probably the biggest reason why I cant get <35ns latency, but that's just A0 pcb's...


100MHz more it will be around 35.3ns

200MHz more and it will be <35ns


----------



## Baasha

skullbringer said:


> 1.43V bios + LLC 6 should result in much lower load voltage, like about 1.338V
> 
> Still being 5.4 GHz stable in Cinebench at 74C is a very impressive cooler for that voltage.
> 
> To answer your question, yes you are fine.
> These chips get so unstable when they are hot, you almost cannot degrade them by setting too high of a voltage for long term use, because they will get unstable and crash long before.
> 
> You might as well try to get 5.5 stable, but I'm fairly confident as soon as temps go above 80C you will hit a wall.
> 
> Instead to validate stability for 24/7 use, which Cinebench really doesnt say much over, you could try running Realbench 2.56 for half an hour or 20 loops of LinpackXtreme. Looking forward to seeing if your Chip is really 5.4 24/7 stable.
> 
> One more thing: In your first post you were saying about cache voltage. Cache scales mostly with vcore. I assume you mean vccio or sa and they mostly help with high memory clocks, vccio might help cache a bit. But 1.35V is also fine here, anything up to 1.4


Two questions:

1.) Where do you find what your "load voltage" is? My BIOS v-core is 1.35V but in Cinebench R20, in CPU-Z or HwInfo64 shows 1.252V during 100% load on all cores. Does that mean my "load voltage" is only 1.252V? The hottest core got to 82C during R20.

2.) Is VCCIO and VCCSA at 1.35V safe to run 24/7? My VCCIO is 1.30V and VCCSA 1.35V - I'm running 4 DIMMs at 4400Mhz C16.

My CPU OC is 5.2Ghz and Cache is 5.0Ghz. Do you think I could increase v-core in BIOS (what do you think would be 24/7 safe?) to try and get 5.3 or 5.4Ghz?


----------



## Falkentyne

Baasha said:


> Two questions:
> 
> 1.) Where do you find what your "load voltage" is? My BIOS v-core is 1.35V but in Cinebench R20, in CPU-Z or HwInfo64 shows 1.252V during 100% load on all cores. Does that mean my "load voltage" is only 1.252V? The hottest core got to 82C during R20.
> 
> 2.) Is VCCIO and VCCSA at 1.35V safe to run 24/7? My VCCIO is 1.30V and VCCSA 1.35V - I'm running 4 DIMMs at 4400Mhz C16.
> 
> My CPU OC is 5.2Ghz and Cache is 5.0Ghz. Do you think I could increase v-core in BIOS (what do you think would be 24/7 safe?) to try and get 5.3 or 5.4Ghz?


Your Maximus 12 extreme (all Maximus series do) has "die sense" voltage measurements, so the Vcore shown is accurate within 11mv (besides transients which can't appear on sensors at all). So your load voltage is 1.252v, that is fully correct.

VCCIO at 1.30 and VCCSA at 1.35-1.40v is fully safe and tested by Asus, on Z490. Can't speak for higher IO/SA values, although 4800-5000 mhz memory may require as much as 1.50v VCCSA.

Whether you can get 5.3 ghz or not (5.4 ghz is going to be impossible without direct die or a VERY powerful custom loop, unless you disable hyperthreading), depends on what your vmin is for 5.2 ghz stable.
How low can you go on the BIOS voltage (and thus on the load voltage) before you start getting "CPU Cache L0 errors" in HWinfo64 (WHEA sensors section area)?

Find that out first and report back. Can you sustain cinebench "R20" looping (not cinebench R15), by setting preferences to 1800 or 3600 seconds, in R20 settings, and then run it for 30 minutes-1 hour without a "CPU Cache L0 error" appearing in HWinfo64 ? For reference this is between a Bios voltage of 1.30v to 1.35v, with Loadline calibration LLC6.

Your temps look solid however.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

Falkentyne said:


> Your Maximus 12 extreme (all Maximus series do) has "die sense" voltage measurements, so the Vcore shown is accurate within 11mv (besides transients which can't appear on sensors at all). So your load voltage is 1.252v, that is fully correct.
> 
> VCCIO at 1.30 and VCCSA at 1.35-1.40v is fully safe and tested by Asus, on Z490. Can't speak for higher IO/SA values, although 4800-5000 mhz memory may require as much as 1.50v VCCSA.
> 
> Whether you can get 5.3 ghz or not (5.4 ghz is going to be impossible without direct die or a VERY powerful custom loop, unless you disable hyperthreading), depends on what your vmin is for 5.2 ghz stable.
> How low can you go on the BIOS voltage (and thus on the load voltage) before you start getting "CPU Cache L0 errors" in HWinfo64 (WHEA sensors section area)?
> 
> Find that out first and report back. Can you sustain cinebench "R20" looping (not cinebench R15), by setting preferences to 1800 or 3600 seconds, in R20 settings, and then run it for 30 minutes-1 hour without a "CPU Cache L0 error" appearing in HWinfo64 ? For reference this is between a Bios voltage of 1.30v to 1.35v, with Loadline calibration LLC6.
> 
> Your temps look solid however.


Need to check power supply when running 5.3GHz core and SA 1.35+ at the same time. My previous EVGA G+ 1000W can't hold 5.3GHz all core (1.41 VCore in bios, LLC6) plus 1.35+ SA. Replaced with an Antec 1300w and problem solved.


----------



## ThrashZone

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> Need to check power supply when running 5.3GHz core and SA 1.35+ at the same time. My previous EVGA G+ 1000W can't hold 5.3GHz all core (1.41 VCore in bios, LLC6) plus 1.35+ SA. Replaced with an Antec 1300w and problem solved.


Hi,
I haven't seen any issues with my evga 1000p2 but then again at 5.3 I can't run blender opendata either 
Thought it was my no avx offset limit to where i had to start adding avx-1 :/
I have a 1200p2 also might test that theory of yours once my test bench shows up in a couple weeks from the EU 

If you'd like to try out opendata full test here it is 

https://opendata.blender.org/


----------



## Baasha

Falkentyne said:


> Your Maximus 12 extreme (all Maximus series do) has "die sense" voltage measurements, so the Vcore shown is accurate within 11mv (besides transients which can't appear on sensors at all). So your load voltage is 1.252v, that is fully correct.
> 
> VCCIO at 1.30 and VCCSA at 1.35-1.40v is fully safe and tested by Asus, on Z490. Can't speak for higher IO/SA values, although 4800-5000 mhz memory may require as much as 1.50v VCCSA.
> 
> Whether you can get 5.3 ghz or not (5.4 ghz is going to be impossible without direct die or a VERY powerful custom loop, unless you disable hyperthreading), depends on what your vmin is for 5.2 ghz stable.
> How low can you go on the BIOS voltage (and thus on the load voltage) before you start getting "CPU Cache L0 errors" in HWinfo64 (WHEA sensors section area)?
> 
> Find that out first and report back. Can you sustain cinebench "R20" looping (not cinebench R15), by setting preferences to 1800 or 3600 seconds, in R20 settings, and then run it for 30 minutes-1 hour without a "CPU Cache L0 error" appearing in HWinfo64 ? For reference this is between a Bios voltage of 1.30v to 1.35v, with Loadline calibration LLC6.
> 
> Your temps look solid however.


That's interesting. I will do that R20 loop test today and see. Good to know that 1.35V VCCSA is safe since it turns red in the BIOS.

I did get a couple of BSODs seemingly randomly yesterday. I might have to reinstall my GPU drivers - when I installed the 2nd GPU, Windows just installed the driver - I guess that is not good. Maybe need to DDU and then reinstall?



OLDFATSHEEP said:


> Need to check power supply when running 5.3GHz core and SA 1.35+ at the same time. My previous EVGA G+ 1000W can't hold 5.3GHz all core (1.41 VCore in bios, LLC6) plus 1.35+ SA. Replaced with an Antec 1300w and problem solved.


I'm using an EVGA 1600 T2 PSU so no issues with power.


----------



## truth hurts

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> Need to check power supply when running 5.3GHz core and SA 1.35+ at the same time. My previous EVGA G+ 1000W can't hold 5.3GHz all core (1.41 VCore in bios, LLC6) plus 1.35+ SA. Replaced with an Antec 1300w and problem solved.


and i am running a 750w bronze at 5.4ghz 

has anyone else noticed that they can run lower sa and io with the new 0704 bios ?


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> I haven't seen any issues with my evga 1000p2 but then again at 5.3 I can't run blender opendata either
> Thought it was my no avx offset limit to where i had to start adding avx-1 :/
> I have a 1200p2 also might test that theory of yours once my test bench shows up in a couple weeks from the EU
> 
> If you'd like to try out opendata full test here it is
> 
> https://opendata.blender.org/


I cannot run P95 29.8 small fft. Haven't tried other software. For my daily use rig I just use R20 to test. Even under R20 my previous PSU can't provide more cpu power. Probably due to temp reasons or PSU degradation.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

truth hurts said:


> and i am running a 750w bronze at 5.4ghz
> 
> has anyone else noticed that they can run lower sa and io with the new 0704 bios ?


Almost the same as 0703. Both passed 4600 17-17 2T, TM5 Ollie, when vccsa=1.3V


----------



## ThrashZone

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> I cannot run P95 29.8 small fft. Haven't tried other software. For my daily use rig I just use R20 to test. Even under R20 my previous PSU can't provide more cpu power. Probably due to temp reasons or PSU degradation.


Hi,
R20 doesn't have enough avx to trigger avx offset same on x299 never threw avx offset setting.
Opendata does 
I can run opendata at 5.2 all day long 5.3 dies soon after start where as R20 also runs all day long.
Beside R20 isn't a good stability test not even looping forever.
Realbench would be better but still only hits the cpu at 95% that's why I mainly use blender opendata.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> R20 doesn't have enough avx to trigger avx offset same on x299 never threw avx offset setting.
> Opendata does
> I can run opendata at 5.2 all day long 5.3 dies soon after start where as R20 also runs all day long.
> Beside R20 isn't a good stability test not even looping forever.
> Realbench would be better but still only hits the cpu at 95% that's why I mainly use blender opendata.


Thanks. I will try that. If that stresses more than R20, I am afraid my h150i XT wont hold the temp below 90c.


----------



## ThrashZone

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> Thanks. I will try that. If that stresses more than R20, I am afraid my h150i XT wont hold the temp below 90c.


Hi,
It will let you know when avx needs to be applied in a real workload environment
P95 is silly don't use it.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> It will let you know when avx needs to be applied in a real workload environment
> P95 is silly don't use it.


Yeah, that would be nice 

Besides, transient response is also very important. Sometimes it needs to test between the idle and load to check if the vdroop affects the stability.


----------



## ThrashZone

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> Yeah, that would be nice
> 
> Besides, transient response is also very important. Sometimes it needs to test between the idle and load to check if the vdroop affects the stability.


Hi,
Heat wise opendata probably a hair more but looping R20 probably the same 
Opendata is 6-7 rendering files all a lot longer than R20 60 second render.
Full opendata on 10900k is about 40 minutes 
Short test is about 12 minutes it only uses 2 rendering files.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Heat wise opendata probably a hair more but looping R20 probably the same
> Opendata is 6-7 rendering files all a lot longer than R20 60 second render.
> Full opendata on 10900k is about 40 minutes
> Short test is about 12 minutes it only uses 2 rendering files.


Sounds good. I will check it out


----------



## ThrashZone

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> Sounds good. I will check it out


Hi,
If you ever want to loop render I install blender and download their free demo files scoll down for Cycles listings
Classroom is great also pavilion Barcelona 
Just go to file and open point to where you extracted the zip files too and use render animation instead of render file 
https://www.blender.org/

https://www.blender.org/download/demo-files/


----------



## Falkentyne

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> I cannot run P95 29.8 small fft. Haven't tried other software. For my daily use rig I just use R20 to test. Even under R20 my previous PSU can't provide more cpu power. Probably due to temp reasons or PSU degradation.


Wonder what the EPS +12v reading was on the PSU? 
Not all boards support EPS +12v reading, and the normal +12v reading is from the 24 pin.
Boards with VR VOUT access show it under VR VIN
Asus EC does not show it


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

Falkentyne said:


> Wonder what the EPS +12v reading was on the PSU?
> Not all boards support EPS +12v reading, and the normal +12v reading is from the 24 pin.
> Boards with VR VOUT access show it under VR VIN
> Asus EC does not show it


Might need an ohmmeter to actually test that PSU. Already turned bad last year. Cleaned it and backed to normal at that time. Now I might just send it back for RMA.


----------



## cstkl1

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> R20 doesn't have enough avx to trigger avx offset same on x299 never threw avx offset setting.
> Opendata does
> I can run opendata at 5.2 all day long 5.3 dies soon after start where as R20 also runs all day long.
> Beside R20 isn't a good stability test not even looping forever.
> Realbench would be better but still only hits the cpu at 95% that's why I mainly use blender opendata.


yeah x299 avx offset aint finicky like z490.
even rb2.43 wont do anything. 
in windows it wont drop 
in games it wont drop. 
but all z170-z490 cpus.. they do.

any guide on "opendata"
i am always open to diff test forms.


----------



## ThrashZone

cstkl1 said:


> yeah x299 avx offset aint finicky like z490.
> even rb2.43 wont do anything.
> in windows it wont drop
> in games it wont drop.
> but all z170-z490 cpus.. they do.
> 
> any guide on "opendata"
> i am always open to diff test forms.


Hi,
Just open blender opendata download all the rendering files it shows, that will be the Full test about 40 minutes 
Short test is only two rendering files BMW & Classroom about 10 minutes
https://opendata.blender.org/

Blender demo files have the same files for individual download
Just install blender and go to file/ open point blender to where you extracted all on the demo files
Benefit is you can use render animation and it loops which ever demo file you downloaded or render image for one off render like R20/..

https://www.blender.org/

Just scroll down to the cycles listings BMW most docile, 
Classroom good tough one, 
Barcelona pavilion a tough one period  
https://www.blender.org/download/demo-files/


----------



## Baasha

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> If you ever want to loop render I install blender and download their free demo files scoll down for Cycles listings
> Classroom is great also pavilion Barcelona
> Just go to file and open point to where you extracted the zip files too and use render animation instead of render file
> https://www.blender.org/
> 
> https://www.blender.org/download/demo-files/


So you're saying "openblender" benchmark with all the scenes selected is more stressful than looping R20 or RealBench v2.56?


----------



## ThrashZone

Baasha said:


> So you're saying "openblender" benchmark with all the scenes selected is more stressful than looping R20 or RealBench v2.56?


Hi,
Blender Opendata yes way better stability test than either of those 
AIDA64 still good for memory/ cache but the above will do all that too.


----------



## Baasha

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Blender Opendata yes way better stability test than either of those
> AIDA64 still good for memory/ cache but the above will do all that too.


Ran the suite - here are my results:










Not sure if this is good/great/okay/bad lol


----------



## cletus-cassidy

Hi all:

Finally got my Maximus XII Extreme and custom loop setup. I ordered the top bin (5.1ghz) 10900K from Silicon Lottery hoping to reduce the silicon lottery now that I'm a bit older and have less time. Anyway, just booted up and see SP = 78 and the VF points in picture below. While I haven't started overclocking just yet, I must say I'm pretty disappointed with these early stats given the extreme cost of this chip and having to wait for it. Maybe I have a low SP good VF chip, but doesn't look that way to my amateur eyes. 

Curious on this group's read on my chip and where I should start. I have a pretty robust 3 rad cooling loop (1080mm) and got the CPU delidded so I can probably push the voltage more than some.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

cletus-cassidy said:


> Hi all:
> 
> Finally got my Maximus XII Extreme and custom loop setup. I ordered the top bin (5.1ghz) 10900K from Silicon Lottery hoping to reduce the silicon lottery now that I'm a bit older and have less time. Anyway, just booted up and see SP = 78 and the VF points in picture below. While I haven't started overclocking just yet, I must say I'm pretty disappointed with these early stats given the extreme cost of this chip and having to wait for it. Maybe I have a low SP good VF chip, but doesn't look that way to my amateur eyes.
> 
> Curious on this group's read on my chip and where I should start. I have a pretty robust 3 rad cooling loop (1080mm) and got the CPU delidded so I can probably push the voltage more than some.


Yes very expensive is right. Considering that a high number can do 5.1GHz anyways as long as you have the cooling. I wouldn't worry about the VF points, just see what you can do OC wise before judging it. Probably start with 1.35v LLC4 for 5.1GHz.
.


----------



## cletus-cassidy

MrTOOSHORT said:


> cletus-cassidy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi all:
> 
> Finally got my Maximus XII Extreme and custom loop setup. I ordered the top bin (5.1ghz) 10900K from Silicon Lottery hoping to reduce the silicon lottery now that I'm a bit older and have less time. Anyway, just booted up and see SP = 78 and the VF points in picture below. While I haven't started overclocking just yet, I must say I'm pretty disappointed with these early stats given the extreme cost of this chip and having to wait for it. Maybe I have a low SP good VF chip, but doesn't look that way to my amateur eyes.
> 
> Curious on this group's read on my chip and where I should start. I have a pretty robust 3 rad cooling loop (1080mm) and got the CPU delidded so I can probably push the voltage more than some.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes very expensive is right. Considering that a high number can do 5.1GHz anyways as long as you have the cooling. I wouldn't worry about the VF points, just see what you can do OC wise before judging it. Probably start with 1.35v LLC4 for 5.1GHz.
> .
Click to expand...

Thanks was really hoping to get 5.3 with a high bin but guess I will find out.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Asus needs to dump the silly v-f and sp nonsense all they do is corrupt bios with that crap.


----------



## Falkentyne

cletus-cassidy said:


> Hi all:
> 
> Finally got my Maximus XII Extreme and custom loop setup. I ordered the top bin (5.1ghz) 10900K from Silicon Lottery hoping to reduce the silicon lottery now that I'm a bit older and have less time. Anyway, just booted up and see SP = 78 and the VF points in picture below. While I haven't started overclocking just yet, I must say I'm pretty disappointed with these early stats given the extreme cost of this chip and having to wait for it. Maybe I have a low SP good VF chip, but doesn't look that way to my amateur eyes.
> 
> Curious on this group's read on my chip and where I should start. I have a pretty robust 3 rad cooling loop (1080mm) and got the CPU delidded so I can probably push the voltage more than some.


Remember that SP 63 is "Average." So SP 63's should all be in their 4.9 and some of their 5 ghz bins. The 5.1 ghz is top 24% and that fits perfectly within the SP stats.
I know you were hoping for a SP 100+ chip but those are like..top 3%...

Also leakage matters in how far a chip will clock as well. Two SP78's, identical VIDs at all VF Points, if one is running hotter than another (exact same voltage settings used on both), the hotter chip is more leaky and will usually be the better overclocker. You just have to cool it.

Try to aim and test LOAD voltages (X264 stress test (you can get that from the FAQ on overclocking reddit, and then update the binary (you need to rename the file you download when you put it into the folder) from " https://www.videolan.org/developers/x264.html ", Realbench, 2.56, Cinebench R20, AIDA64 "Stress FPU") at around the range of 5.1 ghz=1.175-1.210v, 5.2 ghz=1.220-1.260v, 5.3 ghz=1.27v-1.340v. These are load voltages, not Bios voltages, so set your loadline calibration and bios voltages to aim for these.

You can start on the lower end of the scale, test for stability and work your way up 10mv at a time. HWinfo64 "WHEA" section open for CPU Cache L0 errors.


----------



## cletus-cassidy

Falkentyne said:


> cletus-cassidy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi all:
> 
> Finally got my Maximus XII Extreme and custom loop setup. I ordered the top bin (5.1ghz) 10900K from Silicon Lottery hoping to reduce the silicon lottery now that I'm a bit older and have less time. Anyway, just booted up and see SP = 78 and the VF points in picture below. While I haven't started overclocking just yet, I must say I'm pretty disappointed with these early stats given the extreme cost of this chip and having to wait for it. Maybe I have a low SP good VF chip, but doesn't look that way to my amateur eyes.
> 
> Curious on this group's read on my chip and where I should start. I have a pretty robust 3 rad cooling loop (1080mm) and got the CPU delidded so I can probably push the voltage more than some.
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that SP 63 is "Average." So SP 63's should all be in their 4.9 and some of their 5 ghz bins. The 5.1 ghz is top 24% and that fits perfectly within the SP stats.
> I know you were hoping for a SP 100+ chip but those are like..top 3%...
> 
> Also leakage matters in how far a chip will clock as well. Two SP78's, identical VIDs at all VF Points, if one is running hotter than another (exact same voltage settings used on both), the hotter chip is more leaky and will usually be the better overclocker. You just have to cool it.
> 
> Try to aim and test LOAD voltages (X264 stress test (you can get that from the FAQ on overclocking reddit, and then update the binary (you need to rename the file you download when you put it into the folder) from " https://www.videolan.org/developers/x264.html ", Realbench, 2.56, Cinebench R20, AIDA64 "Stress FPU") at around the range of 5.1 ghz=1.175-1.210v, 5.2 ghz=1.220-1.260v, 5.3 ghz=1.27v-1.340v. These are load voltages, not Bios voltages, so set your loadline calibration and bios voltages to aim for these.
> 
> You can start on the lower end of the scale, test for stability and work your way up 10mv at a time. HWinfo64 "WHEA" section open for CPU Cache L0 errors.
Click to expand...

You are exactly right that I was hoping for a higher binned chip. Thanks for the guidance. Really appreciate it and will report back.


----------



## Vaporware

cletus-cassidy said:


> You are exactly right that I was hoping for a higher binned chip. Thanks for the guidance. Really appreciate it and will report back.


I have tested ten 10900K's so far and 8 were SP63 with one SP80 and one SP107. While the SP107 is the best chip I can tell you the SP80 isn't far behind. Your SP78 could very well be a good overclocker you just need to put in some time and fine tune it.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Hey guys, my 10900k has a sp63 and now Im running it at 5.3ghz at 1.365v llc7 on m12a. Temp is in the 70s with max is at 80 during realbench , r20 and occt linpack 2019. Is it a bad chip?


----------



## Falkentyne

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Hey guys, my 10900k has a sp63 and now Im running it at 5.3ghz at 1.365v llc7 on m12a. Temp is in the 70s with max is at 80 during realbench , r20 and occt linpack 2019. Is it a bad chip?


Check HWinfo64 "sensors only" for CPU Cache L0 errors during your realbench 2.56 run (make sure it's 2.56 not 2.43!!) at the bottom of the sensors area.
If there are none, then that's a very good chip. Congratulations.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

I want a 5.4-5.5ghz chip and a guy offered me $1k for his sp104. I dont know if it really can hit 5.4 because he cant validate it also due to his 240 aio.


----------



## Vaporware

Falkentyne said:


> Check HWinfo64 "sensors only" for CPU Cache L0 errors during your realbench 2.56 run (make sure it's 2.56 not 2.43!!) at the bottom of the sensors area.
> If there are none, then that's a very good chip. Congratulations.


My SP107 passed with no errors but not at the voltage and temps he is quoting for his SP68. He appears to have a very good chip.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

21m is enough? I tested 8hr before but did not save it. It can run OCCT linpack 2019 so I guess its fine for these test. But I want a 5.4-.5.5 chip.


----------



## skullbringer

So eventually I managed to delid my SP 95 10900KF and here is a temperature comparison after 10 minutes of Cinebench R20 with 52x @ 1.425V bios + LLC 5, max core average (corrected 26C ambient):

- stock with IHS and conductonaut: *79.8 C* (first attachment)
- delidded with conductonaut below and kryonaut above IHS: *NOT stable* (though about 2 C cooler)
- Supercoolcomputers direct core block with conductonaut: *61.4 C* (second attachment)

I was baffled when delidded had slightly better temps (~ 2C), but was not stable. However this proves my theory that core temperature readings do not tell the full story. I suspect kryonaut was causing a bottleneck in the heat transfer chain and therefore causing stability issues. But don't ask me about the physics behind this, I have no logical explanation 

On another note, the Supercoolcomputers direct core block is amazing, *18.4 C* max core average reduction! 

But that's not the whole story:
At the SAME VOLTAGE as x52, now x54 is STABLE for 10 minutes of Cinebench R20 (third attachment)!

It is shocking to me, how much heat flow influences stability with these chips, especially since temperature readings do not seem to tell the whole story...


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Wow direct core is really amazing. My chip is delidded with cooper ihs and I see temp is at least 10c better. Delid tool from rockitcool damage my pcb but cpu works fine.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Yep flushed that warranty you contact rockit about the damage ?


----------



## SuperMumrik

skullbringer said:


> On another note, the Supercoolcomputers direct core block is amazing, *18.4 C* max core average reduction!
> 
> But that's not the whole story:
> At the SAME VOLTAGE as x52, now x54 is STABLE for 10 minutes of Cinebench R20 (third attachment)!
> 
> It is shocking to me, how much heat flow influences stability with these chips, especially since temperature readings do not seem to tell the whole story...



Good job :specool:
I bet you are glad you got convinced to try it out!


----------



## skullbringer

SuperMumrik said:


> Good job :specool:
> I bet you are glad you got convinced to try it out!


yes man, huge thanks! 

that block, the design and engineering, it's so simple, elegant and awesome! like it even has a white o-ring and argb, ***


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Yeah nice too bad only on facebook or twitter I'd get one or two.


----------



## SoldierRBT

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Wow direct core is really amazing. My chip is delidded with cooper ihs and I see temp is at least 10c better. Delid tool from rockitcool damage my pcb but cpu works fine.


How did that happen? Did you use the Rockit Cool Delid Kit for 9th Gen?


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Yes , I used 9th gen delid kit.


----------



## skullbringer

RTLs and IOLs seems to be all sorts of bugged in 0704 for me. 

tuning RTL offets only trains RTLs, not IOLs and tuning RTL init values sometimes only trains one channel, like ***

might try and flash 0703 to the secondary bios and fiddle with that tomorrow, but for today I'm fed up 

on a positive note, I found a stable 24/7 CPU setting I'm satisfied with:
all-core - x55 
cache - x52
Vcore - 1.5V
LLC - 6
VCCIO - 1.39V
VCCSA - 1.44V


----------



## Nizzen

skullbringer said:


> RTLs and IOLs seems to be all sorts of bugged in 0704 for me.
> 
> tuning RTL offets only trains RTLs, not IOLs and tuning RTL init values sometimes only trains one channel, like ***
> 
> might try and flash 0703 to the secondary bios and fiddle with that tomorrow, but for today I'm fed up
> 
> on a positive note, I found a stable 24/7 CPU setting I'm satisfied with:
> all-core - x55
> cache - x52
> Vcore - 1.5V
> LLC - 6
> VCCIO - 1.39V
> VCCSA - 1.44V


Mad result 

Good job


----------



## geriatricpollywog

skullbringer said:


> RTLs and IOLs seems to be all sorts of bugged in 0704 for me.
> 
> tuning RTL offets only trains RTLs, not IOLs and tuning RTL init values sometimes only trains one channel, like ***
> 
> might try and flash 0703 to the secondary bios and fiddle with that tomorrow, but for today I'm fed up /forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
> 
> on a positive note, I found a stable 24/7 CPU setting I'm satisfied with:
> all-core - x55
> cache - x52
> Vcore - 1.5V
> LLC - 6
> VCCIO - 1.39V
> VCCSA - 1.44V


Aren’t you concerned about running at 1.5v vcore?

What’s your max voltage and frequency when stress testing with prime95 small fft with AVX on?


----------



## Falkentyne

skullbringer said:


> RTLs and IOLs seems to be all sorts of bugged in 0704 for me.
> 
> tuning RTL offets only trains RTLs, not IOLs and tuning RTL init values sometimes only trains one channel, like ***
> 
> might try and flash 0703 to the secondary bios and fiddle with that tomorrow, but for today I'm fed up
> 
> on a positive note, I found a stable 24/7 CPU setting I'm satisfied with:
> all-core - x55
> cache - x52
> Vcore - 1.5V
> LLC - 6
> VCCIO - 1.39V
> VCCSA - 1.44V


Please do a full cmos clear for me. (full and quick cmos clears are different).

Flip off the power supply switch (or unplug it).
Wait 20-30 seconds.
Press and hold clear CMOS for 10 seconds. Then release it.

Plug back in and restart.
Is the training now fixed?


----------



## SuperMumrik

skullbringer said:


> RTLs and IOLs seems to be all sorts of bugged in 0704 for me.
> 
> tuning RTL offets only trains RTLs, not IOLs and tuning RTL init values sometimes only trains one channel, like ***
> 
> might try and flash 0703 to the secondary bios and fiddle with that tomorrow, but for today I'm fed up
> 
> on a positive note, I found a stable 24/7 CPU setting I'm satisfied with:
> all-core - x55
> cache - x52
> Vcore - 1.5V
> LLC - 6
> VCCIO - 1.39V
> VCCSA - 1.44V



Nice settings :thumb:
Training seems to be fine here. Just installed the 0704 bios myself


Tried to boot 2t with auto rtl/iol, then revert back to 1t. Then boot auto rtl/iol @1t before setting them manually after that?


----------



## Thebc2

skullbringer said:


> RTLs and IOLs seems to be all sorts of bugged in 0704 for me.
> 
> 
> 
> tuning RTL offets only trains RTLs, not IOLs and tuning RTL init values sometimes only trains one channel, like ***
> 
> 
> 
> might try and flash 0703 to the secondary bios and fiddle with that tomorrow, but for today I'm fed up
> 
> 
> 
> on a positive note, I found a stable 24/7 CPU setting I'm satisfied with:
> 
> all-core - x55
> 
> cache - x52
> 
> Vcore - 1.5V
> 
> LLC - 6
> 
> VCCIO - 1.39V
> 
> VCCSA - 1.44V




Are you loading ram timings/settings from a profile or inputting them manually. I was seeing really odd ram behavior in 0704 when I loaded from profile vs inputting fresh. May have been a red herring as well as I did do a “deep” cmos clear in the process.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

Falkentyne said:


> Please do a full cmos clear for me. (full and quick cmos clears are different).
> 
> Flip off the power supply switch (or unplug it).
> Wait 20-30 seconds.
> Press and hold clear CMOS for 10 seconds. Then release it.
> 
> Plug back in and restart.
> Is the training now fixed?


He needs to set tWRWR_dg to 4. That's a typical Mode 2 failure.


----------



## Falkentyne

Thebc2 said:


> Are you loading ram timings/settings from a profile or inputting them manually. I was seeing really odd ram behavior in 0704 when I loaded from profile vs inputting fresh. May have been a red herring as well as I did do a “deep” cmos clear in the process.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Interesting.

I did what you said, and noticed increased stability with 3200 C14+ 1T, (still needed 1.375v however on these "Feb 2020" made sticks I just got a week ago, but down from 1.425v needed before--the 2018 sticks needed only stock 1.350v), after I entered all my timings in manually rather than loading a saved profile from 703, which was created with "2018" year trident-Z sticks 3200 2x16 CL14 sticks, and now I'm using 2020 sticks, which I figured were the exact same except binned better (15/15/15/36 @ 3733 @ 1.40v is stable now, while it was impossible to stabilize on the 2018 sticks at the same timings).

Noticed an immediate difference in 1T stability after doing a deep CMOS clear.
Deep CMOS clear: Power off PSU switch, wait 30 seconds, press clear CMOS for 10-15 seconds and hold it down, then release, then enter your stuff in manually into new profiles.
Worked for @XGS-Duplicity too on his Aorus master I think.


----------



## skullbringer

Thebc2 said:


> Are you loading ram timings/settings from a profile or inputting them manually. I was seeing really odd ram behavior in 0704 when I loaded from profile vs inputting fresh. May have been a red herring as well as I did do a “deep” cmos clear in the process.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


nope, everything set manually



SuperMumrik said:


> Nice settings :thumb:
> Training seems to be fine here. Just installed the 0704 bios myself
> 
> 
> Tried to boot 2t with auto rtl/iol, then revert back to 1t. Then boot auto rtl/iol @1t before setting them manually after that?


tried the 2t 1t switchback and then setting rtl/iol, no dice



OLDFATSHEEP said:


> He needs to set tWRWR_dg to 4. That's a typical Mode 2 failure.


could you please explain what mode 2 failure means? 



Falkentyne said:


> Please do a full cmos clear for me. (full and quick cmos clears are different).
> 
> Flip off the power supply switch (or unplug it).
> Wait 20-30 seconds.
> Press and hold clear CMOS for 10 seconds. Then release it.
> 
> Plug back in and restart.
> Is the training now fixed?


did that, punched all the settings back in, behavior is still the same



I loosened out everything, just to make sure stability is not the issue (karhu 2000% no errors), set tWRWR_dg and tRDRD_dg to 4 and tried to tune rtl/iols from there

when I set io latency offset down from 21 (auto) to cha 16 and chb 15, rtls change accordingly, iols dont, this is the lowest I can train:

anyone know what I'm doing wrong?


----------



## raybasto

I ran RealBench for 8 hours and got 1 WHEA error. Is that concerning? Should I continue to go up in core voltage until I get 0 WHEA after 8 hours? Thanks in advance

Intel 10900k
MSI Gaming Edge Wifi

CPU ratio: 51
Ring ratio: 43
XMP enabled: DDR4 3600Mhz 16-19-19-39 1.350v

CPU core voltage monitor: VCC sense
CPU core voltage mode: Override mode
CPU core voltage: 1.365v (1.288v under full load)
VCCIO: Auto (1.256v in bios, 1.2v under full load)
VCCSA: Auto (1.198v in bios, 1.275 under full load)
LLC: 6

CPU package temp: 88-93 under full load
Ambient temp: 95 degrees


----------



## SoldierRBT

raybasto said:


> I ran RealBench for 8 hours and got 1 WHEA error. Is that concerning? Should I continue to go up in core voltage until I get 0 WHEA after 8 hours? Thanks in advance
> 
> Intel 10900k
> MSI Gaming Edge Wifi
> 
> CPU ratio: 51
> Ring ratio: 43
> XMP enabled: DDR4 3600Mhz 16-19-19-39 1.350v
> 
> CPU core voltage monitor: VCC sense
> CPU core voltage mode: Override mode
> CPU core voltage: 1.365v (1.288v under full load)
> VCCIO: Auto (1.256v in bios, 1.2v under full load)
> VCCSA: Auto (1.198v in bios, 1.275 under full load)
> LLC: 6
> 
> CPU package temp: 88-93 under full load
> Ambient temp: 95 degrees


Shouldn't be an issue. That WHEA error is related to temperature. If you can keep it below 90C, it should disappear.


----------



## Falkentyne

raybasto said:


> I ran RealBench for 8 hours and got 1 WHEA error. Is that concerning? Should I continue to go up in core voltage until I get 0 WHEA after 8 hours? Thanks in advance
> 
> Intel 10900k
> MSI Gaming Edge Wifi
> 
> CPU ratio: 51
> Ring ratio: 43
> XMP enabled: DDR4 3600Mhz 16-19-19-39 1.350v
> 
> CPU core voltage monitor: VCC sense
> CPU core voltage mode: Override mode
> CPU core voltage: 1.365v (1.288v under full load)
> VCCIO: Auto (1.256v in bios, 1.2v under full load)
> VCCSA: Auto (1.198v in bios, 1.275 under full load)
> LLC: 6
> 
> CPU package temp: 88-93 under full load
> Ambient temp: 95 degrees


"LLC6" is mode 6 on MSI which is basically Intel default spec vdroop. Probably about 1.1 mOhms. your true vcore reading was not 1.288v. It was probably less than 1.20v. MSI boards do not have die-sense. VCC_Sense is equal to the ITE 8792E reading on Gigabyte boards.

If your board has the ISL 69269 VR, hwinfo64 should expose VR VOUT on the latest beta version. So try that. VR VOUT is your die sense.
If it's a different VR, then I don't know. If you know what VR is used for the VRM controller, you can ask martin on hwinfo forums if it supports monitoring vcore.

But use Mode 3 or 4 (3 has less droop than 4). 6 is far too droopy.

That's assuming the LLC settings are similar to the MEG Ace and Godlike..


----------



## raybasto

Falkentyne said:


> raybasto said:
> 
> 
> 
> I ran RealBench for 8 hours and got 1 WHEA error. Is that concerning? Should I continue to go up in core voltage until I get 0 WHEA after 8 hours? Thanks in advance
> 
> Intel 10900k
> MSI Gaming Edge Wifi
> 
> CPU ratio: 51
> Ring ratio: 43
> XMP enabled: DDR4 3600Mhz 16-19-19-39 1.350v
> 
> CPU core voltage monitor: VCC sense
> CPU core voltage mode: Override mode
> CPU core voltage: 1.365v (1.288v under full load)
> VCCIO: Auto (1.256v in bios, 1.2v under full load)
> VCCSA: Auto (1.198v in bios, 1.275 under full load)
> LLC: 6
> 
> CPU package temp: 88-93 under full load
> Ambient temp: 95 degrees
> 
> 
> 
> "LLC6" is mode 6 on MSI which is basically Intel default spec vdroop. Probably about 1.1 mOhms. your true vcore reading was not 1.288v. It was probably less than 1.20v. MSI boards do not have die-sense. VCC_Sense is equal to the ITE 8792E reading on Gigabyte boards.
> 
> If your board has the ISL 69269 VR, hwinfo64 should expose VR VOUT on the latest beta version. So try that. VR VOUT is your die sense.
> If it's a different VR, then I don't know. If you know what VR is used for the VRM controller, you can ask martin on hwinfo forums if it supports monitoring vcore.
> 
> But use Mode 3 or 4 (3 has less droop than 4). 6 is far too droopy.
> 
> That's assuming the LLC settings are similar to the MEG Ace and Godlike..
Click to expand...

I’m running LLC mode 4 right now and going from 1.28 to 1.27V under load. Does that sound about right?


----------



## Falkentyne

raybasto said:


> I’m running LLC mode 4 right now and going from 1.28 to 1.27V under load. Does that sound about right?


That's not die-sense voltage reading so I don't know. Sorry.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

skullbringer said:


> could you please explain what mode 2 failure means?


Sometimes Mode 2 will fail to train timings correctly that to be too abnormal and sharply decrease the R/W/C performance.


----------



## skullbringer

skullbringer said:


> anyone know what I'm doing wrong?


as much as quoting ones self stinks, I figured it out. and it's equally simple as it is stupid. 

I just got a 2x 8GB b-die b2 pcb kit from T-Force (Xtreem ARGB CL14-15-15-36) and as it turns out, one stick is substantially worse than the other, which is the cause of the IOL weirdness

Tested them individually at identical timings:
- one stick can constantly train IOL 2 (first screenshot)
- one stick randomly trains an IOL 6 - 15 at each boot (second screenshot) 

When I'm running them both, I can sometimes get them to train both at IOL 6, but depending on which stick is in which slot, the system can outright BSOD.

Like what the fudge?! 

Granted I'm not running them at XMP spec, but shouldn't this be eligible for RMA?


----------



## Falkentyne

skullbringer said:


> as much as quoting ones self stinks, I figured it out. and it's equally simple as it is stupid.
> 
> I just got a 2x 8GB b-die b2 pcb kit from T-Force (Xtreem ARGB CL14-15-15-36) and as it turns out, one stick is substantially worse than the other, which is the cause of the IOL weirdness
> 
> Tested them individually at identical timings:
> - one stick can constantly train IOL 2 (first screenshot)
> - one stick randomly trains an IOL 6 - 15 at each boot (second screenshot)
> 
> When I'm running them both, I can sometimes get them to train both at IOL 6, but depending on which stick is in which slot, the system can outright BSOD.
> 
> Like what the fudge?!
> 
> Granted I'm not running them at XMP spec, but shouldn't this be eligible for RMA?


Do the work at XMP settings 100% stable?
If they do, you can't RMA them for being defective because they aren't defective. Now RMA for "other reasons"--I'm not touching that.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

skullbringer said:


> as much as quoting ones self stinks, I figured it out. and it's equally simple as it is stupid.
> 
> I just got a 2x 8GB b-die b2 pcb kit from T-Force (Xtreem ARGB CL14-15-15-36) and as it turns out, one stick is substantially worse than the other, which is the cause of the IOL weirdness
> 
> Tested them individually at identical timings:
> - one stick can constantly train IOL 2 (first screenshot)
> - one stick randomly trains an IOL 6 - 15 at each boot (second screenshot)
> 
> When I'm running them both, I can sometimes get them to train both at IOL 6, but depending on which stick is in which slot, the system can outright BSOD.
> 
> Like what the fudge?!
> 
> Granted I'm not running them at XMP spec, but shouldn't this be eligible for RMA?


They were in different slots. You should bin them in the same slot (B).


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

I just got a new sp94 chip and it requires the same voltage for 5.3ghz, 5ghz cache as 2 sp63 I have ; however, the temp of sp94 is cooler. With stock ihs, those sp63 are 10c hotter. Direct die coming soon, I hope sp94 can do 55.


----------



## truth hurts

skullbringer said:


> as much as quoting ones self stinks, I figured it out. and it's equally simple as it is stupid.
> 
> I just got a 2x 8GB b-die b2 pcb kit from T-Force (Xtreem ARGB CL14-15-15-36) and as it turns out, one stick is substantially worse than the other, which is the cause of the IOL weirdness
> 
> Tested them individually at identical timings:
> - one stick can constantly train IOL 2 (first screenshot)
> - one stick randomly trains an IOL 6 - 15 at each boot (second screenshot)
> 
> When I'm running them both, I can sometimes get them to train both at IOL 6, but depending on which stick is in which slot, the system can outright BSOD.
> 
> Like what the fudge?!
> 
> Granted I'm not running them at XMP spec, but shouldn't this be eligible for RMA?


you should be d0 for channel a and d0 channel b for dual channel mode i would have thought?

i run twcl at 14 and tcke at 4 for that speed


----------



## TK421

Falkentyne said:


> Do the work at XMP settings 100% stable?
> If they do, you can't RMA them for being defective because they aren't defective. Now RMA for "other reasons"--I'm not touching that.



Falken, got a quick question.


I will be able to borrow my friends 10900K for a few hours tomorrow to test on an Maximus Apex. 


Since I will only be able to access it for 3-4 hours max, what's the fastest way to judge the chip's quality?




So far I've read to
- observe *V/F curve* in the bios [lower V for given GHz better]

- observe "*SP*" on asus bios [higher better]

- observe idle (30c ish) *VID* from the CPU when nothing is running [lower better]




Not sure if I should be testing P95 or AIDA FPU? Maybe some other methods?
Cooler is a NH D15


----------



## Falkentyne

Thanh Nguyen said:


> I just got a new sp94 chip and it requires the same voltage for 5.3ghz, 5ghz cache as 2 sp63 I have ; however, the temp of sp94 is cooler. With stock ihs, those sp63 are 10c hotter. Direct die coming soon, I hope sp94 can do 55.


Hi Thanh.
How much *load* voltage is required for your new SP94 chip at 5.3 ghz?
It's even better if you give us the bios voltage set, Loadline calibration, and load voltage you need (Assuming it is not delidded).
You have an excellent custom water loop!

Thank you.


----------



## Falkentyne

TK421 said:


> Falken, got a quick question.
> 
> 
> I will be able to borrow my friends 10900K for a few hours tomorrow to test on an Maximus Apex.
> 
> 
> Since I will only be able to access it for 3-4 hours max, what's the fastest way to judge the chip's quality?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So far I've read to
> - observe *V/F curve* in the bios [lower V for given GHz better]
> 
> - observe "*SP*" on asus bios [higher better]
> 
> - observe idle (30c ish) *VID* from the CPU when nothing is running [lower better]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure if I should be testing P95 or AIDA FPU? Maybe some other methods?
> Cooler is a NH D15


Under that tight time limit?

1) Look at VF point in BIOS and post the VF points shown for 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 ghz. The "VF" points will tell you the VID also. Because the VF points are based on a VID taken at 100C core temp. So its' easy to just backtrack down to "Idle" 30C by simple math, but this math changes at each core multiplier.

For example at 5 ghz, it's -0.9mv every -1C temp drop starting at 100C, and at 5.3 ghz its -1.55mv every -1C temp drop, starting at 100C. For 5.2 ghz it's -1.45mv every -1C.

Let's say your VF point for 5.2 ghz is 1.394v. That's based on VID at 100C.
To get idle VID (30C idle), then you simply go 1394mv (always convert volts to millivolts!!) , so 1394mv - (1.45 * 70), since 100 -70=30C right? easy).
So that gives you 1292mv or 1.292v would be your idle VID. 

You can do this if you're in a huge hurry. Or just look at idle in windows (as long as AC and DC Loadline are 0.01 mOhms).

2) Test 5.3 ghz core, 4.7 ghz cache, at 1.40v Bios set, + LLC6, set, in CPU Power management, CPU "temperature protection" to 105C, and run Realbench 2.56 for 15 minutes and look for CPU Cache L0 errors in HWinfo64).
If no errors, reduce vcore 10mv and try again. If you get no errors starting out, that's a very good sign. (this will be about 1.279v load voltage).

If you are unlucky and you can't keep temps under 100C (no CPU Cache L0 error, but too hot), then try 5.2 ghz core, 4.9 ghz cache and 1.350v Bios voltage set + LLC6, test Realbench 2.56 15 minutes per run and work your way down 10mv at a time until you get L0 errors or BSOD.

It's the 5.3 ghz point that is important here. The lower vcore you need, the better it is for 5.2, 5.1, you get the drill. But if you can't handle the heat, then 5.2 ghz.


----------



## Thebc2

Finally got something other than an sp63 today (after try 8 lol). Will be putting it through its paces. Oddly enough, identical batch as best sp63 I have gotten, but this one shows as an sp85. Not sure what’s going on with the 5.2 and 5.3 VF points. I have tried a deep cmos clear.











Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Sp 94 llc8 1.3v stock ihs+ lm on ihs, max temp is 81 in realbench same as 2 sp63 delid cooper ihs and lm on ihs. Load voltage is 1.305v


----------



## Falkentyne

Thebc2 said:


> Finally got something other than an sp63 today (after try 8 lol). Will be putting it through its paces. Oddly enough, identical batch as best sp63 I have gotten, but this one shows as an sp85. Not sure what’s going on with the 5.2 and 5.3 VF points. I have tried a deep cmos clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


The VF points are based on the CPU VID being at 100C--or in other words, "Thermal Velocity Boost voltage Optimizations" disabled in BIOS. 5.2 and 5.3 ghz being the same VID simply means that the VID is identical at 5.2 and 5.3 ghz. Voltage predictions (which may be way off) at 5.3 ghz will be based on something called "P-code".

Hard to explain how this works, but here is the VF curve for mine. This is based on what the prediction thinks is load voltage (not idle voltage) required for stability at 100C:
AVX Disabled: 5.3 ghz @ 100C: 1.350v 
AVX Enabled: 5.3 ghz: @ 100C: 1.382v (AVX is "usually" +30mv vcore required--that's why the CPU VID jumps 30mv when an AVX load is detected)
AVX Disabled: 5 ghz @ 100C: 1.205v
AVX Enabled: 5 ghz @ 100C: 1.258v 

This is based on AC/DC Loadline=0.01 mOhms. If I used a higher AC/DC, like Intel max spec of 1.1 mOhms, or "worst case scenario" of 0.9 mOhms, it would probably be requesting close 1.5v at 5.3 ghz  I know some SP63 chips will request 1.65v (at idle) at 5.3.

Any difference between slope values and real values needed at full load depend on cooler quality and guardband (guard band is the difference between what the CPU wants at worst case AC/DC Loadline and default loadline calibration (1.1 mOhms for both) versus what you set and get. A larger guardband means you have more voltage headroom.
Like if your CPU requests 1.250v for AVX Prime95 @ 100C but is stable at 1.150v at 100C (let's hope you were not at 100C, but let's just say you were), you have a 100mv guardband.


----------



## Falkentyne

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Sp 94 llc8 1.3v stock ihs+ lm on ihs, max temp is 81 in realbench same as 2 sp63 delid cooper ihs and lm on ihs. Load voltage is 1.305v


You de-lidded your new chip already? How many copper IHS's do you have? o.o


----------



## Vaporware

Falkentyne said:


> Under that tight time limit?
> 
> 1) Look at VF point in BIOS and post the VF points shown for 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 ghz. The "VF" points will tell you the VID also. Because the VF points are based on a VID taken at 100C core temp. So its' easy to just backtrack down to "Idle" 30C by simple math, but this math changes at each core multiplier.
> 
> For example at 5 ghz, it's -0.9mv every -1C temp drop starting at 100C, and at 5.3 ghz its -1.55mv every -1C temp drop, starting at 100C. For 5.2 ghz it's -1.45mv every -1C.
> 
> Let's say your VF point for 5.2 ghz is 1.394v. That's based on VID at 100C.
> To get idle VID (30C idle), then you simply go 1394mv (always convert volts to millivolts!!) , so 1394mv - (1.45 * 70), since 100 -70=30C right? easy).
> So that gives you 1292mv or 1.292v would be your idle VID.
> 
> You can do this if you're in a huge hurry. Or just look at idle in windows (as long as AC and DC Loadline are 0.01 mOhms).
> 
> 2) Test 5.3 ghz core, 4.7 ghz cache, at 1.40v Bios set, + LLC6, set, in CPU Power management, CPU "temperature protection" to 105C, and run Realbench 2.56 for 15 minutes and look for CPU Cache L0 errors in HWinfo64).
> If no errors, reduce vcore 10mv and try again. If you get no errors starting out, that's a very good sign. (this will be about 1.279v load voltage).
> 
> If you are unlucky and you can't keep temps under 100C (no CPU Cache L0 error, but too hot), then try 5.2 ghz core, 4.9 ghz cache and 1.350v Bios voltage set + LLC6, test Realbench 2.56 15 minutes per run and work your way down 10mv at a time until you get L0 errors or BSOD.
> 
> It's the 5.3 ghz point that is important here. The lower vcore you need, the better it is for 5.2, 5.1, you get the drill. But if you can't handle the heat, then 5.2 ghz.


So what LLC are the VF numbers based on or does it not matter? For reference I attached my VF points.


----------



## Falkentyne

Vaporware said:


> So what LLC are the VF numbers based on or does it not matter? For reference I attached my VF points.


These are not based on any loadline calibration.
It's VID @ 100C with AC/DC Loadline=0.01 mOhms. VID isn't based on loadline calibration.

The charts I posted were based on "Vcore stability estimates @ 100C", which is different.


----------



## Thebc2

Apparently they don’t mean jack. My sp85 seems to be a complete dud, can’t even get it stable at 5.2 all the way up to 1.45 bios vcore @LLC6 (started at 1.35). How can an sp85 not be able to hit 5.2 at that voltage when I have an sp63 that will do 5.2 core, 4.9 uncore at 1.42 bios vcore @LLC6?

And that sp63 is rock solid at that speed/voltage doing overnight p95 small fft no avx.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Vaporware

Falkentyne said:


> These are not based on any loadline calibration.
> It's VID @ 100C with AC/DC Loadline=0.01 mOhms. VID isn't based on loadline calibration.


So to test my idle VID I need to set SVID behavior to Best Case and turn off all power savings and LLC can be anything correct?


----------



## Falkentyne

Vaporware said:


> So to test my idle VID I need to set SVID behavior to Best Case and turn off all power savings and LLC can be anything correct?


Yes. Best case scenario or manually set AC/DC Loadline to 0.01 (which has higher priority).

Best case scenario is based on having good silicon (this is used for adaptive voltage, offset/auto modes, etc) at LLC3 or 4. For chips that have worse quality, you may need up to "Worst case scenario" if using adaptive. This is for testing binning at 5.2-5.3 ghz on auto/adaptive voltage modes. Worst case scenario + LLC4 will be about 1.5v load voltage at 5.2 ghz  That's why it's called "worst case scenario".

In fact Intel has to guarantee their chips will pass stability testing at "Intel fail safe--which is AC/DC Loadline = 1.1 mOhms" + LLC3. And that's going to be 1.45v-1.55v at full load at 5.2 ghz 
But I'm getting off track again.


----------



## TK421

Falkentyne said:


> Yes. Best case scenario or manually set AC/DC Loadline to 0.01 (which has higher priority).
> 
> Best case scenario is based on having good silicon (this is used for adaptive voltage, offset/auto modes, etc) at LLC3 or 4. For chips that have worse quality, you may need up to "Worst case scenario" if using adaptive. This is for testing binning at 5.2-5.3 ghz on auto/adaptive voltage modes. Worst case scenario + LLC4 will be about 1.5v load voltage at 5.2 ghz  That's why it's called "worst case scenario".
> 
> In fact Intel has to guarantee their chips will pass stability testing at "Intel fail safe--which is AC/DC Loadline = 1.1 mOhms" + LLC3. And that's going to be 1.45v-1.55v at full load at 5.2 ghz
> But I'm getting off track again.



1.1mOhms is LLC6 on Maximus series?

































TK421 said:


> Falken, got a quick question.
> 
> 
> I will be able to borrow my friends 10900K for a few hours tomorrow to test on an Maximus Apex.
> 
> 
> Since I will only be able to access it for 3-4 hours max, what's the fastest way to judge the chip's quality?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So far I've read to
> - observe *V/F curve* in the bios [lower V for given GHz better]
> 
> - observe "*SP*" on asus bios [higher better]
> 
> - observe idle (30c ish) *VID* from the CPU when nothing is running [lower better]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure if I should be testing P95 or AIDA FPU? Maybe some other methods?
> Cooler is a NH D15





Falkentyne said:


> Under that tight time limit?
> 
> 1) Look at VF point in BIOS and post the VF points shown for 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 ghz. The "VF" points will tell you the VID also. Because the VF points are based on a VID taken at 100C core temp. So its' easy to just backtrack down to "Idle" 30C by simple math, but this math changes at each core multiplier.
> 
> For example at 5 ghz, it's -0.9mv every -1C temp drop starting at 100C, and at 5.3 ghz its -1.55mv every -1C temp drop, starting at 100C. For 5.2 ghz it's -1.45mv every -1C.
> 
> Let's say your VF point for 5.2 ghz is 1.394v. That's based on VID at 100C.
> To get idle VID (30C idle), then you simply go 1394mv (always convert volts to millivolts!!) , so 1394mv - (1.45 * 70), since 100 -70=30C right? easy).
> So that gives you 1292mv or 1.292v would be your idle VID.
> 
> You can do this if you're in a huge hurry. Or just look at idle in windows (as long as AC and DC Loadline are 0.01 mOhms).
> 
> 2) Test 5.3 ghz core, 4.7 ghz cache, at 1.40v Bios set, + LLC6, set, in CPU Power management, CPU "temperature protection" to 105C, and run Realbench 2.56 for 15 minutes and look for CPU Cache L0 errors in HWinfo64).
> If no errors, reduce vcore 10mv and try again. If you get no errors starting out, that's a very good sign. (this will be about 1.279v load voltage).
> 
> If you are unlucky and you can't keep temps under 100C (no CPU Cache L0 error, but too hot), then try 5.2 ghz core, 4.9 ghz cache and 1.350v Bios voltage set + LLC6, test Realbench 2.56 15 minutes per run and work your way down 10mv at a time until you get L0 errors or BSOD.
> 
> It's the 5.3 ghz point that is important here. The lower vcore you need, the better it is for 5.2, 5.1, you get the drill. But if you can't handle the heat, then 5.2 ghz.





Ok I'll try this, thanks for the guide.


If I do have more time on it, what games should I even try to use?


----------



## Falkentyne

TK421 said:


> 1.1mOhms is LLC6 on Maximus series?


LLC3 is 1.1 mOhms (On Apex and Extreme. I don't know about Hero and Formula however, I "think" someone on discord said LLC1 is 1.1 mOhms on Hero. Hero users can calculate it by guessing VR OUT at load and using Asus EC for amps) : example:

1.50v Bios Set with 200 amps and 1.1 mOhms should be: 1500 - (200 * 1.1) = 1.280v Load Get.




> Ok I'll try this, thanks for the guide.
> 
> 
> If I do have more time on it, what games should I even try to use?


Battlefield 5 is always good. Especially those 100% all core all thread map loading burst screens which BSOD you  If not, maybe COD Warzone works?


----------



## Vaporware

Falkentyne said:


> Yes. Best case scenario or manually set AC/DC Loadline to 0.01 (which has higher priority).
> 
> Best case scenario is based on having good silicon (this is used for adaptive voltage, offset/auto modes, etc) at LLC3 or 4. For chips that have worse quality, you may need up to "Worst case scenario" if using adaptive. This is for testing binning at 5.2-5.3 ghz on auto/adaptive voltage modes. Worst case scenario + LLC4 will be about 1.5v load voltage at 5.2 ghz  That's why it's called "worst case scenario".
> 
> In fact Intel has to guarantee their chips will pass stability testing at "Intel fail safe--which is AC/DC Loadline = 1.1 mOhms" + LLC3. And that's going to be 1.45v-1.55v at full load at 5.2 ghz
> But I'm getting off track again.



Ok, I set manually to 0.01 and the rest as stated.
5.2 GHz @ 1.30v in bios with LLC6
VID is 1.245v

I then ran 20 passes of CB R20
Load Voltage was 1.199v
Temps was package 68c with cores ranging from 63c-68c with EK AIO 360 for cooling.

Seems something is off with the M12 Apex rating my chip at SP107?


----------



## Falkentyne

Vaporware said:


> Ok, I set manually to 0.01 and the rest as stated.
> 5.2 GHz @ 1.30v in bios with LLC6
> VID is 1.245v
> 
> I then ran 20 passes of CB R20
> Load Voltage was 1.199v
> Temps was package 68c with cores ranging from 63c-68c with EK AIO 360 for cooling.
> 
> Seems something is off with the M12 Apex rating my chip at SP107?


Is the "VID" the VF point at 5.2 ghz?
What is the VF Point voltage shown in bios for 5.2 ghz?
Remember the difference between VID and vcore. Asus prediction is just a guess. At Intel default settings, where AC Loadline is between 0.6 to 0.9 mOhms and auto vcore, your chip would be trying to get 1.30v-1.40v load voltage at 5.2 ghz at LLC3  (I'm guessing--I don't know for sure).

Remember what I mentioned. There is a guardband. Voltage between what chip requests and between what actually starts crashing.
The larger the guardband, the more voltage room you have.

Do you remember my VF curve I posted last page?
My chip wants 1.258v AVX at 5 ghz at 100C but is stable at 1.150v FMA3 15k prime95 at 95C.

So 100mv guardband.


----------



## TK421

Falkentyne said:


> LLC3 is 1.1 mOhms (On Apex and Extreme. I don't know about Hero and Formula however, I "think" someone on discord said LLC1 is 1.1 mOhms on Hero. Hero users can calculate it by guessing VR OUT at load and using Asus EC for amps) : example:
> 
> 1.50v Bios Set with 200 amps and 1.1 mOhms should be: 1500 - (200 * 1.1) = 1.280v Load Get.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Battlefield 5 is always good. Especially those 100% all core all thread map loading burst screens which BSOD you  If not, maybe COD Warzone works?



Is there a reason why LLC6 is recommended for your testing and/or 24/7 use?





I'll try using BF5, is spectating enough or do you need to be an actual player in the game?


----------



## Vaporware

Falkentyne said:


> Is the "VID" the VF point at 5.2 ghz?
> What is the VF Point voltage shown in bios for 5.2 ghz?
> Remember the difference between VID and vcore. Asus prediction is just a guess. At Intel default settings, where AC Loadline is between 0.6 to 0.9 mOhms and auto vcore, your chip would be trying to get 1.30v-1.40v load voltage at 5.2 ghz at LLC3  (I'm guessing--I don't know for sure).
> 
> Remember what I mentioned. There is a guardband. Voltage between what chip requests and between what actually starts crashing.
> The larger the guardband, the more voltage room you have.
> 
> Do you remember my VF curve I posted last page?
> My chip wants 1.258v AVX at 5 ghz at 100C but is stable at 1.150v FMA3 15k prime95 at 95C.
> 
> So 100mv guardband.


VF @ 5.1 is 1.259
VF @ 5.2 is 1.334
VF @ 5.3 is 1.344


----------



## Falkentyne

TK421 said:


> Is there a reason why LLC6 is recommended for your testing and/or 24/7 use?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll try using BF5, is spectating enough or do you need to be an actual player in the game?


I don't like high idle voltages.
Also some games tend to act funny if vcore is too low if cache ratio is high (someone earlier in this thread explained something about how minecraft loads a complete thread to 100% and then a bunch of other threads which puts a massive load on the cache, causing internal parity errors, apparently red dead redemption 2 does something similar, which is why a more aggressive LLC can actually improve this (at the same exact load voltage, despite the transient response penalty on the actual core). It's 'sort of strange actually. LLC affects cache differently than core.

Like for example on my CPU:

Running Minecraft: 4.7 ghz LLC4, 1.150v Bios set = 1.19v load get = "CPU Internal Parity Errors" on multiplayer minecraft (Hypixel, Cubecraft, etc).
But. 4.7 ghz LLC8 (!), 1.15v Bios set = 1.10v load get=no internal parity errors. Probably because the LLC helps the cache become more stable.
For LLC4, I need like 1.175v Bios set (!!) to stop the internal parity errors fully (1.145v load get)



Vaporware said:


> VF @ 5.1 is 1.259
> VF @ 5.2 is 1.334
> VF @ 5.3 is 1.344


So your VID at 100C is 1.334v at 5.2 ghz. So 1.245v @ 5.2 ghz looks accurate to me.
1334mv - (70C "Diff" * 1.45) =1.232v at 30C for "idle" (100C - 70C=30C, which is where that 70 "diff"came from). A bit off but close enough. Because VID table at 5.2 ghz is -1.45mv every -1C temp drop.

And you're stable at 1.19v load, so 50mv guardband. I don't see a problem. I see a good chip, that's what I see.


----------



## Thebc2

Falkentyne said:


> The VF points are based on the CPU VID being at 100C--or in other words, "Thermal Velocity Boost voltage Optimizations" disabled in BIOS. 5.2 and 5.3 ghz being the same VID simply means that the VID is identical at 5.2 and 5.3 ghz. Voltage predictions (which may be way off) at 5.3 ghz will be based on something called "P-code".
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to explain how this works, but here is the VF curve for mine. This is based on what the prediction thinks is load voltage (not idle voltage) required for stability at 100C:
> 
> AVX Disabled: 5.3 ghz @ 100C: 1.350v
> 
> AVX Enabled: 5.3 ghz: @ 100C: 1.382v (AVX is "usually" +30mv vcore required--that's why the CPU VID jumps 30mv when an AVX load is detected)
> 
> AVX Disabled: 5 ghz @ 100C: 1.205v
> 
> AVX Enabled: 5 ghz @ 100C: 1.258v
> 
> 
> 
> This is based on AC/DC Loadline=0.01 mOhms. If I used a higher AC/DC, like Intel max spec of 1.1 mOhms, or "worst case scenario" of 0.9 mOhms, it would probably be requesting close 1.5v at 5.3 ghz  I know some SP63 chips will request 1.65v (at idle) at 5.3.
> 
> 
> 
> Any difference between slope values and real values needed at full load depend on cooler quality and guardband (guard band is the difference between what the CPU wants at worst case AC/DC Loadline and default loadline calibration (1.1 mOhms for both) versus what you set and get. A larger guardband means you have more voltage headroom.
> 
> Like if your CPU requests 1.250v for AVX Prime95 @ 100C but is stable at 1.150v at 100C (let's hope you were not at 100C, but let's just say you were), you have a 100mv guardband.




I am 99% sure that sp85 had a bugged graph. Super low performing chip. Here is the sp63 that runs circles around it. Literally both from the same batch#.











Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Falkentyne

Thebc2 said:


> I am 99% sure that sp85 had a bugged graph. Super low performing chip. Here is the sp63 that runs circles around it. Literally both from the same batch#.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Every chip has a different guardband! You must remember this!
Two identical SP63's might clock different.

One might do 5.3 ghz @ 1.30v load. Another might need 1.40v load for 5.2 ghz !!

You can figure out if the VF chart is bugged or not. Just calculate it manually.
Use 30C idle for your point. So 100C - 30C = 70C. ok? So you will use VID scale formula of 70C * VID scaling.

-------------------
ratio[][][][][][][][][][][]53==52==51===50===49==48==47====46===45==44
mv drop per degree[]1.55=1.45=1.15==0.9===0.65=0.45=0.35===0.2==0.05==0

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

So for example, 5.2 ghz:
1.499v=1499mv @ 100C (VF Point in your screenshot). We want 30C idle, so 100-70=30. so factor is 70.

1499 - (1.45 * 70)=1.397v VID.
Your VID should be 1.397v at 5.2 ghz on this chip.

You can do that at each point on the VF.

*Edit* Formatting didn't work.....can't format it...here.


----------



## Thebc2

Falkentyne said:


> Every chip has a different guardband! You must remember this!
> 
> Two identical SP63's might clock different.
> 
> 
> 
> One might do 5.3 ghz @ 1.30v load. Another might need 1.40v load for 5.2 ghz !!
> 
> 
> 
> You can figure out if the VF chart is bugged or not. Just calculate it manually.
> 
> Use 30C idle for your point. So 100C - 30C = 70C. ok? So you will use VID scale formula of 70C * VID scaling.
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------
> 
> ratio 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44
> 
> mv drop per degree1.551.451.150.90.650.450.350.20.050
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> So for example, 5.2 ghz:
> 
> 1.499v=1499mv @ 100C (VF Point in your screenshot). We want 30C idle, so 100-70=30. so factor is 70.
> 
> 
> 
> 1499 - (1.45 * 70)=1.397v VID.
> 
> Your VID should be 1.397v at 5.2 ghz on this chip.
> 
> 
> 
> You can do that at each point on the VF.
> 
> 
> 
> *Edit* Formatting didn't work.....can't format it...here.



Great info as always. I just found it odd how horrible that sp85 was, I couldn’t even get it stable at 5.1 with over 1.4v in the bios. It would end up pulling less under load than my sp63, but run hotter (lol). Example:

Running p95 small fft avx under load:

Core/uncore/bios voltage/load voltage/temp at load

Sp63 (rock solid over night): 5.2/4.9/1.425/1.314/92
Sp85 (crashes within minutes): 5.2/4.3/1.45/1.275/101

What I can’t get my head around is how the sp85’s load voltage is so much lower yet it runs almost 10c hotter. I know, the leakage. But it has no OC stability to speak of so not sure where the silicon benefit is exactly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## zlatanselvic

Hey All,

I had an opportunity to snag another 10900K. Came in today and I found some interesting results.

I have a spare Maximus Hero XII board that I tested the chip on. It SP'd at 118! I was extremely surprised. 

I dialed in the following settings on that setup:

5.3GHZ - All core - No AVX Offset
49 Ring Max and Min
3600Mhz -C16 Memory
1.365v V Core
All Power Limits Removed in Asus Bios
LLC4
240MM AIO Cooler - Temps under 85c


Now being that this was in my home theater machine, and clocking higher then my gaming rig; I decided to move the chip over to my main setup. I've posted here before about that rig and CPU. SP63 chip that is delidded and copper IHS. Clocked at 5.2ghz at 1.42v V Core.

The motherboard in question in the rig is an ASUS Maximus XII Formula. I found it to be worse at overclocking then the plain hero with this chip. In addition it shows the chip to be an SP63, yet the Hero shows it to be a 118. I can tell you that the 118 chip is far better in an apples to apples comparison. 

I ended up dialing in the following settings.
5.3GHZ on 8 cores, 5.1 GHZ when boosting all 10 in CB R20 - No AVX Offset
49 Ring Max and Min
3900Mhz -C14 Memory
1.38v V Core
All Power Limits Removed in Asus Bios
LLC4
Custom Loop 360x60mm Radiator for CPU loop, GPU in separate loop.


I guess the point of the post is regarding the Hero vs. the Formula. I wonder why my cheaper motherboard from the same company is overclocking higher and more consistently with less voltage. It is also binning the chip lower.


Has anyone else seen this happen. 


P.S both motherboards are on the latest bios updates. I used the link in this thread from the ASUS forum.


Either way, super stocked to get a high bin chip (Came from NewEgg's latest batch.)



Cheers all!


----------



## Vaporware

zlatanselvic said:


> Hey All,
> 
> I had an opportunity to snag another 10900K. Came in today and I found some interesting results.
> 
> I have a spare Maximus Hero XII board that I tested the chip on. It SP'd at 118! I was extremely surprised.
> 
> I dialed in the following settings on that setup:
> 
> 5.3GHZ - All core - No AVX Offset
> 49 Ring Max and Min
> 3600Mhz -C16 Memory
> 1.365v V Core
> All Power Limits Removed in Asus Bios
> LLC4
> 240MM AIO Cooler - Temps under 85c
> 
> 
> Now being that this was in my home theater machine, and clocking higher then my gaming rig; I decided to move the chip over to my main setup. I've posted here before about that rig and CPU. SP63 chip that is delidded and copper IHS. Clocked at 5.2ghz at 1.42v V Core.
> 
> The motherboard in question in the rig is an ASUS Maximus XII Formula. I found it to be worse at overclocking then the plain hero with this chip. In addition it shows the chip to be an SP63, yet the Hero shows it to be a 118. I can tell you that the 118 chip is far better in an apples to apples comparison.
> 
> I ended up dialing in the following settings.
> 5.3GHZ on 8 cores, 5.1 GHZ when boosting all 10 in CB R20 - No AVX Offset
> 49 Ring Max and Min
> 3900Mhz -C14 Memory
> 1.38v V Core
> All Power Limits Removed in Asus Bios
> LLC4
> Custom Loop 360x60mm Radiator for CPU loop, GPU in separate loop.
> 
> 
> I guess the point of the post is regarding the Hero vs. the Formula. I wonder why my cheaper motherboard from the same company is overclocking higher and more consistently with less voltage. It is also binning the chip lower.
> 
> 
> Has anyone else seen this happen.
> 
> 
> P.S both motherboards are on the latest bios updates. I used the link in this thread from the ASUS forum.
> 
> 
> Either way, super stocked to get a high bin chip (Came from NewEgg's latest batch.)
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers all!



When the chip is in the motherboard showing SP118 what are the VF points?


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

zlatanselvic said:


> Hey All,
> 
> I had an opportunity to snag another 10900K. Came in today and I found some interesting results.
> 
> I have a spare Maximus Hero XII board that I tested the chip on. It SP'd at 118! I was extremely surprised.
> 
> I dialed in the following settings on that setup:
> 
> 5.3GHZ - All core - No AVX Offset
> 49 Ring Max and Min
> 3600Mhz -C16 Memory
> 1.365v V Core
> All Power Limits Removed in Asus Bios
> LLC4
> 240MM AIO Cooler - Temps under 85c
> 
> 
> Now being that this was in my home theater machine, and clocking higher then my gaming rig; I decided to move the chip over to my main setup. I've posted here before about that rig and CPU. SP63 chip that is delidded and copper IHS. Clocked at 5.2ghz at 1.42v V Core.
> 
> The motherboard in question in the rig is an ASUS Maximus XII Formula. I found it to be worse at overclocking then the plain hero with this chip. In addition it shows the chip to be an SP63, yet the Hero shows it to be a 118. I can tell you that the 118 chip is far better in an apples to apples comparison.
> 
> I ended up dialing in the following settings.
> 5.3GHZ on 8 cores, 5.1 GHZ when boosting all 10 in CB R20 - No AVX Offset
> 49 Ring Max and Min
> 3900Mhz -C14 Memory
> 1.38v V Core
> All Power Limits Removed in Asus Bios
> LLC4
> Custom Loop 360x60mm Radiator for CPU loop, GPU in separate loop.
> 
> 
> I guess the point of the post is regarding the Hero vs. the Formula. I wonder why my cheaper motherboard from the same company is overclocking higher and more consistently with less voltage. It is also binning the chip lower.
> 
> 
> Has anyone else seen this happen.
> 
> 
> P.S both motherboards are on the latest bios updates. I used the link in this thread from the ASUS forum.
> 
> 
> Either way, super stocked to get a high bin chip (Came from NewEgg's latest batch.)
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers all!


Check your pins in the socket. Some of them might be bent.


----------



## zlatanselvic

Vaporware said:


> When the chip is in the motherboard showing SP118 what are the VF points?


I did not screen cap them unfortunately. The chip is now in a rigid tube setup. It'll be a pain in the ass to pull apart. I don't really want to do all the work again for science lol. You think that's the cause/driver?


----------



## zlatanselvic

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> Check your pins in the socket. Some of them might be bent.


Checked pins during install, including popping it out to make sure it's sitting flush as the custom IHS one was different. Everything looked solid.


----------



## Baasha

With an SP118 chip, you should be at 5.3Ghz at 1.30V or less. I'm at 5.2Ghz on a SP63 at 1.35V (BIOS).

I think you might have the highest SP 10900K that I've heard of/seen online. If you have beastly cooling, you might be able to get 5.5Ghz at ~ 1.40V in BIOS (??). As others have said, post a screenshot of your VF points (it's in the BIOS).



zlatanselvic said:


> Hey All,
> 
> I had an opportunity to snag another 10900K. Came in today and I found some interesting results.
> 
> I have a spare Maximus Hero XII board that I tested the chip on. It SP'd at 118! I was extremely surprised.
> 
> I dialed in the following settings on that setup:
> 
> 5.3GHZ - All core - No AVX Offset
> 49 Ring Max and Min
> 3600Mhz -C16 Memory
> 1.365v V Core
> All Power Limits Removed in Asus Bios
> LLC4
> 240MM AIO Cooler - Temps under 85c
> 
> 
> Now being that this was in my home theater machine, and clocking higher then my gaming rig; I decided to move the chip over to my main setup. I've posted here before about that rig and CPU. SP63 chip that is delidded and copper IHS. Clocked at 5.2ghz at 1.42v V Core.
> 
> The motherboard in question in the rig is an ASUS Maximus XII Formula. I found it to be worse at overclocking then the plain hero with this chip. In addition it shows the chip to be an SP63, yet the Hero shows it to be a 118. I can tell you that the 118 chip is far better in an apples to apples comparison.
> 
> I ended up dialing in the following settings.
> 5.3GHZ on 8 cores, 5.1 GHZ when boosting all 10 in CB R20 - No AVX Offset
> 49 Ring Max and Min
> 3900Mhz -C14 Memory
> 1.38v V Core
> All Power Limits Removed in Asus Bios
> LLC4
> Custom Loop 360x60mm Radiator for CPU loop, GPU in separate loop.
> 
> 
> I guess the point of the post is regarding the Hero vs. the Formula. I wonder why my cheaper motherboard from the same company is overclocking higher and more consistently with less voltage. It is also binning the chip lower.
> 
> 
> Has anyone else seen this happen.
> 
> 
> P.S both motherboards are on the latest bios updates. I used the link in this thread from the ASUS forum.
> 
> 
> Either way, super stocked to get a high bin chip (Came from NewEgg's latest batch.)
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers all!


----------



## zlatanselvic

That’s what I thought too. Here’s a pic from the Hero motherboard from earlier today.





Baasha said:


> With an SP118 chip, you should be at 5.3Ghz at 1.30V or less. I'm at 5.2Ghz on a SP63 at 1.35V (BIOS).
> 
> I think you might have the highest SP 10900K that I've heard of/seen online. If you have beastly cooling, you might be able to get 5.5Ghz at ~ 1.40V in BIOS (??). As others have said, post a screenshot of your VF points (it's in the BIOS).
> 
> 
> 
> zlatanselvic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey All,
> 
> I had an opportunity to snag another 10900K. Came in today and I found some interesting results.
> 
> I have a spare Maximus Hero XII board that I tested the chip on. It SP'd at 118! I was extremely surprised.
> 
> I dialed in the following settings on that setup:
> 
> 5.3GHZ - All core - No AVX Offset
> 49 Ring Max and Min
> 3600Mhz -C16 Memory
> 1.365v V Core
> All Power Limits Removed in Asus Bios
> LLC4
> 240MM AIO Cooler - Temps under 85c
> 
> 
> Now being that this was in my home theater machine, and clocking higher then my gaming rig; I decided to move the chip over to my main setup. I've posted here before about that rig and CPU. SP63 chip that is delidded and copper IHS. Clocked at 5.2ghz at 1.42v V Core.
> 
> The motherboard in question in the rig is an ASUS Maximus XII Formula. I found it to be worse at overclocking then the plain hero with this chip. In addition it shows the chip to be an SP63, yet the Hero shows it to be a 118. I can tell you that the 118 chip is far better in an apples to apples comparison.
> 
> I ended up dialing in the following settings.
> 5.3GHZ on 8 cores, 5.1 GHZ when boosting all 10 in CB R20 - No AVX Offset
> 49 Ring Max and Min
> 3900Mhz -C14 Memory
> 1.38v V Core
> All Power Limits Removed in Asus Bios
> LLC4
> Custom Loop 360x60mm Radiator for CPU loop, GPU in separate loop.
> 
> 
> I guess the point of the post is regarding the Hero vs. the Formula. I wonder why my cheaper motherboard from the same company is overclocking higher and more consistently with less voltage. It is also binning the chip lower.
> 
> 
> Has anyone else seen this happen.
> 
> 
> P.S both motherboards are on the latest bios updates. I used the link in this thread from the ASUS forum.
> 
> 
> Either way, super stocked to get a high bin chip (Came from NewEgg's latest batch.)
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers all!
Click to expand...


----------



## Falkentyne

Thebc2 said:


> Great info as always. I just found it odd how horrible that sp85 was, I couldn’t even get it stable at 5.1 with over 1.4v in the bios. It would end up pulling less under load than my sp63, but run hotter (lol). Example:
> 
> Running p95 small fft avx under load:
> 
> Core/uncore/bios voltage/load voltage/temp at load
> 
> Sp63 (rock solid over night): 5.2/4.9/1.425/1.314/92
> Sp85 (crashes within minutes): 5.2/4.3/1.45/1.275/101
> 
> What I can’t get my head around is how the sp85’s load voltage is so much lower yet it runs almost 10c hotter. I know, the leakage. But it has no OC stability to speak of so not sure where the silicon benefit is exactly.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Looks like the 10C hotter is from it drawing more amps. Vdroop is higher because amps is higher. This was LLC6 right?

If you were at a bios 1.425v (1425mv), pulling 250 amps with LLC6 (.485 mOhm loadline): 1425 - (250 * .485)=1.303v for the SP chip
If you were pulling 280 amps on the SP85: 1425 - (280 * .485) = 1.289v. 
The amps difference could account for that.

Did you look in Asus EC to see the CPU Current (amps) and CPU Power (watts)?


----------



## Falkentyne

zlatanselvic said:


> That’s what I thought too. Here’s a pic from the Hero motherboard from earlier today.


The SP misreporting was usually fixed (on updated BIOS) by doing a "deep" CMOS clear.
That is, unplugging power supply/switch, waiting 30 seconds for all RGB to turn off, then shorting the clear CMOS jumper or pressing the clear CMOS button for 20 seconds. Then removing the jumper/screwdriver/button and then checking the BIOS.

That's the proper way to do a cmos clear. Not just pressing the button once right after flipping the PSU switch.
Other than that, I'm as confused as you are. :/


----------



## zlatanselvic

Just tried that my friend, same result! Check out the VF curve




Falkentyne said:


> zlatanselvic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thatâ€™️s what I thought too. Hereâ€™️s a pic from the Hero motherboard from earlier today.
> 
> 
> 
> The SP misreporting was usually fixed (on updated BIOS) by doing a "deep" CMOS clear.
> That is, unplugging power supply/switch, waiting 30 seconds for all RGB to turn off, then shorting the clear CMOS jumper or pressing the clear CMOS button for 20 seconds. Then removing the jumper/screwdriver/button and then checking the BIOS.
> 
> That's the proper way to do a cmos clear. Not just pressing the button once right after flipping the PSU switch.
> Other than that, I'm as confused as you are. :/
Click to expand...


----------



## Falkentyne

zlatanselvic said:


> Just tried that my friend, same result! Check out the VF curve


This chip is reporting "SP 118" in this exact motherboard? Or is it reporting SP 63?
This VF is absolutely NOT even close to SP 118 at all. That's an SP 63 curve.


----------



## zlatanselvic

Falkentyne said:


> This chip is reporting "SP 118" in this exact motherboard? Or is it reporting SP 63?
> This VF is absolutely NOT even close to SP 118 at all. That's an SP 63 curve.


It's reporting 63 on this formula motherboard.

On a hero board it was reporting 118


----------



## Falkentyne

zlatanselvic said:


> It's reporting 63 on this formula motherboard.
> 
> On a hero board it was reporting 118


This is the board that is overclocking it poorly? Or was the Hero overclocking it poorly?

Can you do a favor for me please?
And sorry if I missed this before.

Can you set your CPU to 5.2 ghz, make sure c-states and power saving/EIST is completely disabled, make sure AC/DC Loadline is 0.01 mOhms (important!), and report the CPU VID at idle at about 30C? (make sure there is no load on any of the cores).


----------



## zlatanselvic

Falkentyne said:


> This is the board that is overclocking it poorly? Or was the Hero overclocking it poorly?
> 
> Can you do a favor for me please?
> And sorry if I missed this before.
> 
> Can you set your CPU to 5.2 ghz, make sure c-states and power saving/EIST is completely disabled, make sure AC/DC Loadline is 0.01 mOhms (important!), and report the CPU VID at idle at about 30C? (make sure there is no load on any of the cores).




No worries! Thanks for the help!


The hero board read it as sp 118 and it overclocked to 5.3ghz at 1.365v

The formula board is reporting an sp of 63 with these settings and is producing a weaker overclock.

I will jump over and do that in 15min!


----------



## Falkentyne

zlatanselvic said:


> No worries! Thanks for the help!
> 
> 
> The hero board read it as sp 118 and it overclocked to 5.3ghz at 1.365v
> 
> The formula board is reporting an sp of 63 with these settings and is producing a weaker overclock.
> 
> I will jump over and do that in 15min!


I just need the idle VID at 5.2 ghz and the temp the idle VID is taken at.
Then I can calculate the VF point myself.
I find it hard to believe a CPU would have a 1.40v VID at 30C at 5.2 ghz.
Guess I'll find out soon


----------



## zlatanselvic

In bios and windows 



Falkentyne said:


> zlatanselvic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No worries! Thanks for the help!
> 
> 
> The hero board read it as sp 118 and it overclocked to 5.3ghz at 1.365v
> 
> The formula board is reporting an sp of 63 with these settings and is producing a weaker overclock.
> 
> I will jump over and do that in 15min!
> 
> 
> 
> I just need the idle VID at 5.2 ghz and the temp the idle VID is taken at.
> Then I can calculate the VF point myself.
> I find it hard to believe a CPU would have a 1.40v VID at 30C at 5.2 ghz.
> Guess I'll find out soon /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
Click to expand...


----------



## Falkentyne

zlatanselvic said:


> In bios and windows


That's not the VID :/ Vcore is not VID. Please don't mix them up.

Please use HWinfo64 to look at the VID. Coretemp is garbage. So is hwmonitor. 
Each core will have its own VID, although they will usually be the same except changing slightly when each core is under load.


----------



## zlatanselvic

Just installed HWinfo64. Just to confirm. Is this what you are looking for?




Falkentyne said:


> That's not the VID :/ Vcore is not VID. Please don't mix them up.
> 
> Please use HWinfo64 to look at the VID. Coretemp is garbage. So is hwmonitor.
> Each core will have its own VID, although they will usually be the same except changing slightly when each core is under load.


----------



## zlatanselvic

I'm an idiot


----------



## skullbringer

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> They were in different slots. You should bin them in the same slot (B).


yeah I noticed that after posting... 

but on the Apex IOLs for both channels are the same anyways. did a test afterwards with both in channel a to confirm, and same result



truth hurts said:


> you should be d0 for channel a and d0 channel b for dual channel mode i would have thought?
> 
> i run twcl at 14 and tcke at 4 for that speed


These are the absolute lowest timings both sticks can do stable. Goes to show you how crappy the sn ending in 73 stick is...


----------



## Falkentyne

zlatanselvic said:


> I'm an idiot


Hi, this is very bizarre.
Your VID is bouncing back and forth.

It's bouncing from 1.245v to 1.40v.

1.245v VID At 5.2 ghz is SP 110 quality.

1.40v VID at 5.2 ghz is SP 63 quality

Is there any thing running on your computer in the background?
Can you make sure nothing is eating up CPU cycles?

Please go into your BIOS and make 100% sure "C-states" are completely disabled.
The one time I saw this happen with VID fluctuating like this was when C-states were "Auto" instead of disabled.

Also disable SPEED SHIFT, as well as Speedstep (EIST) please.
These options should be to the "right" of advanced (where the voltage settings are--go to the right of that) and then go to CPU Configuration. 


Then, after you do all of that, go back into windows, go to "power options" and set min and max CPU power state to 100% or just use "high performance" power plan and make sure min and max processor is 100%.

Your VID should not be changing like that at all.

*Edit* why is your CPU "idle" at 40C? Your idle should be 30C or below. It's like something is running in the background.
In hwinfo64, there should be tables like CPU 0 T0 usage, CPU 0 T1 usage, CPU 1 T0 usage, CPU 1 T1 usage, and so on. These should be as close to 0% as possible

*Edit* #2:
On the CPU temp sensors (for each core), all of the cores should be like within 2C of each other at idle. They shouldn't be all over the place either, or something is using up CPU cycles somewhere.
Even with something SUPER light running, the CPU VIDs should be within 30mv of each other, example, 1.245v to 1.275v max on each VID. It should not bounce from 1.245v to 1.40v !! Absolutely not!

I saw this happen on my Gigabyte Z490 Aorus master, when I had c-states set to "Auto".


----------



## cstkl1

zlatanselvic said:


> Just tried that my friend, same result! Check out the VF curve


oo not bad. u should be able to do vmin 1.19-1.2v for 5.1ghz..

ignore the sp. just see the 5.1..

sp 118 5.1 arnd 1.229... 

5.2ghz.. sp 118 has a 90mv diff. sp100 arnd 100mv from 5.1

i tested 100mv correct. 90mv no way on mine (default 134mv diff)


----------



## Nizzen

Sp 63 and 5300mhz @ 1.28v load on Apex. Looks like SP means not to much


----------



## TK421

Falkentyne said:


> Under that tight time limit?
> 
> 1) Look at VF point in BIOS and post the VF points shown for 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 ghz. The "VF" points will tell you the VID also. Because the VF points are based on a VID taken at 100C core temp. So its' easy to just backtrack down to "Idle" 30C by simple math, but this math changes at each core multiplier.
> 
> For example at 5 ghz, it's -0.9mv every -1C temp drop starting at 100C, and at 5.3 ghz its -1.55mv every -1C temp drop, starting at 100C. For 5.2 ghz it's -1.45mv every -1C.
> 
> Let's say your VF point for 5.2 ghz is 1.394v. That's based on VID at 100C.
> To get idle VID (30C idle), then you simply go 1394mv (always convert volts to millivolts!!) , so 1394mv - (1.45 * 70), since 100 -70=30C right? easy).
> So that gives you 1292mv or 1.292v would be your idle VID.
> 
> You can do this if you're in a huge hurry. Or just look at idle in windows (as long as AC and DC Loadline are 0.01 mOhms).
> 
> 2) Test 5.3 ghz core, 4.7 ghz cache, at 1.40v Bios set, + LLC6, set, in CPU Power management, CPU "temperature protection" to 105C, and run Realbench 2.56 for 15 minutes and look for CPU Cache L0 errors in HWinfo64).
> If no errors, reduce vcore 10mv and try again. If you get no errors starting out, that's a very good sign. (this will be about 1.279v load voltage).
> 
> If you are unlucky and you can't keep temps under 100C (no CPU Cache L0 error, but too hot), then try 5.2 ghz core, 4.9 ghz cache and 1.350v Bios voltage set + LLC6, test Realbench 2.56 15 minutes per run and work your way down 10mv at a time until you get L0 errors or BSOD.
> 
> It's the 5.3 ghz point that is important here. The lower vcore you need, the better it is for 5.2, 5.1, you get the drill. But if you can't handle the heat, then 5.2 ghz.





Falkentyne said:


> I don't like high idle voltages.
> Also some games tend to act funny if vcore is too low if cache ratio is high (someone earlier in this thread explained something about how minecraft loads a complete thread to 100% and then a bunch of other threads which puts a massive load on the cache, causing internal parity errors, apparently red dead redemption 2 does something similar, which is why a more aggressive LLC can actually improve this (at the same exact load voltage, despite the transient response penalty on the actual core). It's 'sort of strange actually. LLC affects cache differently than core.
> 
> Like for example on my CPU:
> 
> Running Minecraft: 4.7 ghz LLC4, 1.150v Bios set = 1.19v load get = "CPU Internal Parity Errors" on multiplayer minecraft (Hypixel, Cubecraft, etc).
> But. 4.7 ghz LLC8 (!), 1.15v Bios set = 1.10v load get=no internal parity errors. Probably because the LLC helps the cache become more stable.
> For LLC4, I need like 1.175v Bios set (!!) to stop the internal parity errors fully (1.145v load get)
> 
> 
> 
> So your VID at 100C is 1.334v at 5.2 ghz. So 1.245v @ 5.2 ghz looks accurate to me.
> 1334mv - (70C "Diff" * 1.45) =1.232v at 30C for "idle" (100C - 70C=30C, which is where that 70 "diff"came from). A bit off but close enough. Because VID table at 5.2 ghz is -1.45mv every -1C temp drop.
> 
> And you're stable at 1.19v load, so 50mv guardband. I don't see a problem. I see a good chip, that's what I see.







Ok I tried with 



- VRM settings at extreme
- Switching frequency 1000KHz
- 5.3GHz core with 1.4v
- Set cache max to 47


Can't get this to run cinebench R20 :|






I'll try to do the 5.2 profile and report back












SP and v/f curve


----------



## zlatanselvic

Thank you for the feedback. I followed the steps you provided. I wasn't too sure what to change in those power settings prior. Glad you showed me that.

Here's where it shakes out now. VCore is set to 1.4




Falkentyne said:


> Hi, this is very bizarre.
> Your VID is bouncing back and forth.
> 
> It's bouncing from 1.245v to 1.40v.
> 
> 1.245v VID At 5.2 ghz is SP 110 quality.
> 
> 1.40v VID at 5.2 ghz is SP 63 quality
> 
> Is there any thing running on your computer in the background?
> Can you make sure nothing is eating up CPU cycles?
> 
> Please go into your BIOS and make 100% sure "C-states" are completely disabled.
> The one time I saw this happen with VID fluctuating like this was when C-states were "Auto" instead of disabled.
> 
> Also disable SPEED SHIFT, as well as Speedstep (EIST) please.
> These options should be to the "right" of advanced (where the voltage settings are--go to the right of that) and then go to CPU Configuration.
> 
> 
> Then, after you do all of that, go back into windows, go to "power options" and set min and max CPU power state to 100% or just use "high performance" power plan and make sure min and max processor is 100%.
> 
> Your VID should not be changing like that at all.
> 
> *Edit* why is your CPU "idle" at 40C? Your idle should be 30C or below. It's like something is running in the background.
> In hwinfo64, there should be tables like CPU 0 T0 usage, CPU 0 T1 usage, CPU 1 T0 usage, CPU 1 T1 usage, and so on. These should be as close to 0% as possible
> 
> *Edit* #2:
> On the CPU temp sensors (for each core), all of the cores should be like within 2C of each other at idle. They shouldn't be all over the place either, or something is using up CPU cycles somewhere.
> Even with something SUPER light running, the CPU VIDs should be within 30mv of each other, example, 1.245v to 1.275v max on each VID. It should not bounce from 1.245v to 1.40v !! Absolutely not!
> 
> I saw this happen on my Gigabyte Z490 Aorus master, when I had c-states set to "Auto".


----------



## Falkentyne

zlatanselvic said:


> Thank you for the feedback. I followed the steps you provided. I wasn't too sure what to change in those power settings prior. Glad you showed me that.
> 
> Here's where it shakes out now. VCore is set to 1.4


Ok 1.370v VID at 5.2 ghz at 30C.
That is absolutely not a SP 110+ chip.

That's SP63. So the formula is reporting it correctly. The Hero reporting it as SP 110 must be having the same issue with detecting the base VID. 
It would be......very interesting to see if it said in BIOS if the 5.2 VF point was 1.350v or something.

As to why the hero overclocks it better than the formula? I have no idea.


----------



## zlatanselvic

Falkentyne said:


> Ok 1.370v VID at 5.2 ghz at 30C.
> That is absolutely not a SP 110+ chip.
> 
> That's SP63. So the formula is reporting it correctly. The Hero reporting it as SP 110 must be having the same issue with detecting the base VID.
> It would be......very interesting to see if it said in BIOS if the 5.2 VF point was 1.350v or something.
> 
> As to why the hero overclocks it better than the formula? I have no idea.


That's what I figured as well. Maybe manufacturing variances between the boards and chips ect. 

I found a few stability issues and tweaked it a bit.

5.3GHz - 8 Cores
5.2Ghz - 10 Cores
AVX - 1
1.4V VCore in Bios


CB R20 Scores around 6710!

Thanks again for the assist!


----------



## Falkentyne

zlatanselvic said:


> That's what I figured as well. Maybe manufacturing variances between the boards and chips ect.
> 
> I found a few stability issues and tweaked it a bit.
> 
> 5.3GHz - 8 Cores
> 5.2Ghz - 10 Cores
> AVX - 1
> 1.4V VCore in Bios
> 
> 
> CB R20 Scores around 6710!
> 
> Thanks again for the assist!


What's your loadline calibration level ?


----------



## Nizzen

Got a new 10900k today. Wonder if this is better than my sp63


----------



## zlatanselvic

Falkentyne said:


> What's your loadline calibration level ?


LLC4


----------



## Falkentyne

zlatanselvic said:


> LLC4


1.40v Bios set + LLC4 is a GIGANTIC ask for stability at 5.3 ghz. Even at 5.2 ghz, LLC4 +1.40v bios set is going to be a ton of vdroop.

Try LLC6 with that at 5.3 ghz.

Then test and work down the vcore from there. I suspect LLC6 + 1.40v will be stable. Be sure to post the load voltage when you test it.


----------



## TK421

Falkentyne said:


> 1.40v Bios set + LLC4 is a GIGANTIC ask for stability at 5.3 ghz. Even at 5.2 ghz, LLC4 +1.40v bios set is going to be a ton of vdroop.
> 
> Try LLC6 with that at 5.3 ghz.
> 
> Then test and work down the vcore from there. I suspect LLC6 + 1.40v will be stable. Be sure to post the load voltage when you test it.



Posted my bios SP and V/F curve on the page before.


I couldn't even get 5.2 stable on 1.385 LLC6 x_x


----------



## Baasha

Definitely looks like the SP numbers are placebo if anything.

My SP63 is a champ at 5.2Ghz 1.35V in BIOS. Although I can't get 5.3Ghz even at 1.40V in BIOS stable meh...

Anyone hit 5.5Ghz yet? Luumi is the only one I've seen with 5.5Ghz:


----------



## TK421

Baasha said:


> Definitely looks like the SP numbers are placebo if anything.
> 
> My SP63 is a champ at 5.2Ghz 1.35V in BIOS. Although I can't get 5.3Ghz even at 1.40V in BIOS stable meh...
> 
> Anyone hit 5.5Ghz yet? Luumi is the only one I've seen with 5.5Ghz:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2MPXKqBcRI&t=29s





5.3GHz with bios set 1.465v isn't even stable for my SP63


----------



## zlatanselvic

LLC6 was the answer. I was able to remove the 1 AVX and set it back down to zero.

5.3ghz - 8 core
5.2ghz - 10 core
1.4v V core in Bios







Falkentyne said:


> zlatanselvic said:
> 
> 
> 
> LLC4
> 
> 
> 
> 1.40v Bios set + LLC4 is a GIGANTIC ask for stability at 5.3 ghz. Even at 5.2 ghz, LLC4 +1.40v bios set is going to be a ton of vdroop.
> 
> Try LLC6 with that at 5.3 ghz.
> 
> Then test and work down the vcore from there. I suspect LLC6 + 1.40v will be stable. Be sure to post the load voltage when you test it.
Click to expand...


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Dancop with his sp90 something hit 5.4ghz at 1.26v in bios and temp is in the 60s. No idea how sp90 something can do 5.4 at that low voltage.


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

This is why I think SP rating is geared more towards ln2. Highest clocking chips on ln2 have highest SP ratings yeah? SP 118 world record setter right?


----------



## TK421

Safe VCCSA for everyday use?


----------



## cstkl1

Nizzen said:


> Sp 63 and 5300mhz @ 1.28v load on Apex. Looks like SP means not to much


it nvr did bro.
i always see from 5.1 vid and see 4.3 as potential (closer to 1v)

then gauge how far 5.1 to 5.2.. 5.3 normally not far from 5.2 and require some ram tweak.


----------



## cstkl1

XGS-Duplicity said:


> This is why I think SP rating is geared more towards ln2. Highest clocking chips on ln2 have highest SP ratings yeah? SP 118 world record setter right?


from what i can say.. its not really cpu clock per say. the high sp ones have better die termination interaction with memory controller hence a higher clock..

example 5.2 to 5.3.. those high sp ones dont need a bump in vcssa or loosen @iOL. 

or all this could be fluke as it might depend on ram.


----------



## cstkl1

TK421 said:


> Safe VCCSA for everyday use?


see how ppl whacked pll bandwidth..

i think intel magic on 10700k/10900k.. these cpus dont die easy.


----------



## Nizzen

TK421 said:


> Safe VCCSA for everyday use?


1.65v is safe until someone proof othervice 

We need that for 4800c17++


----------



## TK421

cstkl1 said:


> see how ppl whacked pll bandwidth..
> 
> i think intel magic on 10700k/10900k.. these cpus dont die easy.





Nizzen said:


> 1.65v is safe until someone proof othervice
> 
> We need that for 4800c17++



Do I need to tweak PLL too? Which voltage is this labelled in the bios and what's a good starting point?




I'm at 1.35v for 4000 15-16-16-36 2T


----------



## Nizzen

TK421 said:


> Do I need to tweak PLL too? Which voltage is this labelled in the bios and what's a good starting point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm at 1.35v for 4000 15-16-16-36 2T


I haven't adjusted the pll on Apex


----------



## skullbringer

Nizzen said:


> 1.65v is safe until someone proof othervice
> 
> We need that for 4800c17++


are you serious? I'm genuinely asking


----------



## cstkl1

skullbringer said:


> are you serious? I'm genuinely asking


All the answer is genuine. So far what would kill a 8700k/9900k.. 10 series not dieing..


----------



## Nizzen

cstkl1 said:


> All the answer is genuine. So far what would kill a 8700k/9900k.. 10 series not dieing..


Many has ran and running 1.6 vsa on 8086/8700k/9900k without dying/degrading for months. So it's safe enough. Very high VCCSIO is worse I think. High vcore is just bad for temp 

If one of my 10900k's are dying, I will post it here  
My 9900k was ran pretty hard since day 1. Got it just days after release, and it is still alive.

I haven't seen ANY evidence that 1.6-1.65v VCCSA is killing/degrading any cpu 
People are often just "saying" it's not good or safe, but people allways thinking and believing. There is no "knowing" 

Many takes stupid rumors for facts, just because "they said it on the Internet"


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
After seeing 2.0v on vccin on x299 that juice has to be going through something on z490


----------



## cstkl1

Nizzen said:


> Many has ran and running 1.6 vsa on 8086/8700k/9900k without dying/degrading for months. So it's safe enough. Very high VCCSIO is worse I think. High vcore is just bad for temp
> 
> If one of my 10900k's are dying, I will post it here
> My 9900k was ran pretty hard since day 1. Got it just days after release, and it is still alive.
> 
> I haven't seen ANY evidence that 1.6-1.65v VCCSA is killing/degrading any cpu
> People are often just "saying" it's not good or safe, but people allways thinking and believing. There is no "knowing"
> 
> Many takes stupid rumors for facts, just because "they said it on the Internet"


i always think its mobo.. asus,msi high end ok

giga.. ahem.. i dont trust a single voltage reading that board shows..


----------



## skullbringer

Nizzen said:


> Many has ran and running 1.6 vsa on 8086/8700k/9900k without dying/degrading for months. So it's safe enough. Very high VCCSIO is worse I think. High vcore is just bad for temp
> 
> If one of my 10900k's are dying, I will post it here
> My 9900k was ran pretty hard since day 1. Got it just days after release, and it is still alive.
> 
> I haven't seen ANY evidence that 1.6-1.65v VCCSA is killing/degrading any cpu
> People are often just "saying" it's not good or safe, but people allways thinking and believing. There is no "knowing"
> 
> Many takes stupid rumors for facts, just because "they said it on the Internet"


lol and I have been fiddling with 1.45V SA for days now wondering why I cant get 4700 CL17 stable , ***

thx though


----------



## skullbringer

Over on the ROG forums 2 dudes (Apothysis and bscool) had a working version of MemTweakIt, that allows for tweaking settings that are not exposed in BIOS and significantly decrease latency.

The version ships on the driver DVDs of the Apex board, but no download page has it listed and Asus Customer Support doesn't know about it lol 

I pulled it from my dvd and uploaded it here, for 21st century sake, MemTweakIt version 2.02.48: 
https://filehorst.de/d/dDvyBAAe


You can tweak the settings tXP (-3) and PPD (0) to decrease latency. Tried it myself and this is the result:
with default tXP and PPD: *35.1 ns*
with tXP -3 and PPD default: *34.6 ns*
with txP -3 and PPD 0: *33.8 ns*


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

skullbringer said:


> Over on the ROG forums 2 dudes (Apothysis and bscool) had a working version of MemTweakIt, that allows for tweaking settings that are not exposed in BIOS and significantly decrease latency.
> 
> The version ships on the driver DVDs of the Apex board, but no download page has it listed and Asus Customer Support doesn't know about it lol
> 
> I pulled it from my dvd and uploaded it here, for 21st century sake, MemTweakIt version 2.02.48:
> https://filehorst.de/d/dDvyBAAe
> 
> 
> You can tweak the settings tXP (-3) and PPD (0) to decrease latency. Tried it myself and this is the result:
> with default tXP and PPD: *35.1 ns*
> with tXP -3 and PPD default: *34.6 ns*
> with txP -3 and PPD 0: *33.8 ns*


Thanks, further shrink the latency from 35.3 ns to 34.0ns.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> skullbringer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Over on the ROG forums 2 dudes (Apothysis and bscool) had a working version of MemTweakIt, that allows for tweaking settings that are not exposed in BIOS and significantly decrease latency.
> 
> The version ships on the driver DVDs of the Apex board, but no download page has it listed and Asus Customer Support doesn't know about it lol
> 
> I pulled it from my dvd and uploaded it here, for 21st century sake, MemTweakIt version 2.02.48:
> https://filehorst.de/d/dDvyBAAe
> 
> 
> You can tweak the settings tXP (-3) and PPD (0) to decrease latency. Tried it myself and this is the result:
> with default tXP and PPD: *35.1 ns*
> with tXP -3 and PPD default: *34.6 ns*
> with txP -3 and PPD 0: *33.8 ns*
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, further shrink the latency from 35.3 ns to 34.0ns.
Click to expand...

Wow, that’s really good. 2 or 4 DIMMs?


----------



## Falkentyne

skullbringer said:


> Over on the ROG forums 2 dudes (Apothysis and bscool) had a working version of MemTweakIt, that allows for tweaking settings that are not exposed in BIOS and significantly decrease latency.
> 
> The version ships on the driver DVDs of the Apex board, but no download page has it listed and Asus Customer Support doesn't know about it lol
> 
> I pulled it from my dvd and uploaded it here, for 21st century sake, MemTweakIt version 2.02.48:
> https://filehorst.de/d/dDvyBAAe
> 
> 
> You can tweak the settings tXP (-3) and PPD (0) to decrease latency. Tried it myself and this is the result:
> with default tXP and PPD: *35.1 ns*
> with tXP -3 and PPD default: *34.6 ns*
> with txP -3 and PPD 0: *33.8 ns*


Hmm. Memtweakit 2.02.46 has these settings too. This version wasn't released to the public?
Probably an older version of the CD. So everyone should have this version already on their CD?


----------



## Nizzen

Error 404


----------



## Nizzen

skullbringer said:


> Over on the ROG forums 2 dudes (Apothysis and bscool) had a working version of MemTweakIt, that allows for tweaking settings that are not exposed in BIOS and significantly decrease latency.
> 
> The version ships on the driver DVDs of the Apex board, but no download page has it listed and Asus Customer Support doesn't know about it lol
> 
> I pulled it from my dvd and uploaded it here, for 21st century sake, MemTweakIt version 2.02.48:
> https://filehorst.de/d/dDvyBAAe
> 
> 
> You can tweak the settings tXP (-3) and PPD (0) to decrease latency. Tried it myself and this is the result:
> with default tXP and PPD: *35.1 ns*
> with tXP -3 and PPD default: *34.6 ns*
> with txP -3 and PPD 0: *33.8 ns*


Nice find 
+1


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

0451 said:


> Wow, that’s really good. 2 or 4 DIMMs?


Thanks, its 2dimms. Very low voltages for daily use.


----------



## SuperMumrik

skullbringer said:


> lol and I have been fiddling with 1.45V SA for days now wondering why I cant get 4700 CL17 stable , ***
> 
> thx though



I need 1.55ish SA with [email protected]/5.2
Under suicide runs I leave it at auto for convince (1.65)


BTW, the tweak works very well :h34r-smi
And seems like I'm still fine at 1.56vdimm (up to 100% HCI at least)


----------



## warbucks

I managed to pick up a second 10900k today. Gonna check it out tonight and see whether it's better than my current 10900k.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Good luck local micro center is full of them 
600.us though so, they raised the price by 70.us.


----------



## SoldierRBT

warbucks said:


> I managed to pick up a second 10900k today. Gonna check it out tonight and see whether it's better than my current 10900k.


Got 2 new 10900K from that same batch. Please report back OC results. I'll test both when I get my Apex board.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

I’m not convinced there are good batches and bad batches. If I get a golden sample from the center of the wafer, you are less likely to also get one from the center of the same wafer. It’s like if I have an ace, your chances of drawing an ace are now 3/52.


----------



## Vaporware

I had 6 10900K's from the same batch. Five of them were SP63 and poor overclockers and one was an excellent SP107. I then had four others from another batch and three were SP63 and one was SP80. Again the SP 63's were poor overclockers with the SP80 being Ok. So it would seem that batch isn't nearly as important as what part of the wafer it comes from.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
I'll just stick to the sp92 I have no need for more 10900k's


----------



## skullbringer

Falkentyne said:


> Hmm. Memtweakit 2.02.46 has these settings too. This version wasn't released to the public?
> Probably an older version of the CD. So everyone should have this version already on their CD?


I have tried 7 different versions of memtweakit before and none worked on the m12a (no settings showing at all), newest I could find was .44 though. 

if you have an Apex, your CD should have the .48 version on it.

If I had to guess, it's not a matter of public released or not. Asus' internal communication processes are just "sub-optimal" let's say. 

E.g. if you have an issue you need support for, don't contact customer support cause they won't be able to help you and instead tell you that overclocking is bad and you should not do it! not even kidding lmao 
Instead you are better off going on some forum like this or hwbot or rog and dm the next person that looks competent and chances are, they are an Asus employee of some form and can help you out, elmor, shamino, you name them.


----------



## Nizzen

Vaporware said:


> I had 6 10900K's from the same batch. Five of them were SP63 and poor overclockers and one was an excellent SP107. I then had four others from another batch and three were SP63 and one was SP80. Again the SP 63's were poor overclockers with the SP80 being Ok. So it would seem that batch isn't nearly as important as what part of the wafer it comes from.


So how good is the sp107?
Any benchmarkscores to share?


----------



## skullbringer

Baasha said:


> Definitely looks like the SP numbers are placebo if anything.
> 
> My SP63 is a champ at 5.2Ghz 1.35V in BIOS. Although I can't get 5.3Ghz even at 1.40V in BIOS stable meh...
> 
> Anyone hit 5.5Ghz yet? Luumi is the only one I've seen with 5.5Ghz:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2MPXKqBcRI&t=29s


I tried to reproduce his result, but I'm missing 50 pts. My clocks are the same or higher.

Either his Windows install is stripped like hell, which it looks like judging from the disabled font anti-aliasing, or the EVGA Z490 dark has some other secret sauce, or both.


----------



## SuperMumrik

Baasha said:


> Definitely looks like the SP numbers are placebo if anything.
> 
> My SP63 is a champ at 5.2Ghz 1.35V in BIOS. Although I can't get 5.3Ghz even at 1.40V in BIOS stable meh...
> 
> Anyone hit 5.5Ghz yet? Luumi is the only one I've seen with 5.5Ghz:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2MPXKqBcRI&t=29s



5.6


----------



## geriatricpollywog

SuperMumrik said:


> Baasha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Definitely looks like the SP numbers are placebo if anything.
> 
> My SP63 is a champ at 5.2Ghz 1.35V in BIOS. Although I can't get 5.3Ghz even at 1.40V in BIOS stable meh...
> 
> Anyone hit 5.5Ghz yet? Luumi is the only one I've seen with 5.5Ghz:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2MPXKqBcRI&t=29s
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.6
Click to expand...

What about prime95 small fft avx on? I can finish Cinebench at 5.5 but in a real stress test only 5.3-5.4.


----------



## SuperMumrik

0451 said:


> SuperMumrik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baasha said:
> 
> 
> 
> Definitely looks like the SP numbers are placebo if anything.
> 
> My SP63 is a champ at 5.2Ghz 1.35V in BIOS. Although I can't get 5.3Ghz even at 1.40V in BIOS stable meh...
> 
> Anyone hit 5.5Ghz yet? Luumi is the only one I've seen with 5.5Ghz:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2MPXKqBcRI&t=29s
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.6
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about prime95 small fft avx on? I can finish Cinebench at 5.5 but in a real stress test only 5.3-5.4.
Click to expand...

The current needed would probably degrade it even if I could cool it. 5,4 with ht on or 5,5 ht off is good enough for 24/7 👌


----------



## Falkentyne

0451 said:


> What about prime95 small fft avx on? I can finish Cinebench at 5.5 but in a real stress test only 5.3-5.4.


Please don't even think about something like this.
Unless you enjoy watching your CPU slowly go to hardware heaven with 300 amps...


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Falkentyne said:


> 0451 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about prime95 small fft avx on? I can finish Cinebench at 5.5 but in a real stress test only 5.3-5.4.
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't even think about something like this.
> Unless you enjoy watching your CPU slowly go to hardware heaven with 300 amps...
Click to expand...

In that case, I can now say my CPU is 5.5 stable, since P95 small fft is the only bench that limits it to 5.3.

And I happen to like watching the wall meter go to 900watts with P95 and FurMark running at the same time XD


----------



## Baasha

SuperMumrik said:


> 5.6


That is amazing. What SP is your chip?

And... are you using a chiller or CLC?


----------



## SuperMumrik

Baasha said:


> That is amazing. What SP is your chip?
> 
> And... are you using a chiller or CLC?



The chip is SP63, but that number don't tell anything about oc potential

That was with chiller


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

What kinda chiller is that? Haile 500? Is it noisy? Do we need to run it 24/7 to cool the water down or it will cool down water in a minute?


----------



## SuperMumrik

Thanh Nguyen said:


> What kinda chiller is that? Haile 500? Is it noisy? Do we need to run it 24/7 to cool the water down or it will cool down water in a minute?



Hailea HC500A.
It is kinda noisy so I have placed it far away 
For CPU alone it's mostly off, but with cpu and gpu in the loop it has to run a lot if you want sub ambient tempratures


----------



## pskz0r

Some information about these batchs

i9 10900k X018F708
i9 10900k X018F670
i9 10900k X018F938
i9 10900k X013F055
i9 10900k X013F853


----------



## Baasha

SuperMumrik said:


> Hailea HC500A.
> It is kinda noisy so I have placed it far away
> For CPU alone it's mostly off, but with cpu and gpu in the loop it has to run a lot if you want sub ambient tempratures


How do you prevent condensation if you're using a chiller? Isn't that the biggest risk with using those?


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

I think temp is below ambient a few degree then no condensation. I planned to go with a chiller or mo-ra3 and I went with the mo-ra3 because I heard the chiller is noisy.


----------



## Falkentyne

Baasha said:


> How do you prevent condensation if you're using a chiller? Isn't that the biggest risk with using those?


Below ambient chilling requires socket insulation. Not as extreme as LN2 but if you're trying to go down to 0C, you should insulate


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

Thanh Nguyen said:


> I think temp is below ambient a few degree then no condensation. I planned to go with a chiller or mo-ra3 and I went with the mo-ra3 because I heard the chiller is noisy.


Does the mo-ra3 require custom watercooling or can I somehow connect it to my 360mm aio or something?

EDIT: errr nm requires custom watercooling


----------



## Baasha

Thanh Nguyen said:


> I think temp is below ambient a few degree then no condensation. I planned to go with a chiller or mo-ra3 and I went with the mo-ra3 because I heard the chiller is noisy.


Well "a few degrees below ambient" is enough for condensation to form wouldn't it? I mean, you'd need to know the dew point of the room/place the chiller is at but that can move depending on overall temps/humidity etc.

I'd love to see some pics of the rig with the chiller - how do you route the tubes or do you have a test-bench setup?

Mo-Ra3 is gigantic and is essentially a CLC system - it looks amazing with 12 or 18 140mm Noctua fans!


----------



## Baasha

Falkentyne said:


> Below ambient chilling requires socket insulation. Not as extreme as LN2 but if you're trying to go down to 0C, you should insulate


Hmm.. how does one get socket insulation? what kind of block is available that can do that?

I wish LittleDevil would come back and make phase-change integrated cases like they did ~ 8 - 10 years ago!! Would love an "easy" solution to have insane cooling.


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

Baasha said:


> Well "a few degrees below ambient" is enough for condensation to form wouldn't it? I mean, you'd need to know the dew point of the room/place the chiller is at but that can move depending on overall temps/humidity etc.
> 
> I'd love to see some pics of the rig with the chiller - how do you route the tubes or do you have a test-bench setup?
> 
> Mo-Ra3 is gigantic and is essentially a CLC system - it looks amazing with 12 or 18 140mm Noctua fans!



I'm confused. I was under the impression that a CLC(closed loop cooling) = AIO(all in one) = fans/pump/rad/hoses/mounting/cold plate("block"). i'm looking on the website, it really looks like thats not a CLC but something that you connect to an open loop. Am i wrong here? gamers nexus always referred to evga aios as a CLC so thats why i'm asking.


----------



## Falkentyne

XGS-Duplicity said:


> I'm confused. I was under the impression that a CLC(closed loop cooling) = AIO(all in one) = fans/pump/rad/hoses/mounting/cold plate("block"). i'm looking on the website, it really looks like thats not a CLC but something that you connect to an open loop. Am i wrong here? gamers nexus always referred to evga aios as a CLC so thats why i'm asking.


All CLCs are AIO's, but not all AIO are CLC's.
An Eisbaer Extreme 280, for example, is an open loop AIO. Prefilled and preassembled, but the hoses can be unscrewed or replaced and the loop extended, and the rad refilled.


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

Falkentyne said:


> All CLCs are AIO's, but not all AIO CLC's.
> An Eisbaer Extreme 280, for example, is an open loop AIO. Prefilled and preassembled, but the hoses can be unscrewed or replaced and the loop extended, and the rad refilled.


OOOOO so the Eisbaer extreme can be used with the mo-ra3 if i add some extra hoses/fittings?


----------



## Falkentyne

XGS-Duplicity said:


> OOOOO so the Eisbaer extreme can be used with the mo-ra3 if i add some extra hoses/fittings?


I know nothing about that.
Where is the pump at? Is it in the mo-ra3 ? I know nothing about these things.


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

Falkentyne said:


> I know nothing about that.
> Where is the pump at? Is it in the mo-ra3 ? I know nothing about these things.


ah ok nm. well the eisen thing has a pump since its an AIO, but because its open loop, maybe can just hook the mo-ra3 up to it as well but i dunno if a single small pump from the eisen open loop aio is enough for roughly 4 rads. o well, i probably shouldn't worry about it right now, can't afford the costs right now anyway. I like the concept though.


----------



## Falkentyne

XGS-Duplicity said:


> ah ok nm. well the eisen thing has a pump since its an AIO, but because its open loop, maybe can just hook the mo-ra3 up to it as well but i dunno if a single small pump from the eisen open loop aio is enough for roughly 4 rads. o well, i probably shouldn't worry about it right now, can't afford the costs right now anyway. I like the concept though.


Dude before thinking of throwing $499 at a cooler, spend that money on a decent Z490 board and CPU instead :/ At least you'll get proper memory overclocking then...


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

Falkentyne said:


> Dude before thinking of throwing $499 at a cooler, spend that money on a decent Z490 board and CPU instead :/ At least you'll get proper memory overclocking then...


I don't want z490, z490 memory oc latency is not as good as z390. It does not make sense for me to spend money on another chip for just 2 extra cores, i already have 8c/16t. After messing with air vent box, i thought maybe i'll try to eventually get some improved cooling since I could probably push 5.4ghz for gaming. I can't just shell out money for a new chip/board in hopes to get a good chip. I also don't think my 360 aio could handle 10cores/20threads when overclocked. I'd pull my hair out if i got another chip that requires custom cooling to not be average to below average. i don't have disposable income like you guys seem to have. You guys be buying/binning chips/boards every other week it seems. I can't afford to do that. I really wish I could, this technology is really fun to play with, more fun than video games. i'm lucky to have the system I have now.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Direct die my sp94 10900k and cant finish bmw at 5.5ghz.Temp is 10c-20c lower than stock ihs.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

XGS-Duplicity said:


> I don't want z490, z490 memory oc latency is not as good as z390. It does not make sense for me to spend money on another chip for just 2 extra cores, i already have 8c/16t. After messing with air vent box, i thought maybe i'll try to eventually get some improved cooling since I could probably push 5.4ghz for gaming. I can't just shell out money for a new chip/board in hopes to get a good chip. I also don't think my 360 aio could handle 10cores/20threads when overclocked. I'd pull my hair out if i got another chip that requires custom cooling to not be average to below average. i don't have disposable income like you guys seem to have. You guys be buying/binning chips/boards every other week it seems. I can't afford to do that. I really wish I could, this technology is really fun to play with, more fun than video games. i'm lucky to have the system I have now.


I get you. My system is very cooling-forward and when I upgrade, I just need to buy main components: CPU, GPU, Motherboard, RAM. Everything else can take whatever I can throw at it. Having good futureproof cooling will give you an extra few 100 mhz no matter what CPU or GPU you have.


----------



## SuperMumrik

Baasha said:


> How do you prevent condensation if you're using a chiller? Isn't that the biggest risk with using those?



Well.. I have two rads in my loop, but i block the exhaust rad when chiller is running. The intake rad is cooling down the inside of the case and moving the dew point down.
I loose some cooling performance doing this, but I don't have to worry about condensation at all



Chiller is connected with coolance qd's.


----------



## ThrashZone

SuperMumrik said:


> Well.. I have two rads in my loop, but i block the exhaust rad when chiller is running. The intake rad is cooling down the inside of the case and moving the dew point down.
> I loose some cooling performance doing this, but I don't have to worry about condensation at all
> 
> 
> 
> Chiller is connected with coolance qd's.


Hi,
Nice


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Anyone with direct die able to run realbench at 5.5?


----------



## warbucks

SoldierRBT said:


> Got 2 new 10900K from that same batch. Please report back OC results. I'll test both when I get my Apex board.


Just popped it into my system(Z490 Formula) and running Prime95 112fft to try and find the lowest vcore needed for 5.0Ghz 4.7Ghz cache & LLC5. I'll start ramping up from there and report back. I've got a feeling the IMC on this CPU is going to be better than my other 10900k. This one is SP63(first cpu is SP78).


----------



## Falkentyne

warbucks said:


> Just popped it into my system(Z490 Formula) and running Prime95 112fft to try and find the lowest vcore needed for 5.0Ghz 4.7Ghz cache & LLC5. I'll start ramping up from there and report back. I've got a feeling the IMC on this CPU is going to be better than my other 10900k. This one is SP63(first cpu is SP78).


1.261v @ load?
I think you should try lowering vcore by 50mv from there then start there. 
That chip should pass 5.2 ghz at that load voltage.


----------



## warbucks

Falkentyne said:


> 1.261v @ load?
> I think you should try lowering vcore by 50mv from there then start there.
> That chip should pass 5.2 ghz at that load voltage.


Vcore was set to auto in that run(first run). I'll drop it as you suggest and report back now that I have a starting point.


----------



## Nizzen

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Direct die my sp94 10900k and cant finish bmw at 5.5ghz.Temp is 10c-20c lower than stock ihs.


5.5ghz CB 20 Direct die cooling (end of the video):

They cut the video in the 5.5ghz run. Look at part 2.




Part 2: @ 20:40 CB 20 5.5ghz run again





Gaming @ 5.5ghz


----------



## ThrashZone

SuperMumrik said:


> Well.. I have two rads in my loop, but i block the exhaust rad when chiller is running. The intake rad is cooling down the inside of the case and moving the dew point down.
> I loose some cooling performance doing this, but I don't have to worry about condensation at all
> 
> 
> 
> Chiller is connected with coolance qd's.


Hi,
Nice and nice r20 you posted too :thumb:
https://www.overclock.net/forum/21-...our-cinebench-r20-scores-72.html#post28532232


----------



## JoeRambo

XGS-Duplicity said:


> I don't want z490, z490 memory oc latency is not as good as z390.


Actually not anymore. Some guys found ASUS MemtweakIT version that allows to change two variables (tXP and PPD) on Z490, ones that massively improve latency.

Before 41.3, after tuning them 37.5, so almost 4ns of latency dropped with zero impact on stability ( in my case ). Those are Z390 like latencies for 3900CL15.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Lower latency thought that is what asus memory tweak 2 was for 1 is for high frequency I believe could be the other way around :/


----------



## SuperMumrik

ThrashZone said:


> SuperMumrik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well.. I have two rads in my loop, but i block the exhaust rad when chiller is running. The intake rad is cooling down the inside of the case and moving the dew point down.
> I loose some cooling performance doing this, but I don't have to worry about condensation at all
> 
> 
> 
> Chiller is connected with coolance qd's.
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> Nice and nice r20 you posted too /forum/images/smilies/thumb.gif
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/21-...our-cinebench-r20-scores-72.html#post28532232
Click to expand...

Tnx 😊 
As for the the mode 1 vs 2. The MemtweakIt tweak got me down to 33,6ns in mode two(fastest one) . I was at 34,8 or smt before the tweak. So when running this tweak it's better compared to my 9900k results. Did not affect stability either


----------



## ThrashZone

SuperMumrik said:


> Tnx 😊
> As for the the mode 1 vs 2. The MemtweakIt tweak got me down to 33,6ns in mode two(fastest one) . I was at 34,8 or smt before the tweak. So when running this tweak it's better compared to my 9900k results. Did not affect stability either


Hi,
Thanks I don't like doing adjustments in the os except gpu oc but good info :thumb:


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Nizzen said:


> Thanh Nguyen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Direct die my sp94 10900k and cant finish bmw at 5.5ghz.Temp is 10c-20c lower than stock ihs.
> 
> 
> 
> 5.5ghz CB 20 Direct die cooling (end of the video):
> 
> They cut the video in the 5.5ghz run. Look at part 2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Part 2: @ 20:40 CB 20 5.5ghz run again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gaming @ 5.5ghz
Click to expand...

He did not run blender. Blender is harder than r20. Battlefield 5 is harder than COD. Im able to run blender now at 5.5ghz. It was too hot inside my house yesterday due to AC was broken down and 100f outside.


----------



## SuperMumrik

ThrashZone said:


> SuperMumrik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tnx 😊
> As for the the mode 1 vs 2. The MemtweakIt tweak got me down to 33,6ns in mode two(fastest one) . I was at 34,8 or smt before the tweak. So when running this tweak it's better compared to my 9900k results. Did not affect stability either
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> Thanks I don't like doing adjustments in the os except gpu oc but good info /forum/images/smilies/thumb.gif
Click to expand...

Fair enough! With better I ment lower latency since in raw read/write speed comet lake was better before the tweak👌


----------



## ThrashZone

SuperMumrik said:


> Fair enough! With better I ment lower latency since in raw read/write speed comet lake was better before the tweak👌


Hi,
Yeah currently I've only done xmp 2 and mode 1 and adjusted a bit for 4k mhz to perform best 
I haven't gotten into apex high frequency yet too much other stuff going on to deal with it and got another project too I need to get done for next weekend.


----------



## ThrashZone

Thanh Nguyen said:


> He did not run blender. Blender is harder than r20. Battlefield 5 is harder than COD. Im able to run blender now at 5.5ghz. It was too hot inside my house yesterday due to AC was broken down and 100f outside.


Hi,
You get 5.5 working with no avx offset being used on blender rendering a single demo file or quick test on opendata you'd accomplished something :thumb:


----------



## Baasha

JoeRambo said:


> Actually not anymore. Some guys found ASUS MemtweakIT version that allows to change two variables (tXP and PPD) on Z490, ones that massively improve latency.
> 
> Before 41.3, after tuning them 37.5, so almost 4ns of latency dropped with zero impact on stability ( in my case ). Those are Z390 like latencies for 3900CL15.


What values should tXP and PPD be changed to? Also, isn't the ASRock Timing Configurator better? Do you have the link for the Asus MemTweakIt utility that works on Z490?


----------



## JoeRambo

Baasha said:


> What values should tXP and PPD be changed to? Also, isn't the ASRock Timing Configurator better? Do you have the link for the Asus MemTweakIt utility that works on Z490?


I took it from this post:

https://www.overclock.net/forum/5-intel-cpus/1748256-overclocking-10900k-results-bins-discussion-161.html#post28539424

Asrock works in read only mode for me, and only 4.0.3 version. Also that Asus Tweak modes 1-2 are irrelevant since i've got MSI Unify mobo, but that MemTweak thing was working just fine.

PPD I've set to 0 as suggested, and my starting tXP=12 i took to 9 as suggested by -3, no idea what the limits are.


----------



## Baasha

JoeRambo said:


> I took it from this post:
> 
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/5-intel-cpus/1748256-overclocking-10900k-results-bins-discussion-161.html#post28539424
> 
> Asrock works in read only mode for me, and only 4.0.3 version. Also that Asus Tweak modes 1-2 are irrelevant since i've got MSI Unify mobo, but that MemTweak thing was working just fine.
> 
> PPD I've set to 0 as suggested, and my starting tXP=12 i took to 9 as suggested by -3, no idea what the limits are.


Thank you!

Immediately saw an improvement. Any idea on how to improve my latency?

AIDA64:











Here are my 'regular' timings:


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

ThrashZone said:


> Thanh Nguyen said:
> 
> 
> 
> He did not run blender. Blender is harder than r20. Battlefield 5 is harder than COD. Im able to run blender now at 5.5ghz. It was too hot inside my house yesterday due to AC was broken down and 100f outside.
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> You get 5.5 working with no avx offset being used on blender rendering a single demo file or quick test on opendata you'd accomplished something /forum/images/smilies/thumb.gif
Click to expand...

I can run it only my water temp is at 25c. When any core hits 75c, it will crash. Dont know how those peep can make the water at 20c without a chiller.


----------



## cstkl1

Thanh Nguyen said:


> I can run it only my water temp is at 25c. When any core hits 75c, it will crash. Dont know how those peep can make the water at 20c without a chiller.


They got gods chiller outside their room.. Open da window. Done. Thank you god. 

Lol


----------



## ThrashZone

Thanh Nguyen said:


> I can run it only my water temp is at 25c. When any core hits 75c, it will crash. Dont know how those peep can make the water at 20c without a chiller.


Hi,
Yeah water chiller/ air chiller all the same 
Pity about crashing at 75c though got lots of room left


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

Want low radiator fluid temperature without a chiller or exotic cooling? Try to control ambient and blast the air conditioning.


----------



## cstkl1

skullbringer said:


> Over on the ROG forums 2 dudes (Apothysis and bscool) had a working version of MemTweakIt, that allows for tweaking settings that are not exposed in BIOS and significantly decrease latency.
> 
> The version ships on the driver DVDs of the Apex board, but no download page has it listed and Asus Customer Support doesn't know about it lol
> 
> I pulled it from my dvd and uploaded it here, for 21st century sake, MemTweakIt version 2.02.48:
> https://filehorst.de/d/dDvyBAAe
> 
> 
> You can tweak the settings tXP (-3) and PPD (0) to decrease latency. Tried it myself and this is the result:
> with default tXP and PPD: *35.1 ns*
> with tXP -3 and PPD default: *34.6 ns*
> with txP -3 and PPD 0: *33.8 ns*


err no clue what version memtweakit i have but mine could change settings from day 1.

m12e has a rog thumbdrive.


----------



## skullbringer

cstkl1 said:


> err no clue what version memtweakit i have but mine could change settings from day 1.
> 
> m12e has a rog thumbdrive.


well if you buy a mobo for 1k, they better include a damn usb stick 

you can see the version in "Add or remove programs" settings and then select memtweakit, without actually clicking uninstall


----------



## skullbringer

passes Realbench 2.56 30 minutes: 
55 core
53 cache
1.55 Vcore bios, LLC 6
1.43-1.45 Vcore load 
6x 120mm rad custom water loop with direct core block from Supercoolcomputers, no chiller
26-28 C ambient

it's kinda on the edge though and every other run I get a L0 Cache error in HWinfo...


----------



## cstkl1

skullbringer said:


> well if you buy a mobo for 1k, they better include a damn usb stick
> 
> you can see the version in "Add or remove programs" settings and then select memtweakit, without actually clicking uninstall


2.02.48


----------



## cstkl1

no idea what ppl are smoking. tested multiple configs of tm5..
it doesnt test a lot of ram timings that will insta fail 
in hci or fft112


----------



## Betroz

cstkl1 said:


> no idea what ppl are smoking. tested multiple configs of tm5..
> it doesnt test a lot of ram timings that will insta fail
> in hci or fft112


https://www.overclock.net/forum/5-i...emory-stability-thread-1319.html#post28542846


----------



## cstkl1

Betroz said:


> https://www.overclock.net/forum/5-i...emory-stability-thread-1319.html#post28542846


btw your case simple. post screen shot running prime95 fft 112 avx disable. fft in place. 2hrs would do with hwinfo whea and main voltage counter.. then can comment about how "stable" that ram clock is. 

btw you are running two dimm single rank. u do know all _dr & _dd u can just zero it as your ram doesnt use it.. 


simple. lets be more specific instead of muddled garbage of ppl saying i did this and that and that

cons
1. tm5 any config doesnt stress twr enough
insta fail in hci
2. tm5 DOES not stress tRDWR any of them. 
insta fail or reboot on prime. 
3. tm5 DOES not stress twrpre being not synced with twrpden
insta fail in hci
4. tm5 doesnt stress vccio
full mch check 55 on diff reboot

pros
1. it stresses vcssa
2. it stresses vdimm pretty important in z490 since benching and stable vdimm can be a huge gap
3. it stresses all the main timings
4. its quick but not a complete stress test. 
5. it picks up on cache too high that hci etc cant stress enough .. this is a con for me technically cause i want RAM stress. cache tweaking is troublesome. 

hci is still the go to end result. stop running hci in low priority thread. best is use runmemtestpro launcher. gskill, asrock etc uses this to validate mobos and qvl. 

it has its uses but not on the lvl ppl been claiming.


----------



## Betroz

cstkl1 said:


> snipp


I don't run HCI Memtestpro in low priority mode, and as I said I could run HCI with lower voltages for 500+% and pass, but fail fast in TM5 anta777 preset. I could even pass TM5 for 10 cycles with 1usmus_v3 preset with lower voltages. So...either TM5 is unreliable, or it is one hard ass test.

I stopped using Prime95 some time ago. I prefer running Realbench 2.56 and play Battlefield 5, and checking for WHEA errors in HWiNFO64. So my CPU overclock should be golden, but it is posible that my IMC is crap (I hit a wall at 4400 memory speed).

Testing TM5 anta777 preset now again with 1.4v SA to see if that helps.


----------



## cstkl1

Betroz said:


> I don't run HCI Memtestpro in low priority mode, and as I said I could run HCI with lower voltages for 500+% and pass, but fail fast in TM5 anta777 preset. I could even pass TM5 for 10 cycles with 1usmus_v3 preset with lower voltages. So...either TM5 is unreliable, or it is one hard ass test.
> 
> I stopped using Prime95 some time ago. I prefer running Realbench 2.56 and play Battlefield 5, and checking for WHEA errors in HWiNFO64. So my CPU overclock should be golden, but it is posible that my IMC is crap (I hit a wall at 4400 memory speed).
> 
> Testing TM5 anta777 preset now again with 1.4v SA to see if that helps.


Thats the irony right. Nobody wants to use the very test that can confirm all the vdimm, vccio etc. but dont mind using some test tm5 which kindda burns the ram compared to hci. 
Fft112 with screenshot. No rb i had 18 hours hci a million %... etc etc story telling needed.


----------



## Betroz

cstkl1 said:


> Thats the irony right. Nobody wants to use the very test that can confirm all the vdimm, vccio etc. but dont mind using some test tm5 which kindda burns the ram compared to hci.
> Fft112 with screenshot. No rb i had 18 hours hci a million %... etc etc story telling needed.


Okay okay...you were right. BSOD in Prime95 within 2 min. 112K fft in-place and AVX off. I think I must go down on the Ring clock...will see. Still testing.


----------



## Falkentyne

Betroz said:


> Okay okay...you were right. BSOD in Prime95 within 2 min. 112K fft in-place and AVX off. I think I must go down on the Ring clock...will see. Still testing.


Usually, too high ring ratio causes clock watchdog timeout or "CPU Internal Parity Error" or a complete hard lockup with no BSOD. But I don't know how that reacts with a RAM overclock.
112k (no AVX) is unique because it tests both CPU, IMC and memory at the same time. Amps load is almost as high as small FFT, while RAM heats up just like if you were doing TM5 (you can see DRAM Power shoot up compared to small FFT), so the IMC is important.

One thing I've seen personally is a "30 minute" TM5 Extreme pass, then when you run 112k FFT without rebooting, instant fail. Go figure.
After rebooting, it took about 10 minutes for 112K to drop a thread.
Boosting DDR voltage fixed that up. There's still something very very odd about running TM5 extreme1, then running 112K FFT right after finishing it. 

112K is useless if hyperthreading is disabled, however.

What's funny is FMA3 112k is better at a CPU test than 15K FMA3, because the voltage transient is MUCH worse at 112k FMA3 even though the load is lower (Buildzoid used 128k FMA3, but 112K FMA3 draws more amps than 128k). 112k FMA3 is the hardest CPU stress test FFT to pass and 36K AVX is the hardest AVX FFT to pass (112k AVX1 is amazingly poor). 

@criskoe found out that AVX disabled 72K-80K is the hardest Non-AVX (CPU) FFT to pass. RAM and cache starts being used more around 68K. But 112k is harder on the IMC/RAM.
I think the Pentium 4 FFT is harder than the Type1 or Type 0 or Core 2 FFT's.


----------



## Betroz

Falkentyne said:


> 112K is useless if hyperthreading is disabled, however.


It can't be useless, cause I have HT off and have gotten both BSOD and error on 1 of the cores. It is clear now that my 5200 HT off OC is not stable. Even with 1.395v set in BIOS with LLC6. Highest temp I saw was 91C, but I stopped the test because of error on one of the cores. Ring was set to stock X43 and IO and SA at Auto for testing. Gonna try 5100 on the CPU now - HT off. Next test 5000 with and without HT....hmm.

Edit : And what about 1344K FFT in Prime95 vs. 112K ?


----------



## Thebc2

Falkentyne said:


> Looks like the 10C hotter is from it drawing more amps. Vdroop is higher because amps is higher. This was LLC6 right?
> 
> 
> 
> If you were at a bios 1.425v (1425mv), pulling 250 amps with LLC6 (.485 mOhm loadline): 1425 - (250 * .485)=1.303v for the SP chip
> 
> If you were pulling 280 amps on the SP85: 1425 - (280 * .485) = 1.289v.
> 
> The amps difference could account for that.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you look in Asus EC to see the CPU Current (amps) and CPU Power (watts)?




Finally able to get some data here and it’s making very little sense to my layman mind. 

You are 100% correct in that the amperage draw of the SP63 was lower, despite its load voltage being higher! This is the reason it runs so much cooler (and also more stable) at 5.2 than the SP85.

The SP63 pulls roughly 202-207 amps @ 1.314v under load in p95. The SP85 was pulling 220-227 amps at just under 1.3v under load.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Nizzen

SP 87 and direct die


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
You're a bad man :thumb:


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

5.6ghz is nutssss, sick chip.


----------



## Betroz

cstkl1 said:


> Fft112 with screenshot.


Here you go. 5200 was a no go. Had to go down to 5100 (HT off). As you can see, ring is at stock X43 and IO and SA voltages at auto, so fair to say I'm not finnished yet. Do you have any further advice? Test Prime95 with 1344K fft too?


----------



## Falkentyne

Betroz said:


> Here you go. 5200 was a no go. Had to go down to 5100 (HT off). As you can see, ring is at stock X43 and IO and SA voltages at auto, so fair to say I'm not finnished yet. Do you have any further advice? Test Prime95 with 1344K fft too?


What voltage (Bios set, LLC level, and load voltage) did you try with 5.2 ghz HT enabled?
that's pretty strange that you failed it. I"ll check my retail chip (which has a lot of trouble passing realbench at 5.2 ghz unless I throw yeet voltages at it or keep it under 90C (otherwise yeet voltages are required).

Tested this real fast for you on my ES at 5.2/4.8 with HT enabled. 1.350v set + LLC6. What was your load voltage when you tried 5.2 ghz?
And your 5.1 ghz HT off voltage is really high...


----------



## cstkl1

Betroz said:


> Here you go. 5200 was a no go. Had to go down to 5100 (HT off). As you can see, ring is at stock X43 and IO and SA voltages at auto, so fair to say I'm not finnished yet. Do you have any further advice? Test Prime95 with 1344K fft too?


bro this aint just a cpu test

your vccio/vcssa is too much. 
theres two timings that affect fft112 for your two sticks. 
theres an ram algo in asus z490 bios needed with the two timings for z490 atleast for 4 dimm bdie..

almost all the ppl in 24/7 ram oc thread will fail this from their screenshot of asrock.. based on the ram timings they are using. 

so far thanks to @Falkentyne
who discovered this fft..

its the only fft that matters. 
even if u pass fft 80.. u might get whea in fft112

and like the man said. its got to be ht on, avx disabled. fft in place. and my insert.. has to be with oced ram. 

so far when i pass this. it will pass anything.

Also your vcore is way off btw. The worst 10900k needs 1.45v-1.47v set L4 Which results in vmin 1.25-1.27v for 5.1ghz.

I would run zero ram oc for [email protected] based on asus prediction ( set cooling arnd 165-172) in fft80 avx disabled to get your vmin

Get your ram oced. Dont tweak. best to up the tref to max to speed things up. Confirm with tm5 on vdimm & vcssa

Run fft112 avx disabled fft in place. 

Btw turboV is very handy at this point.
Tweak your timings via memtweakit.

I am really surprise you said you can pass few hundred percent in hci for 52|49 ram 4400


----------



## Falkentyne

Betroz said:


> Here you go. 5200 was a no go. Had to go down to 5100 (HT off). As you can see, ring is at stock X43 and IO and SA voltages at auto, so fair to say I'm not finnished yet. Do you have any further advice? Test Prime95 with 1344K fft too?


There's something wrong with your RAM timings or IMC/memory voltages.

I Just ran 112k FFT on my EXTREMELY BAD retail chip, the chip that craps the bed if load voltage goes above 88C in Realbench 2.56 at 1.315v load at 5.2 ghz (cache 47), (My ES chip can do RB 2.56 at 5.2 ghz, cache 48 (49 if I really try but that's pushing it) at 1.243v load, if I keep the temps below 91C, to compare), but can pass 4 hours of RB 2.56 if load temps are <89C. And I had no problems at all running 112k AVX disabled at 1.305v load on my retail chip with badly tuned RAM on 2018 year Gskill's 2x16's at 15/15/15/36 2T @ 3600 mhz @ 1.450v DDR. I had to stop the test in 15 minutes because RAM temps got to 53.5C and climbing (Open bench, using an AIO, absolutely NO airflow over the RAM, and my chinese DDR cooling fan seems to be stuck somewhere who knows where...may have to refund on Aliexpress if I don't get it on one month).

Even on the worst possible SP 63 chip, you should be able to pass 112k AVX disabled at a very high voltage of 1.30-1.350v load voltage worst case scenario.
You should not be BSOD'ing. I suggest you listen to what @cstkl1 tells you to do, and fix your TRDWR's, timings and subtimings and voltages.

Can you pass *small FFT* 12k AVX disabled prime95 at 1.30v load voltage (LOAD voltage not BIOS voltage) at 5.2 ghz, hyperthreading *enabled*?
If you can, then you have a problem with your RAM settings and it's not the CPU causing your problem.


----------



## Betroz

Falkentyne said:


> What voltage (Bios set, LLC level, and load voltage) did you try with 5.2 ghz HT enabled?
> that's pretty strange that you failed it. What was your load voltage when you tried 5.2 ghz? And your 5.1 ghz HT off voltage is really high...


5.2 HT off was unstable cause I had to increase vcore to the point where HEAT is a problem, and that is with HT off. If I enable HT the heat would be even greater, so that's why.

5.1 HT off was running with 1.35v BIOS set with LLC6, and yes that could be set lower, I just wanted to make sure I could pass Prime95 112k fft with the same voltage I used before with my 5.2 OC. I will be using LLC6 because of Ring and memory OC, as adviced by two experts, Carillo and Mumriken. Btw I have HT off because I use my computer for gaming, and because of all the HEAT that HT On generates. Even with the Kraken X62 AIO that I have.


----------



## cstkl1

Betroz said:


> 5.2 HT off was unstable cause I had to increase vcore to the point where HEAT is a problem, and that is with HT off. If I enable HT the heat would be even greater, so that's why.
> 
> 5.1 HT off was running with 1.35v BIOS set with LLC6, and yes that could be set lower, I just wanted to make sure I could pass Prime95 112k fft with the same voltage I used before with my 5.2 OC. I will be using LLC6 because of Ring and memory OC, as adviced by two experts, Carillo and Mumriken. Btw I have HT off because I use my computer for gaming, and because of all the HEAT that HT On generates. Even with the Kraken X62 AIO that I have.


err u cant btw. 5.2ghz sp 118 has a 90mv diff with 5.1.. sp 100s arnd 100mv. everybody else either 100mv to 140mv

its not EVEN with kraken but poor kraken. 
aio @5.2 seriously depends on luck .. 

custom cool is needed to confirm 5.2. 
btw since u cant 5.2 also affects ram in vccio/vcssa. 

dont read into ppl saying i am rb stable etc etc. 
screenshot and u see him throttling with cstate. just remember its the same as your earlier post. 

very few ppl are actually 5.2ghz stable. even less with 4400. just follow the general rule. no screenshot=a fairy tale story about a little boys dream. 

10900k sweet spot is 5.1. cause voltages scales well to this point.

if u want gaming with high ram go for 5.1.. 5.2 theres no way for you to confirm ram stability. since you cant confirm cpu stability.


----------



## Betroz

cstkl1 said:


> your vccio/vcssa is too much.
> 
> Also your vcore is way off btw.
> 
> I am really surprise you said you can pass few hundred percent in hci for 52|49 ram 4400


My IO and SA are high because I set them at Auto for this test. I had IO and SA at 1.30v and 1.39v before with my 5.2 HT Off OC. The 5.2 OC that failed TM5 anta777 preset after _5 hours_ like I said, and I think the reason was that my CPU OC was NOT stable like I thought. My CPU was Battlefield 5 stable at 5.2, and could pass 2 hours of Realbench 2.56, but clearly that didn't mean it was stable with Prime95 or long duration TM5 anta777 testing...

My vcore is high because I used the same voltage that I used with my 5.2 OC, and because of Ring and memory OC (LLC6). That and my SP63 chip is not the best...

My memory timings is not set at random. I had help from two experts, Carillo and Mumriken. But hey, maybe some of the timings could be set differently anyways.


----------



## Nizzen

cstkl1 said:


> err u cant btw. 5.2ghz sp 118 has a 90mv diff with 5.1.. sp 100s arnd 100mv. everybody else either 100mv to 140mv
> 
> its not EVEN with kraken but poor kraken.
> aio @5.2 seriously depends on luck ..
> 
> custom cool is needed to confirm 5.2.
> btw since u cant 5.2 also affects ram in vccio/vcssa.
> 
> dont read into ppl saying i am rb stable etc etc.
> screenshot and u see him throttling with cstate. just remember its the same as your earlier post.
> 
> very few ppl are actually 5.2ghz stable. even less with 4400. just follow the general rule. no screenshot=a fairy tale story about a little boys dream.
> 
> 10900k sweet spot is 5.1. cause voltages scales well to this point.
> 
> if u want gaming with high ram go for 5.1.. 5.2 theres no way for you to confirm ram stability. since you cant confirm cpu stability.


What is youre "go to" benchmark to check for cpu stability? Is realbench in loop good enough? Maybe I have to test my delidded cpu for "stability" soon 

If it's stable in BF V multiplayer it's stable enough for me lol


----------



## cstkl1

Betroz said:


> My IO and SA are high because I set them at Auto for this test. I had IO and SA at 1.30v and 1.39v before with my 5.2 HT Off OC. The 5.2 OC that failed TM5 anta777 preset after _5 hours_ like I said, and I think the reason was that my CPU OC was NOT stable like I thought. My CPU was Battlefield 5 stable at 5.2, and could pass 2 hours of Realbench 2.56, but clearly that didn't mean it was stable with Prime95 or long duration TM5 anta777 testing...
> 
> My vcore is high because I used the same voltage that I used with my 5.2 OC, and because of Ring and memory OC (LLC6). That and my SP63 chip is not the best...
> 
> My memory timings is not set at random. I had help from two experts, Carillo and Mumriken. But hey, maybe some of the timings could be set differently anyways.


Screenshot of that so called 5.2. 

U do know a stable 5.2 rb2.56 max temp is only few C diff from prime95 small fft avx disable right. You are struggling with 5.1 with ht which is 0.1v less than 5.2.. so.....

Well u can tell those two expert to go back in training. 
Ram oc.. aida Memory benchmark with hwinfo/asrock running + hci atleast 100% to show something. 400% to validate skills. 1000% for self ocd to make sure aint a problem down the line. This more to mobo, vrm switching, cpu, vcssa etc..tm5 screenshots just validates vdimm and vcssa and cache for me. Nothing else. But so happen z490 a ***** for 4dimm and tm5 is useful for that three things. 

Dont know u realize other than essen 4266.. that 

screenshot i posted is the first unnerfed 4x8gb bdie 4133c17 with good timings/bandwidth with a probably hci stability. Its only 100% which aint easy. I didnt post a story. I posted a screenshot. 
So the would be ppl buying this board know its possible to get it to work @rAtEd 1.4v with reasonable vccio/vcssa. 
Even if that passes 1000% it has other issues. Which i am checking atm. 


5.1ghz.. crisscoe posted so many ss and his thought etc to get it crazy stable . That journey has so much info.. y.. cause its not just a story telling. He posted screenshots. Every time. 

Screenshot validates stories. Especially a story about a 5.2ghz when you are struggling at 5.1 with ht on.


----------



## Betroz

cstkl1 said:


> screenshot and u see him throttling with cstate.
> 
> if u want gaming with high ram go for 5.1.. 5.2 theres no way for you to confirm ram stability. since you cant confirm cpu stability.


Powerlimits are off in BIOS, cstates, speedstep and all the rest aswell. I am no expert, but not that noob 

Yes I believe you are right, 5.1 is max with AIO. I will aim for 5.1 with HT off or 5.0 with HT on. HT On really has no benefit for games, and least not with frametime consistency and spikes. Btw, why must I have HT On when I test with Prime95? The heat generated is enormous!

One more time, should I test Prime95 with 80K fft, 112K fft and 1344K fft, one at a time, or just set custom minimum 80K and max 1344K fft and run through all?


----------



## cstkl1

Betroz said:


> Powerlimits are off in BIOS, cstates, speedstep and all the rest aswell. I am no expert, but not that noob
> 
> Yes I believe you are right, 5.1 is max with AIO. I will aim for 5.1 with HT off or 5.0 with HT on. HT On really has no benefit for games, and least not with frametime consistency and spikes. Btw, why must I have HT On when I test with Prime95? The heat generated is enormous!
> 
> One more time, should I test Prime95 with 80K fft, 112K fft and 1344K fft, one at a time, or just set custom minimum 80K and max 1344K fft and run through all?


Ok do this for 5.1
Follow asus prediction set L4 manual and the voltage prediction

U should be good unless you got a sp63. Those cpus are a wildcard. 

Then do ram oc. Use tm5 to determine
A) cache
B) vdimm
C) vcssa

Then hci to tweak main timings

Fft112 on and off anything to make sure all is good.


----------



## Betroz

cstkl1 said:


> Screenshot validates stories.


These settings was NOT stable in TM5 anta777 preset, just so you know. I am not lying...

Edit : CPU at stock 4.9 HT On, now that I think of it - but memory OC on.


----------



## Betroz

cstkl1 said:


> U should be good unless you got a sp63. Those cpus are a wildcard.


I have a SP63 10900K yes...


----------



## Betroz

Since my timings pass HCI as you can see from my screen, I need only to use TM5 to check for the rest then. And Prime95.


----------



## cstkl1

Betroz said:


> These settings was NOT stable in TM5 anta777 preset, just so you know. I am not lying...
> 
> Edit : CPU at stock 4.9 HT On, now that I think of it - but memory OC on.


aida screen shot bro. 
tm5 only good for vdimm and vcssa/vccio
its a different story everytime u change cpu clock and cache.


----------



## Betroz

cstkl1 said:


> aida screen shot bro.


This was with 5.2 HT off btw


----------



## Betroz

Here is one test with slower timings. CPU at stock 4.9 HT on. IO and SA was at Auto to rule them out - test of timings :


----------



## Nizzen

I feel the tention in this very thread


----------



## cstkl1

Betroz said:


> This was with 5.2 HT off btw


its aida with the [email protected]|49
ok seems like u are stable separately here and there. but collective aint


----------



## cstkl1

Nizzen said:


> I feel the tention in this very thread


err cause we should start back screenshot+story right bro.

its like a sudden surges of stories in ocn. 

heard msi getting ppd in their bios. 

according to intel manual theres 4 options for powerdown. in windows cant tell a diff. 
but i wonder how training will be affected.


----------



## Nizzen

cstkl1 said:


> err cause we should start back screenshot+story right bro.
> 
> its like a sudden surges of stories in ocn.
> 
> heard msi getting ppd in their bios.
> 
> according to intel manual theres 4 options for powerdown. in windows cant tell a diff.
> but i wonder how training will be affected.


So what do you think is the right "reference values" here?
Cpu oc:
Ambient temperature
Cooler, air temp in case, water temp etc
Vcore load, vcore in bios, llc value, etc
Realbench one houre and prime95 non avx 1 houre?

Live streaming proof with hwinfo, cpu-z and aida64? 

Looks like there is no 100% stable, it's only degree of stable in different enviorments?


----------



## cstkl1

Nizzen said:


> So what do you think is the right "reference values" here?
> Cpu oc:
> Ambient temperature
> Cooler, air temp in case, water temp etc
> Vcore load, vcore in bios, llc value, etc
> Realbench one houre and prime95 non avx 1 houre?
> 
> Live streaming proof with hwinfo, cpu-z and aida64?
> 
> Looks like there is no 100% stable, it's only degree of stable in different enviorments?


hey hey. true true. but when one claims something out of then norm
i passed hci few hundred percent (but 4.9ghz stock was not mention)
tm5 damn good (no screenshot)
and then say 52|49|4400c16 aio stable 2 hrs 2.56...

u got to ask. cause tm5 will definitely say hell no on that 49
hci will wont be either
fft112 will show u the middle finger

so alot of questions right on statement like dat.

up to the point of that tm5 statement in stability thread i thought dis fella had a
sp90-100
wc or chilled water.. 
delided direct cool (cause of that 49 for 4400mhz . will work if u use ringdown disable and overvolt the cpu )

but my original statement was not to him. it was to ppl claiming tm5 gods gift... he replied with link to his post.


----------



## Betroz

cstkl1 said:


> tm5 damn good (no screenshot)
> 
> u got to ask. cause tm5 will definitely say hell no on that 49
> 
> delided direct cool (cause of that 49 for 4400mhz . will work if u use ringdown disable and overvolt the cpu)


Yes, clearly my 5200 HT off OC was not 100% stable. Prime95 non-avx trashed it quickly. I need to tune in 5100 now, vcore, IO and SA voltages. One good reason why I had some stability at the 5200 OC, was because I had HT off, which lessens the load/burden on the IMC. Realbench clearly don't stress the IMC as much as Prime95 112K fft or TM5 with anta777 preset, so there is one possible explanation why I could run a 2 hour stresstest in Realbench at 5200/4900. If I had turned HT On, then Realbench would most likely BSOD too.

Please explain the ringdown disable setting. What Ring ratio do you think is most likely I will pass with my 4400 mem OC? X48?

Regarding TM5, not all presets are the same. I could pass 10 cycles with 1usmus_v3 preset with my 5200/4900 OC, but fail hard with anta777 preset. anta777 takes waaay longer to complete too. Please explain this to me, if you can. Ohh and here is the screenshot :


----------



## skullbringer

Nizzen said:


> SP 87 and direct die


please tell me you were using sub-ambient cooling o.0


----------



## Nizzen

skullbringer said:


> please tell me you were using sub-ambient cooling o.0


No waterchiller


----------



## Betroz

Prime95 112K fft testing here now. 5100 HT on, X43 ring, LLC6. 1.35v BIOS set is a no go... soon to join the Volcano God! 
5100 HT off is fine with my SP63 chip and Kraken X62, but HT on...ohh dear looks like a must go down to 5000 allcore (HT on that is) - Or just aim for game stable.


----------



## skullbringer

400% hci, good enough for 24/7 for me


----------



## skullbringer

Nizzen said:


> No waterchiller


what are your temps and load voltage then at 5.6 CB20 if I may ask?


----------



## Betroz

5000, X43 ring, 1.30v BIOS set, LLC6 and the rest is in the screen. Next is to try X49 ring again.


----------



## Thebc2

cstkl1 said:


> Screenshot of that so called 5.2.
> 
> 
> 
> U do know a stable 5.2 rb2.56 max temp is only few C diff from prime95 small fft avx disable right. You are struggling with 5.1 with ht which is 0.1v less than 5.2.. so.....
> 
> 
> 
> Well u can tell those two expert to go back in training.
> 
> Ram oc.. aida Memory benchmark with hwinfo/asrock running + hci atleast 100% to show something. 400% to validate skills. 1000% for self ocd to make sure aint a problem down the line. This more to mobo, vrm switching, cpu, vcssa etc..tm5 screenshots just validates vdimm and vcssa and cache for me. Nothing else. But so happen z490 a ***** for 4dimm and tm5 is useful for that three things.
> 
> 
> 
> Dont know u realize other than essen 4266.. that
> 
> 
> 
> screenshot i posted is the first unnerfed 4x8gb bdie 4133c17 with good timings/bandwidth with a probably hci stability. Its only 100% which aint easy. I didnt post a story. I posted a screenshot.
> 
> So the would be ppl buying this board know its possible to get it to work @rAtEd 1.4v with reasonable vccio/vcssa.
> 
> Even if that passes 1000% it has other issues. Which i am checking atm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.1ghz.. crisscoe posted so many ss and his thought etc to get it crazy stable . That journey has so much info.. y.. cause its not just a story telling. He posted screenshots. Every time.
> 
> 
> 
> Screenshot validates stories. Especially a story about a 5.2ghz when you are struggling at 5.1 with ht on.




Here’s 52/49 with 4133c17 stable. Overnight p95 smallfft (no avx) stable and HCI at 400% (I later tested HCI to 800%. I have test ~10 chips, all SP63 except for one SP85 and the biggest differentiator for my stable 52/49 chip is its constantly lower heat due to lower amp draw. It actually pulls slightly more voltage under load than other SP63s I had as well as the SP85, but the key was it ran roughly 10c cooler.











Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## cstkl1

Thebc2 said:


> Here’s 52/49 with 4133c17 stable. Overnight p95 smallfft (no avx) stable and HCI at 400% (I later tested HCI to 800%. I have test ~10 chips, all SP63 except for one SP85 and the biggest differentiator for my stable 52/49 chip is its constantly lower heat due to lower amp draw. It actually pulls slightly more voltage under load than other SP63s I had as well as the SP85, but the key was it ran roughly 10c cooler.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Hmmm errr.. hmmmm 
I dont know to clap for ya or cry for you when i see those voltages. 
Vdimm, vcore, vccio/vcssa

Bios 0606 would be better for 4x8gb bdie.

One of the biggest issue with low voltages cpu is theur cache requires higher voltages.

edit btw. u ran at low priority


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Thebc2 said:


> cstkl1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Screenshot of that so called 5.2.
> 
> 
> 
> U do know a stable 5.2 rb2.56 max temp is only few C diff from prime95 small fft avx disable right. You are struggling with 5.1 with ht which is 0.1v less than 5.2.. so.....
> 
> 
> 
> Well u can tell those two expert to go back in training.
> 
> Ram oc.. aida Memory benchmark with hwinfo/asrock running + hci atleast 100% to show something. 400% to validate skills. 1000% for self ocd to make sure aint a problem down the line. This more to mobo, vrm switching, cpu, vcssa etc..tm5 screenshots just validates vdimm and vcssa and cache for me. Nothing else. But so happen z490 a ***** for 4dimm and tm5 is useful for that three things.
> 
> 
> 
> Dont know u realize other than essen 4266.. that
> 
> 
> 
> screenshot i posted is the first unnerfed 4x8gb bdie 4133c17 with good timings/bandwidth with a probably hci stability. Its only 100% which aint easy. I didnt post a story. I posted a screenshot.
> 
> So the would be ppl buying this board know its possible to get it to work @rAtEd 1.4v with reasonable vccio/vcssa.
> 
> Even if that passes 1000% it has other issues. Which i am checking atm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.1ghz.. crisscoe posted so many ss and his thought etc to get it crazy stable . That journey has so much info.. y.. cause its not just a story telling. He posted screenshots. Every time.
> 
> 
> 
> Screenshot validates stories. Especially a story about a 5.2ghz when you are struggling at 5.1 with ht on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hereâ€™️s 52/49 with 4133c17 stable/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif. Overnight p95 smallfft (no avx) stable and HCI at 400% (I later tested HCI to 800%. I have test ~10 chips, all SP63 except for one SP85 and the biggest differentiator for my stable 52/49 chip is its constantly lower heat due to lower amp draw. It actually pulls slightly more voltage under load than other SP63s I had as well as the SP85, but the key was it ran roughly 10c cooler.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...

Over 1.5 volts on Vcore will quickly degrade your chips. Also, how are you getting the heat off the die? My 10700k has 2 less cores, delidded, and I still have trouble getting the heat from the die to the waterblock on P95 small fft avx on at 5.3 and 1.335 vcore.


----------



## Falkentyne

Betroz said:


> Yes, clearly my 5200 HT off OC was not 100% stable. Prime95 non-avx trashed it quickly. I need to tune in 5100 now, vcore, IO and SA voltages. One good reason why I had some stability at the 5200 OC, was because I had HT off, which lessens the load/burden on the IMC. Realbench clearly don't stress the IMC as much as Prime95 112K fft or TM5 with anta777 preset, so there is one possible explanation why I could run a 2 hour stresstest in Realbench at 5200/4900. If I had turned HT On, then Realbench would most likely BSOD too.
> 
> Please explain the ringdown disable setting. What Ring ratio do you think is most likely I will pass with my 4400 mem OC? X48?
> 
> Regarding TM5, not all presets are the same. I could pass 10 cycles with 1usmus_v3 preset with my 5200/4900 OC, but fail hard with anta777 preset. anta777 takes waaay longer to complete too. Please explain this to me, if you can. Ohh and here is the screenshot :





cstkl1 said:


> hey hey. true true. but when one claims something out of then norm
> i passed hci few hundred percent (but 4.9ghz stock was not mention)
> tm5 damn good (no screenshot)
> and then say 52|49|4400c16 aio stable 2 hrs 2.56...
> 
> u got to ask. cause tm5 will definitely say hell no on that 49
> hci will wont be either
> fft112 will show u the middle finger
> 
> so alot of questions right on statement like dat.
> 
> up to the point of that tm5 statement in stability thread i thought dis fella had a
> sp90-100
> wc or chilled water..
> delided direct cool (cause of that 49 for 4400mhz . will work if u use ringdown disable and overvolt the cpu )
> 
> but my original statement was not to him. it was to ppl claiming tm5 gods gift... he replied with link to his post.


I don't understand.
Something's wrong with his CPU.
100% of 10900k's should be able to do 5.2 ghz HT off, and usually with less voltage than 5.1 ghz HT on. And 5.2 ghz HT off should be over 10C temps lower than HT on. 

I Just did this quick run with 5.2 ghz HT on. RAM bandwidth settings (not today) and then an hour of 112k.
No problems at all. Using 360mm Liquid Freezer II 360 AIO with 3x 3000 RPM Noctua 120mm industrial fans.

I can see temps being a problem on some systems at 5.2 ghz, sure, but definitely NOT at 5.1 ghz HT on. 100% of systems should do 5.1 ghz HT on. Even my terrible retail 10900k can do 112k at 5.2 ghz HT on, but realbench without L0 errors is a problem because of temps. 

But here is my ES at 5.2/4.8, 1.350v Bios set, LLC6, small overclock of dual rank dimms at 1.40v / 0.70 VTT, IO=1.20v, SA=1.250v.

Why can't you pass this at 5.1 ghz? 5.1 ghz is easy...


----------



## JoeRambo

cstkl1 said:


> heard msi getting ppd in their bios.
> 
> according to intel manual theres 4 options for powerdown. in windows cant tell a diff.
> but i wonder how training will be affected.


Setting PPD in BIOS would be awesome, kinda annoying to set them on each boot up. Also for example on Z370 finetuning secondaries in XTU and testing performance i've found that exact same timings when entered in BIOS are performing better ( probably due to controller adjusting some other associated stuff ), so hopefully that is the case with PPD adjustments in BIOS.


----------



## Betroz

Falkentyne said:


> Why can't you pass this at 5.1 ghz? 5.1 ghz is easy...


Maybe my 10900K is a bad bin. As Der8auer said after testing 30 different 10900Ks, they act all differently. Even at the same frequency and voltage set for all, they can have different load temps and wattage. One other reason could be that I run my memory at 4400C16. A third reason could be that you have better cooling with your 3000 rpm Noctua 120mm industrial fans...

Der8auer video here :


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Intel price slashing versions of course they are different comet lake and dies like one too
You should be thankful they aren't 1k.us for 10 cores


----------



## Nizzen

0088 Apex xii bios is out


----------



## Betroz

X49 ring was a no go with my chip and cooling. X48 is a go though. I had to set 1.32v in BIOS (still LLC6). So a VMIN increase from 1.208 with X43 ring to 1.217 VMIN with X48 ring.
I am thinking of buying one more 10900K to test...


----------



## Nizzen

skullbringer said:


> what are your temps and load voltage then at 5.6 CB20 if I may ask?


65c and 1.42v load


----------



## Falkentyne

Betroz said:


> Maybe my 10900K is a bad bin. As Der8auer said after testing 30 different 10900Ks, they act all differently. Even at the same frequency and voltage set for all, they can have different load temps and wattage. One other reason could be that I run my memory at 4400C16. A third reason could be that you have better cooling with your 3000 rpm Noctua 120mm industrial fans...
> 
> Der8auer video here : https://youtu.be/k8II0NoI6cc


Remember I told you i have two chips, not 1. And my retail chip is a bad bin. The ES is decent but -needs- to be cooled in order to scale. If I can keep it cool enough, it can Realbench at 5.3 / 4.9, but it's almost impossible to keep it under 95C. It's just too hot at 1.320v-1.331v load voltage. The retail chip can barely do this at *5.2 ghz*, but if I keep it under 88C, it can. (I have an AIO on that one too but it's open bench, no airflow. Eisbaer Extreme 280 with Noctua fans).

But the retail can easily do 5.1 ghz Realbench 2.56 / 112k FFT with just a NH-D15 and 2x Noctua fans! Yes it gets hot still but it passes. I Forgot the voltage. But I thought it was around 1.230v load voltage.

I highly doubt your chip is worse than that. I haven't met a single person who couldn't do 5.1 ghz with a 10900k. Well...until you


----------



## Falkentyne

Betroz said:


> 5000, X43 ring, 1.30v BIOS set, LLC6 and the rest is in the screen. Next is to try X49 ring again.


So I tested this on my retail chip, which is outside my case, and with hellish ambients (28.7C, 83F), and I tried to set the load voltage to match yours, although I'm at x50/x47.
And at 1.218v VR VOUT, I was at 77C during the pentium 4 FFT loop (the hotter loop).

You're at 91C on a 280mm AIO. There should not be a 14C temp difference between Eisbaer Extreme 280 (even with Noctua 140mm industrial 3000 RPM fans) and a Kraken X62.

I'm going to try this on my M12E and ES chip, which runs hotter on the same die-sense voltage. Because I'm not sure why you're reaching 91C. Your ambient temps have to be lower than 82F...

Ok so I set my ES to the same settings as yours (except 4.7 ring, and 5.0 vcore), I used 1.320v + LLC6 which gave me 1.217v at full load during Pentium 4 FFT 112k, and my max core temp was 78C, with 82F ambient (28C), with my Arctic LF II 360 going at full blast. And again I think your room temp ambients are lower than 82F (28C) right? So an x62 with normal fans vs a LF II 360 with 3000 RPM fans will NOT be a 13C difference from the AIO. Changing the stock LF II Arctic P12 fans for the 3000 RPM Noctuas was about a 5C temp drop, plus much cooler RAM temps because of the VERY strong airflow (the Noctua fans are top intake vs the stock Arctic fans being exhaust).

Note I did get a spike to 81 but that's because I was typing this reply at the same time. Core max, package max were all reporting different. (CPU Package=79C max, CPU Package in the above column 83C max (LOL), Core max=81C....yeah. Going with 78C as I don't usually run other stuff when stress testing, for precisely these temp spikes happening).

But I'm honestly surprised that your chip is running so hot. My SP94 chip is already a very hot running chip, and you completely clobbered it....
I am using different RAM settings than before (went back to 3200 CL14 1T for now @ 1.41v)--can't be bothered switching because of the occasional "55" problems I get when changing from 3733 15/15/15/36 2T to 3200 14/14/14/34 1T. Shamino thinks it's because of too low VCCSA/VCCIO.


----------



## Betroz

Falkentyne said:


> Because I'm not sure why you're reaching 91C. Your ambient temps have to be lower than 82F...


My ambient temp was 24C during the test. I have some ideas what could be my problem, the cooler itself, or to be more precise, the liquid cooling stuff inside may have evaporated over the course of the time I have used it. Or maybe some gunk inside the pump. I could buy a new cooler, the Kraken X63 maybe, but what IF it is the CPU afterall then...


----------



## Betroz

Falkentyne said:


> Ok so I set my ES to the same settings as yours (except 4.7 ring, and 5.0 vcore), I used 1.320v + LLC6 which gave me 1.217v at full load during Pentium 4 FFT 112k, and my max core temp was 78C, with 82F ambient (28C), with my Arctic LF II 360 going at full blast. And again I think your room temp ambients are lower than 82F (28C) right? So an x62 with normal fans vs a LF II 360 with 3000 RPM fans will NOT be a 13C difference from the AIO. Changing the stock LF II Arctic P12 fans for the 3000 RPM Noctuas was about a 5C temp drop, plus much cooler RAM temps because of the VERY strong airflow (the Noctua fans are top intake vs the stock Arctic fans being exhaust).


I must mention that I use two Corsair ML140 PRO fans rated at 2000 rpm on my Kraken, and during the test the rpm topped out at "only" ~1550 rpm because of my fan profile. That is more than loud enough for me! So I could gain some cooling performace by running my fans at full tilt, but that is not an option. Yes, your 3 fans at 3000 rpm move more air, and you have a bigger rad + the difference between different CPU's like Der8auer said in his video. So....I don't have a clear answer here.


----------



## Falkentyne

Betroz said:


> My ambient temp was 24C during the test. I have some ideas what could be my problem, the cooler itself, or to be more precise, the liquid cooling stuff inside may have evaporated over the course of the time I have used it. Or maybe some gunk inside the pump. I could buy a new cooler, the Kraken X63 maybe, but what IF it is the CPU afterall then...


Wait how long have you had that cooler?
No wonder your temps are so bad. Because I know already I have one of the hottest running chips in this thread. And it's an ES also. And you know how ES's can be (even retail stepping ES's, some people on the hwbot said the retail stepping ES's had crappy IMC's). I'm like 90% sure it's your AIO. Because your chip has run the "hot chip" award of this entire thread.

Toss that X62 and grab an X63 or even better, an X73 if it will fit in your case.
Actually where are you located?
I Just checked. All the good AIO's are completely out of stock.

The only one that seems to be in stock is the "Open loop" (refillable / hoses replaceable) Eisbaer Extreme 280.
You can try that if it will fit in your case (it requires a 360mm mounting space). Unless you can find another brand directly from a manufacturer's own webshop rather than a reseller.

This is where I ordered mine two weeks ago.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07BZ3J554/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o02_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Why did I order two AIO's? Because some men just want to watch the world burn. I got my Liquid Freezer II 360 before the great AIO and PSU shortage happened. (Ordered the LF II and the Seasonic PX-1000 on March 25th, just in time to avoid the final shortage).


----------



## Thebc2

0451 said:


> Over 1.5 volts on Vcore will quickly degrade your chips. Also, how are you getting the heat off the die? My 10700k has 2 less cores, delidded, and I still have trouble getting the heat from the die to the waterblock on P95 small fft avx on at 5.3 and 1.335 vcore.




I am no where near 1.5v vcore, not sure where you see that. I am currently at 1.43v in the bios and 1.314v under load. As I mentioned, this chip runs exceptionally cool, I am cooling it with a Arctic liquid freezer II 360 with a push/pull fan config with Noctua NF-A12x25s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## mxthunder

Just purchased 10900k and Z490 Aorus master. Went into BIOS to change a few things - turned on the multi core enhancement - rebooted, looked back a minute or two later and it was at the BIOS screen with a VCore of 1.6V!! Why the hell would the board do that to my poor chip? Now I am worried I have caused degradation on my CPU before I have even got my OS installed. I am super pissed at Gigabyte right now.
Also having issues getting my board to post with older GPUs installed. Z490 is really a buggy platform from what I can tell right now.


----------



## Betroz

Falkentyne said:


> Wait how long have you had that cooler?


Oops...I bought the Kraken in Desember of 2016!! My of my how time fly! LOL 
Yes I need a new cooler.

Kraken X63 vs X73.....hmmmmm anyone? I can fit any in my Corsair 780T case.


----------



## Nizzen

mxthunder said:


> Just purchased 10900k and Z490 Aorus master. Went into BIOS to change a few things - turned on the multi core enhancement - rebooted, looked back a minute or two later and it was at the BIOS screen with a VCore of 1.6V!! Why the hell would the board do that to my poor chip? Now I am worried I have caused degradation on my CPU before I have even got my OS installed. I am super pissed at Gigabyte right now.
> Also having issues getting my board to post with older GPUs installed. Z490 is really a buggy platform from what I can tell right now.


Gigabutt sux... Want some real MB for youre z490, then buy Asus Apex xii, Asus Formula/extreme or Msi z490 Unify

Asus z490 and Msi z490 is not buggy. Maybe Gigabutt is the real issue....


----------



## Falkentyne

mxthunder said:


> Just purchased 10900k and Z490 Aorus master. Went into BIOS to change a few things - turned on the multi core enhancement - rebooted, looked back a minute or two later and it was at the BIOS screen with a VCore of 1.6V!! Why the hell would the board do that to my poor chip? Now I am worried I have caused degradation on my CPU before I have even got my OS installed. I am super pissed at Gigabyte right now.
> Also having issues getting my board to post with older GPUs installed. Z490 is really a buggy platform from what I can tell right now.


Your CPU can actually request 1.50v at 5.2 ghz-5.3 ghz if AC/DC Loadlines are at 1.1 mOhms. And this is by design by Intel.
However this implies that Loadline calibration is *NOT* used (in other words, LLC Must be set at Intel default of "Standard" or "Normal"). Unfortunately, enabling MCE also forces LLC to Turbo which totally leapfrogs the base intel specification (well it did on Z390 Aorus master, I do not know about Z490 as I'm not going to enable MCE to check). AC/DC loadlines at 1.1 mOhms on auto vcore and LLC: Turbo is WAY out of specification (LLC must be set to "Standard" or "Normal" to remain in spec).


----------



## Nizzen

Cinebench R20 Singlecore


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Nizzen said:


> Cinebench R20 Singlecore


Did your system post at 5.6 all core? That's crazy. Also, how did you set up up your direct die and what RAM do you have?


----------



## mxthunder

Falkentyne said:


> Your CPU can actually request 1.50v at 5.2 ghz-5.3 ghz if AC/DC Loadlines are at 1.1 mOhms. And this is by design by Intel.
> However this implies that Loadline calibration is *NOT* used (in other words, LLC Must be set at Intel default of "Standard" or "Normal"). Unfortunately, enabling MCE also forces LLC to Turbo which totally leapfrogs the base intel specification (well it did on Z390 Aorus master, I do not know about Z490 as I'm not going to enable MCE to check). AC/DC loadlines at 1.1 mOhms on auto vcore and LLC: Turbo is WAY out of specification (LLC must be set to "Standard" or "Normal" to remain in spec).


so having it set to 1.6 for a minute or two when its idling shouldnt have caused any damage?


----------



## cstkl1

Betroz said:


> I must mention that I use two Corsair ML140 PRO fans rated at 2000 rpm on my Kraken, and during the test the rpm topped out at "only" ~1550 rpm because of my fan profile. That is more than loud enough for me! So I could gain some cooling performace by running my fans at full tilt, but that is not an option. Yes, your 3 fans at 3000 rpm move more air, and you have a bigger rad + the difference between different CPU's like Der8auer said in his video. So....I don't have a clear answer here.


just to give u an idea
[email protected] is cooler than [email protected]

51 all 10900k can run it superstable. even avx stable is not very difficult as long you can cool that.


----------



## Falkentyne

mxthunder said:


> so having it set to 1.6 for a minute or two when its idling shouldnt have caused any damage?


I had mine at 1.7v on accident for a VERY short time when writing up the original review due to a mistake, but prime95 26.6 never really started and temps didn't climb very much and I ninja stopped it. No damage.
As long as you didn't push 250 amps into it you're fine. And you wouldnt know if it degraded slightly unless you tested it beforehand.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

mxthunder said:


> Just purchased 10900k and Z490 Aorus master. Went into BIOS to change a few things - turned on the multi core enhancement - rebooted, looked back a minute or two later and it was at the BIOS screen with a VCore of 1.6V!! Why the hell would the board do that to my poor chip? Now I am worried I have caused degradation on my CPU before I have even got my OS installed. I am super pissed at Gigabyte right now.
> Also having issues getting my board to post with older GPUs installed. Z490 is really a buggy platform from what I can tell right now.


Did you run it full load at 1.6v? Did it blue screen? If not, then nothing to worry about.



cstkl1 said:


> just to give u an idea
> [email protected] is cooler than [email protected]
> 
> 51 all 10900k can run it superstable. even avx stable is not very difficult as long you can cool that.


How is a 10900k cooler than a 10700k at the same clock speed? 10700k has 2 less cores and the same die surface area.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

0451 said:


> Did you run it full load at 1.6v? Did it blue screen? If not, then nothing to worry about.
> 
> 
> 
> How is a 10900k cooler than a 10700k at the same clock speed? 10700k has 2 less cores and the same die surface area.


VCore is the cause.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> VCore is the cause.


This shows the 10700k using slightly less voltage at 5.1 ghz and slightly more at 5.2. Temperatures should be approximately the same. Do you have a link to the source?


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

0451 said:


> This shows the 10700k using slightly less voltage at 5.1 ghz and slightly more at 5.2. Temperatures should be approximately the same. Do you have a link to the source?


The curves are the voltage data. 10700k needs circa 0.04v more than 10900k to run 5.1GHz.

This is from MSI report slides.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Anyone want to sell sp98+ chip?


----------



## munternet

I'm looking at buying a 10900k tomorrow
What should I look for if I have a choice between 2 chips?
Can I see any difference without opening the boxes?
Cheers


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

munternet said:


> I'm looking at buying a 10900k tomorrow
> What should I look for if I have a choice between 2 chips?
> Can I see any difference without opening the boxes?
> Cheers


Core (5.3)-> IMC (SA 1.4-1.45 for 4800 17-17) -> Ring (51x)

You can open this blue box easily without breaking the stickers. Put one tissue on the lid before mounting on the socket can be dent-free


----------



## Nizzen

0451 said:


> Did your system post at 5.6 all core? That's crazy. Also, how did you set up up your direct die and what RAM do you have?


No problem booting 5.6 all core 

Supercool Computer direct die block. Using Team Extreem 4500c18 8pack edition.


----------



## munternet

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> Core (5.3)-> IMC (SA 1.4-1.45 for 4800 17-17) -> Ring (51x)
> 
> You can open this blue box easily without breaking the stickers. Put one tissue on the lid before mounting on the socket can be dent-free


I don't think the shop owner will let me open the boxes
Can I tell anything from the outside?
They will probably be from the same batch. Might have to cross my fingers
4800-17 :thumb:


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

munternet said:


> I don't think the shop owner will let me open the boxes
> Can I tell anything from the outside?
> They will probably be from the same batch. Might have to cross my fingers
> 4800-17 :thumb:


Oh I thought you will just grab two....

Its hard to tell from the outside, either could possibly come from the good part of the wafer. And the newest batch has reached X019.

Good luck tomorrow


----------



## cstkl1

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> Oh I thought you will just grab two....
> 
> Its hard to tell from the outside, either could possibly come from the good part of the wafer. And the newest batch has reached X019.
> 
> Good luck tomorrow


err no newest batch all week 20 on X and week 21 on V

also curious about 10850k


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

cstkl1 said:


> err no newest batch all week 20 on X and week 21 on V
> 
> also curious about 10850k


thx for the info 

IMO 10850K should not be comparable to 10900K, like that 3700x vs 3800x.


----------



## munternet

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> Oh I thought you will just grab two....
> 
> Its hard to tell from the outside, either could possibly come from the good part of the wafer. And the newest batch has reached X019.
> 
> Good luck tomorrow


Thanks 
You are joking about grabbing 2 right??
PC parts are expensive here. Nearly a week's wages for the CPU and same for the Apex XII
I'm lucky my wife is not TOO upset already


----------



## cstkl1

munternet said:


> Thanks
> You are joking about grabbing 2 right??
> PC parts are expensive here. Nearly a week's wages for the CPU and same for the Apex XII
> I'm lucky my wife is not TOO upset already


Well its 33 percent chance to get a 
53 low voltage or 52 that you can cool and test max or norm 51... 

I had to test 6 to get one that confirmed on 52.


----------



## skullbringer

at 22C ambient and 20mV more it's stable over multiple 30min runs, no WHEA errors.


----------



## Nizzen

skullbringer said:


> at 22C ambient and 20mV more it's stable over multiple 30min runs, no WHEA errors.


Nice job 🙂

Is it ht=on?


----------



## skullbringer

Nizzen said:


> Nice job 🙂
> 
> Is it ht=on?


yes, HT on


----------



## cstkl1

10900k - SP 81 
Asus M12E - 0606

*
51|[email protected] LL8 set
4x8gb [email protected] @1.4v set
vccio/[email protected]|1.28 set
*


----------



## MikeSanders

I have the possibility to test many CPUs, but as a mainboard unfortunately only one asus z490-p.
SP value can not be seen. And the v/f curve?

How can I see as fast as possible how good a CPU is?


----------



## Nizzen

MikeSanders said:


> I have the possibility to test many CPUs, but as a mainboard unfortunately only one asus z490-p.
> SP value can not be seen. And the v/f curve?
> 
> How can I see as fast as possible how good a CPU is?


Buy a proper MB, and bin cpu's for a living


----------



## MikeSanders

I am testing the first cpu. V/F curve is completely empty... :/


----------



## ThrashZone

MikeSanders said:


> I have the possibility to test many CPUs, but as a mainboard unfortunately only one asus z490-p.
> SP value can not be seen. And the v/f curve?
> 
> How can I see as fast as possible how good a CPU is?





MikeSanders said:


> I am testing the first cpu. V/F curve is completely empty... :/


Hi,
Buy at least a rog z490 hero if the same is after you update your bios.


----------



## Betroz

Falkentyne said:


> Ok so I set my ES to the same settings as yours (except 4.7 ring, and 5.0 vcore), I used 1.320v + LLC6 which gave me 1.217v at full load during Pentium 4 FFT 112k, and my max core temp was 78C, with 82F ambient (28C), with my Arctic LF II 360 going at full blast. And again I think your room temp ambients are lower than 82F (28C) right? So an x62 with normal fans vs a LF II 360 with 3000 RPM fans will NOT be a 13C difference from the AIO.


I have ordered myself a FREEZER II 360, but I will NOT run the fans at 3000 rpm or anything close to that (It's too early to lose my hearing at an age of just 40...) 

What temps do you get at 5100/4700 with the fans at "only" ~1500 rpm or so? That's the MAX fan speed I can bear...


----------



## Falkentyne

Betroz said:


> I have ordered myself a FREEZER II 360, but I will NOT run the fans at 3000 rpm or anything close to that (It's too early to lose my hearing at an age of just 40...)
> 
> What temps do you get at 5100/4700 with the fans at "only" ~1500 rpm or so? That's the MAX fan speed I can bear...


Are you talking about the stock fans? I'm talking about the Noctua industrials.
At stock, the original arctic fans are almost inaudible at 1800 RPM, which is max, when installed in a good sound suppressing case. The fans and pump (1700 rpm) speed control are linked.

You can't compare the Noctuas and P12's like that. So the answer is I don't know. You should test that for yourself.
Where did you find the LFII 360 in stock anyway?


----------



## Betroz

Falkentyne said:


> Are you talking about the stock fans? I'm talking about the Noctua industrials.
> At stock, the original arctic fans are almost inaudible at 1800 RPM, which is max, when installed in a good sound suppressing case. The fans and pump (1700 rpm) speed control are linked.
> 
> You can't compare the Noctuas and P12's like that. So the answer is I don't know. You should test that for yourself.
> Where did you find the LFII 360 in stock anyway?


No, your Noctuas. You talked about a 5C drop in CPU temp by changing fans, yes a higher rpm does that - at the cost of noise level. 3000 rpm...Geezus H Kraist!

I live in Norway, and ordered from a local online store here - not amazon.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Don't believe anyone has ever said max oc'ing is a quiet sport


----------



## Betroz

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Don't believe anyone has ever said max oc'ing is a quiet sport


For benching sure, ramp up those fans, but for 24/7 use it's a different story. Extra 100 Mhz on the CPU is not worth having fans screaming at 50+ dB!


----------



## ThrashZone

Betroz said:


> For benching sure, ramp up those fans, but for 24/7 use it's a different story. Extra 100 Mhz on the CPU is not worth having fans screaming at 50+ dB!


Hi,
Agreed 
Had to find a happy medium with fans first and adjust clocks.
Heck I only use 5.0 and 47 cache for gaming.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

munternet said:


> Thanks
> You are joking about grabbing 2 right??
> PC parts are expensive here. Nearly a week's wages for the CPU and same for the Apex XII
> I'm lucky my wife is not TOO upset already


Ah I'm not kidding...

For the silicon lottery reason, I bought 2 M12A and 2 10900k. One M12A runs 4900 easily another runs 4800 easily. Bought multiple chips in the same batch will also increase the chance to meet a chip from the best part of the wafer  I have sold that unwanted chip when the 10900K price was high on eBay


----------



## Falkentyne

Betroz said:


> No, your Noctuas. You talked about a 5C drop in CPU temp by changing fans, yes a higher rpm does that - at the cost of noise level. 3000 rpm...Geezus H Kraist!
> 
> I live in Norway, and ordered from a local online store here - not amazon.


I can hear the Noctuas at 1500 but not over the case fans. Quiet enough. Just a simple whoosh when up close and 'oh something's probably powered on' from far. 
The Arctics at 1500 can't be heard at all, at least not at normal sitting distance in a closed case. Whisper quiet.


----------



## cstkl1

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> Ah I'm not kidding...
> 
> For the silicon lottery reason, I bought 2 M12A and 2 10900k. One M12A runs 4900 easily another runs 4800 easily. Bought multiple chips in the same batch will also increase the chance to meet a chip from the best part of the wafer  I have sold that unwanted chip when the 10900K price was high on eBay


yeah. tell me about it. x299 i had a damn strix that did 4kc16 twcl 9 and even 4133c17 although nad to nerf the tccd and use weird bclk. 
and then bought a rampage omega which end up couldnt even do 4kc17 .. 

boards need binning.


----------



## SoldierRBT

The M12A that I had to RMA could not do 4800C18 and I know my sticks can boot 5000C18 in M11A/9900K. Hopefully my replacement is better at RAM OC


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

SoldierRBT said:


> The M12A that I had to RMA could not do 4800C18 and I know my sticks can boot 5000C18 in M11A/9900K. Hopefully my replacement is better at RAM OC


There is at least 200MHz difference between ROG Z490 and ROG Z390 for SR bdie... my Z390 4900C17 sticks only do 4700C17 on M12A

The sticks need to be re-binned.


----------



## Nizzen

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> There is at least 200MHz difference between ROG Z490 and ROG Z390 for SR bdie... my Z390 4900C17 sticks only do 4700C17 on M12A
> 
> The sticks need to be re-binned.


Are you sure it's not the IMC? 9900k/9700k/8700k/8086 has some crazy imc


----------



## SoldierRBT

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> There is at least 200MHz difference between ROG Z490 and ROG Z390 for SR bdie... my Z390 4900C17 sticks only do 4700C17 on M12A
> 
> The sticks need to be re-binned.


Interesting. What error did you get while testing high ram frequencies? I got a lot of 55 codes


----------



## Vaporware

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Anyone want to sell sp98+ chip?


Why? Don't you already have a good chip?


----------



## skullbringer

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> There is at least 200MHz difference between ROG Z490 and ROG Z390 for SR bdie... my Z390 4900C17 sticks only do 4700C17 on M12A
> 
> The sticks need to be re-binned.





Nizzen said:


> Are you sure it's not the IMC? 9900k/9700k/8700k/8086 has some crazy imc


I'd guess it's immature bios / microcode that will get ironed out with future bios revisions.

Can't really imagine regressions in IMC quality with Intel's billionth 14nm refinement. 

Like I can boot 5000MHz C18 after doing a deep cmos clear by taking battery out etc., but something bugs out after x amounts of retrainings that limit it to 4900 C18, until the next deep cmos clear and then it works again...


----------



## Circaflex

anyone here done the copper ihs mod?


----------



## Nizzen

Circaflex said:


> anyone here done the copper ihs mod?


Why bother, when direct die cooling is far superior  Like Supercool Computer direct die block


----------



## ViTosS

Wow


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Vaporware said:


> Thanh Nguyen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone want to sell sp98+ chip?
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Don't you already have a good chip?
Click to expand...

I want a better one.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Circaflex said:


> anyone here done the copper ihs mod?


I did. Rockitcool has the cooper ihs and you have at least 10c cooler. Perfect for someone doesn’t have the custom loop so cant go with direct die.


----------



## Nizzen

ViTosS said:


> Wow
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jey8x1JB6yo


These guys are awsome! This is "team" we are buying the direct die blocks from and liquid gallum 

This chip is pretty much the same as mine. I need 1.439 load to run cinebench r20 in loop @ 5.6ghz


----------



## Nizzen

Thanh Nguyen said:


> I want a better one.


Just throw enough money to Krittanan Nanta @ Clock'EM UP, and he will fix


----------



## ViTosS

Nizzen said:


> These guys are awsome! This is "team" we are buying the direct die blocks from and liquid gallum
> 
> This chip is pretty much the same as mine. I need 1.439 load to run cinebench r20 in loop @ 5.6ghz


I see haha , those memorys also really good [email protected] 1T


----------



## TurricanM3

New CPU, SP92

 



(dips @1.208v)


----------



## Nizzen

ViTosS said:


> I see haha , those memorys also really good [email protected] 1T


He has binned crazy amount of 4400 Vipers, and he is using watercooling blocks on them


----------



## ViTosS

Nizzen said:


> He has binned crazy amount of 4400 Vipers, and he is using watercooling blocks on them


Nice! Which LLC is he using on his Apex XII? I see his voltage is constant always at what he sets, idle and load.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

SoldierRBT said:


> Interesting. What error did you get while testing high ram frequencies? I got a lot of 55 codes


Yah, same 55. IMC should not be the limit since it was not 23.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

Nizzen said:


> Are you sure it's not the IMC? 9900k/9700k/8700k/8086 has some crazy imc


If that was the IMC it should report 23 or sth. I got lots of 55 or d5 so it might be sth else, like training. My two 10900ks all behave the same.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

skullbringer said:


> I'd guess it's immature bios / microcode that will get ironed out with future bios revisions.
> 
> Can't really imagine regressions in IMC quality with Intel's billionth 14nm refinement.
> 
> Like I can boot 5000MHz C18 after doing a deep cmos clear by taking battery out etc., but something bugs out after x amounts of retrainings that limit it to 4900 C18, until the next deep cmos clear and then it works again...



I have no problem post 5000C18 with b-die, micron 16Gbit E, and hynix DJR, but have problems launching Win10. I will try TurboV to check if this could be solved.


----------



## Nizzen

ViTosS said:


> Nice! Which LLC is he using on his Apex XII? I see his voltage is constant always at what he sets, idle and load.


 Allways LLC8

He is using LLC8 because it works great. He did use LLC8 on z390 Apex too all the time, with great results.


----------



## Nizzen

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> I have no problem post 5000C18 with b-die, micron 16Gbit E, and hynix DJR, but have problems launching Win10. I will try TurboV to check if this could be solved.


Tried 0088 bios?


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

Nizzen said:


> Tried 0088 bios?


Yeah currently using. Working on the latency now  Will try high freq later.


----------



## Vaporware

Thanh Nguyen said:


> I want a better one.


Obviously it's your money to spend but you do realize the SP rating isn't a guarantee that you will get a better chip than you have now? Also if it's for your quest to get 5.5 GHz on ambient it's going to be a total waste of money. Good luck to you anyway, hope you find what you are looking for.


----------



## Circaflex

Thanh Nguyen said:


> I did. Rockitcool has the cooper ihs and you have at least 10c cooler. Perfect for someone doesn’t have the custom loop so cant go with direct die.


Is there no benefit if i wont direct die cool? i already have a cpu block and dont want to spend more money on a new one, but would delid and add the copper ihs


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Circaflex said:


> Thanh Nguyen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did. Rockitcool has the cooper ihs and you have at least 10c cooler. Perfect for someone doesnâ€™️t have the custom loop so cant go with direct die.
> 
> 
> 
> Is there no benefit if i wont direct die cool? i already have a cpu block and dont want to spend more money on a new one, but would delid and add the copper ihs
Click to expand...

When stock cpu is not stable at the current frequency and vcore, the delid + cooper ihs will make it stable. The direct die will give you extra 100mhz-200mhz depend on your chip and cooling system. The direct die is cheap. I spend just a little over $100 for direct die block + liquid gallium with 3 days ship from Thailand to USA.


----------



## warbucks

Thanh Nguyen said:


> When stock cpu is not stable at the current frequency and vcore, the delid + cooper ihs will make it stable. The direct die will give you extra 100mhz-200mhz depend on your chip and cooling system. The direct die is cheap. I spend just a little over $100 for direct die block + liquid gallium with 3 days ship from Thailand to USA.


Which direct die block did you get? Can you send me the link?


----------



## munternet

Which BIOS and LLC has everyone settled on for both CPU and Ram for the Apex?
I don't mind a little droop 
Cheers

Edit: Off to assemble the new PC now, so if I don't come back you know it went bad


----------



## Betroz

Nizzen said:


> Allways LLC8
> 
> He is using LLC8 because it works great. He did use LLC8 on z390 Apex too all the time, with great results.


Isn't LLC6 better with Ring and mem OC?


----------



## Nizzen

Betroz said:


> Isn't LLC6 better with Ring and mem OC?


If you are running low cpu clocks on "low" voltage 

For 5300mhz, it's better for me to run llc6 to run 51-52 ring. 5300mhz need 1.28v load. 52 ring need 1.4v+ on the sp88 cpu. When I'm running 5600mhz llc 8 looks to be the best.

There are no proof that either LLC8 or LLC6 is the best in the "long run". So use whatever works best for you


----------



## cstkl1

Skew testing with Tm5. seems to work but will know later hoping to solve some random 1 error @ cache 48. overvolted the cpu abit

LL4-LL7 still less consistent as LL8

*
51|[email protected] set L8
4x8gb 4133 17-17-17-37-2N @1.4vset
vccio/vcssa 1.28|1.28
*









not even sure TM5 is good enough for skew testing..


----------



## munternet

I have the new system assembled mostly but I haven't started overclocking yet
I was wondering if I should install the 0607 bios?
Here is the sp screen after going into windows and giving it a quick p95 which throttled because I haven't set anything yet
Is this about normal sp rating?
Edit: hwnfo still set for the gene also so ignore the layout


----------



## cstkl1

LL4-LL7 still less consistent as LL8

*
51|[email protected] set L8
4x8gb 4133 17-17-17-37-2N @1.4vset
vccio/vcssa 1.28|1.28
*









not even sure TM5 is good enough for skew testing..


----------



## skullbringer

munternet said:


> I have the new system assembled mostly but I haven't started overclocking yet
> I was wondering if I should install the 0607 bios?
> Here is the sp screen after going into windows and giving it a quick p95 which throttled because I haven't set anything yet
> Is this about normal sp rating?
> Edit: hwnfo still set for the gene also so ignore the layout


86 sp is above average i'd say, though it doesn't tell the whole story. could you post the v/f curve?

you can get newer bioses from the asus forums, which usually work better than the latest release:
https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?118328-Asus-Z490-stuff

I've been running 0704 for the past 2 weeks, others have had good experiences with 0088. But keep in mind ofc, these are beta/testing bioses


----------



## munternet

skullbringer said:


> 86 sp is above average i'd say, though it doesn't tell the whole story. could you post the v/f curve?
> 
> you can get newer bioses from the asus forums, which usually work better than the latest release:
> https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?118328-Asus-Z490-stuff
> 
> I've been running 0704 for the past 2 weeks, others have had good experiences with 0088. But keep in mind ofc, these are beta/testing bioses


I'm off to bed now but cheers for the info :thumb:
I will have a look tomorrow
First impressions of the new setup are very positive 
Not sure where you find the v/f curve?


----------



## ThrashZone

munternet said:


> I'm off to bed now but cheers for the info :thumb:
> I will have a look tomorrow
> First impressions of the new setup are very positive
> Not sure where you find the v/f curve?


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

That chip looks pretty good.


----------



## Baasha

Guys, have a tangential question - I have the EVGA 1600W T2 PSU in this system (and another in the main rig) - how do I monitor PSU stats using HWInfo64?

My X99 system w/ the Corsair AX1500i and the 6950X has the PSU readings automatically show up in HWInfo64 which is nice - I can see total PSU draw on the OSD.

Please advise.


----------



## Vaporware

Baasha said:


> Guys, have a tangential question - I have the EVGA 1600W T2 PSU in this system (and another in the main rig) - how do I monitor PSU stats using HWInfo64?
> 
> My X99 system w/ the Corsair AX1500i and the 6950X has the PSU readings automatically show up in HWInfo64 which is nice - I can see total PSU draw on the OSD.
> 
> Please advise.


You can't with the EVGA PSU (as well as most PSU's)as it's not digital. The "i" versions of Corsair PSU's are digital and connect to the motherboard via USB which allows them to be monitored.


----------



## Circaflex

Do we need to heat up this CPU to delid? Or can I just pop it off using the tool?


----------



## Baasha

Vaporware said:


> You can't with the EVGA PSU (as well as most PSU's)as it's not digital. The "i" versions of Corsair PSU's are digital and connect to the motherboard via USB which allows them to be monitored.


Oh I see.. damn that sucks. Wish I could monitor the total PSU draw on the main rig


----------



## Nizzen

Circaflex said:


> Do we need to heat up this CPU to delid? Or can I just pop it off using the tool?


We didn't heat it up  Atleast with the 4x 10900k we delidded here. Move it 180 degree a few times. So push from both sides. You need to turn REALLY hard


----------



## Circaflex

Nizzen said:


> We didn't heat it up  Atleast with the 4x 10900k we delidded here. Move it 180 degree a few times. So push from both sides. You need to turn REALLY hard


Thanks, which delid did you use? I ordered the rockitcool


----------



## Nizzen

Circaflex said:


> Thanks, which delid did you use? I ordered the rockitcool



DER8AUER DELID-DIE-MATE 2


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Be careful with rockitcool delid kit. I got no problem with 9th gen but it scratches the pcb of 3 10900k I have. No idea why.


----------



## Circaflex

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Be careful with rockitcool delid kit. I got no problem with 9th gen but it scratches the pcb of 3 10900k I have. No idea why.


Did you use the new 10th gen guide? I see they have one specifically for the 10th gen now


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Be careful with rockitcool delid kit. I got no problem with 9th gen but it scratches the pcb of 3 10900k I have. No idea why.


Weird. I used the 6th gen Rockit Cool on mu 10700k and it worked perfect with no scratches. The surface of the tool was perfectly level with the pcb. On my 7700k, the pcb was below the surface of the tool.


----------



## munternet

If I use P95 to test CPU stability, what settings would be good enough to guarantee stability in BFV etc but not so intense as to far exceed everyday use?
After short test settings, say 10 minutes or so. 
What voltage and temps can these chip handle? Much the same as 9900k?
I know there are plenty of opinions on this


----------



## Nizzen

munternet said:


> If I use P95 to test CPU stability, what settings would be good enough to guarantee stability in BFV etc but not so intense as to far exceed everyday use?
> After short test settings, say 10 minutes or so.
> What voltage and temps can these chip handle? Much the same as 9900k?
> I know there are plenty of opinions on this


BF v multiplayer is a very good stability program. It hates unstable memory and cpu. It also stresses the whole system. Just play BF V multiplayer.


----------



## cstkl1

munternet said:


> If I use P95 to test CPU stability, what settings would be good enough to guarantee stability in BFV etc but not so intense as to far exceed everyday use?
> After short test settings, say 10 minutes or so.
> What voltage and temps can these chip handle? Much the same as 9900k?
> I know there are plenty of opinions on this


fft112 only on avx disabled and oced ram ya


----------



## Betroz

Nizzen said:


> BF v multiplayer is a very good stability program. It hates unstable memory and cpu. It also stresses the whole system. Just play BF V multiplayer.


It really is, but my BFV "stable" 5.2 OC failed hard within 2 min of Prime95, non-avx, in-place 112k ffts...2 mins!


----------



## Intrud3r

Had exactly the same issue, my 5.1 overclock seemed stable, ran BF5 nicely without any problems. Started prime 112K in place no avx and it errored within a couple of minutes. Went back to 5.0 and prime runs nicely (tested bf5 too which runs flawlessly too).


----------



## munternet

Just working my way through the bios and it looks like a good platform
Running LLC8 1.2 vcore set @ 5.1GHz
Not sure if I'm setting P95 right though, see screenshots
Ran each for about 5 mins


----------



## geriatricpollywog

munternet said:


> If I use P95 to test CPU stability, what settings would be good enough to guarantee stability in BFV etc but not so intense as to far exceed everyday use?
> After short test settings, say 10 minutes or so.
> What voltage and temps can these chip handle? Much the same as 9900k?
> I know there are plenty of opinions on this /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif





munternet said:


> Just working my way through the bios and it looks like a good platform
> Running LLC8 1.2 vcore set @ 5.1GHz
> Not sure if I'm setting P95 right though, see screenshots
> Ran each for about 5 mins


For a 10 min bench P95 default (avx on) small fft.

Voltage keep below 1.35.


----------



## Betroz

0451 said:


> For a 10 min bench P95 default (avx on) small fft. Voltage keep below 1.35.


If you want to test with AVX, use Blender or Realbench 2.56. P95 small ffts with AVX On can be a CPU killer...


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Betroz said:


> 0451 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For a 10 min bench P95 default (avx on) small fft. Voltage keep below 1.35.
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to test with AVX, use Blender or Realbench 2.56. P95 small ffts with AVX On can be a CPU killer...
Click to expand...

He asked for a 10 min test. Most P95 diehards go overnight.


----------



## Betroz

0451 said:


> He asked for a 10 min test. Most P95 diehards go overnight.


10 min P95 AVX small ffts on an overclocked CPU will reach 100C before that, and likely BSOD.


----------



## munternet

Thanks for the advice guys, I rep'd you both :thumb:

I decided I like the Realbench because of the attempt to make it "real"
I will still play some BFV as a final test since it uses probably the most AVX of anything I do
5.3GHz, all cores, 5.0 cache, no AVX, 1.49 set vcore, 1.35v load, LLC5, standard waterblock
Ran Realbench for a full 15 minutes  88°c max


----------



## Betroz

munternet said:


> 5.3GHz, all cores, 5.0 cache, no AVX, 1.49 set vcore, 1.35v load, LLC5, standard waterblock
> Ran Realbench for a full 15 minutes  88°c max


15 min is not enough to truly warm up your custom loop. Try 1 hour at least


----------



## munternet

Betroz said:


> 15 min is not enough to truly warm up your custom loop. Try 1 hour at least


Just gave it nearly 2 hours of BFV with a max temp of 84°c with no WHEA errors and it seems fairly solid
I might give it a bit more later. Still working on the ram so don't want to tie up the PC 

Edit: Amazing hardware. Just put a couple of settings in for the ram with most on auto and it looks like a stable 4600cl17


----------



## cstkl1

munternet said:


> Just working my way through the bios and it looks like a good platform
> Running LLC8 1.2 vcore set @ 5.1GHz
> Not sure if I'm setting P95 right though, see screenshots
> Ran each for about 5 mins


thats abnormal v/f 5.2

its the very type i am looking for.


----------



## warbucks

BTW, for those interested, I spoke with Rockitcool about their 10th gen direct die frame. They just wrapped up their prototype testing and will be running their first batch on Monday. They're going to send me one from the first batch for testing. I'll report my results once I've had some time to play with it.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Betroz said:


> 0451 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He asked for a 10 min test. Most P95 diehards go overnight.
> 
> 
> 
> 10 min P95 AVX small ffts on an overclocked CPU will reach 100C before that, and likely BSOD.
Click to expand...

Then they are not stable.


----------



## Betroz

0451 said:


> Then they are not stable.


If you want a system that is 100% stable and able to run Prime95 for 24 hours or days, then I suggest you run the CPU at stock speed, and use Intels' power settings in BIOS.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Betroz said:


> 0451 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then they are not stable.
> 
> 
> 
> If you want a system that is 100% stable and able to run Prime95 for 24 hours or days, then I suggest you run the CPU at stock speed, and use Intels' power settings in BIOS.
Click to expand...

No, I am saying what I believe to be a stability test if you only have 10 min to spare. Linpack would be better for a longer test because it hits everything, but he only asked for a 10 min test.


----------



## Falkentyne

0451 said:


> No, I am saying what I believe to be a stability test if you only have 10 min to spare. Linpack would be better for a longer test because it hits everything, but he only asked for a 10 min test.


Yeah but you're not going to be able to run small FFT AVX on 5.2 ghz+ and keep it under 100C, even on a custom loop, with enough vcore for stability. You would need to be delidded for that.
Only people with 105+ SP CPU's would be able to lower vcore enough to run small FFT AVX at 5.2 ghz without delid.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Falkentyne said:


> 0451 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am saying what I believe to be a stability test if you only have 10 min to spare. Linpack would be better for a longer test because it hits everything, but he only asked for a 10 min test.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah but you're not going to be able to run small FFT AVX on 5.2 ghz+ and keep it under 100C, even on a custom loop, with enough vcore for stability. You would need to be delidded for that.
> Only people with 105+ SP CPU's would be able to lower vcore enough to run small FFT AVX at 5.2 ghz without delid.
Click to expand...

We all have our criteria for stability, but 10 min with P95 on default settings small fft is what I use as a gut check for stability before I deep dive with memtest86 and 3D Mark. I was 10 min stable at 5.2 before delid and now im 10 min stable at 5.3 after delidding. My copper IHS arrives today so I will try 5.4.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

munternet said:


> Just gave it nearly 2 hours of BFV with a max temp of 84°c with no WHEA errors and it seems fairly solid
> I might give it a bit more later. Still working on the ram so don't want to tie up the PC
> 
> Edit: Amazing hardware. Just put a couple of settings in for the ram with most on auto and it looks like a stable 4600cl17


Try this, should do it easily on M12A with Mode 2 enabled. IO/SA=1.35V Vdimm=1.53V


----------



## Betroz

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> Try this, should do it easily on M12A with Mode 2 enabled. IO/SA=1.35V Vdimm=1.53V


It depends on the IMC. Settings like that are a no go with my 10900K, M12A and Viper 4400 C19 sticks, even at 1.6 VDIMM, 1.44 IO, 1.52 SA...


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

Betroz said:


> It depends on the IMC. Settings like that are a no go with my 10900K, M12A and Viper 4400 C19 sticks, even at 1.6 VDIMM, 1.44 IO, 1.52 SA...


Have you fixed rtl?

IO/SA should also be suitable. Too high IO/SA also cause instability.

4500/4600 C17 1T should be doable for most of b-die on M12A

The key is that you need to find the most proper RTL for your set.


----------



## Betroz

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> The key is that you need to find the most proper RTL for your set.


Yes, and here are my current settings :


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

Betroz said:


> Yes, and here are my current settings :


1T and 2T have different RTLs. Need to find it out. Need the exact RTL and IOL or the training will fail.


----------



## Talon2016

Curious how the 10850K and 10900KA will fare. 

10850K is rumored to go on sale on Monday. 

10900KA is new. I’m not sure Intel has ever used an “A” designation before.


----------



## Falkentyne

10900 KA=KS advanced edition 
Keep spending.


----------



## munternet

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> Try this, should do it easily on M12A with Mode 2 enabled. IO/SA=1.35V Vdimm=1.53V


Thanks for the advice but I'm not sure these particular viper 4400c19 sticks like high frequency so much
They seem to excel at 4000 to 4400 low latency with high voltages but not so much 4600 and above
I might have to install the 4400c19 TridentZs I have sitting here and see if they respond better. They don't need as much VDRAM


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

munternet said:


> Thanks for the advice but I'm not sure these particular viper 4400c19 sticks like high frequency so much
> They seem to excel at 4000 to 4400 low latency with high voltages but not so much 4600 and above
> I might have to install the 4400c19 TridentZs I have sitting here and see if they respond better. They don't need as much VDRAM


Z490 runs 1T much easier than Z390, even on Gigabyte MB it is possible to run 4*8GB 4133 C15 1T.

M12A doesn't like high freq b-die (4800+), but Micron 16Gbit E and DJR all work fine...


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

Falkentyne said:


> 10900 KA=KS advanced edition
> Keep spending.


Interesting, so 10850K=bad bin 10900K and 10900KA=good bin 10900K? May grab one when its out.


----------



## cletus-cassidy

Falkentyne said:


> Remember that SP 63 is "Average." So SP 63's should all be in their 4.9 and some of their 5 ghz bins. The 5.1 ghz is top 24% and that fits perfectly within the SP stats.
> I know you were hoping for a SP 100+ chip but those are like..top 3%...
> 
> Also leakage matters in how far a chip will clock as well. Two SP78's, identical VIDs at all VF Points, if one is running hotter than another (exact same voltage settings used on both), the hotter chip is more leaky and will usually be the better overclocker. You just have to cool it.
> 
> Try to aim and test LOAD voltages (X264 stress test (you can get that from the FAQ on overclocking reddit, and then update the binary (you need to rename the file you download when you put it into the folder) from " https://www.videolan.org/developers/x264.html ", Realbench, 2.56, Cinebench R20, AIDA64 "Stress FPU") at around the range of 5.1 ghz=1.175-1.210v, 5.2 ghz=1.220-1.260v, 5.3 ghz=1.27v-1.340v. These are load voltages, not Bios voltages, so set your loadline calibration and bios voltages to aim for these.
> 
> You can start on the lower end of the scale, test for stability and work your way up 10mv at a time. HWinfo64 "WHEA" section open for CPU Cache L0 errors.


Following up here. Finally got my Silicon Lottery 10900K stable at 5.2ghz. Under Prime95 (no AVX) and RealBench it's 1.279v under load (1.405v BIOS at LLC5 and 1.385v idle). Not sure where that puts me on the spectrum of good chips. 

Also side note: I can't find DRAM temp in HWINFO64 for my Maximus XII Extreme. Is it possible this expensive-ass board doesn't have it?


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

cletus-cassidy said:


> Following up here. Finally got my Silicon Lottery 10900K stable at 5.2ghz. Under Prime95 (no AVX) and RealBench it's 1.279v under load (1.405v BIOS at LLC5 and 1.385v idle). Not sure where that puts me on the spectrum of good chips.
> 
> Also side note: I can't find DRAM temp in HWINFO64 for my Maximus XII Extreme. Is it possible this expensive-ass board doesn't have it?


That's a pretty normal i9...

Your sticks probably don't have temp sensors so you cant see temps in hwinfo64.


----------



## TK421

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> Try this, should do it easily on M12A with Mode 2 enabled. IO/SA=1.35V Vdimm=1.53V



What's "mode 2"?


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

TK421 said:


> What's "mode 2"?


Its under the dram timing menu.

"The Tweak Modes are predefined presets for memory sub-settings and timings. Tweak Mode 1 is better for some module compatibility, Mode 2 is better for overclocking. Either can give better results depending on the memory configuration."


----------



## Talon2016

Falkentyne said:


> 10900 KA=KS advanced edition /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> Keep spending.


Wow if that is true that is some serious BS being pulled by Intel.


----------



## Falkentyne

I'm just kidding. I have absolutely no idea what a "KA" is. I just think it would be funny if Intel were selling a Keep Spending edition so quickly.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

I bet 10850k CPUs are repackaged 10900k that you guys keep returning.


----------



## TK421

0451 said:


> I bet 10850k CPUs are repackaged 10900k that you guys keep returning.



if retailers/intel don't want return fraud maybe they shouldn't sell garbage cpus?


----------



## geriatricpollywog

TK421 said:


> if retailers/intel don't want return fraud maybe they shouldn't sell garbage cpus?


Either that or they should hold garbage board makers from holding back their CPUs.


----------



## Betroz

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> 1T and 2T have different RTLs. Need to find it out. Need the exact RTL and IOL or the training will fail.


I got BSOD on Windows boot with 1T the times I tried it. That and it seems 4400 MHz is max stable. Same with ring clock, X48 is max stable (with reasonable vcore). So...bad IMC in my 10900K.

If the new "10900KA" is like a 9900KS was to the 9900K, then I might pick one up.


----------



## skullbringer

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> Betroz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and here are my current settings :
> 
> 
> 
> 1T and 2T have different RTLs. Need to find it out. Need the exact RTL and IOL or the training will fail.
Click to expand...

do you set them staticly of with io latency offset?


----------



## MiHi76

*First steps*

Hello guys,
i made my first steps with overcloking the 10900k with the formula.
I reached 5.1 GHz on the cores. Load voltages was ~1.23V with adaptive and LLC 4. I tried to drop the voltage to get the Vmin,
but it don't let me do this. 1.18V was the lowest regardlesse what i set in the bios?

Is that a similiar bahavior like with braodwell-e where th cor voltage cannot be set under the VID-Voltage?


----------



## Betroz

skullbringer said:


> do you set them staticly of with io latency offset?


First I boot with auto RTL/IOL, then set them manually. Offset to auto.


----------



## cstkl1

cletus-cassidy said:


> Following up here. Finally got my Silicon Lottery 10900K stable at 5.2ghz. Under Prime95 (no AVX) and RealBench it's 1.279v under load (1.405v BIOS at LLC5 and 1.385v idle). Not sure where that puts me on the spectrum of good chips.
> 
> Also side note: I can't find DRAM temp in HWINFO64 for my Maximus XII Extreme. Is it possible this expensive-ass board doesn't have it?


Do u mind posting a v/f in da bios.. Curious on Silicon lottery cpu.

Also that vmin seems pretty high for [email protected] L5..


----------



## cstkl1

cletus-cassidy said:


> Hi all:
> 
> Finally got my Maximus XII Extreme and custom loop setup. I ordered the top bin (5.1ghz) 10900K from Silicon Lottery hoping to reduce the silicon lottery now that I'm a bit older and have less time. Anyway, just booted up and see SP = 78 and the VF points in picture below. While I haven't started overclocking just yet, I must say I'm pretty disappointed with these early stats given the extreme cost of this chip and having to wait for it. Maybe I have a low SP good VF chip, but doesn't look that way to my amateur eyes.
> 
> Curious on this group's read on my chip and where I should start. I have a pretty robust 3 rad cooling loop (1080mm) and got the CPU delidded so I can probably push the voltage more than some.


Found it.. ooo interesting almost perfect scaling
5.1-5.2-5.3...

Another oddity. 

Dude your cpu maybe aint a great 5.1 but might be on 5.2 and above.


----------



## munternet

cletus-cassidy said:


> Following up here. Finally got my Silicon Lottery 10900K stable at 5.2ghz. Under Prime95 (no AVX) and RealBench it's 1.279v under load (1.405v BIOS at LLC5 and 1.385v idle). Not sure where that puts me on the spectrum of good chips.
> 
> Also side note:* I can't find DRAM temp in HWINFO64 for my Maximus XII Extreme. Is it possible this expensive-ass board doesn't have it?*


Do your sticks have temp sensors? What are they?


----------



## MiHi76

MiHi76 said:


> Hello guys,
> i made my first steps with overcloking the 10900k with the formula.
> I reached 5.1 GHz on the cores. Load voltages was ~1.23V with adaptive and LLC 4. I tried to drop the voltage to get the Vmin,
> but it don't let me do this. 1.18V was the lowest regardlesse what i set in the bios?
> 
> Is that a similiar bahavior like with braodwell-e where th cor voltage cannot be set under the VID-Voltage?


Found the answer here:https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?106375-MCE-explanations-and-others


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

skullbringer said:


> do you set them staticly of with io latency offset?


I fixed them manually, or the iol is not easy to tighten.


----------



## TurricanM3

Has anyone here ever tried OC by core? For gaming it is a great thing, because you hardly use all cores and so you can push your clocks even further.
I set 5400 for 4 cores, 5300 for 6 and 5200 for all. But that does not work. Even if I set [email protected] and [email protected] I have for example in BF V all the time only 5200MHz.
Is there a trick?


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

TurricanM3 said:


> Has anyone here ever tried OC by core? For gaming it is a great thing, because you hardly use all cores and so you can push your clocks even further.
> I set 5400 for 4 cores, 5300 for 6 and 5200 for all. But that does not work. Even if I set [email protected] and [email protected] I have for example in BF V all the time only 5200MHz.
> Is there a trick?


Use cpu-z to find which two cores are the best you've got. Assign higher clocks for these two first.

before 2004 win10 most of the time you can only see all core clock.


----------



## TurricanM3

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> Use cpu-z to find which two cores are the best you've got. Assign higher clocks for these two first.
> 
> before 2004 win10 most of the time you can only see all core clock.


That's not the problem. I just played a round (about 30 Min). Take a look at the avg clocks (right), 5400 is hardly used at all. This is even with 54x for 9 cores...


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> Use cpu-z to find which two cores are the best you've got. Assign higher clocks for these two first.
> 
> before 2004 win10 most of the time you can only see all core clock.



Does cpu-z automatically highlight the best 2 cores? If so, does it also do that for a 9900k or is that feature native to z490?


----------



## Betroz

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> Use cpu-z to find which two cores are the best you've got. Assign higher clocks for these two first.
> 
> before 2004 win10 most of the time you can only see all core clock.


I feel stupid here. I played with Per Core feature in XII Apex BIOS, but I could not get it to work. I want Core 0 and 1 to be X53 and X51 the rest, but all cores ended out as X51 in Windows (2004)....

Edit : I tried CB20 singel thread test of course.


----------



## Falkentyne

TurricanM3 said:


> That's not the problem. I just played a round (about 30 Min). Take a look at the avg clocks (right), 5400 is hardly used at all. This is even with 54x for 9 cores...


This isn't HEDT. You do know how these favored cores system work right? Your cores are not all going to run at different speeds if under load.

ALL the cores clock at the speed of the # of cores loaded. Battlefield 5 uses like 6 or 8 cores, but may access all the cores at the exact same time. So it's NEVER going to run at 5400 mhz and no cores are going to clock at 5400 mhz during the game if only 2 cores are set to 5.4 ghz, or even 4 cores. And I think Battlefield 5 actually puts ALL of the cores under a light load, which means this stops any of the cores from "going to sleep.", which forces them down to the 10 core ratio. BF5 can actually load all 20 threads to 100% when you load a map.

You could bypass that by forcing BF5 via task manager affinity to run on 8 CPU's (4 physical cores, with 8 threads).

You can test this in Prime95 with AVX disabled. Run prime95 29.8b6, disable AVX, and then run 4 threads of prime95, which is 2 cores/2 threads. Then, before starting the threads, set windows affinity to lock prime95 to run on 4 CPU cores (each thread counts as a core). Then you will see your 5.4 ghz cores running at 5.4 ghz. Assuming you don't BSOD first


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Betroz said:


> OLDFATSHEEP said:
> 
> 
> 
> Use cpu-z to find which two cores are the best you've got. Assign higher clocks for these two first.
> 
> before 2004 win10 most of the time you can only see all core clock.
> 
> 
> 
> I feel stupid here. I played with Per Core feature in XII Apex BIOS, but I could not get it to work. I want Core 0 and 1 to be X53 and X51 the rest, but all cores ended out as X51 in Windows (2004)....
Click to expand...

Tried so many times and it did not work out. Window will run the slowest clock for all cores in my case.


----------



## cstkl1

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Tried so many times and it did not work out. Window will run the slowest clock for all cores in my case.


Bro per core only x299

Z490 is per core usage aka no of core

Only thing we can do per core on z490 is adjust Ht on/off

To adjust the core usage u got to go adjust the length in turbo 3.0 .. i know it works kn stock.


----------



## cstkl1

Btw fyi
Default is

53/53 -2 core
51 - 3 core
50 - 5core
48/48 -10 core


----------



## mxthunder

Thanks to everyone who answered my questions regarding my board applying 1.6V core earlier.

Been playing with my chip, learning the new platform (upgrading from Z87).

What is everyones opinion on mismatching residuals in linpack xtreme? my chip, even and stock speeds seems to come up with mis matching residuals once in a while and I cant figure out why.


----------



## Falkentyne

mxthunder said:


> Thanks to everyone who answered my questions regarding my board applying 1.6V core earlier.
> 
> Been playing with my chip, learning the new platform (upgrading from Z87).
> 
> What is everyones opinion on mismatching residuals in linpack xtreme? my chip, even and stock speeds seems to come up with mis matching residuals once in a while and I cant figure out why.


Ignore it. Matching residuals require 100% exact CPU, Cache and RAM perfect stability. Not one iota of transient response based instability, not one slightly incorrect RAM timing, nothing. And the faster the Gflops you get from tweaking RAM, the more likely you are going to be unstable because that influences how hard the CPU is working.

LinX is the one benchmark where too loose or improper RAM timings can cut your gflops by almost 33%.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

XGS-Duplicity said:


> Does cpu-z automatically highlight the best 2 cores? If so, does it also do that for a 9900k or is that feature native to z490?


haven't tried on z390...on z490 it showed different core #s on different chips


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

Betroz said:


> I feel stupid here. I played with Per Core feature in XII Apex BIOS, but I could not get it to work. I want Core 0 and 1 to be X53 and X51 the rest, but all cores ended out as X51 in Windows (2004)....
> 
> Edit : I tried CB20 singel thread test of course.


I haven't tried per core function yet. MSI Z490 can assign the clocks to specific cores, but did not find that in M12A BIOS.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

cstkl1 said:


> Bro per core only x299
> 
> Z490 is per core usage aka no of core
> 
> Only thing we can do per core on z490 is adjust Ht on/off
> 
> To adjust the core usage u got to go adjust the length in turbo 3.0 .. i know it works kn stock.


This is the per core function of Z490 GL. Haven't found that on M12 boards...


----------



## cstkl1

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> This is the per core function of Z490 GL. Haven't found that on M12 boards...


thats the same as asus per core usage

per core is like x299 where u can set each core multiplier, manual/offset and voltages

u cannot do that with mainstream cpu as it doesnt use vccin.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

cstkl1 said:


> thats the same as asus per core usage
> 
> per core is like x299 where u can set each core multiplier, manual/offset and voltages
> 
> u cannot do that with mainstream cpu as it doesnt use vccin.


Dont know but Z490 MEG used new PWM IC so it might contain new functions. It can also change the core index for each core, like assign core 9 as new core 8.


----------



## cstkl1

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> Dont know but Z490 MEG used new PWM IC so it might contain new functions. It can also change the core index for each core, like assign core 9 as new core 8.


Hmm doubt it. All this is part of tbm 3.0

But easiest way to show this 
Set all default
Enter windows show hwinfo prefered core boosting in max vid
Then enter bios change
Show hwinfo..diff core is boosting.


----------



## Betroz

WHEA error "Error Type: Internal parity error" is too low vcore right?


----------



## cstkl1

Betroz said:


> WHEA error "Error Type: Internal parity error" is too low vcore right?


yeah. 

dude test on lower cpu like 4.9-5ghz

[email protected] adaptive additional core voltage your 5.1 vid @v/f.. dats good enough for linpack/prime AVX2...


----------



## Betroz

cstkl1 said:


> yeah.
> 
> dude test on lower cpu like 4.9-5ghz


Funny thing is I was running lower clocks than previously. Running 5100, X48 ring, HT Off and same voltages I did before with my 5200/X49 setting. In other words, same voltages, but 100 Mhz lower on the cores and 100 on ring. Did a quick ~49 min run with Prime95 112k too and no error there...


----------



## Betroz

cstkl1 said:


> snipp


My v/f curve at stock settings (Asus multicore enhancement On). And don't pay attention to the cooler score, I have disabled training there.


----------



## mxthunder

Betroz said:


> I feel stupid here. I played with Per Core feature in XII Apex BIOS, but I could not get it to work. I want Core 0 and 1 to be X53 and X51 the rest, but all cores ended out as X51 in Windows (2004)....
> 
> Edit : I tried CB20 singel thread test of course.



Thanks. I was watching a buildzoid video and he had me worried about the residuals. After seeing how impossible they are to get consistent I sort of gave up.


----------



## cstkl1

i give up on 4133
tried everything i know to make sure it is

tm5 stable
fft112 stable
hci stable

gaming vermintide 2.. map crashed at the end.. this game very sensitive to ram stability..


----------



## Betroz

cstkl1 said:


> i give up on 4133


What RAM kit do you have? Maybe give the Viper 4400C19 kit a try?


----------



## cstkl1

Betroz said:


> What RAM kit do you have? Maybe give the Viper 4400C19 kit a try?


those are garbage binned rams


----------



## Betroz

cstkl1 said:


> those are garbage binned rams


Not everybody in here will agree with you on that one...


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Betroz said:


> cstkl1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> i give up on 4133
> 
> 
> 
> What RAM kit do you have? Maybe give the Viper 4400C19 kit a try?
Click to expand...

The Viper 4400 are clutch. I have 4 dimms and they can do 4 passes memtest86 with no errors at 4266 16-16-16-36 on my Unify. Buildzoid recommended the kit and conveniently made a video of how to overclock 4 dimms of Viper 4400 on the Unify. I just copied all his settings and did some further tuning.


----------



## Nizzen

cstkl1 said:


> those are garbage binned rams


Why do you say that?

Pleace tell us any dimms that do 4700c17+

Average of Viper 4400c19 is Very good. Better than any g.skill. This is my opinion 

Now I'm using Team extreem 4500c18 @ 4700c17. They are better than all my g.skill kits. Even the new 4000c15 kits.


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

I'd like to take a second and talk about dimm quality. 


dimm quality also determines how good of latency you can achieve. Take a look at buildzoid's 4x8gb with patriot 4400 dimms clocked at 4266 13-12-12-28-2T, it had 39.xns latency(that's piss poor latency for cas 13/12, my 4x8gb gskills do that latency with tuned subs @ CL17 4000). Take a look at buildzoid's 4x8GB with patriot dimms clocked at CL16 4266, it had 43.3ns latency, (gskill 4x8gb CL17 4000 @ just xmp timings on auto does the same latency). My 4x8gb gskill CL17 4000 kit clocked at 4266 15-15-15-32-2T has 35.0ns latency. Dimm quality means a lot. Patriots/extreem dimms are good on apex/gene/dark boards and for clocking up. When I tried Xtreem 4500 dimms, they could not be stabilized at CL15-4000 flat in 4x8gb or 2x8gb configuration, regardless of ambient or voltage used.


----------



## Nizzen

XGS-Duplicity said:


> I'd like to take a second and talk about dimm quality.
> 
> 
> dimm quality also determines how good of latency you can achieve. Take a look at buildzoid's 4x8gb with patriot 4400 dimms clocked at 4266 13-12-12-28-2T, it had 39.xns latency(that's piss poor latency for cas 13/12, my 4x8gb gskills do that latency with tuned subs @ CL17 4000). Take a look at buildzoid's 4x8GB with patriot dimms clocked at CL16 4266, it had 43.3ns latency, (gskill 4x8gb CL17 4000 @ just xmp timings on auto does the same latency). My 4x8gb gskill CL17 4000 kit clocked at 4266 15-15-15-32-2T has 35.0ns latency. Dimm quality means a lot. Patriots/extreem dimms are good on apex/gene/dark boards. Gskill is good on all boards.


buildzoid is a noob on memoryoverclocking, so don't care about his results LOL


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

Ok then lets have the other guy show us latency for 4x8GB patriot 4400 dimms at c16-4266 on his z490 unify, or any 4 dimm motherboard for that matter. Or better yet, you are an expert with tons of motherboards and kits, show us the latency with 4x8GB patriot 4400 dimms at CL16-4266 or even CL16-4400 or even at [email protected], fully tuned and memtest stable. Lets see the difference in dimm quality.


----------



## cstkl1

Nizzen said:


> buildzoid is a noob on memoryoverclocking, so don't care about his results LOL


true dat.. 
voltage voltage voltage.. what else he knows..


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

hey I like buildzoid, lets not call him a noob, he is a great contributor to the OC community.


----------



## cstkl1

XGS-Duplicity said:


> Ok then lets have the other guy show us latency for 4x8GB patriot 4400 dimms at c16-4266 on his z490 unify, or any 4 dimm motherboard for that matter. Or better yet, you are an expert with tons of motherboards and kits, show us the latency with 4x8GB patriot 4400 dimms at CL16-4266 or even CL16-4400 or even at [email protected], fully tuned. I don't even care if it is memtest stable, just want to compare latency to prove my point. Lets see the difference in dimm quality.


so far only one i have seen comparable is the dual rank ones.. but 4 dimm.. nope.. none from msi..

asus issue is the god damn training on 4dimm.. i thought i settled the 4133c17 and last of course game.. then nope.. 
map crashed after 40mins in cata solo run...best way for me to test cause da horde will be plenty...i am guessing i tuned either the rising or the falling too close to the edge...


----------



## geriatricpollywog

XGS-Duplicity said:


> Ok then lets have the other guy show us latency for 4x8GB patriot 4400 dimms at c16-4266 on his z490 unify, or any 4 dimm motherboard for that matter. Or better yet, you are an expert with tons of motherboards and kits, show us the latency with 4x8GB patriot 4400 dimms at CL16-4266 or even CL16-4400 or even at [email protected], fully tuned. I don't even care if it is memtest stable, just want to compare latency to prove my point. Lets see the difference in dimm quality.


I think the lowest I got was 39ms, but I was going for memory bandwidth not latency. I’ll do some RAM OC later to see what I can get the latency to. I don’t think I can get it down to 35, but the whole point of the Patriot Viper steel is that they are $130 per 2 dimm kit. Nobody is saying they are the best kit out there, but then again your kit probably isn’t either.


----------



## cstkl1

Nizzen said:


> Why do you say that?
> 
> Pleace tell us any dimms that do 4700c17+
> 
> Average of Viper 4400c19 is Very good. Better than any g.skill. This is my opinion
> 
> Now I'm using Team extreem 4500c15 @ 4700c17. They are better than all my g.skill kits. Even the new 4000c15 kits.


thats just pure luck dude...lets be honest the only reason patriot even in the conversation is because of the price. the rest is just luck on what u can get. 

as for voltage, dimm binning.. i take quads gskill any day compare to others atm. teamgroup i am trying to get the dual rank 4kc18's...
for quads the 4133c17's or the one i am now trying to get the 4400c17's.. so far no slot in production que..


----------



## cstkl1

0451 said:


> The Viper 4400 are clutch. I have 4 dimms and they can do 4 passes memtest86 with no errors at 4266 16-16-16-36 on my Unify. Buildzoid recommended the kit and conveniently made a video of how to overclock 4 dimms of Viper 4400 on the Unify. I just copied all his settings and did some further tuning.







for him to actually think a value in DR does anything..
those third timings are bad... a dual ram stick will be higher than this.


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

0451 said:


> I think the lowest I got was 39ms, but I was going for memory bandwidth not latency. I’ll do some RAM OC after church and Nascar to see what I can get the latency to. I don’t think I can get it down to 35, but the whole point of the Patriot Viper steel is that they are $130 per 2 dimm kit. Nobody is saying they are the best kit out there, but for $130 they are.



From the research online that i've, it appears 4400 patriot is decent to sometimes good to reach c14-3800 on amd, and it appears 4400 patriot is a great option for apex/dark/gene boards. I can't recommend them for anything else, even if someone was on a budget. I'd go as far to recommend gskill c14 3200 or gskill c15 3600 or gskill c16 3600 over patriot 4400 for someone with a non apex/dark/gene board.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

cstkl1 said:


> Nizzen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you say that?
> 
> Pleace tell us any dimms that do 4700c17+
> 
> Average of Viper 4400c19 is Very good. Better than any g.skill. This is my opinion /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> Now I'm using Team extreem 4500c15 @ 4700c17. They are better than all my g.skill kits. Even the new 4000c15 kits.
> 
> 
> 
> thats just pure luck dude...lets be honest the only reason patriot even in the conversation is because of the price. the rest is just luck on what u can get.
> 
> as for voltage, dimm binning.. i take quads gskill any day compare to others atm. teamgroup i am trying to get the dual rank 4kc18's...
> for quads the 4133c17's or the one i am now trying to get the 4400c17's.. so far no slot in production que..
Click to expand...




cstkl1 said:


> 0451 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Viper 4400 are clutch. I have 4 dimms and they can do 4 passes memtest86 with no errors at 4266 16-16-16-36 on my Unify. Buildzoid recommended the kit and conveniently made a video of how to overclock 4 dimms of Viper 4400 on the Unify. I just copied all his settings and did some further tuning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> for him to actually think a value in DR does anything..
> those third timings are bad... a dual ram stick will be higher than this.
Click to expand...

I used his same secondary and tertiary timings but I was able to hit 4266 C16. Buildzoid has been hammering that kit with voltage and frequency for the past year so I wouldn’t be sure if it was degraded.


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

cstkl1 said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtucSUA5TOI&t=1002s
> 
> for him to actually think a value in DR does anything..
> those third timings are bad... a dual ram stick will be higher than this.



memory still uses those dr values when you are using 4x8gb configuration because you are still utilizing the same amount of total ranks as 2x16gb config, its just in 4 stick form instead of 2. I'm pretty sure if you were to try and set any of those values to zero with a 4x8gb config, it won't work or performance tanks.


----------



## cstkl1

Nizzen said:


> Why do you say that?
> 
> Pleace tell us any dimms that do 4700c17+
> 
> Average of Viper 4400c19 is Very good. Better than any g.skill. This is my opinion
> 
> Now I'm using Team extreem 4500c15 @ 4700c17. They are better than all my g.skill kits. Even the new 4000c15 kits.


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4509679805709588&set=pb.100000028401166.-2207520000..&type=3

gskill 4kc15.. safedisk.. [email protected]


----------



## cstkl1

XGS-Duplicity said:


> memory still uses those dr values when you are using 4x8gb configuration because you are still utilizing the same amount of total ranks as 2x16gb config, its just in 4 stick form instead of 2. I'm pretty sure if you were to try and set any of those values to zero with a 4x8gb config, it won't work or performance tanks.


no it doesnt.. thats DD. it uses DD for 4 dimm single rank...... thats why two dimms are so easy.. literally no DR,DD in timings and just memtweakit and voltage all the way. skews dont do much as for 4 dimm.

wait so your 4dimm u been using DR values .. lol.. theres nothing there. dont tell me u even set rtl on the 2nd rank...


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

0451 said:


> I used his same secondary and tertiary timings but I was able to hit 4266 C16. Buildzoid has been hammering that kit with voltage and frequency for the past year so I wouldn’t be sure if it was degraded.



Ok lets use 2 fresh patriot 4400 kits. retail kits only, no special dimms or special es motherboard or special modded bios or special es chips. retail products only. and lets aim for memtest stable while we are at it because why not.


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

cstkl1 said:


> no it doesnt.. thats DD. it uses DD for 4 dimm.... thats why two dimms are so easy.. literally no DR,DD in timings and thats just memtweakit and voltage all the way. skews dont do much as for 4 dimm.



I don't quite understand, but i'll place my trust in you that you know what you are talking about because i've seen your results.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

XGS-Duplicity said:


> 0451 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I used his same secondary and tertiary timings but I was able to hit 4266 C16. Buildzoid has been hammering that kit with voltage and frequency for the past year so I wouldnâ€™️t be sure if it was degraded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok lets use 2 fresh patriot 4400 kits. retail kits only, no special dimms or special es motherboard or special modded bios or special es chips. retail products only. and lets aim for memtest stable while we are at it because why not.
Click to expand...

Yeah I told you that’s what I did and I got 4266 c16. 4300 gave me errors.


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

cstkl1 said:


> no it doesnt.. thats DD. it uses DD for 4 dimm single rank...... thats why two dimms are so easy.. literally no DR,DD in timings and just memtweakit and voltage all the way. skews dont do much as for 4 dimm.
> 
> wait so your 4dimm u been using DR values .. lol.. theres nothing there. dont tell me u even set rtl on the 2nd rank...



My timings are in my signature, when i tried to use a value of zero in the past for the other stuff, it didn't work, so that's what leads me to believe that 4x8gb and 2x16gb use the same amount of total ranks, its just spread across 4 8gb sticks instead of 2 16gb sticks. But since it works with those specific timings NOT having a zero filled in and doesn't work with a zero, it proves my theory right.


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

0451 said:


> Yeah I told you that’s what I did and I got 4266 c16. 4300 gave me errors.



My bad, i misinterpreted what you said earlier.


----------



## Nizzen

cstkl1 said:


> thats just pure luck dude...lets be honest the only reason patriot even in the conversation is because of the price. the rest is just luck on what u can get.
> 
> as for voltage, dimm binning.. i take quads gskill any day compare to others atm. teamgroup i am trying to get the dual rank 4kc18's...
> for quads the 4133c17's or the one i am now trying to get the 4400c17's.. so far no slot in production que..


I have "a lot" of g.skill memory kits, and it looks like they don't scale well with 1.55v+. Patriot and Team scales better with voltage. Maybe there is a PCB difference? 

My new g.skill 4000c15 is pretty good with low voltage, but it's a "hard wall" @4600mhz. 4700mhz tweaked is no chance. I don't do 4xdimms on z490 overclocking now. Overclocking with Apex and Msi unify itx atm.

My son using my Asus Formula z490 with 4x4000c15 kit @ stock LOL. It's good enough for Overwatch


----------



## Nizzen

cstkl1 said:


> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4509679805709588&set=pb.100000028401166.-2207520000..&type=3
> 
> gskill 4kc15.. safedisk.. [email protected]


Very good results! Nice job!

Safedisk is a Legend


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

Nizzen said:


> I have "a lot" of g.skill memory kits, and it looks like they don't scale well with 1.55v+. Patriot and Team scales better with voltage. Maybe there is a PCB difference?
> 
> My new g.skill 4000c15 is pretty good with low voltage, but it's a "hard wall" @4600mhz. 4700mhz tweaked is no chance. I don't do 4xdimms on z490 overclocking now. Overclocking with Apex and Msi unify itx atm.
> 
> My son using my Asus Formula z490 with 4x4000c15 kit @ stock LOL. It's good enough for Overwatch



You should play around and bin some gskill 4800 kits. I think you would enjoy those.


----------



## newls1

im slightly confused, but yet pretty happy. So long story short..... for the past several weeks ive been using my 10900k @ 5.3ghz 48x [email protected] 1.420v (bios set) LLC6 to give me around 1.288v under full load like C20, C15, and various memtesting utilities. always tested stable with multi runs of C20 and memtest pro but some games would randomly hardlock. (mem @ 4133mhz 4x8gb) well, i had a hair up my ass to try linpack64, and INSTANT BSOD. Got pissed, increased voltage to 1.450 (bios set) LLC6 still and i get an instant WHEA error and linkpack fails, but no bsod.. Obviously im not gonna keep increasing voltage as temps @ 1.324 (under full load) was 94c with my excellent watercooling loops... so, i backed down to 51x and 43 cache, voltage set to 1.385 (bios set) and LLC4... Linkpack passed. increased 51x 45cache same voltage... linpack passed again. went to 52x 45cache, same vcore, FAILED.. okay.. starting to figure this out now. also noticed SA/ and IO voltages on this 0606 bios (asus maximus formula) increases these on auto setting way higher then 0041. im @ 1.40v for SA and 1.375 IO if left on auto. So once I saw this and hours of testing different other various multi combos and cache speeds... I decided to set IO and SA to 1.30v, 52x @ 1.385 (bios set) LLC6 and 48x cache.. and ill be damned... linpack passed. Could my high voltage SA and IO settings have caused IN-STABILITY????? Tried 53x and 1.410v LLC6 and failed, but i figured it would. But all the times falkentyne told me to run linpack and i never did, now I know why... nothing stresses a pc this hard! So is 5.2GHz @ 1.385 LLC6 (1.270ish LOADED) linpack stable a decent chip? Also nice that my games dont randomly freeze anymore either! major plus there!


----------



## geriatricpollywog

What VCCIO/VCCSA voltages are you guys running and how did you arrive there?

When they are set to "Auto" in the bios, my VCCIO is 1.391v and my VCCSA is 1.473 under load, which is extremely high.

I manually set my VCCIO/VCCSA and now both are reading 1.155v under heavy load. If I set any lower, Linpack starts throwing errors. Otherwise, there is absolutely no stability or performance impact between 1.155/1.155 and 1.391/1.473 under heavy stress testing and benching.


----------



## cletus-cassidy

munternet said:


> cletus-cassidy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Following up here. Finally got my Silicon Lottery 10900K stable at 5.2ghz. Under Prime95 (no AVX) and RealBench it's 1.279v under load (1.405v BIOS at LLC5 and 1.385v idle). Not sure where that puts me on the spectrum of good chips.
> 
> Also side note:* I can't find DRAM temp in HWINFO64 for my Maximus XII Extreme. Is it possible this expensive-ass board doesn't have it?*
> 
> 
> 
> Do your sticks have temp sensors? What are they?
Click to expand...

Patriot Viper 4400 C19. Would have thought they have temp sensors but possibly not?


----------



## cletus-cassidy

cstkl1 said:


> cletus-cassidy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Following up here. Finally got my Silicon Lottery 10900K stable at 5.2ghz. Under Prime95 (no AVX) and RealBench it's 1.279v under load (1.405v BIOS at LLC5 and 1.385v idle). Not sure where that puts me on the spectrum of good chips.
> 
> Also side note: I can't find DRAM temp in HWINFO64 for my Maximus XII Extreme. Is it possible this expensive-ass board doesn't have it?
> 
> 
> 
> Do u mind posting a v/f in da bios.. Curious on Silicon lottery cpu.
> 
> Also that vmin seems pretty high for [email protected] L5..
Click to expand...

Posted it before but here it is again. As you mentioned above maybe I have a lower SP but better scaling chip at higher frequencies?


----------



## cstkl1

cletus-cassidy said:


> Posted it before but here it is again. As you mentioned above maybe I have a lower SP but better scaling chip at higher frequencies?


If u look ar 5.1 thats almost to a sp63 but the 5.2.. thats sp 80-90..
Norm cpus 5.1 to 5.2 vid is 90-140.mv jump but yoirs scaling very good from 4.8-5.1-5.2-5.3


----------



## Baasha

Guys, on the Maximus XII Extreme, what are the tXP and PPD settings in the BIOS? I can't find it under the "DRAM Frequency" menu. I can set it using MemTweakIt in Windows but it doesn't hold after a restart/shutdown (doh!). Can we make the MemTweakIt settings persistent? If so, how? If not, where can I find the tXP & PPD settings in the BIOS?

Thanks.


----------



## cstkl1

newls1 said:


> im slightly confused, but yet pretty happy. So long story short..... for the past several weeks ive been using my 10900k @ 5.3ghz 48x [email protected] 1.420v (bios set) LLC6 to give me around 1.288v under full load like C20, C15, and various memtesting utilities. always tested stable with multi runs of C20 and memtest pro but some games would randomly hardlock. (mem @ 4133mhz 4x8gb) well, i had a hair up my ass to try linpack64, and INSTANT BSOD. Got pissed, increased voltage to 1.450 (bios set) LLC6 still and i get an instant WHEA error and linkpack fails, but no bsod.. Obviously im not gonna keep increasing voltage as temps @ 1.324 (under full load) was 94c with my excellent watercooling loops... so, i backed down to 51x and 43 cache, voltage set to 1.385 (bios set) and LLC4... Linkpack passed. increased 51x 45cache same voltage... linpack passed again. went to 52x 45cache, same vcore, FAILED.. okay.. starting to figure this out now. also noticed SA/ and IO voltages on this 0606 bios (asus maximus formula) increases these on auto setting way higher then 0041. im @ 1.40v for SA and 1.375 IO if left on auto. So once I saw this and hours of testing different other various multi combos and cache speeds... I decided to set IO and SA to 1.30v, 52x @ 1.385 (bios set) LLC6 and 48x cache.. and ill be damned... linpack passed. Could my high voltage SA and IO settings have caused IN-STABILITY????? Tried 53x and 1.410v LLC6 and failed, but i figured it would. But all the times falkentyne told me to run linpack and i never did, now I know why... nothing stresses a pc this hard! So is 5.2GHz @ 1.385 LLC6 (1.270ish LOADED) linpack stable a decent chip? Also nice that my games dont randomly freeze anymore either! major plus there!


Vcssa has to be the exact sweetspot voltage. Its in relation to vdimm btw. Vccio well these has a max diff with vcssa and as long it boots its .. pretty much arnd that voltage.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

cletus-cassidy said:


> Posted it before but here it is again. As you mentioned above maybe I have a lower SP but better scaling chip at higher frequencies?



Just hit prnt screen and paste your screenshots in paint.

Finally found a 10980xe eh?


----------



## Nizzen

0451 said:


> What VCCIO/VCCSA voltages are you guys running and how did you arrive there?
> 
> When they are set to "Auto" in the bios, my VCCIO is 1.391v and my VCCSA is 1.473 under load, which is extremely high.
> 
> I manually set my VCCIO/VCCSA and now both are reading 1.155v under heavy load. If I set any lower, Linpack starts throwing errors. Otherwise, there is absolutely no stability or performance impact between 1.155/1.155 and 1.391/1.473 under heavy stress testing and benching.


If you want to have stability with tweaked 4600-4700 c17, 1.5-1.64v vccsa is a must 

2.0v is extreme, not 1.4-1.5vccsa.



cletus-cassidy said:


> Patriot Viper 4400 C19. Would have thought they have temp sensors but possibly not?


 No temp sensor for Viper



Baasha said:


> Guys, on the Maximus XII Extreme, what are the tXP and PPD settings in the BIOS? I can't find it under the "DRAM Frequency" menu. I can set it using MemTweakIt in Windows but it doesn't hold after a restart/shutdown (doh!). Can we make the MemTweakIt settings persistent? If so, how? If not, where can I find the tXP & PPD settings in the BIOS?
> 
> Thanks.


Apex has 0088 beta bios with this settings. Don't know if extreme has it 

Apex alwsys get the fun stuff. That's why we love Apex


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Nizzen said:


> If you want to have stability with tweaked 4600-4700 c17, 1.5-1.64v vccsa is a must
> 
> 2.0v is extreme, not 1.4-1.5vccsa.
> 
> No temp sensor for Viper
> 
> 
> 
> Apex has 0088 beta bios with this settings. Don't know if extreme has it
> 
> Apex alwsys get the fun stuff. That's why we love Apex


I think you mistook me. If my VCCIO and VCCSA are both stable at 1.15v, is there any benefit to running a higher voltage?


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

0451 said:


> I think you mistook me. If my VCCIO and VCCSA are both stable at 1.15v, is there any benefit to running a higher voltage?


No keep it low as you could stable.


----------



## Nizzen

0451 said:


> I think you mistook me. If my VCCIO and VCCSA are both stable at 1.15v, is there any benefit to running a higher voltage?


Lower is better yes  IF it's stable


----------



## cstkl1

Baasha said:


> Guys, on the Maximus XII Extreme, what are the tXP and PPD settings in the BIOS? I can't find it under the "DRAM Frequency" menu. I can set it using MemTweakIt in Windows but it doesn't hold after a restart/shutdown (doh!). Can we make the MemTweakIt settings persistent? If so, how? If not, where can I find the tXP & PPD settings in the BIOS?
> 
> Thanks.


not out yet.. only apex atm. bios 088


----------



## cstkl1

Nizzen said:


> If you want to have stability with tweaked 4600-4700 c17, 1.5-1.64v vccsa is a must
> 
> 2.0v is extreme, not 1.4-1.5vccsa.
> 
> No temp sensor for Viper
> 
> 
> 
> Apex has 0088 beta bios with this settings. Don't know if extreme has it
> 
> Apex alwsys get the fun stuff. That's why we love Apex


err no this the first time APEX had a bios that different thats thanks to safedisk...

i have bios 089 for extreme but that option wasnt modded


----------



## cstkl1

consistency test

10900k Stock
M12E Bios 0606
*
4x8gb 4133 [email protected]
vccio/[email protected]/1.28v
*









gamed two hours vermintide 2 legend/cata. smooth sailing..


----------



## cstkl1

MrTOOSHORT said:


> Just hit prnt screen and paste your screenshots in paint.
> 
> Finally found a 10980xe eh?


Where where??


----------



## geriatricpollywog

cstkl1 said:


> consistency test
> 
> 10900k Stock
> M12E Bios 0606
> *
> 4x8gb 4133 [email protected]
> vccio/[email protected]/1.28v
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gamed two hours vermintide 2 legend/cata. smooth sailing..


Nice! Try setting the multiplier to 53.


----------



## Betroz

cstkl1 said:


> consistency test


Tried any harder to pass TM5 preset yet? Like [email protected] or Ollie?


----------



## cstkl1

0451 said:


> Nice! Try setting the multiplier to 53.


you do know its harder with stock cpu with intel limit enabled...since your there is no cpu over-volts to mask any ram/imc instability right.. 
post some screenshots dude. you are telling alot of stories in in irrelevant threads. its as if you are lonely. 

well i almost done with 4133.
mch fullcheck now testing with percore usage L6. 
modded 53-2,53-3,52-5,51-10.. it should use the v/f vid. later will try setting cache min 40(default)
48 max.. getting full c-state with this and will tweak the po/p1. and thats a wrap folks. doubt the new bioses will have 0606 ram tuning (based on 089)..


----------



## cstkl1

Betroz said:


> Tried any harder to pass TM5 preset yet? Like [email protected] or Ollie?


all done. even fft112

this is consistency test. i need short burst repeats on voltages. 

mch fullcheck testing now. one timing was off.

oh think maybe you dont know
asus bios are inconsistent for bdie 4dimms. 
one boot u can pass hci 2000%. tommorow it will fail 1%..

u cannot get that result above on auto consistently. i am consistent now. that requires skews, algo tweaks. only works on 0606. all other bios is insta fail.

flaws of 0606.. the write bandwidth. tighten rtl reduces it. 0704 above.. its been fixed. only happens on 10900k. my 10700k didnt have this. 
but 0606 has lower latency.


----------



## Betroz

cstkl1 said:


> all done. even fft112


All I have seen from you is 1usmus_V3 preset in TM5


----------



## Nizzen

cstkl1 said:


> you do know its harder with stock cpu with intel limit enabled...since your there is no cpu over-volts to mask any ram/imc instability right..
> post some screenshots dude. you are telling alot of stories in in irrelevant threads. its as if you are lonely.
> 
> well i almost done with 4133.
> mch fullcheck now testing with percore usage L6.
> modded 53-2,53-3,52-5,51-10.. it should use the v/f vid. later will try setting cache min 40(default)
> 48 max.. getting full c-state with this and will tweak the po/p1. and thats a wrap folks. doubt the new bioses will have 0606 ram tuning (based on 089)..


Memtest is allways harder with cpu oc. If it's that easy, you would have posted it long time ago 
TM5, memtest pro, blablabla stable 

PS: I love you


----------



## cstkl1

Nizzen said:


> Memtest is allways harder with cpu oc. If it's that easy, you would have posted it long time ago
> TM5, memtest pro, blablabla stable
> 
> PS: I love you


errr thats [email protected] 12 which posted LONG time ago @51|46.. 
the reason y i havent with stock cause hehe trying to do twr 8 with hci.. so far hci the only test thats picking up on that.. atm its too easy on consistency. thats the problem with 4dimm bdie.. 

wait a minute.. u do know "runmemtest pro" is a launcher gui for hci right..????..


----------



## cstkl1

Betroz said:


> All I have seen from you is 1usmus_V3 preset in TM5


oh sure. if u want no problem. the v3 preset to me was best for consistency check.


----------



## Nizzen

cstkl1 said:


> errr thats [email protected] 12 which posted LONG time ago @51|46..
> the reason y i havent with stock cause hehe trying to do twr 8 with hci.. so far hci the only test thats picking up on that.. atm its too easy on consistency. thats the problem with 4dimm bdie..
> 
> wait a minute.. u do know "runmemtest pro" is a launcher gui for hci right..????..


 Yep, and I like to run Karhu Ramtest, because it tend to find errors faster for me.


----------



## cstkl1

Nizzen said:


> Yep, and I like to run Karhu Ramtest, because it tend to find errors faster for me.


the problem bro with 4dimm not the timing/voltage

is the consistency in training. some stuff the board sets that we have no access changes

thats y u saw that dude posting about dll thingy . he also talking about consistency. it irrelevant what voltages u set or how loose the timings..

its erratic. skews solved one issue. algo tweaks as well. but as usual it introduced other problem

in the beginning it was like 55,55,55, three fail boot. one proper. perfect training.
solved that. but now get a random reboot 55 with mch check enabled. 

when it trains it does silly insane timings. so timings aint da issue atm. 

fft112 and tm5 that v3 really superb in catching training changes. others takes too long or you dont test long enough to see it. 

dont know u saw the post a while back about 4kc17 fft112 bios 0704.. this was the easiest ram oc. even bios 0403 no issue. but insta fail in 0704. 
y?? now since i know whats my skews are.. i can tell ya its a issue with training voltage centering with skew falling. 

0606 on default does it better but inconsistent. 

guess u guys have no clue how difficult 4dimm bdie on asus is..y dont u test with your kids 4kc15 z490 setup if its asus. 
post back.

thats the reason y thrash dude and mrshort dude just gave up the formula/extreme mobo and went with apex was basically on auto u wont get any coherent training to tweak on 4dimm. 

so tm5 that v3 is short cycle on skews tweaking. its the best on voltage centering related. 
fft112 on transient which also detects falling skews. 
so now u know. also its best you test yourself. know the pain. share it.

if it was so easy.. many would be posting. so lets do a headcount.. 1 dude. essenel on his formula.


----------



## skullbringer

cstkl1 said:


> wait a minute.. u do know "runmemtest pro" is a launcher gui for hci right..????..


would you be so kind to upload your version of hci memtest pro? 

I bought it when it was still version 4 and there was only option for batch file multi threading and they don't allow me to download newer versions for some stupid reason


----------



## cstkl1

skullbringer said:


> would you be so kind to upload your version of hci memtest pro?
> 
> I bought it when it was still version 4 and there was only option for batch file multi threading and they don't allow me to download newer versions for some stupid reason


i got them all. regular buyer and supporter. 

give me few minutes.


----------



## Betroz

cstkl1 said:


> guess u guys have no clue how difficult 4dimm bdie on asus is.


I see. Glad I bought the Apex again then. Only thing missing now is good singel rank 16GB DIMMs that OC and train well, if and when they come out would be sweet!


----------



## cstkl1

Betroz said:


> I see. Glad I bought the Apex again then. Only thing missing now is good singel rank 16GB DIMMs that OC and train well, if and when they come out would be sweet!


yup. single rank 2x16gb 4400 be sweet.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

I have 2x16 gskill 4000cl19 and run them at 4500cl17 now. I tried so many thing and they cant run at 1T.


----------



## Betroz

Thanh Nguyen said:


> I have 2x16 gskill 4000cl19 and run them at 4500cl17 now. I tried so many thing and they cant run at 1T.


Screenshots of timings, MemtestPRO, TM5, P95 112k etc.?


----------



## cstkl1

those gskill bdie dual rank supposedly fly in daisy chain

but they get nasty hot.


----------



## tiefox

Thanh Nguyen said:


> I have 2x16 gskill 4000cl19 and run them at 4500cl17 now. I tried so many thing and they cant run at 1T.


Can you share more details ? I probably have the same kit, but cannot run them any faster, which mobo is that ? Apex? I have the m12 extreme.


----------



## Nizzen

Thanh Nguyen said:


> I have 2x16 gskill 4000cl19 and run them at 4500cl17 now. I tried so many thing and they cant run at 1T.


Like cstkl1 saying, we don't need stories 

We want screens!

Love from Norway <3


----------



## newls1

Betroz said:


> I see. Glad I bought the Apex again then. Only thing missing now is good singel rank 16GB DIMMs that OC and train well, if and when they come out would be sweet!


these should be single rank 16gb dimms.. buildzoid said they were... https://www.newegg.com/ballistix-32gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820164165?Item=N82E16820164165


----------



## junglechocolate

SO I was eyeing the 10900k to buy for gaming and a little future proofing as funny as that sounds. I am still on my i7-930. I typically dont upgrade till 3 to 4 year cycle. The 930 just served me well...really really well for 10 years lol.

Am i to understand that its hard to get this thing stable at 5.1ghz? Because if so, then whats the point of getting this over a i7-10700k which I assume can do 5.3Ghz easy? Or even sticking with and building with the New i9 9900 I got for 240 bucks which boosts up to 4.7Ghz


----------



## Betroz

newls1 said:


> these should be single rank 16gb dimms.. buildzoid said they were... https://www.newegg.com/ballistix-32gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820164165?Item=N82E16820164165


We need more than his word on this. Did he have a source?


----------



## cstkl1

junglechocolate said:


> SO I was eyeing the 10900k to buy for gaming and a little future proofing as funny as that sounds. I am still on my i7-930. I typically dont upgrade till 3 to 4 year cycle. The 930 just served me well...really really well for 10 years lol.
> 
> Am i to understand that its hard to get this thing stable at 5.1ghz? Because if so, then whats the point of getting this over a i7-10700k which I assume can do 5.3Ghz easy? Or even sticking with and building with the New i9 9900 I got for 240 bucks which boosts up to 4.7Ghz


err no. with the exception of the dude above this post. 5.1 is a lock with 10900k on a good aio. 
gaming stable u dont so so aio will do. 

10700k.. 5ghz you should be singing


Spoiler











out of the 6 tested two sp 57, two sp 63, ons sp 7x and mine... all hit 5.1 vmin 1.17-1.25. the higher voltage one temps were almost the same as the lower temps one. avx disable FFT80 5mins. 
voltage set [email protected] [email protected]+100mv


----------



## junglechocolate

cstkl1 said:


> err no. with the exception of the dude above this post. 5.1 is a lock with 10900k on a good aio.
> *gaming stable u dont so so aio will do*.
> 
> 10700k.. 5ghz you should be singing
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> https://youtu.be/900jWVSWS3M
> 
> 
> 
> out of the 6 tested two sp 57, two sp 63, ons sp 7x and mine... all hit 5.1 vmin 1.17-1.25. the higher voltage one temps were almost the same as the lower temps one. avx disable FFT80 5mins.
> voltage set [email protected] [email protected]+100mv


Can you clarify? Are you saying 5.1Ghz is not gaming stable on average?


----------



## cstkl1

junglechocolate said:


> Can you clarify? Are you saying 5.1Ghz is not gaming stable on average?


sorry i meant dont need a fantastic 360 aio. 

intel really did a hocus pocus r&d magic for 10900k binning


----------



## ThrashZone

cstkl1 said:


> sorry i meant dont need a fantastic 360 aio.
> 
> *intel really did a hocus pocus r&d magic for 10900k binning*


Hi,
lol yeah more incoming 
https://www.techpowerup.com/270278/...series-listed-more-comet-lake-s-cpus-incoming


----------



## newls1

Betroz said:


> We need more than his word on this. Did he have a source?


believe he said in the video all the specs crucial gave him for the ram. Let me see if i can dig up the video... stand by sir

Here is the video. If you go to 26:39 in, he starts talking about it. Clearly is single rank, he shows you there is only fat chips on 1 side!


----------



## newls1

junglechocolate said:


> SO I was eyeing the 10900k to buy for gaming and a little future proofing as funny as that sounds. I am still on my i7-930. I typically dont upgrade till 3 to 4 year cycle. The 930 just served me well...really really well for 10 years lol.
> 
> Am i to understand that its hard to get this thing stable at 5.1ghz? Because if so, then whats the point of getting this over a i7-10700k which I assume can do 5.3Ghz easy? Or even sticking with and building with the New i9 9900 I got for 240 bucks which boosts up to 4.7Ghz


5.1ghz on a 10900k is a walk in the park. I say that though, you just need a decent board, and decent cooling.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

Betroz said:


> We need more than his word on this. Did he have a source?


Here it is


----------



## Betroz

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> Here it is


I would rather run them at 4266 with tighter timings, or even 4000. Too bad they're not b-die.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

Betroz said:


> I would rather run them at 4266 with tighter timings, or even 4000. Too bad they're not b-die.


Those micron 16Gb dies are for high frequencies (4800+)

If you want tight timings, the best choice is 3600C16D-32GTZN considering the price


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Anyone got 10900k batch x025d329? Good sp? Im still at work so cant test them yet and the ram I got in my system is https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-32gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820232768?item=N82E16820232768
Both of my sp63 can run them at 4400 17-18-18-38, 1.5v and 1.25 IO SA. For 4500 I need to bump voltage to 1.55v and auto IO SA.


----------



## ogider

newls1 said:


> 5.1ghz on a 10900k is a walk in the park. I say that though, you just need a decent board, and decent cooling.


Not with my cpu.
p95 small fft no avx . cpu package power 270W and still errors in hwinfo.
cpu 1.300V when test is running.


----------



## newls1

ogider said:


> Not with my cpu.
> p95 small fft no avx . cpu package power 270W and still errors in hwinfo.
> cpu 1.300V when test is running.


what LLC are you using? I know that I drop to 1.255v (bios set to 1.385v) using LLC6 and im all good. If I set 1.260v in BIOS and max LLC8/9 (whatever is the highest cant remember) so I have ZERO vcore fluctuation, I get a hardlock IMMEDIATELY and or a BSOD.. Something is VERY VERY important about transient response and we need vdroop. All these years setting max LLC so i have no vdroop are over, it really helps for whatever reason.


----------



## ogider

LLC6..(msi z490 Unify-max llc8 biggest vdrop)Override mode with 1.39V I set memory below 3000MHz with sa and io very low 1.1V , ddr4 voltage 1.3V to eliminate problems from high OC ddr4.
And I just had 1.303V during test p95 with max 278W package power and still hwinfo error after like 1 min?

When I tested with HT-OFF i noticed that one core is quite weak. Needed like +0.05V to not get stopped working during p95 test.


----------



## newls1

ogider said:


> LLC6..(msi z490 Unify-max llc8 biggest vdrop)Override mode with 1.39V I set memory below 3000MHz with sa and io very low 1.1V , ddr4 voltage 1.3V to eliminate problems from high OC ddr4.
> And I just had 1.303V during test p95 with max 278W package power and still hwinfo error after like 1 min?
> 
> When I tested with HT-OFF i noticed that one core is quite weak. Needed like +0.05V to not get stopped working during p95 test.


if i was you, id put SA and IO to 1.30v (NO, THAT IS NOT TO MUCH) split hairs with your LLC, if 8 is the most droop, and 1 being flatline, go LLC4 and set bios vcore to 1.385 and report back. DDR Vdimm id put at no less then 1.35-1.40 even at stock speeds.


----------



## Nizzen

GG


----------



## ogider

newls1 said:


> if i was you, id put SA and IO to 1.30v (NO, THAT IS NOT TO MUCH) split hairs with your LLC, if 8 is the most droop, and 1 being flatline, go LLC4 and set bios vcore to 1.385 and report back. DDR Vdimm id put at no less then 1.35-1.40 even at stock speeds.


I did that... 10 sec running p95 small fft no avx 292W 1.375V 98c temp. I stopped test bc of this temps.
I have arctic freezer 360. 100% speed after 85c hit.


----------



## Betroz

ogider said:


> I did that... 10 sec running p95 small fft no avx 292W 1.375V 98c temp. I stopped test bc of this temps.
> I have arctic freezer 360. 100% speed after 85c hit.


If you use your system mostly for games, then consider turning HT Off, as that will lower your temps alot. Or use HT On, but at 5.0 allcore with lower vcore.


----------



## ogider

Yea. Im ok with my 5.0 1.234V during p95. Just a bit envy with Yours cpu OC results. But I always had bad luck with cpu.
At last I can have 2x16GB running 4533 c17 flat with tight timmings. Little consolation


----------



## Nizzen

ogider said:


> Yea. Im ok with my 5.0 1.234V during p95. Just a bit envy with Yours cpu OC results. But I always had bad luck with cpu.
> At last I can have 2x16GB running 4533 c17 flat with tight timmings. Little consolation


Any Aida64 memorybenchmark to share?


----------



## ogider

Nizzen said:


> Any Aida64 memorybenchmark to share?


----------



## Betroz

ogider said:


> Yea. Im ok with my 5.0 1.234V during p95. Just a bit envy with Yours cpu OC results.


My CPU isn't much better. 5.1 Ghz HT Off, LLC6, 1.36 vcore set.


----------



## Nizzen

ogider said:


>


Nice result! What memorykit is this, and do you active cool it?


----------



## ogider

f4-3200c14d-32gtz bought at beginning 2019 year.
1x80mm noiseblocker with 1200RPM working all time.
I can have 4400c16 flat but that req 1.55v and not enought cooling for it. Errors after 45c during memory test.

Have post and small tests with 4600 c17 flat but errors during the stability test.


----------



## cletus-cassidy

cstkl1 said:


> Where where??


I ended up buying a Dell workstation with the 10980XE in it. Used some credit card kung foo to pay ~$1000 out of pocket. Plan to pull the CPU out and drop it into my X299 and then sell the rest of the Dell parts on eBay.


----------



## Circaflex

just got my delid tool in from rockitcool, those that scraped your PCB how old was your delid tool? was it the 10th gen? I noticed my tool has a notch in the piece that pushes against the ihs, whereas on a few videos where they scraped the pcb they did not have a notch and i suspect the tool was different.


----------



## SoldierRBT

10900K SP83 5.3GHZ 1.296v under load quick 30 mins prime95 small ffts non-avx


----------



## munternet

SoldierRBT said:


> 10900K SP83 5.3GHZ 1.296v under load quick 30 mins prime95 small ffts non-avx


LLC?


----------



## SoldierRBT

LLC5


----------



## Baasha

So the Apex can run faster RAM speeds than the Extreme? 

It's like $350 cheaper than the Extreme as well.


----------



## munternet

Baasha said:


> So the Apex can run faster RAM speeds than the Extreme?
> 
> It's like $350 cheaper than the Extreme as well.


2 DIMM boards will usually be better with 2 sticks but if you want to run 4 sticks...


----------



## cstkl1

cletus-cassidy said:


> I ended up buying a Dell workstation with the 10980XE in it. Used some credit card kung foo to pay ~$1000 out of pocket. Plan to pull the CPU out and drop it into my X299 and then sell the rest of the Dell parts on eBay.


that was my original upgrade path. 10980xe at 1k usd only.. 

the 10900k.. it was the 5.1ghz that pulled me in.


----------



## Baasha

munternet said:


> 2 DIMM boards will usually be better with 2 sticks but if you want to run 4 sticks...


Yea my first choice was the Z490 Dark from EVGA - seems like a beast but it is still not released/available which seems quite strange. It would complement my SR-3 Dark mobo on the other rig very well. 

Oh well, I'm happy with my Maximus XII Extreme.


----------



## skullbringer

SoldierRBT said:


> 10900K SP83 5.3GHZ 1.296v under load quick 30 mins prime95 small ffts non-avx


solid chip my man!

delid and direct die cool that ****er and 5.5 GHz easy, maybe even 5.6


----------



## cstkl1

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Anyone got 10900k batch x025d329? Good sp? Im still at work so cant test them yet and the ram I got in my system is https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-32gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820232768?item=N82E16820232768
> Both of my sp63 can run them at 4400 17-18-18-38, 1.5v and 1.25 IO SA. For 4500 I need to bump voltage to 1.55v and auto IO SA.


oo nice.. those i heard are pretty warm even at 1.35v

try bios 0606 on asus.

hci and screenshots is your friend.


----------



## cstkl1

Baasha said:


> So the Apex can run faster RAM speeds than the Extreme?
> 
> It's like $350 cheaper than the Extreme as well.


its a ocer board. not sure on 24/7 long term reliability.. but the 2dimms has been designed to have to shortest path to the imc etc. 

just imagine if dimm 0 was switched with dimm 1 on the extreme.. then u got yourself a apex.


----------



## cstkl1

Baasha said:


> Yea my first choice was the Z490 Dark from EVGA - seems like a beast but it is still not released/available which seems quite strange. It would complement my SR-3 Dark mobo on the other rig very well.
> 
> Oh well, I'm happy with my Maximus XII Extreme.


havent read up but i assume its because of daisy chain topology. evga normally releases stuff that works to their claims to a certain lvl first. 
asus will definately get there on the extreme. 
currently.. hmm its as if all the dram tuning been imported from apex to others without actual testing or bdie training been neglected. 

@owikh84 did 4400-4700 easy on giga masters on 2dimm with superb voltage scaling..

he conquered 4dimm 4133 in formula as well using my timings which nobody seems to realize.. but hey go on chasing ya.. its tight and efficient. passes everything including fft112 on bios 0606.


----------



## cletus-cassidy

cstkl1 said:


> that was my original upgrade path. 10980xe at 1k usd only..
> 
> the 10900k.. it was the 5.1ghz that pulled me in.


I ended up doing both paths, to the chagrin of my wallet (and wife).


----------



## SoldierRBT

skullbringer said:


> solid chip my man!
> 
> delid and direct die cool that ****er and 5.5 GHz easy, maybe even 5.6


Thank you. It's a decent CPU. I'd go direct die cooling when I find the right chip. Lowest voltage for 5.3GHz CB R15 is 1.252v.


----------



## Nizzen

SoldierRBT said:


> Thank you. It's a decent CPU. I'd go direct die cooling when I find the right chip. Lowest voltage for 5.3GHz CB R15 is 1.252v.


What is you're lowest voltage for Cinebench R20?


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

I think the reason z490 dark has not come out yet is because it was originally advertised with 4600 memory capability. Then when other board makers release their boards, some do 5000 memory capability. So i think that maybe evga delay the board release to spend time increasing memory capability upwards to 5000 or more. I only ever hear good things about evga so i'm very excited to see what they come up with.


----------



## MiHi76

Hello Guys,
I have my first OC done on z490.
Reached my target @5.1GHz on the Cores and 4.5GHz on the Cache @1.349v Bios LLC 4. That is also the prediction value for 5.1 GHz.
Good job Asus!
Tried lower values also but got a whea error in prime. Bumped 10mV up to 1.349V.
Passed prime without avx 1 hour and RB 2.56 2 hours.Stable enough for a gaming rig.

My 32gb Quad Kit b-dies running @[email protected]

My question is now, what can be done better especially with the use of adaptive voltage which is the mode i use.
While gaming BFV the load voltage is around ~1.27V. 
Does it make sense to set a higher LLC value to make the voltage drop smaller in games and reach a lower load voltage in light loads?
Or to play with the AC-DC resistances?

Load values in prime dropped down to 1.19v or lower and in RB to around 1.217v. Don't have the exact voltages because hwi stores the idle voltage AS the min measured voltages ~0.067v when using adaptive mode.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

MiHi76 said:


> Hello Guys,
> I have my first OC done on z490.
> Reached my target @5.1GHz in the Cores and 4.5GHz in the Cache @1.349v Bios LLC 4. That is also the prediction value for 5.1 GHz.
> Good job Asus!
> Tried lower values also but got a whea error in prime. Bumped 10mV up to 1.349V.
> Passed prime without avx 1 hour and RB 2.56 2 hours.Stable enough for a gaming rig.
> 
> My 32gb Quad Kit b-dies running @[email protected]
> 
> My question is now, what can be done better especially with the use of adaptive voltage which is the mode i use.
> While gaming BFV the load voltage is around ~1.27V.
> Does it make sense to set a higher LLC value to make the voltage drop smaller in games and reach a lower load voltage in light loads?
> Or to play with the AC-DC resistances?
> 
> Load values in prime dropped down to 1.19v or lower and in RB to around 1.217v. Don't have the exact voltages because hwi stores the idle voltage AS the min measured voltages ~0.067v when using adaptive mode.
> 
> Thanks in advance.



Gonna follow for the answer to your question. I'm in similar situation with my OC. I'm on acdc-1 and Not sure if I should increase vcore llc to turbo and lower offset to +100mv or if I should leave vcore llc at low with +190mv offset.


----------



## Nizzen

XGS-Duplicity said:


> I think the reason z490 dark has not come out yet is because it was originally advertised with 4600 memory capability. Then when other board makers release their boards, some do 5000 memory capability. So i think that maybe evga delay the board release to spend time increasing memory capability upwards to 5000 or more. I only ever hear good things about evga so i'm very excited to see what they come up with.


Evga is always late to the party. When the party is over, Evga boards becoming available LOL. 

I can't understand the Asus extreme z490, It's just like a overpriced z490 formula 
Want 4 dimms, then buy Formula. Want the best OC board in general with the best bios support, then buy Apex 

I have Msi z490 unify itx too, but the support is a joke. Latest bios is from May LOL


----------



## MiHi76

evga has great support, at least in Germany.

I don't understand the surcharge from Extreme to Formula either. that's why I bought the Formula.
I'm happy with it, except for the problems with the Intel i225 network chip.

I also had MSI on x99. destroyed ram sticks twice. I will not buy again.


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

Nizzen said:


> Evga is always late to the party. When the party is over, Evga boards becoming available LOL.
> 
> I can't understand the Asus extreme z490, It's just like a overpriced z490 formula
> Want 4 dimms, then buy Formula. Want the best OC board in general with the best bios support, then buy Apex
> 
> I have Msi z490 unify itx too, but the support is a joke. Latest bios is from May LOL



Oooo wasn't aware of that. 

I don't know much about asus boards. I just know the apex/gene are very highly regarded, with the apex being the #1 daily driver memory OC board for multiple years in a row(in it's own league entirely) and also very popular with ln2 enthusiasts.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

Nizzen said:


> Evga is always late to the party. When the party is over, Evga boards becoming available LOL.
> 
> I can't understand the Asus extreme z490, It's just like a overpriced z490 formula
> Want 4 dimms, then buy Formula. Want the best OC board in general with the best bios support, then buy Apex
> 
> I have Msi z490 unify itx too, but the support is a joke. Latest bios is from May LOL


If I remember correctly, only Extreme has ES9023P DAC (this also on M12H & M12F), TDA21490 and other high-end stuff, especially PI3DBS16000ZHE for the full PCIe 4.0 support, while other ASUS boards use ASM1480...


----------



## Nizzen

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> If I remember correctly, only Extreme has ES9023P DAC (this also on M12H & M12F), TDA21490 and other high-end stuff, especially PI3DBS16000ZHE for the full PCIe 4.0 support, while other ASUS boards use ASM1480...


Nice! Tnx for info


----------



## Talon2016

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> If I remember correctly, only Extreme has ES9023P DAC (this also on M12H & M12F), TDA21490 and other high-end stuff, especially PI3DBS16000ZHE for the full PCIe 4.0 support, while other ASUS boards use ASM1480...


Ya looking at the boards componenets for Asus, it appears the only board that should support PCIE 4.0 with Rocket Lake is going to be the Extreme board. I really hope Rocket Lake has a 10 core option, unfortunately all leaks point to max 8 core option which is strange to be going backwards. IPC must be greatly enhanced to make that move.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

Talon2016 said:


> Ya looking at the boards componenets for Asus, it appears the only board that should support PCIE 4.0 with Rocket Lake is going to be the Extreme board. I really hope Rocket Lake has a 10 core option, unfortunately all leaks point to max 8 core option which is strange to be going backwards. IPC must be greatly enhanced to make that move.


One thing I am afraid of is the RKL SA volt needs SVID, which means CPU PWM IC should output VCore+GT+SA. That might be the reason that ASUS cut the GT support on ROG Z490 boards, since the PWM IC on M12 boards can only support 2-way current output.


----------



## munternet

Installed the M12A 0088 bios and shaved 1.7ns 
4400-16-16-16-36-2T viper steels


----------



## Betroz

munternet said:


> Installed the M12A 0088 bios and shaved 1.7ns
> 4400-16-16-16-36-2T viper steels


Because of tXP and PPD tuning in BIOS?


----------



## munternet

Betroz said:


> Because of tXP and PPD tuning in BIOS?


Yup :thumb:


----------



## geriatricpollywog

munternet said:


> Installed the M12A 0088 bios and shaved 1.7ns /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 4400-16-16-16-36-2T viper steels


Nice, 2 or 4 sticks?


----------



## ThrashZone

0451 said:


> Nice, 2 or 4 sticks?


Hi,
M12*A A*pex so 2 sticks.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Got a new chip and its a sp104. Im able to pass realbench now without chill the ambient. But this chip only runs my mem at 4400cl17, no post if I run 4500mhz like the other chips. 1.355v llc8 @ 5.5ghz, 5ghz cache. Ambient 26c, water temp 30c.


----------



## munternet

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Got a new chip and its a sp104. Im able to pass realbench now without chill the ambient. But this chip only runs my mem at 4400cl17, no post if I run 4500mhz like the other chips. 1.355v llc8 @ 5.5ghz, 5ghz cache. Ambient 26c, water temp 30c.


Did you try loading a previous profile with the RTLs fixed?
Nice sp :thumb:


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

munternet said:


> Thanh Nguyen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got a new chip and its a sp104. Im able to pass realbench now without chill the ambient. But this chip only runs my mem at 4400cl17, no post if I run 4500mhz like the other chips. 1.355v llc8 @ 5.5ghz, 5ghz cache. Ambient 26c, water temp 30c.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you try loading a previous profile with the RTLs fixed?
> Nice sp /forum/images/smilies/thumb.gif
Click to expand...

Did not have time to run ram test yet, but what can I do to make it better?


----------



## Vaporware

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Did not have time to run ram test yet, but what can I do to make it better?


Can you post a screenshot of your V/F table?


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Vaporware said:


> Thanh Nguyen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did not have time to run ram test yet, but what can I do to make it better?
> 
> 
> 
> Can you post a screenshot of your V/F table?
Click to expand...

Vf curve has something to do with the ram?


----------



## Thebc2

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Vf curve has something to do with the ram?




I think we’d just like to see it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## cstkl1

Nizzen said:


> Nice! Tnx for info


If u didnt know da extreme ocs as good as apex on twi dimm

Check safedisk fb. That dude just rocked 4700..17-17-17-34 - 1t @1.56v with his norm tight timings..bios 0704


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Got a new chip and its a sp104. Im able to pass realbench now without chill the ambient. But this chip only runs my mem at 4400cl17, no post if I run 4500mhz like the other chips. 1.355v llc8 @ 5.5ghz, 5ghz cache. Ambient 26c, water temp 30c.


Amazing result! You can probably pass Linpack and P95 small fft avx at 5.4 and 1.3v.


----------



## MiHi76

Hello,
are the AC/DC readings correct in HWI?
I have not set the values to 0.01mOhm.
Are they coming from the "svid behavior best case"?


----------



## Falkentyne

MiHi76 said:


> Hello,
> are the AC/DC readings correct in HWI?
> I have not set the values to 0.01mOhm.
> Are they coming from the "svid behavior best case"?


Best Case=0.01 mOhm AC/DC
Typical: 0.6 mOhm AC/DC
Worst Case: 0.9 mOhm AC/DC
Intel's Fail Safe: 1.1 mOhm AC/DC


----------



## TK421

Falkentyne said:


> Best Case=0.01 mOhm AC/DC
> Typical: 0.6 mOhm AC/DC
> Worst Case: 0.9 mOhm AC/DC
> Intel's Fail Safe: 1.1 mOhm AC/DC





Falken, you said there's a way to reset/re-calibrate the SP score in the bios?


----------



## cstkl1

Falkentyne said:


> Best Case=0.01 mOhm AC/DC
> Typical: 0.6 mOhm AC/DC
> Worst Case: 0.9 mOhm AC/DC
> Intel's Fail Safe: 1.1 mOhm AC/DC


Only affected in adaptive right bro??
Thought i read somewhere.. manual oc ac/dc doesnt work??


----------



## cstkl1

TK421 said:


> Falken, you said there's a way to reset/re-calibrate the SP score in the bios?


Its right there below tweaker paradise. AI feature.

Edit
Oh sp score.. oops. Thought u meant cooling.


----------



## TK421

cstkl1 said:


> Its right there below tweaker paradise. AI feature.
> 
> Edit
> Oh sp score.. oops. Thought u meant cooling.



Yeah cooling is always being trained, I think someone here mentioned SP bug and Falken had instructions to fully reset the bios so it can re-evaluate the CPU


----------



## Falkentyne

cstkl1 said:


> Only affected in adaptive right bro??
> Thought i read somewhere.. manual oc ac/dc doesnt work??


Any mode which relies on "VID" for vcore. (which you can see if you set DC Loadline to 0.01 independently as this will show the base VID that AC Loadline sets at X current draw).
So, adaptive (+/- 5mv) and Offset (+/- 5mv). Note that DC Loadline is not used for vcore, even though the VID reported to OS will change if you use it, the vcore gets the signal from ACLL + LLC only, not from DCLL!!. DCLL=0.01 mOhms is like LLC8, with the exception that DCLL will not affect VID signal to vcore (ACLL affects this, NOT DCLL!), while LLC affects vcore directly. It is used only for package power measurements. It's used to "predict" the LLC vdroop slope and showing that as VID in the end.
You can remove that prediction by setting DCLL to 0.01 mOhms, but CPU Package Power will be reported wrong, if ACLL is higher than 0.01 mOhms.

I don't know if "Auto" Vcore uses VID for vcore (meaning AC/DC Loadlines) or if it uses AI trained vcore or not.
On Gigabyte Z490 Aorus Master, Auto vcore uses VID (so, it uses AC/DC Loadlines). But I think on Asus, I don't know for sure. Maybe it uses its own adaptive or optimized mode.

warning: please never use LLC6-8 with a high AC Loadline unless you are on fixed vcore only. Not unless you want 1.7v in your CPU in adaptive/offset modes...


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Vaporware said:


> Thanh Nguyen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did not have time to run ram test yet, but what can I do to make it better?
> 
> 
> 
> Can you post a screenshot of your V/F table?
Click to expand...

Dont know why this table is impotant?


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

holy shiznit. That's one hell of a chip. Best 10900k i've seen to date. 5.5ghz @ 1.354 rofl, You nasty nasty boy.

https://youtu.be/WJ_Na0YUSWA?t=14


----------



## munternet

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Dont know why this table is impotant?


Lucky ba5tard :thumb:
F12 with a usb stick inserted is printscreen in bios


----------



## TK421

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Got a new chip and its a sp104. Im able to pass realbench now without chill the ambient. But this chip only runs my mem at 4400cl17, no post if I run 4500mhz like the other chips. 1.355v llc8 @ 5.5ghz, 5ghz cache. Ambient 26c, water temp 30c.


sell it to me? :v


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

Silicon lottery would probably charge at least 2.5k for that chip. and if that's acdc-1 with standard llc (low form of llc-) to hit 5.5ghz, That could quite possibly be a chip that can be ran somehwere between 5.8ghz-6ghz daily with Hyperthreading disabled and a higher offset/higher llc with the right cooling solution. That's a real golden chip. Congratz.


----------



## Betroz

Have anyone in here tried to run their 10900K at stock (power limits removed though) with a negative vcore offset? So that you get 4.9 allcore and 5.3 two-core boost, but at lower voltage and temps.


----------



## skullbringer

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Dont know why this table is impotant?


5.6 GHz with direct die cooling should be doable, maybe 5.7 with great ambient/water temp 

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk


----------



## Nizzen

skullbringer said:


> 5.6 GHz with direct die cooling should be doable, maybe 5.7 with great ambient/water temp
> 
> Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk


Haven't seen many other people her with 5.6ghz run on water with 10900k. Looks like @Thanh Nguyen needs to delid that cpu. It will certainly be better than my average SP87 cpu. I need ~1.44v load to run CB 20 at 5600 mhz.


----------



## skullbringer

Nizzen said:


> Haven't seen many other people her with 5.6ghz run on water with 10900k. Looks like @Thanh Nguyen needs to delid that cpu. It will certainly be better than my average SP87 cpu. I need ~1.44v load to run CB 20 at 5600 mhz.


pretty sure it's delidded already, otherwise how would he cool 1.35V load 

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk


----------



## joyzao

Hi guys, I have hyperx predator rgb 4000mhz 2x8gb b-die, I'm getting 4553 mhz with latency 42 ns, I believe I can improve this, could you give tips on timing for this memory? I'm currently running at 1.55 dram voltage can this be bad?

My 10900k is at 5.2 ghz with 1.30 vcore, it is not the best but I believe they are good, right? I have a z490 msi edge wifi, I accept BIOS tips for this card, many options are in the automatic ...

Cinebench r20 6800 //// cpu z single core 631

that's nice? Thanks


----------



## munternet

joyzao said:


> Hi guys, I have hyperx predator rgb 4000mhz 2x8gb b-die, I'm getting 4553 mhz with latency 42 ns, I believe I can improve this, could you give tips on timing for this memory? I'm currently running at 1.55 dram voltage can this be bad?
> 
> My 10900k is at 5.2 ghz with 1.30 vcore, it is not the best but I believe they are good, right? I have a z490 msi edge wifi, I accept BIOS tips for this card, many options are in the automatic ...
> 
> Cinebench r20 6800 //// cpu z single core 631
> 
> that's nice? Thanks


That's a pretty good memory overclock off the bat. Voltage is fine but you need to check all the memory voltages.
I think you should start by reading the memory overclock tutorial linked in my sig. There is too much to say here 
There is also a memory overclocking thread https://www.overclock.net/forum/5-i...-intel-ddr4-24-7-memory-stability-thread.html


----------



## skullbringer

probably a stupid question, but can someone explain simplified what "PLL Bandwidth" in BIOS or "CPU PLLs OC" in HWinfo is, what it is good for and what benefits raising it to level 1 or level 2 would have?


----------



## safedisk

CPU : 10900K
MB : ROG MAXIMUS XII APEX 0088 BIOS
RAM : G.SKILL TRIDENT Z ROYAL 4000CL15 8Gx2

SP 106
WATER TEMP 16c
CPU Clock 53 / Cache 50
VCORE 1.29V LLC 6
VCCSA 1.59v
VCCIO 1.5v

LINX 0.9.7 Memory 1T performance is really strong.
GFLOPS 700 EASY


----------



## joyzao

munternet said:


> That's a pretty good memory overclock off the bat. Voltage is fine but you need to check all the memory voltages.
> I think you should start by reading the memory overclock tutorial linked in my sig. There is too much to say here
> There is also a memory overclocking thread https://www.overclock.net/forum/5-i...-intel-ddr4-24-7-memory-stability-thread.html


First of all, thank you for your attention.

I made some changes based on the guide, I managed to lower the latency a bit by setting the txp to 4. This is going through the cinebench, in the real bench 2.56, I played battlefield v too, but in the memory stability tests it points out errors.

I'm putting the prints that I took from both bios and aida 64, could you help me how can I make this better? So far I haven't noticed anything abnormal, blue screen and etc ... However, the memory test has quick errors.

Thank you.

https://postimg.cc/gallery/wm5ZHk7


----------



## munternet

joyzao said:


> First of all, thank you for your attention.
> 
> I made some changes based on the guide, I managed to lower the latency a bit by setting the txp to 4. This is going through the cinebench, in the real bench 2.56, I played battlefield v too, but in the memory stability tests it points out errors.
> 
> I'm putting the prints that I took from both bios and aida 64, could you help me how can I make this better? So far I haven't noticed anything abnormal, blue screen and etc ... However, the memory test has quick errors.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> https://postimg.cc/gallery/wm5ZHk7


There really is no shortcut to memory overclocking
You can just do some basic stuff but you still have to stability test and correct the voltages yourself
The important thing is to download the correct tools for fast identification of problems so you can correct them. 
Even better if you can do it from windows without having to boot to the bios.For Asus there is Memtweakit and TurboV-core. Not sure if they will work for you.
You should be running HWinfo64 and Asrock Timing Configurator to monitor everything
If you are getting errors you could be corrupting your OS so prepare a good way to reload quickly with a OS drive clone preferably


----------



## munternet

safedisk said:


> CPU : 10900K
> MB : ROG MAXIMUS XII APEX 0088 BIOS
> RAM : G.SKILL TRIDENT Z ROYAL 4000CL15 8Gx2
> 
> SP 106
> WATER TEMP 16c
> CPU Clock 53 / Cache 50
> VCORE 1.29V LLC 6
> VCCSA 1.59v
> VCCIO 1.5v
> 
> LINX 0.9.7 Memory 1T performance is really strong.
> GFLOPS 700 EASY


Welcome to OCN 
Nice chip sp 106 :thumb:
That's some pretty high memory overclocking with voltages not for the feint of heart
You must be safedisk the legend


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

safedisk said:


> CPU : 10900K
> MB : ROG MAXIMUS XII APEX 0088 BIOS
> RAM : G.SKILL TRIDENT Z ROYAL 4000CL15 8Gx2
> 
> SP 106
> WATER TEMP 16c
> CPU Clock 53 / Cache 50
> VCORE 1.29V LLC 6
> VCCSA 1.59v
> VCCIO 1.5v
> 
> LINX 0.9.7 Memory 1T performance is really strong.
> GFLOPS 700 EASY


Where do u buy 16c water at?


----------



## reflex75

safedisk said:


> CPU : 10900K
> MB : ROG MAXIMUS XII APEX 0088 BIOS
> RAM : G.SKILL TRIDENT Z ROYAL 4000CL15 8Gx2
> 
> SP 106
> WATER TEMP 16c
> CPU Clock 53 / Cache 50
> VCORE 1.29V LLC 6
> VCCSA 1.59v
> VCCIO 1.5v
> 
> LINX 0.9.7 Memory 1T performance is really strong.
> GFLOPS 700 EASY


Amazing memory OC!
I knew Apex was legendary for high mem frequency, but keeping CR 1T at 4800Mhz?!!
My XI Hero stops 1T at only 3733Mhz, and max out at 4400 
I am very curious to see your Aida benchmark result!
By the way, I have the same great memory but 4x8, so at least I have something better compared to the great Apex board with only 2 Dimm slots 
Because 2x8GB is not enough and not future proof as best gaming rig, and 2x16 is too slow compared to 4x8, so best for me is still 4x8 T-topology board.
And if I can't reach higher frequency, at least I can play lower latency


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Has anyone tried liquid gallium vs conductonaunt? 40.3 vs 70.6 but the seller says liquid gallium is better. I bet if it is better, its just 1c. I plan to test it out on my gpu but too busy lately so did not have time for it.


----------



## Falkentyne

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Has anyone tried liquid gallium vs conductonaunt? 40.3 vs 70.6 but the seller says liquid gallium is better. I bet if it is better, its just 1c. I plan to test it out on my gpu but too busy lately so did not have time for it.


There is NO SUCH THING as "Liquid gallium". Gallium is a solid at room temperature but it melts at about 30C. Gallium cannot be used as a raw thermal compound because it will harden and expand when it cools and will either completely destroy the die or will destroy the heat transfer properties when it hardens.

All Liquid metals (Gallium based alloys) that are suitable for CPU heat transfer cooling (not on aluminum heatsinks!!!!) are "Galinstan" alloys, consisting of Gallium (about 65%), Indium (about 25%) and Tin (about 10%). Some may contain trace (<2%) amounts of bismuth and antimony to help wetting (spreading) and anti-oxidation. Some commercial mixtures may have a higher indium content. Gallium by itself is only about 40 w/mk, and cannot be used by itself.

Eutectic alloys like Galinstan have their W/mk *Lower* than the lowest w/mk metal in the mixture. So while Indium is 82 w/mk and Tin is 67 w/mk, Gallium, the most plentiful component is 40.5 w/mk, and mixing these three metals together lowers the melting point of the metal that melts at the lowest temp (Gallium --at about 30C), to around 0 to -8C. But the heat transfer properties of the "Galinstan" compound will be *substantially* lower than 40.5 W/mk !! It's more like 25-30 w/mk in actuality.

Anyone that tries to tell you otherwise is full of **CRAP**. Even Thermal Grizzly lies about their w/mk levels, so does Thermalright Silver King. (Silver King uses the indium w/mk rating).


----------



## safedisk

munternet said:


> Welcome to OCN
> Nice chip sp 106 :thumb:
> That's some pretty high memory overclocking with voltages not for the feint of heart
> You must be safedisk the legend


Thank you bro!
Low voltage It is a really good memory.


----------



## safedisk

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Where do u buy 16c water at?


I am using chiller.


----------



## safedisk

reflex75 said:


> Amazing memory OC!
> I knew Apex was legendary for high mem frequency, but keeping CR 1T at 4800Mhz?!!
> My XI Hero stops 1T at only 3733Mhz, and max out at 4400
> I am very curious to see your Aida benchmark result!
> By the way, I have the same great memory but 4x8, so at least I have something better compared to the great Apex board with only 2 Dimm slots
> Because 2x8GB is not enough and not future proof as best gaming rig, and 2x16 is too slow compared to 4x8, so best for me is still 4x8 T-topology board.
> And if I can't reach higher frequency, at least I can play lower latency


4800 1t 17-17-17 Latency 33.2ns i get
Thank you bro


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

safedisk said:


> 4800 1t 17-17-17 Latency 33.2ns i get
> Thank you bro


Is that #1 chiller memtest stable 2x8gb Z490 worldwide? Very good config.


----------



## cstkl1

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Where do u buy 16c water at?


from da fridge. lol. 
what u mean buy 16c water??


----------



## Martin778

I'm playing around with a 10900K and noticed it will run away to TJmax in P95 AVX2 smallFFT's just with XMP enabled, even on a bulky 360mm AiO. Anyone noticed the same problem? Feels like the Z490 Tomahawk removes any power limits when using XMP.


----------



## Falkentyne

Martin778 said:


> I'm playing around with a 10900K and noticed it will run away to TJmax in P95 AVX2 smallFFT's just with XMP enabled, even on a bulky 360mm AiO. Anyone noticed the same problem? Feels like the Z490 Tomahawk removes any power limits when using XMP.


Depends on the vcore. If it's below 1.2v load (die-sense only) vcore or vr out, it shoudn't hit 100C unless you're at 5.1ghz+. 1.20v+ load voltage and 5.1 ghz+ and FMA3 is going to be over 255 amps, and an easy 100C+ if you didnt delid.


----------



## Martin778

It looked like this. It wouldn't drop below 4.8 either. The board was setting like 1.28 VID.


----------



## Falkentyne

Martin778 said:


> It looked like this. It wouldn't drop below 4.8 either. The board was setting like 1.28 VID.


One of your threads crashed. You are not stable.
You should organize your prime windows in a side by side format in two columns so you can see each thread's data. Takes time and is annoying to do but very worth it. Just backup prime.txt and local.txt so you dont lose your hard work if you bsod and the files get 0-byted.


----------



## Martin778

Yes, it crashes because the temps skyrocket but this is merely with XMP on, haven't touched anything on the CPU side.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Martin778 said:


> Yes, it crashes because the temps skyrocket but this is merely with XMP on, haven't touched anything on the CPU side.


I would suggest exchanging it for another CPU if you are still within the exchange window. You should be able to run P95 small fft avx2 assuming you haven’t overclocked or changed the voltage. Delidding with a copper IHS and liquid metal on top of the CPU should lower temps by 20c.


----------



## Betroz

0451 said:


> You should be able to run P95 small fft avx2 assuming you haven’t overclocked or changed the voltage.


I don't think that Intel meant for the 10900K to run P95 small fft avx2 at 4.9 Ghz... Loads like that are meant to lower the TDP down to 125W. Same with any other CPU.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Betroz said:


> 0451 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should be able to run P95 small fft avx2 assuming you havenâ€™️t overclocked or changed the voltage.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that Intel meant for the 10900K to run P95 small fft avx2 at 4.9 Ghz... Loads like that are meant to lower the TDP down to 125W. Same with any other CPU.
Click to expand...

Regardless of what Intel meant for the chips, if some can hit 5.2 P95 small fft AVX2 on, then I would personally exchange mine if it couldn’t do it at 4.9. Intel will only guarantee what it says on the box. The vast majority of CPUs are capable of more.


----------



## Nizzen

0451 said:


> Regardless of what Intel meant for the chips, if some can hit 5.2 P95 small fft AVX2 on, then I would personally exchange mine if it couldn’t do it at 4.9. Intel will only guarantee what it says on the box. The vast majority of CPUs are capable of more.


What prime 95 version are you using, an with what settings?

I want to try with mine 10900k, to see if I can get it stable atleast in 10 minutes 

AVX on or off are you using on you're 10700k @ 5200mhz?


----------



## Martin778

So apparently the board is doing something funky by removing the power limits and any AVX offset.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Nizzen said:


> 0451 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of what Intel meant for the chips, if some can hit 5.2 P95 small fft AVX2 on, then I would personally exchange mine if it couldnâ€™️t do it at 4.9. Intel will only guarantee what it says on the box. The vast majority of CPUs are capable of more.
> 
> 
> 
> What prime 95 version are you using, an with what settings?
> 
> I want to try with mine 10900k, to see if I can get it stable atleast in 10 minutes /forum/images/smilies/tongue.gif
> 
> AVX on or off are you using on you're 10700k @ 5200mhz?
Click to expand...

I downloaded the latest version about 3-4 weeks ago from mersenne.org. I am reinstalling Windows now so I couldn’t tell you the exact version number.

My 10700k ran i at 5.2ghz small fft with all other settings default, meaning full AVX enabled. I started the program, selected small fft and hit run. After delidding, 5.3.

Edit: I found the install file. It was version 29.8.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Why someone just wants the CPU hit the wall with prime95 avx test? Its not realistic for daily usage. I tried OCCT linpack 2019 before with 9th gen and all of my oc 9900k cant survive for 10s. Then I just stick to realbench. Its funny my 10900k survives at least 15m in occt linpack 2019.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Why someone just wants the CPU hit the wall with prime95 avx test? Its not realistic for daily usage. I tried OCCT linpack 2019 before with 9th gen and all of my oc 9900k cant survive for 10s. Then I just stick to realbench. Its funny my 10900k survives at least 15m in occt linpack 2019.


It’s called a torture test for a reason. Prime95 specifically says running a weaker torture test is not recommended. If you cannot run AVX2 small fft, your CPU is not Prime95 stable at that clock speed, end of story. If you want to convince yourself your CPU is stable at a certain clock speed, then stick to Realbench or Cinebench, or play with the settings on P95.

I don’t claim a certain clock speed unless I am stable in both P95 and Linpack, which is why I claim 5.3. But by OCN standards my CPU is 5.4ghz.


----------



## Betroz

0451 said:


> My 10700k ran i at 5.2ghz small fft with all other settings default, meaning full AVX enabled. I started the program, selected small fft and hit run. After delidding, 5.3.


Yes, with a powerful custom watercooling loop... Not all of us have that you know. Besides 10 min is not enough to fully saturate the loop with heat. Try a minimum of 30 min.

People in here who say they can run P95 small fft AVX2 on a 10900K overclocked with an AIO is running their fans at 2000++ rpm, and in my mind that doesn't count since the noise is unbearable. Well my opinion...


----------



## Betroz

0451 said:


> If you cannot run AVX2 small fft, your CPU is not Prime95 stable at that clock speed, end of story. If you want to convince yourself your CPU is stable at a certain clock speed, then stick to Realbench or Cinebench, or play with the settings on P95.
> 
> I don’t claim a certain clock speed unless I am stable in both P95 and Linpack, which is why I claim 5.3. But by OCN standards my CPU is 5.4ghz.


Yes, amazing what you can do with a custom loop and increase the vcore till the CPU is stable... Most people either have a 240mm AIO or a powerful aircooler, and with a setup like that, the CPU should be set to follow Intels' powerlimits, and yes then the CPU should pass any stresstest. Mind you at 3700-4200 Mhz allcore - not 5.2+ Ghz


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Betroz said:


> 0451 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My 10700k ran i at 5.2ghz small fft with all other settings default, meaning full AVX enabled. I started the program, selected small fft and hit run. After delidding, 5.3.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, with a powerful custom watercooling loop... Not all of us have that you know. Besides 10 min is not enough to fully saturate the loop with heat. Try a minimum of 30 min.
> 
> People in here who say they can run P95 small fft AVX2 on a 10900K overclocked with an AIO is running their fans at 2000++ rpm, and in my mind that doesn't count since the noise is unbearable. Well my opinion...
Click to expand...

On a warm day, 10 seconds into the test the CPU is at 89c. 10 minutes into the test its at 91c. I don’t think running it for 30 min would bring the temp much past 91. Either way it won’t hit 100c.

Even I would consider 30 min small fft to be an unrealistic use case. I could see apps demanding full AVX for a minute but not 30 min.


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

Whats more intense, p95 of linpakxtreme?


----------



## geriatricpollywog

XGS-Duplicity said:


> Whats more intense, p95 of linpakxtreme?


According to Buildzoid: Linpack Extreme gets hotter but the average temperature is not as high as P95. Linpack hits everything and it complains about any instability with cache and memory.


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

0451 said:


> According to Buildzoid: Linpack Extreme gets hotter but the average temperature is not as high as P95. Linpack hits everything and it complains about any instability with cache and memory.



gotcha thank you


----------



## Falkentyne

0451 said:


> It’s called a torture test for a reason. Prime95 specifically says running a weaker torture test is not recommended. If you cannot run AVX2 small fft, your CPU is not Prime95 stable at that clock speed, end of story. If you want to convince yourself your CPU is stable at a certain clock speed, then stick to Realbench or Cinebench, or play with the settings on P95.
> 
> I don’t claim a certain clock speed unless I am stable in both P95 and Linpack, which is why I claim 5.3. But by OCN standards my CPU is 5.4ghz.


That's part of the problem I have a beef with.
What's the point of being "prime95 FMA3 stable"? For ego? For pride? What program in the real world hammers the *CPU L1/L2* caches with repeated instructions or AVX instructions without ever waiting for RAM access? Real applications don't function like this unless they are EXTREMELY specialized. 

This is no different than doing the "Rowhammer" memory test for memory, to "Force" errors that otherwise wouldn't exist.

You can use a computer in 100% of normal programs, including Battlefield 5, with no risk or chance of errors at 5.3 ghz, yet run prime95 FMA3 and instant 115C/hardlock or BSOD...
Are you seriously implying that everyone has to delid, get a very expensive custom loop, and then do this to be prime95 stable? Really?

You do this to be able to be *normally* stable (real world, gaming) at higher speeds than before (like 5.4 to 5.6 ghz, possibly with hyperthreading off), not to throw 300 amps at your CPU.

I know you have a 10700k, but if you dared try running a 10900k at 5.4 ghz, HT enabled, regardless of how much you delidded or custom looped your system, in small FFT FMA3 Prime95, you would be pulling 300 amps off that chip and run SERIOUS risk of degradation, even if it was under 105C load. I've seen 280 amps at 5.1 ghz @ 1.20v load (FMA3), which is not coolable under normal conditions. And no--direct die with custom loops are NOT normal conditions.

And there's no shame with not being able to pass FMA3 prime95 small FFT on these processors. It's not needed unless you work in the scientific or medical industry. I posted this at the start of this thread and in the M12E review thread. 245 amps is the max amps limit and I would not want to exceed this value.


----------



## Betroz

Falkentyne said:


> And there's no shame with not being able to pass FMA3 prime95 small FFT on these processors. It's not needed unless you work in the scientific or medical industry.


Precisely and people in those professional situations do not overclock their CPU or memory. The CPU would downclock under extreme loads, as it should when 100% reliability is required. A more realistic AVX load for most people would be a render in Blender or something like it.


----------



## Martin778

Here is the catch, I doubt these people would run 2133MHz RAM though and will probably use someting like 3200/3600 C16 stuff, or better and as I posted before - enabling just the XMP on the Tomahawk also removes all AVX offsets and power limits which makes the CPU go up to 100*C in AVX2/FMA3 situations leading to crashes and instability.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Falkentyne said:


> That's part of the problem I have a beef with.
> What's the point of being "prime95 FMA3 stable"? For ego? For pride? What program in the real world hammers the *CPU L1/L2* caches with repeated instructions or AVX instructions without ever waiting for RAM access? Real applications don't function like this unless they are EXTREMELY specialized.
> 
> This is no different than doing the "Rowhammer" memory test for memory, to "Force" errors that otherwise wouldn't exist.
> 
> You can use a computer in 100% of normal programs, including Battlefield 5, with no risk or chance of errors at 5.3 ghz, yet run prime95 FMA3 and instant 115C/hardlock or BSOD...
> Are you seriously implying that everyone has to delid, get a very expensive custom loop, and then do this to be prime95 stable? Really?
> 
> You do this to be able to be *normally* stable (real world, gaming) at higher speeds than before (like 5.4 to 5.6 ghz, possibly with hyperthreading off), not to throw 300 amps at your CPU.
> 
> I know you have a 10700k, but if you dared try running a 10900k at 5.4 ghz, HT enabled, regardless of how much you delidded or custom looped your system, in small FFT FMA3 Prime95, you would be pulling 300 amps off that chip and run SERIOUS risk of degradation, even if it was under 105C load. I've seen 280 amps at 5.1 ghz @ 1.20v load (FMA3), which is not coolable under normal conditions. And no--direct die with custom loops are NOT normal conditions.
> 
> And there's no shame with not being able to pass FMA3 prime95 small FFT on these processors. It's not needed unless you work in the scientific or medical industry. I posted this at the start of this thread and in the M12E review thread. 245 amps is the max amps limit and I would not want to exceed this value.


-The Prime95 user interface specifically states that running a weaker torture test is not recommended. Like I said, if you cannot run Prime95, then your system is not Prime95 stable. That's not even an opinion.

-I don't know about your system, but mine is purpose-built. I built it for bleeding edge gaming on a budget and for stable, sustained overclocking on CPU, RAM, and GPU. It serves both purposes wonderfully. You might not need to be Prime95 stable for your purposes and I can't knock you for that.

-Regarding time under load, I run my system for 10 minutes because I am testing just that: the system. I want to know if my cooling module can keep up. My new GPU has a 240mm AIO and I can't find a block for it, so right now my CPU has its own loop with dual 280mm radiators. Not 5. My other 3 are clean and dry waiting to be installed once I add my GPU to the loop. If I had a Noctua air cooler, I would run it for 1 minute instead of 10 minutes. Regardless of whether you are air cooled or water cooled, you should achieve the same peak clock speed under a torture test. Water cooling just adds capacity. It allows you to run the torture test longer. I wouldn't knock anybody's cooling choices, especially on an overclocking forum.

-These days a lot of programs use AVX and in the future. In the future, more programs will be using AVX. The point of being Prime95 stable is to make sure I don't get caught with my pants down when I am playing a game and my computer randomly locks because something decided to use AVX and my system couldn't handle it.

-I would never imply that everyone should get an expensive cooling system, but I would imply that everyone who enjoys overclocking Comet Lake should delid. It cost me about $25 for a copper IHS and liquid metal and I won't get into how easy it was to do and my clock speed and temperature gains. Delidding should be normal here. After all, this is an overclocking forum, right? If not, Tom's Hardware has a forum around the corner.

-Yes I bought a 10700k. I had a 10900k in my basket twice, but it was gone by the time I checked out. Then I realized that games scale with clock speed, not cores, and I can spend less, have the same performance, and have it now if I get a 10700k. I would absolutely delid a 10900k if I had one and I would run Prime95 for 10 minutes. If a Z490 system with a 10900k can't run Prime95 due to pulling 300 amps, I would consider that an architecture limitation. That's not my fault or your fault, nor is it anything to be upset about.

-I feel like the price of my system is being challenged and I need to address it. My cooling cost about $700 when I built my system 3.5 years ago. My cooling system was designed to last multiple builds. Right now I'm on my 2nd. I spent $409 for the CPU, $300 for the motherboard, $260 on 32gb RAM, and $950 on my GPU. If you have a 10900k and a high-end motherboard, you probably already spent more than me on your system, cooling included. I know you got your board from Asus, so not referring to you specifically.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Another thing, Linpack is way more useful as a torture test because it hits everything harder. It is more demanding on your hardware and less demanding on your cooling. Prime95 is like waterboarding your system whereas Linpack is like ripping its fingernails out.


----------



## truth hurts

if you not in here your oc is not valid end of story 
corona benchmark


----------



## Falkentyne

0451 said:


> Another thing, Linpack is way more useful as a torture test because it hits everything harder. It is more demanding on your hardware and less demanding on your cooling. Prime95 is like waterboarding your system whereas Linpack is like ripping its fingernails out.


I understand and agree with "why" you're saying it, but I don't agree with "what" you're saying, but you make it sound like if a person can't run small FFT FMA3, they shouldn't overclock to begin with. And that couldn't be further from the truth.

For one thing, the big mistake in your arguments is to lump "small FFT FMA3 (AVX2) with AVX testing.
This is a terrible mistake.

Do you know that windows background processes use AVX instructions?
Just clicking the START MENU uses AVX.
Do you know how you can determine this?

Here's what you need to do.

1) disable Thermal Velocity Boost voltage optimizations in your BIOS. This stops the VID scaling positively or negatively on temps. (Example, with TVB enabled, VID at 0C will be -155mv lower than the VID at 100C).
Disabling this option sets the base VID (before AC Loadline has its way with it) for that CPU multiplier as if the CPU is at 100C (worst case).
(THIS IS NOT the same thing as "TVB" for overclocking turbo boost!

2) Set AC Loadline to 0.01 mOhms (1 on Gigabyte). This will prevent AC Loadline from changing the VID as current draw increases. VID will remain constant after the below is done.
3) Set DC Loadline to 0.01 mOhms. This will prevent VID from being "predicted" on vdroop (DCLL doesn't really change the voltage anyway, it just predicts the vdroop and puts this into CPU Package Power MR (VID * Amps).

Now on your desktop, randomly do something that causes the VID on a core to rise by 20 to 30mv. Like clicking the start menu or dragging an icon around.
If that happens, an AVX instruction was used. An AVX instruction causes a VID offset of +20 to +30mv boost.

AVX does not mean that if you run a game that uses AVX, your CPU is going to get 300 amps in that game and run at 120C.
If your CPU tries to draw 300 amps at 120C, it's going to be unstable or lock up hard. =unstable, right?

For a 10900k,
For example, 5.3 ghz at 1.30v VR VOUT / VCC die-sense in small FFT AVX2 (FMA3) prime95 is going to be NORTH of 300 amps current draw. And even if you're delidded you're going to be ABOVE 100C. You are going to be unstable.

Battlefield 5 at 5.3 ghz at 1.30v VR VOUT/die sense load voltage is going to draw 200 amps worst case. OBVIOUSLY the vdroop with LLC at 300 amps is going to be much higher than 200 amps. (example, 1.40v + LLC6 + 200 amps=1.30v load. 1.40v + LLC6=300 amps=1.20v load--lower voltage).

So, does that mean that because your 300 amp FMA3 power virus prime95 test failed at 1.20v load, that Battlefield 5 at 1.30v load at 200 amps is ALSO going to fail because it uses AVX?

Do you see how absurd your argument is?

That's what I'm talking about.

This is NO DIFFERENT from overclocking RAM, to something like 16/16/16/36 @ 4800 mhz @ 1.60v, you letting it get to 60C and it BSOD'ing and going "OMG ITS UNSTABLE. Cant overclock. better go back down to 4400!", when in fact, if you had put a powerful fan on it and kept it under 45C, it would have been fully stable. But if it reached 60C, it would crash. So, since it crashes at 60C, does it mean it's unstable, then? Does your RAM *HAVE* to be able to reach 85C at any overclock with NO ERRORS, to qualify as being stable???

Come on, man.
It's the same fricking thing.

You can't try to make yourself pass a 300 amp load (at 30C higher temps) just to say "yep, that means this 200 amp load, at 30C lower temps, will be fully stable". Killing a house fly with a sledgehammer instead of a flyswatter :/

In the end, it's your CPU. If that's what you want to do, burning it up with unsafe amps, it's your hardware. But it's a little selfish to expect others to do the same thing, especially since you won't replace their hardware if it degrades after they listen to you.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Falkentyne said:


> I understand and agree with "why" you're saying it, but I don't agree with "what" you're saying, but you make it sound like if a person can't run small FFT FMA3, they shouldn't overclock to begin with. And that couldn't be further from the truth.
> 
> For one thing, the big mistake in your arguments is to lump "small FFT FMA3 (AVX2) with AVX testing.
> This is a terrible mistake.
> 
> Do you know that windows background processes use AVX instructions?
> Just clicking the START MENU uses AVX.
> Do you know how you can determine this?
> 
> Here's what you need to do.
> 
> 1) disable Thermal Velocity Boost voltage optimizations in your BIOS. This stops the VID scaling positively or negatively on temps. (Example, with TVB enabled, VID at 0C will be -155mv lower than the VID at 100C).
> Disabling this option sets the base VID (before AC Loadline has its way with it) for that CPU multiplier as if the CPU is at 100C (worst case).
> (THIS IS NOT the same thing as "TVB" for overclocking turbo boost!
> 
> 2) Set AC Loadline to 0.01 mOhms (1 on Gigabyte). This will prevent AC Loadline from changing the VID as current draw increases. VID will remain constant after the below is done.
> 3) Set DC Loadline to 0.01 mOhms. This will prevent VID from being "predicted" on vdroop (DCLL doesn't really change the voltage anyway, it just predicts the vdroop and puts this into CPU Package Power MR (VID * Amps).
> 
> Now on your desktop, randomly do something that causes the VID on a core to rise by 20 to 30mv. Like clicking the start menu or dragging an icon around.
> If that happens, an AVX instruction was used. An AVX instruction causes a VID offset of +20 to +30mv boost.
> 
> AVX does not mean that if you run a game that uses AVX, your CPU is going to get 300 amps in that game and run at 120C.
> If your CPU tries to draw 300 amps at 120C, it's going to be unstable or lock up hard. =unstable, right?
> 
> For a 10900k,
> For example, 5.3 ghz at 1.30v VR VOUT / VCC die-sense in small FFT AVX2 (FMA3) prime95 is going to be NORTH of 300 amps current draw. And even if you're delidded you're going to be ABOVE 100C. You are going to be unstable.
> 
> Battlefield 5 at 5.3 ghz at 1.30v VR VOUT/die sense load voltage is going to draw 200 amps worst case. OBVIOUSLY the vdroop with LLC at 300 amps is going to be much higher than 200 amps. (example, 1.40v + LLC6 + 200 amps=1.30v load. 1.40v + LLC6=300 amps=1.20v load--lower voltage).
> 
> So, does that mean that because your 300 amp FMA3 power virus prime95 test failed at 1.20v load, that Battlefield 5 at 1.30v load at 200 amps is ALSO going to fail because it uses AVX?
> 
> Do you see how absurd your argument is?
> 
> That's what I'm talking about.
> 
> This is NO DIFFERENT from overclocking RAM, to something like 16/16/16/36 @ 4800 mhz @ 1.60v, you letting it get to 60C and it BSOD'ing and going "OMG ITS UNSTABLE. Cant overclock. better go back down to 4400!", when in fact, if you had put a powerful fan on it and kept it under 45C, it would have been fully stable. But if it reached 60C, it would crash. So, since it crashes at 60C, does it mean it's unstable, then? Does your RAM *HAVE* to be able to reach 85C at any overclock with NO ERRORS, to qualify as being stable???
> 
> Come on, man.
> It's the same fricking thing.
> 
> You can't try to make yourself pass a 300 amp load (at 30C higher temps) just to say "yep, that means this 200 amp load, at 30C lower temps, will be fully stable". Killing a house fly with a sledgehammer instead of a flyswatter :/
> 
> In the end, it's your CPU. If that's what you want to do, burning it up with unsafe amps, it's your hardware. But it's a little selfish to expect others to do the same thing, especially since you won't replace their hardware if it degrades after they listen to you.


I definitely see your point that you do not need to be P95 AVX2 stable in order to call your system "Stable." What then is the purpose of having an AVX2 torture test if there is one?


----------



## Falkentyne

0451 said:


> I definitely see your point that you do not need to be P95 AVX2 stable in order to call your system "Stable." What then is the purpose of having an AVX2 torture test if there is one?


To be stable at stock turbo boost settings IMO, as those are the ones that can actually be cooled on normal cooling. And when tweaking stock turbo settings (e.g. 4.9 ghz on 10900k, IIRC, 4.8 ghz on 10700k), then reducing the vcore as low as possible while still maintaining stability.

Once you exceed stock all core turbo boost settings, these chips start requiring work to cool. (and you definitely put in the work).
But the average kid who wants to overclock isn't going to delid, and a not small number of people want to stay far away from water in their system.

I know buildzoid hates "weak" stress tests, but if you can reduce load vcore enough to pass 4 hours of Realbench 2.56 without a single CPU Cache L0 error, a full iteration of "Testmem5 Anta777" (Extreme1) and an hour (or two) of Prime95 AVX disabled 112k-112k FFT (important) and that brand new OCCT memory tester thing on the newest beta ( https://www.ocbase.com/ ) I really doubt anything is going to bring your system down unless you actually force it to crash with an unrealistic stress test.

The issue with prime95 is NOT that it stresses AVX. It's HOW it stresses AVX. AVX stress tests are great and needed. The problem is, Prime95 doesn't operate in a way most programs operate. It just runs purely in the CPU caches without accessing RAM--that's why it runs so hot and draws so much current--the CPU never has to stop to access RAM except at larger FFT Sizes.

That's why Blender demos and Realbench 2.56 are so good. (and x.264 stress test with updated current binaries). They test large load AVX without temps being unmanageable, and they load the CPU in a far more realistic way you would expect from programs.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

truth hurts said:


> if you not in here your oc is not valid end of story
> corona benchmark


#1 BABY!



Falkentyne said:


> To be stable at stock turbo boost settings IMO, as those are the ones that can actually be cooled on normal cooling. And when tweaking stock turbo settings (e.g. 4.9 ghz on 10900k, IIRC, 4.8 ghz on 10700k), then reducing the vcore as low as possible while still maintaining stability.
> 
> Once you exceed stock all core turbo boost settings, these chips start requiring work to cool. (and you definitely put in the work).
> But the average kid who wants to overclock isn't going to delid, and a not small number of people want to stay far away from water in their system.
> 
> I know buildzoid hates "weak" stress tests, but if you can reduce load vcore enough to pass 4 hours of Realbench 2.56 without a single CPU Cache L0 error, a full iteration of "Testmem5 Anta777" (Extreme1) and an hour (or two) of Prime95 AVX disabled 112k-112k FFT (important) and that brand new OCCT memory tester thing on the newest beta ( https://www.ocbase.com/ ) I really doubt anything is going to bring your system down unless you actually force it to crash with an unrealistic stress test.
> 
> The issue with prime95 is NOT that it stresses AVX. It's HOW it stresses AVX. AVX stress tests are great and needed. The problem is, Prime95 doesn't operate in a way most programs operate. It just runs purely in the CPU caches without accessing RAM--that's why it runs so hot and draws so much current--the CPU never has to stop to access RAM except at larger FFT Sizes.
> 
> That's why Blender demos and Realbench 2.56 are so good. (and x.264 stress test with updated current binaries). They test large load AVX without temps being unmanageable, and they load the CPU in a far more realistic way you would expect from programs.


The small fft test uses only the cache, but I run all the tests for my own peace of mind: smallest, small, large, blend, and 112-140. I see how the small fft test can be ridiculous overkill and while I will still run it on my system, I will be more careful about recommending it to others. At least now I can say I am 5.4 stable since I can run Realbench and all the Blender tests at that speed.


----------



## lolhaxz

SP80

Asus Formula XII (so all voltages are die-sense, yikes.)

5.3GHz non AVX 
5.2GHz AVX (offset = 1)

49x Cache (didn't try 50x for 5.3GHz yet)

Set to Adaptive (Offset Mode) set to 0mv offset (ie. not doing anything)

Default VID with SVID behavior set to AUTO and loadline AC/DC set to AUTO is 1.43v for 5.3GHz, resulting VID (in hwinfo at least) under AVX and non AVX is about the same for both, +/- 30mv for the typical AVX offset, ~1.43 - 1.44v which happens to be about the exact voltage required.

WARNING: Do not set loadline values to AUTO and SVID behaviour to AUTO unless your SPECIFIC cpu has "lowish" upper VF curve values, otherwise you would easily be up at 1.6V.

AVX offset = 1

Load voltages:

5.3GHz - 1.341v @ 4K 
5.3GHz - 1.341v @ 24K - 
5.3GHz - 1.359v @ 192K

Prime95 SmallFFT - 224A / 301W worst case - approx mid 80's C

5.2GHz - 1.314v @ 4K 
5.2GHz - 1.305v @ 24K 
5.2GHz - 1.368v @ 192K

Prime95 SmallFFT AVX - 254A / 333W worst case. - approx mid 90's C

R20: 1.350v load - 203A / 280W

2829 R15
6835 R20

Seems bulletproof (enough for me) - Prime95 SmallFFT 1 hour and Prime95 AVX SmallFFT 1 hour, Realbench 1 hr (a absolute sinch in comparison)

Memory left at 3200 CL14 for now - at DDR4-4000 saw some very strange behavior, anything more than 1.05 IO and 1.15v SA tended to result in memory errors significantly faster but was seeing memory errors at 4000 CL17 after 30-40mins.

The prediction is DEADLY accurate for the SP80, within 10-15mv, it's clear that you can easily get away with 40,50,60mv less when you are not trying to run Prime95.

From memory, LLC6 (or could have been LLC5); Custom loop, no delid or liquid metal.

Think this is probably borderline in terms of safety, but I will probably just see if she degrades.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

lolhaxz said:


> SP80
> 
> Asus Formula XII (so all voltages are die-sense, yikes.)
> 
> 5.3GHz non AVX
> 5.2GHz AVX (offset = 1)
> 
> 49x Cache (didn't try 50x for 5.3GHz yet)
> 
> Set to Adaptive (Offset Mode) set to 0mv offset (ie. not doing anything)
> 
> Default VID with SVID behavior set to AUTO and loadline AC/DC set to AUTO is 1.43v for 5.3GHz, resulting VID (in hwinfo at least) under AVX and non AVX is about the same for both, +/- 30mv for the typical AVX offset, ~1.43 - 1.44v which happens to be about the exact voltage required.
> 
> WARNING: Do not set loadline values to AUTO and SVID behaviour to AUTO unless your SPECIFIC cpu has "lowish" upper VF curve values, otherwise you would easily be up at 1.6V.
> 
> AVX offset = 1
> 
> Load voltages:
> 
> 5.3GHz - 1.341v @ 4K
> 5.3GHz - 1.341v @ 24K -
> 5.3GHz - 1.359v @ 192K
> 
> Prime95 SmallFFT - 224A / 301W worst case - approx mid 80's C
> 
> 5.2GHz - 1.314v @ 4K
> 5.2GHz - 1.305v @ 24K
> 5.2GHz - 1.368v @ 192K
> 
> Prime95 SmallFFT AVX - 254A / 333W worst case. - approx mid 90's C
> 
> R20: 1.350v load - 203A / 280W
> 
> 2829 R15
> 6835 R20
> 
> Seems bulletproof (enough for me) - Prime95 SmallFFT 1 hour and Prime95 AVX SmallFFT 1 hour, Realbench 1 hr (a absolute sinch in comparison)
> 
> Memory left at 3200 CL14 for now - at DDR4-4000 saw some very strange behavior, anything more than 1.05 IO and 1.15v SA tended to result in memory errors significantly faster but was seeing memory errors at 4000 CL17 after 30-40mins.
> 
> The prediction is DEADLY accurate for the SP80, within 10-15mv, it's clear that you can easily get away with 40,50,60mv less when you are not trying to run Prime95.
> 
> From memory, LLC6 (or could have been LLC5); Custom loop, no delid or liquid metal.
> 
> Think this is probably borderline in terms of safety, but I will probably just see if she degrades.


That is a solid CPU! Delid!

Also, you should max out both your memory and CPU before reporting out results.


----------



## Martin778

The Tomahawk goes back to the shop, I snatched a well priced Z490 Apex, even though I despise ASUS motherboards it should be at least a bit better than the MSI.


----------



## munternet

Martin778 said:


> The Tomahawk goes back to the shop, I snatched a well priced Z490 Apex, even though I despise ASUS motherboards it should be at least a bit better than the MSI.


Welcome to the dark side


----------



## skullbringer

Martin778 said:


> The Tomahawk goes back to the shop, I snatched a well priced Z490 Apex, even though I despise ASUS motherboards it should be at least a bit better than the MSI.


lol so true, Asus has just a thicker coat of sugar on their mediocre products.

If only EVGA got their **** together and launched like 2 or 3 boards with new CPUs, I'd be all over them.
Just the customer service alone would be worth an extra 100 usd for me


----------



## cstkl1

lolhaxz said:


> SP80
> 
> Asus Formula XII (so all voltages are die-sense, yikes.)
> 
> 5.3GHz non AVX
> 5.2GHz AVX (offset = 1)
> 
> 49x Cache (didn't try 50x for 5.3GHz yet)
> 
> Set to Adaptive (Offset Mode) set to 0mv offset (ie. not doing anything)
> 
> Default VID with SVID behavior set to AUTO and loadline AC/DC set to AUTO is 1.43v for 5.3GHz, resulting VID (in hwinfo at least) under AVX and non AVX is about the same for both, +/- 30mv for the typical AVX offset, ~1.43 - 1.44v which happens to be about the exact voltage required.
> 
> WARNING: Do not set loadline values to AUTO and SVID behaviour to AUTO unless your SPECIFIC cpu has "lowish" upper VF curve values, otherwise you would easily be up at 1.6V.
> 
> AVX offset = 1
> 
> Load voltages:
> 
> 5.3GHz - 1.341v @ 4K
> 5.3GHz - 1.341v @ 24K -
> 5.3GHz - 1.359v @ 192K
> 
> Prime95 SmallFFT - 224A / 301W worst case - approx mid 80's C
> 
> 5.2GHz - 1.314v @ 4K
> 5.2GHz - 1.305v @ 24K
> 5.2GHz - 1.368v @ 192K
> 
> Prime95 SmallFFT AVX - 254A / 333W worst case. - approx mid 90's C
> 
> R20: 1.350v load - 203A / 280W
> 
> 2829 R15
> 6835 R20
> 
> Seems bulletproof (enough for me) - Prime95 SmallFFT 1 hour and Prime95 AVX SmallFFT 1 hour, Realbench 1 hr (a absolute sinch in comparison)
> 
> Memory left at 3200 CL14 for now - at DDR4-4000 saw some very strange behavior, anything more than 1.05 IO and 1.15v SA tended to result in memory errors significantly faster but was seeing memory errors at 4000 CL17 after 30-40mins.
> 
> The prediction is DEADLY accurate for the SP80, within 10-15mv, it's clear that you can easily get away with 40,50,60mv less when you are not trying to run Prime95.
> 
> From memory, LLC6 (or could have been LLC5); Custom loop, no delid or liquid metal.
> 
> Think this is probably borderline in terms of safety, but I will probably just see if she degrades.


try bios 098

same here. the prediction on asus for my cpu pretty accurate.


----------



## Martin778

skullbringer said:


> Martin778 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Tomahawk goes back to the shop, I snatched a well priced Z490 Apex, even though I despise ASUS motherboards it should be at least a bit better than the MSI.
> 
> 
> 
> lol so true, Asus has just a thicker coat of sugar on their mediocre products.
> 
> If only EVGA got their **** together and launched like 2 or 3 boards with new CPUs, I'd be all over them.
> Just the customer service alone would be worth an extra 100 usd for me
Click to expand...

Evga has other issues though.


Spoiler



I had to cause a crapstorm on their forums to get my Z390 Dark through RMA (1 memory slot died)....I had an Ebay receipt from the previous buyer who bought the board NIB from EVGA and they were asking me for stuff like a written agreement of sale between me and the previous owner and the chat history between me and him, I got fed up and wrote on their US forum 'wth is this', then the US guys contacted EU and finally my RMA got accepted. Got a refurb board that I sold right after receiving.

Also had an X299 Dark that burnt up the moment the new owner tried it. Magic smoke present...
I don't dare to buy an EVGA board (says someone with two SR2's and an SRX...) the technology is there but they give me a bit of DFI Lanparty feeling - rough diamonds.


Asus is much more n00b friendly but I don't like boards doing stuff by itself.

I'm still puzzled on why DDR4 XMP kits above 4000 are being sold, tried a few and they all ran 1.4+ VCCIO/SA while everyone says that it degrades or destroys the CPU.


----------



## skullbringer

Martin778 said:


> Evga has other issues though.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> I had to cause a crapstorm on their forums to get my Z390 Dark through RMA (1 memory slot died)....I had an Ebay receipt from the previous buyer who bought the board NIB from EVGA and they were asking me for stuff like a written agreement of sale between me and the previous owner and the chat history between me and him, I got fed up and wrote on their US forum 'wth is this', then the US guys contacted EU and finally my RMA got accepted. Got a refurb board that I sold right after receiving.
> 
> Also had an X299 Dark that burnt up the moment the new owner tried it. Magic smoke present...
> I don't dare to buy an EVGA board (says someone with two SR2's and an SRX...) the technology is there but they give me a bit of DFI Lanparty feeling - rough diamonds.
> 
> 
> Asus is much more n00b friendly but I don't like boards doing stuff by itself.
> 
> I'm still puzzled on why DDR4 XMP kits above 4000 are being sold, tried a few and they all ran 1.4+ VCCIO/SA while everyone says that it degrades or destroys the CPU.


huh, oh well that sucks then for Evga boards...

I've had that experience back in the day with an 6700k and a 4133 MHz kit, set XMP, ran stability test over night, CPU dead.

But Intel's 14nm seems to have gotten a lot tougher over the years, 1.45V VCCIO and 1.65V SA seem to get more and more common.


----------



## skullbringer

cstkl1 said:


> try bios 098
> 
> same here. the prediction on asus for my cpu pretty accurate.


do you have a source for 098 bios?


----------



## cstkl1

skullbringer said:


> do you have a source for 098 bios?


shamino posted for m12e and m12f in m12f thread.


----------



## cstkl1

10900k - SP81
M12E - Bios 098
*
50|[email protected] 1.33v L4 
4x8gb 4133 [email protected]
vccio/vcssa 1.15/1.15
*


----------



## munternet

cstkl1 said:


> shamino posted for m12e and m12f in m12f thread.


Is there a place we can check for an update for M12A?
Auto for 2*16 36c16 @ 4000c16 vccsa was 1.5v


----------



## Falkentyne

cstkl1 said:


> 10900k - SP81
> M12E - Bios 098
> *
> 50|[email protected] 1.33v L4
> 4x8gb 4133 [email protected]
> vccio/vcssa 1.15/1.15
> *


Excellent work cstkl1.
So your improvements were 4x8 GB stability? Or were there any others? (besides txp/ppd).


----------



## cstkl1

Falkentyne said:


> Excellent work cstkl1.
> So your improvements were 4x8 GB stability? Or were there any others? (besides txp/ppd).


massive. before couldnt bring down twwrd_sg/dg to 28/24...ran a weird 28/28 for training. 

ppd 0.. it doesnt affect stability or training
but i feel a lag sometimes in online games. unexplainable lag. maybe coincidence.. still testing it. 

txp does affect training

booting at default up to 4300 is easy with this bios.


----------



## cstkl1

munternet said:


> Is there a place we can check for an update for M12A?
> Auto for 2*16 36c16 @ 4000c16 vccsa was 1.5v


apex ppl. go to hwbot. anything will be there.


----------



## warbucks

cstkl1 said:


> 10900k - SP81
> M12E - Bios 098
> *
> 50|[email protected] 1.33v L4
> 4x8gb 4133 [email protected]
> vccio/vcssa 1.15/1.15
> *


Could you post your bios settings for RTL/IOL? Are you using Mode 2 and setting them manually in BIOS?


----------



## cstkl1

warbucks said:


> Could you post your bios settings for RTL/IOL? Are you using Mode 2 and setting them manually in BIOS?


auto/mode 1. 

i set them manually based on the training and then adjust channel B rtl to even out da iol. you should always let the bios train to the lowest on channel A. 62,62,63,63 7,6,7,6 requires more vccio/vcssa because the default rtl guard-band is wrong. 

mode 2 doesnt train properly on rtl. 
if u want mode 2 rtl in mode 1 just set both read & write centering 2d with round latency . its ill-advise doing this as the board trains the lowest to what can boot. thats not what the imc is training at... its the bios. hence more voltages. 

my next step is fft112 tuning of trdwr
and then final is to get back max cache ringdown enable of 47 for 50. this might require more voltages on vccio.

only then i considered this "stable" with optimum performance.


*[email protected]*


> This isn't about ddr4 only. What's written below would apply to any external dram architecture; ddr3, ddr4 or otherwise. I won't go too deep, as it's not required. There's a bit more depth in one of the old articles I wrote on AT back in 2010 on this as well.
> 
> 
> The disparity of the values depends on the skew between channels/slots. There will always be some on a board with 8 DIMM slots. The rtl value is based on data arrival time after a request has been sent. The training mechanism values are usually aligned at the most stable/optimal point in the valid timing window.
> 
> In an ideal world we would want the values to be as small as possible. However, there are constraints (physical and architectural) that prevent the value being lower or higher than a given range.
> 
> If the values are manually set to a lower value than set by training, the stability of the system becomes conditional within 1-2 ticks, and will require judicious over-voltage of associated rails to ensure post and pass just a benchmark. That's because we're setting the IMC schedule to expect the first data "packet" sooner and this eats into the guardband (overhead), within the system (which is reduced as we overclock). The operational margin will run out witha one clock change as the system nears its limit as the valid sampling window is smaller. Hence making a reduction in the RTL value will render the IMC to expect the data back sooner than it does and it will either be misread or cause issues for the gearing of the system ( limited due to buffer stack and subsequent sampling of any upstream domain).


this dude stories always has insight some of da times.


----------



## cstkl1

fft112 test
adjusted trdwr_sg/dg to 11 finally


10900k -SP81
M12E - Bios 098
*
50|[email protected] L4 
4x8gb 4133 [email protected] 
vccio/vcssa 1.15/1.15
*










now how to test cache 47 next.. hmm linpack & hci was too easy.. so its either fft112..
edit
tested fail on the 7th min. so looks like a good way to test cache.


----------



## Betroz

cstkl1 said:


> now how to test cache 47 next.. hmm linpack & hci was too easy.. so its either fft112..
> edit
> tested fail on the 7th min. so looks like a good way to test cache.


Impressive low voltages on vcore and IO/SA U got there! Did U mean X47 ring failed in P95 112k or something else?
I have gotten X48 ring P95 112k stable with 4400 mem speed (Apex with 2 DIMMs only though), but then again I run way higher voltages than U do. 1.30 IO and 1.39 SA, but that is with 4400 16-17-17-34 memory.


----------



## cstkl1

Betroz said:


> Impressive low voltages on vcore and IO/SA U got there! Did U mean X47 ring failed in P95 112k or something else?
> I have gotten X48 ring P95 112k stable with 4400 mem speed (Apex with 2 DIMMs only though), but then again I run way higher voltages than U do. 1.30 IO and 1.39 SA, but that is with 4400 16-17-17-34 memory.


err screenshot??
[email protected] on 2dimm worked fine at 1.28 vccio/vcssa but only tested 2dimm like one time only just to do a dimm check vs 4. 

i think its a mix bag. when u force rtls lower.. u need high vccio/vcssa.. hence y it can "coverup" cache. just my assumption here. sometimes in my testing high cache can force "stability". its not stable. thats y i always use final stability with full mch enabled.. test at intel default. again this not ram stability at this point as that only involves vdimm & timing.. its the imc part.


----------



## Betroz

cstkl1 said:


> err screenshot??


Err I posted it here before, but here U go :


----------



## cstkl1

Betroz said:


> Err I posted it here before, but here U go :


dats alot of vdimm.. are u even sure thats worth it...
go lower timing.. better voltages..


----------



## cstkl1

DOUBLE POST


----------



## Betroz

cstkl1 said:


> dats alot of vdimm.. are u even sure thats worth it...


Yes it is, but I need it to pass HCI and TM5 error free. 



cstkl1 said:


> go lower timing.. better voltages..??


What do U mean? 17-17-17 still requiere alot VDIMM, 1.55v if i remember correctly. So...I need to go down in mem speed, to say 4133-4266 for low VDIMM...but at that speed I would want even lower timings = more VDIMM again


----------



## munternet

cstkl1 said:


> dats alot of vdimm.. are u even sure thats worth it...
> go lower timing.. better voltages..


The viper steels need a load of vdimm
I was using 1.64vdimm for 4400-16-16-16-36
The sticks scale completely different to G.Skills


----------



## cstkl1

Betroz said:


> Yes it is, but I need it to pass HCI and TM5 error free.
> 
> 
> What do U mean? 17-17-17 still requiere alot VDIMM, 1.55v if i remember correctly. So...I need to go down in mem speed, to say 4133-4266 for low VDIMM...but at that speed I would want even lower timings = more VDIMM again


Your case if u have to go up at vdimm you are better off 4600-4700 cl18. Bandwidth trumps latency


----------



## cstkl1

Edit 
Vccio/vcssa 1.17/1.175 seems good for cache 47.. so gonna try 48.. but run 47 daily.


----------



## cstkl1

4133 Final


10900k - sp81
M12E - Bios 098
*
50|48 @1.33v L4
4x8gb 4133 [email protected]
vccio/vcssa @1.17/1.175*
MCH FULLCHECK enabled


----------



## Martin778

What would be the actual Vcore when compared to other boards, 1.36-1.37? I know on 9900K ASUS was way off (lower) than on other manudacturer's boards.


----------



## Betroz

cstkl1 said:


> Your case if u have to go up at vdimm you are better off 4600-4700 cl18. Bandwidth trumps latency


Not for fps in games? People say low latency is more important.


----------



## cstkl1

Betroz said:


> Not for fps in games? People say low latency is more important.


from my testing .. intel cpu favors bandwidth. CB 
shows this this. linpack as well. 

a high dram tuned cpu+5ghz can have scores = 5.1ghz with basic ram xmp. 

so bandwidth trumps timings. latency is a amd think since they are ram speed limited with that 1:1 thingy.

many ppl cant tune rams . so i wouldnt put any value to that theory. they run nerfed third timings. 

simple test is a 3600c16 tweaked vs a 4000c18 tweaked (both should be arnd same vdimm).. 
that confirmed is a beatdown. 
3dmark gpu score, linpack, cb.


----------



## Nizzen

Betroz said:


> Not for fps in games? People say low latency is more important.


Now you got the job testing the difference in games


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Dont know why I need to bump vcore to 1.365 from 1.355 to pass realbench 1hr. Turn ram back to xmp 4000cl19 from 4400cl17 and pass linpack 2019 1hr at 1.355v.


----------



## skullbringer

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Dont know why I need to bump vcore to 1.365 from 1.355 to pass realbench 1hr. Turn ram back to xmp 4000cl19 from 4400cl17 and pass linpack 2019 1hr at 1.355v.


maybe try a lower llc and higher bios voltage for the same load voltage, so you have better transient response


----------



## Martin778

Do you also test the GPU in Realbench together with the CPU? My RB would always crash when I ran 980Ti in SLI or had Afterburner on.


----------



## truth hurts

0451 said:


> #1 BABY!
> 
> 
> well done next challenge
> 
> superposition 720p


----------



## surgeon222

Hi, I'm new to overclocking and have 0 experience. I'm building a new computer and want it to be high-end. I bought an i9-10900k from Silicon Lottery, the one they rate for 5 Ghz. I want to get some opinions, is there anything special with my chip to make Silicon Lottery worth buying from? The only chip they rate higher is the 5.1GHz binned chip but for about $300 more, which is a bit too much for me. Any thoughts on this one?


----------



## Falkentyne

surgeon222 said:


> Hi, I'm new to overclocking and have 0 experience. I'm building a new computer and want it to be high-end. I bought an i9-10900k from Silicon Lottery, the one they rate for 5 Ghz. I want to get some opinions, is there anything special with my chip to make Silicon Lottery worth buying from? The only chip they rate higher is the 5.1GHz binned chip but for about $300 more, which is a bit too much for me. Any thoughts on this one?


 @cstkl1

That looks like a pretty bad chip  The 4800 VF isn't too bad, but that VF between 5.1 and 5.2...yikes...


----------



## mgkhn

i have sp80 10900k and m12f, it takes more voltage to run 5.2ghz (1.45 with llc4 ) decided to run 5.1ghz less voltage and less temp so system stable runing with this settings 5.1ghz 1.31v @llc6 4.8ghz cache / sa and io 1.05v temps below 80 degrees realbench 1 hour stability test (water loop). my question is runinng llc at level 6 makes negative effect in longterm usage


----------



## geriatricpollywog

surgeon222 said:


> Hi, I'm new to overclocking and have 0 experience. I'm building a new computer and want it to be high-end. I bought an i9-10900k from Silicon Lottery, the one they rate for 5 Ghz. I want to get some opinions, is there anything special with my chip to make Silicon Lottery worth buying from? The only chip they rate higher is the 5.1GHz binned chip but for about $300 more, which is a bit too much for me. Any thoughts on this one?


Don’t let the bios tell you if your chip is good or not, run some stress tests. It might be better than you think.


----------



## surgeon222

Thanks guys, I'll see what can be done, but I'm leaning towards returning it and taking a chance with a retail chip. It'll be less expensive too.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

surgeon222 said:


> Thanks guys, I'll see what can be done, but I'm leaning towards returning it and taking a chance with a retail chip. It'll be less expensive too.


That’s a good idea. It says on their website that 73% of the chips tested meet the 5.0 ghz bin. You are paying extra for a mediocre chip that has a 100% chance of hitting 5.0 and a 0% chance of hitting 5.1 or better. If you get a retail chip, you have. 73% chance of hitting 5.0 and. 24% chance it will be stable at 5.1 or higher. Silicon lottery is basically printing money.


----------



## cstkl1

Falkentyne said:


> @cstkl1
> 
> That looks like a pretty bad chip  The 4800 VF isn't too bad, but that VF between 5.1 and 5.2...yikes...


dats a classic sp63 wildcard v/f.. unknown.

but siliconloterry is really ripping ppl off for years but ocn ppl love them.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

truth hurts said:


> well done next challenge
> 
> superposition 720p


Not about to pay $20 just to post on the leaderboard. Just got 38831 on my mild daily OC. How did you get 42k on a 1080ti?


----------



## XGS-Duplicity

0451 said:


> Not about to pay $20 just to post on the leaderboard. Just got 38831 on my mild daily OC. How did you get 42k on a 1080ti?



It's a cpu bound benchmark. max your cores and cache as high as they will go and tune your ram as best as possible.


----------



## skullbringer

It's still astounding to me how big of a difference the smallest of changes to cooling can make with Comet Lake. 

Air temp cooled down over night, 21C as oppsoed to the usual 26C ambient, and there is another 100 MHz at the same voltage o.0
https://hwbot.org/image/2378265.jpg

Like even the amount of conductonaut used can make a difference. Iirc someone else with Supercool Computers Direct Core Mk6 used a lot more conductonaut - application looked like a mirror - and got 5.6 GHz with lower load voltage on a SP 86 chip compared to my SP 96. 

Looking to see if I can match that when I rebuild my loop later this year with Ampere.

Probably die sanding would unlock another 100 MHz, just because of the alleviated heat density...


----------



## CallMeODZ

so we are boned when summer hits? gg


----------



## skullbringer

CallMeODZ said:


> so we are boned when summer hits? gg


you remember when Intel showed off that 28 core Xeon at 5 GHz and at first told noone you needed a 1HP chiller? 

mild déjà vu vibes 

guess you'll either need ac / chiller or dedicated winter and summer oc profiles in bios lol


----------



## Betroz

skullbringer said:


> guess you'll either need ac / chiller or dedicated winter and summer oc profiles in bios lol


The easy solution is run your CPU at a more "modest" clockspeed, of say 5200 Mhz... problem solved. For my case that would be max 5.0/4.8 with HT On....ahh me with my poor AIO


----------



## Nizzen

Betroz said:


> The easy solution is run your CPU at a more "modest" clockspeed, of say 5200 Mhz... problem solved. For my case that would be max 5.0/4.8 with HT On....ahh me with my poor AIO


The new Aio you bought didn't help?


----------



## Betroz

Nizzen said:


> The new Aio you bought didn't help?


I haven't tried it yet, because my new Phanteks P500A case arrives on Thursday/tomorrow 
I will mount it in top as exhaust, and have the 3 front fans as intake. I think this setup will be golden.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

I like the aio be in front of the case instead of being on the top.


----------



## Nizzen

Thanh Nguyen said:


> I like the aio be in front of the case instead of being on the top.


...and I don't like AIO


----------



## Betroz

Thanh Nguyen said:


> I like the aio be in front of the case instead of being on the top.


I have my current Kraken X62 in front in my Corsair 780T now and that works well. But with the Phanteks P500A D-RGB is it different.


----------



## truth hurts

0451 said:


> Not about to pay $20 just to post on the leaderboard. Just got 38831 on my mild daily OC. How did you get 42k on a 1080ti?


with 5.5 and ht off, cache 51 or 52, tight ram helps alot but that was at daily ram settings


----------



## Nizzen

Direct die is so much fun


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Nizzen said:


> Direct die is so much fun /forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif


Where’d you get the direct die frame? I want one.

Any core throttling at that speed?


----------



## Martin778

WTH guys, the Apex is even more insane with XMP voltages...not even using MCE or anything, just XMP I.


----------



## Nizzen

Martin778 said:


> WTH guys, the Apex is even more insane with XMP voltages...not even using MCE or anything, just XMP I.


What dimms?

Do you mean Vccsa is high?


----------



## Nizzen

0451 said:


> Where’d you get the direct die frame? I want one.
> 
> Any core throttling at that speed?


No throttling 

It's not direct die frame, it's direct die direct in socket cooler from Supercool Computer


----------



## Martin778

Nizzen said:


> What dimms?
> 
> Do you mean Vccsa is high?


Patriot Viper Steel 4400MHz CL19.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Nizzen said:


> 0451 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whereâ€™️d you get the direct die frame? I want one.
> 
> Any core throttling at that speed?
> 
> 
> 
> No throttling /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> It's not direct die frame, it's direct die direct in socket cooler from Supercool Computer /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
Click to expand...

Sweet. Can you run Linpack Extreme at 5.4 with that in socket cooler? That’s my next goal. I’d settle for 5.5 R20 and be happy with it.



Martin778 said:


> Nizzen said:
> 
> 
> 
> What dimms?
> 
> Do you mean Vccsa is high? /forum/images/smilies/tongue.gif
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot Viper Steel 4400MHz CL19.
Click to expand...

I have the same RAM but with an MSI board. MSI boards set VCCIO and VCCSA even higher. It’s stupid. You have to manually lower it. Both are stable at 1.2v or less on my board so I don’t know why the bios sets them so high.


----------



## Nizzen

Martin778 said:


> Patriot Viper Steel 4400MHz CL19.


We are using [email protected] 1.55-1.65v 24/7 with 4700c17 memory on Viper 4400, g.skill 4000c15, Team t-force extreem 4500c18, etc... It's normal


----------



## unkn0wn.

I just want to thank everyone in this thread, I'm on page 120 of ~214 & have definitely learned a lot!

I have a SP63 chip, Batch #X018F781 purchased at Micro Center in OC.

XMP II, 5.3 all core, 5.0 cache, 1.41 biosV @ LLC6 (~1.395 under load via HWINFO64 IIRC)
4x16GB 4000MHz Vengeance LPX CL18, (wouldnt boot at factory XMP settings, not on QVL list)

Preliminary testing passes Cinebench R20 @ ~74c (forgot exact score & temps, currently at work.)

I'm going to spend a bit more time with her tonight, been limited recently..


----------



## ThrashZone

unkn0wn. said:


> I just want to thank everyone in this thread, I'm on page 120 of ~214 & have definitely learned a lot!
> 
> I have a SP63 chip, Batch #X018F781 purchased at Micro Center in OC.
> 
> XMP II, 5.3 all core, 5.0 cache, 1.41 biosV @ LLC6 (~1.395 under load via HWINFO64 IIRC)
> 4x16GB 4000MHz Vengeance LPX CL18, (wouldnt boot at factory XMP settings, not on QVL list)
> 
> Preliminary testing passes Cinebench R20 @ ~74c (forgot exact score & temps, currently at work.)
> 
> I'm going to spend a bit more time with her tonight, been limited recently..


Hi,
Yeah sp92 from micro center when they first got them forget when batch # X016E724.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

unkn0wn. said:


> I just want to thank everyone in this thread, I'm on page 120 of ~214 & have definitely learned a lot!
> 
> I have a SP63 chip, Batch #X018F781 purchased at Micro Center in OC.
> 
> XMP II, 5.3 all core, 5.0 cache, 1.41 biosV @ LLC6 (~1.395 under load via HWINFO64 IIRC)
> 4x16GB 4000MHz Vengeance LPX CL18, (wouldnt boot at factory XMP settings, not on QVL list)
> 
> Preliminary testing passes Cinebench R20 @ ~74c (forgot exact score & temps, currently at work.)
> 
> I'm going to spend a bit more time with her tonight, been limited recently..


Congrats, looks like a good chip. Cinebench is not a stress test though. Try Realbench or Prime 95 with AVX2 off.


----------



## unkn0wn.

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Yeah sp92 from micro center when they first got them forget when batch # X016E724.


Nicee! I think I got mine about 2 weeks ago. Once I saw their site showed 10+ in stock I flew over lol.



0451 said:


> Congrats, looks like a good chip. Cinebench is not a stress test though. Try Realbench or Prime 95 with AVX2 off.


Thanks! I'll it a shot when I get home from work tonight.


----------



## ThrashZone

unkn0wn. said:


> Nicee! I think I got mine about 2 weeks ago. Once I saw their site showed 10+ in stock I flew over lol.
> 
> .


Hi,
Yeah I've been lurking MC for a while for other stuff but indeed they had a boat load of 10900k's but raised the price to 600.00 instead of 530.00 when I bought one
BestBuy still shows 530.00 but only briefly had stock

https://www.bestbuy.com/site/intel-...ked-desktop-processor/6411492.p?skuId=6411492


----------



## Falkentyne

unkn0wn. said:


> I just want to thank everyone in this thread, I'm on page 120 of ~214 & have definitely learned a lot!
> 
> I have a SP63 chip, Batch #X018F781 purchased at Micro Center in OC.
> 
> XMP II, 5.3 all core, 5.0 cache, 1.41 biosV @ LLC6 (~1.395 under load via HWINFO64 IIRC)
> 4x16GB 4000MHz Vengeance LPX CL18, (wouldnt boot at factory XMP settings, not on QVL list)
> 
> Preliminary testing passes Cinebench R20 @ ~74c (forgot exact score & temps, currently at work.)
> 
> I'm going to spend a bit more time with her tonight, been limited recently..


1.41v Bios @ LLC6 = 1.395v under load is not possible. That's like 0mv vdroop (assuming 11mv resolution).
That's only possible with LLC8, and Maximus 12 formula has die-sense vcore.


----------



## unkn0wn.

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Yeah I've been lurking MC for a while for other stuff but indeed they had a boat load of 10900k's but raised the price to 600.00 instead of 530.00 when I bought one
> BestBuy still shows 530.00 but only briefly had stock
> 
> https://www.bestbuy.com/site/intel-...ked-desktop-processor/6411492.p?skuId=6411492


Yeaahh I kept trying to snipe one from best buy but got impatient when I saw Micro Center got them in stock.



Falkentyne said:


> 1.41v Bios @ LLC6 = 1.395v under load is not possible. That's like 0mv vdroop (assuming 11mv resolution).
> That's only possible with LLC8, and Maximus 12 formula has die-sense vcore.


I know I was initially at LLC7 but was passing at 6 so I left it. I had gone off the maximum of the vcore row on HWINFO..I'll post some screen shots when I get home  I didn't have a massive amount of stability testing time last night & was pretty tired..


----------



## ThrashZone

unkn0wn. said:


> Yeaahh I kept trying to snipe one from best buy but got impatient when I saw Micro Center got them in stock.
> 
> 
> 
> I know I was initially at LLC7 but was passing at 6 so I left it. I had gone off the maximum of the vcore row on HWINFO..I'll post some screen shots when I get home  I didn't have a massive amount of stability testing time last night & was pretty tired..


Hi,
Yeah no need for p95 just use blender opendata on it more realistic test.
5.2 no avx offset needed hopefully.

https://opendata.blender.org/


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

When run realbench, do u guys check the GPU box or no? Turn the gpu off seem to help the stability .


----------



## ThrashZone

Thanh Nguyen said:


> When run realbench, do u guys check the GPU box or no? Turn the gpu off seem to help the stability .


Hi,
Yes if you just want to test the cpu 
RB only stresses cpu 95% though should be using blender opendata for realistic 100% stress on cpu.


----------



## unkn0wn.

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Yeah no need for p95 just use blender opendata on it more realistic test.
> 5.2 no avx offset needed hopefully.
> 
> https://opendata.blender.org/


I'll give blender a shot when I get home! There are so many options it's tough to pick lol I need to read a lil more on each of them


----------



## Martin778

I have a serious problem with this 10900K rig, no matter what I do my GPU won't get to 100% utilization in 3Dmark and the 10900K setup gets it's butt kicked by the antique SR-X...any ideas? Tried reinstalling windows, reinstalling drivers, resetting MSI Afterburner.


----------



## unkn0wn.

Martin778 said:


> I have a serious problem with this 10900K rig, no matter what I do my GPU won't get to 100% utilization in 3Dmark and the 10900K setup gets it's butt kicked by the antique SR-X...any ideas? Tried reinstalling windows, reinstalling drivers, resetting MSI Afterburner.


Probably trivial but are you remembering to set the power management back to prefer maximum performance in the Nvidia control panel after you update the driver?


----------



## Falkentyne

unkn0wn. said:


> Yeaahh I kept trying to snipe one from best buy but got impatient when I saw Micro Center got them in stock.
> 
> 
> 
> I know I was initially at LLC7 but was passing at 6 so I left it. I had gone off the maximum of the vcore row on HWINFO..I'll post some screen shots when I get home  I didn't have a massive amount of stability testing time last night & was pretty tired..


You go off the minimum vcore row, not the maximum vcore. The maximum vcore is your idle voltage, assuming you captured it at idle. (unless you're one of those people who use c-states which makes vcore capturing impossible unless you capture it during a stress test, otherwise your minimum would be something absurd like 0.750v).


----------



## Martin778

unkn0wn. said:


> Probably trivial but are you remembering to set the power management back to prefer maximum performance in the Nvidia control panel after you update the driver?


Never had to touch it, though. I've ran this card in 3 different systems already. Feels like 3dmark is doing something weird, in Unigine Heaven the load is 98-99%, no issues. Still kinda surprised the Titan Xp actually draws power from the PCI-E slot instead of only the PCI-E 6+8 connectors.


----------



## MiHi76

Martin778 said:


> I have a serious problem with this 10900K rig, no matter what I do my GPU won't get to 100% utilization in 3Dmark and the 10900K setup gets it's butt kicked by the antique SR-X...any ideas? Tried reinstalling windows, reinstalling drivers, resetting MSI Afterburner.


Have you tried to disable turboboost 3.0 in bios?


----------



## ThrashZone

unkn0wn. said:


> I'll give blender a shot when I get home! There are so many options it's tough to pick lol I need to read a lil more on each of them


Hi,
Easiest test I've run across 
Just after opening download all the render files it shows and that is the long test about 40 min.
Short test is only two about 10 min. and still a better test than p95.

If you ever want to loop for a while use blender and classroom free demo file and point blender to where you extracted all on it and use render animation instead of render file.
https://www.blender.org/
https://www.blender.org/download/demo-files/


----------



## ThrashZone

Martin778 said:


> Never had to touch it, though. I've ran this card in 3 different systems already. Feels like 3dmark is doing something weird, in Unigine Heaven the load is 98-99%, no issues. Still kinda surprised the Titan Xp actually draws power from the PCI-E slot instead of only the PCI-E 6+8 connectors.


Hi,
Yeah probably a bug it seems to be getting worse and worse 
You can also use superposition for a pure gpu test a lot better than heaven.


----------



## unkn0wn.

Falkentyne said:


> You go off the minimum vcore row, not the maximum vcore. The maximum vcore is your idle voltage, assuming you captured it at idle. (unless you're one of those people who use c-states which makes vcore capturing impossible unless you capture it during a stress test, otherwise your minimum would be something absurd like 0.750v).


Gotchaa, that definitely explains it..I was focusing on the maximum. I don't remember the min vcore off the top of my head, I want to say 1.365 but can't confirm until I get home..

No sir, I have cstates disabled..


----------



## unkn0wn.

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Easiest test I've run across
> Just after opening download all the render files it shows and that is the long test about 40 min.
> Short test is only two about 10 min. and still a better test than p95.
> 
> If you ever want to loop for a while use blender and classroom free demo file and point blender to where you extracted all on it and use render animation instead of render file.
> https://www.blender.org/
> https://www.blender.org/download/demo-files/


Awesome thank you! I'll report back!


----------



## rstolpe

How do I know my SP no on the CPU and also how do I know the Batch?
I have the case for the CPU here and I have the MSI MEG ACE board.


----------



## unkn0wn.

rstolpe said:


> How do I know my SP no on the CPU and also how do I know the Batch?
> I have the case for the CPU here and I have the MSI MEG ACE board.


I dont know if MSI boards show the SP, its displayed in the BIOS of ASUS boards.
Batch # is going to be on the box or IHS.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

rstolpe said:


> How do I know my SP no on the CPU and also how do I know the Batch?
> I have the case for the CPU here and I have the MSI MEG ACE board.


SP is something Asus made up. From what I gather, you need a really high SP rating to get good overclocking on an Asus board.


----------



## Martin778

Okay, so manually forcing V-Sync and any kind of adaptive sync OFF did the trick. Putting the Nv driver into high performance is only viable for benchmarking as the TxP won't drop below 50*C idle / 1430MHz baseclock with it enabled.

Do you guys use MCE on your ASUS boards? I've tried it but it throttles to hell in P95 SmallFFT AVX's (which is kinda expected). The default PL drops the clock to 3800-3900 after a minute or so and the temps drop to ~60*C (that's with about 30*C ambient, it's scorching hot here).


----------



## Nizzen

0451 said:


> SP is something Asus made up. From what I gather, you need a really high SP rating to get good overclocking on an Asus board.


Cold water solves everything  Even my "worst" SP63 does 5.5ghz all core in CB 20  It does CB 20 loops with 1.3v @ 5.3 ghz. SP is not everything


----------



## ThrashZone

0451 said:


> SP is something Asus made up. From what I gather, you need a really high SP rating to get good overclocking on an Asus board.


Hi,
Just reading what Intel programmed the chips to run at on auto/ adaptive/ offset for different frequencies 

Same deal with 10...x series but no bios to read and show what vid's Intel programed in for different frequencies all they know is auto/ adaptive/ offset is totally useless on high clocks because voltages are exaggerated and heat is the result that skylake-x or 79-99...x series didn't have the issue.
Only manual override c-states.. help.


----------



## aDyerSituation

these chips are a myth


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Nizzen said:


> 0451 said:
> 
> 
> 
> SP is something Asus made up. From what I gather, you need a really high SP rating to get good overclocking on an Asus board.
> 
> 
> 
> Cold water solves everything /forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif Even my "worst" SP63 does 5.5ghz all core in CB 20 /forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif It does CB 20 loops with 1.3v @ 5.3 ghz. SP is not everything /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
Click to expand...

I’m a bit jelly I can’t finish any CPU benches at 5.5. But 5.4 I can run octane and Realbench. At 5.3, literally anything, you name it. I haven’t tried chilled water on the CPU though.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

ThrashZone said:


> 0451 said:
> 
> 
> 
> SP is something Asus made up. From what I gather, you need a really high SP rating to get good overclocking on an Asus board.
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> Just reading what Intel programmed the chips to run at on auto/ adaptive/ offset for different frequencies
> 
> Same deal with 10...x series but no bios to read and show what vid's Intel programed in for different frequencies all they know is auto/ adaptive/ offset is totally useless on high clocks because voltages are exaggerated and heat is the result that skylake-x or 79-99...x series didn't have the issue.
> Only manual override c-states.. help.
Click to expand...

So Intel programmed the CPUs with individual voltage offsets when core voltage is set to auto? Is that how Asus gets SP?


----------



## Nizzen

0451 said:


> I’m a bit jelly I can’t finish any CPU benches at 5.5. But 5.4 I can run octane and Realbench. At 5.3, literally anything, you name it. I haven’t tried chilled water on the CPU though.


My SP 87 can run CB 20 @ 5600mhz easy on "warm" water 25c


----------



## ThrashZone

0451 said:


> So Intel programmed the CPUs with individual voltage offsets when core voltage is set to auto? Is that how Asus gets SP?


Hi,
Yes Elmor & JP talk about here, little reading involved so yeah nice of asus to read the info and post it 
Only bad deal was the buggy first release z490 bios misreading the data.
https://www.overclock.net/forum/5-intel-cpus/1737048-intel-core-i9-10980xe-5-ghz-18-cores.html


----------



## unkn0wn.

Falkentyne said:


> You go off the minimum vcore row, not the maximum vcore. The maximum vcore is your idle voltage, assuming you captured it at idle. (unless you're one of those people who use c-states which makes vcore capturing impossible unless you capture it during a stress test, otherwise your minimum would be something absurd like 0.750v).


I just reran it, it was 1.288 vmin. Now I'm tempted to see if I can 5.4 lol


----------



## Falkentyne

unkn0wn. said:


> I just reran it, it was 1.288 vmin. Now I'm tempted to see if I can 5.4 lol


Excellent temps!


----------



## criskoe

unkn0wn. said:


> I just reran it, it was 1.288 vmin. Now I'm tempted to see if I can 5.4 lol


I see you got the Rockitcool IHS on that guy. Did you run any tests before the delid or did you go right to delid. Curious as to if you know what kinda gains you got... Temps look great!


----------



## unkn0wn.

Falkentyne said:


> Excellent temps!


Thanks!



criskoe said:


> I see you got the Rockitcool IHS on that guy. Did you run any tests before the delid or did you go right to delid. Curious as to if you know what kinda gains you got... Temps look great!


I do, Im even using EK's cold plate for their water block to match it. I used Conductonaut during the delid & Hydronaut for the install. I did not /: I went right for the delid. I already had the materials while I was waiting for other to components to arrive so I just went ahead & did it.

Thank you! I just got her assembled a couple days ago & shes not 100% bled. I finally got my hands on the last bit of PETG so I can finish my fill port run & finally tip this thing on all its axis to finish bleeding..


----------



## criskoe

unkn0wn. said:


> Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> I do, Im even using EK's cold plate for their water block to match it. I used Conductonaut during the delid & Hydronaut for the install. I did not /: I went right for the delid. I already had the materials while I was waiting for other to components to arrive so I just went ahead & did it.
> 
> Thank you! I just got her assembled a couple days ago & shes not 100% bled. I finally got my hands on the last bit of PETG so I can finish my fill port run & finally tip this thing on all its axis to finish bleeding..


Nice man. Thanks for sharing. Is that a 10th gen delid tool? Or one of their older ones? How was the delid process? Any tips or things to note? Did you re glue or silicone the new ihs on or are you just using the socket clamp pressure? 

I have a magnitude block as well and I also already have the flat cold plate too. So I’m debating picking up the rockitcool ihs upgrade kit. I’d love to just go with the rockitcool direct die frame but the magnitude will bottom out on the caps to the left of the socket on these Asus boards by the looks of it. Right now with the stock ihs it barely clears them now..


----------



## Nizzen

criskoe said:


> Nice man. Thanks for sharing. Is that a 10th gen delid tool? Or one of their older ones? How was the delid process? Any tips or things to note? Did you re glue or silicone the new ihs on or are you just using the socket clamp pressure?
> 
> I have a magnitude block as well and I also already have the flat cold plate too. So I’m debating picking up the rockitcool ihs upgrade kit. I’d love to just go with the rockitcool direct die frame but the magnitude will bottom out on the caps to the left of the socket on these Asus boards by the looks of it. Right now with the stock ihs it barely clears them now..


Der8auer delid tool and Supercool Computer direct die cooler (direct in socket) is a good combo


----------



## lolhaxz

I was having some real trouble with 56K FFT (around that area) - tends to be the highest power draw and I guess suffers pretty severe transients... specifically WHEA L0 errors, didn't matter if the cache was 43x or 50x

From testing the different LLC's, I can easily demonstrate that LLC4 or LLC5 survives seemingly longer with lower vMin's on particular FFT's, but what's interesting is that LLC6 at similar vMin (for me atleast) get's through a 1min in-place 4K to 112K sweep loop much more reliably with the same vMin - the vMin is also much tighter without much (if any) overshoot.

Really liking LLC6.

1.35-1.36V MAX Idle (when its not sleeping, ie. 800mhz), 1.30v - 1.32v in light loads and vMin stays above my target of 1.300v (for 5.3) under the heaviest of loads - cstates and power savings all fully intact.

The screenshot shows vMin of 1.288v but that must have literally been for 1ms during the entire run-time - or possibly AVX downclock for long enough for it to see a sample.

SVID: Best case scenario
Offset Mode with +0.005mv offset (if you have no offset the board does stupid stuff)
ACDC Loadline = Auto
VF Curve - 5.2GHz (my AVX offset) = +0.010mv
VF Curve - 5.3GHz (non AVX) = +0.020mv

Just before this run I shoved 1.7v up it's rear as indicated by CPU-Z die-sense, accidentally by leaving the + Offset set to AUTO, for some reason if it's not defined it goes crazy..... guess it didn't degrade it 


The 10900K really is surprising me, gaming on a 5.2GHz / 5.3GHz 10 core at 40C in a typical ambient room temperature... WTH.


----------



## Falkentyne

lolhaxz said:


> I was having some real trouble with 56K FFT (around that area) - tends to be the highest power draw and I guess suffers pretty severe transients... specifically WHEA L0 errors, didn't matter if the cache was 43x or 50x
> 
> From testing the different LLC's, I can easily demonstrate that LLC4 or LLC5 survives seemingly longer with lower vMin's on particular FFT's, but what's interesting is that LLC6 at similar vMin (for me atleast) get's through a 1min in-place 4K to 112K sweep loop much more reliably with the same vMin - the vMin is also much tighter without much (if any) overshoot.
> 
> Really liking LLC6.
> 
> 1.35-1.36V MAX Idle (when its not sleeping, ie. 800mhz), 1.30v - 1.32v in light loads and vMin stays above my target of 1.300v (for 5.3) under the heaviest of loads - cstates and power savings all fully intact.
> 
> The screenshot shows vMin of 1.288v but that must have literally been for 1ms during the entire run-time - or possibly AVX downclock for long enough for it to see a sample.
> 
> SVID: Best case scenario
> Offset Mode with +0.005mv offset (if you have no offset the board does stupid stuff)
> ACDC Loadline = Auto
> VF Curve - 5.2GHz (my AVX offset) = +0.010mv
> VF Curve - 5.3GHz (non AVX) = +0.020mv
> 
> Just before this run I shoved 1.7v up it's rear as indicated by CPU-Z die-sense, accidentally by leaving the + Offset set to AUTO, for some reason if it's not defined it goes crazy..... guess it didn't degrade it
> 
> 
> The 10900K really is surprising me, gaming on a 5.2GHz / 5.3GHz 10 core at 40C in a typical ambient room temperature... WTH.


Don't leave offset on auto. Auto offset changes the offset depending on what the cache ratio is. I think an auto offset with cache of x47 will use +200mv. So always set a value (+5mv or -5mv works but unfortunately there is no +0mv) regardless of adaptive or offset mode used.


----------



## unkn0wn.

criskoe said:


> Nice man. Thanks for sharing. Is that a 10th gen delid tool? Or one of their older ones? How was the delid process? Any tips or things to note? Did you re glue or silicone the new ihs on or are you just using the socket clamp pressure?
> 
> I have a magnitude block as well and I also already have the flat cold plate too. So I’m debating picking up the rockitcool ihs upgrade kit. I’d love to just go with the rockitcool direct die frame but the magnitude will bottom out on the caps to the left of the socket on these Asus boards by the looks of it. Right now with the stock ihs it barely clears them now..


Yes I used their 10th gen kit. The delid process was pretty simple & straightforward. It was my first time delidding anything, I just made sure to watch their videos 5 times over, made sure the arrow & dot on the copper IHS is orientated properly, went slow & made sure of what I was doing. After I popped my OEM IHS off, part of the TIM was all up against the silicone or whatever it is around the die & it definitely caused a bit of anxiety lol. I doubt that has anything to do with the rockitcool kit, it was more luck of OEM TIM placement. I purchased their thick gel glue and applied it like they did in their videos with a dot on each corner. I hand tightened in their little "press", for the first 2-3 hours I gave her a LITTLE baby crank down every hour or so to get it as tight as possible without anything creaking or cracking. I didn't have all the components to finish my build anyway so I left it in the press for a full 24 hours.

Ahh I see, Well i dont have any before data to compare but with all the power / current limits removed I'm barley hitting the mid 70s on a triple rad set up with 1.41v Bios voltage & LLC6 so I'm a happy camper!


----------



## lolhaxz

unkn0wn. said:


> Ahh I see, Well i dont have any before data to compare but with all the power / current limits removed I'm barley hitting the mid 70s on a triple rad set up with 1.41v Bios voltage & LLC6 so I'm a happy camper!


What load voltage are you seeing the 75C at out of interest?

I'm considering delid but difficult to get the tool around these parts.

Whilst temps between CPU's are not really comparable... Spit balling, If you are at 1.33 or there abouts then you are only ~5C-10C better off.


----------



## unkn0wn.

lolhaxz said:


> What load voltage are you seeing the 75C at out of interest?
> 
> I'm considering delid but difficult to get the tool around these parts.
> 
> Whilst temps between CPU's are not really comparable... Spit balling, If you are at 1.33 or there abouts then you are only ~5C-10C better off.


vmin is dropping down to 1.288 under load with 1.41 set in bios @ LLC6

Ahh I see, I would really recommend holding off until you can get the delid tool, its definitely not impossible without it but using it really makes it painless.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

I took a look at core speed vs temp, voltage, and power using the hottest and most power hungry torture test. It looks like 5.3 takes way more power than 5.2.

Parameters:
-Prime95 Small fft AVX2 on.
-5 minute test.
-None of the cores can throttle at all, not even 1 mhz.
-No errors allowed.
-All bios settings kept the same except core speed and voltage.

Edit: Disclaimer, P95 AVX2 may degrade your chips if run for an extended period of time! Your CPU may end up lasting 9 years instead of 10!


----------



## unkn0wn.

0451 said:


> I took a look at core speed vs temp, voltage, and power using the hottest and most power hungry torture test. It looks like 5.3 takes way more power than 5.2.
> 
> Parameters:
> -Prime95 Small fft AVX2 on.
> -5 minute test.
> -None of the cores can throttle at all, not even 1 mhz.
> -No errors allowed.
> -All bios settings kept the same except core speed and voltage.


I kinda know what you mean, I was able to get away with 1.350 BiosV for 5.2 all core but need 1.41 BiosV & here I am wanting more lol..


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

unkn0wn. said:


> 0451 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I took a look at core speed vs temp, voltage, and power using the hottest and most power hungry torture test. It looks like 5.3 takes way more power than 5.2.
> 
> Parameters:
> -Prime95 Small fft AVX2 on.
> -5 minute test.
> -None of the cores can throttle at all, not even 1 mhz.
> -No errors allowed.
> -All bios settings kept the same except core speed and voltage.
> 
> 
> 
> I kinda know what you mean, I was able to get away with 1.350 BiosV for 5.2 all core but need 1.41 BiosV & here I am wanting more lol..
Click to expand...

Dont use prime95 avx2. What is your daily usage? For me, i just run a loop of classroom blender for an hour and if no crash, im good . I have no crash or bsod while playing games like BF or render some files.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Thanh Nguyen said:


> unkn0wn. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 0451 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I took a look at core speed vs temp, voltage, and power using the hottest and most power hungry torture test. It looks like 5.3 takes way more power than 5.2.
> 
> Parameters:
> -Prime95 Small fft AVX2 on.
> -5 minute test.
> -None of the cores can throttle at all, not even 1 mhz.
> -No errors allowed.
> -All bios settings kept the same except core speed and voltage.
> 
> 
> 
> I kinda know what you mean, I was able to get away with 1.350 BiosV for 5.2 all core but need 1.41 BiosV & here I am wanting more lol..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dont use prime95 avx2. What is your daily usage? For me, i just run a loop of classroom blender for an hour and if no crash, im good . I have no crash or bsod while playing games like BF or render some files.
Click to expand...

I added a disclaimer to my original post.

I wanted quick repeatable measurements for collecting the data in the graphs. I can’t get that from running blender for an hour. I am not worried about running P95 AVX2 for 5 minutes on a CPU I won’t keep more than 3 years.


----------



## lolhaxz

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Dont use prime95 avx2. What is your daily usage? For me, i just run a loop of classroom blender for an hour and if no crash, im good . I have no crash or bsod while playing games like BF or render some files.


I've ran it for like 8 hours or more now on 10900K - no degradation yet and I really don't believe there will be, have pumped many many many hours more of Prime95 AVX 4K before that on my 8700K at much higher voltages, ie 1.376V load - infact the 8700K used to draw about what the 10900K draws.

With all due respect, my opinion on this is the biggest reason why this "fact" has propagated since 3-4 generations ago is that without putting your fingers in your ear and ignoring Prime95 AVX alot of overclocks are invalided.

Personally, at minimum I think there definitely is value in checking that you can ATLEAST hold 4-5 minutes in Prime95 AVX 4K, if the voltages and temperatures are too high for comfort 

People will also say you can be stable in Prime95 but not stable in real workloads - so that is the reason it doesn't matter, the ONLY reason this happens is that the voltage is getting to low with mixed loads or there are high transients - something Prime95 doesn't replicate well.

Prime95 AVX + a mixed non-AVX load is the best way to test for >real< stability.

For me, I want to know that the crash was not caused by CPU stability.

It's also true for 90% of people who don't care about bulletproof stability it doesn't matter., but be prepared for random unexplainable crashes from time to time - again - especially with mixed workloads.... 

Almost every game now uses AVX - here's a screenshot of firing up Horizon Zero Dawn for the first time where it compiles shaders etc. pulling 220W (170A) AVX - there's a good possibility it could crash alot of peoples "stable" overclocks... probably has nasty transients also.

Cinebench R20 only draws 50W less than Prime95 - should we also suggest people dont bother with Cinebench? I can run Cinebench reliably with 50mv less, but I will get random crashes in other applications.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

lolhaxz said:


> Thanh Nguyen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont use prime95 avx2. What is your daily usage? For me, i just run a loop of classroom blender for an hour and if no crash, im good . I have no crash or bsod while playing games like BF or render some files.
> 
> 
> 
> I've ran it for like 8 hours or more now on 10900K - no degradation yet and I really don't believe there will be, have pumped many many many hours more of Prime95 AVX 4K before that on my 8700K at much higher voltages, ie 1.376V load - infact the 8700K used to draw about what the 10900K draws.
> 
> With all due respect, my opinion on this is the biggest reason why this "fact" has propagated since 3-4 generations ago is that without putting your fingers in your ear and ignoring Prime95 AVX alot of overclocks are invalided.
> 
> Personally, at minimum I think there definitely is value in checking that you can ATLEAST hold 4-5 minutes in Prime95 AVX 4K, if the voltages and temperatures are too high for comfort
> 
> People will also say you can be stable in Prime95 but not stable in real workloads - so that is the reason it doesn't matter, the ONLY reason this happens is that the voltage is getting to low with mixed loads or there are high transients - something Prime95 doesn't replicate well.
> 
> Prime95 AVX + a mixed non-AVX load is the best way to test for >real< stability.
> 
> For me, I want to know that the crash was not caused by CPU stability.
> 
> It's also true for 90% of people who don't care about bulletproof stability it doesn't matter., but be prepared for random unexplainable crashes from time to time - again - especially with mixed workloads....
> 
> Almost every game now uses AVX - here's a screenshot of firing up Horizon Zero Dawn for the first time where it compiles shaders etc. pulling 220W (170A) AVX - there's a good possibility it could crash alot of peoples "stable" overclocks... probably has nasty transients also.
> 
> Cinebench R20 only draws 50W less than Prime95 - should we also suggest people dont bother with Cinebench? I can run Cinebench reliably with 50mv less, but I will get random crashes in other applications.
Click to expand...

I just wanted to share some graphs. I don’t want to start another debate on AVX2 and give Falkentyne an aneurism. You don’t need to be AVX2 stable in P95 for your system to never crash during normal use. But I’m with you in that I wouldn’t call my system stable unless it can run default Linpack Extreme and Prime95 without having to resort to a weaker torture test.


----------



## cstkl1

so much stories. 
heck even a non related cpu story ends up here. 

@Nizzen
I am gonna call in to nasa and submit my expertise in skipping pebble. i think it will help in landing space craft


----------



## Nizzen

unkn0wn. said:


> I just reran it, it was 1.288 vmin. Now I'm tempted to see if I can 5.4 lol



My delidded direct die cooled 10900k. Looks like it can't be too hot


----------



## Nizzen

Martin778 said:


> Evga has other issues though.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> I had to cause a crapstorm on their forums to get my Z390 Dark through RMA (1 memory slot died)....I had an Ebay receipt from the previous buyer who bought the board NIB from EVGA and they were asking me for stuff like a written agreement of sale between me and the previous owner and the chat history between me and him, I got fed up and wrote on their US forum 'wth is this', then the US guys contacted EU and finally my RMA got accepted. Got a refurb board that I sold right after receiving.
> 
> Also had an X299 Dark that burnt up the moment the new owner tried it. Magic smoke present...
> I don't dare to buy an EVGA board (says someone with two SR2's and an SRX...) the technology is there but they give me a bit of DFI Lanparty feeling - rough diamonds.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still puzzled on why DDR4 XMP kits above 4000 are being sold, tried a few and they all ran 1.4+ VCCIO/SA while everyone says that it degrades or destroys the CPU.


 Noone is saying this  Maybe you heard it in your dreams?


----------



## unkn0wn.

Nizzen said:


> My delidded direct die cooled 10900k. Looks like it can't be too hot


Awesome those are some great results! You definitely got a good one I'd say..

After playing with mine some more, it would pass R20 but couldnt play BFV with 1.41 biov LLC6 @ 5.3. Worked fine at LLC7 but I ended up staying with 6 & bumping the bios to 1.42 /:

Does anyone know if theres an ideal L/h flow rate for custom loops? I'm getting 250 L/h after my last component on a single maxed D5 & idk if thats good or not..


----------



## geriatricpollywog

unkn0wn. said:


> Nizzen said:
> 
> 
> 
> My delidded direct die cooled 10900k. Looks like it can't be too hot /forum/images/smilies/tongue.gif
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome those are some great results! You definitely got a good one I'd say..
> 
> After playing with mine some more, it would pass R20 but couldnt play BFV with 1.41 biov LLC6 @ 5.3. Worked fine at LLC7 but I ended up staying with 6 & bumping the bios to 1.42 /:
> 
> Does anyone know if theres an ideal L/h flow rate for custom loops? I'm getting 250 L/h after my last component on a single maxed D5 & idk if thats good or not..
Click to expand...

1 gallon per minute in freedom units.


----------



## Martin778

Nizzen said:


> Noone is saying this  Maybe you heard it in your dreams?


Everyone was saying don't go 1.3-1.35V 24/7 since like 6th gen. 
I found out that this 4400 C19 XMP is not even stable, the rig would blackscreen / shutdown in heavy AVX synthetics, just turning the RAM freq. down solves this. How weird, even on the APEX board the XMP is unstable. If I lower just the DRAM freq to 3000MHz, the IO/SA drop to 1.3/1.16V automatically and the package power drops A LOT too.


----------



## Nizzen

Martin778 said:


> Everyone was saying don't go 1.3-1.35V 24/7 since like 6th gen.
> I found out that this 4400 C19 XMP is not even stable, the rig would blackscreen / shutdown in heavy AVX synthetics, just turning the RAM freq. down would solve this.


We ran 8700k for 2 years with 1.5-1.6SA "24/7" and no harm done 

What MB do you have? Apex?


----------



## Martin778

Yes, the M12 Apex. It will blackscreen at 4400 XMP and MCE but only in really heavy tests.


----------



## SoldierRBT

Got another 10900K today. Seems good. SP89 5GHz 1.074v underload CB R15


----------



## Nizzen

SoldierRBT said:


> Got another 10900K today. Seems good. SP89 5GHz 1.074v underload CB R15


Try 5600mhz in CB 20 

If it can't run 5500 or 5600mhz in CB 20 it's average chip


----------



## Martin778

TM5 is throwing errors like crazy at 4400 XMP, the weaker 4266 C19 profile does seem to run.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

SoldierRBT said:


> Got another 10900K today. Seems good. SP89 5GHz 1.074v underload CB R15


What are you trying to do, lower your electric bill?


----------



## SoldierRBT

0451 said:


> What are you trying to do, lower your electric bill?


Yes


----------



## Falkentyne

SoldierRBT said:


> Yes


1.217v load? The hell?

That should be an SP 100+ chip....


----------



## SoldierRBT

Falkentyne said:


> 1.217v load? The hell?
> 
> That should be an SP 100+ chip....


I can drop it to 1.208v but it would show whea errors. The V/F table from this chip is similar to Thanh Nguyen's SP104 chip. I don't know why it says 89. I'm using BIOS 0088.


----------



## Falkentyne

SoldierRBT said:


> I can drop it to 1.208v but it would show whea errors. The V/F table from this chip is similar to Thanh Nguyen's SP104 chip. I don't know why it says 89. I'm using BIOS 0088.


Does Thanh have lower VF points at 800 mhz - 4.7 ghz?
If I could look at them side by side...but I'm not going back tons of pages to find his VF points  (even I can just click his name and click view posts).
Maybe one of them scales worse on cache, I really don't know. Do both have similar "max cache stable?"


----------



## SoldierRBT

Falkentyne said:


> Does Thanh have lower VF points at 800 mhz - 4.7 ghz?
> If I could look at them side by side...but I'm not going back tons of pages to find his VF points  (even I can just click his name and click view posts).
> Maybe one of them scales worse on cache, I really don't know. Do both have similar "max cache stable?"


Hope he doesn't mind I share his photo.


----------



## Falkentyne

SoldierRBT said:


> Hope he doesn't mind I share his photo.


Looks like the first 0.679v vs 0.749 VF Point and the massive 5.5 ghz VF point and the small 10mv differences elsewhere are what's throwing things different.


----------



## cstkl1

10900k - SP81
M12E Bios 098
*
51|48 @ L6 adaptive Auto
4x8gb 4000 [email protected] 
PPD 0
vccio/vcssa 1.15/1.15
*









for ppl who want to run their 4kc15 kits..


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

My v/f table. I can run r20 5.5ghz at 1.3v or lower but have not tried. R15 must be below 1.3v.


----------



## cstkl1

Thanh Nguyen said:


> My v/f table. I can run r20 5.5ghz at 1.3v or lower but have not tried. R15 must be below 1.3v.


theres no vid after 5.3..


----------



## Falkentyne

cstkl1 said:


> theres no vid after 5.3..


Why does his chip has a 5.5 ghz VF point?


----------



## cstkl1

Falkentyne said:


> Why does his chip has a 5.5 ghz VF point?


pic speaks louder
theres always a reason y ppl suddenly get ******** on dont know how to do screenshots or suddenly became too silly to take proper cam shots
5.9ghz v/f


----------



## Falkentyne

cstkl1 said:


> pic speaks louder
> theres always a reason y ppl suddenly get ******** on dont know how to do screenshots or suddenly became too silly to take proper cam shots
> 5.9ghz v/f


Thank you. I forgot to check this when I rebooted to do a RAM Tm5/112k test.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Lowest to do r15 @ 5.5ghz, 5.1 cache. 1.295 in bios llc8, I remember 1.185v llc8 to do 5.3ghz r15.


----------



## Martin778

Looking at these VF curves, I must've gotten the worst one there is that's like 1.34V 5.1...
Will probably have to play the lottery again.


----------



## Felix5665

Martin778 said:


> Looking at these VF curves, I must've gotten the worst one there is that's like 1.34V 5.1...
> Will probably have to play the lottery again.


I think, i can't beat this.. but my cpu also sucks - especially in the lower section 
"SP80".. Probably @ 5.3.. but i just want 5.1GHz stable with lower voltage (i only have a Dark Rock Pro 4)


----------



## Betroz

Felix5665 said:


> I think, i can't beat this.. but my cpu also sucks - especially in the lower section
> "SP80".. Probably @ 5.3.. but i just want 5.1GHz stable with lower voltage (i only have a Dark Rock Pro 4)


With a CPU and cooler like that, 4.9 or 5.0 allcore is what I would go for... Or just run stock CPU, with power limits off and a small negative vcore offset. You can instead get more performance with some good b-die memory, and tune that.


----------



## Martin778

What do you guys use as Vcore setting for 5.0 all core? That would be plenty for me, just a sold 10x 5.0.
Manual, Adaptive, Offset?


----------



## Betroz

Martin778 said:


> What do you guys use as Vcore setting for 5.0 all core? That would be plenty for me, just a sold 10x 5.0.
> Manual, Adaptive, Offset?


I use 1.32v LLC6 for 5.0 allcore, but my sample is not the best.


----------



## Martin778

1.32 set in BIOS or readout in HWInfo? When I set 1.35V in BIOS, I'm barely getting 1.20Vcore readout in HWInfo64.


----------



## Betroz

Martin778 said:


> 1.32 set in BIOS or readout in HWInfo? When I set 1.35V in BIOS, I'm barely getting 1.20Vcore readout in HWInfo64.


Yes 1.32v in BIOS. Set Load Line Calibration (LLC) to 6.


----------



## cstkl1

Did anybody watch the idiocy of jay2cent vs gn on troubleshooting challenge on a asus z490

Half of the crap could be solved with load optimized. 

And these dudes didnt even know how to use the v/f on asus. Gn cpu definitely unstable.


----------



## cstkl1

Felix5665 said:


> I think, i can't beat this.. but my cpu also sucks - especially in the lower section
> "SP80".. Probably @ 5.3.. but i just want 5.1GHz stable with lower voltage (i only have a Dark Rock Pro 4)


If u want quick confirm 5.1 ghz
Set L6, adaptive additional vcore 1.359

Done. Dat will handle even avx/linpack. Your vmin should be arnd 1.24-1.26v. A 360 Aio should have np cooling dat since its arnd 240watts .

Btw lower vcore cpu doesnt mean its cooler ya. Most of them are harder to cool but they have a better starting point for 5.2 which makes 5.3 daily plausible.


----------



## Betroz

cstkl1 said:


> And these dudes didnt even know how to use the v/f on asus.


Most just set manual vcore, and test to find where the CPU is stable. Then explain to those who don't know how to use the v/f on asus...cause I don't know either.


----------



## SoldierRBT

This is interesting information about degradation

https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocki...tage_induced_gate_oxide_breakdown_testing_ft/


----------



## Martin778

cstkl1 said:


> If u want quick confirm 5.1 ghz
> Set L6, adaptive additional vcore 1.359
> 
> Done. Dat will handle even avx/linpack. Your vmin should be arnd 1.24-1.26v. A 360 Aio should have np cooling dat since its arnd 240watts .
> 
> Btw lower vcore cpu doesnt mean its cooler ya. Most of them are harder to cool but they have a better starting point for 5.2 which makes 5.3 daily plausible.


Are you sure? I set adaptive 1.359 + 0.001 offset and it skyrockets to 96*C within a second of Realbench. 1.32 LLC6 manual also hits high 90's in Realbench @ 216W.


----------



## cstkl1

Betroz said:


> Most just set manual vcore, and test to find where the CPU is stable. Then explain to those who don't know how to use the v/f on asus...cause I don't know either.


We buy stuff. We use them. Tech doesnt pay bills. 
These youtubers say are techy and you would expect them to learn after being so long doing this. Alot of stories but no actual ocing. Plenty of excuses. 

Example giga z490 master is really a underrated board. 
Alot of talk on msi dis asus dis.. but dat board does 4700 easy.. the vmin on vcore pretty close to asus. Heck da board has dual bios and for some unknown reason they include a sound sensor on da mobo. 

If these dudes actually spend time testing and learning.. the masses would know about it
Da flaw. Vrm pretty warm and giga bios abit ugly looking but at least theres a counter showing the bios is training values are. 

Just an example. 

Heck we also would have known the state of asus bioses is with 4dimm. 

But problem is these ppl are not overclockers. They just ppl who like to buy tech.


----------



## cstkl1

Martin778 said:


> Are you sure? I set adaptive 1.359 + 0.001 offset and it skyrockets to 96*C within a second of Realbench.


U dont need to use offset. 

Triple 360 aio. Tested on a m12e with that 360 oled asus aio using prime small fft. It had a sp57 btw


----------



## Betroz

cstkl1 said:


> Triple 360 aio. Tested on a m12e with that 360 oled asus aio using prime small fft. It had a sp57 btw


With fans at 2000+ rpm...? You just can't assume that everybody with a 360mm AIO runs their fans at those ear numbing speeds. Sure a 360mm AIO can cool a 10900K at 5.1 allcore HT on if you brute force it with loud fans.


----------



## cstkl1

Betroz said:


> With fans at 2000+ rpm...? You just can't assume that everybody with a 360mm AIO runs their fans at those ear numbing speeds. Sure a 360mm AIO can cool a 10900K at 5.1 allcore HT on if you brute force it with loud fans.


Lol the funny story. It was running at default. They didnt install armory thingy to change the fan profile. 
It hit max 96c. Silent.. Later test just a 30 min fft80 run it hit 89c with max fan speed.


----------



## Betroz

I was not talking about Jayztwosents here or his video btw...


----------



## cstkl1

Betroz said:


> I was not talking about Jayztwosents here or his video btw...


I was talking about the sp57 i helped oced. 

This setup


----------



## Martin778

1.325 manual passed 2h of Realbench at 5GHz with LLC=6 but we're talking low 90*C's with 33-34*C ambient, it's scorching.


----------



## Betroz

Martin778 said:


> 1.325 manual passed 2h of Realbench at 5GHz with LLC=6 but we're talking low 90*C's with 33-34*C ambient, it's scorching.


Yeah, but 33-34 ambient is pretty warm to... But even with 90-95C in Realbench, the temps while gaming is gonna be lower than that. If all you do is play games, then turning off HyperThreading can help with the heat.


----------



## Nizzen

cstkl1 said:


> We buy stuff. We use them. Tech doesnt pay bills.
> These youtubers say are techy and you would expect them to learn after being so long doing this. Alot of stories but no actual ocing. Plenty of excuses.
> 
> Example giga z490 master is really a underrated board.
> Alot of talk on msi dis asus dis.. but dat board does 4700 easy.. the vmin on vcore pretty close to asus. Heck da board has dual bios and for some unknown reason they include a sound sensor on da mobo.
> 
> If these dudes actually spend time testing and learning.. the masses would know about it
> Da flaw. Vrm pretty warm and giga bios abit ugly looking but at least theres a counter showing the bios is training values are.
> 
> Just an example.
> 
> Heck we also would have known the state of asus bioses is with 4dimm.
> 
> But problem is these ppl are not overclockers. They just ppl who like to buy tech.


Tell me more about Giga z490 Master  Do you have it?

Please post some Aida64 benchmarks with 4700mhz memory on that board


----------



## cstkl1

Nizzen said:


> Tell me more about Giga z490 Master  Do you have it?
> 
> Please post some Aida64 benchmarks with 4700mhz memory on that board


 @owikh84
He did the comparison. During the initial sales here to get a 10900k you were forced to buy a brand mobo bundle. So for his second cpu he had to take the masters.

https://forum.lowyat.net/index.php?showtopic=3700521&view=findpost&p=97511038

He just simply tested gskill binned timings at default boot. 

According to him giga was super easy. No tweaking needed for ram speed. He wasnt looking for aida bandwidth. Was doing comparison vs m12f on ram speed training.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Martin778 said:


> 1.325 manual passed 2h of Realbench at 5GHz with LLC=6 but we're talking low 90*C's with 33-34*C ambient, it's scorching.


I have seen people bench at Siberian ambient but now they like to do it in Sahara ambient.


----------



## Talon2016

My 10850K with SP50. 

These things are **** kickers lol. Sample size of one, so take that with a grain of salt. But I expect this will hold true with a few being better than this, but maybe some worse?


----------



## Martin778

Expected nothing less, AMD started selling better sillicon in the long run, Intel the other way round, now it's time for the leftovers


----------



## Falkentyne

Talon2016 said:


> My 10850K with SP50.
> 
> These things are **** kickers lol. Sample size of one, so take that with a grain of salt. But I expect this will hold true with a few being better than this, but maybe some worse?


Did you stress test it? I highly doubt those predictions are accurate if the max predicted values are below max turbo. Then again i don't know. That 4.8 ghz VF point is legendary.


----------



## Talon2016

Falkentyne said:


> Talon2016 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My 10850K with SP50.
> 
> These things are **** kickers lol. Sample size of one, so take that with a grain of salt. But I expect this will hold true with a few being better than this, but maybe some worse?
> 
> 
> 
> Did you stress test it? I highly doubt those predictions are accurate if the max predicted values are below max turbo. Then again i don't know. That 4.8 ghz VF point is legendary.
Click to expand...

Right now it’s looking like 1.35v BIOS and LLC6 for 5ghz all core, 47x cache, and 4000mhz CL16 in Realbench Stress Test.

51x will likely take 1.45v. 52x I didn’t even bother with Cinebench lol.

I’m going to go back and run it stock and see what it does on auto values.


----------



## Betroz

What are the chances that newer batches of 10900K that comes out in the days and weeks ahead, are better binned than the first? Better chance of getting a SP100+ chip now? With the 9900K Intel saved the best binned so that they could release the 9900KS later, which was able to do 5.0 allcore at much lower vcore than 9900K. But there most likely will not be any 10900KS since "Rocket Lake" is coming next year to replace it.

What do you guys think?


----------



## Martin778

Difficult to say, my 9900K was one of the first revisions and was a golden chip. SP100+ feels like an extreme case of luck, seen SP 80-90 chips going way above their MSRP already...


----------



## Spin Cykle

Hello all! Just thought I'd stop by and express my excitment. I've decided to upgrade from my 9900k/z390 setup to a 10900KF/Z490. Luckily I found a 10900KF in stock right away and I've decided to keep my itx case (CaseLabs S3). So i've gone with the MSI Z490i Unify. Fingers crossed my silicon luck is better this time around. My 9900K was a dud.


----------



## Martin778

What voltage do you guys use on Asus boards, manual, offset or adaptive? I don't get the adaptive mode at all because the new vdroop mechanics. Back in the old days the target was to kill the vdroop but now it's like 100-150mV off sometimes.


----------



## TurricanM3

I am using adaptive with v/f offset for 5300 24/7.


----------



## Nizzen

Martin778 said:


> What voltage do you guys use on Asus boards, manual, offset or adaptive? I don't get the adaptive mode at all because the new vdroop mechanics. Back in the old days the target was to kill the vdroop but now it's like 100-150mV off sometimes.



I use LLC6 and manual. Works flawless on Formula and Apex for me.


----------



## Betroz

Nizzen said:


> I use LLC6 and manual. Works flawless on Formula and Apex for me.


No more LLC8?


----------



## Nizzen

Betroz said:


> No more LLC8?


Wanted 200mhz more cache 

Benchmarking? LLC8


----------



## unkn0wn.

@0451

Mannnn I saw your liquid metal on top of the IHS & now I want to replace my Hydronaut lol. I also have the RockItCool copper IHS & the flap copper coldplate by EK, whats the longest you've ran it this way? I think you're direct die now though right?

NOT MY PHOTO - PHOTO CREDIT FOR ATTACHED IMAGE GOES TO 0451


----------



## geriatricpollywog

unkn0wn. said:


> @0451
> 
> Mannnn I saw your liquid metal on top of the IHS & now I want to replace my Hydronaut lol. I also have the RockItCool copper IHS, whats the longest you've ran it this way?
> 
> NOT MY PHOTO - PHOTO CREDIT FOR ATTACHED IMAGE GOES TO 0451


I’ve had it this way for just a few weeks. I am using CoolLaboratory Liquid Ultra (CLU) because it doesn’t run or pump out. It contains viscosity enhancers and it’s more like a metal paste. You can’t tell, but I applied it extremely thin, like paint, and I only apply it to one surface, not both (just the top of the IHS and die, not to the bottom of the IHS and not to the waterblock). In Prime95 small fft AVX2 on, the copper IHS took me from 5.2ghz to 5.3 ghz, and from 5.3 to 5.4 with AVX2 off. My temps dropped by 20c at the same speed. Der8auer did not see a clock speed improvement but it looks like he applied it to thick in his video and he used a different brand, Conductonaut.

Hydronaut and Kryonaut harden into rubber after a few years. I don’t use paste, but I like the EKWB branded tube that comes with waterblocks.


----------



## unkn0wn.

0451 said:


> I’ve had it this way for just a few weeks. I am using CoolLaboratory Liquid Ultra (CLU) because it doesn’t run or pump out. It contains viscosity enhancers and it’s more like a metal paste. You can’t tell, but I applied it extremely thin, like paint, and I only apply it to one surface, not both (just the top of the IHS and die, not to the bottom of the IHS and not to the waterblock). In Prime95 small fft AVX2 on, the copper IHS took me from 5.2ghz to 5.3 ghz, and from 5.3 to 5.4 with AVX2 off. My temps dropped by 20c at the same speed. Der8auer did not see a clock speed improvement but it looks like he applied it to thick in his video and he used a different brand, Conductonaut.
> 
> Hydronaut and Kryonaut harden into rubber after a few years. I don’t use paste, but I like the EKWB branded tube that comes with waterblocks.


SOLD! lmao

I'm going to give it a shot! I used Conductonaut during the delid & lets see what kind of changes this brings. I'll see if i can do some thermal testing now until it arrives.

Only thing about rigid tubing that sucks is the dissasembly lol..


----------



## unkn0wn.

0451 said:


> I’ve had it this way for just a few weeks. I am using CoolLaboratory Liquid Ultra (CLU) because it doesn’t run or pump out. It contains viscosity enhancers and it’s more like a metal paste. You can’t tell, but I applied it extremely thin, like paint, and I only apply it to one surface, not both (just the top of the IHS and die, not to the bottom of the IHS and not to the waterblock). In Prime95 small fft AVX2 on, the copper IHS took me from 5.2ghz to 5.3 ghz, and from 5.3 to 5.4 with AVX2 off. My temps dropped by 20c at the same speed. Der8auer did not see a clock speed improvement but it looks like he applied it to thick in his video and he used a different brand, Conductonaut.
> 
> Hydronaut and Kryonaut harden into rubber after a few years. I don’t use paste, but I like the EKWB branded tube that comes with waterblocks.


SOLD! lmao

I'm going to give it a shot! I used Conductonaut during the delid & lets see what kind of changes this brings. I'll see if i can do some thermal testing now until it arrives.

Only thing about rigid tubing that sucks is the dissasembly lol..


----------



## ThrashZone

unkn0wn. said:


> SOLD! lmao
> 
> I'm going to give it a shot! I used Conductonaut during the delid & lets see what kind of changes this brings. I'll see if i can do some thermal testing now until it arrives.
> 
> Only thing about rigid tubing that sucks is the dissasembly lol..


Hi,
Use soft tubing and quick disconnects


----------



## unkn0wn.

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Use soft tubing and quick disconnects


I just left the soft tubing world lol..I have so many going on I prefer the look of the hard tubing


----------



## ThrashZone

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Use soft tubing and quick disconnects





unkn0wn. said:


> I just the soft tubing world lol..I have so many going on I prefer the look of the hard tubing


Hi,
Easiest to use quick disconnect with not sure how I lived so long without them 

Draining and filling getting all the air out sucks forget about disassembly that's easy part compared.


----------



## GeneO

Martin778 said:


> What voltage do you guys use on Asus boards, manual, offset or adaptive? I don't get the adaptive mode at all because the new vdroop mechanics. Back in the old days the target was to kill the vdroop but now it's like 100-150mV off sometimes.



You will get the same vdroop at load on manual mode. It depends on the LLC level you have set. With adaptive mode you can adjust the Voltage frequency curve, which has nothing to do with vdroop. Changing the VF points alters the VID the processor is requesting for a given frequency,


----------



## unkn0wn.

Is the general consensus to disable MCE?

On my XII formula with the newest bios 0607, I have it set to " enable - remove all limits " which is phrased kind of confusingly..

BCLK aware adaptive voltage is enabled and SVID behavior to auto even though SVID support is disabled and I'm a little unsure of those as well.

I'm also going to try setting my Maximus Tweak to mode 2 to see if she will boot on the factory XMP II settings..I've tried both XMP I & II but I'm having to bump the tras up 1 to train / boot.

Any & all input is appreciated thanks!


----------



## unkn0wn.

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Easiest to use quick disconnect with not sure how I lived so long without them
> 
> Draining and filling getting all the air out sucks forget about disassembly that's easy part compared.


I'm really going to consider that when I redo my loop for Ampere! Seems 1000x easier..


----------



## ThrashZone

unkn0wn. said:


> Is the general consensus to disable MCE?
> 
> On my XII formula with the newest bios 0607, I have it set to " enable - remove all limits " which is phrased kind of confusingly..
> 
> BCLK aware adaptive voltage is enabled and SVID behavior to auto even though SVID support is disabled and I'm a little unsure of those as well.
> 
> I'm also going to try setting my Maximus Tweak to mode 2 to see if she will boot on the factory XMP II settings..I've tried both XMP I & II but I'm having to bump the tras up 1 to train / boot.
> 
> Any & all input is appreciated thanks!


Hi,
No leave it alone and enabled keywords be Remove All Limits coming from x299 where there were no limits it was weird to see that because we always disable this feature all it did was exaggerate voltages.

Also I hope you've found the Package Power Time Window and changed to max [448]

Think adaptive is totally useless on this platform.




unkn0wn. said:


> I'm really going to consider that when I redo my loop for Ampere! Seems 1000x easier..


Indeed well worth a little flow restriction it's minimal with QDC's


----------



## TurricanM3

Got my Rockit direct die frame today. Anyone else?


----------



## Nizzen

TurricanM3 said:


> Got my Rockit direct die frame today. Anyone else?


No, I'm not using the second best. Using Supercool Computer Direct in socket, direct die cooler


----------



## ThrashZone

Nizzen said:


> No, I'm not using the second best. Using Supercool Computer Direct in socket, direct die cooler


Hi,
I want one but don't want to join twitter or facebook


----------



## unkn0wn.

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> I want one but don't want to join twitter or facebook


Just join for as long as you need to get what you want, 10minutemail.com always comes in handy for those situations...


----------



## TurricanM3

Nizzen said:


> No, I'm not using the second best. Using Supercool Computer Direct in socket, direct die cooler


How do you know it's worse? I have a HK4 and the Kryos next.


----------



## SoldierRBT

TurricanM3 said:


> Got my Rockit direct die frame today. Anyone else?



Waiting for results . If it runs 10C cooler, I'm sold.


----------



## warbucks

TurricanM3 said:


> Got my Rockit direct die frame today. Anyone else?


I received mine this week as well. Going to put it through its paces this weekend.


----------



## 86Jarrod

I should have posted sooner. About 2 weeks ago i decided to try to modify my 9900k der8auer direct die mount to work on the 1200 socket. I know the die is a little longer on the 10900k vs the 9900k so that was my first measurement. It seems the die mount would've fit the 10900k fine but I filed it a hair longer just in case. Second I know the 10900k die is substantially shorter than the 9900k but I had mine lapped pretty low and the die mount still fit. I noticed I needed to lap the die mount approx .27 ish mm to have the 10900k protrude the mount so that's what I did. Third was the issue with the pcb height on the 10900k being thicker than the 9900k. How I resolved that was just to screw the mount screws until the die mount touched the pcb but didn't bend from over tightening. I did this a little buzzed and took no pics so measurements are loosely based off memory. Here's the results at about 22.5c to 23.5c ambient.


----------



## skullbringer

what's worse in terms of degradation and longevity:
- 1.57 Vcore LLC6 = 1.45V load
- 1.49 Vcore LLC7 = 1.45V load
or does it not matter?


----------



## lolhaxz

skullbringer said:


> what's worse in terms of degradation and longevity:
> - 1.57 Vcore LLC6 = 1.45V load
> - 1.49 Vcore LLC7 = 1.45V load
> or does it not matter?


Die-sense right?

Both are well out of spec - but who cares I guess if you only want a few years out of it.

IN THEORY - The lower the LLC you can get away with at the lowest voltage - the better, so probably the 2nd option.... but I wouldn't run either of those scenarios :0

Difficult to quantify how bad the transients are without checking it with a scope, one would assume short duration spikes are preferable to higher static voltage.

Nobody can tell you other than, this is out of spec, your mileage is going to vary - many an expert will state 1.35v is the danger zone. (personally, I call hog-wash, but again - nobody knows definitively)

Before die-sense was common place X voltage BIOS was "ZOMG END OF THE WORLD" now all those same experts are OK with X voltage die-sense, some effective 20-40mv higher.


----------



## Falkentyne

skullbringer said:


> what's worse in terms of degradation and longevity:
> - 1.57 Vcore LLC6 = 1.45V load
> - 1.49 Vcore LLC7 = 1.45V load
> or does it not matter?


I feel this is one of those "impossible to answer" questions. I've seen multiple people ask questions like this and i intentionally ignore them. I mean if they're going to ask such difficult questions, I'm sure they're already smart enough to make their own answers. This isn't the same as a 1.35v LLC4 vs 1.25v LLC6 question.

I literally lost 5 pounds just looking at the question. Goes like..."what unsafe voltage is more unsafe" "How do the spikes work?" "will the spikes be more dangerous"? A 1.57v vcore idling at LLC6 is going to be 1.55v..and the spikes at LLC7 are going to probably be 50% higher than LLC6 with the current VRM resistances.

The transient response is going to be much worse at LLC7 than LLC6, especially on an Apex/Extreme, where LLC6 is 0.495 mOhm and LLC7 is 0.165 mOhm (I am not kidding, that's what it is), (although higher LLC actually helps *cache* stability, as long as you are not dealing with heavy loads (so it's good for memory stress testing, where the loads are light so transient response issues don't matter much)

If you want a direct answer to this question, buy an oscilloscope and measure the voltages. I don't think anyone here has one (or the few that might, care to use one for such things).


----------



## skullbringer

lolhaxz said:


> snip





Falkentyne said:


> snap


So basically both are ****, but in different ways. 
higher idle voltage with 1, but better transient response. 
lower idle voltage with 2, better cache stability, but higher spikes when exiting loads.

people on the interwebs almost never take llc into consideration when talking safe voltage, coffee lake "safe" Vcore recommendations range from 1.35-1.45V, and vdroop is mostly considered "healthy", I could never really find a well founded opinion on the matter.

tbh I figured as much though and was mostly just looking for confirmation, hence the "or does it not matter?", so thank you for confirming guys, +rep.

besides, losing 5 pounds is a good thing, isnt it?


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Well my cpu crashes at 1.45v llc6 and 1.35v at load but it is stable at 1.35v llc8, so I must use llc8 at all cost.


----------



## lolhaxz

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Well my cpu crashes at 1.45v llc6 and 1.35v at load but it is stable at 1.35v llc8, so I must use llc8 at all cost.


That's called an enigma.

Whatever works I guess.

Probably what is really happening is the voltage is dipping even lower than 1.35v at LLC6 - set HWInfo to 250 or 500ms update interval and graph vcore, FFT's in the 7xK area.


----------



## Falkentyne

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Well my cpu crashes at 1.45v llc6 and 1.35v at load but it is stable at 1.35v llc8, so I must use llc8 at all cost.


Reduce your cache ratio and then test 1.45v LLC6 (1.35v load). I bet you it will be stable.

I learned about the "cache problem" with LLC with a game I'm sure not many people have heard of. It's called Minecraft and "CPU Internal Parity Errors"


----------



## geriatricpollywog

86Jarrod said:


> I should have posted sooner. About 2 weeks ago i decided to try to modify my 9900k der8auer direct die mount to work on the 1200 socket. I know the die is a little longer on the 10900k vs the 9900k so that was my first measurement. It seems the die mount would've fit the 10900k fine but I filed it a hair longer just in case. Second I know the 10900k die is substantially shorter than the 9900k but I had mine lapped pretty low and the die mount still fit. I noticed I needed to lap the die mount approx .27 ish mm to have the 10900k protrude the mount so that's what I did. Third was the issue with the pcb height on the 10900k being thicker than the 9900k. How I resolved that was just to screw the mount screws until the die mount touched the pcb but didn't bend from over tightening. I did this a little buzzed and took no pics so measurements are loosely based off memory. Here's the results at about 22.5c to 23.5c ambient.


Wow I don’t think I’ve seen better than that. I am surprised it’s even coolable. Do you have a custom loop?


----------



## 86Jarrod

Yeah custom loop. CPU side is Alphacool Eisblock, Corsair XD5 pump/res, Monsta 560 rad, 4 noctua NF-A14, 1/2 inch soft tubing.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

86Jarrod said:


> Yeah custom loop. CPU side is Alphacool Eisblock, Corsair XD5 pump/res, Monsta 560 rad, 4 noctua NF-A14, 1/2 inch soft tubing.


Water temp? I set AC to 75f or 23.8c but the place where I put my pc is 26.5c ambient and my water temp is 0.6c-1c higher than ambient at idle. With the 10900k at full load, water temp will up to 28c-29c.


----------



## 86Jarrod

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Water temp? I set AC to 75f or 23.8c but the place where I put my pc is 26.5c ambient and my water temp is 0.6c-1c higher than ambient at idle. With the 10900k at full load, water temp will up to 28c-29c.


In my pic on HWINFO64 corsair clcp temp 1 is gpu loop water temp, 2 is cpu loop temp, 3 is in case temp and 4 is outside case temp. 3 in case temp was right in front of a fan so i have to move it. 4 out of case is on top in back. I'm not sure what running on a loop would get the water temp to but after a few tests it hit 26.8 max.


----------



## munternet

Are these settings ok for P95? I don't use it that much
I just did a short 1/2 hour test to check the cpu under loads I think it wouldn't normally see
Set vcore 1.49v LLC4 and 1.261v under load
I was wondering if everything looks OK? Any comments appreciated, good or bad 
Should I try 5.3GHz or is this my limit?
CPU is sp86, not delided, loop


----------



## lolhaxz

munternet said:


> Are these settings ok for P95? I don't use it that much
> I just did a short 1/2 hour test to check the cpu under loads I think it wouldn't normally see
> Set vcore 1.49v LLC4 and 1.261v under load
> I was wondering if everything looks OK? Any comments appreciated, good or bad
> Should I try 5.3GHz or is this my limit?
> CPU is sp86, not delided, loop



If it is a SP86 - I would stick with LLC5 (or possibly LLC6) and bring voltage down, try 1.4v first @ 5.3GHz, AVX offset 1 (may or may not need that, won't if you are only running mild AVX loads) - you likely only need around 1.3v load. (die sense)

Bring VCCIO and VCCSA to 1.15 and 1.2 respectively... or lower, my experience has been having these high just destroys stability.


----------



## munternet

lolhaxz said:


> If it is a SP86 - I would stick with LLC5 (or possibly LLC6) and bring voltage down, try 1.4v first @ 5.3GHz, AVX offset 1 (may or may not need that, won't if you are only running mild AVX loads) - you likely only need around 1.3v load. (die sense)
> 
> Bring VCCIO and VCCSA to 1.15 and 1.2 respectively... or lower, my experience has been having these high just destroys stability.


Thanks for the reply
I need 1.35 io and sa for the ram stability 2*16GB @ 4200c17 for daily
I might try 5.3GHz with no avx offset though. I read no offset functions better so I'll see if I can manage it
I was wondering about the temps and the P95 settings for testing? I want to make sure my PC is stable for BFV but not torture it


----------



## Betroz

lolhaxz said:


> Bring VCCIO and VCCSA to 1.15 and 1.2 respectively... or lower, my experience has been having these high just destroys stability.


High IO and SA destroy CPU stability? How...


----------



## Nizzen

lolhaxz said:


> If it is a SP86 - I would stick with LLC5 (or possibly LLC6) and bring voltage down, try 1.4v first @ 5.3GHz, AVX offset 1 (may or may not need that, won't if you are only running mild AVX loads) - you likely only need around 1.3v load. (die sense)
> 
> Bring VCCIO and VCCSA to 1.15 and 1.2 respectively... or lower, my experience has been having these high just destroys stability.


LOL


----------



## unkn0wn.

Betroz said:


> High IO and SA destroy CPU stability? How...


I havent worked on lowering mine yet but XMP II has me at like 1.3v+ on both. I need to bump my tRas by one from the factory XMP I & XMP II settings to even get my system to boot /:


----------



## geriatricpollywog

I see everyone posting screenshots of their IO and SA voltages below 1.2. I can run IO/SA below 1.2 but my cache bandwidth peaks when I set them to 1.3 and doesn’t improve when I run higher than 1.3.


----------



## munternet

munternet said:


> Are these settings ok for P95? I don't use it that much
> I just did a short 1/2 hour test to check the cpu under loads I think it wouldn't normally see
> Set vcore 1.49v LLC4 and 1.261v under load
> I was wondering if everything looks OK? Any comments appreciated, good or bad
> Should I try 5.3GHz or is this my limit?
> CPU is sp86, not delided, loop


I found a *pretty good article here* that answers all my questions by someone called @Falkentyne


----------



## unkn0wn.

munternet said:


> I found a *pretty good article here* that answers all my questions by someone called @Falkentyne


Thanks for linking that...


& for having that mem oc guide in your sig, i really need that right now lol.


----------



## cstkl1

alot of stories

anyways

i have added a spin to my pebble skipping which indicates a better spaceshuttle landing algo for autopilot.. forwarding all the data to NASA.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

I have set 1.475v llc6 in bios instead of 1.355v llc8. It runs prime95 avx at 1.323v at least 10m ( I shut down to go to bed). It runs realbench at 1.376v. Why is the vcore different ? Thought prime95 avx is heavier than realbench but it requires less voltage to run.


----------



## erfault

Thanh Nguyen said:


> I have set 1.475v llc6 in bios instead of 1.355v llc8. It runs prime95 avx at 1.323v at least 10m ( I shut down to go to bed). It runs realbench at 1.376v. Why is the vcore different ? Thought prime95 avx is heavier than realbench but it requires less voltage to run.


Prime95 AVX pulls more amps than Realbench usually. Falkentyne said LLC6 for 10900K is 0.495mOhm, so LLC6 vDroop at 1.475v would be measured using 1475 - (Amps * 0.495mOhm) I believe. 

https://www.overclock.net/forum/5-i...results-bins-discussion-227.html#post28572074


----------



## Martin778

I have no doubt the worst 10900k ever made, [email protected] for 5.0 non-AVX or [email protected] for AVX. What is this joke, it's already in the high 80's in non-AVX P95 and with AVX it's 100*C on all cores in 1 second.


----------



## Nizzen

Martin778 said:


> I have no doubt the worst 10900k ever made, [email protected] for 5.0 non-AVX or [email protected] for AVX. What is this joke, it's already in the high 80's in non-AVX P95


Run the cpu direct die cooling, and it wil fly  It will go from Zero to Hero


----------



## Betroz

Nizzen said:


> Run the cpu direct die cooling, and it wil fly  It will go from Zero to Hero


Yes, and a Hero without warranty


----------



## Martin778

Just selling / returning it. Waste of time to even try anything on it. The V/F is so bad that the temps will go nuts even on stock boosts if you raise the PL. They're sold out (unless you'd like to pay the 'vultures' €50-100 premium over MSRP) so that might be the end of LGA1200 fun for some time.


----------



## ThrashZone

Martin778 said:


> I have no doubt the worst 10900k ever made, [email protected] for 5.0 non-AVX or [email protected] for AVX. What is this joke, it's already in the high 80's in non-AVX P95 and with AVX it's 100*C on all cores in 1 second.


Hi,
Not that I use p95 but what's the batch number and sp on that one ?


----------



## Nizzen

Betroz said:


> Yes, and a Hero without warranty


Like someone on this forum care about warranty on a mainstream cpu


----------



## munternet

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Not that I use p95 but what's the batch number and sp on that one ?


Started using realbench 2.56 instead and it's far more realistic than p95
Even running RB for an hour with HWinfo open to look for whea errors and I'm 100% stable easily in BFV
RB shows vcore load at about 1.27v while BFV with other applications open shows 1.305v so should have plenty of head room
Only reached 79°c after a few hours BFV while 1 hour RB took me to 88°c
If my PC never shows whea errors, crashes or bluescreens then it's good enough for me


----------



## ThrashZone

munternet said:


> Started using realbench 2.56 instead and it's far more realistic than p95
> Even running RB for an hour with HWinfo open to look for whea errors and I'm 100% stable easily in BFV
> RB shows vcore load at about 1.27v while BFV with other applications open shows 1.305v so should have plenty of head room
> Only reached 79°c after a few hours BFV while 1 hour RB took me to 88°c
> If my PC never shows whea errors, crashes or bluescreens then it's good enough for me


Hi,
Yep problem with realbench is it only hits cpu 95% but is a full system test so it's good
I really rely on blender either opendata or looping free demo render files since I have blender installed it does more than just graphic's creation but will jack the cpu to 100% plus tests my avx offset stability at the same time so probably the most versatile program to have around


----------



## Spin Cykle

Let the overclocking begin! Fingers crossed she’s not a dud. It’s hard to find any information out there about KF’s. Does any recognize the batch or any vital information that might help..

I’ll be running a Unify iTX board so I’ll be unable to test SP or default vids, unfortunately. 

Are there any other methods to finding baseline vid results on MSI boards without needing Ac/dc loadline options in the bios?











Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## geriatricpollywog

ThrashZone said:


> munternet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Started using realbench 2.56 instead and it's far more realistic than p95
> Even running RB for an hour with HWinfo open to look for whea errors and I'm 100% stable easily in BFV
> RB shows vcore load at about 1.27v while BFV with other applications open shows 1.305v so should have plenty of head room
> Only reached 79Â°c after a few hours BFV while 1 hour RB took me to 88Â°c
> If my PC never shows whea errors, crashes or bluescreens then it's good enough for me /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> Yep problem with realbench is it only hits cpu 95% but is a full system test so it's good
> I really rely on blender either opendata or looping free demo render files since I have blender installed it does more than just graphic's creation but will jack the cpu to 100% plus tests my avx offset stability at the same time so probably the most versatile program to have around /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
Click to expand...

Linpack is becoming my favorite. It’s fast, hits everything, and can’t be configured into a weaker test. I like Blender for a casual “probably can game at this frequency” test though.

I’ve also learned to me mentally subtract 100mhz from any frequency reported on OCN to estimate their actual stable speed.


----------



## Martin778

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Not that I use p95 but what's the batch number and sp on that one ?


SP63, obviously. x021g134


----------



## lolhaxz

Betroz said:


> High IO and SA destroy CPU stability? How...


Perhaps CPU stability is not the right choice of words.

Have you not had any instances where there is a sweet spot for the VCCIO and VCCSA? ie. it can be either too low or too high, I've had several where there is a 30-50mv window to complete a reasonable length (memory) stability test - ie. 1-2 hours.

Anyway, as I said "in my experience" - agreement is entirely optional 

Every CPU/ram combo is going to behave slightly differently, all I know is if I try bang 1.45v SA and 1.4v IO (for example) I'll get errors within 30 seconds; on Z370 on a 8700K, exact same sticks, I needed 1.35v SA/IO.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

lolhaxz said:


> Betroz said:
> 
> 
> 
> High IO and SA destroy CPU stability? How...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps CPU stability is not the right choice of words.
> 
> Have you not had any instances where there is a sweet spot for the VCCIO and VCCSA? ie. it can be either too low or too high, I've had several where there is a 30-50mv window to complete a reasonable length (memory) stability test - ie. 1-2 hours.
> 
> Anyway, as I said "in my experience" - agreement is entirely optional /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> Every CPU/ram combo is going to behave slightly differently, all I know is if I try bang 1.45v SA and 1.4v IO (for example) I'll get errors within 30 seconds; on Z370 on a 8700K, exact same sticks, I needed 1.35v SA/IO.
Click to expand...

How is your AIDA64 memory and cache bandwidth with VCCIO and VCCSA so low? I find my sweet spot is around 1.3-1.35v even though my system is stable below 1.2v.


----------



## lolhaxz

0451 said:


> How is your AIDA64 memory and cache bandwidth with VCCIO and VCCSA so low? I find my sweet spot is around 1.3-1.35v even though my system is stable below 1.2v.


As you can probably see from my crappy timings - still very much "tuning", 4133 and 4266 were a crap shoot, rock solid one boot, not the next. 4000 appears achievable... maybe bios maturity will help later.

Want to let ramtest run (2nd run after reboot) for another 10-20 mins, then will check that for you.


----------



## Betroz

0451 said:


> Linpack is becoming my favorite. It’s fast, hits everything, and can’t be configured into a weaker test.


It has been many years since I used Linpack, but if I remember correctly, doesn't Linpack heat up the CPU just at much as Prime95 AVX small ffts do?



0451 said:


> I’ve also learned to me mentally subtract 100mhz from any frequency reported on OCN to estimate their actual stable speed.


....and 4-500 MHz from those who have delidded and are using a custom loop


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Betroz said:


> 0451 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Linpack is becoming my favorite. Itâ€™️s fast, hits everything, and canâ€™️t be configured into a weaker test.
> 
> 
> 
> It has been many years since I used Linpack, but if I remember correctly, doesn't Linpack heat up the CPU just at much as Prime95 AVX small ffts do?
> 
> 
> 
> 0451 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iâ€™️ve also learned to me mentally subtract 100mhz from any frequency reported on OCN to estimate their actual stable speed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ....and 4-500 MHz from those who have delidded and are using a custom loop /forum/images/smilies/tongue.gif
Click to expand...

Linpack has a higher peak temperature, but much lower average temperature, making it a better test of your CPU, not your loop. Prime95 small fft AVX2 runs a degree or 2 cooler than Linpack, but it sustains that temperature as long as it runs. I use it to determine how many radiators I need to sustain max load (2 x 280).

Delidding will help your Linpack and Prime95 stability.

Watercooling will help only your Prime95 stability.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

In OCCT , there are 3 versions of Linpack: 2009,2012 and 2019. Is 2019 the same as Linpack extreme? Those guys who bought rockitcool direct die, how is your temp?


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Thanh Nguyen said:


> In OCCT , there are 3 versions of Linpack: 2009,2012 and 2019. Is 2019 the same as Linpack extreme? Those guys who bought rockitcool direct die, how is your temp?


I’m new to Linpack, so whenever I mention it, I am referring to the latest version of Linpack Extreme.

I haven’t gone direct die yet, but I saw about a 10 degree improvement under max load with plain delidding, which brought me from 5.2 to 5.3 stable (hard torture testing) or 5.3 to 5.4 (OCN torture testing). Next, I installed a copper IHS and used liquid metal on top of the heat spreader. This lowered temps another 10c, but I couldn’t get another 100mhz. I am hoping direct die will get me to 5.4-5.5, but I doubt it.
@than Nguyen, I’d be really interested to see what your chip could do in Linpack with direct die. Possibly 5.5?


----------



## Betroz

0451 said:


> Linpack has a higher peak temperature, but much lower average temperature, making it a better test of your CPU, not your loop. Prime95 small fft AVX2 runs a degree or 2 cooler than Linpack, but it sustains that temperature as long as it runs.


Ok, so Linpack is still a power virus. Got it.


----------



## Martin778

Why bother with testing AVX2 SmallFFT's though? A stock 10900K will throttle it if you increase the Power Limit, let alone an overclocked one. We're talking like 250-350W.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Betroz said:


> 0451 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Linpack has a higher peak temperature, but much lower average temperature, making it a better test of your CPU, not your loop. Prime95 small fft AVX2 runs a degree or 2 cooler than Linpack, but it sustains that temperature as long as it runs.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so Linpack is still a power virus. Got it.
Click to expand...

No, P95 AVX2 is a power virus. Linpack Extreme is just a humbling honesty check. I don’t own an air cooler but I imagine you could run it for an hour on air if you were motivated to do so. It should not max out your cooling system.



Martin778 said:


> Why bother with testing AVX2 SmallFFT's though? Even a stock 10900K will throttle it if you increase the Power Limit.


You don’t need AVX2. I like it because it allows me to test my open loop. And yes, 10 cores on Z series seems to be an architectural stretch. Like putting a Hemi in a Dart. Mind you I have a 10700k, so AVX2 might be easier for me.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

0451 said:


> Thanh Nguyen said:
> 
> 
> 
> In OCCT , there are 3 versions of Linpack: 2009,2012 and 2019. Is 2019 the same as Linpack extreme? Those guys who bought rockitcool direct die, how is your temp?
> 
> 
> 
> I’m new to Linpack, so whenever I mention it, I am referring to the latest version of Linpack Extreme.
> 
> I haven’t gone direct die yet, but I saw about a 10 degree improvement under max load with plain delidding, which brought me from 5.2 to 5.3 stable (hard torture testing) or 5.3 to 5.4 (OCN torture testing). Next, I installed a copper IHS and used liquid metal on top of the heat spreader. This lowered temps another 10c, but I couldn’t get another 100mhz. I am hoping direct die will get me to 5.4-5.5, but I doubt it.
> @than Nguyen, I’d be really interested to see what your chip could do in Linpack with direct die. Possibly 5.5?
Click to expand...

Yes my chip has direct die and I have tested prime95 AVX and OCCT linpack 2019 at least 15m.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Thanh Nguyen said:


> 0451 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanh Nguyen said:
> 
> 
> 
> In OCCT , there are 3 versions of Linpack: 2009,2012 and 2019. Is 2019 the same as Linpack extreme? Those guys who bought rockitcool direct die, how is your temp?
> 
> 
> 
> I’m new to Linpack, so whenever I mention it, I am referring to the latest version of Linpack Extreme.
> 
> I haven’t gone direct die yet, but I saw about a 10 degree improvement under max load with plain delidding, which brought me from 5.2 to 5.3 stable (hard torture testing) or 5.3 to 5.4 (OCN torture testing). Next, I installed a copper IHS and used liquid metal on top of the heat spreader. This lowered temps another 10c, but I couldn’t get another 100mhz. I am hoping direct die will get me to 5.4-5.5, but I doubt it.
> @than Nguyen, I’d be really interested to see what your chip could do in Linpack with direct die. Possibly 5.5?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes my chip has direct die and I have tested prime95 AVX and OCCT linpack 2019 at least 15m.
Click to expand...

What clock speed can you maintain with Linpack and P95 AVX2?


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

0451 said:


> Thanh Nguyen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 0451 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanh Nguyen said:
> 
> 
> 
> In OCCT , there are 3 versions of Linpack: 2009,2012 and 2019. Is 2019 the same as Linpack extreme? Those guys who bought rockitcool direct die, how is your temp?
> 
> 
> 
> I’m new to Linpack, so whenever I mention it, I am referring to the latest version of Linpack Extreme.
> 
> I haven’t gone direct die yet, but I saw about a 10 degree improvement under max load with plain delidding, which brought me from 5.2 to 5.3 stable (hard torture testing) or 5.3 to 5.4 (OCN torture testing). Next, I installed a copper IHS and used liquid metal on top of the heat spreader. This lowered temps another 10c, but I couldn’t get another 100mhz. I am hoping direct die will get me to 5.4-5.5, but I doubt it.
> @than Nguyen, I’d be really interested to see what your chip could do in Linpack with direct die. Possibly 5.5?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes my chip has direct die and I have tested prime95 AVX and OCCT linpack 2019 at least 15m.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What clock speed can you maintain with Linpack and P95 AVX2?
Click to expand...

5.5ghz 5.1 cache.


----------



## munternet

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Yep* problem with realbench is it only hits cpu 95%* but is a full system test so it's good
> I really rely on blender either opendata or looping free demo render files since I have blender installed it does more than just graphic's creation but will jack the cpu to 100% plus tests my avx offset stability at the same time so probably the most versatile program to have around


In RB I get 100% usage most of the time with about 0.03v more vdroop in my testing than in BFV, so I will just enjoy the PC for now
I do take on board what you are saying and if I see any whea errors with this method I may look at blender in the future :thumb:


----------



## rstolpe

So, I have made some "labbing/testing" and this is what I have come up with for now.
As I see it my OC with 4.8GHz is better then MSI default (4.9GHz) and ofc Intel default or what do you think?

CPU: i9 10900K
Motherboard: MSI MEG z490 ACE

Temp when running Prime95 with AVX *ON!*
4.8GHz OC max load 85c.
MSI default max load 95c

4.8GHz OC (ring 4.5GHz) med vcore på [email protected]









Intel Stock/Default









MSI Stock/Default vcore max 1.25 and during load 1.226


----------



## Warchamp84

*Help with OC 5.1ghz and above*

Hi all, been following this thread for some time now. I finally started to do an OC on 10900k. But i need some help...
So here is a quick run down of what i got going.
XMP 4000hz CL15 32gb kit.
Currently set at 5.1 all core LLC4 (anything above gives Vcores above 1.45) 
Vcore Bios: Auto
SVID: Best case scenario (other settings seem to give me high Vcores above 1.45 at 5.1ghz)
I have been very stable with the above settings so far.



I have been unable to touch Ring/Cache because if i raise it above (43- Auto) i again get crazy Vcore levels.
I'm unsure what to set ASUS Multicore Enhancement to?
C-states are enabled?
Speedshift and Speedstep are enabled also?
Cpu Power management settings are maxed out.

Here are a few images of my setup:


----------



## skullbringer

What does the AC in AC Loadline stand for, from the explanation in Falkentyne's write up (excellent work btw), it can't be alternating current, can it? My head will not accept this term into its vocabulary without knowing what AC means 

What is the "best" way to get 1.43 Vcore load? Trying to get my head around offset voltage and ac dc loadlines, I feel like there must be a more elegant way than 1.56V bios LLC6

Also I've found my 650W test bench PSU limiting my overclocks somewhat, depending on LLC and VRM switching frequency it can randomly turn off in normal AVX applications, 680 W is the highest I'v seen drawn from the wall. And yes, that is only 10900KF, a D5, 8 fans and a GTX 750 idling...

So thinking I'm gonna get an Ampere card next month, the RM1000 in my daily will need replacing as well. Do you guys have any recommendations for a 1000+ W psu with very good characteristics for oc, e.g. very low ripple etc?

Atm I'm torn between Asus Thor 1200W and Seasonic Prime Platinum 1300W. Thor's oem is Seasonic anyways judging from the modular connectors and pinout, right?


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Warchamp84 said:


> Hi all, been following this thread for some time now. I finally started to do an OC on 10900k. But i need some help...
> So here is a quick run down of what i got going.
> XMP 4000hz CL15 32gb kit.
> Currently set at 5.1 all core LLC4 (anything above gives Vcores above 1.45)
> Vcore: Auto
> SVID: Best case scenario (other settings seem to give me high Vcores above 1.45 at 5.1ghz)
> I have been unable to touch Ring/Cache becasue if i raise it above (43- Auto) i again get crazy Vcore levels
> I'm unsure what to set ASUS Multicore Enhancment to?
> C-states are enabled?
> Speedshift and Speed step are enabled also.
> Cpu Power saving settings are maxed out.
> 
> 
> Here are a few images of my setup:
> https://imgur.com/a/nSScRyO


Asus MCE : AUTO
SVID: Best case
C-State: Disable
Speed shift and speed step: Auto
Long and short duration: max out
Under vrm spectrum, there are 2 options that I dont remember the name: extreme
Now set vcore 1.25 llc6. If fail, go to 1.3. If stable, back down to the lowest stable vcore.


----------



## munternet

skullbringer said:


> What does the AC in AC Loadline stand for, from the explanation in Falkentyne's write up (excellent work btw), it can't be alternating current, can it? My head will not accept this term into its vocabulary without knowing what AC means
> 
> What is the "best" way to get 1.43 Vcore load? Trying to get my head around offset voltage and ac dc loadlines, I feel like there must be a more elegant way than 1.56V bios LLC6
> 
> Also I've found my 650W test bench PSU limiting my overclocks somewhat, depending on LLC and VRM switching frequency it can randomly turn off in normal AVX applications, 680 W is the highest I'v seen drawn from the wall. And yes, that is only 10900KF, a D5, 8 fans and a GTX 750 idling...
> 
> So thinking I'm gonna get an Ampere card next month, the RM1000 in my daily will need replacing as well. Do you guys have any recommendations for a 1000+ W psu with very good characteristics for oc, e.g. very low ripple etc?
> 
> Atm I'm torn between Asus Thor 1200W and Seasonic Prime Platinum 1300W. Thor's oem is Seasonic anyways judging from the modular connectors and pinout, right?


Looks ok. Not sure of the date though
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/corsair-ax1200i/8.html
Or for a 1500w
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/corsair-ax1500i/9.html

Edit: 2012 and 2014 respectively


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

skullbringer said:


> What does the AC in AC Loadline stand for, from the explanation in Falkentyne's write up (excellent work btw), it can't be alternating current, can it? My head will not accept this term into its vocabulary without knowing what AC means /forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
> 
> What is the "best" way to get 1.43 Vcore load? Trying to get my head around offset voltage and ac dc loadlines, I feel like there must be a more elegant way than 1.56V bios LLC6
> 
> Also I've found my 650W test bench PSU limiting my overclocks somewhat, depending on LLC and VRM switching frequency it can randomly turn off in normal AVX applications, 680 W is the highest I'v seen drawn from the wall. And yes, that is only 10900KF, a D5, 8 fans and a GTX 750 idling...
> 
> So thinking I'm gonna get an Ampere card next month, the RM1000 in my daily will need replacing as well. Do you guys have any recommendations for a 1000+ W psu with very good characteristics for oc, e.g. very low ripple etc?
> 
> Atm I'm torn between Asus Thor 1200W and Seasonic Prime Platinum 1300W. Thor's oem is Seasonic anyways judging from the modular connectors and pinout, right?


I heard u cant go wrong with Seasonic, but wait for Ampere to see does it require special psu (12pin rumor). Can u do prime95 avx2 and linpack extreme at 1.43v load? Its funny my pc s not stable in prime avx2 and linpack at 1.35v llc8 but it does at 1.495v llc6 ( 1.341-1.35v load). Realbench now uses all the way to 1.394v.


----------



## skullbringer

Thanh Nguyen said:


> I heard u cant go wrong with Seasonic, but wait for Ampere to see does it require special psu (12pin rumor). Can u do prime95 avx2 and linpack extreme at 1.43v load? Its funny my pc s not stable in prime avx2 and linpack at 1.35v llc8 but it does at 1.495v llc6 ( 1.341-1.35v load). Realbench now uses all the way to 1.394v.


I can't really test 5.5 GHz stability in Prime95 AVX or LinX because the system just shuts off. 

At the same load voltage, LLC 6 should always be more stable than LLC 8 due to better transient response. It's just kind of stupid at 5.5 GHz with 250 A to see droop from 1.57V to 1.43V. I wanted to try LLC 7, but then also system just shuts off, poor Seasonic GX 650 

I agree, Realbench stable voltage is like 50 mV higher then Prime nonAVX small FFT stable voltage. I guess Realbench has stronger transient loads then Prime, hence lower vmin, almost AVX like, but I dont really know.


----------



## Martin778

Guys with 1.40V LLC6 in BIOS we're talking 330-350W package in AVX2 S.FFT's, that will throttle on everything but direct die. The system will shutdown because of overcurrent situation (or extreme overtemp), you can raise all limits to maximum but if it's an ASUS board, it might still kick in some protection.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

341w 1.495v llc6 Prime95 avx2. Directdie from supercool keeps all cores under 80c with 30c water.


----------



## skullbringer

Martin778 said:


> Guys with 1.40V LLC6 in BIOS we're talking 330-350W package in AVX2 S.FFT's, that will throttle on everything but direct die. The system will shutdown because of overcurrent situation (or extreme overtemp), you can raise all limits to maximum but if it's an ASUS board, it might still kick in some protection.


you can assume direct die for anything over 5.3 GHz anyway. 

in my particular case, in Prime95 AVX2 5.5 GHz I'm drawing up to 700W from the wall, hence my 650W psu shuts off. It's not the board. It's an Apex, the VRM can handle far more. VRM temps ~ 60C, CPU temps ~ 80 C.


----------



## skullbringer

btw SP96 55x core 53x cache:
- stable prime95 non-avx 112fft in-place with 1.43V load LLC 6
- does not even boot with 1.45V LLC 8


----------



## TK421

skullbringer said:


> btw SP96 55x core 53x cache:
> - stable prime95 non-avx 112fft in-place with 1.43V load LLC 6
> - does not even boot with 1.45V LLC 8



1.43v load is with what voltage set in bios?


----------



## Warchamp84

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Asus MCE : AUTO
> SVID: Best case
> C-State: Disable
> Speed shift and speed step: Auto
> Long and short duration: max out
> Under vrm spectrum, there are 2 options that I dont remember the name: extreme
> Now set vcore 1.25 llc6. If fail, go to 1.3. If stable, back down to the lowest stable vcore.





Ok, so i ran it at the settings above.
Vcore 1.25 LLC6 was not stable at all.
Vcore 1.3 you can see in the photo.
Water temp does not seems to go up max 35degrees.
These are adjusted manually. I tested these extensively as Auto was putting them at 1.4V

VCCIO - set to 1.21
VCCSA- set to 1.20


Should i increase Vcore?
Also is it safe to continue running at LLC6 in the long run, im aiming for a 24/7 build.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Warchamp84 said:


> Thanh Nguyen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asus MCE : AUTO
> SVID: Best case
> C-State: Disable
> Speed shift and speed step: Auto
> Long and short duration: max out
> Under vrm spectrum, there are 2 options that I dont remember the name: extreme
> Now set vcore 1.25 llc6. If fail, go to 1.3. If stable, back down to the lowest stable vcore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so i ran it at the settings above.
> Vcore 1.25 LLC6 was not stable at all.
> Vcore 1.3 you can see in the photo.
> Water temp does not seems to go up max 35degrees.
> These are adjusted manually. I tested these extensively as Auto was putting them at 1.4V
> 
> VCCIO - set to 1.21
> VCCSA- set to 1.20
> 
> 
> Should i increase Vcore?
> Also is it safe to continue running at LLC6 in the long run, im aiming for a 24/7 build.
Click to expand...

 u can go up to 1.325 and see if its stable in aida or not. If not, use 1.35. Then go down 0.005 when you find a stable vcore to find a lowest stable vcore. I think the temp is a limting factor here. Llc6 1.3v in bios? Why its still 1.296v at load. Weird. IO and SA are fine.


----------



## Warchamp84

Yes its a pretty just below average chip, runs too hot despite a full custom water loop. 

I can make it stable if i go back to my old settings and then just inputting the max auto Vcore i was getting. But that was at LLC4 and C states on.


Ill grab my old Auto Vcore Max value and run it with current settings at LLC6. See if it holds. After that...

I have not even touched Cache yet. So what setting should the Ring Down Bin be set at: enabled, auto or disabled?


I will see how it goes and then i'm gonna delid tomorrow with a the Rockitcool copper ihs. This is pissing me off.


----------



## Falkentyne

Warchamp84 said:


> Ok, so i ran it at the settings above.
> Vcore 1.25 LLC6 was not stable at all.
> Vcore 1.3 you can see in the photo.
> Water temp does not seems to go up max 35degrees.
> These are adjusted manually. I tested these extensively as Auto was putting them at 1.4V
> 
> VCCIO - set to 1.21
> VCCSA- set to 1.20
> 
> 
> Should i increase Vcore?
> Also is it safe to continue running at LLC6 in the long run, im aiming for a 24/7 build.


I don't think Thanh knows you have a SP63 CPU. Did you really try to use 5.1 ghz, Bios set 1.250v LLC6?? You can't do that on a SP63. 
Even my SP94 needs 1.315v set in BIOS with LLC6 at 5.1 ghz, and that can't pass AVX2 prime95 (it can pass AVX1).
@Thanh Nguyen why are you telling him to use such low voltages?
You have a SP 110 CPU. He has SP63... come on... look at his VF....with your voltages you recommended you are just going to crash his CPU.

For your CPU, you need 1.35v LLC6 for 5.1 ghz probably.


----------



## Falkentyne

skullbringer said:


> What does the AC in AC Loadline stand for, from the explanation in Falkentyne's write up (excellent work btw), it can't be alternating current, can it? My head will not accept this term into its vocabulary without knowing what AC means
> 
> What is the "best" way to get 1.43 Vcore load? Trying to get my head around offset voltage and ac dc loadlines, I feel like there must be a more elegant way than 1.56V bios LLC6
> 
> Also I've found my 650W test bench PSU limiting my overclocks somewhat, depending on LLC and VRM switching frequency it can randomly turn off in normal AVX applications, 680 W is the highest I'v seen drawn from the wall. And yes, that is only 10900KF, a D5, 8 fans and a GTX 750 idling...
> 
> So thinking I'm gonna get an Ampere card next month, the RM1000 in my daily will need replacing as well. Do you guys have any recommendations for a 1000+ W psu with very good characteristics for oc, e.g. very low ripple etc?
> 
> Atm I'm torn between Asus Thor 1200W and Seasonic Prime Platinum 1300W. Thor's oem is Seasonic anyways judging from the modular connectors and pinout, right?


ACLL will raise base VID depending on load. ACLL will send the VRM the voltage signal (thats why its called ACLL-it's the CPU's voltage supply).
DCLL is the predicted vdroop of the VID, used for CPU Package Power but does not affect vcore. This is best left at the same "mOhms" as your LLC.
Shamino said that if AC Loadline is higher than 0.01 mOhms, the VID is no longer reported correctly. At least its not reported the same way as on Z390. It's not a bug--the Gigabyte Z490 acts the same way.
So maybe it "is" reported correctly but just totally different than before? I don't know.


But TVB Voltage optimizations will also raise base VID depending on temps first. If you disable TVB Voltage Optimizations in your BIOS, that will set base VID at the 100C point for that V/F multiplier (each multi up to x53 has its own base VID including what is not shown on VF points).

On Z390 it was: "Vcore= base VID + (ACLL mOhms * loadstep amps) - (Loadline calibration mOhms * amps) + offset voltage."
where ACLL=0.01 mOhms would set vcore=base VID - vdroop (plus whatever your offset voltage is). Offset voltage is offset set in the BIOS (for offset or adaptive voltage)-it's not "Serial VID offset" +200mv thingy.

It's the same on z490 if ACLL=0.01 mOhms. But if ACLL is higher than 0.01 mOhms, it is totally different. And the "serial VID offset" of +200mv also gets applied whenever it wants to also, which can raise the base VID up to 200mv higher, with respect to AC Loadline. Serial VID offset is not the same thing as offset voltage.

If you raise ACLL to a high value like NO HIGHER THAN 1.1 mOhms (try 0.9-1.1), and force DCLL to 0.01 mOhms manually, you can watch what happens to the VID.
Bad silicon CPU's will show a VID up to 1.720v at 5.2ghz because droop on the VID (DCLL) will be 0. DCLL does not affect vcore (AGAIN)--LLC affects vcore, not DC Loadline.

I dont know how it works and I will never know how it works. Shamino's explanation is too confusing for me for Z490. The closest guess I could even come to was it was something "close to":
Vcore=base VID + (ACLL mOhms * 1/2 amps) - (LLC mOhms * amps) + offset voltage. With max VID being 1.720v (1.520v +200mv SVID).

That tends to give CPU's (i think SP63) an average load voltage (with level 3 LLC) an average of 1.50v load at 5.2 ghz with auto/adaptive voltage +5mv offset or offset voltage +5mv, with AC Loadline at 0.9 mOhms (Worst case SVID preset). What's funny is the idle voltage will also be about 1.5v also.

Adaptive mode offset voltage=auto or offset mode offset voltage=auto will raise offset voltage depending on cache ratio. Never keep offset voltage on auto, ever. Set it to 5mv or -5mv.


----------



## Warchamp84

Falkentyne said:


> I don't think Thanh knows you have a SP63 CPU. Did you really try to use 5.1 ghz, Bios set 1.250v LLC6?? You can't do that on a SP63.
> Even my SP94 needs 1.315v set in BIOS with LLC6 at 5.1 ghz, and that can't pass AVX2 prime95 (it can pass AVX1).
> 
> @*Thanh Nguyen* why are you telling him to use such low voltages?
> You have a SP 110 CPU. He has SP63... come on... look at his VF....with your voltages you recommended you are just going to crash his CPU.
> 
> For your CPU, you need 1.35v LLC6 for 5.1 ghz probably.



Thanks Falkentyne, Also thanks Thanh for the trying to help.


So i wen back to my old stable settings.
C-states enabled.
SVID- best
MCE- Auto
Vcore- Auto
Cpu Power Duty Cycle and phase back to default.

LLC 4
Please see results below- this i have tested for stability for hours.
I think this is the best chip can do with my current rig. If i even attempt to raise Cpu Cache above 43 or the Cpu core to 52- Vcores are 1.45-1.5 and Vids a little higher.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Warchamp84 said:


> Falkentyne said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think Thanh knows you have a SP63 CPU. Did you really try to use 5.1 ghz, Bios set 1.250v LLC6?? You can't do that on a SP63.
> Even my SP94 needs 1.315v set in BIOS with LLC6 at 5.1 ghz, and that can't pass AVX2 prime95 (it can pass AVX1).
> 
> @*Thanh Nguyen* why are you telling him to use such low voltages?
> You have a SP 110 CPU. He has SP63... come on... look at his VF....with your voltages you recommended you are just going to crash his CPU.
> 
> For your CPU, you need 1.35v LLC6 for 5.1 ghz probably.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Falkentyne, Also thanks Thanh for the trying to help.
> 
> 
> So i wen back to my old stable settings.
> C-states enabled.
> SVID- best
> MCE- Auto
> Vcore- Auto
> Cpu Power Duty Cycle and phase back to default.
> 
> LLC 4
> Please see results below- this i have tested for stability for hours.
> I think this is the best chip can do with my current rig. If i even attempt to raise Cpu Cache above 43 or the Cpu core to 52- Vcores are 1.45-1.5 and Vids a little higher.
Click to expand...

Yeah, your chip is so hot. I had a sp63 before and do 5.3ghz 1.365v llc7 ( 1.341v load) after delid cooper ihs. I see u planning to do a delid. Why dont u go hardcore by using a direct die? 5.4ghz-5.5ghz daily is easy. Why is your pump running at 600 rpm?


----------



## skullbringer

TK421 said:


> 1.43v load is with what voltage set in bios?


1.56V bios, LLC 6 = 1.43V load prime95 112k fft in-place no avx

Honestly I plan on running this 24/7. Yes, I know this is "not safe", but load voltage is in the "safe" range, temps are fine (85C max) and there is this: https://www.reddit.com/r/intel/comments/i6hnk1/voltage_induced_gate_oxide_breakdown_testing_ft/

Gonna do this for science and because I've always run my hardware at the ragged edge


----------



## cstkl1

Warchamp84 said:


> Hi all, been following this thread for some time now. I finally started to do an OC on 10900k. But i need some help...
> So here is a quick run down of what i got going.
> XMP 4000hz CL15 32gb kit.
> Currently set at 5.1 all core LLC4 (anything above gives Vcores above 1.45)
> Vcore Bios: Auto
> SVID: Best case scenario (other settings seem to give me high Vcores above 1.45 at 5.1ghz)
> I have been very stable with the above settings so far.
> 
> 
> 
> I have been unable to touch Ring/Cache because if i raise it above (43- Auto) i again get crazy Vcore levels.
> I'm unsure what to set ASUS Multicore Enhancement to?
> C-states are enabled?
> Speedshift and Speedstep are enabled also?
> Cpu Power management settings are maxed out.
> 
> Here are a few images of my setup:


use the latest bios
set svid best case scenario 5.1ghz LL6 vcore auto. 
that should be good. if u want avx stable
svid auto, 5.1ghz LL6 offset additional voltage your v/f for 5.1ghz vid voltage....
cache.. got to see what your subtimings/rtls are at. bdies 4dimm try bios 0606 or 098


----------



## mouacyk

From my recent overclock of a 9900K to 5.2GHz, I'd recommend looping through at least 5 GCC builds (which can be done on WSL.) I've found that overclocks would fail in the following order:

RB2.56 Stress (WHEA, 82C) > Blender OpenData (WHEA, 80C) > 10x Linux Kernel build (MCE, 79C) > 5x GCC build (MCE, 85C)

Had to increase voltage from 1.232v to 1.288v (delta of 7 bins of 8mV) to pass 5x GCC build. Just another idea to avoid mono-instruction tests like Linx and P95 without overly taxing AVX/AVX2.

GCC on WSL instructions:
https://solarianprogrammer.com/2017/05/04/building-gcc-wsl-windows-subsystem-linux/


----------



## TK421

skullbringer said:


> 1.56V bios, LLC 6 = 1.43V load prime95 112k fft in-place no avx
> 
> Honestly I plan on running this 24/7. Yes, I know this is "not safe", but load voltage is in the "safe" range, temps are fine (85C max) and there is this: https://www.reddit.com/r/intel/comments/i6hnk1/voltage_induced_gate_oxide_breakdown_testing_ft/
> 
> Gonna do this for science and because I've always run my hardware at the ragged edge



just be sure to rma it by the end of its life cycle


----------



## Martin778

Honestly, it would be nice if folks would then just zap the CPU with a 9v battery over the contacts and RMA rather than selling it


----------



## TK421

Martin778 said:


> Honestly, it would be nice if folks would then just zap the CPU with a 9v battery over the contacts and RMA rather than selling it


leaves mark on the contact pads, can't rma easily


----------



## skullbringer

oh ffs, today my Maximus XI Gene started coil whining in idle like a mother trucker!

guess I'll swap boards and cpu even before Ampere, can't focus with this audible task manager constantly blasting cpu usage at my ears


----------



## Betroz

skullbringer said:


> oh ffs, today my Maximus XI Gene started coil whining in idle like a mother trucker!


Danger, danger, OVERVOLTAGE!! LOL


----------



## TurricanM3

Installed my Rockit Cool direct die frame yesterday. Pretty impressive results. Temps are 7-15° lower now in CB15.


----------



## skullbringer

TurricanM3 said:


> Installed my Rockit Cool direct die frame yesterday. Pretty impressive results. Temps are 7-15° lower now in CB15.


1.26V for 5.4 GHz, whuaaaat?


----------



## TurricanM3

SP92 CPU. =)
It needed 1.305v w/o delid.


----------



## skullbringer

TurricanM3 said:


> SP92 CPU. =)
> It needed 1.305v w/o delid.


I figured it must be a very good cpu, but still... is that only cinebench stable or can you finish 30 minutes of realbench 2.56?

my sp96 10900KF needs 1.35V under load for 5.4 GHz to be stable


----------



## TurricanM3

I don't think that would be stable. 10mv less already crashed in CB.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

My old sp94 direct die needs 1.305v load to do realbench at 5.4ghz. So that sp92 must be close to 1.305v load to do realbench.


----------



## Betroz

How many 10900K/KF did U guys order before U got lucky and got a SP90+? Most are SP63 are they not?


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Betroz said:


> How many 10900K/KF did U guys order before U got lucky and got a SP90+? Most are SP63 are they not?


My first 2 are sp63. My third is sp94 and my last 1 is sp104. The last 2 are in the same batch x018d635 or so.


----------



## skullbringer

Betroz said:


> How many 10900K/KF did U guys order before U got lucky and got a SP90+? Most are SP63 are they not?


2.
1st was 10900K SP63, but still did 5.3 GHz without delid, sent it back though
2nd was 10900KF SP96, lucky I guess 

SP isn't everything. SP 83 chips can do 5.6 GHz, whereas mine is maxed out at 5.5 e.g. Then there is Nizzen with his SP63 that does 5.5 GHz on direct die, SP is like very inaccurate


----------



## SoldierRBT

I think VID idle (fixed vcore and disabling all power saving options in BIOS) at 5GHz all cores in a better measure than SP rating. I've tested around 8 CPUs with SP of 63 to 83 (VID of 1.21v-1.220v) and all of them were capable of doing 5.2GHz all cores prime95 small ffts non-avx at decent voltages (1.243v-1.288v). The worst SP63 I had needed 1.25v to be stable at 5.1GHz (VID was 1.24v). Any chip with a VID of 1.150-1.180v should perform very good.


----------



## Betroz

SoldierRBT said:


> I think VID idle (fixed vcore and disabling all power saving options in BIOS) at 5GHz all cores in a better measure than SP rating. I've tested around 8 CPUs with SP of 63 to 83 (VID of 1.21v-1.220v) and all of them were capable of doing 5.2GHz all cores prime95 small ffts non-avx at decent voltages (1.243v-1.288v). The worst SP63 I had needed 1.25v to be stable at 5.1GHz (VID was 1.24v). Any chip with a VID of 1.150-1.180v should perform very good.


Okay. My SP63 needs 1.21 VMIN load at 5.0 allcore (HT on) in Prime95 non-avx 112k fft in-place (1.32v LLC6 in BIOS). The CPU gets more than hot enough here, so 5.1+ Ghz are out of reach for me on AIO cooling. My chip would do better with custom loop and direct die I'm sure, but that's not for me.


----------



## ThrashZone

skullbringer said:


> 2.
> 1st was 10900K SP63, but still did 5.3 GHz without delid, sent it back though
> 2nd was 10900KF SP96, lucky I guess
> 
> SP isn't everything. SP 83 chips can do 5.6 GHz, whereas mine is maxed out at 5.5 e.g. Then there is Nizzen with his SP63 that does 5.5 GHz on direct die, SP is like very inaccurate


Hi,
Not sure sp is inaccurate more than cooling is very much needed for the extra voltage needed to do the higher frequencies.


----------



## Spin Cykle

Question for you guys. I just picked up a second 10900K and I’m looking to do some validation “binning” on my first KF chip and than my second K chip, but I don’t have a Gigabyte or ASUS board, which makes it a bit easier to determine a baseline and chip quality. How should I approach the “binning” process on my MSI motherboard? 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## SuperMumrik

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Not sure sp is inaccurate more than cooling is very much needed for the extra voltage needed to do the higher frequencies.



It's more to it than just cooling. My First chip was a sp 84 and it was the worst of the lot :thumbsdow
I'm currently using a sp 63 chip. Not really happy with it,but it scales well with voltage


----------



## skullbringer

My SP 96 10900KF needs 1.11V Vmin for 5.0 allcore Prime95 112fft in-place non-avx 30mins, max temp is 50C with direct die. 

It does 5.4 allcore with 1.305V Vmin, max temp is 66C. 
But 5.5 allcore needs 1.43V Vmin, max temp is 74C.

So my core-ration voltage scaling is getting very steep towards the end, but that might also be partly because of temps. 

I remounted the direct die block a few times, scratched off all the indium oxide with a razor blade, but this is the best mount I can get

Also I have a feeling that cache frequency/voltage scaling also is part of the SP rating, mine does 52x at 1.305Vmin, so that might explain the high SP rating vs core ratio/voltage scaling


----------



## Betroz

skullbringer said:


> My SP 96 10900KF needs 1.11V Vmin for 5.0 allcore Prime95 112fft in-place non-avx 30mins, max temp is 50C with direct die.


Do you think that your CPU would need more vcore if it were only cooled by an AIO and not delidded? 1.11 VMIN is vastly better than mine that require 1.21v at the same speed. I know that silicon quality vary between different CPUs in the same line, but 1.11v vs 1.21v is a huge difference.


----------



## skullbringer

Betroz said:


> Do you think that your CPU would need more vcore if it were only cooled by an AIO and not delidded? 1.11 VMIN is vastly better than mine that require 1.21v at the same speed. I know that silicon quality vary between different CPUs in the same line, but 1.11v vs 1.21v is a huge difference.


yes definitely, I once saw 100 MHz headroom from 5C ambient difference, so cooling makes a HUGE difference


----------



## Falkentyne

skullbringer said:


> My SP 96 10900KF needs 1.11V Vmin for 5.0 allcore Prime95 112fft in-place non-avx 30mins, max temp is 50C with direct die.
> 
> It does 5.4 allcore with 1.305V Vmin, max temp is 66C.
> But 5.5 allcore needs 1.43V Vmin, max temp is 74C.
> 
> So my core-ration voltage scaling is getting very steep towards the end, but that might also be partly because of temps.
> 
> I remounted the direct die block a few times, scratched off all the indium oxide with a razor blade, but this is the best mount I can get
> 
> Also I have a feeling that cache frequency/voltage scaling also is part of the SP rating, mine does 52x at 1.305Vmin, so that might explain the high SP rating vs core ratio/voltage scaling


How does your chip have the same vmin at x52 and x54? That makes no sense.
Can you elaborate on that?


----------



## lolhaxz

Falkentyne said:


> How does your chip have the same vmin at x52 and x54? That makes no sense.
> Can you elaborate on that?


Fairly sure one is talking about the cache, ie. 52x cache ratio (with down-bin, 55x max ratio) requires 1.3v

Mine is SP80 and I require 1.305v or thereabouts to maintain 5.3GHz (core clock, 49x cache) smallFFT for several hours - after loop saturates (which does take about 15-20 mins) it's at about ~85-90C, this is my daily; V/F Curve in ASUS BIOS says 1.194v 48x, 1.334v 51x, 1.413v 52x, and Prediction says 1.328v @ L5 for 4.9 cache...... cinebench R20 will run forever at 5.4GHz at 1.37v load (aside from being on the bleeding edge of 100C) or there abouts but I wouldn't call it stable, obviously prime95 AVX is insta-crash at 5.4, fine at 5.3GHz... AVX seems to require LESS voltage at each ratio than non-AVX for me.

The temps are fine gaming etc, 40C max sorta thing - but I do wonder what voltage reduction might be possible with direct-die, leaving TVB voltage enabled is extremely nice, completely dynamically much lower voltages when its colder, only when it gets upto 90C does the voltage start creeping up slightly.

30 mins is also definitely not long enough to check for L0 cache errors, they almost always show up much later even 20mv away from getting rid of them... but I also would suggest they seem to matter far less on 10900K, i've had 2 in a 12 hour run when voltage was a bit too low and it never BSOD or anything... previous CPU's it was typically a matter of time before it BSOD even if you stopped the test..


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Any idea why I passed 10 loop of linpack extreme then restarted and chose 20 loops and it failed after 3 loops? Now it cant even pass 2 loops.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Any idea why I passed 10 loop of linpack extreme then restarted and chose 20 loops and it failed after 3 loops? Now it cant even pass 2 loops.


Ambient temperature maybe? How long did those 20 loops take and did you use a different ram size?


----------



## Nizzen

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Any idea why I passed 10 loop of linpack extreme then restarted and chose 20 loops and it failed after 3 loops? Now it cant even pass 2 loops.


Maybe Linpack bited you, and degraded the cpu? 

One more reason not to stresstest with "powervirus" on a mainstream plattform...


----------



## skullbringer

Falkentyne said:


> How does your chip have the same vmin at x52 and x54? That makes no sense.
> Can you elaborate on that?





skullbringer said:


> Also I have a feeling that *cache frequency/voltage scaling* also is part of the SP rating, mine does 52x at 1.305Vmin, so that might explain the high SP rating vs core ratio/voltage scaling


I was talking about cache in the last part, see bold part. Sorry for my wordy English if that was causing confusion. To clarify 1.305V Vmin allows for 54x allcore and 52x cache.


Or at least it did. Today I switched the 10900KF and Apex from the test bench into my main rig and I lost 100 MHz 
Even when fans and pump are at 100%, 5.5 GHz now insta crashes at Prime95 112 fft in-place no-avx. I now see core to core max temp deltas of 15 C, before on the test bench it was 8 C. 
Max temp is now 90 C at 5.4 GHz, where before it was 74 C at 5.5 GHz.

Still 6x 120mm radiators and single D5 pump, but Noctua NF-A12 fans (in theory better for temps), a 1080 Ti in the loop (in theory worse for temps) and longer tubing runs around the back of the mb tray (in theory worse for temps). 

I have a few suspects in mind:
- Liquid metal under the direct core block might have shifted while chaning out fittings from the block
- Inlet and outlet on the direct core block matters, I changed that with the new tubing runs.
- D5 pump is too weak for this loop causing too low flow rate, unfortunately I have no flow rate sensor

Any guesses what it might be?


----------



## Falkentyne

skullbringer said:


> I was talking about cache in the last part, see bold part. Sorry for my wordy English if that was causing confusion. To clarify 1.305V Vmin allows for 54x allcore and 52x cache.
> 
> 
> Or at least it did. Today I switched the 10900KF and Apex from the test bench into my main rig and I lost 100 MHz
> Even when fans and pump are at 100%, 5.5 GHz now insta crashes at Prime95 112 fft in-place no-avx. I now see core to core max temp deltas of 15 C, before on the test bench it was 8 C.
> Max temp is now 90 C at 5.4 GHz, where before it was 74 C at 5.5 GHz.
> 
> Still 6x 120mm radiators and single D5 pump, but Noctua NF-A12 fans (in theory better for temps), a 1080 Ti in the loop (in theory worse for temps) and longer tubing runs around the back of the mb tray (in theory worse for temps).
> 
> I have a few suspects in mind:
> - Liquid metal under the direct core block might have shifted while chaning out fittings from the block
> - Inlet and outlet on the direct core block matters, I changed that with the new tubing runs.
> - D5 pump is too weak for this loop causing too low flow rate, unfortunately I have no flow rate sensor
> 
> Any guesses what it might be?


LM application is no longer intact, I am guessing. Deltas like this are from LM spread.
Temp deltas do not change from 8C to 15C from a 14C rise in ambient temps. If current draw and frequency workload is the same, I could see a 2C delta increase.

Redo the LM application, especially with direct die where PSI pressure will be lower. This issue would probably not happen if this were a IHS relid since the block ->IHS pressure would be much higher.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

skullbringer said:


> Falkentyne said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does your chip have the same vmin at x52 and x54? That makes no sense.
> Can you elaborate on that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skullbringer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also I have a feeling that *cache frequency/voltage scaling* also is part of the SP rating, mine does 52x at 1.305Vmin, so that might explain the high SP rating vs core ratio/voltage scaling
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was talking about cache in the last part, see bold part. Sorry for my wordy English if that was causing confusion. To clarify 1.305V Vmin allows for 54x allcore and 52x cache.
> 
> 
> Or at least it did. Today I switched the 10900KF and Apex from the test bench into my main rig and I lost 100 MHz /forum/images/smilies/frown.gif
> Even when fans and pump are at 100%, 5.5 GHz now insta crashes at Prime95 112 fft in-place no-avx. I now see core to core max temp deltas of 15 C, before on the test bench it was 8 C.
> Max temp is now 90 C at 5.4 GHz, where before it was 74 C at 5.5 GHz.
> 
> Still 6x 120mm radiators and single D5 pump, but Noctua NF-A12 fans (in theory better for temps), a 1080 Ti in the loop (in theory worse for temps) and longer tubing runs around the back of the mb tray (in theory worse for temps).
> 
> I have a few suspects in mind:
> - Liquid metal under the direct core block might have shifted while chaning out fittings from the block
> - Inlet and outlet on the direct core block matters, I changed that with the new tubing runs.
> - D5 pump is too weak for this loop causing too low flow rate, unfortunately I have no flow rate sensor
> 
> Any guesses what it might be?
Click to expand...

Do you have 6 individual radiators or 2x360? 6 radiators is a lot of restriction. Even with 2 D5 pumps and 5 radiators I am still just under the ideal 1 GPM.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Nizzen said:


> Thanh Nguyen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any idea why I passed 10 loop of linpack extreme then restarted and chose 20 loops and it failed after 3 loops? Now it cant even pass 2 loops.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe Linpack bited you, and degraded the cpu?
> 
> One more reason not to stresstest with "powervirus" on a mainstream plattform...
Click to expand...

Once you build a proper cooling loop with enough capacity you’ll understand Nizzen. Also what’s a power virus? Electricity is cheap in the free world.


----------



## Spin Cykle

@Falkentyne

What process/technique should I follow to determine vMin when using a MSI motherboard (Z490i Unify)? I’d like to find the vMin for the 47-52 multiplier range, but I’d rather not spend days testing every multiplier by just randomly guessing what voltage a given multiplier will need and than spending hours of testing to find out it’s not Prime 95 Non AVX small fft stable. Is there a more methodical way to go about the testing process?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Betroz

0451 said:


> Also what’s a power virus?


In this case, a piece of code run in the CPU that causes an extreme load that does not represent the actual load a user would experience in standard apps like Blender, Adobe Premiere or any game. There is a reason why CPU's have a baseclock, a minimum frequency that the CPU will run any load at (with the recommended cooling).


----------



## skullbringer

Falkentyne said:


> LM application is no longer intact, I am guessing. Deltas like this are from LM spread.
> Temp deltas do not change from 8C to 15C from a 14C rise in ambient temps. If current draw and frequency workload is the same, I could see a 2C delta increase.
> 
> Redo the LM application, especially with direct die where PSI pressure will be lower. This issue would probably not happen if this were a IHS relid since the block ->IHS pressure would be much higher.


that's the only real downside with the supercool computers direct core block: the ihs replacement is also the cold plate of the water block, which is held to the die with the socket frame, meaning to remount the ihs to the die, you need to drain the loop, disassemble the water block, then take the cpu out with cold plate/ihs and then redo the LM, quite the pita

well, I used the last few minutes of sunlight and feck, you were right. well sorta, LM looked good, but micro fins were clogged, still +rep

*sigh* I had cleaned this loop with mayhems blitz kit only 2 months ago, used premixed coolant with biocide from aquacomputers and coolant was clear when I drained the loop. 
So the new pieces of tubing that I had to install must have caused the contamination.

Cleaned the block and die with isopropanol, reapplied LM, reinstalled, refilled loop.
temp delta core to core is now down to 11 C and 5.5 doesn't crash instantly anymore. 

will let it run over night to bleed the air, then again test tomorrow. 



0451 said:


> Do you have 6 individual radiators or 2x360? 6 radiators is a lot of restriction. Even with 2 D5 pumps and 5 radiators I am still just under the ideal 1 GPM.


I have 2x 360mm in my main (see pic) and 240mm + 480mm on my testbench, hence both are "6x 120mm" surface area 

If I add another 360mm, so 3x360mm, you reccon a single D5 still does the job, or will I need a 2nd one?


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Linpack extreme pushes my cpu all the way to 350w while prime95 avx2 use 341w. Maybe ambient is a little hotter when I first stress it.


----------



## Falkentyne

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Linpack extreme pushes my cpu all the way to 350w while prime95 avx2 use 341w. Maybe ambient is a little hotter when I first stress it.


What CPU load (NOT IDLE) Voltage/frequency were you running Prime95 AVX 2 at? Hyperthreading enabled or disabled?

You probably degraded it. Max amps is 245 amps and 5.1 ghz 1.20v load FMA3 small FFT is already more than 245 amps.
(At >Max amps, Asus EC tab in Hwinfo64 will not report CPU Current anymore, it can't report a value higher than 255).


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Falkentyne said:


> Thanh Nguyen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Linpack extreme pushes my cpu all the way to 350w while prime95 avx2 use 341w. Maybe ambient is a little hotter when I first stress it.
> 
> 
> 
> What CPU load (NOT IDLE) Voltage/frequency were you running Prime95 AVX 2 at? Hyperthreading enabled or disabled?
> 
> You probably degraded it. Max amps is 245 amps and 5.1 ghz 1.20v load FMA3 small FFT is already more than 245 amps.
> (At >Max amps, Asus EC tab in Hwinfo64 will not report CPU Current anymore, it can't report a value higher than 255).
Click to expand...

1.495v llc6 in bios. I dont remember idle voltage but at load it is at 1.341v-1.35v. Realbench uses 1.376v -1.394v. Probably dont use linpack or prime95 avx to test this beast at 5.5ghz anymore.


----------



## TurricanM3

skullbringer said:


> I remounted the direct die block a few times, scratched off all the indium oxide with a razor blade, but this is the best mount I can get


I polished mine until the indium was all gone to get the best possible result:


----------



## lolhaxz

TurricanM3 said:


> I polished mine until the indium was all gone to get the best possible result:


Not to tell anyone how to suck eggs - but, just in general, the other very important thing with liquid metal is to make sure both surfaces are "wetted" very well - you want to rub the liquid metal around with the cotton bud fairly extensively... just because it looks well wetted it may not be.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

TurricanM3 said:


> skullbringer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remounted the direct die block a few times, scratched off all the indium oxide with a razor blade, but this is the best mount I can get
> 
> 
> 
> I polished mine until the indium was all gone to get the best possible result:
Click to expand...

That’s beautiful! And so very German of you.


lolhaxz said:


> TurricanM3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I polished mine until the indium was all gone to get the best possible result:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to tell anyone how to suck eggs - but, just in general, the other very important thing with liquid metal is to make sure both surfaces are "wetted" very well - you want to rub the liquid metal around with the cotton bud fairly extensively... just because it looks well wetted it may not be.
Click to expand...

I am using CoolLaboratory Ultra and I got the best result from applying it to one surface, not both. Der8auer applies it to both in his tutorial but he is using Conductonaut which is less viscous. So it might depend what blend of metal you are using.


----------



## Falkentyne

Thanh Nguyen said:


> 1.495v llc6 in bios. I dont remember idle voltage but at load it is at 1.341v-1.35v. Realbench uses 1.376v -1.394v. Probably dont use linpack or prime95 avx to test this beast at 5.5ghz anymore.


This is a Maximus 12 Extreme or Apex?

1495mv - (300A IOUT * 0.495 mOhm LLC) = 1346mv = 1.346v.

You were drawing 300 amps...
Realbench 2.56 was probably about 260 amps.


----------



## lolhaxz

> I am using CoolLaboratory Ultra and I got the best result from applying it to one surface, not both. Der8auer applies it to both in his tutorial but he is using Conductonaut which is less viscous. So it might depend what blend of metal you are using.


Have not used CoolLaboratory - I guess the reason for wetting both surfaces is to ensure there is no surface tension issues which could effectively result in a hotspot somewhere on the die which can manifest multiple kinds of issues, ie. temperatures may even look fine, yet it will lockup/BSOD due to hot spot(s)


----------



## skullbringer

TurricanM3 said:


> I polished mine until the indium was all gone to get the best possible result:


what polish are you using? is that good for die and ihs?


temps did not get better over night, did another remount of the block, this time with clu instead of tgc.
now temp delta core to core is ~ 18 C, core 1 coolest at 66 C, core 6 hottest at 84 C.

Either the residual indiumoxide on the die and block are messing with me, or I'm freaking unlucky with my application/mounts. The same method gave me 66 C max on all cores for this clock earlier on the testbench.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Svid disable, package window is 448 and now it passes lin 10 loops. 1.5v llc6, 1.35v-1.359v load.


----------



## Salve1412

Just out of curiosity, for those who returned/purchased multiple CPUs before getting a satisfying sample, did you happen to buy them from the same store over and over again or did you always tried with different ones? I just returned a not so great SP63 10900K and I might order another one from the same hardware store. Is the lottery completely random or is it fair to assume that a certain store receives certain lots of CPUs with similar characteristics (same or almost identical batch etc.)? Of course only if it is correct to say that similar batches have similar properties and silicon quality...


----------



## Falkentyne

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Svid disable, package window is 448 and now it passes lin 10 loops. 1.5v llc6, 1.35v-1.359v load.


All residuals failed. They do not match.
use /residualcheck at the end of the command line for intel.

This is not necessary for AMD. Only for Intel.
and use problem size: 35000

You can use Linx 0.9.7. I think one of them have newest linpack binaries. Not sure.
Use 35000 for best results. All residuals must match.

https://hwtips.tistory.com/1611


----------



## geriatricpollywog

skullbringer said:


> TurricanM3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I polished mine until the indium was all gone to get the best possible result:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what polish are you using? is that good for die and ihs?
> 
> 
> temps did not get better over night, did another remount of the block, this time with clu instead of tgc.
> now temp delta core to core is ~ 18 C, core 1 coolest at 66 C, core 6 hottest at 84 C.
> 
> Either the residual indiumoxide on the die and block are messing with me, or I'm freaking unlucky with my application/mounts. The same method gave me 66 C max on all cores for this clock earlier on the testbench.
Click to expand...

That happened to me when I first applied it. Then I applied the CLU as thin as possible and only on 1 surface and saw a 20C improvement over solder on my hottest core. I might try both TGC and CLU when I get my direct die kit.


----------



## Spin Cykle

Falkentyne said:


> All residuals failed. They do not match.
> use /residualcheck at the end of the command line for intel.
> 
> This is not necessary for AMD. Only for Intel.
> and use problem size: 35000
> 
> You can use Linx 0.9.7. I think one of them have newest linpack binaries. Not sure.
> Use 35000 for best results. All residuals must match.
> 
> https://hwtips.tistory.com/1611



I believe the creator of LinPack Xtrene has stated in a forum post that as long as the test passes the residuals can be different when running AVX workloads. AVX float point math has something to do with it. 


https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/linpack-xtreme-released.247335/page-14#post-4305943


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Falkentyne

Spin Cykle said:


> I believe the creator of LinPack Xtrene has stated in a forum post that as long as the test passes the residuals can be different when running AVX workloads. AVX float point math has something to do with it.
> 
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/linpack-xtreme-released.247335/page-14#post-4305943
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I saw that post and I call BS.

Yes but not ALL residuals.
Also, why does it get MORE stable residuals when you reduce the overclock or when you loosen RAM timings?
It's a computer. CPU's don't just make random math errors just because it can.

Until Intel says something about this, I'm going to say "you aren't Linpack stable unless all residuals match". Try me.

Anyway @Thanh Nguyen is NOT stable. Not even close to stable. Not even partly stable. ALL his residuals were wrong. Each and every one.
If he only had 1 residual out of 10 wrong, then I would let that slide. Sorry, no free lunch when Falkentyne is involved, boys.


----------



## mouacyk

^^

The next logical culprit is ever slight memory instability.


----------



## CZonin

Recently upgraded to a 10900k / MSI Z490I MEG Unify.

I've tried a couple passes at getting a OC set but haven't had any success. I started off at 51, eventually getting up to 1.37v with AVX 0. Prime95 was both running too hot, and not stable. I tried with LLC 3 and 4 both with a similar result. I've also tried maxing out the power limit and current limit, but not sure if it's necessary for this chip. Either way it didn't help.

I haven't used an MSI board in awhile so not sure if there's a setting i'm missing somewhere that could be contributing to the instability/heat.

Any suggestions?


----------



## Spin Cykle

Falkentyne said:


> I saw that post and I call BS.
> 
> Yes but not ALL residuals.
> 
> Also, why does it get MORE stable residuals when you reduce the overclock or when you loosen RAM timings?
> It's a computer. CPU's don't just make random math errors just because it can.
> 
> Until Intel says something about this, I'm going to say "you aren't Linpack stable unless all residuals match". Try me.


I don't disagree with you on this statement at all. I'm just the messenger here. I've tried reading the supporting document posted in that thread and it was way way above my knowledge level.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

CZonin said:


> Recently upgraded to a 10900k / MSI Z490I MEG Unify.
> 
> I've tried a couple passes at getting a OC set but haven't had any success. I started off at 51, eventually getting up to 1.37v with AVX 0. Prime95 was both running too hot, and not stable. I tried with LLC 3 and 4 both with a similar result. I've also tried maxing out the power limit and current limit, but not sure if it's necessary for this chip. Either way it didn't help.
> 
> I haven't used an MSI board in awhile so not sure if there's a setting i'm missing somewhere that could be contributing to the instability/heat.
> 
> Any suggestions?


If you’re running an XMP profile, the bios automatically sets VCCIO and VCCSA too high. Try a range of voltages for each between 1.2 and 1.35. Lower is better for temperature, but run Aida64 at each voltage to make sure its not so low that it hurts your cache bandwidths.


----------



## Betroz

0451 said:


> Try a range of voltages for each between 1.2 and 1.35. Lower is better for temperature, but run Aida64 at each voltage to make sure its not so low that it hurts your cache bandwidths.


That too low IO/SA can hurt cache bandwidth is new to me. Is there any guide/answer to why this is so? I thought that if the settings are stable and error free, that I'm golden.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Betroz said:


> 0451 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try a range of voltages for each between 1.2 and 1.35. Lower is better for temperature, but run Aida64 at each voltage to make sure its not so low that it hurts your cache bandwidths.
> 
> 
> 
> That too low IO/SA can hurt cache bandwidth is new to me. Is there any guide/answer to why this is so? I thought that if the settings are stable and error free, that I'm golden.
Click to expand...

These are my observations on my Z490 Unify. I ran Aida64 several times at bios setpoints from 1.15 to 1.40 on both IO/SA. Cache speed became more and more consistent as I increased the voltages up until 1.35v. This matches what Buildzoid said on his Lake CPU OC video, that more SA = more better but IO has a sweet spot. It’s entirely possible that this might not apply for your motherboard.


----------



## munternet

What is the normal llc for the apex 10900k sp86 ~5.2GHz
I see a lot of different opinions


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Reset bios and run everything at stock and the residual is the not the same. So my system is not stable linx even at stock?


----------



## Falkentyne

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Reset bios and run everything at stock and the residual is the not the same. So my system is not stable linx even at stock?


Hi Thanh.
Your first residual is the correct value for "35000".
The other two are wrong.

The problem is, LinX requires PERFECT stability. Perfect. Meaning CPU, RAM and cache must all be 100% stable.

Also the vcore voltage must be high enough. I do not know about all stock settings.

I know that at these settings: 4.7 ghz core, 4.4 ghz cache, 1.125v Bios set= 1.030v load voltage, LLC=6, I can usually pass 9 of 10 residuals.
I had some problems failing LinX at 4.3 ghz core also, I think it was my RAM settings causing it....


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Everything is at default. No option was modified in bios and the redidual is not the same.


----------



## Falkentyne

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Everything is at default. No option was modified in bios and the redidual is not the same.


Asus sets default AC/DC Loadline to 0.01 mOhms. (SVID Behavior Auto=best case scenario).
Set it to "Typical" or manually to 0.6 / 0.6 mOhms for AC/DC Loadline, set LLC to "Level 3", and you should pass.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

@Falkentyne is Linpack Extreme as picky as LinX?


----------



## Falkentyne

0451 said:


> @Falkentyne is Linpack Extreme as picky as LinX?


Linpack extreme draws a bit more amps (assuming both are latest updated versions) probably because of GUI overhead on LinX so its a bit harder to pass. LinX 0.9.7 is the newest version.
And you should use 35000 sample size. 16000 is peanuts.


----------



## Spin Cykle

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Reset bios and run everything at stock and the residual is the not the same. So my system is not stable linx even at stock?


I did the exact same thing when I learned about residual matching after reading the creators article, both my 8700k and 9900k exhibited the same behavior. Mismatching residuals. The behavior didn't occur every time, but I wasn't going to spend hours upon hours trying to isolate why. Unfortunately I'm still building my 10900k system, so I can't test it yet.


----------



## Falkentyne

Spin Cykle said:


> I did the exact same thing when I learned about residual matching after reading the creators article, both my 8700k and 9900k exhibited the same behavior. Mismatching residuals. The behavior didn't occur every time, but I wasn't going to spend hours upon hours trying to isolate why. Unfortunately I'm still building my 10900k system, so I can't test it yet.


I had the same problem which i reported to Asus. Mismatched residuals at 4.2 ghz and low voltage (I think 1.15v bios set LLC6) with XMP and command rate 1T (on 2018 year dual ranks).
i fixed this by using JEDEC timings, then all residuals matched. Even when I moved up to 4.7 ghz at 1.15v LLC6, all residuals matched with JEDEC. I did NOT use auto voltage. With XMP and 1T, I literally needed something absurd like 1.28v Bios set + LLC6 to pass at 4.7 ghz.

Now on 2020 year dimms and 2T and XMP, I can get most residuals to pass at 1.125v Bios set, LLC6 at 4.7 ghz beyond XMP timings. With XMP and 2T, all residuals passed. The cause was the RAM timings/settings.


----------



## Betroz

Falkentyne said:


> Now on 2020 year dimms and 2T and XMP, I can get most residuals to pass at 1.125v Bios set, LLC6 at 4.7 ghz beyond XMP timings. With XMP and 2T, all residuals passed. The cause was the RAM timings/settings.


Didn't you validate the RAM settings with HCI and TM5 first? Can I ask you what your 24/7 CPU/uncore and RAM settings are?


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

I passed TM5 v3 but it is mismatched. When u talk about ram, its a headache.


----------



## opt33

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Everything is at default. No option was modified in bios and the redidual is not the same.


Technically all rounding is a math error so you have to introduce that math error at same point by following same order of operation to produce the same rounded (technically erred) result. 

Unless the author programs intels MKL to take same code path and avoid avx code path, rounding errors can occur with different order of operations in different code paths, hence different residuals. Assigning different code paths maximizes efficiency (20-50% gain) but affects order of operations. 

Which is why I just stick with prime, follows same order of operations/same code path. If you use linpack either code it yourself to lose 20-50% efficiency and take same code path/order of operation etc, or realize if you have same residuals you are stable and all calcs had same order of operations. If residuals differ, you may be stable with multiple code paths/order of operations or you may be unstable. You might need to run it a few thousand times (different settings/avx/different proces/diff bios) to understand any possible patterns. 

Quotes from intels CNR
"This is because each unique code path has been optimized to match the features available on the underlying processor. The feature-based approach introduces a challenge: if any of the internal floating-point operations are done in a different order, or are re-associated, then the computed results may differ."

"On the other hand run-time dispatching and certain threaded algorithms have not allowed users to make changes that can ensure the same order of operations from run to run"

"while on a more recent Intel® Xeon® processor supporting Intel® Advanced Vector Extensions (AVX), that same library function may dispatch to a different code-path that uses these AVX instructions."
https://software.intel.com/content/...onditional-numerical-reproducibility-cnr.html


----------



## Falkentyne

Thanh Nguyen said:


> I passed TM5 v3 but it is mismatched. When u talk about ram, its a headache.


Please use LINX 0.9.7. Can you try this please?
It's newer than Linpack extreme. Binaries are updated for 10th gen.

https://hwtips.tistory.com/1611


----------



## Martin778

Linpack Extreme doesn't seem to work on Threadrippers at ALL. Crashes at every try even on full JEDEC defaults, doubtful stress test...


----------



## Falkentyne

Thanh Nguyen said:


> I passed TM5 v3 but it is mismatched. When u talk about ram, its a headache.


This is how you linpack. This is how you Falkentyne style Linpack.
use proper updated binaries. LinX 0.9.7

4.7/4.4, 1.130v Bios set, LLC6 + overclocked RAM.

Looks like she's stable, bois.


----------



## Betroz

Falkentyne said:


> 4.7/4.4, 1.130v Bios set, LLC6 + overclocked RAM.
> 
> Looks like she's stable, bois.


5.1/4.8 is not Linpack stable for you? Btw is there an english version of that LinX?


----------



## Falkentyne

Betroz said:


> 5.1/4.8 is not Linpack stable for you? Btw is there an english version of that LinX?


5.1 / 4.8 can't even pass prime95 AVX1 for a long time and FMA3 fails instantly, so LinX would error instantly. It gets past 95C in just AVX1 at 1.181v load, and goes PAST 255 amps in FMA3 and fails in seconds (No, I can't lower the temps. Ambient daytime temps have been over 40-45C the last few days outside and I do NOT have central air conditioning, and a weak window AC isn't good enough, I have to fight to keep indoor ambients at 32C). And 1.20v load trying to run FMA3 is even higher amps and 99C +. I'm not interested in degrading my CPU. So, no. Not doing LinX.

Judging from the posts here I must be the only person in this thread who isn't delidded. Holy cow.

I value the life of my CPU. I don't know what you guys are doing trying to run LinX /Linpack / FMA3 at 5.4 ghz and 300 amps, but hey, it's not my chip...


----------



## Betroz

Falkentyne said:


> I value the life of my CPU. I don't know what you guys are doing trying to run LinX /Linpack / FMA3 at 5.4 ghz and 300 amps, but hey, it's not my chip...


Only AVX test I run is Blender, and of course Battlefield 5 uses AVX. As I have said before in here, FMA3/AVX2 stuff is meant to be run at baseclock of 3.7 Ghz using Intel power guidelines as far as I understand it, and surely not 5+ Ghz.


----------



## Falkentyne

Betroz said:


> 5.1/4.8 is not Linpack stable for you? Btw is there an english version of that LinX?


No English version but you don't need it. the Korean version is simply to understand once you know what the settings are, and you can learn them in 1 minute.
Just use the english 0.6.5 version and look at the options there then memorize it, then you will know what they are in 0.9.7.
Some of the english menus in 0.9.5 (english) and most of the error messages are not translated.


----------



## swddeluxx

Betroz said:


> ….Btw is there an english version of that LinX?


There you go :cheers:

*LinX v0.9.7 Eng* (for Intel)

https://filehorst.de/d/dcJiszCw


----------



## munternet

Aren't those tests just putting an unholy amount of stress on the hardware and actually causing the errors?


----------



## ViTosS

Apex XII and XI doesn't support onboard video, right? I can't see DP connection or anything, there is a USB-C, if I connect a USB-C to DP cable and plug in my monitor, would that work? Or doesn't have video in that entrance?


----------



## lolhaxz

ViTosS said:


> Apex XII and XI doesn't support onboard video, right? I can't see DP connection or anything, there is a USB-C, if I connect a USB-C to DP cable and plug in my monitor, would that work? Or doesn't have video in that entrance?


For whatever ******o reason [most likely for advertising/phase count reasons and the design constraints that come with that] - yes most upper mid-range/high end asus boards for this generation do not even have the iGPU VRM (at all) - thus the internal GPU is not/cannot be powered; the VRM is entirely dedicated to the CPU vcore.

Using USB-C to drive an external display will always work, it's basically just sending the end result pixel data rendered by whatever GPU is available.


----------



## ViTosS

lolhaxz said:


> For whatever ******o reason [most likely for advertising/phase count reasons and the design constraints that come with that] - yes most upper mid-range/high end asus boards for this generation do not even have the iGPU VRM (at all) - thus the internal GPU is not/cannot be powered.
> 
> Using USB-C to drive an external display will always work, it's basically just sending the end result pixel data rendered by whatever GPU is available.


So the USB-C to DP cable works? It produces video even considering that I can't find any iGPU option in BIOS? I'm asking this because I'm planning to sell my 1080Ti while it has a nice selling price before the RTX 3000 series comes.

(Sorry for asking in this thread but many people here have Apex boards )


----------



## Falkentyne

munternet said:


> Aren't those tests just putting an unholy amount of stress on the hardware and actually causing the errors?


Most likely. I only like testing LinX on stock turbo ratios or very close to it.


----------



## cstkl1

linpack not very good on cache stability
not specific enough for ram

my take its only good for vcore. 

there is no one test for everything but
u should pass everything.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Is there any option in bios that we can reduce the vcore and still maintain stability? The v/f curve is 1.354v for 5.5ghz so is that vcore or the vid? Can someone explain the svid behavior and how it works? Does it work when svid is disable?


----------



## lolhaxz

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Is there any option in bios that we can reduce the vcore and still maintain stability? The v/f curve is 1.354v for 5.5ghz so is that vcore or the vid? Can someone explain the svid behavior and how it works? Does it work when svid is disable?


You can only reduce stock vcore behavior to lowest VID (which is programmed based on quality) - for example, if your CPU is programmed with 1.5v for 5.2GHz nothing you do except use manual mode [or V/F negative offset] will cause it to request less, if your LLC is very high this can result in dangerous voltages.

My experience has been that the stock VID at Best-case and around LLC6 - is extremely close to the required voltages for all situations, +- 10mv - this has the effective .. effect of reducing vDroop and lowering the voltage gap between load and low-load.

The way to achieve the absolute lowest vcore while maintaining VID behaviour is to set SVID to best case scenario, and/or set loadline to 0.01 and use Offset vcore mode, DO NOT leave the offset to AUTO, set it to 5mv otherwise it will result in 1.6v+ - I recommend when switching to this mode that you start with a low multiplier (ie. 50x) and slowly raise it to test that requested VID does not go crazy... 

You can then dial in your overclock with the additional voltage globally (via the offset, best with high cache) or at individual V/F points with the V/F table and use LLC (say, LLC6) to reduce the vDroop.

If you leave TVB enabled you will get the benefit of voltage/VID scaling as the temperature goes up, ie. when it's cold the voltage will be lower, at 100C it could be anywhere upto +50-60mv; if you don't it will just offset all the voltages upwards of +60mv at all times; you also get the benefit of the VID requested scaling with active core count and power state, ie. you may see much lower voltages than normal at light load - yet all is stable. (this is mostly to do with partial core activiations and CPU-Z for example, reporting average vCore.)

If you have a good CPU with very reasonable VID tables, this is unquestionably the best way to run these CPU's - essentially completely stock behaviour with the light load-heavy load voltage delta much reduced.

For example, I run 5.3ghz all core, 0x AVX, at light load, I will often see 1.332-1.35v in CPU-Z, at extreme load - say Prime95, it will START at 1.29-1.3v and slowly go upto 1.328v due to TVB as it starts to heat up and compensate for the higher voltage required under higher temperatures.... only under huge current swings will I ever see it _momentarily_ report 1.38-1.4v; but this is a ****ty SP80 with quite a high 5.3GHz VID... the VID stops completely at your OC ratio on Asus boards, I think Asus is replacing the 5.3GHz VID or something, so 5.4/5.5 would run at the same voltage as >= 5.2GHz/5.3GHz VID - if you needed more voltage you would use V/F table to just increase voltage for OC Ratio VID.

The only complexity here is you now have to worry about maxing sure the average vmin vcore at all ratios is sufficiently serviced by either A) having enough LLC to keep vmin high enough at each ratio or B) increase the voltage at all points using the global offset or V/F table.

And to answer your question - all the voltages in the V/F stuff is all __effectively__ VID - AVX will add another 30-40mv on top, higher temperatures will then also increase the VID even more - it's very dynamic which is actually a awesome implementation IMO, it keeps the voltages as low as possible at all times under all conditions until its actually necessary.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

I set 1.5v llc6 in bios and prime 95 cpuz shows 1.35v at load but vid is 1.33v. My vf curve has 1.355v at 5.5ghz. Should the vid be at 1.355v to be stabe?


----------



## lolhaxz

Thanh Nguyen said:


> I set 1.5v llc6 in bios and prime 95 cpuz shows 1.35v at load but vid is 1.33v. My vf curve has 1.355v at 5.5ghz. Should the vid be at 1.355v to be stabe?


As per my post, the voltage indicated for Point 8 on the VF Curve is your current OC Ratio, so the only reason it says 5.5ghz is because you have your ratio set to 55x - in truth it is the 5.3GHz V/F point I believe (but Asus commendares it), thus it suggests you need 1.355v [that's not vmin or load vcore, but before droop] for 5.3GHz to be stable - which is pretty much unicorn status.

We also don't really know how intel are coming up with those voltages - obviously they are running some sort of test, but what is unknown.

If you change your ratio to 53 for example, point 8 would then reflect 5.3GHz - Intel don't test 5.4 and 5.5GHz so thus it is unknown to the predication and will just show you the same voltage as 5.3


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Time to give up prime 95 small fft avx2 and linpack. No way it can be stable at 5.5ghz. Linpack runs and says pass but all residuals are mismatched. Prime95 avx2 has 1 core error. So the best my cpu can do is prime95 small fft avx. Maybe sp126 can do it.


----------



## Falkentyne

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Time to give up prime 95 small fft avx2 and linpack. No way it can be stable at 5.5ghz. Linpack runs and says pass but all residuals are mismatched. Prime95 avx2 has 1 core error. So the best my cpu can do is prime95 small fft avx. Maybe sp126 can do it.


Why are you trying to stress test yeet voltages and clocks?
5.4 and 5.5 ghz should be for benchmarking and gaming and showing off to your friends.

Limit stress testing to 5.2-5.3 ghz if you are direct die/de-lidded or 5.1-5.2 ghz if not de-lidded and 5 ghz for air cooling.
It's common sense and best for the CPU. And stay below 245A IOUT. Even Realbench will exceed 245A at 5.4 ghz.
You already said your CPU has degraded already from all that testing?

Do you see people stress testing HCI/OCCT RAM test beta / TM5 / GSAT + B-die at 4800 mhz CL 14 @ 1.95v? No? Gee, I wonder why....


----------



## robotsir

Hi guys, I am new here and need some help with my 10900kf overclocking. I have a chip with SP 81, but it seems I couldn't push it to 5.2g all cores even with 1.412v Vcore (1.435v in bios, LL6, Asus Strix Z490-E). It did pass Cinebench v20, but cache L0 errors with RealBench. Is there anything else that I can try before I claim this chip is pretty bad? Thanks in advance


----------



## Spin Cykle

robotsir said:


> Hi guys, I am new here and need some help with my 10900kf overclocking. I have a chip with SP 81, but it seems I couldn't push it to 5.2g all cores even with 1.412v Vcore (1.435v in bios, LL6, Asus Strix Z490-E). It did pass Cinebench v20, but cache L0 errors with RealBench. Is there anything else that I can try before I claim this chip is pretty bad? Thanks in advance


What kind of cooling solution are you using? Are you manually setting VCCIO/SA? I think it's a combination of high temps and IO/SA voltage being a tad low leading to the instability/L0 cache errors. 3200 CL16 shouldn't be hard to run w/ 1.15 IO/SA but at 1.4+ volts vcore, I'm not sure. Something seems off though, an SP81 chip IMO should be clocking a lot better.


----------



## SoldierRBT

robotsir said:


> Hi guys, I am new here and need some help with my 10900kf overclocking. I have a chip with SP 81, but it seems I couldn't push it to 5.2g all cores even with 1.412v Vcore (1.435v in bios, LL6, Asus Strix Z490-E). It did pass Cinebench v20, but cache L0 errors with RealBench. Is there anything else that I can try before I claim this chip is pretty bad? Thanks in advance


- Your DRAM voltage seems a little low for a XMP profile. Try to manually set it to 1.36v. You're getting 1.343v in HWinfo.
- Your voltage underload doesn't drop much. Try higher Vcore in BIOS and lower LLC to get more vdroop, it'd be more stable. 
- You need to lower temps. 100C is too much. Set pump and fans to 100% or lower your ambient temp.


----------



## robotsir

Spin Cykle said:


> What kind of cooling solution are you using? Are you manually setting VCCIO/SA? I think it's a combination of high temps and IO/SA voltage being a tad low leading to the instability/L0 cache errors. 3200 CL16 shouldn't be hard to run w/ 1.15 IO/SA but at 1.4+ volts vcore, I'm not sure. Something seems off though, an SP81 chip IMO should be clocking a lot better.


I am running a custom loop, but not very high end. The cooling score is around 160. I had VCCIO/SA on Auto. Yeah, that's my thought too, SP81 should be able to do 5.2ghz, but I do know the SP score is not 100% accurate


----------



## robotsir

SoldierRBT said:


> - Your DRAM voltage seems a little low for a XMP profile. Try to manually set it to 1.36v. You're getting 1.343v in HWinfo.
> - Your voltage underload doesn't drop much. Try higher Vcore in BIOS and lower LLC to get more vdroop, it'd be more stable.
> - You need to lower temps. 100C is too much. Set pump and fans to 100% or lower your ambient temp.


I tried to manually set RAM voltage to 1.36v, but I still get 1.343v in HWinfo. I agree 100C is too much, the pump and fans are already at 100%, I think the high temp is due to Vcore too high


----------



## Falkentyne

robotsir said:


> Hi guys, I am new here and need some help with my 10900kf overclocking. I have a chip with SP 81, but it seems I couldn't push it to 5.2g all cores even with 1.412v Vcore (1.435v in bios, LL6, Asus Strix Z490-E). It did pass Cinebench v20, but cache L0 errors with RealBench. Is there anything else that I can try before I claim this chip is pretty bad? Thanks in advance


96C could be why you're getting L0 errors. That's hot.

Have you tried actually reducing the vcore? Try 1.360v bios set LLC6 and see what happens.
I get those same temps you got, at 5.3 ghz/4.9 cache, on my LFII 360 if I try 1.435v LLC6 also, although that's 1.313v load in RB 2.56 (die sense reading). You need to drop the temps.
See what happens if you reduce vcore first.


----------



## robotsir

Falkentyne said:


> 96C could be why you're getting L0 errors. That's hot.
> 
> Have you tried actually reducing the vcore? Try 1.360v bios set LLC6 and see what happens.
> I get those same temps you got, at 5.3 ghz/4.9 cache, on my LFII 360 if I try 1.435v LLC6 also, although that's 1.313v load in RB 2.56 (die sense reading). You need to drop the temps.
> See what happens if you reduce vcore first.


Hi Falkentyne, I tried 1.360v LLC6 (Strix-E only has option up to LLC7), I got blue screen SYSTEM_SERVICE_EXCEPTION when running Cinebench V20. Anything between 1.360v and 1.435v either gave me blue screen or cache L0 errors when running Cinebench. I bumped up RAM voltage a little, now it shows 1.361v in HWinfo. I also increased Vccio/sa to 1.3v


----------



## Falkentyne

robotsir said:


> Hi Falkentyne, I tried 1.360v LLC6 (Strix-E only has option up to LLC7), I got blue screen SYSTEM_SERVICE_EXCEPTION when running Cinebench V20. Anything between 1.360v and 1.435v either gave me blue screen or cache L0 errors when running Cinebench. I bumped up RAM voltage a little, now it shows 1.361v in HWinfo. I also increased Vccio/sa to 1.3v


Looks like the only thing you can do is delid.
You have a 120mv between 5.1 and 5.2 ghz VF points so that means 5.2 ghz is going to be difficult for you. You need to find a way to drop the load temps below 90C.


----------



## robotsir

Falkentyne said:


> Looks like the only thing you can do is delid.
> You have a 120mv between 5.1 and 5.2 ghz VF points so that means 5.2 ghz is going to be difficult for you. You need to find a way to drop the load temps below 90C.


Thanks for the info. So how are the VF points in Bios calculated? Are those info somehow saved on the CPU?


----------



## Falkentyne

robotsir said:


> Thanks for the info. So how are the VF points in Bios calculated? Are those info somehow saved on the CPU?


VF points=CPU VID @ AC/DC Loadline=0.01 mOhms (or SVID Behavior=best case scenario when AC/DC LL=Auto) when CPU is at 100C (or if Thermal Velocity Boost Voltage optimizations is set to disabled in the BIOS at any temperature).


----------



## Spin Cykle

Falkentyne said:


> Looks like the only thing you can do is delid.
> You have a 120mv between 5.1 and 5.2 ghz VF points so that means 5.2 ghz is going to be difficult for you. You need to find a way to drop the load temps below 90C.


He never stated his cooling solution....


----------



## Falkentyne

Spin Cykle said:


> He never stated his cooling solution....


Yes he did. He has a custom loop.


----------



## Spin Cykle

Falkentyne said:


> Yes he did. He has a custom loop.



Ahh you’re right. My apologies. I missed it. Carry on. Nothing to see here. Lol


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## cstkl1

robotsir said:


> Hi guys, I am new here and need some help with my 10900kf overclocking. I have a chip with SP 81, but it seems I couldn't push it to 5.2g all cores even with 1.412v Vcore (1.435v in bios, LL6, Asus Strix Z490-E). It did pass Cinebench v20, but cache L0 errors with RealBench. Is there anything else that I can try before I claim this chip is pretty bad? Thanks in advance


Whats your ram /vccio&vcssa

That cpu in L6 needs for maximus
5.1- 1.328
5.2- 1.408-1.478

5.2 da best cpu i have seen needed 80mv from 5.1
The worst 150mv

Test your [email protected] ..

Vccio bump needed for 5.2 btw.

I think your loadline are diff. 

Test this
Svid behaviour : best case scenario
Percore usage set
51/2,51/3,51/5,51/10
Leave vcore voltage auto
Dont oc ram. Leave cache etc auto

Try different loadlines
With small fft avx/avx 2 disable Fft in place min/max 80
When u found the perfect loadline.. that should be akin to maximus loadline 6.

Report back. And will tell ya how to get 5.2


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Look at that 96c at 1.421v load. Im so glad I went with direct die cooling. Why some board has lower vdroop than the others? My apex has llc6 1.5v and in realbench it drops to 1.394v or 1.376v or so. That guy llc6 drops just a little.


----------



## skullbringer

Finally managed to get my CPU back to it's former self. Had to scratch off all the lm residue with a razor blade and then I tried CLU thinly wetted to die and block. Now I'm at core to core delta of 7C again (at 230A) and max temp is back to where it was on the bench! 


Since cooling is noise limited in my daily rig, I tried lowering voltage further by running offset voltage (+0.025), svid behavior set to best case, llc 7. 
Now load voltage Vmin in Prime95 112k fft in-place non-avx is 1.35V. allcore is set to 54x and there are no whea errors after 30 mins. 

BUT I can only boot 50x cache, whereas before with static voltage (same llc, resulting in the same load voltage), it could boot 52x cache. Any ideas as to why?


----------



## Falkentyne

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Look at that 96c at 1.421v load. Im so glad I went with direct die cooling. Why some board has lower vdroop than the others? My apex has llc6 1.5v and in realbench it drops to 1.394v or 1.376v or so. That guy llc6 drops just a little.


Strix does not have die-sense voltage. All maximus series do, so Strix vcore will always be reported higher than its 'real' vcore.
Strix LLC6 (unknown but possibly close to 0.3 mOhm) should be less vdroop than Apex/Extreme LLC6 (0.495 mOhm)


----------



## Falkentyne

skullbringer said:


> Finally managed to get my CPU back to it's former self. Had to scratch off all the lm residue with a razor blade and then I tried CLU thinly wetted to die and block. Now I'm at core to core delta of 7C again (at 230A) and max temp is back to where it was on the bench!
> 
> 
> Since cooling is noise limited in my daily rig, I tried lowering voltage further by running offset voltage (+0.025), svid behavior set to best case, llc 7.
> Now load voltage Vmin in Prime95 112k fft in-place non-avx is 1.35V. allcore is set to 54x and there are no whea errors after 30 mins.
> 
> BUT I can only boot 50x cache, whereas before with static voltage (same llc, resulting in the same load voltage), it could boot 52x cache. Any ideas as to why?


Idle voltage is higher with fixed vcore and LLC7. Offset voltage is affected by Thermal Velocity Boost, raising VID by 1.55mv every 1C (at 5.3 ghz+, this increase gets lower at lower multipliers, e.g. at 5.2 ghz it's 1.45mv every C). At idle, at something like 30C, your base voltage could be as much as 80mv lower than full load (I am talking about before vdroop, not after).

Try disabling thermal velocity boost voltage optimizations, which will put the base VID as if the CPU were at 100C, then use an offset that will get the load voltage back to what it was before (you may need a negative offset). That may boot at x52 cache.


----------



## skullbringer

Falkentyne said:


> Idle voltage is higher with fixed vcore and LLC7. Offset voltage is affected by Thermal Velocity Boost, raising VID by 1.55mv every 1C (at 5.3 ghz+, this increase gets lower at lower multipliers, e.g. at 5.2 ghz it's 1.45mv every C). At idle, at something like 30C, your base voltage could be as much as 80mv lower than full load (I am talking about before vdroop, not after).
> 
> Try disabling thermal velocity boost voltage optimizations, which will put the base VID as if the CPU were at 100C, then use an offset that will get the load voltage back to what it was before (you may need a negative offset). That may boot at x52 cache.


I tried disabling TVB, now VID reported in HWinfo is 1.48-1.52V, as opposed to 1.37-1.40V. But still I cannot boot 52x cache with that. 

Seemingly the max clock and it's vid is not yet applied during post, but the cache is already running at its max clock, hence the cache fails to maintain stability (qcode 0F). 


Side note: In my main rig I run all temperature controlled pump and fans. When pump is set to only 65% for example, I cannot maintain stability at 5.4 GHz (1.35 Vmin). Again proving my theory that Vmin @ given clock alone is basically a useless measurement of silicon quality. You need a second indicator for heat flow of the cooler, like "W/s" or something similar if it exists. 

As long as you can keep flowing heat away from the CPU fast enough, your chip will be stable. Well, isn't that the same as just "core temperature" you might ask? No, because you can be unstable at 70C with bad heat flow and stable at 85C with good heat flow. Temperature is only temporary, while heat flow is constant.

This is probably why some SP 63 chips can do 5.6 and some SP 84 chips can't do 5.4. The SP 63 chip likely just has a water loop with much stronger pump and higher flow rate with much better heat flow. SP is calculated based on vid, which is based on temperature, but temperature is only temporary.

Does this make sense? I feel like it does, buy my rusty physics skills aren't helping


----------



## cstkl1

skullbringer said:


> I tried disabling TVB, now VID reported in HWinfo is 1.48-1.52V, as opposed to 1.37-1.40V. But still I cannot boot 52x cache with that.
> 
> Seemingly the max clock and it's vid is not yet applied during post, but the cache is already running at its max clock, hence the cache fails to maintain stability (qcode 0F).
> 
> 
> Side note: In my main rig I run all temperature controlled pump and fans. When pump is set to only 65% for example, I cannot maintain stability at 5.4 GHz (1.35 Vmin). Again proving my theory that Vmin @ given clock alone is basically a useless measurement of silicon quality. You need a second indicator for heat flow of the cooler, like "W/s" or something similar if it exists.
> 
> As long as you can keep flowing heat away from the CPU fast enough, your chip will be stable. Well, isn't that the same as just "core temperature" you might ask? No, because you can be unstable at 70C with bad heat flow and stable at 85C with good heat flow. Temperature is only temporary, while heat flow is constant.
> 
> This is probably why some SP 63 chips can do 5.6 and some SP 84 chips can't do 5.4. The SP 63 chip likely just has a water loop with much stronger pump and higher flow rate with much better heat flow. SP is calculated based on vid, which is based on temperature, but temperature is only temporary.
> 
> Does this make sense? I feel like it does, buy my rusty physics skills aren't helping


i think you guys are downplaying
om third ram timings/rtl with high cpu clock. 
hence the issue. 

apex was nvr meant for a 24/7 stable oc board anyway. 

its a 6 layer pcb of formula when it comes to cpu oc. so not sure what shortcuts it used to get bench stable vs 24/7 stable. 

cause so far alot of sp63 are doing stuff they shouldnt be able to do on apex..


----------



## Falkentyne

skullbringer said:


> I tried disabling TVB, now VID reported in HWinfo is 1.48-1.52V, as opposed to 1.37-1.40V. But still I cannot boot 52x cache with that.
> 
> Seemingly the max clock and it's vid is not yet applied during post, but the cache is already running at its max clock, hence the cache fails to maintain stability (qcode 0F).
> 
> 
> Side note: In my main rig I run all temperature controlled pump and fans. When pump is set to only 65% for example, I cannot maintain stability at 5.4 GHz (1.35 Vmin). Again proving my theory that Vmin @ given clock alone is basically a useless measurement of silicon quality. You need a second indicator for heat flow of the cooler, like "W/s" or something similar if it exists.
> 
> As long as you can keep flowing heat away from the CPU fast enough, your chip will be stable. Well, isn't that the same as just "core temperature" you might ask? No, because you can be unstable at 70C with bad heat flow and stable at 85C with good heat flow. Temperature is only temporary, while heat flow is constant.
> 
> This is probably why some SP 63 chips can do 5.6 and some SP 84 chips can't do 5.4. The SP 63 chip likely just has a water loop with much stronger pump and higher flow rate with much better heat flow. SP is calculated based on vid, which is based on temperature, but temperature is only temporary.
> 
> Does this make sense? I feel like it does, buy my rusty physics skills aren't helping


Are you saying that, in BIOS, the CPU is running at 3.7 ghz, at the VID (shown as vcore) linked to 3.7 ghz, but the cache is running (ok, trying to run) at 5.2 ghz?
That makes a lot of sense if true. Means the turbo ratio isn't being applied in BIOS.

That would mean that if you did this on a Gigabyte board (Z490 Master for example), it should work instantly since it won't boot at 3.7 ghz.

What happens if you set minimum cache ratio at 3.4 ghz and max cache ratio at 5.2 ghz? Does this do anything?


----------



## Betroz

cstkl1 said:


> apex was nvr meant for a 24/7 stable oc board anyway.
> 
> its a 6 layer pcb of formula when it comes to cpu oc. so not sure what shortcuts it used to get bench stable vs 24/7 stable.
> 
> cause so far alot of sp63 are doing stuff they shouldnt be able to do on apex..


Do you work at Asus and KNOW that, or is it your opinion? Just asking...


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Does the daily rig has worse cooling than your bench? I remember you do 55 core 53 cache at 1.53v llc6. Why do you run 54 core now?


----------



## CENS

Hi guys, who actually had the luck of getting an sp100+ chip here? anyone?


----------



## skullbringer

Falkentyne said:


> Are you saying that, in BIOS, the CPU is running at 3.7 ghz, at the VID (shown as vcore) linked to 3.7 ghz, but the cache is running (ok, trying to run) at 5.2 ghz?
> That makes a lot of sense if true. Means the turbo ratio isn't being applied in BIOS.
> 
> That would mean that if you did this on a Gigabyte board (Z490 Master for example), it should work instantly since it won't boot at 3.7 ghz.
> 
> What happens if you set minimum cache ratio at 3.4 ghz and max cache ratio at 5.2 ghz? Does this do anything?


yes, this works! 34x minimum 52x max cache ratio boots with tvb voltage disabled
either offset - 0.100V LLC7 or -0.30V LLC6 works for 54x core, 52x cache 

so for asus you need a minimum cache setting that works with 37x core vid to get past bios, interesting

btw when tvb is enabled, I can only boot with +0.100V, meaning way too much voltage at higher temps/load

I guess this is where AC LL would come in handy, but I haven't wrapped my head around it yet...



Thanh Nguyen said:


> Does the daily rig has worse cooling than your bench? I remember you do 55 core 53 cache at 1.53v llc6. Why do you run 54 core now?


yes, same radiator surface area, but longer tubing runs, 1 gpu block and noise optimized fan and pump speed. I want the system to be inaudible at idle. 
test bench had pump and fans running at 100% and shorter tubing runs. So 54x core 52x cache at 1.35 Vmin is the most I can run daily atm. 55x core 53x cache at 1.43 Vmin is out of reach for now.

Maybe next month with ampere I will add 3rd 360mm radiator and 2nd D5 pump, we'll see


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

CENS said:


> Hi guys, who actually had the luck of getting an sp100+ chip here? anyone?


I have sp104. Saw 1 sp126 and 1 sp116 both from reddit. Also saw 1 sp126 from chiphell.


----------



## CENS

Thanh Nguyen said:


> I have sp104. Saw 1 sp126 and 1 sp116 both from reddit. Also saw 1 sp126 from chiphell.


Thx man!


----------



## RyanRacer48

*Mines dead on 100*



CENS said:


> Hi guys, who actually had the luck of getting an sp100+ chip here? anyone?


My chip is a 10900k with an SP rating of 100 even. My cooler comes in around 160 or so which is great to see w/ the money invested  

Currently sitting at 5.3 all core with just 1.3 V! Its a freaking GEM. The highest temperature I get is around 40-50c (unless of course I burn some prime 95). Under full synthetic bench marks I get around 70c. Heatkiller Pro 4, 3 radiators 2x 360 and 1x480


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

RyanRacer48 said:


> CENS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi guys, who actually had the luck of getting an sp100+ chip here? anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> My chip is a 10900k with an SP rating of 100 even. My cooler comes in around 160 or so which is great to see w/ the money invested /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> Currently sitting at 5.3 all core with just 1.3 V! Its a freaking GEM. The highest temperature I get is around 40-50c (unless of course I burn some prime 95). Under full synthetic bench marks I get around 70c. Heatkiller Pro 4, 3 radiators 2x 360 and 1x480
Click to expand...

U should delid cooper ihs or direct die and u can do 5.4 or 5.5.


----------



## ITAngel

I just finally got my 10900K on Saturday local bestbuy store. lol MSRP. Plus a ASUS ROG STRIX z490-E Gaming. Loving the chip so far, there is something I felt I was missing with the Ryzen setup and for some reason Intel seems to always gives me a better desktop experience. I am glad I got this before dumping money into the 3900X/3950X. XD I am happier with my current setup running all stock with a Corsair H115i RGB Platinum AIO. Not sure if I want to overclock like you guys are doing here. Seems you guys are pulling some nice numbers.


----------



## potat0nerd

SP 63
4.9 core 1.16v load 
5.1 core 1.27v load (hits TJMAX)
better luck next generation I guess ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 
(prime95 avx2, Linpack 640gflops stable)


----------



## robotsir

cstkl1 said:


> Whats your ram /vccio&vcssa
> 
> That cpu in L6 needs for maximus
> 5.1- 1.328
> 5.2- 1.408-1.478
> 
> 5.2 da best cpu i have seen needed 80mv from 5.1
> The worst 150mv
> 
> Test your [email protected]3v ..
> 
> Vccio bump needed for 5.2 btw.
> 
> I think your loadline are diff.
> 
> Test this
> Svid behaviour : best case scenario
> Percore usage set
> 51/2,51/3,51/5,51/10
> Leave vcore voltage auto
> Dont oc ram. Leave cache etc auto
> 
> Try different loadlines
> With small fft avx/avx 2 disable Fft in place min/max 80
> When u found the perfect loadline.. that should be akin to maximus loadline 6.
> 
> Report back. And will tell ya how to get 5.2


ram was using XMP II profile, it's set to 1.35v in bios, but shows 1.343 in HWinfo, so I manually set it to 1.37v in bios, and shows 1.361v in HWinfo. I tried vccio&vcssa 1.3v, no improvement on stability. When you set "Percore usage set 51/2,51/3,51/5,51/10", is that different than 51 sync all cores?


----------



## cstkl1

robotsir said:


> ram was using XMP II profile, it's set to 1.35v in bios, but shows 1.343 in HWinfo, so I manually set it to 1.37v in bios, and shows 1.361v in HWinfo. I tried vccio&vcssa 1.3v, no improvement on stability. When you set "Percore usage set 51/2,51/3,51/5,51/10", is that different than 51 sync all cores?


This will allow full adaptive and u will see svid behaviour follow your vid on v/f..

Hint idle will be like 7 watts ya. 

I tested just now with socket sense. The load vcore will read=your v/f vid for that frequency (approximately)
on maximus L6..Heck this is so good ..reminds me of x299 where vcore set is vid

So u need to find which loadline on strix is equivalent if any.

Please test this with no ram oc. Ram you can settled that yourself later. Now is to solve your issue of L0 @5.2


----------



## skullbringer

So I've reset cache to auto, v/f offsets all to auto, tvb enabled, left LLC6, set per core usage multipliers of 54/2,54/4,54/5,54/auto, svid best case, offset voltage +0.1V.

Now I'm at 1.305V Vmin for 54x all core, as opposed to 1.35V earlier. I can not go beyond 48x cache with this Vcore setting, but it's a big power and temperature saving! Combined with full speed step functionality and balanced power plan this is HUGE!

Only problem is I'm only stable for the first 5 minutes of prime95 112k fft in-place non-avx. TVB increases VID with temperature, but not only the cpu temp changes, but also the liquid temp of my cooler, which worsens heat flow and therefore stability at frequency per voltage.

Usually I would just increase the target voltage by like 25mV, so that at the beginning of Prime95 run I have effectively 25mV too much voltage, and at the end of the run perfect voltage

But since I'm already dabbling with all this Intel magic, is there a way to add like a TVB multiplier, so that e.g. instead of raising VID by 0.005V every 5C, it would raise 0.010V every 5C?


----------



## Falkentyne

skullbringer said:


> So I've reset cache to auto, v/f offsets all to auto, tvb enabled, left LLC6, set per core usage multipliers of 54/2,54/4,54/5,54/auto, svid best case, offset voltage +0.1V.
> 
> Now I'm at 1.305V Vmin for 54x all core, as opposed to 1.35V earlier. I can not go beyond 48x cache with this Vcore setting, but it's a big power and temperature saving! Combined with full speed step functionality and balanced power plan this is HUGE!
> 
> Only problem is I'm only stable for the first 5 minutes of prime95 112k fft in-place non-avx. TVB increases VID with temperature, but not only the cpu temp changes, but also the liquid temp of my cooler, which worsens heat flow and therefore stability at frequency per voltage.
> 
> Usually I would just increase the target voltage by like 25mV, so that at the beginning of Prime95 run I have effectively 25mV too much voltage, and at the end of the run perfect voltage
> 
> But since I'm already dabbling with all this Intel magic, is there a way to add like a TVB multiplier, so that e.g. instead of raising VID by 0.005V every 5C, it would raise 0.010V every 5C?


Impossible. TVB voltage optimization curves are hardwired to multiplier.

Try raising the AC Loadline higher. Instead of 0.01 mOhms try 0.1 or 0.2 but that's just going to give you more voltage at load.


----------



## cstkl1

skullbringer said:


> So I've reset cache to auto, v/f offsets all to auto, tvb enabled, left LLC6, set per core usage multipliers of 54/2,54/4,54/5,54/auto, svid best case, offset voltage +0.1V.
> 
> Now I'm at 1.305V Vmin for 54x all core, as opposed to 1.35V earlier. I can not go beyond 48x cache with this Vcore setting, but it's a big power and temperature saving! Combined with full speed step functionality and balanced power plan this is HUGE!
> 
> Only problem is I'm only stable for the first 5 minutes of prime95 112k fft in-place non-avx. TVB increases VID with temperature, but not only the cpu temp changes, but also the liquid temp of my cooler, which worsens heat flow and therefore stability at frequency per voltage.
> 
> Usually I would just increase the target voltage by like 25mV, so that at the beginning of Prime95 run I have effectively 25mV too much voltage, and at the end of the run perfect voltage
> 
> But since I'm already dabbling with all this Intel magic, is there a way to add like a TVB multiplier, so that e.g. instead of raising VID by 0.005V every 5C, it would raise 0.010V every 5C?


just tested with ht off mind ya up to 5.5ghz

you cant use LL6 with 53 onwards for v/f.. its because it doesnt have enough guardband to pass fft112. 

LL4 better for this. but that requires keeying it all the v/f to compensate. 

so its sync all cores @ L4 is much better.

but if u cN get all the v/f perfect for L4.. u can get a superb result where vmin wont move be it avx current or non avx..


----------



## CZonin

0451 said:


> These are my observations on my Z490 Unify. I ran Aida64 several times at bios setpoints from 1.15 to 1.40 on both IO/SA. Cache speed became more and more consistent as I increased the voltages up until 1.35v. This matches what Buildzoid said on his Lake CPU OC video, that more SA = more better but IO has a sweet spot. It’s entirely possible that this might not apply for your motherboard.


Sorry for the delayed response on this. So I tried a few more things to get a stable OC set but still having some trouble.

I tested 51 @ 1.33 with LLC 3, AVX 0, CStates disabled, long/short duration power limits maxed, core current limit maxed. I ran a blend test with Prime 95 which was going well for the first 5 minutes or so, sitting in the high 70's. After 5 minutes it must have started some AVX test and the temps quickly started spiking into the 90s and eventually crashed. I tried setting SA/IO to 1.2 and adding a -1 AVX offset to see if it helped, but essentially ran into the same situation with Prime95. Really not sure what to do other than maybe increasing the AVX offset to -2. Any suggestions?


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Run realbench instead of prime95 blend with avx avx2 until u find a way to cool down your cpu.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

CZonin said:


> 0451 said:
> 
> 
> 
> These are my observations on my Z490 Unify. I ran Aida64 several times at bios setpoints from 1.15 to 1.40 on both IO/SA. Cache speed became more and more consistent as I increased the voltages up until 1.35v. This matches what Buildzoid said on his Lake CPU OC video, that more SA = more better but IO has a sweet spot. Itâ€™️s entirely possible that this might not apply for your motherboard.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry for the delayed response on this. So I tried a few more things to get a stable OC set but still having some trouble.
> 
> I tested 51 @ 1.33 with LLC 3, AVX 0, CStates disabled, long/short duration power limits maxed, core current limit maxed. I ran a blend test with Prime 95 which was going well for the first 5 minutes or so, sitting in the high 70's. After 5 minutes it must have started some AVX test and the temps quickly started spiking into the 90s and eventually crashed. I tried setting SA/IO to 1.2 and adding a -1 AVX offset to see if it helped, but essentially ran into the same situation with Prime95. Really not sure what to do other than maybe increasing the AVX offset to -2. Any suggestions?
Click to expand...

After 2-3 minutes in P95 you are testing your cooling system capacity, so 5 min on default settings is great. Try 5 min at 112 fft size with AVX off. 

A better test would be Linpack Extreme since it hits hard and is not constant like P95, so it gives your cooling system a break. If you are just concerned about being stable for gaming, then Realbench and Blender are okay I guess.


----------



## CZonin

0451 said:


> After 2-3 minutes in P95 you are testing your cooling system capacity, so 5 min on default settings is great. Try 5 min at 112 fft size with AVX off.
> 
> A better test would be Linpack Extreme since it hits hard and is not constant like P95, so it gives your cooling system a break. If you are just concerned about being stable for gaming, then Realbench and Blender are okay I guess.


Ah okay that makes sense. And ya, it's mainly for gaming.

I feel like on past CPUs that I've overclocked, I would get them stable for gaming but every once and awhile do an AVX task that would cause a crash. Is there a stress test you would recommend that would still test AVX but I guess not hit as hard as Prime95?


----------



## geriatricpollywog

CZonin said:


> 0451 said:
> 
> 
> 
> After 2-3 minutes in P95 you are testing your cooling system capacity, so 5 min on default settings is great. Try 5 min at 112 fft size with AVX off.
> 
> A better test would be Linpack Extreme since it hits hard and is not constant like P95, so it gives your cooling system a break. If you are just concerned about being stable for gaming, then Realbench and Blender are okay I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah okay that makes sense. And ya, it's mainly for gaming.
> 
> I feel like on past CPUs that I've overclocked, I would get them stable for gaming but every once and awhile do an AVX task that would cause a crash. Is there a stress test you would recommend that would still test AVX but I guess not hit as hard as Prime95?
Click to expand...

Linpack uses AVX2 and hits slightly harder, as evidenced by peak temps being 1-3c higher Than P95 with AVX2. It runs in cycles which allows CPU temp to drop in between peak load. Prime95 AVX2 constantly runs the CPU at peak load. I like running Linpack because it’s a quick and dirty way to test the outer limits of stability for my core, memory, and cache all at once without having to run multiple stress tests. Keep in mind, P95 and Linpack with full AVX place an unrealistic load on your system, they can exceed Intel’s recommended current limits, and will slowly degrade your chip the longer you run them.

Blender is what I’d suggest for a reasonable stress test that uses AVX but doesn’t hit unreasonably hard.


----------



## CZonin

0451 said:


> Linpack uses AVX2 and hits slightly harder, as evidenced by peak temps being 1-3c higher Than P95 with AVX2. It runs in cycles which allows CPU temp to drop in between peak load. Prime95 AVX2 constantly runs the CPU at peak load. I like running Linpack because it’s a quick and dirty way to test the outer limits of stability for my core, memory, and cache all at once without having to run multiple stress tests. Keep in mind, P95 and Linpack with full AVX place an unrealistic load on your system, they can exceed Intel’s recommended current limits, and will slowly degrade your chip the longer you run them.
> 
> Blender is what I’d suggest for a reasonable stress test that uses AVX but doesn’t hit unreasonably hard.


I probably wouldn't run it long enough to cause any damage, but that's still good to know. I attached a screenshot of my P95 settings, is that correct for what you were recommending?

I've never used Blender to stress test before but i'm probably going to try it out tomorrow with the same settings I used earlier today. Are there any specific settings within Blender I should use?


----------



## geriatricpollywog

CZonin said:


> 0451 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Linpack uses AVX2 and hits slightly harder, as evidenced by peak temps being 1-3c higher Than P95 with AVX2. It runs in cycles which allows CPU temp to drop in between peak load. Prime95 AVX2 constantly runs the CPU at peak load. I like running Linpack because itâ€™️s a quick and dirty way to test the outer limits of stability for my core, memory, and cache all at once without having to run multiple stress tests. Keep in mind, P95 and Linpack with full AVX place an unrealistic load on your system, they can exceed Intelâ€™️s recommended current limits, and will slowly degrade your chip the longer you run them.
> 
> Blender is what Iâ€™️d suggest for a reasonable stress test that uses AVX but doesnâ€™️t hit unreasonably hard.
> 
> 
> 
> I probably wouldn't run it long enough to cause any damage, but that's still good to know. I attached a screenshot of my P95 settings, is that correct for what you were recommending?
> 
> I've never used Blender to stress test before but i'm probably going to try it out tomorrow with the same settings I used earlier today. Are there any specific settings within Blender I should use?
Click to expand...

Yes, just disable AVX.

For Blender, just download and run all 5.

https://opendata.blender.org/


----------



## robotsir

cstkl1 said:


> This will allow full adaptive and u will see svid behaviour follow your vid on v/f..
> 
> Hint idle will be like 7 watts ya.
> 
> I tested just now with socket sense. The load vcore will read=your v/f vid for that frequency (approximately)
> on maximus L6..Heck this is so good ..reminds me of x299 where vcore set is vid
> 
> So u need to find which loadline on strix is equivalent if any.
> 
> Please test this with no ram oc. Ram you can settled that yourself later. Now is to solve your issue of L0 @5.2


Gotcha. I tried what you suggested, it won't but into windows with LL1/2, blue screen or cache L0 error with LL3/4/5/6. Seems no error only with LL7 (highest in Strix-E). In the screenshot, you can see Vcore under load is 1.359v, vs. 1.329v in my V/F table for 5.1ghz


----------



## Falkentyne

CZonin said:


> I probably wouldn't run it long enough to cause any damage, but that's still good to know. I attached a screenshot of my P95 settings, is that correct for what you were recommending?
> 
> I've never used Blender to stress test before but i'm probably going to try it out tomorrow with the same settings I used earlier today. Are there any specific settings within Blender I should use?


Disable FMA3 and AVX in the stress test options.
Testing 112k wtih FMA3 is a test made in hell. Harder to pass than even small FFT FMA3 despite drawing less current--the transients are completely trash tier AWFUL., and you want 112k (AVX disabled) to be a RAM/IMC stability test, not a CPU torture worst case FMA3 test because of how unbelievably hot FMA3 is at


----------



## cstkl1

robotsir said:


> Gotcha. I tried what you suggested, it won't but into windows with LL1/2, blue screen or cache L0 error with LL3/4/5/6. Seems no error only with LL7 (highest in Strix-E). In the screenshot, you can see Vcore under load is 1.359v, vs. 1.329v in my V/F table for 5.1ghz


you did set svid behavior to best case scenario right??

guessing calibration issue on the mobo sensor...
got to ignore the voltage reading then.

and try again custom fft min/max 80 fft in place avx/avx2 disable.

btw if this is the case 5.2ghz no way possible if u are looking for a stress test confirm stable.
i have no idea why 5.2ghz with HT on is a huge jump from 5.1
right up to 5.1 HT on/off is same.. but 5.2 is not... 

You can try this for gaming though 
change your 5.2ghz vid in v/f to negative "-"
enter in value 0.019
change your per core usage to 52/2,52/3,52/5,52/10
test cinebench R20 10 loops watch your temps.

if its good then its stable. u actually can pass even avx but your cooling is insufficient.

limit your power to 250watts for p0/p1 (5.1ghz used around this.. so if u stress test it will throttle to 5.1ghz)
just test hci & fft112 (avx/avx2 disabled fftinplace) for you ram oc, etc and just call it a day and game peacefully at 5.2ghz.

games dont use much around 100watts or less..


----------



## robotsir

cstkl1 said:


> you did set svid behavior to best case scenario right??
> 
> guessing calibration issue on the mobo sensor...
> got to ignore than voltage reading then.
> 
> and try again custom fft min/max 80 fft in place avx/avx2 disable.
> 
> btw if this is the case 5.2ghz no way possible if u are looking for a stress test confirm stable.
> i have no idea why 5.2ghz with HT on is a huge jump from 5.1
> right up to 5.1 HT on/off is same.. but 5.2 is not...
> 
> You can try this for gaming though
> change your 5.2ghz vid in v/f to negative "-"
> enter in value 0.019
> change your per core usage to 52/2,52/3,52/5,52/10
> test cinebench R20 10 loops watch your temps.
> 
> if its good then its stable. u actually can pass even avx but your cooling is insufficient.
> 
> limit your power to 250watts for p0/p1 (5.1ghz used around this.. so if u stress test it will throttle to 5.1ghz)
> just test hci & fft112 for you ram oc, etc and just call it a day and game peacefully at 5.2ghz.
> 
> games dont use much around 100watts or less..


Thanks. svid behavior was set to best case scenario. if I use LL6, Vcore under prime95 stress test was 1.305v, which is much lower than the V/F voltage for 5.1ghz. I guess that's why it had cache L0 errors? "limit your power to 250watts for p0/p1", what's p0/p1? Also, how did you calculate 0.019?


----------



## cstkl1

robotsir said:


> Thanks. svid behavior was set to best case scenario. if I use LL6, Vcore under prime95 stress test was 1.305v, which is much lower than the V/F voltage for 5.1ghz. I guess that's why it had cache L0 errors? "limit your power to 250watts for p0/p1", what's p0/p1? Also, how did you calculate 0.019?


1. asus bios near the digi vrm option. internal power managment. no limit will set 4096watts on both. 
2. 5.2ghz v/f 100mv from 5.1.. so thats a minus.
3. u might throttle in cb 20 btw for that 5.2..
but its because of cooling limit.


----------



## skullbringer

Question for my understanding, when cores request different VIDs, how does the VRM decide what Vcore to deliver, does it do an average, or is there still internal voltage conversion between the cores?


----------



## lolhaxz

skullbringer said:


> Question for my understanding, when cores request different VIDs, how does the VRM decide what Vcore to deliver, does it do an average, or is there still internal voltage conversion between the cores?


Whichever core is requesting the highest VID [technically it's a management engine of sorts feeding the VRM] is the minimum voltage that will be supplied to the CPU - there technically is only one "rail" for vcore, various things will influence the end result voltage.

This whole mechanism is quite complex and very dynamic (especially on 10th gen, in so much as it's not entirely 100% crystal clear how it functions) but the VRM controller(s) are told what voltage to output based on the number of active cores, clock speeds, temperature, cache ratio, AVX load or not... and presumably some kind of estimation of current demand [the rabbit hole that is LLC] and various other things.

Some of this is the CPU's influence, some of it is the bios influence and some the controllers influence - hence there is a (small) amount of variability in exactly how it will behave.

You would probably be horrified (or amused) to watch the vcore on a scope and see just how dynamic and how quickly it changes from msec to msec (or even microsecond to microsecond actually) - yet in something like CPU-Z you are probably seeing it reported just per second.


----------



## cstkl1

skullbringer said:


> Question for my understanding, when cores request different VIDs, how does the VRM decide what Vcore to deliver, does it do an average, or is there still internal voltage conversion between the cores?


from what i know its two sides.. one is what requested and what is supplied either tweak that loadline thing IA etc. with adaptive or svid behaviour best case scenario suppose to do as per vid so i think its 0.01 .. + vrm loadline.. in this case with healthy droop is L6.

btw has anybody tried sync vrm loadline with vrm??.. thats another interesting one...


----------



## cstkl1

@robotsir

btw you are using bios 0704 right.. afaik thres some v/f tweaks on it.. maybe that will allign the svid behaviour to your v/f vid.. cause thats what i am getting on maximus.


----------



## robotsir

cstkl1 said:


> @robotsir
> 
> btw you are using bios 0704 right.. afaik thres some v/f tweaks on it.. maybe that will allign the svid behaviour to your v/f vid.. cause thats what i am getting on maximus.


I am using 0607. I don't see 0704 on Asus site


----------



## GeneO

robotsir said:


> I am using 0607. I don't see 0704 on Asus site


 It'd unofficial but works fine. The memory OC is better for me.


https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?118328-Asus-Z490-stuff


----------



## robotsir

GeneO said:


> It'd unofficial but works fine. The memory OC is better for me.
> 
> 
> https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?118328-Asus-Z490-stuff


Thanks


----------



## SteezyTN

I’m coming from a 4770k to 10900k and Asus Maximus XII Formula. My system is 100% custom water cooled, so I can handle the heat. What’s a good starting off voltage and speed? 

When I OC’d my 4770k, all I did was change all cores to 45 and then set adaptive voltage to 1.300. I don’t want to go overboard with the bios settings for the 10900k.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Try 1.35v llc6 and 5.1 ghz. . Then go up to 5.2ghz.


----------



## munternet

SteezyTN said:


> I’m coming from a 4770k to 10900k and Asus Maximus XII Formula. My system is 100% custom water cooled, so I can handle the heat. What’s a good starting off voltage and speed?
> 
> When I OC’d my 4770k, all I did was change all cores to 45 and then set adaptive voltage to 1.300. I don’t want to go overboard with the bios settings for the 10900k.


Can I ask what the sp rating is for your cpu?
cheers


----------



## Falkentyne

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Try 1.35v llc6 and 5.1 ghz. . Then go up to 5.2ghz.


This is good advice. 100% of chips should be able to do this at 5.1, even the very worst. I only saw one person who said he was getting L0 errors in Realbench 2.56 at a setting like that at 5.1. Probably the worst 10900k ever.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Falkentyne said:


> Thanh Nguyen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try 1.35v llc6 and 5.1 ghz. . Then go up to 5.2ghz.
> 
> 
> 
> This is good advice. 100% of chips should be able to do this at 5.1, even the very worst. I only saw one person who said he was getting L0 errors in Realbench 2.56 at a setting like that at 5.1. Probably the worst 10900k ever.
Click to expand...

Do you know anything about LLC on MSI boards? I’ve never actually changed it from auto.


----------



## Falkentyne

0451 said:


> Do you know anything about LLC on MSI boards? I’ve never actually changed it from auto.


MSI Mode 3 should be equal to Gigabyte LLC Turbo and Asus LLC6 on some boards, and their level values are inverted going from no vdroop to most vdroop in mode number.
It appears that Asus LLC6 seems to be droopy (0.495 mOhms) on some boards (Apex, Extreme) while less droopy on some others (Hero) but I have no way to verify this. I only heard second hand that LLC6 on the Hero XII is somewhere around 0.3 mOhms.


----------



## Betroz

Falkentyne said:


> 100% of chips should be able to do this at 5.1, even the very worst. I only saw one person who said he was getting L0 errors in Realbench 2.56 at a setting like that at 5.1. Probably the worst 10900k ever.


Well my 10900K is not stable at 5.1, even with 1.38v LLC6. Max temp reached 93C before I got an error in Prime95 (112k in-place non-avx). Yes, my memory was sertified stable with HCI and TM5. 5.0 with 1.32v LLC6 though, is fine.


----------



## skullbringer

Betroz said:


> Well my 10900K is not stable at 5.1, even with 1.38v LLC6. Max temp reached 93C before I got an error in Prime95 (112k in-place non-avx). Yes, my memory was sertified stable with HCI and TM5.


Temps are causing the instability, have you ever tried less voltage or a lower llc? If you can keep it running cooler with less voltage it might actually be more stable, or at least for longer, until the cooler heats up.


----------



## Betroz

skullbringer said:


> Temps are causing the instability, have you ever tried less voltage or a lower llc? If you can keep it running cooler with less voltage it might actually be more stable, or at least for longer, until the cooler heats up.


I did not start with 1.38v no. I could try 1.37v LLC4 and see. v/f curve in BIOS says 1.369v for 5.1, but in my case I don't think that is valid, at least not with high mem speed and X48 ring.


----------



## lolhaxz

Temps reduction will be a good test for me, currently at 5.3GHz @ 1.305v - 1.332v depending on temperature - stable for many hours in prime, no WHEA errors under any conditions, temps are hitting 85-90C after 1 hour or so of smallFFT... and this is with 3x PE360 radiators.... pump speed is very important also (not full speed, about 2500rpm, 4000rpm is worth another 5-8C).

AVX sits around 95C load, drops a worker on AVX 4K after perhaps 10-15 mins... more than fine for all daily tasks however, ie blender all 6 tests in one sitting passes fine but still 90C

Ordered the rockitcool direct-die kit from Australia, guess it will arrive in a few days (NZ).. I'm not really expecting to get to 5.4 but it will be an interesting experiment. (ie. mostly a waste of money really, but that's the hobby)

In saying that I only have the EK Velocity block which clearly has a non flat cold plate, not sure what I am going to do there - will probably have to lap it (the block).


----------



## Betroz

5.1 with 1.37v LLC4 gave me BSOD under 2 min with P95 112k in-place non-avx. Temp was not the issue here, 1.208 VMIN simply was not enough vcore for my CPU at this speed.


----------



## cstkl1

If u could do LL4 5.1ghz @1.37v.. your
5.1 v/f at 1.27 which it is not if memory serves me right
Dats a typical sp 90s 
Vmin will be arnd 1.16-1.17 183 amps. 
asus prediction for L4 5.1 is accurate. Yours is around 1.47v L4.. 

5.1 best way to test is simple
Svid behavior best case scenario
Set per core usage
51/2, 51/3, 51/5, 51/10
LOADLINE 6
Cpu/cache voltage auto

Done. Run prime95 fftinplace 80 , avx/avx2 disable
Post a screenshot of hwinfo vcore current load voltage.


----------



## cstkl1

Falkentyne said:


> MSI Mode 3 should be equal to Gigabyte LLC Turbo and Asus LLC6 on some boards, and their level values are inverted going from no vdroop to most vdroop in mode number.
> It appears that Asus LLC6 seems to be droopy (0.495 mOhms) on some boards (Apex, Extreme) while less droopy on some others (Hero) but I have no way to verify this. I only heard second hand that LLC6 on the Hero XII is somewhere around 0.3 mOhms.


Wasnt LL6 0.485??
Half of LL4 0.97??


----------



## lolhaxz

cstkl1 said:


> Set per core usage
> 51/2, 51/3, 51/5, 51/10


What is the purpose of using per core usage? - why not just use sync all cores?


----------



## cstkl1

lolhaxz said:


> What is the purpose of using per core usage? - why not just use sync all cores?


to use v/f which is mainly y i think ppl should get asus for.. as long its 5.3 and lower. 

idle vcore. 2-3amp..


----------



## lolhaxz

I'm interested to know what it tells you...

Here is a quite mediocre SP80 chip, literally ran just now, all core sync - 51, SVID Best case, vcore auto, LLC6, Loadline AC/DC auto.

Idle VID = power management set to high performance.

This chaps 5.1 V/F sounds like its about the same as mine, +- 10-15mv

I figured others might also find this "data point" helpful.


----------



## cstkl1

lolhaxz said:


> I'm interested to know what it tells you...
> 
> Here is a quite mediocre SP80 chip, literally ran just now, all core sync - 51, SVID Best case, vcore auto, LLC6, Loadline AC/DC auto.
> 
> Idle VID = power management set to high performance.
> 
> This chaps 5.1 V/F sounds like its about the same as mine, +- 10-15mv
> 
> I figured others might also find this "data point" helpful.


Ignore sp bro. Just look at 5.1 v/f..

Btw if your temps are low u will gain from lower vcore with intel boost thingy. 

Ok yours i need to get back and look on my comp. 
Fft80 dude. That will hit da vmin in 2-3 mins.

[MENTION=502067][email protected] pretty interesting they dont get the svid=v/f with best behavior on L6. Mine did on both 10700k and 10900k.
So is apex/formula etc not as accurate as extreme??;


----------



## Betroz

cstkl1 said:


> 5.1 best way to test is simple
> Svid behavior best case scenario
> Set per core usage
> 51/2, 51/3, 51/5, 51/10
> LOADLINE 6
> Cpu/cache voltage auto
> 
> Done. Run prime95 fftinplace 80 , avx/avx2 disable
> Post a screenshot of hwinfo vcore current load voltage.


But will that work when I have Ring at X48 and memory at 4300 C16? I will not run Ring at X43 just so I can run 5.1 on the cores. Higher Ring and memory speed is better for performance than 100 Mhz extra on the cores.


----------



## lolhaxz

cstkl1 said:


> [MENTION=502067][email protected] pretty interesting they dont get the svid=v/f with best behavior on L6. Mine did on both 10700k and 10900k.
> So is apex/formula etc not as accurate as extreme??[/quote]
> The V/F points you see in an Asus bios is the expected VID @ 100C - neither of my scenarios were operating at 100C.
> @ 51x, -1.15mv per C under 100C, idle VID was 1.25v @ 23C or there abouts, (100-23) * 1.15mv = 88.55mv, 1250mv + 88.55mv = 1.338v (V/F curve says 1.334v) ... I believe that's the math anyway or something close to it.
> You either need to compare VID's at the same temperature @ idle, or extrapolate them to 100C.
> If you disable the TVB function (I really don't understand why anyone would, it's really quite nice behavior) that reduces voltages for temperatures below 100C it would have been V/F curve = VID at idle. (i believe, can't say I've checked it exactly)
> I added 80K FFT to screenshots.;


----------



## cstkl1

Betroz said:


> But will that work when I have Ring at X48 and memory at 4300 C16? I will not run Ring at X43 just so I can run 5.1 on the cores. Higher Ring and memory speed is better for performance than 100 Mhz extra on the cores.


errr that complicate things.


----------



## cstkl1

lolhaxz said:


> The V/F points you see in an Asus bios is the expected VID @ 100C - neither of my scenarios were operating at 100C.
> 
> @ 51x, -1.15mv per C under 100C, idle VID was 1.25v @ 23C or there abouts, (100-23) * 1.15mv = 88.55mv, 1250mv + 88.55mv = 1.338v (V/F curve says 1.334v) ... I believe that's the math anyway or something close to it.
> 
> You either need to compare VID's at the same temperature @ idle, or extrapolate them to 100C.
> 
> If you disable the TVB function (I really don't understand why anyone would, it's really quite nice behavior) that reduces voltages for temperatures below 100C it would have been V/F curve = VID at idle. (i believe, can't say I've checked it exactly)
> 
> I added 80K FFT to screenshots.


really interesting btw

this is on m12e.. not gonna run avx & fma3 for 5.1 cause it will hit the 245amp for me and arnd 93C last time i tried that. 









51 follow da default vid at v/f L6 best case scenario








52 follow da vid i set in v/f L6 best case scenario









btw so vid 4.8 is 1.154
so if i set 
49 i will get load vid 1.194
50 i will get load vid 1.234

so basically the 120mv/3

@Falkentyne did formula get da vrm algo thingy on bios 0704?? will they get it on later bioses??


----------



## cstkl1

@lolhaxz
also hows your scaling from 51 to 52??
mine need 
100mv ht on
40mv ht off


----------



## lolhaxz

cstkl1 said:


> @lolhaxz
> also hows your scaling from 51 to 52??
> mine need
> 100mv ht on
> 40mv ht off


You mean if I just increase multi to 52x and change nothing else?

I just tried a -30mv offset on V/F Curve for 5.1:


----------



## cstkl1

lolhaxz said:


> You mean if I just increase multi to 52x and change nothing else?
> 
> I just tried a -30mv offset on V/F Curve for 5.1:


Its totally different from m12e.. this is based on vid. 

For me both cpus my m12e was spot on for 5.1ghz @ L4. Later testing for L6 gave the same vmin @ vid.

Yeah adjust your 52 in v/f.. see how much the vid difference between 51 and 52 for your vmin. Fft80 again bro..


----------



## lolhaxz

cstkl1 said:


> Its totally different from m12e.. this is based on vid.
> 
> For me both cpus my m12e was spot on for 5.1ghz @ L4. Later testing for L6 gave the same vmin @ vid.
> 
> Yeah adjust your 52 in v/f.. see how much the vid difference between 51 and 52 for your vmin. Fft80 again bro..


1.373V VID, 1.261v LOAD. (with 10 mins of heat-soak, VID climbs slowly.)


----------



## cstkl1

lolhaxz said:


> 1.373V VID, 1.261v LOAD. (with 10 mins of heat-soak, VID climbs slowly.)


seriously interesting
so 52 we are the same. ignoring vcore reporting atm as thats based on calibration etc on sensor..

so 51 to 52 your vid diff is arnd 70mv or 120mv??

but whats interesting on default vid yours is 40mv difference from 51vid 1.334..


----------



## lolhaxz

cstkl1 said:


> seriously interesting
> so 52 we are the same. ignoring vcore reporting atm as thats based on calibration etc on sensor..
> 
> so 51 to 52 your vid diff is arnd 70mv or 120mv??
> 
> but whats interesting on default vid yours is 40mv difference from 51vid 1.334..



5.1GHz VID - 1.298v (FFT80K) - but I ran it for 10 mins at 1.258V 
5.2GHz VID - 1.373v (FFT80K) : +75mv
5.3GHz VID - 1.428v (FFT80K) : +55mv

5.3GHz VID is actually 45mv, but i already know i need +10mv on V/F offset to make 5.3GHz stable.

Obv the temperatures went up as the voltage went up, so that will have had some impact also.

5.3GHz behavior: (cooling beginning to get overwhelmed, or rather, ability to remove heat from the package, at quiet fan speeds etc anyway)


----------



## cstkl1

lolhaxz said:


> 5.1GHz VID - 1.298v (FFT80K) - but I ran it for 10 mins at 1.258V
> 5.2GHz VID - 1.373v (FFT80K) : +75mv
> 5.3GHz VID - 1.428v (FFT80K) : +55mv
> 
> 5.3GHz VID is actually 45mv, but i already know i need +10mv on V/F offset to make 5.3GHz stable.
> 
> Obv the temperatures went up as the voltage went up, so that will have had some impact also.
> 
> 5.3GHz behavior: (cooling beginning to get overwhelmed, or rather, ability to remove heat from the package, at quiet fan speeds etc anyway)


oo nice. so u gonna set per core usage.. da idle.. vcore


----------



## Falkentyne

cstkl1 said:


> really interesting btw
> 
> this is on m12e.. not gonna run avx & fma3 for 5.1 cause it will hit the 245amp for me and arnd 93C last time i tried that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 51 follow da default vid at v/f L6 best case scenario
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52 follow da vid i set in v/f L6 best case scenario
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> btw so vid 4.8 is 1.154
> so if i set
> 49 i will get load vid 1.194
> 50 i will get load vid 1.234
> 
> so basically the 120mv/3
> 
> @Falkentyne did formula get da vrm algo thingy on bios 0704?? will they get it on later bioses??


your VID at 5.1 during FFT 80 should be 1.20v-1.25v at 77C. But you have the 100C point shown as your VID. That isn't supposed to happen.
Do you have "thermal velocity boost optimizations" (thermal velocity boost voltage optimizations) enabled or disabled in your BIOS?
Are you using "by core usage" or fixed cpu core ratio? Maybe this happens because of "By core usage"??? I do not know. I never tested this thing.

What happens if you set your bios to fixed multi:51, manual voltage 1.275v, LLC6? 
Please do this and check the VID. Your FFT 24/80 Vcore should be 1.181v full load (AVX disable), and your VID should be 1.250v at 77C.

VRM Algo is for LLC 5-8 ONLY. It is disabled at LLC 1-4.

The following 3 changes are made:
ATA proportional termination: 8 (Instead of 0, 0=disable ATA, set to 0 at LLC1-LLC4)
Loop1_fc_hth (Undershoot threshold that will cause ATA to activate: 10 (may be 10*4=40mv)
Loop1_err_lth (overshoot threshold that will activate body break feature (if enabled): 14 (may be 14*4=56mv) // I have no idea what body break is. I cannot find this in VRM registers.

Loop1_v_lift is not used.(temporary offset to VOUT if ata error threshold is exceeded) Seems to be capped at 15 for 30mv (15 *2). //added voltage offset during load oscillation. We tested this, felt it was unsafe, so we did not use it. So it is left at 0.

This does NOT affect vcore or VID, only transient response via (Adaptive transient algorithm).

Formula and Hero will *NOT* get VRM Algo in BIOS.

It is not guaranteed safe on those boards. I already "slightly" damaged my z390 aorus master by running 0 mOhm loadline (on purpose) with FMA3 prime95 for 4 hours with Algo test to address the IR 35201 to test algo before use on Z490 (board still works but VRM now powers off automatically if i change CPU Core ratio during LLC Ultra Extreme FMA3 small FFT 4.7 ghz test, unless I set CPU Vcore current protection to "Extreme", and Vcore protection to 400mv. Before this, it would not power off if set to "Auto" for both (at 4.7 ghz 9900k, 1.165v Bios set, 0 mOhm loadline no vdroop). Apex and Extreme have been tested on LN2 safely. Vmin improvement up to 10mv.

VRM standalone algo is available on hwbot on Apex thread under VRM file. It should run on Hero and Formula too, but I take no responsibility if someone blows up their board trying to use it on hero or formula.

The IR 35201 datasheet (page 31) does an absolutely horrendous job explaining what "ATA" is.
Intersil's datasheet explains their version " ATR " much much better. (Active transient response).

http://pdf.datasheetcatalog.com/datasheet/intersil/fn9060.pdf


----------



## Betroz

Have any of you guys considered to just set Long and Short Package Power Limit to a fixed value of say, 230W in BIOS, so that when you hammer the CPU with some Prime95 love, the CPU clocks down, and in games the CPU runs at full tilt?


----------



## CZonin

Falkentyne said:


> Disable FMA3 and AVX in the stress test options.
> Testing 112k wtih FMA3 is a test made in hell. Harder to pass than even small FFT FMA3 despite drawing less current--the transients are completely trash tier AWFUL., and you want 112k (AVX disabled) to be a RAM/IMC stability test, not a CPU torture worst case FMA3 test because of how unbelievably hot FMA3 is at


----------



## skullbringer

cstkl1 said:


> just tested with ht off mind ya up to 5.5ghz
> 
> you cant use LL6 with 53 onwards for v/f.. its because it doesnt have enough guardband to pass fft112.
> 
> LL4 better for this. but that requires keeying it all the v/f to compensate.
> 
> so its sync all cores @ L4 is much better.
> 
> but if u cN get all the v/f perfect for L4.. u can get a superb result where vmin wont move be it avx current or non avx..





Falkentyne said:


> Impossible. TVB voltage optimization curves are hardwired to multiplier.
> 
> Try raising the AC Loadline higher. Instead of 0.01 mOhms try 0.1 or 0.2 but that's just going to give you more voltage at load.


I've fiddled with 55x, different AC load line settings and LLC4, guardband for transient response is a lot better, I think ~1.38-1.4 should be my realisitc Vmin, but I can't validate atm since at this kind of wattage my cooling setup's heat flow degrades too quickly. 

I've a second D5 and a third 360 GTS in the mail, hoping this will do

what do you think of AC LL 0.08? It almost perfectly amounts to VID = Vcore @ LLC 4 for 55x (250A)


----------



## SteezyTN

munternet said:


> SteezyTN said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iâ€™️m coming from a 4770k to 10900k and Asus Maximus XII Formula. My system is 100% custom water cooled, so I can handle the heat. Whatâ€™️s a good starting off voltage and speed?
> 
> When I OCâ€™️d my 4770k, all I did was change all cores to 45 and then set adaptive voltage to 1.300. I donâ€™️t want to go overboard with the bios settings for the 10900k.
> 
> 
> 
> Can I ask what the sp rating is for your cpu?
> cheers
Click to expand...

It says 69. I’m assuming this is extremely low? I purchased it from Best Buy last month.


----------



## Falkentyne

cstkl1 said:


> seriously interesting
> so 52 we are the same. ignoring vcore reporting atm as thats based on calibration etc on sensor..
> 
> so 51 to 52 your vid diff is arnd 70mv or 120mv??
> 
> but whats interesting on default vid yours is 40mv difference from 51vid 1.334..


You have your bios set up in a strange way. Your VID is not scaling properly. Either you have some sort of power saving options enabled or you disabled Thermal velocity Boost voltage optimizations (=VID =VF point at 100C)
I can tell because of your minimum VID. Your minimum VID should be the same for all cores. It should not be 1.295v for one core at 0% usage then 1.355v for another core at 0% usage. Your Vcore is correct but the VID isn't.

Do you see how all of my minimum VIDs are the same?

Maybe it's a c-state problem. Or you disabled "TVB Optimizations", which locks the VID at the 100C point. Your max VID +30mv (1.30v) is from AVX load detection. 
I think my Z390 Aorus master was doing the same thing when I had c-states at auto. When i disabled c-states, it stopped doing that.
On Asus, C-states "Auto" is enabled if core and vcore are auto. If core ratio and vcore are set manually and fixed, Auto will disable all c-states.

When I disabled them on the Gigabyte, VID was scaling properly at temps and VF point VID would only be reached at 100C.

I did your settings and used by core usage. x2 51, x6 51, x10 51, auto vcore,
Then I did manual setting of 1.305v Bios set + LLC6 (or maybe it was 1.315v + LLC6, I forgot already).

My 5.1 ghz VF point is 1.305v. You can see in both examples, my VID scales with temp and is below 1.305v.
The first is auto vcore and by core usage. The second is 1.305 (or 1.315v) + LLC6. You can see my VID scaled properly and did not reach 1.305v because my cpu temp was not 100C.


----------



## cstkl1

Falkentyne said:


> You have your bios set up in a strange way. Your VID is not scaling properly. Either you have some sort of power saving options enabled or you disabled Thermal velocity Boost voltage optimizations (=VID =VF point at 100C)
> I can tell because of your minimum VID. Your minimum VID should be the same for all cores. It should not be 1.295v for one core at 0% usage then 1.355v for another core at 0% usage. Your Vcore is correct but the VID isn't.
> 
> Do you see how all of my minimum VIDs are the same?
> 
> Maybe it's a c-state problem. Or you disabled "TVB Optimizations", which locks the VID at the 100C point. Your max VID +30mv (1.30v) is from AVX load detection.
> I think my Z390 Aorus master was doing the same thing when I had c-states at auto. When i disabled c-states, it stopped doing that.
> On Asus, C-states "Auto" is enabled if core and vcore are auto. If core ratio and vcore are set manually and fixed, Auto will disable all c-states.
> 
> When I disabled them on the Gigabyte, VID was scaling properly at temps and VF point VID would only be reached at 100C.
> 
> I did your settings and used by core usage. x2 51, x6 51, x10 51, auto vcore,
> Then I did manual setting of 1.305v Bios set + LLC6 (or maybe it was 1.315v + LLC6, I forgot already).
> 
> My 5.1 ghz VF point is 1.305v. You can see in both examples, my VID scales with temp and is below 1.305v.
> The first is auto vcore and by core usage. The second is 1.305 (or 1.315v) + LLC6. You can see my VID scaled properly and did not reach 1.305v because my cpu temp was not 100C.


ooo interesring. i always just leave them at defauly cause not clocking above default max boost.


----------



## cstkl1

skullbringer said:


> I've fiddled with 55x, different AC load line settings and LLC4, guardband for transient response is a lot better, I think ~1.38-1.4 should be my realisitc Vmin, but I can't validate atm since at this kind of wattage my cooling setup's heat flow degrades too quickly.
> 
> I've a second D5 and a third 360 GTS in the mail, hoping this will do
> 
> what do you think of AC LL 0.08? It almost perfectly amounts to VID = Vcore @ LLC 4 for 55x (250A)


shamino wrote something about this few month back on testing method.. think it was in the formula thread.


----------



## cstkl1

@Falkentyne

tested.. if i disabled cstate and set cpu voltage manually only i get the situation you mention. 

but if voltage on auto.. it wont work.


----------



## CZonin

CZonin said:


> Had some time to test again. Pretty sure I lost the lottery at this point. I tested P95 with 112 FFT size, AVX disabled, FFT's in place.
> 
> 51
> 1.33v (dropping any lower causes BSOD after 60 seconds in P95)
> LLC 3 and 4
> AVX 0
> CStates Disabled
> Core current limit max
> Package power limit max
> 
> Some cores instantly spike into the high 80s/low 90s and then settle into the high 80s. After about 2 minutes im seeing some cores spike to 94C and just stop the test at that point.
> 
> Any suggestions?


Turns out I really underestimated how big of an impact SA voltage had on temps. I manually set both SA and IO to 1.2 and reran the same test with way better results. Temps stayed in the 80s for the most part. Ended up raising SA to 1.21 in order to get Ring stable at 46 with VCore at 1.33.


----------



## Thebc2

Seeing some “too good to be true” behavior and it’s got me stumped. I have binned roughly 10 10900k and settled on an SP63 chip that seemed to run cooler and draw roughly 10% less amps than any of the other SP63 I tested. For example, under load in in P95 small fft no avx it would pull 220A to the other chips 240A and ran roughly 10c cooler. It was rock solid as my daily overclocked to 5.2 core/4.9 uncore; the only challenge I had with the chip was that I needed to feed it a fair amount of vcore, 1.44v in bios at LLC6 which was roughly 1.314-1.323 under load. Got my memory OC dialed in at 4133-17-17-17-37 (thanks Falken) and tested to hell and back over the last few weeks.

Fast forward to a few weeks later and I decide to move from a 360mm AIO to a decent custom loop, and at the same time (since I was also moving into a larger case) I also decided to exchange my Maximus XII Formula for an Extreme. At first I simply copied over all my bios settings pretty much 1:1 and everything ran great (albeit much cooler), so I focused on other things for the last couple weeks. Today I decided to revisit my CPU OC and see if I could squeeze another mv or two out to get her to run a bit cooler.

I started pretty slowly at 1.435, tested for 30 mins, no whea or instability so moved on to 1.4...same. I am now down to 1.37v for the last 45mins now and rock solid and I am stumped. Temps are roughly 70-75c under load in P95, a solid 20-25c below where they were before switching to the custom loop and lowering my vcore. I tried 5.3 right after switching over to the custom loop and didn’t have any luck even with vcore all the way to 1.47v @LLC6 but thinking about revisiting 5.3 again now.

What I can’t get my head around is how the improved cooling is lowering my voltage requirements. Either that or the motherboard swap, but there is just no way it could account for this much of a difference in vcore. They are both running 0606.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Thebc2 said:


> Seeing some “too good to be true” behavior and it’s got me stumped. I have binned roughly 10 10900k and settled on an SP63 chip that seemed to run cooler and draw roughly 10% less amps than any of the other SP63 I tested. For example, under load in in P95 small fft no avx it would pull 220A to the other chips 240A and ran roughly 10c cooler. It was rock solid as my daily overclocked to 5.2 core/4.9 uncore; the only challenge I had with the chip was that I needed to feed it a fair amount of vcore, 1.44v in bios at LLC6 which was roughly 1.314-1.323 under load. Got my memory OC dialed in at 4133-17-17-17-37 (thanks Falken) and tested to hell and back over the last few weeks.
> 
> Fast forward to a few weeks later and I decide to move from a 360mm AIO to a decent custom loop, and at the same time (since I was also moving into a larger case) I also decided to exchange my Maximus XII Formula for an Extreme. At first I simply copied over all my bios settings pretty much 1:1 and everything ran great (albeit much cooler), so I focused on other things for the last couple weeks. Today I decided to revisit my CPU OC and see if I could squeeze another mv or two out to get her to run a bit cooler.
> 
> I started pretty slowly at 1.435, tested for 30 mins, no whea or instability so moved on to 1.4...same. I am now down to 1.37v for the last 45mins now and rock solid and I am stumped. Temps are roughly 70-75c under load in P95, a solid 20-25c below where they were before switching to the custom loop and lowering my vcore. I tried 5.3 right after switching over to the custom loop and didn’t have any luck even with vcore all the way to 1.47v @LLC6 but thinking about revisiting 5.3 again now.
> 
> What I can’t get my head around is how the improved cooling is lowering my voltage requirements. Either that or the motherboard swap, but there is just no way it could account for this much of a difference in vcore. They are both running 0606.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


If 1.37v is your lowest stable voltage for 5.2, your only chance of raising the multiplier is going direct die. Since you went though the effort of returning 9 CPUs already, I would really hope you have the motivation to delid.


----------



## Falkentyne

Thebc2 said:


> Seeing some “too good to be true” behavior and it’s got me stumped. I have binned roughly 10 10900k and settled on an SP63 chip that seemed to run cooler and draw roughly 10% less amps than any of the other SP63 I tested. For example, under load in in P95 small fft no avx it would pull 220A to the other chips 240A and ran roughly 10c cooler. It was rock solid as my daily overclocked to 5.2 core/4.9 uncore; the only challenge I had with the chip was that I needed to feed it a fair amount of vcore, 1.44v in bios at LLC6 which was roughly 1.314-1.323 under load. Got my memory OC dialed in at 4133-17-17-17-37 (thanks Falken) and tested to hell and back over the last few weeks.
> 
> Fast forward to a few weeks later and I decide to move from a 360mm AIO to a decent custom loop, and at the same time (since I was also moving into a larger case) I also decided to exchange my Maximus XII Formula for an Extreme. At first I simply copied over all my bios settings pretty much 1:1 and everything ran great (albeit much cooler), so I focused on other things for the last couple weeks. Today I decided to revisit my CPU OC and see if I could squeeze another mv or two out to get her to run a bit cooler.
> 
> I started pretty slowly at 1.435, tested for 30 mins, no whea or instability so moved on to 1.4...same. I am now down to 1.37v for the last 45mins now and rock solid and I am stumped. Temps are roughly 70-75c under load in P95, a solid 20-25c below where they were before switching to the custom loop and lowering my vcore. I tried 5.3 right after switching over to the custom loop and didn’t have any luck even with vcore all the way to 1.47v @LLC6 but thinking about revisiting 5.3 again now.
> 
> What I can’t get my head around is how the improved cooling is lowering my voltage requirements. Either that or the motherboard swap, but there is just no way it could account for this much of a difference in vcore. They are both running 0606.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


20c lower temps can be worth at least 100 mhz in CPU speed.
In some cases, just 10c lower can completely stabilize a voltage. 20c is often enough for an entire speed bin, but this depends on the scaling. There's a reason why ln2 is a thing.


----------



## skullbringer

Thebc2 said:


> Seeing some “too good to be true” behavior and it’s got me stumped. I have binned roughly 10 10900k and settled on an SP63 chip that seemed to run cooler and draw roughly 10% less amps than any of the other SP63 I tested. For example, under load in in P95 small fft no avx it would pull 220A to the other chips 240A and ran roughly 10c cooler. It was rock solid as my daily overclocked to 5.2 core/4.9 uncore; the only challenge I had with the chip was that I needed to feed it a fair amount of vcore, 1.44v in bios at LLC6 which was roughly 1.314-1.323 under load. Got my memory OC dialed in at 4133-17-17-17-37 (thanks Falken) and tested to hell and back over the last few weeks.
> 
> Fast forward to a few weeks later and I decide to move from a 360mm AIO to a decent custom loop, and at the same time (since I was also moving into a larger case) I also decided to exchange my Maximus XII Formula for an Extreme. At first I simply copied over all my bios settings pretty much 1:1 and everything ran great (albeit much cooler), so I focused on other things for the last couple weeks. Today I decided to revisit my CPU OC and see if I could squeeze another mv or two out to get her to run a bit cooler.
> 
> I started pretty slowly at 1.435, tested for 30 mins, no whea or instability so moved on to 1.4...same. I am now down to 1.37v for the last 45mins now and rock solid and I am stumped. Temps are roughly 70-75c under load in P95, a solid 20-25c below where they were before switching to the custom loop and lowering my vcore. I tried 5.3 right after switching over to the custom loop and didn’t have any luck even with vcore all the way to 1.47v @LLC6 but thinking about revisiting 5.3 again now.
> 
> What I can’t get my head around is how the improved cooling is lowering my voltage requirements. Either that or the motherboard swap, but there is just no way it could account for this much of a difference in vcore. They are both running 0606.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


what is you custom loop looking like, what pump at what speed, how many rads and other heat generating components?

when going from an AIO to a custom loop made 0.65V of difference, imagine what liquid metal, delidding and direct die cooling would do for your chip, 53x easily, 54x probably, 55x possibly.

compared to earlier generations, with comet lake the gains from improved cooling are insane


----------



## Betroz

skullbringer said:


> when going from an AIO to a custom loop made 0.65V of difference


In my experience with my sucky 10900K (and my old 9900K for that matter), anything above 1.25v load, and around 230-250W, is the limit for AIO's. Unless you brute force it with 3000 rpm fans of course...

So a new 10900K that can run 5200/4800 with say, 1.23v load, would be really nice to get  (or 5100 with 1.20v load)


----------



## TK421

regarding LLC and mohms, I've been running LLC6 and didn't touch the mohms value ever since got the CPU, but wondering if there's a better way to set this 2 variables to possibly get lower stable voltage?


5.1G requires 1.395v set in bios, but the actual vcore changes a lot when under different loads






also I wonder if there's a way to cap the power limit to a certain value? as betroz said, AIOs max out at around 230-250w, I can only sustain 250w on my X73 before the temps reach tjmax


----------



## Betroz

TK421 said:


> also I wonder if there's a way to cap the power limit to a certain value? as betroz said


Yes, set Long and Short Package Power Limit to a fixed value in BIOS.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Betroz said:


> TK421 said:
> 
> 
> 
> also I wonder if there's a way to cap the power limit to a certain value? as betroz said
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, set Long and Short Package Power Limit to a fixed value in BIOS.
Click to expand...

Would it shut down pc or just downclock itself?


----------



## Jarmel

Hey, so I'm puzzled because I'm hitting tj max with a 280mm Kraken Z63 at 4.9 ghz all core. I'm running Prime95 26.6 (before AVX). 

I'm not that familiar with overclocking but I think it should be doing better? I reseated the pump, checked that all fans and pump are working at max, and took the front of my case off. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong.


----------



## Betroz

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Would it shut down pc or just downclock itself?


Downclock.


----------



## Thebc2

skullbringer said:


> what is you custom loop looking like, what pump at what speed, how many rads and other heat generating components?
> 
> 
> 
> when going from an AIO to a custom loop made 0.65V of difference, imagine what liquid metal, delidding and direct die cooling would do for your chip, 53x easily, 54x probably, 55x possibly.
> 
> 
> 
> compared to earlier generations, with comet lake the gains from improved cooling are insane




My rig is in my sig but for the most part: dual ek d5 top running flat out , heatkiller blocks and 5x HWLabs 360mm rads.

Came back to reality a bit. I was P95 small fft no avx stable all the way down to 1.36v, however I was BSODing or seeing whea errors when testing 14GB tests in Linpack Exteme. With the way that Linpack scales with cache and memory OCs it puts out far more heat and stress than P95 small fft no avx when I have a decent cache and memory overclock. Also the transients are a lot harsher.

So anyway, I had to re-up my vcore to 1.41v to be “Linpack extreme stable”. I tried tinkering with SVID a bit while I was at the edge with voltage but it didn’t seem to help with stability, I tried best case and trained but have it set back to auto now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Thebc2 said:


> skullbringer said:
> 
> 
> 
> what is you custom loop looking like, what pump at what speed, how many rads and other heat generating components?
> 
> 
> 
> when going from an AIO to a custom loop made 0.65V of difference, imagine what liquid metal, delidding and direct die cooling would do for your chip, 53x easily, 54x probably, 55x possibly.
> 
> 
> 
> compared to earlier generations, with comet lake the gains from improved cooling are insane
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My rig is in my sig but for the most part: dual ek d5 top running flat out , heatkiller blocks and 5x HWLabs 360mm rads.
> 
> Came back to reality a bit. I was P95 small fft no avx stable all the way down to 1.36v, however I was BSODing or seeing whea errors when testing 14GB tests in Linpack Exteme. With the way that Linpack scales with cache and memory OCs it puts out far more heat and stress than P95 small fft no avx when I have a decent cache and memory overclock. Also the transients are a lot harsher.
> 
> So anyway, I had to re-up my vcore to 1.41v to be â€œLinpack extreme stableâ€. I tried tinkering with SVID a bit while I was at the edge with voltage but it didnâ€™️t seem to help with stability, I tried best case and trained but have it set back to auto now.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...

Linpack extreme stable for what?


----------



## skullbringer

Thebc2 said:


> My rig is in my sig but for the most part: dual ek d5 top running flat out , heatkiller blocks and 5x HWLabs 360mm rads.
> 
> Came back to reality a bit. I was P95 small fft no avx stable all the way down to 1.36v, however I was BSODing or seeing whea errors when testing 14GB tests in Linpack Exteme. With the way that Linpack scales with cache and memory OCs it puts out far more heat and stress than P95 small fft no avx when I have a decent cache and memory overclock. Also the transients are a lot harsher.
> 
> So anyway, I had to re-up my vcore to 1.41v to be “Linpack extreme stable”. I tried tinkering with SVID a bit while I was at the edge with voltage but it didn’t seem to help with stability, I tried best case and trained but have it set back to auto now.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


oh damn, well that's a great loop! Then the bottleneck in heat transfer is between silicon and cold plate.

I assume you are using traditional tim on top of IHS? even only using liquid metal on top of the IHS should give you a noticeable improvement already, since delidding isn't for everyone.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Im stable realbench and blender at 5.5ghz. Now what value should I use to make it downclock for prime95 small fft avx2 or linpack?


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Im stable realbench and blender at 5.5ghz. Now what value should I use to make it downclock for prime95 small fft avx2 or linpack?


Mine is stable at 5.4ghz , 1.4v in Blender and 5.3ghz 1.34v in P95 small AVX 2 on and Linpack. So 100mhz difference and 0.06v difference.


----------



## ThrashZone

0451 said:


> Mine is stable at 5.4ghz , 1.4v in Blender and 5.3ghz 1.34v in P95 small AVX 2 on and Linpack. So 100mhz difference and 0.06v difference.


Hi,
Where's your screen shots and don't hide any hwinfo lines


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Get 10900k and see if u stable 5.4ghz. 10700k is not as the same league.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

ThrashZone said:


> 0451 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mine is stable at 5.4ghz , 1.4v in Blender and 5.3ghz 1.34v in P95 small AVX 2 on and Linpack. So 100mhz difference and 0.06v difference.
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> Where's your screen shots and don't hide any hwinfo lines /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
Click to expand...

Hi,
Post #2179 among others. I can always generate new data.
🙂


Thanh Nguyen said:


> Get 10900k and see if u stable 5.4ghz. 10700k is not as the same league.


I’m not interested in paying $1500 on a binned 5.4ghz i9 that has the same game performance as my $409 i7 that’s already dialed in.


----------



## ThrashZone

0451 said:


> Hi,
> Post #2179 among others. I can always generate new data.
> 🙂
> 
> 
> I’m not interested in paying $1500 on a binned 5.4ghz i9 that has the same game performance as my $409 i7 that’s already dialed in.


Hi,
Just trying to be fair 

Don't think anyone would want to pay for a binned chip at that price lol 
540.us was enough for a sp92 frankly.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

0451 said:


> ThrashZone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 0451 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mine is stable at 5.4ghz , 1.4v in Blender and 5.3ghz 1.34v in P95 small AVX 2 on and Linpack. So 100mhz difference and 0.06v difference.
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> Where's your screen shots and don't hide any hwinfo lines /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi,
> Post #2179 among others. I can always generate new data.
> 🙂
> 
> 
> Thanh Nguyen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get 10900k and see if u stable 5.4ghz. 10700k is not as the same league.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m not interested in paying $1500 on a binned 5.4ghz i9 that has the same game performance as my $409 i7 that’s already dialed in.
Click to expand...

So stop telling people with 10900k should be stable in prime95 avx2 coz u are stable with 10700k.


----------



## Falkentyne

Thanh Nguyen said:


> So stop telling people with 10900k should be stable in prime95 avx2 coz u are stable with 10700k.


He isn't. You don't know how this argument started.
It started with Nizzen trolling and bragging without posting proof, even back before the 10900k came out of NDA, he claimed he could run at 5.3 ghz 1.25v AVX2 stable and ignored everyone who asked for proof.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Thanh Nguyen said:


> 0451 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThrashZone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 0451 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mine is stable at 5.4ghz , 1.4v in Blender and 5.3ghz 1.34v in P95 small AVX 2 on and Linpack. So 100mhz difference and 0.06v difference.
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> Where's your screen shots and don't hide any hwinfo lines /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi,
> Post #2179 among others. I can always generate new data.
> 🙂
> 
> 
> Thanh Nguyen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get 10900k and see if u stable 5.4ghz. 10700k is not as the same league.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m not interested in paying $1500 on a binned 5.4ghz i9 that has the same game performance as my $409 i7 that’s already dialed in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So stop telling people with 10900k should be stable in prime95 avx2 coz u are stable with 10700k.
Click to expand...

You asked what value you used to down clock to a stable frequency using Prime95 avx2. I only intended to amswer your question with real data. i7 and i9 have the same die and similar power consumption.


----------



## SoldierRBT

A 10900K 5.3GHz prime95 AVX2 1.252v under load might be possible. Probably a really good CPU and direct die.


----------



## ThrashZone

0451 said:


> You asked what value you used to down clock to a stable frequency using Prime95 avx2. I only intended to amswer your question with real data. i7 and i9 have the same die and similar power consumption.


Hi,
Some people do benchmark subs and some don't 
As far as I've noticed these are the only threads that require information so they can be approved and added to leader boards.
Otherwise proof is not needed to give to anyone.

Only message for request might be best as, do some benchmark subs


----------



## TK421

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Would it shut down pc or just downclock itself?





Betroz said:


> Downclock.



on my case it just crashes the system if it hits the power limit




this with cpu throttle limit raised to 105c


weird?


----------



## skullbringer

long duration power limit, no? if you want 55x for gaming and 54x for avx, set 54x, go to os and run linpack 35000, measure the power, then go to bios and enter 55x in bios with long duration power limit what you measured + change. 

it should force lower v/f point of 54x for all cores whenever short duration power limit has been exhausted with 55x


----------



## Falkentyne

SoldierRBT said:


> A 10900K 5.3GHz prime95 AVX2 1.252v under load might be possible. Probably a really good CPU and direct die.


This was before NDA expired, which means ES CPU.
Someone delidding an ES CPU really makes me question their mental sanity, since they're the property of whoever supplied it.
See why no one believes him?


----------



## Jarmel

Are there estimated temps for how a 10900k should be doing at certain frequencies running Prime 95(non AVX)?


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
About as suspect as someone saying they have two 10900k's systems and hasn't ever installed the second 10900k's in the asus board so they can say what sp it is 

Also asks for proof from everyone and has never actually posted any his self or in the op either lol classic plagiarizer on cell phone :thumb:


----------



## cstkl1

Da flames ..

Anyway

@Nizzen For two dimm dual rank.. that 4400.. do u mind posting asrock timing thingy. Curious on the _DR. 
Rams got delayed next week.

Hmm got some work stuff to do in SG next month. Should i grab a apex.. its abundant over there.


----------



## TK421

Everytime I set an amps limit or power limit for the CPU, entire system crashes.


I have to run with no limit on temp/amps/power in order to fix it :|


----------



## cstkl1

TK421 said:


> Everytime I set an amps limit or power limit for the CPU, entire system crashes.
> 
> 
> I have to run with no limit on temp/amps/power in order to fix it :|


Thats cause your vcore is unstable

Think of v/f u need the vid of the whole range to be stable. 

Why asus did a v/f oc?
Because some cpu during the 9900k had stable high clock via adaptive but bsods on idle on downclock or a throttled clock. Example 5ghz your vcore is stable but throttled 4.8 the vid for it is not.


----------



## TK421

cstkl1 said:


> Thats cause your vcore is unstable
> 
> Think of v/f u need the vid of the whole range to be stable.
> 
> Why asus did a v/f oc?
> Because some cpu during the 9900k had stable high clock via adaptive but bsods on idle on downclock or a throttled clock. Example 5ghz your vcore is stable but throttled 4.8 the vid for it is not.



So I have to increase the voltage to be stable at lower frequencies?




Is there a way to increase voltage only on lower frequencies?


----------



## lolhaxz

TK421 said:


> So I have to increase the voltage to be stable at lower frequencies?
> 
> Is there a way to increase voltage only on lower frequencies?


Your best bet is SVID = best case/ 0.01 AC/DC, offset mode with a +20-30mv offset, reasonable LLC of 5 or 6 for Asus, this will increase the voltage for all frequencies.

You can then add negative offset on the V/F curve points where you know the additional voltage is not required.

ie. you may add +25mv across the entire range and remove 10mv at 5.1 and 5.2GHz for example.


----------



## SoldierRBT

Look at this sad 10850K 






Minute 14:33


----------



## Falkentyne

SoldierRBT said:


> Look at this sad 10850K
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KlotVJCbEY
> 
> Minute 14:33


The hell?
That's the worst chip I've ever seen !


----------



## TK421

lolhaxz said:


> Your best bet is SVID = best case/ 0.01 AC/DC, offset mode with a +20-30mv offset, reasonable LLC of 5 or 6 for Asus, this will increase the voltage for all frequencies.
> 
> You can then add negative offset on the V/F curve points where you know the additional voltage is not required.
> 
> ie. you may add +25mv across the entire range and remove 10mv at 5.1 and 5.2GHz for example.


 0.01 ac/dc is the default value right?


----------



## munternet

Looked like it had 1.5v io and 1.55v sa for 4500-16-18-18
Wonder what he was saying...


----------



## lolhaxz

New bios 707 - fantastic change log as usual.

I suspect it's the usual same bios just with new microcode, over on the z490 stuff thread looks like it does nothing to improve 4x DIMM's.

Will give it a try... interesting bios releases are so slack for this board compared with previously.


----------



## CallMeODZ

that 10850 is pure ass, i wonder if all the KA chips (10900KA) will be bad. release date is a few days away :O


----------



## munternet

lolhaxz said:


> New bios 707 - fantastic change log as usual.
> 
> I suspect it's the usual same bios just with new microcode, over on the z490 stuff thread looks like it does nothing to improve 4x DIMM's.
> 
> Will give it a try... interesting bios releases are so slack for this board compared with previously.


Are the new tXP and PPD settings available in 0707 now like in the 0088 for the Apex?


----------



## lolhaxz

lolhaxz said:


> New bios 707 - fantastic change log as usual.
> 
> I suspect it's the usual same bios just with new microcode, over on the z490 stuff thread looks like it does nothing to improve 4x DIMM's.
> 
> Will give it a try... interesting bios releases are so slack for this board compared with previously.


Absolutely identical min vcore (which is a good thing, i suppose), OLED now flickers every 6-7 seconds (can't see how this prevents burn-in), only new ram setting I can spot is the CHA and CHB init RTL... no tXP and PPD settings, have not tried 4000mhz ram again - but fully expecting no change.

Looks like one of the beta bios's just mashed in with a ME update... guess they'll consider this board done for another couple of months, sigh.

Update: 

tWRWR_dg still being set to 8 on Mode 2 - perhaps intentional, but why would you ever want to trade booting at Mode 2 for absolutely destroying write performance.

4133MHz won't even boot anymore, but RTL's at 4000 do look a slightly more consistent, rebooted 2-3 times to lock in reasonable ones - testing now, very loose... not holding breath.

Latency is aweful at 50ns, no matter what settings I use.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

I have a weird problem. Set 1.55v llc5, svid disable, avid behavoir auto and the residual is mismatched so I use turbo vcore to set to 1.56v and all residuals are matched. Then I went to bios to set 1.56v and back to win then all residuals are not matched again. So I use turbo v and set back to 1.55v and it matches again, then same thing happen after I change it in bios and all residuals are not matched. Now set it to 1.545v and it matched but no match after change in bios. Why? Some value is changed after I change in bios?


----------



## Falkentyne

Thanh Nguyen said:


> I have a weird problem. Set 1.55v llc5, svid disable, avid behavoir auto and the residual is mismatched so I use turbo vcore to set to 1.56v and all residuals are matched. Then I went to bios to set 1.56v and back to win then all residuals are not matched again. So I use turbo v and set back to 1.55v and it matches again, then same thing happen after I change it in bios and all residuals are not matched. Now set it to 1.545v and it matched but no match after change in bios. Why? Some value is changed after I change in bios?


Don't worry about it.
LinX can be stable 1 run, then you run it again 20 minutes later and a residual will not match. Don't try to get all matching residuals in LinX except at low frequency.
As long as 80% of your residuals match correctly, and LinX does not crash with a "Red" residual error abort, or a yellow or grey color residual abort (this means unstable, completely), you are good.

There are problems getting all residuals to match when overclocking both CPU and memory/memory timings together and it can take hours/days to get settings that work 100% of the time.


----------



## caki

having a weird problem with msi z490 godlike cpu SA and IO voltages. bios default values are : 1,05 and 0,95 respectively when its set to auto mode. When i try to change them their texts become red if i move them over 1,20 and 1,14v in the same order. I don't mind the kind warning even though the amounts i'm trying to set are well within the margin (1,30v - 1,27v) however when i reboot and enter the bios again the voltages of SA and IO show the bios auto values of 1,05 and 0,95 no matter what i set them to. I also tried to check it with hwinfo and it shows fixed values everytime i restart changing between 0.3v - 1.05v. I switched to the second bios with a different firmware version and the problem persisted to the point that both readings disappeared from hwinfo. kinda desperate for any ideas you can share with me...


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Falkentyne said:


> Thanh Nguyen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a weird problem. Set 1.55v llc5, svid disable, avid behavoir auto and the residual is mismatched so I use turbo vcore to set to 1.56v and all residuals are matched. Then I went to bios to set 1.56v and back to win then all residuals are not matched again. So I use turbo v and set back to 1.55v and it matches again, then same thing happen after I change it in bios and all residuals are not matched. Now set it to 1.545v and it matched but no match after change in bios. Why? Some value is changed after I change in bios?
> 
> 
> 
> Don't worry about it.
> LinX can be stable 1 run, then you run it again 20 minutes later and a residual will not match. Don't try to get all matching residuals in LinX except at low frequency.
> As long as 80% of your residuals match correctly, and LinX does not crash with a "Red" residual error abort, or a yellow or grey color residual abort (this means unstable, completely), you are good.
> 
> There are problems getting all residuals to match when overclocking both CPU and memory/memory timings together and it can take hours/days to get settings that work 100% of the time.
Click to expand...

Ok, there must be something in the turbo vcore app which is different from the bios coz for whatever number I use in the bios, the linx either crashes or residual mismatch, but use the turbo v to slide the voltage 0.005 either to upside or downside and the linx passes with all residual matched.


----------



## GeneO

munternet said:


> Are the new tXP and PPD settings available in 0707 now like in the 0088 for the Apex?



Nope. At least not for the Hero 707


----------



## 86Jarrod

Lol! LM on my bare lapped der8auer 9900k mount. Things falling apart. Still working on the 10900k. When I run linpack extreme what mem amount do I use?


----------



## Betroz

So the 0088 BIOS contains newer code than the just released 0707? I wish Asus would write more detailed change logs for their BIOSes...


----------



## lolhaxz

Betroz said:


> So the 0088 BIOS contains newer code than the just released 0707? I wish Asus would write more detailed change logs for their BIOSes...


0707 is a total piece of crap.

- OLED flicker (in the case of formula)
- Anything beyond about 3700MHz memory on 4x DIMM's still does not train properly or reliably.[ie. no change]
- AIDA64 latency is in the high 40's/50's even with tight timings, no matter the settings... ie settings that used to net ~38ns

Otherwise it's behavior is identical to the previous official release. (in terms of vmin etc)

All you get out of changing to 0707 is effectively OLED flicker and high latency, nothing gained.

On previous boards I was always impressed with Asus bios release cycle, now.. blah.


----------



## Betroz

lolhaxz said:


> All you get out of changing to 0707 is effectively OLED flicker and high latency, nothing gained.


I see. I still run the old 0607 BIOS and I got no problems with my Apex board, so I will keep using it for the time being. Maybe try 0088 if I decide to grab a 2 x 16GB G.Skill kit soon.


----------



## munternet

Betroz said:


> I see. I still run the old 0607 BIOS and I got no problems with my Apex board, so I will keep using it for the time being. Maybe try 0088 if I decide to grab a 2 x 16GB G.Skill kit soon.


Be sure to set up your fan speeds prior to overclocking anything with the 0088 bios.
If I try to access Q-Fan (F3 or whatever it is) the bios freezes and I have to reboot, load optimized defaults or clear cmos, set the fans and pump and then reload the saved overclock profile 
Don't know if everyone has this problem or if it's because I use coolant T-sensor for fan and pump control.


----------



## 86Jarrod

When I'm doing a linpack run what ram amount do I chose? Also how many runs?


----------



## skullbringer

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Ok, there must be something in the turbo vcore app which is different from the bios coz for whatever number I use in the bios, the linx either crashes or residual mismatch, but use the turbo v to slide the voltage 0.005 either to upside or downside and the linx passes with all residual matched.


have you checked the actual vcore from the vrm before and after you change something with turbo v core?

Turbo V core detects that bios is using offset mode, but from my experience it uses different mechanism for setting it. I think it ignores what is set for svid behavior (e.g. best case) and applies the default v/f scaling for vid. Hence voltage offset set with turbo v core will always be higher than offset from bios with best case svid behavior. Also I think it completely ignores v/f point offsets from bios and resets those to auto. 

So when testing look at the load voltage straight after boot caused by bios settings, note it down, e.g. 1.3V. Then you can fiddle with turbo v core, even just changing slider by 0.005, you might see like 100mV increase, because of default svid behavior. So you will have to then offset the offset by e.g. -0.100V to get back to your starting point of 1.3V. Then you can actually start tuning with turbo v core. When you then have found nice v core you will like to get, e.g. 1.275V, completely ignore what offset turbo v core says, instead calculate delta between voltage you noted down after boot and voltage you want, so e.g. 1.275V - 1.3V = -0.025V and apply that offset offset to the bios offset, so increase - offset in bios by 0.025V.

Asus engineers again far ahead of Asus software


----------



## skullbringer

86Jarrod said:


> When I'm doing a linpack run what ram amount do I chose? Also how many runs?


4GB is good for quick testing of CPU stability, like can it handle any AVX load without instantly crashing.
10 GB is good for testing long term stability with your cooling setup, like could I game BFV for 2 hours and not have my PC crash in the meantime.

for quick testing 5 loops is enough, you just want it to not fail any loops. for long testing 20 loops and check that residuals are mostly equal (like 80% has been going around as solid measure). Don't ask me why, MATHS!


----------



## 86Jarrod

skullbringer said:


> 4GB is good for quick testing of CPU stability, like can it handle any AVX load without instantly crashing.
> 10 GB is good for testing long term stability with your cooling setup, like could I game BFV for 2 hours and not have my PC crash in the meantime.
> 
> for quick testing 5 loops is enough, you just want it to not fail any loops. for long testing 20 loops and check that residuals are mostly equal (like 80% has been going around as solid measure). Don't ask me why, MATHS!


Awesome thanks!


----------



## Falkentyne

skullbringer said:


> have you checked the actual vcore from the vrm before and after you change something with turbo v core?
> 
> Turbo V core detects that bios is using offset mode, but from my experience it uses different mechanism for setting it. I think it ignores what is set for svid behavior (e.g. best case) and applies the default v/f scaling for vid. Hence voltage offset set with turbo v core will always be higher than offset from bios with best case svid behavior. Also I think it completely ignores v/f point offsets from bios and resets those to auto.
> 
> So when testing look at the load voltage straight after boot caused by bios settings, note it down, e.g. 1.3V. Then you can fiddle with turbo v core, even just changing slider by 0.005, you might see like 100mV increase, because of default svid behavior. So you will have to then offset the offset by e.g. -0.100V to get back to your starting point of 1.3V. Then you can actually start tuning with turbo v core. When you then have found nice v core you will like to get, e.g. 1.275V, completely ignore what offset turbo v core says, instead calculate delta between voltage you noted down after boot and voltage you want, so e.g. 1.275V - 1.3V = -0.025V and apply that offset offset to the bios offset, so increase - offset in bios by 0.025V.
> 
> Asus engineers again far ahead of Asus software


This doesn't apply for TurboVcore, at least 1.10.08, when using FIXED voltage. I just checked and the voltage settings for fixed voltage are identical to bios and turbo vcore set at full load. No descrepencies.
Maybe this scenario applies to offset or adaptive mode, but not to fixed mode.
@Thanh Nguyen, when you tested with BIOS and with Turbo Vcore, did you look at the LOAD VOLTAGE in hwinfo64 and confirm 100% that the voltage is the same at load?
Looking at "CPU Current (Amps)" is a waste of time. LinX is so up and down that it takes like 5 loops to get the "peak" Amps value.


----------



## skullbringer

Falkentyne said:


> This doesn't apply for TurboVcore, at least 1.10.08, when using FIXED voltage. I just checked and the voltage settings for fixed voltage are identical to bios and turbo vcore set at full load. No descrepencies.
> 
> Maybe this scenario applies to offset or adaptive mode, but not to fixed mode.
> 
> 
> @Thanh Nguyen, when you tested with BIOS and with Turbo Vcore, did you look at the LOAD VOLTAGE in hwinfo64 and confirm 100% that the voltage is the same at load?
> 
> Looking at "CPU Current (Amps)" is a waste of time. LinX is so up and down that it takes like 5 loops to get the "peak" Amps value.


dude ***, did you even read my post? 

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk


----------



## Falkentyne

skullbringer said:


> dude ***, did you even read my post?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk


Yes I read all of it. I always do.
Where did Thanh say he was using offset voltage?
In all of thanh's posts, he was using fixed voltage.
You were talking about v/f curves, offsets and ac/dc loadlines, etc getting 'reset' by Turbovcore.

Why is everyone so mad at each other on the forum now? I didn't cuss at you but you sure cussed at me.
Must be quarantine driving everyone mad.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

When it passes linx, it droops to vmin 1.35v. When it dips to 1.341v, it will fail linx. Now, if I want to pass it, I use 1.55v in bios then in win, I use turbo v and increase vcore to 1.555 then hit apply, then turn back down to 1.55 and apply. Not sure why I need to do that to pass linx.


----------



## WINTENDOX

Not Bad z490 aorus master +


----------



## skullbringer

Installed 2nd D5 and 3rd 360mm rad and now my CPU does 55x allcore at 1.4V load Realbench 2.56 30mins, whereas with single D5 and 2x 360mm rads it would not do 55x at all and on the bench it needed 1.43V load. 

Atm I'm back to fixed voltage 1.57V LLC6 because this allows 53x cache.

When using offset mode, anything above 50x max cache will freeze in windows.


----------



## Betroz

skullbringer said:


> Atm I'm back to fixed voltage 1.57V LLC6 because this allows 53x cache.
> 
> When using offset mode, anything above 50x max cache will freeze in windows.


When you are running a 10900K above the v/f curve, isn't manual vcore the way to go anyways?


----------



## Falkentyne

Thanh Nguyen said:


> When it passes linx, it droops to vmin 1.35v. When it dips to 1.341v, it will fail linx. Now, if I want to pass it, I use 1.55v in bios then in win, I use turbo v and increase vcore to 1.555 then hit apply, then turn back down to 1.55 and apply. Not sure why I need to do that to pass linx.


I checked this for you.
At 5 ghz 1.265v Bios set, LLC6, in prime95, there is no difference between Bios set 1.265v, and windows TurboV set-->1.265v-->1.270v->Apply-->1.265v-->Apply.

Prime95 small FFT 15K FMA3-->CPU Current-->230A, with both Bios and TurboV (Toggle) 1.265v. Sensor load voltage-->1.137v.

I cannot test 1.55v. I cannot cool this. Maybe it's different at this voltage for your problem. I don't know. I can't run this comparison for you. It would be over 115C and instant shutdown immediately.
I used 1.265v, because I can keep it cool.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

skullbringer said:


> Installed 2nd D5 and 3rd 360mm rad and now my CPU does 55x allcore at 1.4V load Realbench 2.56 30mins, whereas with single D5 and 2x 360mm rads it would not do 55x at all and on the bench it needed 1.43V load.
> 
> Atm I'm back to fixed voltage 1.57V LLC6 because this allows 53x cache.
> 
> When using offset mode, anything above 50x max cache will freeze in windows.


Did u use 1.53v llc6 before?


----------



## skullbringer

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Did u use 1.53v llc6 before?


well yeah, then i'm stable 55x allcore, but can only do 52x cache


----------



## Spin Cykle

Thoughts? Power draw seems very high for only 5.0ghz? My poor mosfet/VRM it's an inferno... and i'm only running 500 KHz switching freq. on the VRM.

MSI z490i Unify 

Cpu Ratio 50
CPU Ratio Mode - Fixed
CPU Ratio Offset when running AVX - 0 
Ring Ratio - 46
CPU Core Voltage Mode - Override Mode 
CPU Core Voltage - 1.215 
CPU Loadline Calibration Control - Mode 4
CPU Over Voltage Protection - 400 mV
CPU Switching Frequency - 500 KHz
CPU SA Voltage - 1.05
CPU IO Voltage - 0.95

XMP - Profile 1 ( 16-16-16-36 1.35v)

OCCT Small Data Set AVX2 





















Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Falkentyne

lolhaxz said:


> New bios 707 - fantastic change log as usual.
> 
> I suspect it's the usual same bios just with new microcode, over on the z490 stuff thread looks like it does nothing to improve 4x DIMM's.
> 
> Will give it a try... interesting bios releases are so slack for this board compared with previously.


I don't know about the Formula, but 0707 is possibly older than the Test Bioses for the Apex (0088, although I don't know the date on this one) and Extreme (0098), which is why the PPD and TXP settings are not there.


----------



## skullbringer

Betroz said:


> When you are running a 10900K above the v/f curve, isn't manual vcore the way to go anyways?


not necessarily, I was experimenting with offset voltage, to reduce power consumption and heat load at idle. 

In theory I could run stock vid at idle clocks with balanced power profile and cores parked and then still turbo to e.g. 55x all core with a high enough offset for v/f point 8. 

But cache clock is not linked to any v/f point, hence the max cache clock can be reached without the max v/f point being reached, effectively resulting in too low Vcore for the cache clock. Even a general + 200 mV offset does not work for cache max > 50x. 

Since the freeze always occurs when windows is loading (dots spin in a circle) it might have to do with windows power profiles taking over and calling max cache clock without calling max vid. Probably nobody ever thought people were trying to run 53x cache with "stock" voltage

I have set min cache clock to 34x, which @Falkentyne helped me to get past bios, because during final post phase on Asus the CPU is locked to 37x core with corresponding vid, so cache needs to be able to go low enough to be stable at this point. But lowering this min cache clock does not help for the Windows freeze issue.

I guess I'll be running fixed voltage again. Idle voltage at 1.55V isn't great, but with +200mV offset and LLC4 I've also seen spikes north of 1.5V in hwinfo, and that's just what hwinfo can poll, so meh


----------



## JoeRambo

Spin Cykle said:


> Thoughts? Power draw seems very high for only 5.0ghz? My poor mosfet/VRM it's an inferno... and i'm only running 500 KHz switching freq. on the VRM.
> 
> OCCT Small Data Set AVX2



Looking completely normal. Small dataset AVX2 OCCT is like Linpack level of amperage and load. 300+W easy on 5.1.


What is somewhat disappointing is thermal performance of VRMs. But then again it is not full Unify that barely breaks a sweat @300W.


----------



## Domminno

Thoughts? Are these temps pushing it? Prime 95 small FFt's (AVX & AVX2 Disabled) running for around 6 hours now.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

What is 1000khz doing for oc coz I dont see any difference from auto to 1000khz except vrm temp is higher.


----------



## lolhaxz

Thanh Nguyen said:


> What is 1000khz doing for oc coz I dont see any difference from auto to 1000khz except vrm temp is higher.


I have never in my 15+/- years of overclocking (as a hobby) found VRM switching frequency or phase mode to have any (particularly, positive) impact on overclocking - set to auto and forget about it.

There is some "science" behind particular switching frequencies being "more suitable" for particular load types, but realistically... the loads will not always be fixed.


----------



## munternet

Domminno said:


> Thoughts? Are these temps pushing it? Prime 95 small FFt's (AVX & AVX2 Disabled) running for around 6 hours now.


Sweet :thumb:
My sp86 cpu runs about 85°c on the same test. loop. not delided


----------



## Spin Cykle

JoeRambo said:


> Looking completely normal. Small dataset AVX2 OCCT is like Linpack level of amperage and load. 300+W easy on 5.1.
> 
> 
> What is somewhat disappointing is thermal performance of VRMs. But then again it is not full Unify that barely breaks a sweat @300W.



Thanks! I’ve found that running the mosfet fan around 12,500 rpm does help but when the power draw is north of 300+ W the ITX vrm is tough to keep cool. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Spin Cykle

Question?

I’m trying to figure out my chip quality by setting AC/DC load line to its lowest value (01/0.1), removing all power limits, leaving vcore voltage at Auto and setting my multiplier (48-53). 

Once I’ve done that, should I run Small FFT SSE instruction for 10 minutes and than look at my minimum CPU Vid from HWinfo64? And use that as a baseline for vMin for the CPU multiplier used?

Lastly, on my MSI board, I can change the AC/DC load line as shown by the image below. 1 is the lowest setting I can set. Does setting this to 1 achieve what I’m trying to accomplish above?










I’ve tried the above with a 50 multiplier and my cpu vid was 1.263... which seems off, read terrible, because I can stabilize 50 @ vMin 1.198

As a side note, I think I have a really bad KF. At 5.2ghz, I require 1.35v bios / 1.322 vload (vcc_sense) to be stable in Real Bench 2.56 and Small FFT SSE. And by stable I mean CPU L0 Cache error free. Would more IO/SA help those errors. I can bench 5.2 as low as vMin/vLoad ~ 1.295. But under heavy AVX or SSE it will instant L0 error. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Falkentyne

Spin Cykle said:


> Question?
> 
> I’m trying to figure out my chip quality by setting AC/DC load line to its lowest value (01/0.1), removing all power limits, leaving vcore voltage at Auto and setting my multiplier (48-53).
> 
> Once I’ve done that, should I run Small FFT SSE instruction for 10 minutes and than look at my minimum CPU Vid from HWinfo64? And use that as a baseline for vMin for the CPU multiplier used?
> 
> Lastly, on my MSI board, I can change the AC/DC load line as shown by the image below. 1 is the lowest setting I can set. Does setting this to 1 achieve what I’m trying to accomplish above?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’ve tried the above with a 50 multiplier and my cpu vid was 1.263... which seems off, read terrible, because I can stabilize 50 @ vMin 1.198
> 
> As a side note, I think I have a really bad KF. At 5.2ghz, I require 1.35v bios / 1.322 vload (vcc_sense) to be stable in Real Bench 2.56 and Small FFT SSE. And by stable I mean CPU L0 Cache error free. Would more IO/SA help those errors. I can bench 5.2 as low as vMin/vLoad ~ 1.295. But under heavy AVX or SSE it will instant L0 error.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


You did it wrong. You do not need to run prime95 to check the VID. You don't need to run anything.
1) Yes, on MSI, AC/DC Loadline=1 is the correct option. Same goes for Gigabyte. If you can NOT enter 0.01 manually, if the smallest value is 1, that means MSI is using the "AMI" values of 1/100 mOhm.
That means "1" is 1/100 mOhm= 0.01 mOhm. So the mOhm value is what you entered, divided by 100. 

Asus uses the direct mOhm value. The problem is Asus' text for AC/DC Loadline is the exact same as the original AMI text, which says '1/100', but they use the direct value rather than a divider. They have done this since Kaby Lake. I did mention this to @shamino1978 but removing the "1/100" text does not seem to be a priority (shamino doesn't write the bioses so it's not his fault. All he can do is pass recommendations/feedback).

2) with AC/DC at the lowest non-zero value you can enter, 1 or 0.01 (depending on what your bios allows), boot to windows, try to get full idle at 30C, then run hwinfo64 and post the VID.

3) Vcc_sense is not die sense. We have discussed this extensively on the overclocking discord. It is identical to Gigabyte's "ITE 8792E" reading which is the MLCC socket caps reading (e.g. probing a cap behind the socket).
MSI's "socket sense" reading is the Super I/O chip, as far as I know. That is why vcc_sense on "mode 3" has an "apparent" almost flat idle->load vcore readout.
Yet the MSI Unify/Godlike/Ace have the ISL 69269 VR controller, which should support die-sense reading via VR VOUT. I have no idea why hwinfo64 can't access it since the Z490 Aorus Master uses the same controller.

4) what loadline calibration "Mode" did you use in your 5.2 ghz test, with 1.350v Bios set ?


----------



## Betroz

Any word on a new test BIOS that is newer than 0088 for Apex coming out soon?


----------



## Spin Cykle

Falkentyne said:


> You did it wrong. You do not need to run prime95 to check the VID. You don't need to run anything.
> 1) Yes, on MSI, AC/DC Loadline=1 is the correct option. Same goes for Gigabyte. If you can NOT enter 0.01 manually, if the smallest value is 1, that means MSI is using the "AMI" values of 1/100 mOhm.
> That means "1" is 1/100 mOhm= 0.01 mOhm. So the mOhm value is what you entered, divided by 100.
> 
> Asus uses the direct mOhm value. The problem is Asus' text for AC/DC Loadline is the exact same as the original AMI text, which says '1/100', but they use the direct value rather than a divider. They have done this since Kaby Lake. I did mention this to @shamino1978 but removing the "1/100" text does not seem to be a priority (shamino doesn't write the bioses so it's not his fault. All he can do is pass recommendations/feedback).
> 
> 2) with AC/DC at the lowest non-zero value you can enter, 1 or 0.01 (depending on what your bios allows), boot to windows, try to get full idle at 30C, then run hwinfo64 and post the VID.
> 
> 3) Vcc_sense is not die sense. We have discussed this extensively on the overclocking discord. It is identical to Gigabyte's "ITE 8792E" reading which is the MLCC socket caps reading (e.g. probing a cap behind the socket).
> MSI's "socket sense" reading is the Super I/O chip, as far as I know. That is why vcc_sense on "mode 3" has an "apparent" almost flat idle->load vcore readout.
> Yet the MSI Unify/Godlike/Ace have the ISL 69269 VR controller, which should support die-sense reading via VR VOUT. I have no idea why hwinfo64 can't access it since the Z490 Aorus Master uses the same controller.
> 
> 4) what loadline calibration "Mode" did you use in your 5.2 ghz test, with 1.350v Bios set ?


Thanks for the heads up! It will be a few days before I can start testing/validating again. Unfortunately I'm gone on a business trip. 

1.) I'll read up on AC/DC loadline, V/F curves and CPU VID relations. I think that will help me understand whats going on here. Any recommendations for material to read? 

2.) Good to know! I'll post a screen shot of the VID's asap. 

3.) I should really be apart of this community, as I'm a discord user. Is it linked anywhere for easy access? 

4.) Mode 4 Loadline and VCC Sense is what I'm using right now and it yeilds about a 150-160mv drop (0.015 - 0.016v) measured in HWinfo64. 52 multiplier, vcore bios 1.35, VRM throttle to 100C, VRM fan to max... RB 2.56 vload 1.334 with cpu package power 244w. OCCT Small Data Set SSE cpu package power ~275w. OCCT Small Data Set AVX2 cpu package power is 350+W with temperatures around 90-95C. I'm not stressing AVX2 for hours on end though. Why should I pump 350w into my chip when I'll never put that kind of load on it day to day.


----------



## Falkentyne

Spin Cykle said:


> Thanks for the heads up! It will be a few days before I can start testing/validating again. Unfortunately I'm gone on a business trip.
> 
> 1.) I'll read up on AC/DC loadline, V/F curves and CPU VID relations. I think that will help me understand whats going on here. Any recommendations for material to read?
> 
> 2.) Good to know! I'll post a screen shot of the VID's asap.
> 
> 3.) I should really be apart of this community, as I'm a discord user. Is it linked anywhere for easy access?
> 
> 4.) Mode 4 Loadline and VCC Sense is what I'm using right now and it yeilds about a 150-160mv drop (0.015 - 0.016v) measured in HWinfo64. 52 multiplier, vcore bios 1.35, VRM throttle to 100C, VRM fan to max... RB 2.56 vload 1.334 with cpu package power 244w. OCCT Small Data Set SSE cpu package power ~275w.


What's your discord ID? If you don't want to post it here, PM me.

If you set 1.35v in BIOS, mode 4 LLC should be somewhere around a load voltage in Realbench 2.56 between 1.240v to 1.270v if measured with die-sense. 
For example, a 180 amp load at 1.350v bios set with a 0.55 mOhm loadline would be 1350mv - (180 * .55) =1251mv = 1.251v load.

If that is actually your true load voltage (which you can't measure), that's not bad at all. Standard fare.
What are the CPU temps (max) during this test (1350 mv + Mode 4?) in Realbench 2.56?

I am "assuming" that MSI's mode 3= Gigabyte's LLC Turbo (0.275 mOhm) and Mode 4=Gigabyte's LLC High (0.55 mOhm), but I don't know for sure. Without die-sense, you can't even plug in random numbers and guess. There's not even amps monitoring (I got the approximate amps value I think your 5.2g RB test is using from testing 1.335v + 0.495 mOhm on a M12E and looking at Asus EC reading, but that's a wild guess).

Telling us your max temps during your RB 2.56 test at 1.35v + Mode 4 would help guess the voltage a bit.
Also what cooling are you using?


----------



## Spin Cykle

Falkentyne said:


> What's your discord ID? If you don't want to post it here, PM me.
> 
> If you set 1.35v in BIOS, mode 4 LLC should be somewhere around a load voltage in Realbench 2.56 between 1.240v to 1.270v if measured with die-sense.
> For example, a 180 amp load at 1.350v bios set with a 0.55 mOhm loadline would be 1350mv - (180 * .55) =1251mv = 1.251v load.
> 
> If that is actually your true load voltage (which you can't measure), that's not bad at all. Standard fare.
> What are the CPU temps (max) during this test (1350 mv + Mode 4?) in Realbench 2.56?


My CPU temps using RB 2.56 are in the low 80's. For cooling, I'm running a custom loop with 2 x 280mm HW Labs GTS radiators and Noctua fans. One radiator is in push config and the other pull. (not ideal). I also have a 2080Ti in the loop, so that does introduce some heat to the loop when running RB, as it stresses GPU too. 



Falkentyne said:


> I am "assuming" that MSI's mode 3= Gigabyte's LLC Turbo (0.275 mOhm) and Mode 4=Gigabyte's LLC High (0.55 mOhm), but I don't know for sure. Without die-sense, you can't even plug in random numbers and guess. There's not even amps monitoring (I got the approximate amps value I think your 5.2g RB test is using from testing 1.335v + 0.495 mOhm on a M12E and looking at Asus EC reading, but that's a wild guess).


You guess is better than mine. The logic sounds good. Maybe someone around these parts knows what mOhm value each Mode # corresponds to for MSI's Z490 Unify line. That would certainly help. Your formual appears to be; BIOS vCore in mV - (Amp draw at load * mOhm value for given Mode) = mV load voltage = covert mV to V



Falkentyne said:


> Telling us your max temps during your RB 2.56 test at 1.35v + Mode 4 would help guess the voltage a bit.
> Also what cooling are you using?


I have the screenshots at home, I can easily grab them in a few days, but the temps were in the low 80's ... 83 or 4 off the top of my head. RealBench def. increases my CPU temps when compared to similar work loads without GPU load. The RTX 2080Ti is dumping 250w of heat into it.

Based of this chart, I think I'm dissapating around 250-270w heat per radiator. So 500-540w total heat, which is getting close w/ RB drawing 245w on cpu and 250w gpu. My loops delta stays arond 10c but you can tell it's nearing it's limit. 

https://www.xtremerigs.net/2016/02/15/hardware-labs-nemesis-280gts-radiator-review/4/


----------



## Falkentyne

Spin Cykle said:


> My CPU temps using RB 2.56 are in the low 80's. For cooling, I'm running a custom loop with 2 x 280mm HW Labs GTS radiators and Noctua fans. One radiator is in push config and the other pull. (not ideal). I also have a 2080Ti in the loop, so that does introduce some heat to the loop when running RB, as it stresses GPU too.
> 
> 
> 
> You guess is better than mine. The logic sounds good. Maybe someone around these parts knows what mOhm value each Mode # corresponds to for MSI's Z490 Unify line. That would certainly help. Your formual appears to be; BIOS vCore in mV - (Amp draw at load * mOhm value for given Mode) = mV load voltage = covert mV to V
> 
> 
> 
> I have the screenshots at home, I can easily grab them in a few days, but the temps were in the low 80's ... 83 or 4 off the top of my head. RealBench def. increases my CPU temps when compared to similar work loads without GPU load. The RTX 2080Ti is dumping 250w of heat into it.
> 
> Based of this chart, I think I'm dissapating around 250-270w heat per radiator. So 500-540w total heat, which is getting close w/ RB drawing 245w on cpu and 250w gpu. My loops delta stays arond 10c but you can tell it's nearing it's limit.
> 
> https://www.xtremerigs.net/2016/02/15/hardware-labs-nemesis-280gts-radiator-review/4/


Seems like 1.250v load is very close to what you were pulling then at 5.2g @ RB 2.56.
The idle VID at 5 ghz (to confirm it's really 1.245v) with AC/DC Loadline=0.01 mOhms (or 1), whichever is lower, will help as a confirmation.
1.245v VID at 30C at 5 ghz looks like an SP63 chip.


----------



## Sleakcavi

Looking for help fellas. Tried using the OC guide over at https://github.com/integralfx/MemTestHelper/blob/master/DDR4 OC Guide.md but it mentions mostly SS ram and I just bought a DS kit and it doesn't seem to like any of the settings or booting above the rated XMP. 4000C17 its a Trident Z RGB F4-4000C17D-32GTZRB. I wanted a 2x16 kit for Flight Simulator as its recommended and for whatever reason I know my Formula XII doesn't like 4 dimm as others have stated. Any advice where to start or does the DS ram just make it that much harder and I should be happy with the XMP? I added a Screenshot of the timings that it sets for XMP. Any help from the guru's here would be appreciated!


----------



## cstkl1

lolhaxz said:


> I have never in my 15+/- years of overclocking (as a hobby) found VRM switching frequency or phase mode to have any (particularly, positive) impact on overclocking - set to auto and forget about it.
> 
> There is some "science" behind particular switching frequencies being "more suitable" for particular load types, but realistically... the loads will not always be fixed.


yeah. normally if a person has to do vrm switching to get stable.. chances are he is on edge and its just matter on time for a bsod. 

da current board are so over speced.. it can run hedt/trx platforms oced.


----------



## cstkl1

Sleakcavi said:


> Looking for help fellas. Tried using the OC guide over at https://github.com/integralfx/MemTestHelper/blob/master/DDR4 OC Guide.md but it mentions mostly SS ram and I just bought a DS kit and it doesn't seem to like any of the settings or booting above the rated XMP. 4000C17 its a Trident Z RGB F4-4000C17D-32GTZRB. I wanted a 2x16 kit for Flight Simulator as its recommended and for whatever reason I know my Formula XII doesn't like 4 dimm as others have stated. Any advice where to start or does the DS ram just make it that much harder and I should be happy with the XMP? I added a Screenshot of the timings that it sets for XMP. Any help from the guru's here would be appreciated!


da rams just worked.its easier actually.. u can tweak subs if u want.

just put [email protected] have a go.
if u prefer only 1.4v either do 4266c17 or 4400c18. literally just set da ram speed. main timings and vdimm.


----------



## Sleakcavi

cstkl1 said:


> Sleakcavi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looking for help fellas. Tried using the OC guide over at https://github.com/integralfx/MemTestHelper/blob/master/DDR4 OC Guide.md but it mentions mostly SS ram and I just bought a DS kit and it doesn't seem to like any of the settings or booting above the rated XMP. 4000C17 its a Trident Z RGB F4-4000C17D-32GTZRB. I wanted a 2x16 kit for Flight Simulator as its recommended and for whatever reason I know my Formula XII doesn't like 4 dimm as others have stated. Any advice where to start or does the DS ram just make it that much harder and I should be happy with the XMP? I added a Screenshot of the timings that it sets for XMP. Any help from the guru's here would be appreciated!
> 
> 
> 
> da rams just worked.its easier actually.. u can tweak subs if u want.
> 
> just put [email protected] have a go.
> if u prefer only 1.4v either do 4266c17 or 4400c18. literally just set da ram speed. main timings and vdimm.
Click to expand...

Guess I lost the lottery on these sticks then. I can't even get into windows at 4100c17. Oh well I'll just try to tighten subs from xmp


----------



## Betroz

Sleakcavi said:


> Guess I lost the lottery on these sticks then. I can't even get into windows at 4100c17. Oh well I'll just try to tighten subs from xmp


Have you updated the BIOS?


----------



## Nizzen

From "Clock'EM UP"
LinX is fun?
10900K SP93


----------



## Spin Cykle

Nizzen said:


> LinX is fun?
> 10900K SP93



Nice. What kind of cooling solution are you running?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Nizzen

Spin Cykle said:


> Nice. What kind of cooling solution are you running?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


The usual Supercool Computer Direct Die cooler 

Like this:


----------



## Sleakcavi

Betroz said:


> Sleakcavi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guess I lost the lottery on these sticks then. I can't even get into windows at 4100c17. Oh well I'll just try to tighten subs from xmp
> 
> 
> 
> Have you updated the BIOS?
Click to expand...

I'm on 0707 but I'm going to try the 0098 with ppd and txp exposed. I can't seem to go above 4000mhz which is xmp even if I try 1.5v. Maybe vccio or vccsa? No idea but kinda sucks aida64 says like 48ns latency and I think i can get better


----------



## GeneO

Sleakcavi said:


> I'm on 0707 but I'm going to try the 0098 with ppd and txp exposed. I can't seem to go above 4000mhz which is xmp even if I try 1.5v. Maybe vccio or vccsa? No idea but kinda sucks aida64 says like 48ns latency and I think i can get better



Memtweakit exposes PPD and txp. You might try it through that means but it will only last until you reboot I think. You need version 2.02.48. But it won't help if you can't boot to your target frequency I reckon.


----------



## Sleakcavi

GeneO said:


> Sleakcavi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm on 0707 but I'm going to try the 0098 with ppd and txp exposed. I can't seem to go above 4000mhz which is xmp even if I try 1.5v. Maybe vccio or vccsa? No idea but kinda sucks aida64 says like 48ns latency and I think i can get better
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Memtweakit exposes PPD and txp. You might try it through that means but it will only last until you reboot I think. You need version 2.02.48. But it won't help if you can't boot to your target frequency I reckon.
Click to expand...

It boots to 4000c17 no problem and using memtweakit I've done ppd and txp and got down like 2ns to 46ns so now I'll just try to tweak secondary and tertiary and up bandwidth within xmp if I cant go higher than 4000


----------



## DeX

Greetings all. New SP63 owner here. (More like SP0)

Hoping I could get some assistance with my 5.0ghz wall.
My main issue is the heat with 5.1ghz. At 5.0ghz it's already hot in realbench (around 95c).
I know I have probably reached my thermal limit but maybe I'm missing something...
The Arctic Freezer is supposed to be good I have heard and I have Thermal Grizzly on there to.

Current settings:

vCore: 1.40v (bios) 1.31v (load) 1.24v (idle)
Multi: 50x
LLC: 4
AVX Offset: 0
XMP I with 1.39v DRAM (1.35 was unstable)
Cache ratio: 43x
VCCIO/SA: 1.15v
PLL term: 1.15v
All C-states / Speedstep etc.: Disabled

This is currently stable in RealBench but very toasty. Even with the GPU downclocked. See pic for airflow config.
5.1 Seems to want a big jump in vCore but it gets way too hot. If this is my limit so be it.
Any suggestions would be great. Tia


----------



## geriatricpollywog

DeX said:


> Greetings all. New SP63 owner here. (More like SP0)
> 
> Hoping I could get some assistance with my 5.0ghz wall.
> My main issue is the heat with 5.1ghz. At 5.0ghz it's already hot in realbench (around 95c).
> I know I have probably reached my thermal limit but maybe I'm missing something...
> The Arctic Freezer is suppsoed to be good I have heard and I have Thermal Grizzly on there to.
> 
> Current settings:
> 
> vCore: 1.40v (bios) 1.31v (load) 1.24v (idle)
> Multi: 50x
> LLC: 4
> AVX Offset: 0
> XMP I with 1.39v DRAM (1.35 was unstable)
> Cache ratio: 43x
> VCCIO/SA: 1.15v
> PLL term: 1.15v
> All C-states / Speedstep etc.: Disabled
> 
> This is currently stable in RealBench but very toasty. Even with the GPU downclocked. See pic for airflow config.
> 5.1 Seems to want a big jump in vCore but it gets way too hot. If this is my limit so be it.
> Any suggestions would be great. Tia


Hey,

What temps when you remove the glass panel?


----------



## DeX

0451 said:


> Hey,
> 
> What temps when you remove the glass panel?


I havent actually tried that. I'll give that a go. Thanks.


----------



## Falkentyne

DeX said:


> Greetings all. New SP63 owner here. (More like SP0)
> 
> Hoping I could get some assistance with my 5.0ghz wall.
> My main issue is the heat with 5.1ghz. At 5.0ghz it's already hot in realbench (around 95c).
> I know I have probably reached my thermal limit but maybe I'm missing something...
> The Arctic Freezer is supposed to be good I have heard and I have Thermal Grizzly on there to.
> 
> Current settings:
> 
> vCore: 1.40v (bios) 1.31v (load) 1.24v (idle)
> Multi: 50x
> LLC: 4
> AVX Offset: 0
> XMP I with 1.39v DRAM (1.35 was unstable)
> Cache ratio: 43x
> VCCIO/SA: 1.15v
> PLL term: 1.15v
> All C-states / Speedstep etc.: Disabled
> 
> This is currently stable in RealBench but very toasty. Even with the GPU downclocked. See pic for airflow config.
> 5.1 Seems to want a big jump in vCore but it gets way too hot. If this is my limit so be it.
> Any suggestions would be great. Tia


How exactly do you set 1.40v in the BIOS and end up with a lower idle voltage than load voltage?
Can you correct what you wrote? 1.40v bios set -->1.24v idle -->1.31v load, is completely impossible, even with Super I/O socket sense vcore readings.

A Hwinfo64 screenshot of your idle and load voltages would also help.


----------



## DeX

Falkentyne said:


> How exactly do you set 1.40v in the BIOS and end up with a lower idle voltage than load voltage?
> Can you correct what you wrote? 1.40v bios set -->1.24v idle -->1.31v load, is completely impossible, even with Super I/O socket sense vcore readings.
> 
> A Hwinfo64 screenshot of your idle and load voltages would also help.


Hiya.

Ok so I put in a new 850W today, replaced the 650W I had as a couple PSU calculators said I would be at 850w under full GPU and CPU load.

Here are the screenshots. Load vCore seemed to have dropped a bit but still spikes to 1.3v. Could the new PSU affect load voltage?
Temps remain the same, side panel off.


----------



## Thebc2

Those temps seem high for that configuration. Are you sucking in cool air from the outside through the radiator or expelling warm air? I would also try remounting to rule out a bad mount or thermal paste application. 

It could also just be a hot chip. I have tested my fair share of SP63 chips and some definitely do run hotter than others. Would be interested your wattage and amperage under load.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## DeX

Thebc2 said:


> Those temps seem high for that configuration. Are you sucking in cool air from the outside through the radiator or expelling warm air? I would also try remounting to rule out a bad mount or thermal paste application.
> 
> It could also just be a hot chip. I have tested my fair share of SP63 chips and some definitely do run hotter than others. Would be interested your wattage and amperage under load.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


HWInfo does show wattage but it never goes higher than 100w so im sure it's not reading it correctly. Where would I find amperage?


----------



## Falkentyne

DeX said:


> HWInfo does show wattage but it never goes higher than 100w so im sure it's not reading it correctly. Where would I find amperage?


It's in Asus EC, if your board supports that, it will be somewhere in hwinfo above the GPU/RAM temps. It's possibly only the Maximus series support that.
And your Strix doesn't have die-sense voltage so your vcore readout is also going to be inaccurate. But with LLC4, your idle voltage should still be lower than the load voltage, despite the inaccurate super i/o reading.
If you're using a fixed vcore (not offset or adaptive, etc), it's impossible for your load voltage to be higher than idle, even at LLC 8 (LLC7), which is a 0 mOhm loadline.

https://www.overclock.net/forum/27686004-post2664.html


----------



## DeX

Falkentyne said:


> It's in Asus EC, if your board supports that, it will be somewhere in hwinfo above the GPU/RAM temps. It's possibly only the Maximus series support that.
> And your Strix doesn't have die-sense voltage so your vcore readout is also going to be inaccurate. But with LLC4, your idle voltage should still be lower than the load voltage, despite the inaccurate super i/o reading.
> If you're using a fixed vcore (not offset or adaptive, etc), it's impossible for your load voltage to be higher than idle, even at LLC 8 (LLC7), which is a 0 mOhm loadline.
> 
> https://www.overclock.net/forum/27686004-post2664.html


vCore is set to 1.4v in Bios, with no offsets. LLC is currently at 5 (was messing around earlier, forgot about that). So load with 1.4v set in BIOS with LLC5 is around 1.294v, while idle is 1.285.
Do I need to set any scenarious for SVID? It's currently on auto.

I read somewhere that LLC6 is good for gaming, while LLC4 is good for stress testing. Was hoping someone could clarify on that as well.


----------



## GeneO

DeX said:


> vCore is set to 1.4v in Bios, with no offsets. LLC is currently at 5 (was messing around earlier, forgot about that). So load with 1.4v set in BIOS with LLC5 is around 1.294v, while idle is 1.285.
> Do I need to set any scenarious for SVID? It's currently on auto.
> 
> I read somewhere that LLC6 is good for gaming, while LLC4 is good for stress testing. Was hoping someone could clarify on that as well.



If your are using adaptive mode, as I suspected, then your lower idle vcore makes sense, though it seems kind of high in that case.


----------



## DeX

GeneO said:


> If your are using adaptive mode, as I suspected, then your lower idle vcore makes sense, though it seems kind of high in that case.


Waaaaiiiit. Im reading VID as my voltage in HWInfo..... I think that was a rookie mistake?

I see further down there is "vCore", which is currently idling at 1.385v. Under load "vCore" drops slightly to 1.376.

I hope this clears things up? 

So to clarify:
vCore BIOS: 1.4v
LLC5
vCore Idle: 1.385
vCore load: 1.376

VID Idle: 1.275
VID Load: 1.29


----------



## GeneO

DeX said:


> Waaaaiiiit. Im reading VID as my voltage in HWInfo..... I think that was a rookie mistake?
> 
> I see further down there is "vCore", which is currently idling at 1.385v. Under load "vCore" drops slightly to 1.376.
> 
> I hope this clears things up?
> 
> So to clarify:
> vCore BIOS: 1.4v
> LLC5
> vCore Idle: 1.385
> vCore load: 1.376
> 
> VID Idle: 1.275
> VID Load: 1.29



Yep! Makes sense now


----------



## Falkentyne

DeX said:


> Waaaaiiiit. Im reading VID as my voltage in HWInfo..... I think that was a rookie mistake?
> 
> I see further down there is "vCore", which is currently idling at 1.385v. Under load "vCore" drops slightly to 1.376.
> 
> I hope this clears things up?
> 
> So to clarify:
> vCore BIOS: 1.4v
> LLC5
> vCore Idle: 1.385
> vCore load: 1.376
> 
> VID Idle: 1.275
> VID Load: 1.29



+1
Even though that's still the good old "bad" Super I/O reading, your motherboard doesn't support die-sense.
If it did, your vcore would probably read 1.30-1.32v at full load, rather than 1.376v.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

DeX said:


> GeneO said:
> 
> 
> 
> If your are using adaptive mode, as I suspected, then your lower idle vcore makes sense, though it seems kind of high in that case.
> 
> 
> 
> Waaaaiiiit. Im reading VID as my voltage in HWInfo..... I think that was a rookie mistake?
> 
> I see further down there is "vCore", which is currently idling at 1.385v. Under load "vCore" drops slightly to 1.376.
> 
> I hope this clears things up? /forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
> 
> So to clarify:
> vCore BIOS: 1.4v
> LLC5
> vCore Idle: 1.385
> vCore load: 1.376
> 
> VID Idle: 1.275
> VID Load: 1.29
Click to expand...

https://youtu.be/bUaP0r5-xhY
https://youtu.be/WK5Md-90XHQ

These videos really helped me wrap my head around core voltage.


----------



## cstkl1

i wouldnt bother with those video

if not we be stuck with stupid assumptions like
cache affecting my ram speed

vcssa max 1.35

dude doesnt even know how to set rtl. was so funny him on apex

etc

LOL


----------



## geriatricpollywog

@cstkl1 Do you know any rtl tuning guides?


----------



## Nizzen

Can't find "my" threads


----------



## Falkentyne

@cstkl1 @Thanh Nguyen @0451
I found out something just now. 

If you change the CPU multiplier in Asus TurboVcore, it disables thermal velocity boost voltage optimizations and sets the CPU VID at the 100C point (aka Asus "V/F point").
However if you then change the CPU Voltage even by 5mv (any change, doesn't matter), it re-enables TVB Voltage optimizations, and VID decreases based on temps again
(e.g. -1.55mv / -1C at x53, -1.45mv /-1C at x52, -1.15mv /-1C at x51, -0.9mv / -1C at x50, etc etc etc....).

Was wondering what was happening when I was messing around with my ES and trying to use unofficial LLC levels via VRM tool (e.g. 0.27 mOhm for LLC6 instead of 0.495 mOhm) and didn't know why the VID was suddenly at the highest point. Nothing to do with the LLC at all, just TVB becoming temporarily disabled (voltage TVB, not multiplier TVB!!)

Saw this at 32C idle when changing multipliers randomly after being bored. So basically it gave me my VF point in windows 

x47 1.150 (1.140v expected at 30C)
x48 1.180 (1.155v expected at 30C) +30 v/f scaling
x49 1.220 (1.185v expected at 30C) +40 v/f scaling
x50 1.265 (1.210v expected at 30C) +45 scaling
x51 1.305 (1.240v expected at 30C) +40 scaling
x52 1.395 (1.300v expected at 30C) +90 scaling
x53: No change (VID capped at x52)
x54: Falkentyne visits the Volcano God

Why oh why is LLC6=0.495 mOhm vdroop (Loop1_Loadline_Calibration=3), LLC7=0.165 mOhm vdroop (Loop1_Loadline_Calibration=1) and unofficial LLC6=0.275 mOhm vdroop, also known as Loop1_Loadline_Calibration=2 in VRM registers (equal to gigabyte LLC Turbo, MSI Mode 3, etc)?

LLC7 should have been set to unofficial LLC6 (0.275 mOhm)...much better than 0.165 mOhm transient hell vdroop...might as well use LLC8 at that point...
0.275 mOhm is usable still, even though worse transients than 0.495 mOhm (tested in prime95 FMA3 at 5 ghz, equalized to 1.137v at full load, will crash a thread at 0.275 mOhm, will not crash a thread at 0.495 mOhm), this is a good video gaming mOhm...(I had VRM transient algorithm disabled for this test otherwise there's no point)


----------



## geriatricpollywog

@Falkentyne I’m still on an MSI board, so all the nannies are disabled by default and I’ve left them that way. Would you happen to know the mohm values for MSI LLC settings?


----------



## cstkl1

Got rid of da second rig 8700k with 2080ti

incoming full on rog themed rig avengers edition lol


----------



## Thebc2

cstkl1 said:


> Got rid of da second rig 8700k with 2080ti
> 
> incoming full on rog themed rig avengers edition lol


Skip the avenger cpu, the box is absurdly small. It was an SP71 at least, my luck continues to suck.











Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Falkentyne said:


> @cstkl1 @Thanh Nguyen @0451
> I found out something just now.
> 
> If you change the CPU multiplier in Asus TurboVcore, it disables thermal velocity boost voltage optimizations and sets the CPU VID at the 100C point (aka Asus "V/F point").
> However if you then change the CPU Voltage even by 5mv (any change, doesn't matter), it re-enables TVB Voltage optimizations, and VID decreases based on temps again
> (e.g. -1.55mv / -1C at x53, -1.45mv /-1C at x52, -1.15mv /-1C at x51, -0.9mv / -1C at x50, etc etc etc....).
> 
> Was wondering what was happening when I was messing around with my ES and trying to use unofficial LLC levels via VRM tool (e.g. 0.27 mOhm for LLC6 instead of 0.495 mOhm) and didn't know why the VID was suddenly at the highest point. Nothing to do with the LLC at all, just TVB becoming temporarily disabled (voltage TVB, not multiplier TVB!!)
> 
> Saw this at 32C idle when changing multipliers randomly after being bored. So basically it gave me my VF point in windows
> 
> x47 1.150 (1.140v expected at 30C)
> x48 1.180 (1.155v expected at 30C) +30 v/f scaling
> x49 1.220 (1.185v expected at 30C) +40 v/f scaling
> x50 1.265 (1.210v expected at 30C) +45 scaling
> x51 1.305 (1.240v expected at 30C) +40 scaling
> x52 1.395 (1.300v expected at 30C) +90 scaling
> x53: No change (VID capped at x52)
> x54: Falkentyne visits the Volcano God
> 
> Why oh why is LLC6=0.495 mOhm vdroop (Loop1_Loadline_Calibration=3), LLC7=0.165 mOhm vdroop (Loop1_Loadline_Calibration=1) and unofficial LLC6=0.275 mOhm vdroop, also known as Loop1_Loadline_Calibration=2 in VRM registers (equal to gigabyte LLC Turbo, MSI Mode 3, etc)?
> 
> LLC7 should have been set to unofficial LLC6 (0.275 mOhm)...much better than 0.165 mOhm transient hell vdroop...might as well use LLC8 at that point...
> 0.275 mOhm is usable still, even though worse transients than 0.495 mOhm (tested in prime95 FMA3 at 5 ghz, equalized to 1.137v at full load, will crash a thread at 0.275 mOhm, will not crash a thread at 0.495 mOhm), this is a good video gaming mOhm...(I had VRM transient algorithm disabled for this test otherwise there's no point)


So what can I do in bios to get same value as asus turbov? 1.53v llc6 is equal to what voltage in llc8? 
currently my pc is dead. Tried to watercool ram but did not heat the ram first so I peel of the module on the ram pcb and now pc does not boot.


----------



## cstkl1

@Falkentyne 
dude. gpu affects aida on read and latency. wtfish

i am using an old 780 atm (all 2080ti sold just before price slash.. brand new evga/zotac 2080ti here are usd 499 lol)


----------



## cstkl1

Thebc2 said:


> Skip the avenger cpu, the box is absurdly small. It was an SP71 at least, my luck continues to suck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


no choice bro. its like the last cpu till octi think. supply still lacking. demand will be even more insane when 3080/3090 comes out.


----------



## LostVector

I just got an i9-10850K and wow ... overclocking has gotten much more difficult since my last build (i7-6700K).

I'll spare you all the gory details, but essentially I'm looking for what I thought was a modest overclock on air cooling. This computer gets used for work, so I wanted to just squeeze out some easy performance but not push it.

Heat sink: Phanteks TC14PE
Power supply: Seasonic Snow Silent 1000W
Motherboard: Gigabyte Z490 Vision G
RAM: G.Skill Trident Z Neo 3600 MHz 2x32GB (but am running this at stock no XMP for now)

I was hoping to get to just 5 GHz, but the way this is going, that seems like a real stretch.

Stress testing with Realbench with the following settings changed from stock.
VCore: Fixed (not sure what to do with override or adaptive)
Loadline Calibration: Medium (should this be High?)

Enhanced multicore, as I've read from reviews, seems on by default and far too aggressive with the voltage, as under load at stock settings the processor seems to be getting VR OUT in the 1.3V range and the temps were not to my liking. But am I correct in thinking that since I want to overclock anyway, I should just leave it on and go about doing my tweaks?

Anyway, I went to 4.9 GHz and I bumped up the voltage every time I got a BSOD or WHEA error (always CPU cache L0). And where I ended up was BIOS 1.35V, VR OUT load 1.252V, 91C avg package temp. I'm still testing this but I think I may still need to go up another .02V.

Now I read that basically every 10900K should be able to do 5 GHz at 1.25V (is that VR OUT under load? been reading every one of falkentyne's posts I can find) so I'm pretty disappointed by these results. Does this assume an AIO or some other stuff that I'm missing? There's just no way I'm getting to 5 GHz with these kinds of numbers ... I don't have the thermal headroom.


----------



## munternet

I read that the 10850k doesn't overclock as well as the 10900k


----------



## geriatricpollywog

@LostVector Actually overclocking has gotten much easier since Z170. The reason you are disappointed is because you cheaped out on the hardware. Not only did you get a 10850k, but you got a motherboard with a 12 phase VRM. The 10900k likes 16 phases. If you want to save money AND have fun overclocking, get what I have: 10700k ($409) and MSI Z490 Unify ($299).


----------



## Nizzen

LostVector said:


> I just got an i9-10850K and wow ... overclocking has gotten much more difficult since my last build (i7-6700K).
> 
> I'll spare you all the gory details, but essentially I'm looking for what I thought was a modest overclock on air cooling. This computer gets used for work, so I wanted to just squeeze out some easy performance but not push it.
> 
> Heat sink: Phanteks TC14PE
> Power supply: Seasonic Snow Silent 1000W
> Motherboard: Gigabyte Z490 Vision G
> RAM: G.Skill Trident Z Neo 3600 MHz 2x32GB (but am running this at stock no XMP for now)
> 
> I was hoping to get to just 5 GHz, but the way this is going, that seems like a real stretch.
> 
> Stress testing with Realbench with the following settings changed from stock.
> VCore: Fixed (not sure what to do with override or adaptive)
> Loadline Calibration: Medium (should this be High?)
> 
> Enhanced multicore, as I've read from reviews, seems on by default and far too aggressive with the voltage, as under load at stock settings the processor seems to be getting VR OUT in the 1.3V range and the temps were not to my liking. But am I correct in thinking that since I want to overclock anyway, I should just leave it on and go about doing my tweaks?
> 
> Anyway, I went to 4.9 GHz and I bumped up the voltage every time I got a BSOD or WHEA error (always CPU cache L0). And where I ended up was BIOS 1.35V, VR OUT load 1.252V, 91C avg package temp. I'm still testing this but I think I may still need to go up another .02V.
> 
> Now I read that basically every 10900K should be able to do 5 GHz at 1.25V (is that VR OUT under load? been reading every one of falkentyne's posts I can find) so I'm pretty disappointed by these results. Does this assume an AIO or some other stuff that I'm missing? There's just no way I'm getting to 5 GHz with these kinds of numbers ... I don't have the thermal headroom.


10850K is for "stock".
10850K is the worst binned 10 core. That's why it's cheaper. It' garbage bins. Often way under SP50 LOL

Buy cheap, buy twice


----------



## criskoe

Well I got bored and bought a rocketcool delid kit and a direct die frame and a copper IHS aswell for my 10900k. I can now confirm 100% that the EK magnitude CANNOT direct die on a Asus XII Extreme due to the inner row of caps... I figured it wasnt going to work but thought i would try anyways... Pretty sure all of the Z490 Asus boards have that inner row of caps. So yeah in case anyone cares. For now I decided to just use the copper IHS. I didnt bother glue or silicone down the IHS. Just used the socket clamps to hold it in place.. Used Conductonaut between die and Rockitcool copper IHS and kryonaut on top... Overall process was easy.... 

Results arnt bad . Shaved 10c off max temp.... Cores still have the same 8C deltas as before delid but all are 10c cooler.. Same 2 cold cores but even cooler now.... I dunno. I feel like i applied right amount of LM. Oh well. Pretty happy with these 5.3ghz temps now... Prolly gunna just leave it at this... Dont really wana tear down again...


----------



## Nizzen

criskoe said:


> Well I got bored and bought a rocketcool delid kit and a direct die frame and a copper IHS aswell for my 10900k. I can now confirm 100% that the EK magnitude CANNOT direct die on a Asus XII Extreme due to the inner row of caps... I figured it wasnt going to work but thought i would try anyways... Pretty sure all of the Z490 Asus boards have that inner row of caps. So yeah in case anyone cares. For now I decided to just use the copper IHS. I didnt bother glue or silicone down the IHS. Just used the socket clamps to hold it in place.. Used Conductonaut between die and Rockitcool copper IHS and kryonaut on top... Overall process was easy....
> 
> Results arnt bad . Shaved 10c off max temp.... Cores still have the same 8C deltas as before delid but all are 10c cooler.. Same 2 cold cores but even cooler now.... I dunno. I feel like i applied right amount of LM. Oh well. Pretty happy with these 5.3ghz temps now... Prolly gunna just leave it at this... Dont really wana tear down again...
> 
> View attachment 2458720


Why not do like 5-6 others here in this thread: Cool 10900k with Supercool Computer Direct die (direct in socket) block


----------



## criskoe

Nizzen said:


> Why not do like 5-6 others here in this thread: Cool 10900k with Supercool Computer Direct die (direct in socket) block


Mainly cause I just wanted to try with the main stuff I already had... I didnt glue down the IHS so changing to something different down the road is still def a option... 

Few things about that Supercool direct die thing... Id probably be more likely to try it if it was available at a reputable WC store over here in north america... Buying items through facebook messages just aint my thing... And I know its superficial and kinda petty but I kinda dont like the way it looks.. Its kinda ugly.. LOL 

But I dont know... These temps are pretty good for me now tho... I can live with them... 5.3 @ 76C max is pretty good. I feel like anymore is just unnecessary. I dont plan on pushing past 5.3 anyways...


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

I have a spare supercool direct die block if u want.


----------



## criskoe

Thanh Nguyen said:


> I have a spare supercool direct die block if u want.


send me dm.


----------



## Thebc2

criskoe said:


> Well I got bored and bought a rocketcool delid kit and a direct die frame and a copper IHS aswell for my 10900k. I can now confirm 100% that the EK magnitude CANNOT direct die on a Asus XII Extreme due to the inner row of caps... I figured it wasnt going to work but thought i would try anyways... Pretty sure all of the Z490 Asus boards have that inner row of caps. So yeah in case anyone cares. For now I decided to just use the copper IHS. I didnt bother glue or silicone down the IHS. Just used the socket clamps to hold it in place.. Used Conductonaut between die and Rockitcool copper IHS and kryonaut on top... Overall process was easy....
> 
> Results arnt bad . Shaved 10c off max temp.... Cores still have the same 8C deltas as before delid but all are 10c cooler.. Same 2 cold cores but even cooler now.... I dunno. I feel like i applied right amount of LM. Oh well. Pretty happy with these 5.3ghz temps now... Prolly gunna just leave it at this... Dont really wana tear down again...
> 
> View attachment 2458720


Sorry to hear the lack of luck with the direct die mount. Where did you end up making contact with the caps? Near one of the corners or closer to the middle? I think you commented on my Optimus block post on r/watercooling. I was hoping to ultimately try direct die with the Optimus block once I actually found a decent cpu.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## bscool

cstkl1 said:


> @Falkentyne
> dude. gpu affects aida on read and latency. wtfish
> 
> i am using an old 780 atm (all 2080ti sold just before price slash.. brand new evga/zotac 2080ti here are usd 499 lol)


I noticed this also. Different driver versions effect latency. I noticed using the drivers that Windows installs as default added latency over updating to newer drivers. This on Nvidia cards I didn't see a difference on AMD cards.

I know most people update all drivers but if someone is in a hurry and just runs default drivers to get some quick benchmarks in it could effect things and they might not even think of it.


----------



## cstkl1

bscool said:


> I noticed this also. Different driver versions effect latency. I noticed using the drivers that Windows installs as default added latency over updating to newer drivers. This on Nvidia cards I didn't see a difference on AMD cards.
> 
> I know most people update all drivers but if someone is in a hurry and just runs default drivers to get some quick benchmarks in it could effect things and they might not even think of it.


went back to bios 098 on m12e. problem solved

in 0606 using gtx780 (no drivers installed btw on this Os for gpu)
lost 1k read and latency aida add 2ns
changed nvme from cpu pcie to pch
loss another 1k and latency add 1ns

went back to 098. all good. biz as usual. no diff on gpu. no diff pch vs dimm m.2 cpu pcie. tested with default txp/ppd auto


----------



## cstkl1

sp63 btw. full on rog. 

ordered F4-4266C17-32GTRGB
i am guessing i am one of the first with this dual rank .. going royal gold with dis.. will also check whats the diff with formula vs extreme. (should be the same)

but i think being lucky on 4k kit.. aint gonna happen anymore since gskill binning higher clocks already

these are the new rams daisy binned

F4-4266C19D-16GTRS
F4-4266C17D-16GTRSB
F4-4266C16D-16GTRS
F4-4266C17D-32GTRSB
F4-4400C18D-16GTRS
F4-4400C17D-16GTRS
F4-4400C16D-16GTRS
F4-4600C18D-16GTRS
F4-4800C18D-16GTRS

F4-4266C19D-16GTRG
F4-4266C17D-32GTRGB
F4-4400C18D-16GTRG
F4-4600C18D-16GTRG
F4-4800C18D-16GTRG


----------



## SoldierRBT

Nice upgrades . I'm patiently waiting for the F4-4400C17D-32GTRSB kit


----------



## LostVector

0451 said:


> @LostVector Actually overclocking has gotten much easier since Z170. The reason you are disappointed is because you cheaped out on the hardware. Not only did you get a 10850k, but you got a motherboard with a 12 phase VRM. The 10900k likes 16 phases. If you want to save money AND have fun overclocking, get what I have: 10700k ($409) and MSI Z490 Unify ($299).


Well this just got a lot more complicated. I just got a WHEA CPU Cache L0 error at stock settings. Is this definitely the CPU? Or could it be RAM related (XMP is off)?

EDIT: Never mind, I realized I was testing a bit of an undervolt at stock frequency. Still experimenting.


----------



## criskoe

Thebc2 said:


> Sorry to hear the lack of luck with the direct die mount. Where did you end up making contact with the caps? Near one of the corners or closer to the middle? I think you commented on my Optimus block post on r/watercooling. I was hoping to ultimately try direct die with the Optimus block once I actually found a decent cpu.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


the magnitude block has a very wide bulky frame and it contacts the entire inner row of caps on the left of the socket when trying to direct die with it. It just barely clears the caps with the IHS alone.

from what I’ve seen. Optimus blocks have a smaller footprint and completely clear the caps and don’t even sit over them. so you should be fine with the caps. But please let me know how the optimus block cools tho when you direct die. I heard that the signature one is better for direct die but I’m curious about the foundation.


----------



## Betroz

cstkl1 said:


> full on rog.


No Apex board this time either...? That Asus AIO cooler is not the best though.


----------



## ThrashZone

criskoe said:


> the magnitude block has a very wide bulky frame and it contacts the entire inner row of caps on the left of the socket when trying to direct die with it. It just barely clears the caps with the IHS alone.
> 
> from what I’ve seen. Optimus blocks have a smaller footprint and completely clear the caps and don’t even sit over them. so you should be fine with the caps. But please let me know how the optimus block cools tho when you direct die. I heard that the signature one is better for direct die but I’m curious about the foundation.
> View attachment 2458761


Hi,
Foundation on z490 apex just clears caps
EK 3D frame distance looks to be the difference not over all cold plate...
SigV2 has more bow on the cold plate that's why it was recommended for direct die rather than foundation it would have more reach past the die frame.

I might add I have not mounted the ek magnitude yet because the one I have is for 2066 not 1200 socket and the mounting holes do not lineup properly so it would have to be modded to lineup for 1200 socket.

Either optimus Intel blocks will work on both sockets 1200... or 2066 with no issues


----------



## cstkl1

Betroz said:


> No Apex board this time either...? That Asus AIO cooler is not the best though.


Good enough for 5.1ghz small fft prime95 avx off on sp63.. tested a few.

no apex here officially. Need to buy from sg.
This rig actually sponsered for my bro who turned 40 . He is deaf btw. He loves rog.


----------



## cstkl1

10900k-SP81
M12E-098
*
53|51 @v/f 1.414 @L6
2x16gb 4400 [email protected]
txp/ppd 0/0
vccio/vcssa 1.25/1.25
*


----------



## cstkl1

10900k-SP81
M12E-Bios 098

*53|[email protected]/f 1.414 L6
2x16gb 4600 [email protected]
txp/ppd 0|0
vccio/vcssa 1.35/1.35*

















Final Daily

10900k-SP81
M12E-Bios 098

*51|[email protected]/f 1.274 L6
2x16gb 4400 [email protected]
txp/ppd 0|0
vccio/vcssa 1.25/1.25*


----------



## imbaray

Hi all,
I believe I was a bit unlucky with my 10900k, but wanted to ask if anyone has suggestions of what to try next... Mobo is a Maximus XII Hero

The cpu is a SP63 which doesn't seem to do over 5.1 (ring 4.8) on all cores no matter what. It is currently stable with 1.36 vcore LL6 (1.261 under load) running Prime95 small FFTs (AVX disabled). Temps get to a scary 96C (CPU package) with a Artic Liquid Freezer II 360 (stock fans exhausting heat from the top). The case has really decent ventilation (O11 XL with 6 intakes fans at bottom and side).

It doesn't do 5.2 no matter what, can't complete Cinebench no much voltage you throw at it...

Thank you all


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Delete with cooper ihs and u can do 5.2.


----------



## Betroz

imbaray said:


> The cpu is a SP63 which doesn't seem to do over 5.1 (ring 4.8) on all cores no matter what. It is currently stable with 1.36 vcore LL6 (1.261 under load) running Prime95 small FFTs (AVX disabled). Temps get to a scary 96C (CPU package) with a Artic Liquid Freezer II 360 (stock fans exhausting heat from the top). The case has really decent ventilation (O11 XL with 6 intakes fans at bottom and side).


I have a SP63 chip and same cooler as you, and 5.1 with HT on is max for me aswell. It can do 5.2 HT off though (and alot of vcore...)


----------



## imbaray

Betroz said:


> I have a SP63 chip and same cooler as you, and 5.1 with HT on is max for me aswell. It can do 5.2 HT off though (and alot of vcore...)


Thanks a lot for your message mate. What temps do you get at 5.1 running prime95 small FFTs? I think the cooler can't put up with this much heat (CPU is pulling 235W) and the room is a bit hot...

What did you settle for daily usage?

Thanks again


----------



## Falkentyne

imbaray said:


> Hi all,
> I believe I was a bit unlucky with my 10900k, but wanted to ask if anyone has suggestions of what to try next... Mobo is a Maximus XII Hero
> 
> The cpu is a SP63 which doesn't seem to do over 5.1 (ring 4.8) on all cores no matter what. It is currently stable with 1.36 vcore LL6 (1.261 under load) running Prime95 small FFTs (AVX disabled). Temps get to a scary 96C (CPU package) with a Artic Liquid Freezer II 360 (stock fans exhausting heat from the top). The case has really decent ventilation (O11 XL with 6 intakes fans at bottom and side).
> 
> It doesn't do 5.2 no matter what, can't complete Cinebench no much voltage you throw at it...
> 
> Thank you all


 Shouldn't be 96C, I think. I got 87C doing 5.2 at 1.360v set and LLC6 for 1.252 load in small FFT without AVX, but my LFII 360 is intake top with 3x3000 rpm noctua ippc fans.
Intake also greatly lowered RAM temps.

Very surprised you can't complete cinebench at 5.2 though. Try 1.430v bios set? Even my crappy retail chip can do CB with that.


----------



## imbaray

Falkentyne said:


> Shouldn't be 96C, I think. I got 87C doing 5.2 at 1.360v set and LLC6 for 1.252 load in small FFT without AVX, but my LFII 360 is intake top with 3x3000 rpm noctua ippc fans.
> Intake also greatly lowered RAM temps.
> 
> Very surprised you can't complete cinebench at 5.2 though. Try 1.430v bios set? Even my crappy retail chip can do CB with that.


Thanks for your reply mate.

I will try, but if it's hitting 96C at 1.36 you can imagine how it will be at 1.43? EDIT: tried it at 1.43, CN quits 3 seconds after the test starts..

The fact that my room is really warm (around 30C) is not helping at all, but this is how bad it looks:


----------



## Betroz

imbaray said:


> What did you settle for daily usage?


Your chip is slightly better than mine. My chip at v/f point 5.1 is 1.369v, and that is with stock ring speed, so it gets too hot to be completely stable with X48 ring. I run either 5.0/4.8 with HT on, or 5.2/4.8 with HT off. I can run 5.1/4.8 with HT on, but then I have to set Long duration powerlimit to 250W in BIOS, and that makes the CPU throttle under stresstest but not in games. (throttle because of the power limit)


----------



## imbaray

Betroz said:


> Your chip is slightly better than mine. My chip at v/f point 5.1 is 1.369v, and that is with stock ring speed, so it gets too hot to be completely stable with X48 ring. I run either 5.0/4.8 with HT on, or 5.2/4.8 with HT off. I can run 5.1/4.8 with HT on, but then I have to set Long duration powerlimit to 250W in BIOS, and that makes the CPU throttle under stresstest but not in games. (throttle because of the power limit)


Thanks, that is insightful. To be fair, I might settle on 5.0/4.8 for daily use as well and lower the vcore a bit... What vcore/ LLC do you require on yours for that? Thanks again


----------



## Betroz

imbaray said:


> Thanks, that is insightful. To be fair, I might settle on 5.0/4.8 for daily use as well and lower the vcore a bit... What vcore/ LLC do you require on yours for that? Thanks again


The long duration cooling capacity of the Liquid Freezer II 360 is about 250W at ~25C ambient according to my testing. At 5.0/4.8 I set 1.32 vcore with LLC6 in BIOS. In Prime95 80k/112k FFT, that means 1.217 VMIN (minimum vcore, but usually i bit higher)


----------



## imbaray

Thanks again! I just noticed that my XMP profile sets the VCCIO and VCCSA to 1.315v, isn't that too high? Could it be having some impact?


----------



## Betroz

imbaray said:


> VCCIO and VCCSA to 1.315v, isn't that too high?


No, that's fine.


----------



## Falkentyne

imbaray said:


> Thanks for your reply mate.
> 
> I will try, but if it's hitting 96C at 1.36 you can imagine how it will be at 1.43? EDIT: tried it at 1.43, CN quits 3 seconds after the test starts..
> 
> The fact that my room is really warm (around 30C) is not helping at all, but this is how bad it looks:
> 
> View attachment 2458890


Ok, that high VF explains that. That explains why you can't do 5.2 ghz...my SP94 is 90mv there, even though I've seen some SP 80's with a lower VF (both point and range) than that.
150mv VF between 5.1 to 5.2 is one of the definitely worse ones, but not the record.
I usually see SP63 as low as 130, but I've seen some around 80-90 too. Usually a SP63 with a high VF but good scaling from 5.1 to 5.2 (like 60-70mv) is actually awesome--you just need to delid those and they can take off. The absolute worst one ever is 180, that's beyond all hope. I actually saw an SP63 with a worse VF (the 180mv one) from 5.2-5.3 ghz than a SP51! Yes, the SP51 clocked better...


----------



## Betroz

Falkentyne said:


> The absolute worst one ever is 180, that's beyond all hope


Well mine isn't what you could call good then


----------



## Thebc2

Just sharing the V/F curve from my SP71 10900KA.











This has OC’d as well as my golden SP63 (will be selling that one) but at slightly lower voltage. Still have my 52/49 OC in place but now at 1.41v bios voltage instead of 1.43v. This chip as well runs the same coolness at the golden SP63, roughly 220amps under full load.

To recap, I have tested roughly 13 10900k/ka at this point (one more on the way). All but two were SP63. But there was a huge variance in OC potential and how cool they ran between those SP63s. Some would OC fine to 5.2/4.9 and run cool (relatively speaking), others that would hit the same clocks but would run much hotter and some would not even hit 5.2 or 5.1 either. In fact one of my non-SP63 was an SP85 that wouldn’t go over 5.0 and ran hot!

Since my golden SP63 was one of my first chips I use it’s settings as a bar by which I grade the other CPUs. Aka what can they run 5.2/4.9 stable at? What is stable? At least 12hrs p95 small fft no avx with no Windows hardware errors. I essentially found that some of these 10900k just ran cooler than others at the same settings, and one easy way to categorize a cool chip from a hot chip was their amperage draw. The cooler chips pull roughly 10% less amps than the hot chips at the identical frequency and voltages. For example a cooler chip under full load would only pull 220-230amps in P95 while the hotter chips were in the 240-250amp range.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Falkentyne

Thebc2 said:


> Just sharing the V/F curve from my SP71 10900KA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has OC’d as well as my golden SP63 (will be selling that one) but at slightly lower voltage. Still have my 52/49 OC in place but now at 1.41v bios voltage instead of 1.43v. This chip as well runs the same coolness at the golden SP63, roughly 220amps under full load.
> 
> To recap, I have tested roughly 13 10900k/ka at this point (one more on the way). All but two were SP63. But there was a huge variance in OC potential and how cool they ran between those SP63s. Some would OC fine to 5.2/4.9 and run cool (relatively speaking), others that would hit the same clocks but would run much hotter and some would not even hit 5.2 or 5.1 either. In fact one of my non-SP63 was an SP85 that wouldn’t go over 5.0 and ran hot!
> 
> Since my golden SP63 was one of my first chips I use it’s settings as a bar by which I grade the other CPUs. Aka what can they run 5.2/4.9 stable at? What is stable? At least 12hrs p95 small fft no avx with no Windows hardware errors. I essentially found that some of these 10900k just ran cooler than others at the same settings, and one easy way to categorize a cool chip from a hot chip was their amperage draw. The cooler chips pull roughly 10% less amps than the hot chips at the identical frequency and voltages. For example a cooler chip under full load would only pull 220-230amps in P95 while the hotter chips were in the 240-250amp range.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


You said you used 1.41v bios set at 5.2 ghz, what loadline calibration did you use for the chips?
And what is the LLC and load temp of that chip you posted at 5.2 / 4.9 @ 1.41v ?


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

“Golden sp63”. What do you call my sp104?


----------



## Nizzen

Thanh Nguyen said:


> “Golden sp63”. What do you call my sp104?


If the results isn't there, it isn't golden 

Does youre sp104 pass Cinebench r20 @ 5600mhz under water, or maybe 5700mhz?


----------



## Thebc2

Thanh Nguyen said:


> “Golden sp63”. What do you call my sp104?


I guess we would need a larger sample size of SP104 chips to test. Let me know when you have 10+ to test


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Thebc2

Falkentyne said:


> You said you used 1.41v bios set at 5.2 ghz, what loadline calibration did you use for the chips?
> And what is the LLC and load temp of that chip you posted at 5.2 / 4.9 @ 1.41v ?


Here are some stats during 30mins of P95 small fft no avx. This is with system loaded. I went back to check BIOS vcore and forget I had actually dialed it back to 1.39v @LLC6. The Aquacomputer Octo temp sensors correspond to the following:

1-2: water temp sensors
4: ambient air temp
soft temp1: Air/water delta


----------



## Betroz

Thebc2 said:


> To recap, I have tested roughly 13 10900k/ka at this point (one more on the way). All but two were SP63. But there was a huge variance in OC potential and how cool they ran between those SP63s. Some would OC fine to 5.2/4.9 and run cool (relatively speaking), others that would hit the same clocks but would run much hotter and some would not even hit 5.2 or 5.1 either. In fact one of my non-SP63 was an SP85 that wouldn’t go over 5.0 and ran hot!


Your findings correspond well with what Der8auer found out too. I have considered testing out a new 10900K, but seeing your resultes and what Der8auer found out, the chances are that I just will get another SP63 chip. I could only hope I get one that runs ~10C cooler at the same settings as my current one... Don't know if it's worth the hassle. Then again, I could get lucky...


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Nizzen said:


> If the results isn't there, it isn't golden
> 
> Does youre sp104 pass Cinebench r20 @ 5600mhz under water, or maybe 5700mhz?


No


Nizzen said:


> If the results isn't there, it isn't golden
> 
> Does youre sp104 pass Cinebench r20 @ 5600mhz under water, or maybe 5700mhz?


no pass r20 @5.6 for any voltage I throw at. Maybe coz my ambient is high . 27c and 30c water.


----------



## imbaray

Falkentyne said:


> Ok, that high VF explains that. That explains why you can't do 5.2 ghz...my SP94 is 90mv there, even though I've seen some SP 80's with a lower VF (both point and range) than that.
> 150mv VF between 5.1 to 5.2 is one of the definitely worse ones, but not the record.
> I usually see SP63 as low as 130, but I've seen some around 80-90 too. Usually a SP63 with a high VF but good scaling from 5.1 to 5.2 (like 60-70mv) is actually awesome--you just need to delid those and they can take off. The absolute worst one ever is 180, that's beyond all hope. I actually saw an SP63 with a worse VF (the 180mv one) from 5.2-5.3 ghz than a SP51! Yes, the SP51 clocked better...


So I talked with the store that sold it to me here in the UK and they said I can RMA it. Is it worth it in your opinion? What would you say are the probablity of getting a better one?

Thanks


----------



## imbaray

By the way, would there be a highter power compumption and less OC potential when I'm using the integrated gpu? I am waiting for my graphics card still, so no gpu is installed yet.


----------



## shameelx

hi, im pretty new to overclocking and have limited knowledge but recently gave it a shot on my 10900K. 
i dont have the best chip it seems (SP 63) but was hoping i could manage 5.2. 
currently on 5.1 at 1.35v and LLC 6. 
is it possible to get 5.2 out of a SP 63? 
ive tried going up in voltage and i need to hit around 1.45 at LLC 7 to get 5.2 out of this. im worried that the voltage and LLC setting is dangerous and may degrade my chip. 
any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## ducegt

munternet said:


> I read that the 10850k doesn't overclock as well as the 10900k





Nizzen said:


> 10850K is for "stock".
> 10850K is the worst binned 10 core. That's why it's cheaper. It' garbage bins. Often way under SP50 LOL
> 
> Buy cheap, buy twice


I'm building a rig for a friend with a 10850K and with Apex XII 0707 it's SP72. 

Super easy 5.2ghz all cores, 0 avx offset at @ 1.3v LLC8 (no vdroop). Only tested 1 hour Realbench 2.56 so far, but it's barely above 80C on a 360mm so have no doubts this will be good as is for gaming already.


----------



## munternet

ducegt said:


> I'm building a rig for a friend with a 10850K and with Apex XII 0707 it's SP72.
> 
> Super easy 5.2ghz all cores, 0 avx offset at @ 1.3v LLC8 (no vdroop). Only tested 1 hour Realbench 2.56 so far, but it's barely above 80C on a 360mm so have no doubts this will be good as is for gaming already.


Nice to hear a happy story


----------



## cstkl1

FFT112

10900k - SP81
M12E - Bios 098
*
51|48 - 1.273 v/f L6 vmin 1.15xx
2x16gb 4400 18-18-18-38 @1.40v
vccio/vcssa - 1.3/1.3
txp/ppd - 0/0









52|49 -1.373 v/f L6 vmin 1.24xx
2x16gb 4400 18-18-18-38 @1.40v
vccio/vcssa - 1.35/1.35
txp/ppd - 0/0
*


----------



## munternet

cstkl1 said:


> FFT112
> 
> 10900k - SP81
> M12E - Bios 098
> 
> *51|48 - 1.273 v/f L6 vmin 1.15xx
> 2x16gb 4400 18-18-18-38 @1.40v
> vccio/vcssa - 1.3/1.3
> txp/ppd - 0/0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52|49 -1.373 v/f L6 vmin 1.24xx
> 2x16gb 4400 18-18-18-38 @1.40v
> vccio/vcssa - 1.35/1.35
> txp/ppd - 0/0*


So better ram overclock with lower CPU overclock?


----------



## cstkl1

munternet said:


> So better ram overclock with lower CPU overclock?


u mean vcore. nope. same.
fft112 was really difficult.

afaik i am the first with 4400

daily now gaming is 53|50. vmin 1.28v with powerlimit at 52|49 arnd 315 watt.. 
its the ram now. should i keep 4400c18 or 4400c16??? 🤔 c16 requires 1.5v.. its above the ram rated [email protected] will test next week the 4266c17 32gb dual rank two dimm kits. i hope they can do run as well as this.. but kindda doubt it. being lucky twice.. dats stretching it..

c16 is worth it for latency. c17 vs c18.. marginal difference.

its in prep for rtx 3080/3090/3080ti/3080 super..


----------



## geriatricpollywog

cstkl1 said:


> u mean vcore. nope. same.
> fft112 was really difficult.
> 
> afaik i am the first with 4400
> 
> daily now gaming is 53|50. vmin 1.28v with powerlimit at 52|49 arnd 315 watt..
> its the ram now. should i keep 4400c18 or 4400c16??? 🤔 c16 requires 1.5v.. its above the ram rated [email protected] will test next week the 4266c17 32gb dual rank two dimm kits. i hope they can do run as well as this.. but kindda doubt it. being lucky twice.. dats stretching it..
> 
> c16 is worth it for latency. c17 vs c18.. marginal difference.
> 
> its in prep for rtx 3080/3090/3080ti/3080 super..


Nice, 53 daily. Why not 1.5v ram, it’s b-die right? Besides even if it degrades you’ll end up at c18 anyway.


----------



## cstkl1

0451 said:


> Nice, 53 daily. Why not 1.5v ram, it’s b-die right? Besides even if it degrades you’ll end up at c18 anyway.


kindda hot dude da rams. @1.5v 

err i nvr had a bdie that degraded to be frank. its always the mobo when you do edge overclocking. i can probably run it stable now 1.47v set for 4400c16.

will see how the new kits do. but c16 seriously worth it. cb20 confirms it. the latency increases the score alot. c15 will be bliss but thats 1.6v.. 

i normally weigh the pro and cons and not about just showing off results. whats sustainable for long term.


----------



## Falkentyne

cstkl1 said:


> kindda hot dude da rams. @1.5v
> 
> err i nvr had a bdie that degraded to be frank. its always the mobo when you do edge overclocking. i can probably run it stable now 1.47v set for 4400c16.
> 
> will see how the new kits do. but c16 seriously worth it. cb20 confirms it. the latency increases the score alot. c15 will be bliss but thats 1.6v..
> 
> i normally weigh the pro and cons and not about just showing off results. whats sustainable for long term.


I like your cas 18. Your bandwith is as good as tuned cas 16 because you were able to tighten the subs/terts even tighter, and your voltage is lower. This will be important for RTX 3090.
I think you should use cas 18 for the less RAM heat.
If your game can tell a FPS difference between 1ns latency, then you should join a pro gaming team because no one can tell that difference.


----------



## shameelx

guys, is it possible to get 5.2 on a SP63. 
my chip is asking for 1.45v in the bios and LLC 7 to achieve this - does that make sense?


----------



## Gandyman

Hey lads, 

Got 10900k few days ago - upgrade from 10700k. I passed 8 hours of realbench 1.25v for 5gz all core (drooping to 1.21 ish). Playing Horizon: Zero dawn today got a few hard crashes, complete system freeze with sound buzzing, but after a few hours of playing. Once I just left the game idle to go cook dinner came back and it was frozen. Would this be vcore related? Or should I look elsewhere. I put vvcio and vvcsa on 1.1v with a x47 ring and 32g 3200mhz cl16 kit, could it be that? Any advice appreciated. 
Oh motherboard is a Aorus Ultra

Cheers.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Gandyman said:


> Hey lads,
> 
> Got 10900k few days ago - upgrade from 10700k. I passed 8 hours of realbench 1.25v for 5gz all core (drooping to 1.21 ish). Playing Horizon: Zero dawn today got a few hard crashes, complete system freeze with sound buzzing, but after a few hours of playing. Once I just left the game idle to go cook dinner came back and it was frozen. Would this be vcore related? Or should I look elsewhere. I put vvcio and vvcsa on 1.1v with a x47 ring and 32g 3200mhz cl16 kit, could it be that? Any advice appreciated.
> Oh motherboard is a Aorus Ultra
> 
> Cheers.


I would set vccio, vccsa, and core to 1.35 (1.4 if you have an open loop) just to see what the chip can do. Do a quicker test, like 5 min P95 AVX off and check for throttling. Although a 12 phase vrm should be ok in theory, I haven’t seen anyone daily a 10900k above 5.0 without a 16 phase VRM. Ultimately if the chip is a dud I would RMA it.


----------



## skullbringer

Oh nice, the I225-V on the Apex has coil whine at transients 

I can provoke it, too, when transferring many small files to my NAS, where it runs out of cache and the network connection has to wait from time to time. 

What a **** implementation of an Ethernet controller! I'd rather have silent 1G than this chirping 2.5G student researches outcome


----------



## ThrashZone

skullbringer said:


> Oh nice, the I225-V on the Apex has coil whine at transients
> 
> I can provoke it, too, when transferring many small files to my NAS, where it runs out of cache and the network connection has to wait from time to time.
> 
> What a **** implementation of an Ethernet controller! I'd rather have silent 1G than this chirping 2.5G student researches outcome


Hi,
Yeah too much memory blk did weird stuff on x299.


----------



## criskoe

The intel I225-V is a piece of junk.


----------



## CENS

Guys anyone in here got SP100+?? Looking for a nice chip for LN2 OC. Can also trade for a 5.4G SP93 plus extra...


----------



## skullbringer

Funny thing is, Asus does not RMA for coil whine, whereas Corsair does. Guess I'll never buy an Asus Thor psu then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
ASUS rma is pretty much a joke so yeah limiting this to just mother boards would be advised and third party in store warranty if available too


----------



## cstkl1

"i believe i can fly"
gonna be doing tuf 3080 testing


10900k - SP81
M12E - Bios 098
*
51|48 v/f 1.274 L6
txp/pp - 0/0
2x16gb 4133 15-16-16-35 @1.5v
vccio/vcssa -1.00/1.100










2x16gb 4400 16-17-17-36 @1.5v
vccio/vcssa - 1.30/1.30








*


----------



## gcadays

New build this is what I got.
Sp 63. 
Running at 5.1 @1.296 v load
Voltage set 1.365 with LLC 6
P95 blend w/avx: stable
P95 small fft Avx diabled: stable
Cinebench R20 score: 6634
Blend test temp: upper 60s
Cinebench temp: low to mid 80s
Small fft temp: starts to get into the 90s


This is about as much as it can be pushed it appears.


----------



## Betroz

cstkl1 said:


> *51|48 v/f 1.274 L6
> txp/pp - 0/0
> 2x16gb 4133 15-16-16-35 @1.5v
> vccio/vcssa -1.00/1.100
> 
> 2x16gb 4400 16-17-17-36 @1.5v
> vccio/vcssa - 1.30/1.30*


Could you post screens with ASRock Timing Configurator too?


----------



## cstkl1

Betroz said:


> Could you post screens with ASRock Timing Configurator too?


for you bro. i will pm the memtweakit. 

but later ya. doing some 3080 tuf benches.


----------



## cletus-cassidy

CENS said:


> Guys anyone in here got SP100+?? Looking for a nice chip for LN2 OC. Can also trade for a 5.4G SP93 plus extra...


I have a delidded SP104. Might be willing to sell for the right number. DM me?


----------



## chibi

Anyone purchase an Apex XII recently? Have they started shipping with the B3 stepping of the Intel I225-V lan controller yet?


----------



## ducegt

cstkl1 said:


> for you bro. i will pm the memtweakit.
> 
> but later ya. doing some 3080 tuf benches.


Me too please. 

I've finally got my 4000Cl17 kit stable for a few hours at a time anyway. They need at least 1.37v IO set in the BIOS even for XMP, but it's also working nicely with 1.37 SA for 4400CL18. I need at minimum 1.43 VDIMM set in BIOS, but will run 1.44v. They seem like they'll stay below 60C after hours of stressing so should be okay. Your kit is performing much better and I've got no where to improve except 2nd and 3rd timings.


----------



## ducegt

chibi said:


> I225-V


Ordered one from NewEgg a week ago. Aida64 says it's revision 2, but I'm not sure that's the proper place to confirm the stepping.


----------



## imbaray

So I sold my SP63 and got a SP97 this time. It is definitely better than the last one as at least can run Cinebench R20 @ 5.2... BUT, it still requires 1.4v LL6 (1.279v under load) to be fully stable (prime 95 no avx small FFT, realbench 2.56, etc). This draws close to 220A and over 280W which is not easy to cool (w/ my Liquid Freezer ii 360)...

This is messed up because my SP63 couldn't do 5.2 stable EVER, but on the other hand seem to draw much less current with exactly the same configuration.

Have you come across cpus that draw much more current than others?


----------



## CallMeODZ

30 10900ks tested, vastly different results





 @ 10:55


----------



## Betroz

5.1 Ghz allcore seems to be the max for most 10900K with AIO cooling, with 5.0 probably being the sweetspot.


----------



## cstkl1

ducegt said:


> Ordered one from NewEgg a week ago. Aida64 says it's revision 2, but I'm not sure that's the proper place to confirm the stepping.


sorry for being awol.. just the 3080 tuf is so stupidly good.
havent had cards this good since i replaced my 8800 ultras with xfx 8800gt alpha dogs.. 
it was phenomal overclocker, beats the 8800 ultra, much less power at 1/4th the cost.. 

although this card not using less power.. just the TUF temps and noise level on quiet is so good.. 
put at this way.. if asus had decided to give the tuf a 3x8pin and a bios of 450 watts.. dats GG for all other aib cards..


----------



## CENS

cletus-cassidy said:


> I have a delidded SP104. Might be willing to sell for the right number. DM me?


Hi thx for getting back to me. Yes I'm willing to pay for a great chip accordingly. In your case I fear delidded chips aren't rly suitable for LN2 use as you risk damaging the die. There the soldering is actually fine. But will check


----------



## CENS

cstkl1 said:


> "i believe i can fly"
> gonna be doing tuf 3080 testing
> 
> 
> 10900k - SP81
> M12E - Bios 098
> 
> *51|48 v/f 1.274 L6
> txp/pp - 0/0
> 2x16gb 4133 15-16-16-35 @1.5v
> vccio/vcssa -1.00/1.100
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2x16gb 4400 16-17-17-36 @1.5v
> vccio/vcssa - 1.30/1.30
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


What mem kit / bin is that ? rly quite nice for 32GB do you sell that?


----------



## cstkl1

CENS said:


> What mem kit / bin is that ? rly quite nice for 32GB do you sell that?


errr.. pretty sure da 4266c17D royals can do the same.. 

will know in two day. manage to get production slot for it today.


----------



## Robertomcat

Hello, good evening.

I've been reading this post, and the truth is that I think I have a pretty bad chip (I can't confirm it). I currently have an MSI MPG Z490 Gaming Plus motherboard and a 10900K processor, 64GB of RAM (in the process of adding 64 more) and custom liquid cooling. 

I have seen that to know the chip quality on Asus motherboards there is a SP indicator, but it is not the case on MSI motherboards, and I would like to know the quality of my processor.

I have tried several configurations to have the processor stable at 5.2GHz, and trying a little bit of everything at the end I have decided to leave all the options by default except the frequency of the processor which I have set manually to 5.2 and to a fixed value.

I would like to be able to optimize this processor as much as possible, since I use it to do random work in which the most important thing is to have a high frequency without making constant use of the processor.

Here is a screenshot of the processor working for 50 minutes.

Let's see if you can give me a hand. Thank you.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Robertomcat said:


> Hello, good evening.
> 
> I've been reading this post, and the truth is that I think I have a pretty bad chip (I can't confirm it). I currently have an MSI MPG Z490 Gaming Plus motherboard and a 10900K processor, 64GB of RAM (in the process of adding 64 more) and custom liquid cooling.
> 
> I have seen that to know the chip quality on Asus motherboards there is a SP indicator, but it is not the case on MSI motherboards, and I would like to know the quality of my processor.
> 
> I have tried several configurations to have the processor stable at 5.2GHz, and trying a little bit of everything at the end I have decided to leave all the options by default except the frequency of the processor which I have set manually to 5.2 and to a fixed value.
> 
> I would like to be able to optimize this processor as much as possible, since I use it to do random work in which the most important thing is to have a high frequency without making constant use of the processor.
> 
> Here is a screenshot of the processor working for 50 minutes.
> 
> Let's see if you can give me a hand. Thank you.
> 
> View attachment 2459593


MSI boards don’t give you an SP value. Unfortunately you got a motherboard with a 12 phase VRM. It’s hard to say whether this is limiting you, but I haven’t seen anybody hit 5.3+ on a budget mothetboard. If you can, exchange for an MSI Z490 Unify for $300, which has a 16 phase VRM. This might give you better overclocking.

For overclocking on MSI Z490 boards, all you need to change is the core voltage and multiplier to find your peak core frequency. Leave everything else on auto.


----------



## CENS

cstkl1 said:


> errr.. pretty sure da 4266c17D royals can do the same..
> 
> will know in two day. manage to get production slot for it today.


It depends 4400 cl161717 is at only 1.5v is very nice for a 32GB kit if it is memtest stable. That is like my best 16GB single sided kits. My kits scale to 4800 cl14 13 at or below 2v geek3 stable. If 32GB double sided sticks can reach that MHz they give clearly better scores.

So was that memtest stable? I'd be interested


----------



## cstkl1

CENS said:


> It depends 4400 cl161717 is at only 1.5v is very nice for a 32GB kit if it is memtest stable. That is like my best 16GB single sided kits. My kits scale to 4800 cl14 13 at or below 2v geek3 stable. If 32GB double sided sticks can reach that MHz they give clearly better scores.
> 
> So was that memtest stable? I'd be interested


Will post a ss.. C17 was at 1.45 hci on 1.5 c16.. nvr ran it.
Pretty sure @OLDFATSHEEP rams the same


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

cstkl1 said:


> Will post a ss.. C17 was at 1.45 hci on 1.5 c16.. nvr ran it.
> Pretty sure @OLDFATSHEEP rams the same


Yup, the very same story from me. at 4400, [email protected], [email protected]

The best I've seen is 4700 [email protected] from a CN forum:





53/51 16X2 4700CL16-17MT4.5+6.1 300%，TM5 1US/EX - 电脑讨论 - Chiphell - 分享与交流用户体验


53/51 16X2 4700CL16-17MT4.5+6.1 300%，TM5 1US/EX,再再再更新一波TM5 1US轻松碾压TM5 EX还在紧张的调试中，这次十代的IMC确实有点迷更新一波据说现在MT4.5+6.1对内存压力更大，小测下发现6.1跟7.0比较 ...,电脑讨论,讨论区-技术与经验的讨论 ,Chiphell - 分享与交流用户体验




www.chiphell.com


----------



## cstkl1

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> Yup, the very same story from me. at 4400, [email protected], [email protected]
> 
> The best I've seen is 4700 [email protected] from a CN forum:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 53/51 16X2 4700CL16-17MT4.5+6.1 300%，TM5 1US/EX - 电脑讨论 - Chiphell - 分享与交流用户体验
> 
> 
> 53/51 16X2 4700CL16-17MT4.5+6.1 300%，TM5 1US/EX,再再再更新一波TM5 1US轻松碾压TM5 EX还在紧张的调试中，这次十代的IMC确实有点迷更新一波据说现在MT4.5+6.1对内存压力更大，小测下发现6.1跟7.0比较 ...,电脑讨论,讨论区-技术与经验的讨论 ,Chiphell - 分享与交流用户体验
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.chiphell.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2459640


Hmm something off with rtl

if this was with m12e guardband option maybe

init rtl doesnt change the pairing sets.

4600c16 63,64 7,7.. wonder what he did.. 🧐

also looks like he changed the internal cke of of twwrd from default

interesting.. i normally dont hence for twcl 16, with tcl 16.. trdwr 10


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

cstkl1 said:


> Hmm something off with rtl
> 
> if this was with m12e guardband option maybe
> 
> init rtl doesnt change the pairing sets.
> 
> 4600c16 63,64 7,7.. wonder what he did.. 🧐


That guy basically used auto...

Anyway 4700c16 is still impressive. See that IO and SA were far from limits. Maybe with fine tunes it can do 4800.


----------



## cstkl1

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> That guy basically used auto...
> 
> Anyway 4700c16 is still impressive. See that IO and SA were far from limits. Maybe with fine tunes it can do 4800.


get that. but how did he break the rtl. 

that 4700 rtl. i cant do that even @4400

63,63 8,8 the iol here the key. its wrong by right. 

only rtl guardband can change this but thats with 097 bios on m12e..

so hmmm


----------



## cstkl1

also thats not auto 

just looking him setting 0 on on no dimm

that aint auto


----------



## cstkl1

hmm learnt something. normally not bothered by that.

but he definitely not on auto


----------



## cstkl1

@CENS


10900k-SP81
M12E-098

*51|48 1.274 v/f LL6
2x16gb 4400 [email protected]
vccio/vcssa - 1.30/1.30
txp/ppd - 0/0*










was testing his trdwr 10 so thought might as well run hci..

any aida score based on the past gonna be different as i had to install windows latest on this drive to run some new test. also shifted nvme from pcie to pch for rtx 3080..


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

cstkl1 said:


> hmm learnt something. normally not bothered by that.
> 
> but he definitely not on auto


He used mode 1 auto first, then manually sub the same number for RTL and IOL.

I've seen 63/63/8/8 worked on many M12A rigs for 4600 16-17-28. 4533 16-17-28 needs 63/63/9/8, a wired increase in CHA IOL.


----------



## cstkl1

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> He used mode 1 auto first, then manually sub the same number for RTL and IOL.
> 
> I've seen 63/63/8/8 worked on many M12A rigs for 4600 16-17-28. 4533 16-17-28 needs 63/63/9/8, a wired increase in CHA IOL.


something not right if this @21

4000/4133c16 at 61,62 7,7
4266/4400c16 at 62,63 7,7
4533/4600c16 at 63,64 7,7

so how did u break the last one.. hmm its actually why i am always getting 6 errors per cycle for 4533/4600. cant find a way arnd it.

unless hmm you are running a weird pair on init rtl.. hmm normally need rtl guardband for this


----------



## Betroz

Well as I said yesterday @cstkl1, I need IOL 8 from 4300 and up with my F4-4000C17D-32GTRGB kit.


----------



## Robertomcat

0451 said:


> MSI boards don’t give you an SP value. Unfortunately you got a motherboard with a 12 phase VRM. It’s hard to say whether this is limiting you, but I haven’t seen anybody hit 5.3+ on a budget mothetboard. If you can, exchange for an MSI Z490 Unify for $300, which has a 16 phase VRM. This might give you better overclocking.
> 
> For overclocking on MSI Z490 boards, all you need to change is the core voltage and multiplier to find your peak core frequency. Leave everything else on auto.


Yes, it is a 12 phase VRM and I think that may be the limitation for any configuration to work at 5.3.

At 5.2 it remains stable, so I think that would be enough, as I can't return the motherboard either.

As for the voltages you are running, they can be considered safe for a 24/7 daily work?

Thank you.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Robertomcat said:


> Yes, it is a 12 phase VRM and I think that may be the limitation for any configuration to work at 5.3.
> 
> At 5.2 it remains stable, so I think that would be enough, as I can't return the motherboard either.
> 
> As for the voltages you are running, they can be considered safe for a 24/7 daily work?
> 
> Thank you.


It looks like you set bios to 1.39 based on HWinfo? That’s on the high side of safe long term voltage. It won’t kill your CPU but after 2-3 years you may notice you need 1.42v to remain stable at the same clock speed. It all depends on voltage, temperature, duration under high current etc. Keep an eye on your VRM temps and run a fan on your VRM if it gets too hot under normal use.

5.2ghz is a good overclock. I’d say 5.1 is about average for a 10900k. If you want to run high clock speeds 24/7, I’d strongly recommend direct die. You’ll lose 20C at peak load and potentially get another 100mhz.


----------



## Robertomcat

0451 said:


> It looks like you set bios to 1.39 based on HWinfo? That’s on the high side of safe long term voltage. It won’t kill your CPU but after 2-3 years you may notice you need 1.42v to remain stable at the same clock speed. It all depends on voltage, temperature, duration under high current etc. Keep an eye on your VRM temps and run a fan on your VRM if it gets too hot under normal use.
> 
> 5.2ghz is a good overclock. I’d say 5.1 is about average for a 10900k. If you want to run high clock speeds 24/7, I’d strongly recommend direct die. You’ll lose 20C at peak load and potentially get another 100mhz.


The processor is 24/7, but is not at full load all day, these are alternative jobs around the clock, in which it can be at full load for a total of one hour and for example divided into five minutes.

The voltage at which it works when not under load is 1.385v. When five cores are executed for example, the charge is 1.409v. And if the load is complete, everything runs at 1.385v. The maximum temperature that it reaches is 82°, taking into account that the room is currently at 28°, later when the heat stops it will drop to about 18° or so.

Right now all the configuration is by default except the processor frequency which I have fixed at 5.2, and the ring frequency at 4.6. The computer has been doing its normal tasks that it is doing, and in the meantime I have been running HWinfo for five hours, and I haven't seen any errors in the cache memories.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Robertomcat said:


> The processor is 24/7, but is not at full load all day, these are alternative jobs around the clock, in which it can be at full load for a total of one hour and for example divided into five minutes.
> 
> The voltage at which it works when not under load is 1.385v. When five cores are executed for example, the charge is 1.409v. And if the load is complete, everything runs at 1.385v. The maximum temperature that it reaches is 82°, taking into account that the room is currently at 28°, later when the heat stops it will drop to about 18° or so.
> 
> Right now all the configuration is by default except the processor frequency which I have fixed at 5.2, and the ring frequency at 4.6. The computer has been doing its normal tasks that it is doing, and in the meantime I have been running HWinfo for five hours, and I haven't seen any errors in the cache memories.


Cool, Cstkl1 also built a “working” 10900k system. The 10900k and 10700k are typically used for “play” such as gaming and overclocking as a hobby.


----------



## Robertomcat

0451 said:


> Cool, Cstkl1 also built a “working” 10900k system. The 10900k and 10700k are typically used for “play” such as gaming and overclocking as a hobby.


I think that with that voltage I will have no problems in the future, I want it to last at least two years, until they bring out other processors where the frequencies can be higher, as that is what I need.

Although I have seen VRMs at 72°, but as I said it is not a constant work where you keep them for hours at that temperature, it can be more like five minutes. I don't think that temperature will be a concern either. Thank you for your answers.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Mosfets are rated up to 125C, so 72 is fine.


----------



## cstkl1

its insane it can even do this at max 4k while recording via obs in 4:4:4 bt709 , indistinguishable quality .. 74gb for 25min.


----------



## Betroz

cstkl1 said:


> its insane it can even do this at max 4k while recording via obs in 4:4:4 bt709 , indistinguishable quality .. 74gb for 25min.


You love the VERMINTIDE II game I see 
That game doesn't really require a 5.2 Ghz 10900K to play well does it?


----------



## cstkl1

Betroz said:


> You love the VERMINTIDE II game I see
> That game doesn't really require a 5.2 Ghz 10900K to play well does it?


yup. its a easy 30min -1hr gaming per day. i need games like this to turn off brain while working hand/eye coordination without getting pissed off. 
touching 40 so.. getting slower..

tested up to 5.3. pointless. card power throttles before you can see any impact


----------



## Betroz

cstkl1 said:


> i need games like this to turn off brain while working hand/eye coordination without getting pissed off.
> touching 40 so.. getting slower..


I play games for much of the same reason, but I am getting closer to 41


----------



## munternet

Betroz said:


> I play games for much of the same reason, but I am getting closer to 41


Wish I was 41......
On another note, I have lowered my io and sa to 1.2v and it seems to have lowered the overall temp on my sp86 CPU overclock by over 10°c 
I also changed from LLC6 to LLC7 and set the vcore down to 1.315v 5.2GHz and it's stable P95 small fft's AVX no offset low 90°c

Here is a BFV HWinfo after 1hour 17minutes of testing


----------



## Betroz

munternet said:


> On another note, I have lowered my io and sa to 1.2v and it seems to have lowered the overall temp on my sp86 CPU overclock by over 10°c


How can that be? I though IO and SA voltage didn't increase CPU temps much with Comet Lake, if any.

The IMC in my CPU must be weak, cause I had to set 1.35 IO and 1.45 SA to be stable at 4266 16-17-17-36 with my dual rank kit.
Maybe C16 and low RTL is not worth the added SA and IO...? What do you guys think?


----------



## munternet

Betroz said:


> How can that be? I though IO and SA voltage didn't increase CPU temps much with Comet Lake, if any.
> 
> The IMC in my CPU must be bad, cause I had to set 1.35 IO and 1.45 SA to be stable at 4266 16-17-17-36 with my dual rank kit.
> *Maybe C16 and low RTL is not worth the added SA and IO...?* What do you guys think?


I think you're on the money bud. I probably only brushed off 1/2 ns raising RTLs
I was 1.35v io and sa at the same primary settings of 4200-17-17-17-34 with tighter RTLs
I also set DllBwen =0 and I think that helped to lower other settings and the voltages
Your settings of 4266 16-17-17-36 are much tighter than mine and I would need similar voltages if I set the same, especially if I tightened RTLs


----------



## Betroz

munternet said:


> Your settings of 4266 16-17-17-36 are much tighter than mine and I would need similar voltages if I set the same, especially if I tightened RTLs


I tried to loosen up the PRIMARY timings to 17-18-18-37, and by doing so RTL became 63/63 and IOL still at 7. What happened? Lots of errors in HCI... Go figure 
(same voltages...)

How can this be? My IMC doesn't like RTL 63 with those settings...? IMC = Big Drama Queen


----------



## Betroz

For those who don't know, this is my current settings :


----------



## ThrashZone

Betroz said:


> For those who don't know, this is my current settings :


Hi,
Dang what memory set is that ?


----------



## Betroz

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Dang what memory set is that ?


G.Skill TridentZ F4-4000C17D-32GTRGB


----------



## ThrashZone

Betroz said:


> G.Skill TridentZ F4-4000C17D-32GTRGB


Hi,
Yeah saw a set 2x16gb 4000c19 rated for 1.35v for 240.us +- and passed now being gouged for 500.us lol


----------



## Betroz

ThrashZone said:


> Yeah saw a set 2x16gb 4000c19 rated for 1.35v for 240.us +- and passed now being gouged for 500.us lol


I payed 262 Euro for my kit a few weeks ago.


----------



## Falkentyne

Betroz said:


> For those who don't know, this is my current settings :


You didn't try my timings I posted in the DDR4 thread a few days ago?
Change twrrd_dd and dr from 6 to 7 here.
Set RTL/IOLs manually to 62/63/7/7
Set ODT wr/nom/park manually to 80/48/40
Set DLLBwen=0
Set VCCIO/SA to 1.3/1.3v
DDRV to 1.50v, DDR Term to 0.750v, DDR Speed to 4400 mhz.
You have an Apex so you should be doing better than an Extreme.


----------



## Betroz

Falkentyne said:


> You didn't try my timings I posted in the DDR4 thread a few days ago?


You should know that simply copying other peoples settings doesn't allways work. My IMC could be worse than yours, and my RAM sticks require more VDIMM


----------



## Betroz

Falkentyne said:


> Change twrrd_dd and dr from 6 to 7 here.


Mine is at 7. Did you look at my screenshot... Btw I am testing 4400 now.


----------



## Robertomcat

aerotracks said:


> Joining the club with 10900k on Z490 Gaming Plus from MSI


Reading this post, I found your answer, and I have the same processor and motherboard, and I'm trying to optimize the processor as much as possible.

At the moment I have the processor locked at 5.2 and the ring at 4.8 and everything else is automatic. When all the cores work together the voltage is Core VID 1.408v and when it is at rest 1.383v and Vcore 1,386.

Could you email me your system configuration profile (if possible)? Or some screenshots of the settings you have been using. I'd really appreciate it, because I'm trying to keep the voltage as low as possible, since this is a computer that will be dedicated to work 24/7. Thank you.


----------



## Falkentyne

Betroz said:


> Mine is at 7. Did you look at my screenshot... Btw I am testing 4400 now.


Ugh :/ Of course I looked at your screenshots. All of them.

I meant take what I put in my timings and change DD and DR from 6 to 7, and the rest of the things I mentioned.
You also didn't mention if you are trying the ODT settings.
I got these from Tyllo. He has an apex also. And I can assure you my IMC sucks. It's an ES remember?
Memory overclocking is a lot like "Plug in random numbers and stress test" (got this from Coffee, the overclocker from Shenzhen on the discord)
Then change something and find out if what you changed fixed or broke something.
Why do you think loosening timings made your stability plummet?


----------



## Betroz

Falkentyne said:


> You also never mentioned if you are trying the ODT settings.


Mine is at 80-48-40 yes.



Falkentyne said:


> Why do you think loosening timings made your stability plummet?


Now that is THE question.


----------



## Falkentyne

munternet said:


> Wish I was 41......
> On another note, I have lowered my io and sa to 1.2v and it seems to have lowered the overall temp on my sp86 CPU overclock by over 10°c
> I also changed from LLC6 to LLC7 and set the vcore down to 1.315v 5.2GHz and it's stable P95 small fft's AVX no offset low 90°c
> 
> Here is a BFV HWinfo after 1hour 17minutes of testing
> View attachment 2459780


That shouldn't happen.
I just ran a realbench 2.56 stress test at the timings I posted in my last screenshot (except twrrd_dr and dd are 7 instead of 6), and IO/SA were 1.30v, DDRV 1.5v, and got 81C at 1.340v CPU Bios set LLC6 at 5.2 ghz.

Then I loaded my 3733 mhz profile with DDR at 1.40v, RAM 15/15/36, IO/SA at 1.15/1.20v, same 5.2 ghz vcore settings and temps were identical.
How did you drop by over 10C? That is literally not possible.
What was the IO/SA before? Was IO higher than vcore?


----------



## Robertomcat

I have a question about LLC calibration between different motherboards. I am reading many pages of this previous post, and I have found that if you have an Asus motherboard the LLC configuration and scaling is opposite to the MSI motherboards. Is that correct?

And what does it mean to incorporate the processor's batch number? I don't understand. Mine is: X024G404

On a MSI motherboard, what would be the scale to use to make a good OC, when the number is higher, you also have to lower the voltage more, or the opposite? Thank you.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

Robertomcat said:


> I have a question about LLC calibration between different motherboards. I am reading many pages of this previous post, and I have found that if you have an Asus motherboard the LLC configuration and scaling is opposite to the MSI motherboards. Is that correct?
> 
> And what does it mean to incorporate the processor's batch number? I don't understand. Mine is: X024G404
> 
> On a MSI motherboard, what would be the scale to use to make a good OC, when the number is higher, you also have to lower the voltage more, or the opposite? Thank you.


On MSI use mode 4. You have the LLC figure on the right side.

X024G404
x-Vietnam (L-Malaysia, V-China)
024:24-24th week, 0-2020
G404 Production batch G404


----------



## Robertomcat

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> On MSI use mode 4. You have the LLC figure on the right side.
> 
> X024G404
> x-Vietnam (L-Malaysia, V-China)
> 024:24-24th week, 0-2020
> G404 Production batch G404


So the most I can use to make it safe is an LLC 4? I'm just looking for the motherboard to be stable, I'm not going to use the AVX instructions. What matters most to me is to be able to use it as often as possible, but I am not very experienced in this matter. The computer is going to be entirely for work, and tomorrow I'm going to add another 64GB package of RAM and it will have a total of 128GB Corsair LPX 3600MHz.

I understand that the processor's lot number does not identify anything about the quality of the processor, right?


----------



## Betroz

Robertomcat said:


> The computer is going to be entirely for work, and tomorrow I'm going to add another 64GB package of RAM and it will have a total of 128GB Corsair LPX 3600MHz.


It seems to me that you are on the wrong platform if your work requires you to have 128GB of memory. X299 or TRX40 would be better. But if CPU frequency is that important too, I wonder what kind of work that is?


----------



## Robertomcat

Betroz said:


> It seems to me that you are on the wrong platform if your work requires you to have 128GB of memory. X299 or TRX40 would be better. But if CPU frequency is that important too, I wonder what kind of work that is?


It is for a statistics software, in which the main thing is that the work is done as fast as possible, without the need to have a large number of cores available. 

I only entered here to ask for advice about possible optimization with a frequency of 5.3GHz (if the processor and the motherboard allow it). I've already read 39 pages of this post, but specifically the level of people is already advanced, so they directly talk about quite technical things without touching the basics, I understand.


----------



## munternet

Falkentyne said:


> That shouldn't happen.
> I just ran a realbench 2.56 stress test at the timings I posted in my last screenshot (except twrrd_dr and dd are 7 instead of 6), and IO/SA were 1.30v, DDRV 1.5v, and got 81C at 1.340v CPU Bios set LLC6 at 5.2 ghz.
> 
> Then I loaded my 3733 mhz profile with DDR at 1.40v, RAM 15/15/36, IO/SA at 1.15/1.20v, same 5.2 ghz vcore settings and temps were identical.
> How did you drop by over 10C? That is literally not possible.
> What was the IO/SA before? Was IO higher than vcore?


I appreciate one thing alone can't cause the temp improvement
Temp testing was in BFV so there may be other variables at play, Im not really sure
Previously io and sa were set to 1.35v
I also managed to lower vcore with the added stability gained from the changes
It's not scientific at all but we did the same to my friends setup last night (in the form of loading my .cmo file directly) which is identical to mine except the CPU is sp63 and we dropped a good amount of temperature from his also
It was really just relaxing what were perceived to be the most stressed settings that seemed to help with overall stability
Also set were
ODT wr/nom/park manually to 80/48/40
DLLBwen=0
It also seems to like tcwl=12
RTLs 64
Certain things don't seem to let me loosen primaries. Too loose on the secondaries and tertiaries seemed detrimental to stability


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Robertomcat said:


> It is for a statistics software, in which the main thing is that the work is done as fast as possible, without the need to have a large number of cores available.
> 
> I only entered here to ask for advice about possible optimization with a frequency of 5.3GHz (if the processor and the motherboard allow it). I've already read 39 pages of this post, but specifically the level of people is already advanced, so they directly talk about quite technical things without touching the basics, I understand.


As stated previously, you are unlikely to hit 5.3 without going direct-die. Even then it’s not guaranteed since you require 1.4v to run 5.2ghz. I achieved my stable OC of 5.4ghz on MSI Z490 with a Rockit Cool Direct Die frame and by leaving everything related to the CPU on auto and only changing the CPU core voltage and multiplier.


----------



## Robertomcat

0451 said:


> As stated previously, you are unlikely to hit 5.3 without going direct-die. Even then it’s not guaranteed since you require 1.4v to run 5.2ghz. I achieved my stable OC of 5.4ghz on MSI Z490 with a Rockit Cool Direct Die frame and by leaving everything related to the CPU on auto and only changing the CPU core voltage and multiplier.


Yes, at maximum load it runs at 1.408v and 5.2GHz fixed. I have the ring set at 4.8GHz. The maximum temperatures are 85°, I also think that running it at 5.3GHz will be impossible.

I've been reading that being a 14 nm processor, it could run with the voltage I have right now, what do you think?


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Robertomcat said:


> Yes, at maximum load it runs at 1.408v and 5.2GHz fixed. I have the ring set at 4.8GHz. The maximum temperatures are 85°, I also think that running it at 5.3GHz will be impossible.
> 
> I've been reading that being a 14 nm processor, it could run with the voltage I have right now, what do you think?


I ran a 14nm 7700k at 1.4v 5ghz for 4 years with no degradation. If your CPU is running 24/7 you may likely see some degradation but you won’t kill the CPU.


----------



## Robertomcat

0451 said:


> I ran a 14nm 7700k at 1.4v 5ghz for 4 years with no degradation. If your CPU is running 24/7 you may likely see some degradation but you won’t kill the CPU.


Yes, he is working 24/7, but not constantly at 1.4. You could put 5.2GHz in adaptive mode, because when you are out of work you are left with a fixed voltage of 1.38 resting.

Would there be any benefit in raising the ring to 5GHz (if the processor can handle it)?


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Robertomcat said:


> Yes, he is working 24/7, but not constantly at 1.4. You could put 5.2GHz in adaptive mode, because when you are out of work you are left with a fixed voltage of 1.38 resting.
> 
> Would there be any benefit in raising the ring to 5GHz (if the processor can handle it)?


Idk, run Aida64 and some benchmarks that simulate your workload and see what ring clock it likes. I can run my ring up to 51, but none of the benchmarks seem to care whether I set it to 47 or 51. Then again I have only 8 cores so my ring is doing less work.


----------



## Betroz

Robertomcat said:


> Yes, at maximum load it runs at 1.408v and 5.2GHz fixed. I have the ring set at 4.8GHz. The maximum temperatures are 85°


For a computer that does serious work and needs to be completely stable, I would not overclock it at all. Extra performance is great, but not at the risk of losing your work and money.


----------



## Betroz

0451 said:


> run Aida64 and some benchmarks that simulate your workload and see what ring clock it likes. I can run my ring up to 51,


Prime 95 non-avx, in-place 112k fft is a good test for that (newest version).


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Betroz said:


> Prime 95 non-avx, in-place 112k fft is a good test for that (newest version).


P95 will reveal instability, but are there any benchmarks that reveal how ring speed impacts performance?


----------



## Betroz

0451 said:


> but are there any benchmarks that reveal how ring speed impacts performance?


Sorry, I misunderstood you.


----------



## Falkentyne

0451 said:


> P95 will reveal instability, but are there any benchmarks that reveal how ring speed impacts performance?


LinX 0.9.7 with 35000 sample size is a possible way, but first test it at very low ring and lower core, like x47 core, x37 ring, then go up to x44, since that's much easier to stabilize as LinX 35000 is harder to get stable than Prime95 small FFT AVX1 !!

Cinebench R20 with "realtime" priority (set it in task manager, be warned rendering screen will freeze until completed) is another way.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

Robertomcat said:


> So the most I can use to make it safe is an LLC 4? I'm just looking for the motherboard to be stable, I'm not going to use the AVX instructions. What matters most to me is to be able to use it as often as possible, but I am not very experienced in this matter. The computer is going to be entirely for work, and tomorrow I'm going to add another 64GB package of RAM and it will have a total of 128GB Corsair LPX 3600MHz.
> 
> I understand that the processor's lot number does not identify anything about the quality of the processor, right?


Yeah the batch number does not mean anything. I suggest Z490 Unify for your needs. A very decent board.

LLC4 is the most proper LLC on MSI.


----------



## ducegt

Betroz said:


> For those who don't know, this is my current settings :


The kit we're using is very touchy. I'm almost finalized on settings for 4400CL18. RTLs 66s is the lowest it will go and if I set IOLs manually any less than auto 13/14, it won't post. In BIOS, DIMM voltage 1.415, IO 1.3 and SA 1.39 passed 10 hours of Karhu with zero errors. IO 1.28 and SA 1.39 gave 3 errors in 10 hours. SA too low is giving my page fault in nonpaged area BSODs and if it won't do 10 hours at SA1.37, 1.39 it will stay at.

At XMPII, default 4000CL17, I needed IO 1.38 to test so long without errors so I'm seeing some confusing stuff as well. I forgot to peel off the plastic on the sticks until yesterday, but that didn't seem to effect temperatures at all. Temps peak in the low 50's without much airflow going over them now.


----------



## Sugi

Should I make a new thread or is it cool to just post here? I'm hitting 99c-100c already.... at stock.


I was gonna start overclocking my 10900k. I just got it, but I gotta start off with the baseline. Prime95 with small FFTs, five seconds in I am already hitting mid 90c to high 90c with a single core hitting 99c. ***! I reseated my AIO. Thermal paste is good. AIO is tightly screwed into the MB. The AIO fans are spinning up and it is directly connected to the MB. Am I that unlucky?

*Equipment:*
10900k Batch: X033H281
Liquid Freezer II 280
Gigabyte Vision D ~Bio version F2
Win 10 2004
RMx 850w

*Bios*: Nothing has been adjusted
XMP Default ~Turned off 
Haven't touched anything

*First Test:*
31-35c Baseline
92c-100c Prime95 Small FFTs

*Second Test: *~Reseated AIO
25c-28c Baseline
91c-99c Prime95 Small FFTs


----------



## criskoe

Sugi said:


> Should I make a new thread or is it cool to just post here? I'm hitting 99c-100c already.... at stock.
> 
> 
> I was gonna start overclocking my 10900k. I just got it, but I gotta start off with the baseline. Prime95 with small FFTs, five seconds in I am already hitting mid 90c to high 90c with a single core hitting 99c. ***! I reseated my AIO. Thermal paste is good. AIO is tightly screwed into the MB. The AIO fans are spinning up and it is directly connected to the MB. Am I that unlucky?
> 
> *Equipment:*
> 10900k Batch: X033H281
> Liquid Freezer II 280
> Gigabyte Vision D ~Bio version F2
> Win 10 2004
> RMx 850w
> 
> *Bios*: Nothing has been adjusted
> XMP Default ~Turned off
> Haven't touched anything
> 
> *First Test:*
> 31-35c Baseline
> 92c-100c Prime95 Small FFTs
> 
> *Second Test: *~Reseated AIO
> 25c-28c Baseline
> 91c-99c Prime95 Small FFTs


That’s seems crazy high. Something is not right at all. Especially if you just running stock.

either you have bad contact or no coolant flow I would say.

Do the aio tubes get warm? can you confirm the pump is actually pumping?

You really might need to double check your mount again. Make sure you used right sized stand offs? also might help too pull off the cooler again and take a picture of the thermal paste spread and post it here. That should be able to show if your making good contact Or not.

it’s gotta be one of the two things above tho.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Betroz said:


> Sorry, I misunderstood you.





Falkentyne said:


> LinX 0.9.7 with 35000 sample size is a possible way, but first test it at very low ring and lower core, like x47 core, x37 ring, then go up to x44, since that's much easier to stabilize as LinX 35000 is harder to get stable than Prime95 small FFT AVX1 !!
> 
> Cinebench R20 with "realtime" priority (set it in task manager, be warned rendering screen will freeze until completed) is another way.


I started at 53/47 core/ring and one of my residuals was off. No errors and very little throttling though.


----------



## Betroz

Sugi said:


> Am I that unlucky


Well if you are running Prime95 small FFTs with both AVX On...then those temps are perfectly normal (at least with power limits off in BIOS, and 4900 Mhz allcore). Turn AVX off, and test again 
If you want to test something with AVX On, then use Blender Open Data.


----------



## Betroz

0451 said:


> I started at 53/47 core/ring and one of my residuals was off. No errors and very little throttling though.


Judging from your screenshot, two of your residuals were off - number 6 and 9. Peak CPU Package Power draw was 338W, and based on the temps, that is too much for your cooling setup. At least for stresstesting, games another story I'm sure. Either set a power limit of 250-275W in BIOS, or go down to 5.1 Ghz allcore is what I would do


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Betroz said:


> Judging from your screenshot, two of your residuals were off - number 6 and 9. Peak CPU Package Power draw was 338W, and based on the temps, that is too much for your cooling setup. At least for stresstesting, games another story I'm sure. Either set a power limit of 250-275W in BIOS, or go down to 5.1 Ghz allcore is what I would do


Nice trolling.


----------



## Betroz

0451 said:


> Nice trolling.


Say what...?


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Betroz said:


> Say what...?


5.1 all core sounds generous but the residuals will probably be off at 5.1 if I did a proper 24/7 Linx stress test at worst case ambient temps (27C). I think maybe 4.9 allcore daily.


----------



## Betroz

0451 said:


> 5.1 all core sounds generous but the residuals will probably be off at 5.1 if I did a proper 24/7 Linx stress test at worst case ambient temps (27C). I think maybe 4.9 allcore daily.


I did not troll you. In your screenshot, the CPU was at 5.3 Ghz, 338W Peak Package Power, 102C max CPU Package temp.... It goes without saying, that you are pushing it.


----------



## Robertomcat

Betroz said:


> For a computer that does serious work and needs to be completely stable, I would not overclock it at all. Extra performance is great, but not at the risk of losing your work and money.


But these are tasks that need a few minutes of heavy loading, then they are random jobs, but everything depends on the moment, of course. It is not a continuous job in which the processor is always at 100%. Thank you!



OLDFATSHEEP said:


> Yeah the batch number does not mean anything. I suggest Z490 Unify for your needs. A very decent board.
> 
> LLC4 is the most proper LLC on MSI.


I'm sorry, I would have liked to but now I can't return the motherboard I currently have. I will consider the LLC4. Thank you!


----------



## Betroz

Robertomcat said:


> But these are tasks that need a few minutes of heavy loading, then they are random jobs, but everything depends on the moment, of course. It is not a continuous job in which the processor is always at 100%. Thank you!


Depending on your motherboard BIOS, you can experiment with Long and Short power duration limits. So when you do work that requires CPU speed, but only for a short time, you can set Short power duration of a higher number. Then for those tasks that take a long time, set Long power duration to something lower that your cooling solution can handle. I can't tell you what to set here, you must find that out for yourself


----------



## Robertomcat

Betroz said:


> Depending on your motherboard BIOS, you can experiment with Long and Short power duration limits. So when you do work that requires CPU speed, but only for a short time, you can set Short power duration of a higher number. Then for those tasks that take a long time, set Long power duration to something lower that your cooling solution can handle. I can't tell you what to set here, you must find that out for yourself


For the cooling there is no problem, I have a 240 × 60 radiator with a D5 pump, two Noctua industrial 3000 fans and an EKWB block. When fully loaded the maximum temperature is between 80° and 85° with an ambient temperature of 28° (which will drop later). Thank you.


----------



## Sugi

criskoe said:


> Do the aio tubes get warm? can you confirm the pump is actually pumping?


Sadly, I thought about that when I was laying down about to fall asleep, but 20c to low 30c is normal for ambient temperatures with an AIOs. The temperature should slowly start to raise if the pump was dead on arrival right?

I am using the correct standoffs for the AIO. I checked it when I reseated it and the paste looks good as well. It's very similar to this photo, but just a tiny bit less not spilling over the edges like in the photo.


http://imgur.com/RVJcwgJ

 If I was using the wrong standoffs with the AIO's mounts, the paste wouldn't be spread correctly or not at all. I'll double check the pump after work hours.



Betroz said:


> Well if you are running Prime95 small FFTs with both AVX On...then those temps are perfectly normal


AVX Offset was set to Auto by default. I'll turn it off and try again. Should I use another program instead?


----------



## Betroz

Sugi said:


> AVX Offset was set to Auto by default. I'll turn it off and try again. Should I use another program instead?


I meant turning off AVX inside the Prime95 program. Blender Open Data and AIDA64 stresstest is just fine (tick for Stress CPU and FPU, leave the rest off)


----------



## Sugi

criskoe said:


> That’s seems crazy high. Something is not right at all. Especially if you just running stock.





Betroz said:


> I meant turning off AVX inside the Prime95 program. Blender Open Data and AIDA64 stresstest is just fine (tick for Stress CPU and FPU, leave the rest off)


I ran RealBench at stock and it was better than Prime95. 15 minutes with RealBench. HWinfo’s Max was 88c 1.356v. I’m hoping to start overclocking now. How do you guys feel about the following approach for stable 24/7 without degrading the CPU?

XMP - Profile 1
MCP - off
CPU Core Ratio - 49x
CPU VCore - 1.25V ~Should I start higher or lower?

Increase Core Ratio until Windows starts crashing.
Then increase LLC to try and stabilize Windows.
Next increase Core Ratio and VCore until I hit my max or crashes

Max:
Temperature 95c ~Should I go for low 90c instead?
VCore 1.3V
LLC High ~Is high a good max for me for now?

I’m not sure where AVX offset comes into play. I know it needs to be low. But how low? 1 to 2? 1 to 5? I’ve always read it should be set to zero.


----------



## cstkl1

@Betroz 

round 1. 4400.. hmm its a bit weird atm. 4400C16 doable at 1.55v and even 4500
but i cannot do [email protected] properly. some issue with rtll i think.


[email protected]
M12F-098
*
Gskill Trident Z Royal F4-4266C17D-32GTRGB
51|48 - v/f 1.36 LL6
2x16gb 4300 16-17-17-36 @1.5v
vccio/vcssa - 1.25/1.25
txp/ppd - 0/0
*









feedback.. this board trains differently than m12E.. the sequence etc etc...


----------



## Betroz

cstkl1 said:


> round 1. 4400.. hmm its a bit weird atm. 4400C16 doable at 1.55v and even 4500
> but i cannot do [email protected] properly. some issue with rtll i think.


Yes some funky stuff. It seems the kit you are testing is about the same as mine. I am happy with my result. I just hope I don't kill or degrade my CPU by using high IO and SA voltage. Even with the SP63 you are testing now, IO and SA are way lower than what mine needs.

But why 38.4ns in AIDA64?


----------



## grelios1

guys how to tell if my 10900k 5.2ghz is stable? I'm new to overclocking btw I used the exact settings from an youtube vid and have been gaming with no problem ever since


----------



## cstkl1

Betroz said:


> Yes some funky stuff. It seems the kit you are testing is about the same as mine. I am happy with my result. I just hope I don't kill or degrade my CPU by using high IO and SA voltage. Even with the SP63 you are testing now, IO and SA are way lower than what mine needs.
> 
> But why 38.4ns in AIDA64?


its actually lower. windows not activated so tons of garbage running at the back.
also da fan on the oled ryujin its like a jet.


----------



## cstkl1

grelios1 said:


> guys how to tell if my 10900k 5.2ghz is stable? I'm new to overclocking btw I used the exact settings from an youtube vid and have been gaming with no problem ever since


omg. you followed a youtuber. even god shamino cannot do that but some dumbass youtuber did.. .. theres a reason why youtubers lurks around forums but dont dare to post .. their noobness will become public. 
the best guide to oc is actually the sp rating ai prediction asus had


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Hi Everyone.

I have an Asus Maximus XII Formula, an i9 10900kf, running Bios 0707, and an issue with CPU PLLs OC. HW-Info (v6.30-4240) shows = 2,320V all the time.

I tried change PLL Bandwidth to AUTO, Default, #1,#2,#3,#4 and the results are always the same: CPU PLLs OC = 2,320V.

I don't know if it is a bug or I really have 2,320V in CPU PLLs OC... and It could be a problem !

Maybe flash the old Bios?

Need some help...


----------



## Falkentyne

RobertoSampaio said:


> Hi Everyone.
> 
> I have an Asus Maximus XII Formula, an i9 10900kf, running Bios 0707, and an issue with CPU PLLs OC. HW-Info (v6.30-4240) shows = 2,320V all the time.
> 
> I tried change PLL Bandwidth to AUTO, Default, #1,#2,#3,#4 and the results are always the same: CPU PLLs OC = 2,320V.
> 
> I don't know if it is a bug or I really have 2,320V in CPU PLLs OC... and It could be a problem !
> 
> Maybe flash the old Bios?
> 
> Need some help...


Power off
Unplug the power supply cable or turn off the PSU switch.
Short the clear cmos jumper for 30 seconds, with another spare onboard jumper (e.g. Ln2 jumper), or a screwdriver, or press the clear CMOS button for 30 seconds.
Release/remove, then reapply power.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Arriving home I'll try clear cmos...
Another question... Is it a bug? There is no 5300 voltage and the voltage for 5100 and 5200 is the same...


----------



## hemon

Hi!

Sorry for the noob question but I really hope that someone can help me:

I received a new PSU Corsair HX1200 and now I noticed that my Asus Z490-E has for the CPU 2 power connector: 8+4pin. I wonder if I have to connect 2 CPU cable 8+4pin or just 1 8pin. What should I do?


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

hemon said:


> Hi!
> 
> Sorry for the noob question but I really hope that someone can help me:
> 
> I received a new PSU Corsair HX1200 and now I noticed that my Asus Z490-E has for the CPU 2 power connector: 8+4pin. I wonder if I have to connect 2 CPU cable 8+4pin or just 1 8pin. What should I do?


You only need the one 8pin, but could plug both in if you wish. The extra plug is for more extreme overclocking.


----------



## hemon

MrTOOSHORT said:


> You only need the one 8pin, but could plug both in if you wish. The extra plug is for more extreme overclocking.


And for the GPU 2080 I need two PCI-Cable 6+2pins, right?


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

hemon said:


> And for the GPU 2080 I need two PCI-Cable 6+2pins, right?


Gpus need all power plugs in use.


----------



## hemon

MrTOOSHORT said:


> Gpus need all power plugs in use.


Sorry if I ask again, is it a "yes, you need TWO separate PCI-Cable for that GPU"?


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

hemon said:


> Sorry if I ask again, is it a "yes, you need TWO separate PCI-Cable for that GPU"?



Two separate or a daisy chain pci-E cable( two plugs on one cable ). But best to use one cable for each power plug(8pin or 6pin)


----------



## hemon

MrTOOSHORT said:


> Two separate or a daisy chain pci-E cable( two plugs on one cable ). But best to use one cable for each power plug(8pin or 6pin)


Thank you very much for your fast reply, have a nice day!


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

What is error code d6 guy? No signal to monitor hut keyboard and mouse have light on.


----------



## cstkl1

RobertoSampaio said:


> Arriving home I'll try clear cmos...
> Another question... Is it a bug? There is no 5300 voltage and the voltage for 5100 and 5200 is the same...
> 
> View attachment 2460131


thats one nice vid. 5.1=5.2

can u try 5.2ghz @ Loadline level 6..


----------



## RobertoSampaio

The problem I have is the ambient temperature... It's about 30ºC...
So I'm stable 5.1GHz Vcore=1,25v LLC#6, but Temps go around 90ºC

5,2GHz I think I'll need 1,27V... 

Now I'm running stable 5GHz @1,18V LCC#5


----------



## Circaflex

5.3 stable at 1.38v LLC auto (MSI which I think is mode 3). I want to try and play with LLC some, the vcore will jump to 1.4 occasionally.


----------



## MattBaneLM

cstkl1 said:


> omg. you followed a youtuber. even god shamino cannot do that but some dumbass youtuber did.. .. theres a reason why youtubers lurks around forums but dont dare to post .. their noobness will become public.
> the best guide to oc is actually the sp rating ai prediction asus had


If you are saying the SP rating is a good indication I'm surprised as I've seen some very good evidence against that myself...
some stats for my example i suppose-
SP-67
5.3/4.9 @1.330 LLC7, point of dim ret as 1.430 ish to do 5.4
0088 bios on Apex XII
mems holding me back atm, the pic shows daily but 14 13 13 tight at 4666. 4800 c14 tight eludes me still.
batch X025Fxxx
3rd+4th cores strongest


----------



## cstkl1

MattBaneLM said:


> If you are saying the SP rating is a good indication I'm surprised as I've seen some very good evidence against that myself...
> some stats for my example i suppose-
> SP-67
> 5.3/4.9 @1.330 LLC7, point of dim ret as 1.430 ish to do 5.4
> 0088 bios on Apex XII
> mems holding me back atm, the pic shows daily but 14 13 13 tight at 4666. 4800 c14 tight eludes me still.
> batch X025Fxxx
> 3rd+4th cores strongest
> View attachment 2460245


got no story to tell but just to respond with a ss

just chose that vcore @L8 for fun. does not imply anything.


----------



## MattBaneLM

cstkl1 said:


> got no story to tell but just to respond with a ss
> 
> just chose that vcore @L8 for fun. does not imply anything.


so it overshoots to what loaded?

i see you are on the edge of initial rtl range, switch to cr1 if you want to increase freq IF your next jump up fails bro. i hit that wall thinking that cr2 had to be easier but not in my kits case.
curiosity question- if you increase the cache would you have to also bump vcore or wil it handle same vcore up to about 49-50 multi dude?


----------



## cstkl1

MattBaneLM said:


> so it overshoots to what loaded?
> 
> i see you are on the edge of initial rtl range, switch to cr1 if you want to increase freq IF your next jump up fails bro. i hit that wall thinking that cr2 had to be easier but not in my kits case.
> curiosity question- if you increase the cache would you have to also bump vcore or wil it handle same vcore up to about 49-50 multi dude?


you dont need init rtl.. ppl still dont understand what init does..
and LL8 is exact.. its undershoot by 8-16mv. on load. for software reading but should be accurate on what you set since loadline is at 0mohm

is it because of that idiot in linus thread so call ram guru "it narrows rtl training" garbage. the range for cl16 if want to know is 58 thats the lowest cl16 can do. how to do that for high ram clock. just pump in more vcssa. what will be the problem?? you will hit crosstalk termination voltages. if you are not going to lower iol, pointless talking about init rtl.

these are dual ranks two dimm. my limit is 4600c15.

that screenshot does not imply anything bro.

sp63 on other rig can do a screenshot 1.33v 5.3 4400cl16 also..

thats not stable btw.. far from it
thats just my 5.2ghz stable voltage...

your sp rating i am guess a non issue because of the temps you are at.

cache two problem
some ppl their cache scales perfectly with their cpu hence the -3 no problem.. some even better to a point thecan to 1:1.. and some their binning of cache and cores are totally screwed up..

myth is cache limits vram ... .
lower cache requires lower vccio/vcssa.. thats about it but also higher cpu requires more vccio and vcssa has a sweet spot on diff with vccio.. so that might have to go up..


----------



## MattBaneLM

cstkl1 said:


> you dont need init rtl.. ppl still dont understand what init does..
> and LL8 is exact.. its undershoot by 8-16mv. on load. for software reading but should be accurate on what you set since loadline is at 0mohm
> 
> is it because of that idiot in linus thread so call ram guru "it narrows rtl training" garbage. the range for cl16 if want to know is 58 thats the lowest cl16 can do. how to do that for high ram clock. just pump in more vcssa. what will be the problem?? you will hit crosstalk termination voltages. if you are not going to lower iol, pointless talking about init rtl.
> 
> these are dual ranks two dimm. my limit is 4600c15.
> 
> that screenshot does not imply anything bro.
> 
> sp63 on other rig can do a screenshot 1.33v 5.3 4400cl16 also..
> 
> thats not stable btw.. far from it
> thats just my 5.2ghz stable voltage...
> 
> your sp rating i am guess a non issue because of the temps you are at.
> 
> cache two problem
> some ppl their cache scales perfectly with their cpu hence the -3 no problem.. some even better to a point thecan to 1:1.. and some their binning of cache and cores are totally screwed up..
> 
> myth is cache limits vram ... .
> lower cache requires lower vccio/vcssa.. thats about it but also higher cpu requires more vccio and vcssa has a sweet spot on diff with vccio.. so that might have to go up..



well theres a couple of ways you can come at the rtl/iol thing i'm sure ur aware, I did some of my testing with help from two top mem ocer's and know they know their stuff. when you said this - "the range for cl16 if want to know is 58 thats the lowest cl16 can do " how is it that bullants rtl's are at i think 55/56 @ 4800 very tight? I'm always happy to learn more and be corrected when I'm a dumbass btw....
btw i should have said " if trying auto settings.... yadda yadda....
dual rakned, ok gotcha. you would have to be more accurate with your dd and dg timings then is that right?


----------



## MattBaneLM

MattBaneLM said:


> well theres a couple of ways you can come at the rtl/iol thing i'm sure ur aware, I did some of my testing with help from two top mem ocer's and know they know their stuff. when you said this - "the range for cl16 if want to know is 58 thats the lowest cl16 can do " how is it that bullants rtl's are at i think 55/56 @ 4800 very tight? I'm always happy to learn more and be corrected when I'm a dumbass btw....
> btw i should have said " if trying auto settings.... yadda yadda....
> dual rakned, ok gotcha. you would have to be more accurate with your dd and dg timings then is that right?





cstkl1 said:


> you dont need init rtl.. ppl still dont understand what init does..
> and LL8 is exact.. its undershoot by 8-16mv. on load. for software reading but should be accurate on what you set since loadline is at 0mohm
> 
> is it because of that idiot in linus thread so call ram guru "it narrows rtl training" garbage. the range for cl16 if want to know is 58 thats the lowest cl16 can do. how to do that for high ram clock. just pump in more vcssa. what will be the problem?? you will hit crosstalk termination voltages. if you are not going to lower iol, pointless talking about init rtl.
> 
> these are dual ranks two dimm. my limit is 4600c15.
> 
> that screenshot does not imply anything bro.
> 
> sp63 on other rig can do a screenshot 1.33v 5.3 4400cl16 also..
> 
> thats not stable btw.. far from it
> thats just my 5.2ghz stable voltage...
> 
> your sp rating i am guess a non issue because of the temps you are at.
> 
> cache two problem
> some ppl their cache scales perfectly with their cpu hence the -3 no problem.. some even better to a point thecan to 1:1.. and some their binning of cache and cores are totally screwed up..
> 
> myth is cache limits vram ... .
> lower cache requires lower vccio/vcssa.. thats about it but also higher cpu requires more vccio and vcssa has a sweet spot on diff with vccio.. so that might have to go up..


also what did this mean?? -"got no story to tell but just to respond with a ss ". did you think i was challenging you? lol


----------



## cstkl1

MattBaneLM said:


> also what did this mean?? -"got no story to tell but just to respond with a ss ". did you think i was challenging you? lol


no i meant.. i got nothing to say... its just that ss doesnt show stability that i can daily running at that.


----------



## cstkl1

MattBaneLM said:


> well theres a couple of ways you can come at the rtl/iol thing i'm sure ur aware, I did some of my testing with help from two top mem ocer's and know they know their stuff. when you said this - "the range for cl16 if want to know is 58 thats the lowest cl16 can do " how is it that bullants rtl's are at i think 55/56 @ 4800 very tight? I'm always happy to learn more and be corrected when I'm a dumbass btw....
> btw i should have said " if trying auto settings.... yadda yadda....
> dual rakned, ok gotcha. you would have to be more accurate with your dd and dg timings then is that right?


actually dual rank these sticks you can clock them like single ranks.. just a extra rtl with more banwidth..
tCL is what affects RTL and tcdd write.

so rtl why we always end up say using a certain range of iols like my case [email protected] i try to keep at that .. as we go up in frequency the issue is not RTL is actually IOL with RTL init... so thats how i always look at it......

the math on init rtl is sound to find the minimum but because it doesnt account for frequency pairing which changes the iol and rtl init.. its kindda pointless...

55/56.. on 1T..... hmmm 4700... 62 C17, 60 C16, 58 C15, 56 C14.. yeah you should be having a iol 6 at 55...
i wouldnt bother with those.. what u want a vccio thats scalable..... 

what affects tCL in training is not rtl.. its actually tWCL, tWtr, tRDWR. from my view.. lower tWCL higher tRDWR combination with tWR_L/S.. you can reduce the stress on vcssa which allowes you do get a lower RTL... thats how i clock... 
and from what i know my kits.. the even tCL are similar in math with odds similar with math on them.. .. example because i these kits do very well on CL16... CL18 is easy.. but CL17/CL15.. not so much...

the second kit the 4266C17.. got to be the hardest.. [email protected] easy peasy stable.. but you would think 4400C17 should be none issue.. boy.. its tought.. it ony trains at 1.55v when it should be stable at 1.5v...

cl 14.. hmm let met try.. i just tested up to 4kc14 only...the issue is scaling cause CL17/16 will scale easily but CL15/Cl14..... have in between tRCD/tRP that causes issues...

btw disabling Mwait you can clock higher cpu clock at the expense of high idle temp...windows doesn't like it though


----------



## MattBaneLM

cstkl1 said:


> actually dual rank these sticks you can clock them like single ranks.. just a extra rtl with more banwidth..
> tCL is what affects RTL and tcdd write.
> 
> so rtl why we always end up say using a certain range of iols like my case [email protected] i try to keep at that .. as we go up in frequency the issue is not RTL is actually IOL with RTL init... so thats how i always look at it......
> 
> the math on init rtl is sound to find the minimum but because it doesnt account for frequency pairing which changes the iol and rtl init.. its kindda pointless...
> 
> 55/56.. on 1T..... hmmm 4700... 62 C17, 60 C16, 58 C15, 56 C14.. yeah you should be having a iol 6 at 55...
> i wouldnt bother with those.. what u want a vccio thats scalable.....
> 
> what affects tCL in training is not rtl.. its actually tWCL, tWtr, tRDWR. from my view.. lower tWCL higher tRDWR combination with tWR_L/S.. you can reduce the stress on vcssa which allowes you do get a lower RTL... thats how i clock...
> and from what i know my kits.. the even tCL are similar in math with odds similar with math on them.. .. example because i these kits do very well on CL16... CL18 is easy.. but CL17/CL15.. not so much...
> 
> the second kit the 4266C17.. got to be the hardest.. [email protected] easy peasy stable.. but you would think 4400C17 should be none issue.. boy.. its tought.. it ony trains at 1.55v when it should be stable at 1.5v...
> 
> cl 14.. hmm let met try.. i just tested up to 4kc14 only...the issue is scaling cause CL17/16 will scale easily but CL15/Cl14..... have in between tRCD/tRP that causes issues...
> 
> btw disabling Mwait you can clock higher cpu clock at the expense of high idle temp...windows doesn't like it though


ok theresa bunch there to respond to. i can see this thread being a wealth of knowledge for many for years to come like no other re timings before too long lol.
firstly thanks for taking the time to do this chat. the maths, been dying to hear that. i've been on the "figure out the maths" ad-hock as ebst i can. throw it at me baby. 
ok so on the whole i adjust offset to tune as opposed to initial however i have been known to just manually do em as well when knowing ideal.
now.. math. as i am lead to believe the math for initial is IOL + IOL offset+clx2 + IO but obviously thats different to how you do it. whats that equation and is frequency the variable (only one?)? sorry if my writing of the "formula(?)" isn't correct. ok with math in the head aint helping me get technically correct lol. ok so RDWR's are involved in training, thats a massive peice of the puzzle and prob the bit i really needed. i'm using a TG 3600 c14 kit that i can do waza stable 4666 c14 tight but struggling to hit the 4800. i'm trying to stick to "main strap" or 1/2's via odd freq as the 100 strap seems to work quite high but surely the 133 is the go? yes? no? so 4544/4800/ with 4666 as the half because i couldnt make the jump to 4800 yet. overthinking straps too much? seemed like 4600 and 4700 were not special anyway... (perhaps it's a strap thing with you and c17 4400?) even 4800 c19 totally eluded me early on when i tried but thats prob due to the initial needed blowing out over 127 i figured? like cr2 would make me do...?


----------



## caki

trying to crank up my sp99 chip (bios vf points- 52:1,34 / 53:1,37) to 5.5 (ht off for 2 hottest cores). I'm rock stable at 54/49 (ht off on same 2 cores) with bios vcore 1,[email protected] 1.35 Vmin however when i try for 55/49 i can't even run a single bench without crashing within a minute or 2 even around 1,[email protected] Is it possible that i have voltage "the wall" after 5.4? Max temp for 54 crawls up till 70-72 (23C ambient) and for 55 i see around mid 70s before it crashes so i expect it to reach mid 80s during the same stress test. any ideas for this poor wannabe overclocker?


----------



## MattBaneLM

cstkl1 said:


> actually dual rank these sticks you can clock them like single ranks.. just a extra rtl with more banwidth..
> tCL is what affects RTL and tcdd write.
> 
> so rtl why we always end up say using a certain range of iols like my case [email protected] i try to keep at that .. as we go up in frequency the issue is not RTL is actually IOL with RTL init... so thats how i always look at it......
> 
> the math on init rtl is sound to find the minimum but because it doesnt account for frequency pairing which changes the iol and rtl init.. its kindda pointless...
> 
> 55/56.. on 1T..... hmmm 4700... 62 C17, 60 C16, 58 C15, 56 C14.. yeah you should be having a iol 6 at 55...
> i wouldnt bother with those.. what u want a vccio thats scalable.....
> 
> what affects tCL in training is not rtl.. its actually tWCL, tWtr, tRDWR. from my view.. lower tWCL higher tRDWR combination with tWR_L/S.. you can reduce the stress on vcssa which allowes you do get a lower RTL... thats how i clock...
> and from what i know my kits.. the even tCL are similar in math with odds similar with math on them.. .. example because i these kits do very well on CL16... CL18 is easy.. but CL17/CL15.. not so much...
> 
> the second kit the 4266C17.. got to be the hardest.. [email protected] easy peasy stable.. but you would think 4400C17 should be none issue.. boy.. its tought.. it ony trains at 1.55v when it should be stable at 1.5v...
> 
> cl 14.. hmm let met try.. i just tested up to 4kc14 only...the issue is scaling cause CL17/16 will scale easily but CL15/Cl14..... have in between tRCD/tRP that causes issues...
> 
> btw disabling Mwait you can clock higher cpu clock at the expense of high idle temp...windows doesn't like it though


you set tWR_L/S manually or auto? adjusted on auto to match with tRDWR single and dual ganged settings yeah?


----------



## MattBaneLM

caki said:


> trying to crank up my sp99 chip (bios vf points- 52:1,34 / 53:1,37) to 5.5 (ht off for 2 hottest cores). I'm rock stable at 54/49 (ht off on same 2 cores) with bios vcore 1,[email protected] 1.35 Vmin however when i try for 55/49 i can't even run a single bench without crashing within a minute or 2 even around 1,[email protected] Is it possible that i have voltage "the wall" after 5.4? Max temp for 54 crawls up till 70-72 (23C ambient) and for 55 i see around mid 70s before it crashes so i expect it to reach mid 80s during the same stress test. any ideas for this poor wannabe overclocker?


often when i have reached the point of diminishing returns my voltage increments changed from sy .40 -.50vdim per 100MHz to double that so maybe round 1.480 ish.you just havent upped volts enough i'm thinking, conditions allowing.


----------



## Falkentyne

MattBaneLM said:


> you set tWR_L/S manually or auto? adjusted on auto to match with tRDWR single and dual ganged settings yeah?


You don't adjust those manually. If you're referring to TWTR_S/L ?
Adjust those by TWRRD_SG and _DG.
Formula is SG/DG - tCWL - 6 = TWTR S/L.


----------



## MattBaneLM

whats the reason for LLC4 brud?


----------



## cstkl1

MattBaneLM said:


> ok theresa bunch there to respond to. i can see this thread being a wealth of knowledge for many for years to come like no other re timings before too long lol.
> firstly thanks for taking the time to do this chat. the maths, been dying to hear that. i've been on the "figure out the maths" ad-hock as ebst i can. throw it at me baby.
> ok so on the whole i adjust offset to tune as opposed to initial however i have been known to just manually do em as well when knowing ideal.
> now.. math. as i am lead to believe the math for initial is IOL + IOL offset+clx2 + IO but obviously thats different to how you do it. whats that equation and is frequency the variable (only one?)? sorry if my writing of the "formula(?)" isn't correct. ok with math in the head aint helping me get technically correct lol. ok so RDWR's are involved in training, thats a massive peice of the puzzle and prob the bit i really needed. i'm using a TG 3600 c14 kit that i can do waza stable 4666 c14 tight but struggling to hit the 4800. i'm trying to stick to "main strap" or 1/2's via odd freq as the 100 strap seems to work quite high but surely the 133 is the go? yes? no? so 4544/4800/ with 4666 as the half because i couldnt make the jump to 4800 yet. overthinking straps too much? seemed like 4600 and 4700 were not special anyway... (perhaps it's a strap thing with you and c17 4400?) even 4800 c19 totally eluded me early on when i tried but thats prob due to the initial needed blowing out over 127 i figured? like cr2 would make me do...?


straps that thats the first thing i tried on da second kit on formula
extreme first kit no issue.. heck it just does perfect scaling hci stable.. 4400 C19 Straight @1.35, C18Straight @1.4 c17 Straight @1.45, [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected]

The second one is the issue
it starts with RDWR... this is whats most probably eluding you for your high clock cause it does for me..
First Kit 4400 scales good
Things Get FUnky at 4533-4600.. the same thing i saw on the other kit at 4400...

Straps.. it only matters if you are using Mode 1 with Dram clk
asus has two sets of dram clk.. one for ODD ratio and one thats proper for 100:100 and 100:133.. but at those clocks you are talking about this is irrelevant.

4800.. you got to ask clockemup. he manage too yesterday since he got a SP110 . 

@OLDFATSHEEP gave me a clue for RDWR . I expanded the math on it to a more exact scient hence y you seem using any tcwl i want.. even down to 8.. 

you got to ask @Nizzen cause i think he also using TG sticks but its a high ram clock one that EOL i think.. he is doing 4700C17 Stable.. or was it 4800... but its high...

if you having issue with C19 its gonna be the same with all CL.. afaik in 4 sets of kit all bdies has one thing in common.. they love CL16...


----------



## MattBaneLM

Falkentyne said:


> You don't adjust those manually. If you're referring to TWTR_S/L ?
> Adjust those by TWRRD_SG and _DG.
> Formula is SG/DG - tCWL - 6 = TWTR S/L.


thats why i asked, always know it to be that way but have seen some set man. maybe even bios profiles in fact but i would have to check that statement


----------



## cstkl1

MattBaneLM said:


> you set tWR_L/S manually or auto? adjusted on auto to match with tRDWR single and dual ganged settings yeah?


I set them 
mode 1 you can set either...
in mode 2 you have to set both


----------



## cstkl1

Falkentyne said:


> You don't adjust those manually. If you're referring to TWTR_S/L ?
> Adjust those by TWRRD_SG and _DG.
> Formula is SG/DG - tCWL - 6 = TWTR S/L.


wrong.. thats asrock. no asus... 

this part also i have no clue which dufus made it like all mobos follow a internal cke thats similar aka 6...
you can break those in mode 2.


----------



## cstkl1

caki said:


> trying to crank up my sp99 chip (bios vf points- 52:1,34 / 53:1,37) to 5.5 (ht off for 2 hottest cores). I'm rock stable at 54/49 (ht off on same 2 cores) with bios vcore 1,[email protected] 1.35 Vmin however when i try for 55/49 i can't even run a single bench without crashing within a minute or 2 even around 1,[email protected] Is it possible that i have voltage "the wall" after 5.4? Max temp for 54 crawls up till 70-72 (23C ambient) and for 55 i see around mid 70s before it crashes so i expect it to reach mid 80s during the same stress test. any ideas for this poor wannabe overclocker?


try disabling Mwait
just remember idle temp will be high if you do


----------



## MattBaneLM

cstkl1 said:


> straps that thats the first thing i tried on da second kit on formula
> extreme first kit no issue.. heck it just does perfect scaling hci stable.. 4400 C19 Straight @1.35, C18Straight @1.4 c17 Straight @1.45, [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected]
> 
> The second one is the issue
> it starts with RDWR... this is whats most probably eluding you for your high clock cause it does for me..
> First Kit 4400 scales good
> Things Get FUnky at 4533-4600.. the same thing i saw on the other kit at 4400...
> 
> Straps.. it only matters if you are using Mode 1 with Dram clk
> asus has two sets of dram clk.. one for ODD ratio and one thats proper for 100:100 and 100:133.. but at those clocks you are talking about this is irrelevant.
> 
> 4800.. you got to ask clockemup. he manage too yesterday since he got a SP110 .
> 
> @OLDFATSHEEP gave me a clue for RDWR . I expanded the math on it to a more exact scient hence y you seem using any tcwl i want.. even down to 8..
> 
> you got to ask @Nizzen cause i think he also using TG sticks but its a high ram clock one that EOL i think.. he is doing 4700C17 Stable.. or was it 4800... but its high...
> 
> if you having issue with C19 its gonna be the same with all CL.. afaik in 4 sets of kit all bdies has one thing in common.. they love CL16...


Things Get FUnky at 4533-4600.. the same thing i saw on the other kit at 4400...----------4533 for me is like a sweet spot esp for c14 tight, 4600 can eat a doodle, 4666 needed strictly 133 strap and eeeerrrrrrr i thiiiiink it's where mode1 became too loose with inits

***Straps.. it only matters if you are using Mode 1 with Dram clk- meaning you must combine mode 1 with dram clock period set manually to like 14?
**_asus has two sets of dram clk.. one for ODD ratio and one thats proper for 100:100 and 100:133.. but at those clocks you are talking about this is irrelevant. *!_! hey dont stop there, please expand on this area  why irrelevant? maybe i misunderstood cause it sounded v relevane till you poo-bah'd it lol


----------



## cstkl1

MattBaneLM said:


> Things Get FUnky at 4533-4600.. the same thing i saw on the other kit at 4400...----------4533 for me is like a sweet spot esp for c14 tight, 4600 can eat a doodle, 4666 needed strictly 133 strap and eeeerrrrrrr i thiiiiink it's where mode1 became too loose with inits
> 
> ***Straps.. it only matters if you are using Mode 1 with Dram clk- meaning you must combine mode 1 with dram clock period set manually to like 14?
> **_asus has two sets of dram clk.. one for ODD ratio and one thats proper for 100:100 and 100:133.. but at those clocks you are talking about this is irrelevant. *!_! hey dont stop there, please expand on this area  why irrelevant? maybe i misunderstood cause it sounded v relevane till you poo-bah'd it lol


oh .. dram clk is asus pre configured 2nd/3rd timings based on ram clocks... so say u want 4k ram but you are lazy to go find out what jdec 2133 is.. simple set dram clk 16.. done. all the subs will be the for 2133 when you are at 4k ram one.. try it.. odd ratios are different btw..
but yeah this is irrelevant for high dram clocks especially bdie cause we use timings that even JDEC will be embarrassed to use.

this also i have no clue why nobody even knows noticed about this since they started introducing it back in ddr2...


----------



## MattBaneLM

cstkl1 said:


> I set them
> mode 1 you can set either...
> in mode 2 you have to set both


have to.... in order to.... ? get init rtl to train effi?


----------



## MattBaneLM

cstkl1 said:


> oh .. dram clk is asus pre configured 2nd/3rd timings based on ram clocks... so say u want 4k ram but you are lazy to go find out what jdec 2133 is.. simple set dram clk 16.. done. all the subs will be the for 2133 when you are at 4k ram one.. try it.. odd ratios are different btw..
> but yeah this is irrelevant for high dram clocks especially bdie cause we use timings that even JDEC will be embarrassed to use.
> 
> this also i have no clue why nobody even knows noticed about this since they started introducing it back in ddr2...


bit lost there, did you mean c16 for 2400?
but the dram clk thing, ty, a lesser gap filled in.
so you think its a possibility that my mem starts with trdwr and that throws out init when high?
and did you used to go by a diff name and we knew each other? cause if you dont communicate like someone i knew i'll eat my own shorts
his alias described a sexually confused paladin in a cryptic way


----------



## cstkl1

MattBaneLM said:


> have to.... in order to.... ? get init rtl to train effi?


sorry 
i meant tWTR_L/S with tWRRD_sg/dg

for rtl on mode 2.. is just MODE 1 .. go to Memory Algo option set round trip latency training enabled..

just trust me forgoet about init RTL if u see the math how it plus and minuses and then the end result is just leave it.. 
just adjust rtl/iol with default 21.
at this point only if u want to lower IOL while maintaining a rtl.. thats where init rtl and iol offset helps...
the board does a superb job...


----------



## cstkl1

MattBaneLM said:


> bit lost there, did you mean c16 for 2400?
> but the dram clk thing, ty, a lesser gap filled in.
> so you think its a possibility that my mem starts with trdwr and that throws out init when high?


ok dram clk is paired with ram frequency option
so leave ratio at auto
first i think is 800
thats dram clk 1
count from 800 to 2133.. .. 2133 is 16
thats dram clk 16

odd ratios are different they dont follow this... they got a different set..

but seriously this is something nobody uses in this day and age cause we are going way way past this and using tighter timings based on bdie characteristic.


----------



## cstkl1

twrrd_sg/dg.. this @OLDFATSHEEP has a explanation better about what that msi FAE ocer said...

what i noticed when u go higher clock.. the margin gets narrower.. so higher twrrd_sg/dg wrong twcl.. will infact make things worse... 
so find the correct pairing...


----------



## MattBaneLM

cstkl1 said:


> twrrd_sg/dg.. this @OLDFATSHEEP has a explanation better about what that msi FAE ocer said...
> 
> what i noticed when u go higher clock.. the margin gets narrower.. so higher twrrd_sg/dg wrong twcl.. will infact make things worse...
> so find the correct pairing...


ok so may need to tighten not loosen twrrd? and marrying it to right twcl is a couple hrs testing combo's is it?


----------



## cstkl1

@MattBaneLM 
watch his videos





thats the 4800 timings


----------



## MattBaneLM

in your own words, what happens when you go from 21 to 22 iol off?


----------



## MattBaneLM

onya ty i will


----------



## cstkl1

MattBaneLM said:


> ok so may need to tighten not loosen twrrd? and marrying it to right twcl is a couple hrs testing combo's is it?


when its correct. is half a second training. lol. thats when you know its correct. 

hope that video helps.


----------



## MattBaneLM

thai!, kow bah sood sood


----------



## cstkl1

MattBaneLM said:


> in your own words, what happens when you go from 21 to 22 iol off?


reduce iol by 1 while maintaining same rtl. thats all. wont give you any benefit btw.
caveat is your init rtl not at the edge. if its exact at 21.. then increase it by 2.

no gain in performance. and if anything.. its just adding more training complexities to be more inconsistent.


----------



## MattBaneLM

imma gonna need to sit down with a coffee pen n paper lolpausing a lot . he mentioned txp/ppd. just started testing it tbh, given this statement-tXP does nothing to performance if PPD is at 0. PPD at 0 disables power down and since tXP revolves around exiting power down tXP does nothing we do or dont set ppd to 0?, or only touch txp?


----------



## MattBaneLM

oh and damn his io and sa were high, im using 1.35/1.475 io/sa for 4666 c14 trfc240 tight hes at 1.45/1.60 for 4600 c17, wow

ahhh maybe an es chip i'll look


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Hi guys,

Is this a good memory kit?

Kingston HyperX KHX3733C19D4/16GX

@ 1865 MHz 19-23-23-42 (CL-RCD-RP-RAS) / 88-653-486-299-9-8-40 (RC-RFC1-RFC2-RFC4-RRDL-RRDS-FAW)

@ 1801 MHz 18-21-21-39 (CL-RCD-RP-RAS) / 85-631-469-289-9-8-36 (RC-RFC1-RFC2-RFC4-RRDL-RRDS-FAW)

Which is better to run? @ 1865 or @ 1801

What I could change for better performance?


----------



## MattBaneLM

never had a hynix or micron kit mate, it's not b-die. run thaiphoon burnerto check the ic's and that will help with what to do next


RobertoSampaio said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> Is this a good memory kit?
> 
> Kingston HyperX KHX3733C19D4/16GX
> 
> @ 1865 MHz 19-23-23-42 (CL-RCD-RP-RAS) / 88-653-486-299-9-8-40 (RC-RFC1-RFC2-RFC4-RRDL-RRDS-FAW)
> 
> @ 1801 MHz 18-21-21-39 (CL-RCD-RP-RAS) / 85-631-469-289-9-8-36 (RC-RFC1-RFC2-RFC4-RRDL-RRDS-FAW)
> 
> Which is better to run? @ 1865 or @ 1801
> 
> What I could change for better performance?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

This one?









Thaiphoon Burner


Thaiphoon Burner is the number one solution on the software market to work with SPD firmware of DRAM modules of PC. It is designed to meet the needs of both end-users and companies...




www.filehorse.com













Download Thaiphoon Burner 16.7.0.4 Build 0509 Shareware / 16.7.0.3 Build 0109 Freeware


Download Thaiphoon Burner - This application displays multiple information about Serial Presence Detect and allows you to modify the firmware of SPD EEPROM devices




www.softpedia.com


----------



## RobertoSampaio

What should I do next?
I never try to overclock memories..


Manufacturing Description
​

Module Manufacturer:KingstonModule Part Number:KHX3733C19D4/16GXModule Series:Undefined HyperX SeriesDRAM Manufacturer:HynixDRAM Components:H5AN8G8NDJR-UHCDRAM Die Revision / Process Node:D / 17 nmModule Manufacturing Date:Week 08, 2020Manufacturing Date Decoded:February 17-21, 2020Module Manufacturing Location:Keelung, TaiwanModule Serial Number:D16857EFhManufacturing Identification Number:0000008705923Module PCB Revision:00h

Physical & Logical Attributes
​

Fundamental Memory Class:DDR4 SDRAMModule Speed Grade:DDR4-2400T downbinBase Module Type:UDIMM (133.35 mm)Module Capacity:16 GBReference Raw Card:B2 (8 layers)JEDEC Raw Card Designer:SamsungModule Nominal Height:31 < H <= 32 mmModule Thickness Maximum, Front:1 < T <= 2 mmModule Thickness Maximum, Back:1 < T <= 2 mmNumber of DIMM Ranks:2Address Mapping from Edge Connector to DRAM:MirroredDRAM Device Package:Standard MonolithicDRAM Device Package Type:78-ball FBGADRAM Device Die Count:Single dieSignal Loading:Not specifiedNumber of Column Addresses:10 bitsNumber of Row Addresses:16 bitsNumber of Bank Addresses:2 bits (4 banks)Bank Group Addressing:2 bits (4 groups)DRAM Device Width:8 bitsProgrammed DRAM Density:8 GbCalculated DRAM Density:8 GbNumber of DRAM components:16DRAM Page Size:1 KBPrimary Memory Bus Width:64 bitsMemory Bus Width Extension:0 bitsDRAM Post Package Repair:SupportedSoft Post Package Repair:Supported

DRAM Timing Parameters
​

Fine Timebase:0.001 nsMedium Timebase:0.125 nsCAS Latencies Supported:10T, 11T, 12T, 13T,
14T, 15T, 16T, 17T,
18TMinimum Clock Cycle Time (tCK min):0.833 ns (1200.48 MHz)Maximum Clock Cycle Time (tCK max):1.600 ns (625.00 MHz)CAS# Latency Time (tAA min):13.750 nsRAS# to CAS# Delay Time (tRCD min):13.750 nsRow Precharge Delay Time (tRP min):13.750 nsActive to Precharge Delay Time (tRAS min):32.000 nsAct to Act/Refresh Delay Time (tRC min):45.750 nsNormal Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC1 min):350.000 ns2x mode Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC2 min):260.000 ns4x mode Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC4 min):160.000 nsShort Row Active to Row Active Delay (tRRD_S min):3.300 nsLong Row Active to Row Active Delay (tRRD_L min):4.900 nsWrite Recovery Time (tWR min):15.000 nsShort Write to Read Command Delay (tWTR_S min):2.500 nsLong Write to Read Command Delay (tWTR_L min):7.500 nsLong CAS to CAS Delay Time (tCCD_L min):5.000 nsFour Active Windows Delay (tFAW min):21.000 nsMaximum Active Window (tMAW):8192*tREFIMaximum Activate Count (MAC):Unlimited MACDRAM VDD 1.20 V operable/endurant:Yes/Yes

Thermal Parameters
​

Module Thermal Sensor:Not Incorporated

SPD Protocol
​

SPD Revision:1.1SPD Bytes Total:512SPD Bytes Used:384SPD Checksum (Bytes 00h-7Dh):F56Ch (OK)SPD Checksum (Bytes 80h-FDh):C6ABh (OK)

Part number details
​

JEDEC DIMM Label:16GB 2Rx8 PC4-2400T-UB2-11

​

FrequencyCASRCDRPRASRCRRDSRRDLWRWTRSWTRLFAW1200 MHz1817173955461839261200 MHz1717173955461839261067 MHz1615153549461638231067 MHz151515354946163823933 MHz141313304345143720933 MHz131313304345143720800 MHz121111263734122617800 MHz111111263734122617667 MHz101010223134102514

Intel Extreme Memory Profiles
​�

XMP ParameterProfile 1Profile 2Profiles Revision: 2.0Profile 1 (Certified) Enables: YesProfile 2 (Extreme) Enables: YesProfile 1 Channel Config: 2 DIMM/channelProfile 2 Channel Config: 2 DIMM/channelSpeed Grade:DDR4-3732DDR4-3604DRAM Clock Frequency:1866 MHz1802 MHzModule VDD Voltage Level:1.35 V1.35 VMinimum DRAM Cycle Time (tCK):0.536 ns0.555 nsCAS Latencies Supported:18T,17T,16T,15T,
14T,13T,12T,11T,
10T18T,17T,16T,15T,
14T,13T,12T,11T,
10TCAS Latency Time (tAA):19T17TRAS# to CAS# Delay Time (tRCD):23T21TRow Precharge Delay Time (tRP):23T21TActive to Precharge Delay Time (tRAS):42T39TActive to Active/Refresh Delay Time (tRC):88T85TFour Activate Window Delay Time (tFAW):40T36TShort Activate to Activate Delay Time (tRRD_S):7T7TLong Activate to Activate Delay Time (tRRD_L):9T9TNormal Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC1):653T631T2x mode Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC2):486T469T4x mode Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC4):299T289T

[TD]Show delays in nanoseconds[/TD]
[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]
​*In Nanoseconds*
​MANUFACTURING DESCRIPTION

Module Manufacturer:KingstonModule Part Number:KHX3733C19D4/16GXModule Series:Undefined HyperX SeriesDRAM Manufacturer:HynixDRAM Components:H5AN8G8NDJR-UHCDRAM Die Revision / Process Node:D / 17 nmModule Manufacturing Date:Week 08, 2020Manufacturing Date Decoded:February 17-21, 2020Module Manufacturing Location:Keelung, TaiwanModule Serial Number:D16857EFhManufacturing Identification Number:0000008705923Module PCB Revision:00h
PHYSICAL & LOGICAL ATTRIBUTES

Fundamental Memory Class:DDR4 SDRAMModule Speed Grade:DDR4-2400T downbinBase Module Type:UDIMM (133.35 mm)Module Capacity:16 GBReference Raw Card:B2 (8 layers)JEDEC Raw Card Designer:SamsungModule Nominal Height:31 < H <= 32 mmModule Thickness Maximum, Front:1 < T <= 2 mmModule Thickness Maximum, Back:1 < T <= 2 mmNumber of DIMM Ranks:2Address Mapping from Edge Connector to DRAM:MirroredDRAM Device Package:Standard MonolithicDRAM Device Package Type:78-ball FBGADRAM Device Die Count:Single dieSignal Loading:Not specifiedNumber of Column Addresses:10 bitsNumber of Row Addresses:16 bitsNumber of Bank Addresses:2 bits (4 banks)Bank Group Addressing:2 bits (4 groups)DRAM Device Width:8 bitsProgrammed DRAM Density:8 GbCalculated DRAM Density:8 GbNumber of DRAM components:16DRAM Page Size:1 KBPrimary Memory Bus Width:64 bitsMemory Bus Width Extension:0 bitsDRAM Post Package Repair:SupportedSoft Post Package Repair:Supported
DRAM TIMING PARAMETERS

Fine Timebase:0.001 nsMedium Timebase:0.125 nsCAS Latencies Supported:10T, 11T, 12T, 13T,
14T, 15T, 16T, 17T,
18TMinimum Clock Cycle Time (tCK min):0.833 ns (1200.48 MHz)Maximum Clock Cycle Time (tCK max):1.600 ns (625.00 MHz)CAS# Latency Time (tAA min):13.750 nsRAS# to CAS# Delay Time (tRCD min):13.750 nsRow Precharge Delay Time (tRP min):13.750 nsActive to Precharge Delay Time (tRAS min):32.000 nsAct to Act/Refresh Delay Time (tRC min):45.750 nsNormal Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC1 min):350.000 ns2x mode Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC2 min):260.000 ns4x mode Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC4 min):160.000 nsShort Row Active to Row Active Delay (tRRD_S min):3.300 nsLong Row Active to Row Active Delay (tRRD_L min):4.900 nsWrite Recovery Time (tWR min):15.000 nsShort Write to Read Command Delay (tWTR_S min):2.500 nsLong Write to Read Command Delay (tWTR_L min):7.500 nsLong CAS to CAS Delay Time (tCCD_L min):5.000 nsFour Active Windows Delay (tFAW min):21.000 nsMaximum Active Window (tMAW):8192*tREFIMaximum Activate Count (MAC):Unlimited MACDRAM VDD 1.20 V operable/endurant:Yes/Yes
THERMAL PARAMETERS

Module Thermal Sensor:Not Incorporated
SPD PROTOCOL

SPD Revision:1.1SPD Bytes Total:512SPD Bytes Used:384SPD Checksum (Bytes 00h-7Dh):F56Ch (OK)SPD Checksum (Bytes 80h-FDh):C6ABh (OK)
PART NUMBER DETAILS

JEDEC DIMM Label:16GB 2Rx8 PC4-2400T-UB2-11

FrequencyCASRCDRPRASRCRRDSRRDLWRWTRSWTRLFAW1200 MHz1817173955461839261200 MHz1717173955461839261067 MHz1615153549461638231067 MHz151515354946163823933 MHz141313304345143720933 MHz131313304345143720800 MHz121111263734122617800 MHz111111263734122617667 MHz101010223134102514
INTEL EXTREME MEMORY PROFILES

XMP PARAMETERPROFILE 1PROFILE 2Profiles Revision: 2.0Profile 1 (Certified) Enables: YesProfile 2 (Extreme) Enables: YesProfile 1 Channel Config: 2 DIMM/channelProfile 2 Channel Config: 2 DIMM/channelSpeed Grade:DDR4-3732DDR4-3604DRAM Clock Frequency:1866 MHz1802 MHzModule VDD Voltage Level:1.35 V1.35 VMinimum DRAM Cycle Time (tCK):0.536 ns0.555 nsCAS Latencies Supported:18T,17T,16T,15T,
14T,13T,12T,11T,
10T18T,17T,16T,15T,
14T,13T,12T,11T,
10TCAS Latency Time (tAA):10.184 ns9.433 nsRAS# to CAS# Delay Time (tRCD):12.328 ns11.655 nsRow Precharge Delay Time (tRP):12.328 ns11.655 nsActive to Precharge Delay Time (tRAS):22.500 ns21.625 nsActive to Active/Refresh Delay Time (tRC):47.000 ns47.000 nsFour Activate Window Delay Time (tFAW):21.000 ns19.875 nsShort Activate to Activate Delay Time (tRRD_S):3.752 ns3.885 nsLong Activate to Activate Delay Time (tRRD_L):4.824 ns4.995 nsNormal Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC1):350.000 ns350.000 ns2x mode Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC2):260.000 ns260.000 ns4x mode Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC4):160.000 ns160.000 ns 
[TD]Show delays in clock cycles[/TD]
[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]​


----------



## Nizzen

cstkl1 said:


> straps that thats the first thing i tried on da second kit on formula
> extreme first kit no issue.. heck it just does perfect scaling hci stable.. 4400 C19 Straight @1.35, C18Straight @1.4 c17 Straight @1.45, [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected]
> 
> The second one is the issue
> it starts with RDWR... this is whats most probably eluding you for your high clock cause it does for me..
> First Kit 4400 scales good
> Things Get FUnky at 4533-4600.. the same thing i saw on the other kit at 4400...
> 
> Straps.. it only matters if you are using Mode 1 with Dram clk
> asus has two sets of dram clk.. one for ODD ratio and one thats proper for 100:100 and 100:133.. but at those clocks you are talking about this is irrelevant.
> 
> 4800.. you got to ask clockemup. he manage too yesterday since he got a SP110 .
> 
> @OLDFATSHEEP gave me a clue for RDWR . I expanded the math on it to a more exact scient hence y you seem using any tcwl i want.. even down to 8..
> 
> you got to ask @Nizzen cause i think he also using TG sticks but its a high ram clock one that EOL i think.. he is doing 4700C17 Stable.. or was it 4800... but its high...
> 
> if you having issue with C19 its gonna be the same with all CL.. afaik in 4 sets of kit all bdies has one thing in common.. they love CL16...





cstkl1 said:


> straps that thats the first thing i tried on da second kit on formula
> extreme first kit no issue.. heck it just does perfect scaling hci stable.. 4400 C19 Straight @1.35, C18Straight @1.4 c17 Straight @1.45, [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected]
> 
> The second one is the issue
> it starts with RDWR... this is whats most probably eluding you for your high clock cause it does for me..
> First Kit 4400 scales good
> Things Get FUnky at 4533-4600.. the same thing i saw on the other kit at 4400...
> 
> Straps.. it only matters if you are using Mode 1 with Dram clk
> asus has two sets of dram clk.. one for ODD ratio and one thats proper for 100:100 and 100:133.. but at those clocks you are talking about this is irrelevant.
> 
> 4800.. you got to ask clockemup. he manage too yesterday since he got a SP110 .
> 
> @OLDFATSHEEP gave me a clue for RDWR . I expanded the math on it to a more exact scient hence y you seem using any tcwl i want.. even down to 8..
> 
> you got to ask @Nizzen cause i think he also using TG sticks but its a high ram clock one that EOL i think.. he is doing 4700C17 Stable.. or was it 4800... but its high...
> 
> if you having issue with C19 its gonna be the same with all CL.. afaik in 4 sets of kit all bdies has one thing in common.. they love CL16...


4700c17 1t with Team Extreem 4500c18 2x8GB
Apex z490 Bios 0088
Profile:
0088 TXP+PPD 4700C17.CMO


https://www.diskusjon.no/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php?id=634356



5ghz "stock" cpu VS 5.5ghz 52 cache with the same memorysettings:


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

MattBaneLM said:


> imma gonna need to sit down with a coffee pen n paper lolpausing a lot . he mentioned txp/ppd. just started testing it tbh, given this statement-tXP does nothing to performance if PPD is at 0. PPD at 0 disables power down and since tXP revolves around exiting power down tXP does nothing we do or dont set ppd to 0?, or only touch txp?


10 gen has 3 modes of power down, APD & PPD just 2 among it. Another is PPD/DLL-off, defined by tXP (PPD) and tXPDLL (DLL-off).








tXP should not have any effect when PPD=0, but it does affect the stability. I usually just manually fix them to tXP=4 and PPD=0.


----------



## caki

MattBaneLM said:


> whats the reason for LLC4 brud?


Tried with LLC5 as well but similar results. 5.3 -> 5.4 i need around +0.4mv but from 5.4 -> 5.5 i can't reach anything close to stable even with +0.6mv


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

caki said:


> Tried with LLC5 as well but similar results. 5.3 -> 5.4 i need around +0.4mv but from 5.4 -> 5.5 i can't reach anything close to stable even with +0.6mv


The volt increase is exponential. Your turning point seems to be around 5.4GHz, which is really good.


----------



## MattBaneLM

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> 10 gen has 3 modes of power down, APD & PPD just 2 among it. Another is PPD/DLL-off, defined by tXP (PPD) and tXPDLL (DLL-off).
> View attachment 2460319
> 
> tXP should not have any effect when PPD=0, but it does affect the stability. I usually just manually fix them to tXP=4 and PPD=0.


not being facecious or anything bro i swear but "tXP should not have any effect when PPD=0, but it does affect the stability" means it does have an effect unless you only meant on speed


----------



## MattBaneLM

caki said:


> Tried with LLC5 as well but similar results. 5.3 -> 5.4 i need around +0.4mv but from 5.4 -> 5.5 i can't reach anything close to stable even with +0.6mv


many incl myself use 7


----------



## MattBaneLM

RobertoSampaio said:


> What should I do next?
> I never try to overclock memories..
> 
> 
> Manufacturing Description
> ​
> 
> Module Manufacturer:KingstonModule Part Number:KHX3733C19D4/16GXModule Series:Undefined HyperX SeriesDRAM Manufacturer:HynixDRAM Components:H5AN8G8NDJR-UHCDRAM Die Revision / Process Node:D / 17 nmModule Manufacturing Date:Week 08, 2020Manufacturing Date Decoded:February 17-21, 2020Module Manufacturing Location:Keelung, TaiwanModule Serial Number:D16857EFhManufacturing Identification Number:0000008705923Module PCB Revision:00h
> 
> Physical & Logical Attributes
> ​
> 
> Fundamental Memory Class:DDR4 SDRAMModule Speed Grade:DDR4-2400T downbinBase Module Type:UDIMM (133.35 mm)Module Capacity:16 GBReference Raw Card:B2 (8 layers)JEDEC Raw Card Designer:SamsungModule Nominal Height:31 < H <= 32 mmModule Thickness Maximum, Front:1 < T <= 2 mmModule Thickness Maximum, Back:1 < T <= 2 mmNumber of DIMM Ranks:2Address Mapping from Edge Connector to DRAM:MirroredDRAM Device Package:Standard MonolithicDRAM Device Package Type:78-ball FBGADRAM Device Die Count:Single dieSignal Loading:Not specifiedNumber of Column Addresses:10 bitsNumber of Row Addresses:16 bitsNumber of Bank Addresses:2 bits (4 banks)Bank Group Addressing:2 bits (4 groups)DRAM Device Width:8 bitsProgrammed DRAM Density:8 GbCalculated DRAM Density:8 GbNumber of DRAM components:16DRAM Page Size:1 KBPrimary Memory Bus Width:64 bitsMemory Bus Width Extension:0 bitsDRAM Post Package Repair:SupportedSoft Post Package Repair:Supported
> 
> DRAM Timing Parameters
> ​
> 
> Fine Timebase:0.001 nsMedium Timebase:0.125 nsCAS Latencies Supported:10T, 11T, 12T, 13T,
> 14T, 15T, 16T, 17T,
> 18TMinimum Clock Cycle Time (tCK min):0.833 ns (1200.48 MHz)Maximum Clock Cycle Time (tCK max):1.600 ns (625.00 MHz)CAS# Latency Time (tAA min):13.750 nsRAS# to CAS# Delay Time (tRCD min):13.750 nsRow Precharge Delay Time (tRP min):13.750 nsActive to Precharge Delay Time (tRAS min):32.000 nsAct to Act/Refresh Delay Time (tRC min):45.750 nsNormal Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC1 min):350.000 ns2x mode Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC2 min):260.000 ns4x mode Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC4 min):160.000 nsShort Row Active to Row Active Delay (tRRD_S min):3.300 nsLong Row Active to Row Active Delay (tRRD_L min):4.900 nsWrite Recovery Time (tWR min):15.000 nsShort Write to Read Command Delay (tWTR_S min):2.500 nsLong Write to Read Command Delay (tWTR_L min):7.500 nsLong CAS to CAS Delay Time (tCCD_L min):5.000 nsFour Active Windows Delay (tFAW min):21.000 nsMaximum Active Window (tMAW):8192*tREFIMaximum Activate Count (MAC):Unlimited MACDRAM VDD 1.20 V operable/endurant:Yes/Yes
> 
> Thermal Parameters
> ​
> 
> Module Thermal Sensor:Not Incorporated
> 
> SPD Protocol
> ​
> 
> SPD Revision:1.1SPD Bytes Total:512SPD Bytes Used:384SPD Checksum (Bytes 00h-7Dh):F56Ch (OK)SPD Checksum (Bytes 80h-FDh):C6ABh (OK)
> 
> Part number details
> ​
> 
> JEDEC DIMM Label:16GB 2Rx8 PC4-2400T-UB2-11
> 
> ​
> 
> FrequencyCASRCDRPRASRCRRDSRRDLWRWTRSWTRLFAW1200 MHz1817173955461839261200 MHz1717173955461839261067 MHz1615153549461638231067 MHz151515354946163823933 MHz141313304345143720933 MHz131313304345143720800 MHz121111263734122617800 MHz111111263734122617667 MHz101010223134102514
> 
> Intel Extreme Memory Profiles
> ​�
> 
> XMP ParameterProfile 1Profile 2Profiles Revision: 2.0Profile 1 (Certified) Enables: YesProfile 2 (Extreme) Enables: YesProfile 1 Channel Config: 2 DIMM/channelProfile 2 Channel Config: 2 DIMM/channelSpeed Grade:DDR4-3732DDR4-3604DRAM Clock Frequency:1866 MHz1802 MHzModule VDD Voltage Level:1.35 V1.35 VMinimum DRAM Cycle Time (tCK):0.536 ns0.555 nsCAS Latencies Supported:18T,17T,16T,15T,
> 14T,13T,12T,11T,
> 10T18T,17T,16T,15T,
> 14T,13T,12T,11T,
> 10TCAS Latency Time (tAA):19T17TRAS# to CAS# Delay Time (tRCD):23T21TRow Precharge Delay Time (tRP):23T21TActive to Precharge Delay Time (tRAS):42T39TActive to Active/Refresh Delay Time (tRC):88T85TFour Activate Window Delay Time (tFAW):40T36TShort Activate to Activate Delay Time (tRRD_S):7T7TLong Activate to Activate Delay Time (tRRD_L):9T9TNormal Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC1):653T631T2x mode Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC2):486T469T4x mode Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC4):299T289T
> 
> [TD]Show delays in nanoseconds[/TD]
> [TD][/TD]
> 
> [TD][/TD]
> ​*In Nanoseconds*
> ​MANUFACTURING DESCRIPTION
> ​
> Module Manufacturer:KingstonModule Part Number:KHX3733C19D4/16GXModule Series:Undefined HyperX SeriesDRAM Manufacturer:HynixDRAM Components:H5AN8G8NDJR-UHCDRAM Die Revision / Process Node:D / 17 nmModule Manufacturing Date:Week 08, 2020Manufacturing Date Decoded:February 17-21, 2020Module Manufacturing Location:Keelung, TaiwanModule Serial Number:D16857EFhManufacturing Identification Number:0000008705923Module PCB Revision:00h
> 
> PHYSICAL & LOGICAL ATTRIBUTES
> ​
> Fundamental Memory Class:DDR4 SDRAMModule Speed Grade:DDR4-2400T downbinBase Module Type:UDIMM (133.35 mm)Module Capacity:16 GBReference Raw Card:B2 (8 layers)JEDEC Raw Card Designer:SamsungModule Nominal Height:31 < H <= 32 mmModule Thickness Maximum, Front:1 < T <= 2 mmModule Thickness Maximum, Back:1 < T <= 2 mmNumber of DIMM Ranks:2Address Mapping from Edge Connector to DRAM:MirroredDRAM Device Package:Standard MonolithicDRAM Device Package Type:78-ball FBGADRAM Device Die Count:Single dieSignal Loading:Not specifiedNumber of Column Addresses:10 bitsNumber of Row Addresses:16 bitsNumber of Bank Addresses:2 bits (4 banks)Bank Group Addressing:2 bits (4 groups)DRAM Device Width:8 bitsProgrammed DRAM Density:8 GbCalculated DRAM Density:8 GbNumber of DRAM components:16DRAM Page Size:1 KBPrimary Memory Bus Width:64 bitsMemory Bus Width Extension:0 bitsDRAM Post Package Repair:SupportedSoft Post Package Repair:Supported
> 
> DRAM TIMING PARAMETERS
> ​
> Fine Timebase:0.001 nsMedium Timebase:0.125 nsCAS Latencies Supported:10T, 11T, 12T, 13T,
> 14T, 15T, 16T, 17T,
> 18TMinimum Clock Cycle Time (tCK min):0.833 ns (1200.48 MHz)Maximum Clock Cycle Time (tCK max):1.600 ns (625.00 MHz)CAS# Latency Time (tAA min):13.750 nsRAS# to CAS# Delay Time (tRCD min):13.750 nsRow Precharge Delay Time (tRP min):13.750 nsActive to Precharge Delay Time (tRAS min):32.000 nsAct to Act/Refresh Delay Time (tRC min):45.750 nsNormal Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC1 min):350.000 ns2x mode Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC2 min):260.000 ns4x mode Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC4 min):160.000 nsShort Row Active to Row Active Delay (tRRD_S min):3.300 nsLong Row Active to Row Active Delay (tRRD_L min):4.900 nsWrite Recovery Time (tWR min):15.000 nsShort Write to Read Command Delay (tWTR_S min):2.500 nsLong Write to Read Command Delay (tWTR_L min):7.500 nsLong CAS to CAS Delay Time (tCCD_L min):5.000 nsFour Active Windows Delay (tFAW min):21.000 nsMaximum Active Window (tMAW):8192*tREFIMaximum Activate Count (MAC):Unlimited MACDRAM VDD 1.20 V operable/endurant:Yes/Yes
> 
> THERMAL PARAMETERS
> ​
> Module Thermal Sensor:Not Incorporated
> 
> SPD PROTOCOL
> ​
> SPD Revision:1.1SPD Bytes Total:512SPD Bytes Used:384SPD Checksum (Bytes 00h-7Dh):F56Ch (OK)SPD Checksum (Bytes 80h-FDh):C6ABh (OK)
> 
> PART NUMBER DETAILS
> ​
> JEDEC DIMM Label:16GB 2Rx8 PC4-2400T-UB2-11
> 
> ​
> FrequencyCASRCDRPRASRCRRDSRRDLWRWTRSWTRLFAW1200 MHz1817173955461839261200 MHz1717173955461839261067 MHz1615153549461638231067 MHz151515354946163823933 MHz141313304345143720933 MHz131313304345143720800 MHz121111263734122617800 MHz111111263734122617667 MHz101010223134102514
> 
> INTEL EXTREME MEMORY PROFILES
> ​
> XMP PARAMETERPROFILE 1PROFILE 2Profiles Revision: 2.0Profile 1 (Certified) Enables: YesProfile 2 (Extreme) Enables: YesProfile 1 Channel Config: 2 DIMM/channelProfile 2 Channel Config: 2 DIMM/channelSpeed Grade:DDR4-3732DDR4-3604DRAM Clock Frequency:1866 MHz1802 MHzModule VDD Voltage Level:1.35 V1.35 VMinimum DRAM Cycle Time (tCK):0.536 ns0.555 nsCAS Latencies Supported:18T,17T,16T,15T,
> 14T,13T,12T,11T,
> 10T18T,17T,16T,15T,
> 14T,13T,12T,11T,
> 10TCAS Latency Time (tAA):10.184 ns9.433 nsRAS# to CAS# Delay Time (tRCD):12.328 ns11.655 nsRow Precharge Delay Time (tRP):12.328 ns11.655 nsActive to Precharge Delay Time (tRAS):22.500 ns21.625 nsActive to Active/Refresh Delay Time (tRC):47.000 ns47.000 nsFour Activate Window Delay Time (tFAW):21.000 ns19.875 nsShort Activate to Activate Delay Time (tRRD_S):3.752 ns3.885 nsLong Activate to Activate Delay Time (tRRD_L):4.824 ns4.995 nsNormal Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC1):350.000 ns350.000 ns2x mode Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC2):260.000 ns260.000 ns4x mode Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC4):160.000 ns160.000 ns
> 
> [TD]Show delays in clock cycles[/TD]
> [TD][/TD]
> 
> [TD][/TD]​


Hynix DJR 
take the pcb reading with a grain of salt- often wrong

you need a djr lover, and maybe watch a buildzoid vid or two re them


----------



## MattBaneLM

Nizzen said:


> 4700c17 1t with Team Extreem 4500c18 2x8GB
> Apex z490 Bios 0088
> Profile:
> 0088 TXP+PPD 4700C17.CMO
> 
> 
> https://www.diskusjon.no/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php?id=634356
> 
> 
> 
> 5ghz "stock" cpu VS 5.5ghz 52 cache with the same memorysettings:
> 
> View attachment 2460304
> 
> View attachment 2460305


hi mate, showing c/c influence on lat? or c/? or /c?


----------



## caki

MattBaneLM said:


> many incl myself use 7


i guess i forgot to mention that this is being done on z490 meg godlike so llc7 would give a strong vdroop but i will try llc2 which should be similar to asus llc7. thanks for your insights.


----------



## caki

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> The volt increase is exponential. Your turning point seems to be around 5.4GHz, which is really good.


thank you for the information!
i was thinking about lapping the die and going with direct die cooling (/w supercomputer block) but now i'm not so sure whether i can benefit from the low temps to reach 5.5 ghz in a reasonable manner (did i just say reasonable lol).


----------



## Nizzen

MattBaneLM said:


> hi mate, showing c/c influence on lat? or c/? or /c?


Say what?


----------



## Robertomcat

Good afternoon again.

I am currently running 10900k at 5.2GHz and 1,385v with full load work. I have the ring set at 4.8GHz. Everything else is on automatic, including the voltage. (MSI MPG Z490 Gaming Plus motherboard).

I would like to try to run the processor at 5.3 on all cores. What would be the maximum voltage that I should use in order not to exceed it? What is your recommendation? Thank you.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

MattBaneLM said:


> not being facecious or anything bro i swear but "tXP should not have any effect when PPD=0, but it does affect the stability" means it does have an effect unless you only meant on speed


Yes, it does have an effect from the stability. AIDA and MLC cant measure the effect tho.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Hi...

What do you think is better?

I need 1,25V to be stable at 5.1GHz...
So I can set 1,35V @5.1GHz with LLC#6 or I can set more voltage and use with LLC#5.

Which is the better choice?

EDITED:

Its stable 5.1GHz 1.35V LCC#5 Phase control EXTREME - VRM @700KHz... Vcore=1.243v
What do you think? Is a good idea Phase control EXTREME - VRM @700KHz

Asus maximus xii formula


----------



## cstkl1

RobertoSampaio said:


> Hi...
> 
> What do you think is better?
> 
> I need 1,25V to be stable at 5.1GHz...
> So I can set 1,35V @5.1GHz with LLC#6 or I can set more voltage and use with LLC#5.
> 
> Which is the better choice?
> 
> EDITED:
> 
> Its stable 5.1GHz 1.35V LCC#5 Phase control EXTREME - VRM @700KHz... Vcore=1.243v
> What do you think? Is a good idea Phase control EXTREME - VRM @700KHz
> 
> Asus maximus xii formula


switching tuning is just delaying the inevitable stability.
just leave it auto.. havent seen anybody has a reason to change it.. maybe on the low end boards but most z490 are overspeced...


----------



## RobertoSampaio

And how about low voltage with high llc or high voltage with low llc?


----------



## Betroz

Just put my new 10900KF in. Barely better than my SP63 - BUT I have not started OC yet, so it could surprise me...


----------



## Falkentyne

RobertoSampaio said:


> Hi...
> 
> What do you think is better?
> 
> I need 1,25V to be stable at 5.1GHz...
> So I can set 1,35V @5.1GHz with LLC#6 or I can set more voltage and use with LLC#5.
> 
> Which is the better choice?
> 
> EDITED:
> 
> Its stable 5.1GHz 1.35V LCC#5 Phase control EXTREME - VRM @700KHz... Vcore=1.243v
> What do you think? Is a good idea Phase control EXTREME - VRM @700KHz
> 
> Asus maximus xii formula



What happens if you actually lower the switching frequency below 700 khz?
Does it actually matter? Did you test it?


----------



## Betroz

Running Prime95 80k fft on my new 10900KF at 5.1 now with 1.354v LLC6. 4.8 Ring gave error, so backed down to 4.7. 1.252v under load with 80k fft. I have little thermal headroom, so can't just up the voltage much. This chip is very similar to my SP63 10900K, so nothing special. Remind me not to play the lottery again...

@Falkentyne : You are running ring at 4.7 aswell aren't you?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Falkentyne said:


> What happens if you actually lower the switching frequency below 700 khz?
> Does it actually matter? Did you test it?


If switch frequency below 700 khz and set Optimaized Phase control I have L0 error in the fisrt pass of realbench...


----------



## Falkentyne

Betroz said:


> Running Prime95 80k fft on my new 10900KF at 5.1 now with 1.354v LLC6. 4.8 Ring gave error, so backed down to 4.7. 1.252v under load with 80k fft. I have little thermal headroom, so can't just up the voltage much. This chip is very similar to my SP63 10900K, so nothing special. Remind me not to play the lottery again...
> 
> @Falkentyne : You are running ring at 4.7 aswell aren't you?


I assume you tested prime95 with AVX disabled? Or did you test it with AVX or FMA3 enabled?
1.252v load at 5.1 ghz with AVX1 should be over 255 amps and 100C+ on anything but the best custom loops, and FMA3 would be literally uncoolable without direct die.
Yes I'm have a profile for 5.1 / 4.8 core/cache, at 1.315v LLC6 set. I can barely pass AVX1 15K custom in-place prime95 at 1.181v load but gets to like 95C. And literally at 250 amps.
FMA3 is hopeless.



RobertoSampaio said:


> If switch frequency below 700 khz and set Optimaized Phase control I have L0 error in the fisrt pass of realbench...


You made two changes at the same time unfortunately.
I know this is going to be annoying but only test 1 change at a time, not both.
For example:

What happens if you set Switching freq to 500 khz and phase control to Extreme?
Or what happens if you set switching freq to 700 khz, but phase control to Optimized?

You need to isolate each one to see which one helps you  Do you have the time to do that, FOR SCIENCE?


----------



## Falkentyne

How many of you with so-called daily overclocks (5.2 to 5.4 ghz) can pass the best stress test of all without CPU WHEA errors in HWinfo64? Let's try it.

Minecraft Java _full screen mode_ on Cubecraft server (play.cubecraft.net), just afk around the entrance with all the players in your view,
Or minecraft windows 10 version with max chunks (unfortunately you can't join the java multiplayer servers, maybe single player may work or a windows 10 server).

Look for CPU Internal Parity Errors to ruin your overclocks that you thought were stable


----------



## RobertoSampaio

*Falkentyne*

Optimized I have L0 error as soon the encoding starts.

With the Extreme phase control looks like the floating voltage stay higher, between 1,243v and 1,252v. If I use optimized it stays 1,243v all the time. The voltage looks like to change in steps... I never see a value between 1,243v and 1,252v... Its one or other... I did all tests with VRM frequency in AUTO... I think its 500KHz.

By the way, what you think is better? Use LLC#5 with a higher voltage and Higher Vdroop or LLC#6 with a lower voltage and lower Vdroop?


----------



## Betroz

Falkentyne said:


> I assume you tested prime95 with AVX disabled?


I never, ever run Prime95 with AVX enabled. For AVX testing I use Blender Open Data, Realbench or Battlefield 5.


----------



## Betroz

RobertoSampaio said:


> By the way, what you think is better? Use LLC#5 with a higher voltage and Higher Vdroop or LLC#6 with a lower voltage and lower Vdroop?


LLC 6


----------



## Falkentyne

RobertoSampaio said:


> *Falkentyne*
> 
> Optimized I have L0 error as soon the encoding starts.
> 
> With the Extreme phase control looks like the floating voltage stay higher, between 1,243v and 1,252v. If I use optimized it stays 1,243v all the time. The voltage looks like to change in steps... I never see a value between 1,243v and 1,252v... Its one or other... I did all tests with VRM frequency in AUTO... I think its 500KHz.
> 
> By the way, what you think is better? Use LLC#5 with a higher voltage and Higher Vdroop or LLC#6 with a lower voltage and lower Vdroop?


What board is this?

For Apex and Maximus 12 extreme: LLC6. LLC6 is already fabulously droopy, 0.495 mOhms, is very close to Gigabyte's LLC: High (0.55 mOhms) and MSI's Mode 4. I would only go LLC4 or 5 to pass stress tests at borderline vMin. No point in gaming with such a high vdroop.

For Hero and I am not sure about Formula, maybe LLC5 but i don't know. Someone said the Hero's LLC mOhm levels are different than the Apex (something like Hero LLC1 is 1.1 mOhm while Apex/Extreme LLC1 is 1.7 mOhm), but I would have to see a stress test with "Asus EC" enabled in HWinfo64, with CPU Current (Amps) showed, Bios voltage set, and load voltage shown during a stress test, at both LLC6 and LLC5, to calculate the mOhm levels.

And good work you saw that Phase Control Extreme helps you more. I only saw a higher switching frequency help on something absurd like Prime95 FMA3 15k at LLC8 0 mOhm at vmin point (where 300 khz would BSOD and 500 khz would pass).


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Maximus XII formula....

Now I'm testing the minimum voltage to get stable at 5GHz... 

For daily use I prefer low power and low temps...

5.3 x 3 - @1.42V
5.2 x 5 - @1.32V
5.1 x 8 - @1.31V
5.0 x all (4.8 @ 1.16V)

LLC#6=Vcore=1.181v under Load
VCCIO=1.15
VCCSA=1.15
Cache=4.5GHz

190,827 points @ realbench 2.56 - Max temp=77ºC
6360 ponts @Cinebench r20


----------



## Betroz

RobertoSampaio said:


> [email protected], LLC#6=Vcore=1.181v under Load


If that is stable, you have a golden chip there.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Betroz said:


> If that is stable, you have a golden chip there.


[email protected], LLC#6=Vcore=1.19v (to be shure) under Load @5.0GHz...
SP86


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Nizzen said:


> 4700c17 1t with Team Extreem 4500c18 2x8GB
> Apex z490 Bios 0088
> Profile:
> 0088 TXP+PPD 4700C17.CMO
> 
> 
> https://www.diskusjon.no/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php?id=634356
> 
> 
> 
> 5ghz "stock" cpu VS 5.5ghz 52 cache with the same memorysettings:
> 
> View attachment 2460304
> 
> View attachment 2460305


What is your geekbench 5 score?
Anyone here stable linx at 5.5 ? Im running 1.55v llc6 to get it pass linx but its still 9/10 residuals match. Need to use the turbo v trick to get all residuals match. To pass realbench and blender, it needs 1.55v llc4 but I want to go hardcore on my cpu.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I think if I use LLC#7 I can go 5.1GHz with low temps...

Is there any restriction for using LLC#7?


----------



## munternet

RobertoSampaio said:


> I think if I use LLC#7 I can go 5.1GHz with low temps...
> 
> Is there any restriction for using LLC#7?


I prefer LLC7. Haven't done a huge amount of testing but it seems to like 1.315vcore set 5.2GHz and something has made temps lower but I made wholesale changes so not entirely sure what did it 
Realbench 2.56 and P95 AVX1 Tested 1/2 hour each


----------



## RobertoSampaio

munternet said:


> I prefer LLC7. Haven't done a huge amount of testing but it seems to like 1.315vcore set 5.2GHz and something has made temps lower but I made wholesale changes so not entirely sure what did it
> Realbench and P95 AVX1 Tested 1/2 hour each


LOL....
If you have some time, please share your configs here...
Which motherboard are you using?


----------



## munternet

RobertoSampaio said:


> LOL....
> If you have some time, please share your configs here...
> Which motherboard are you using?


There is a rigbuilder in my sig if that's what you're after


----------



## sabishiihito

Has anyone bought a 10900K lately that had an SP score higher than 63? Seems all the 90+ chips were early production runs -_-


----------



## Betroz

sabishiihito said:


> Seems all the 90+ chips were early production runs


My feeling about it too...


----------



## Nizzen

sabishiihito said:


> Has anyone bought a 10900K lately that had an SP score higher than 63? Seems all the 90+ chips were early production runs -_-


Clock em up guy got a SP110 1 week ago. He is testing a few every week LOL


----------



## Betroz

Nizzen said:


> Clock em up guy got a SP110 1 week ago. He is testing a few every week LOL


I wonder where he got it from...must be a girlfriend who workes at the Intel Fab


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Its from a guy in his group who sent the cpu to him for direct die and binning.


----------



## sabishiihito

Nizzen said:


> Clock em up guy got a SP110 1 week ago. He is testing a few every week LOL


I saw that, but the batch on that CPU was early: X012Z493. That is week 12 of this year. I'm talking chips that are Week 25 or newer.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

I saw a KA which has sp126 on hellchip.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

Thanh Nguyen said:


> I saw a KA which has sp126 on hellchip.


You mean Chiphell?
BIOS needs to be updated to show the correct SP.

The best one is this 10900KF, measured SP126 in every BIOS. This guy bought it from a scalper for 20,000RMB.


10900K/KF 最高和最低分别是多少SP分？ - 电脑讨论 - Chiphell - 分享与交流用户体验


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

yeah thats the one. But he didnt show any benchmark. My sp104 needs 1.275v to run win at 5.5/50 and his chip needs 1.2v.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

Thanh Nguyen said:


> yeah thats the one. But he didnt show any benchmark. My sp104 needs 1.275v to run win at 5.5/50 and his chip needs 1.2v.


Bench here





10900KF=55/52;4666 [email protected] 附M12A BIOS设置分享 - 电脑讨论 - Chiphell - 分享与交流用户体验


10900KF=55/52;4666 [email protected] 附M12A BIOS设置分享,强势更新主频、RING、线程、内存、容量、效能、稳定我全部都要 55/52 4600 CL16-17-17-28 16X2 1、主频：5.5G2、RING：5.2G3、线程：10C20T4、内存：4600MHZ5、容 ...,电脑讨论,讨论区-技术与经验的讨论 ,Chiphell - 分享与交流用户体验




www.chiphell.com





Bios VCore 1.27V llc5, 53/50 for the fpu only test

AIDA was showing socket sense volt


----------



## Falkentyne

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> Bench here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10900KF=55/52;4666 [email protected] 附M12A BIOS设置分享 - 电脑讨论 - Chiphell - 分享与交流用户体验
> 
> 
> 10900KF=55/52;4666 [email protected] 附M12A BIOS设置分享,强势更新主频、RING、线程、内存、容量、效能、稳定我全部都要 55/52 4600 CL16-17-17-28 16X2 1、主频：5.5G2、RING：5.2G3、线程：10C20T4、内存：4600MHZ5、容 ...,电脑讨论,讨论区-技术与经验的讨论 ,Chiphell - 分享与交流用户体验
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.chiphell.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bios VCore 1.27V llc5, 53/50 for the fpu only test
> 
> AIDA was showing socket sense volt


What possible reason did he have to choose "Socket sense" over "Die sense"?
And, why did he change "CPU Power Thermal Control" to 146? That I don't understand.
Why not just change CPU temperature protection in the CPU information (or AI area), wherever it is?


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

Falkentyne said:


> What possible reason did he have to choose "Socket sense" over "Die sense"?
> And, why did he change "CPU Power Thermal Control" to 146? That I don't understand.
> Why not just change CPU temperature protection in the CPU information (or AI area), wherever it is?


Maybe just for comparison across different boards.

CPU power control defines the temperature of the CPU power supply line. Its different than the CPU core temp. For the CPU core temperature control he set it to 115c.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Hi Folks,

the maximum cache frequency I can go is 45x... Could VCCIO and VCCSA influence it?


----------



## Sugi

Please excuse my basic questions here, but I want to start off correctly and then make more adjustments later on. I am understanding the basics here? I don’t mind looking like an idiot instead of destroying my equipment.

*Stock:*
15 minutes with RealBench. HWinfo’s Max was 88c 1.356v.

*Planned OC:*
XMP - Profile 1
MCP - Auto [Enable instead?]
CPU Core Ratio - 51x [Gonna start at 50x or 51x and test that]
CPU VCore - around 1.25V [Gonna go off the prediction from the MB after a couple reboots]
LLC [Low to mid ]

Increase Core Ratio by 100MHz until Windows starts crashing.
Then increase LLC to try and stabilize Windows.
Next increase Core Ratio and VCore until I hit my max or crashes

*Thresholds*:
Temperature 95c [Should I go for low 90c instead?]
VCore 1.3V [Should I max out at 1.3V or 1.4V, but 1.4V seems really high for me right now]
LLC High ~Should high be my max?

10900k, Liquid Freezer II 280, Gigabyte z490 Vision D

Going off of Falkentyne guide








Maximus 12 series and i9 10900k overclocking guide and...


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...




www.overclock.net


----------



## RobertoSampaio

When screen, keyboard and mouse freeze what could be? Low vccio, low vccsa or low Vcore?


----------



## cstkl1

RobertoSampaio said:


> When screen, keyboard and mouse freeze what could be? Low vccio, low vccsa or low Vcore?


both with ram second/third timings...


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I'm trying VCCIO=1,15 and VCCSA=1,20... 
Where can I find some reading for learn about VCCIO and VCCSA ?


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Just leave IO SA auto. It doesnt hurt anything. My 4400c16 needs 1.2 for both IO SA. Now I use 1.3 for 4600c16. Doesn’t bother me to try 1.25.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I was reading some forums about VCCIO and VCCSA and I'm thinking to set them to AUTO...

Its unbelievable that ASUS could set them too high that could cause damage to the CPU.

I read a lot of people saying that freezing problems go away once them set it to AUTO.

I'm running with a HX437C19FB3K2/32 - 32GB (2x16GB), 3733MHz, CL19 and I think the instability I have it's because these memories need a higher VCCIO/SA to be stable...


----------



## munternet

RobertoSampaio said:


> When screen, keyboard and mouse freeze what could be? Low vccio, low vccsa or low Vcore?


I get the freeze if I lower the io too much.
I assume you are testing with something like TM5 Extreme each time you lower something to check for errors?
If vcore and vdimm are sufficient then you will likely see errors first with low sa and possible freezes with low io, assuming your timings are close


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Under load it doesn't freeze... It freezes with YouTube or chrome...


----------



## cstkl1

RobertoSampaio said:


> Under load it doesn't freeze... It freezes with YouTube or chrome...


third timings pairing with vccio/vcssa with cache.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

VCCIO/VCCSA in auto... 1.31/1.31... Is it too much?


----------



## munternet

RobertoSampaio said:


> VCCIO/VCCSA in auto... 1.31/1.31... Is it too much?


No, many people are running much higher although I try to stay under 1.4 and closer to 1.35


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Now I can go 4.7x cache and I thing I can go 4000 in memory... I'll try...


----------



## geriatricpollywog

IO/SA voltage has an effect on CPU core temperature and CPU package power, so best to start with 1.35-1.4 and dial down after everything else is stable.

Edit: Couldn't reproduce


----------



## Betroz

0451 said:


> IO/SA voltage has an effect on CPU core temperature and CPU package power, so best to start with 1.35-1.4 and dial down after everything else is stable.


Have anyone done any tests with that? I haven't seen any data on it.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Betroz said:


> Have anyone done any tests with that? I haven't seen any data on it.


I just tested in CB and P95 and didn't see a difference. It's one of those "I thought I remembered." I'll check before talking next time.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I didn't see any effect in temperature or wattage...


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Im running 1.45-1.6 for IO SA now.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

But still freezing...

I did a cmos reset for sure...

I'm thinking the problem is a low vcore at low load/ frequencies... will try a higher voltage with LLC#5 instead LLC#6

EDITED:
Stopped freezing... I think a little of vdroop with LLC#5 is better...


----------



## cstkl1

[email protected]
M12E - Bios 098
*
Gskill Trident Z Royal F4-4000C17D-32GTRSB

51|48 - v/f 1.274 LL6
2x16gb 4533 16-17-17-36 @1.55
vccio/vcssa - 1.4/1.35
txp/ppd - 0/0
*










cl16/cl17 stuck at 4500.. hmm trying to figure out this problem. benching all cls at 4600 no issue but stable hmm cl16 easiest.


----------



## Betroz

cstkl1 said:


> cl16/cl17 stuck at 4500.. hmm trying to figure out this problem. benching all cls at 4600 no issue but stable hmm cl16 easiest.


Great stuff man! I wish I could get C17 to work with my sticks...but noooo they like C16 better. If they could, I would have run 4400 17-18-18. Or...it's an issue with the Apex board and this RAM kit.


----------



## cstkl1

Betroz said:


> Great stuff man! I wish I could get C17 to work with my sticks...but noooo they like C16 better. If they could, I would have run 4400 17-18-18. Or...it's an issue with the Apex board and this RAM kit.


i really dont know. the errors that comes out are crazy inconsistent.


----------



## fidalgodev

AsRock Z490I Gaming ACX/TB3
LLC 1
All Cores 51
Cache 47
All Power Limits removed
Fixed voltage at 1.325 in bios

Stress testing on Cinebench voltages goes up to 1.45 sometimes... But it still crashes.
Temps going to 96C

Any help?

EDIT:
Dialed it down to 50 Core overclock and Cache 47.
CPU Voltage in BIOS 1.3

2 runs of cinebench passed.
Now running Realbench, when stressing the Core VID is mostly at 1.385 and sometimes spikes to 1.4

Temps around 90C with a Noctua NH C14S

Isnt't this too much voltage for 5GHZ tho?


----------



## Betroz

fidalgodev said:


> Temps around 90C with a Noctua NH C14S


With a 10900K and that Noctua air cooler, don't expect any OC...seriously no. Run at stock with a slight undervolt. Or....buy a better cooler.


----------



## fidalgodev

Betroz said:


> With a 10900K and that Noctua air cooler, don't expect any OC...seriously no. Run at stock with a slight undervolt. Or....buy a better cooler.


You mean just remove power limits, leave the CPU core ratio on Auto, and just do a offset of like -25mv?


----------



## Betroz

fidalgodev said:


> You mean just remove power limits, leave the CPU core ratio on Auto, and just do a offset of like -25mv?


Something like that, yes. You can also experiment with a custom set powerlimit. Say long duration of 150W and Short 200W. Load temp under Cinebench R20 should be under 90C, preferable 80C to leave some headroom.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Maximum CPU Core Temperature [115]
CPU Core/Cache Current Limit Max. [255.75]
Long Duration Package Power Limit [4095]
Package Power Time Window [448]
Short Duration Package Power Limit [4095]


----------



## fidalgodev

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Maximum CPU Core Temperature [115]
> CPU Core/Cache Current Limit Max. [255.75]
> Long Duration Package Power Limit [4095]
> Package Power Time Window [448]
> Short Duration Package Power Limit [4095]


I already have this set


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

Betroz said:


> Great stuff man! I wish I could get C17 to work with my sticks...but noooo they like C16 better. If they could, I would have run 4400 17-18-18. Or...it's an issue with the Apex board and this RAM kit.


RTLs should be different for C17. Probably clean the CMOS first.


----------



## Betroz

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> RTLs should be different for C17. Probably clean the CMOS first.


Did not help. Flashing to 0707 BIOS and back to 0088 maybe, but that should not be something we must do in order to fix this... cstkl1 has the same problem with his F4-4000C17D-32GTRGB kit too.


----------



## ThrashZone

Betroz said:


> Did not help. Flashing to 0707 BIOS and back to 0088 maybe, but that should not be something we must do in order to fix this... cstkl1 has the same problem with his F4-4000C17D-32GTRGB kit too.


Hi,
Well there have been instances where bios flash has been said to not be enough 
Original release corrupting vf points for example and the silly process falken posted to so called fix it lol
I don't subscribe to that nonsense though.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I have some strangers things happen to Maximus xii formula 0707 bios...

1 - I change pll bandwidth and the CPU PLL OC changed from 1.2v to 2.3v... I returned to default and CPU PLL OC didn't return to 1.2V. It was necessary to clear cmos

2 - I saved bios to a profile and the name I used, when I return to load it, was corrupted. It was necessary to clear cmos

3 - I experienced freezing events. Cleared cmos and used the same configuration... and now it's all working.

Seems like some configurations stay saved in the background and the only way to restart is to clear cmos.


----------



## Sync0r

Hey all,

some info on my chip:
SP63 delided with stock IHS on a ASUS Z490-G with custom water loop, water temp ~20c.
5.3/5.1ring LLC4 1.525v (1.41v vDroop load) avg temps ~69c
5.4/5.1ring LLC4 1.63v (1.515v vDroop load) avg temps ~79c

Tested using Realbench and R20, then gaming.

Cheers, will upload some proof later.


----------



## fidalgodev

HwInfo doesn't show the CPU Vcore or VID under the motherboard sensors.
It only shows VID for each core under the CPU.

On CPU-Z it shows the VID but I think its not correct, since with LLC1 (maximum on asrock boards) and 1.3 fixed vcore in bios, under load it shows 1.42V on CPU-Z.

Motherboard: Asrock Z490 Gaming ITX AC/TB3

Anyone had this issue with AsRock boards where Vcore/Vid doesn't show?

*I've heard VROUT is the new sensor that should be looked at when looking for the accurate voltage the CPU is getting, and that looks like a much realistic and better value. Is this true? Should I just care about VROUT?*


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Hi folks...


What is the difference between L0 error and internal CPU error?


----------



## Betroz

RobertoSampaio said:


> What is the difference between L0 error and internal CPU error?


Cache vs Core. Both require more vcore.


----------



## munternet

Sync0r said:


> Hey all,
> 
> some info on my chip:
> SP63 delided with stock IHS on a ASUS Z490-G with custom water loop, water temp ~20c.
> 5.3/5.1ring LLC4 1.525v (1.41v vDroop load) avg temps ~69c
> 5.4/5.1ring LLC4 1.63v (1.515v vDroop load) avg temps ~79c
> 
> Tested using Realbench and R20, then gaming.
> 
> Cheers, will upload some proof later.


Very nice  
Average temp doesn't really tell us much though, max temp would be better


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I was using VID=1.285 and LLC5, resulting Vcore=1.18 @5GHZ core / 4.7 cache, and had CPU internal error.

Now I'm trying LLC6 that results 1.2V Vcore... Hope it solves the problem.


----------



## Falkentyne

Betroz said:


> Cache vs Core. Both require more vcore.


Yep, Truth.
Want internal parity errors?
Play Java Minecraft on Cubecraft or Hypixel multiplayer 
Enjoy watching your so-called stable overclocks that can PASS FMA3 small FFT Prime95 generate internal parity errors in Minecraft 

Fix:
Set affinity to 6 threads.


----------



## munternet

RobertoSampaio said:


> I was using VID=1.285 and LLC5, resulting Vcore=1.18 @5GHZ core / 4.7 cache, and had CPU internal error.
> 
> Now I'm trying LLC6 that results 1.2V Vcore... Hope it solves the problem.


A friend is having the same issue so we upped LLC from 6 to 7 and I think we are at 1.25vcore set
5.0/4.7
M12A 10900k sp63


----------



## cstkl1

Falkentyne said:


> Yep, Truth.
> Want internal parity errors?
> Play Java Minecraft on Cubecraft or Hypixel multiplayer
> Enjoy watching your so-called stable overclocks that can PASS FMA3 small FFT Prime95 generate internal parity errors in Minecraft
> 
> Fix:
> Set affinity to 6 threads.


Your vccio/vcssa and ram are unstable

try fft112 4hrs bro


----------



## Falkentyne

cstkl1 said:


> Your vccio/vcssa and ram are unstable
> 
> try fft112 4hrs bro


Do you know what you're talking about here?

112k FFT passes forever. I've run it overnight. This is not related to RAM overclocking.

This happens at _STOCK XMP_. Even happens at JEDEC.
It was already proven much earlier in this thread why this happens. And it has nothing to do with RAM overclocks or VCCIO or VCCSA.
I've tested this myself. I've gone up to 1.50v IO/SA at XMP settings, no effect.
This has NOTHING to do with RAM or IMC whatsoever.

We discussed this at length on the overclocking discord. We found out what Minecraft is doing. We looked at it with Intel Vtune.
It's completely thrashing the cache. The author of OCCT is aware of this but he isn't interested in making a "minecraft is unstable" cache test for abnormal cache "Garbage collection" and thread usage.

Please search the thread for a post a few months ago, I forgot who wrote it, just search for Minecraft garbage collection.

The only fix for this is to:

1) reduce cache ratio (50/43 will pass Minecraft, 50/47 will not. 2133 Jedec, 3200 XMP, does not matter).
2) raise CPU Vcore (By a lot, something absurd like 1.30v Bios set + LLC6 for 5 ghz; Prime95 small FFT FMA3 only needs 1.260v set).
3) Reduce # of threads Minecraft uses (6 threads works great with no penalty).

This is the same kind of bug that was reported in Apex Legends last year. The programmer said it was an Intel microcode or hardware bug and was able to work around it (the same problem: internal parity errors or random game "Access violation:" errors.


----------



## cstkl1

Falkentyne said:


> Do you know what you're talking about here?
> 
> 112k FFT passes forever. I've run it overnight. This is not related to RAM overclocking.
> 
> This happens at _STOCK XMP_. Even happens at JEDEC.
> It was already proven much earlier in this thread why this happens. And it has nothing to do with RAM overclocks or VCCIO or VCCSA.
> I've tested this myself. I've gone up to 1.50v IO/SA at XMP settings, no effect.
> This has NOTHING to do with RAM or IMC whatsoever.
> 
> We discussed this at length on the overclocking discord. We found out what Minecraft is doing. We looked at it with Intel Vtune.
> It's completely thrashing the cache. The author of OCCT is aware of this but he isn't interested in making a "minecraft is unstable" cache test for abnormal cache "Garbage collection" and thread usage.
> 
> The only fix for this is to:
> 
> 1) reduce cache ratio (50/43 will pass Minecraft, 50/47 will not. 2133 Jedec, 3200 XMP, does not matter.).
> 2) raise CPU Vcore (By a lot, something absurd like 1.30v Bios set + LLC6 for 5 ghz; Prime95 small FFT FMA3 only needs 1.260v set).
> 3) Reduce # of threads Minecraft uses (6 threads works great with no penalty).


This requires a paid version of the game right. Last time tested free one saw nothing

thats not how vccio/vcssa pairing works btw by upping the voltage..


----------



## cstkl1

Also if u have an exact way of testing this for free. Will do.


----------



## Falkentyne

cstkl1 said:


> Also if u have an exact way of testing this for free. Will do.


I apologize for being rude, but me, Tyllo, Resune and many of the other people in the overclocking discord have tested this.
It's 100% cache related. Nothing to do with Core (primary) or RAM/IMC/DRAM volts. Reducing cache ratio (by a lot) always fixes this. Affinity to 8 threads or less (I recommend 6) always fixes this.
It can take awhile to test.. Good way is to "Afk" on play.cubecraft.net" in _fullscreen_ mode when overclocked with high cache.
Only info posted about this is this:



https://www.overoclck.net/threads/overclocking-10900k-results-bins-and-discussion.1748256/page-61#post-28516598



This is basically the same issue the head Respawn programmer Oriostorm found happening on Apex Legends, which was causing errors even on some stock chips.
Internal Parity Errors and access violations.
He coded a bypass for it and even gave me credit.









Apex Legends May Performance Update 1.1.3


Check out all the tweaks and fixes in the Apex Legends May update.




www.ea.com


----------



## cstkl1

Falkentyne said:


> I apologize for being rude, but me, Tyllo, Resune and many of the other people in the overclocking discord have tested this.
> It's 100% cache related. Nothing to do with Core (primary) or RAM/IMC/DRAM volts. Reducing cache ratio (by a lot) always fixes this. Affinity to 8 threads or less (I recommend 6) always fixes this.
> It can take awhile to test.. Good way is to "Afk" on play.cubecraft.net" in _fullscreen_ mode when overclocked with high cache.
> Only info posted about this is this:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.overoclck.net/threads/overclocking-10900k-results-bins-and-discussion.1748256/page-61#post-28516598
> 
> 
> 
> This is basically the same issue the head Respawn programmer Oriostorm found happening on Apex Legends, which was causing errors even on some stock chips.
> Internal Parity Errors and access violations.
> He coded a bypass for it and even gave me credit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apex Legends May Performance Update 1.1.3
> 
> 
> Check out all the tweaks and fixes in the Apex Legends May update.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ea.com


nah you not rude. you repeated this many time but unless theres an easy way to test this for free .. kindda hard to replicate. i dont do minecraft..


----------



## SoLdieR9312

Falkentyne said:


> The only fix for this is to:
> 
> 1) reduce cache ratio (50/43 will pass Minecraft, 50/47 will not. 2133 Jedec, 3200 XMP, does not matter).
> 2) raise CPU Vcore (By a lot, something absurd like 1.30v Bios set + LLC6 for 5 ghz; Prime95 small FFT FMA3 only needs 1.260v set).
> 3) Reduce # of threads Minecraft uses (6 threads works great with no penalty).


Just tested this, and you are right, throws Internal Errors after about 1 min. 
(Running 5.2/5.0 since 3 weeks for all other programs/games, never had any Errors)


----------



## Falkentyne

cstkl1 said:


> nah you not rude. you repeated this many time but unless theres an easy way to test this for free .. kindda hard to replicate. i dont do minecraft..


Try this with minecraft.
You'll see that Minecraft is hammering the cache even harder than FMA3 or 112k does.
112k is actually very balanced.

http://registrationcenter-download....c/16784/VTune_Profiler_2020_update2_setup.exe



SoLdieR9312 said:


> Just tested this, and you are right, throws Internal Errors after about 1 min.
> (Running 5.2/5.0 since 3 weeks for all other programs/games, never had any Errors)


If you're using Asus, use Turbovcore and set the cache down to 43. Otherwise do it in whatever program your system has in windows or in BIOS.
Do the parity errors go away?

Then set it back to 50 and then use affinity in task manager to limit minecraft to 6 or 8 threads.
This should also fix the problem.


----------



## SoLdieR9312

Falkentyne said:


> If you're using Asus, use Turbovcore and set the cache down to 43. Otherwise do it in whatever program your system has in windows or in BIOS.
> Do the parity errors go away?
> 
> Then set it back to 50 and then use affinity in task manager to limit minecraft to 6 or 8 threads.
> This should also fix the problem.


Cache to 43 did not help, i had to set it to 6 threads, only then i do not get any more errors. (6 threads, but with cache back at 5.0)


----------



## Betroz

Falkentyne said:


> Enjoy watching your so-called stable overclocks that can PASS FMA3 small FFT Prime95 generate internal parity errors in Minecraft


I'm sure someone could make a similar code that exploits some vulnerability or bug in the Intel Core i9 design and have the same result. Good thing I don't play Minecraft then 



Falkentyne said:


> 2) raise CPU Vcore (By a lot, something absurd like 1.30v Bios set + LLC6 for 5 ghz; Prime95 small FFT FMA3 only needs 1.260v set).


Eyy I run 1.35v LLC6 BIOS set for my 5.0/4.7 OC so that my IMC can handle my RAM OC 
Not all of us in here have a SP80+ CPU you know.


----------



## fidalgodev

fidalgodev said:


> HwInfo doesn't show the CPU Vcore or VID under the motherboard sensors.
> It only shows VID for each core under the CPU.
> 
> On CPU-Z it shows the VID but I think its not correct, since with LLC1 (maximum on asrock boards) and 1.3 fixed vcore in bios, under load it shows 1.42V on CPU-Z.
> 
> Motherboard: Asrock Z490 Gaming ITX AC/TB3
> 
> Anyone had this issue with AsRock boards where Vcore/Vid doesn't show?
> 
> *I've heard VROUT is the new sensor that should be looked at when looking for the accurate voltage the CPU is getting, and that looks like a much realistic and better value. Is this true? Should I just care about VROUT?*
> 
> 
> View attachment 2461250


Someone?


----------



## rstolpe

cstkl1 said:


> Your vccio/vcssa and ram are unstable
> 
> try fft112 4hrs bro


Whats fft112?
I'm not a overclocker as I run my i9 in stock mode but I want to try and see if I can force WHEA errors as I have a issue with my CPU,
I get WHEA errors randomly and Intel has sent me a replacement but I can't force the WHEA how much I even try with Prime95 and OCCT etc.
It happens during Idle and also during game etc.
It don't BSOD as it correct it self according to the log file.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I have a 10900kf sp86... Maximus xii formula

Tried 5.1/4.7 @1,34 LLC6 that means 1,25 vcore under load, but I had internal CPU error running doom eternal e some freezing at idle.

Now I'm running stable 5.0/4.7 @ 1,285 LLC6. =1,2 at load...

I think the problem I have is because I insist to configure by core...

This configuration is unstable:
54*[email protected]
53*[email protected]
52*[email protected]
51*[email protected]

This one is stable:
53*[email protected],42
52*[email protected]
51*[email protected]
50*[email protected]

Just to be sure I understand the way curve and adaptive works...
If I configure v/f and let vcore AUTO it follows the curve.
If I use adaptive it substitutes the last data in the v/f curve by the adaptive value...
Is it?


----------



## Betroz

rstolpe said:


> Whats fft112?


A test size in Prime95.


----------



## Sync0r

direct die cooling time!

This is really interesting:
Before direct die (de-lid with stock IHS and EK Supremacy EVO):
5.3/5.1ring LLC4 1.525v (1.41v vDroop load) max temp 69c
After direct die:
5.3/5.1ring LLC4 1.475v (1.368v vDroop load) max temp 62c


----------



## Nizzen

Sync0r said:


> direct die cooling time!
> 
> This is really interesting:
> Before direct die (de-lid with stock IHS and EK Supremacy EVO):
> 5.3/5.1ring LLC4 1.525v (1.41v vDroop load) max temp 69c
> After direct die:
> 5.3/5.1ring LLC4 1.475v (1.368v vDroop load) max temp 62c


The Supercool Computer direct die blocks is really good. Do you use the Gallium liquid metal from the same company? I think it's performing even better than 
*Thermal Grizzly Conductonaut Liquid *


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Next month, our 5.5ghz will be destroyed by AMD. So sad.


----------



## Nizzen

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Next month, our 5.5ghz will be destroyed by AMD. So sad.


We will see 
I don't think so, because Ryzen 5k has the same memorycontroller as zen 3k series. So in cpubound games, Ryzen 5k has no chance against 10900k 5,5ghz and 4700c17 memory 
They are getting closer, but no sigar.


----------



## Sync0r

Nizzen said:


> The Supercool Computer direct die blocks is really good. Do you use the Gallium liquid metal from the same company? I think it's performing even better than
> *Thermal Grizzly Conductonaut Liquid *


No using thermal grizzly, I should of grabbed some really.


----------



## Sync0r

Nizzen said:


> We will see
> I don't think so, because Ryzen 5k has the same memorycontroller as zen 3k series. So in cpubound games, Ryzen 5k has no chance against 10900k 5,5ghz and 4700c17 memory
> They are getting closer, but no sigar.


Single core performance is better, but I wonder what all core clock they will be able sustain.


----------



## Nizzen

Sync0r said:


> Single core performance is better, but I wonder what all core clock they will be able sustain.


Intel will win in low latency, but AMD is closing in with even bigger cache.


----------



## dseg

Big thread but is there a dumbed down guide on OC'ing a 10900k?
Just looking for a modest OC, nothing crazy. Is there like a easy how-to guide?


----------



## Nizzen

dseg said:


> Big thread but is there a dumbed down guide on OC'ing a 10900k?
> Just looking for a modest OC, nothing crazy. Is there like a easy how-to guide?


Pro tips: Leave the cpu at stock, and overclock the memory to 4400mhz+ with tight timings. Best possible experience in games. If you love games


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I'd like to learn overclocking memory... I just set my 3773 to 4000 and the performance is visible... But I don't know what to do with timings... Where can I find a tutorial?


----------



## munternet

RobertoSampaio said:


> I'd like to learn overclocking memory... I just set my 3773 to 4000 and the performance is visible... But I don't know what to do with timings... Where can I find a tutorial?


There is a link in my sig


----------



## munternet

dseg said:


> Big thread but is there a dumbed down guide on OC'ing a 10900k?
> Just looking for a modest OC, nothing crazy. Is there like a easy how-to guide?


I have an easy peasy method I use on the Apex for a fixed overclock. What board do you have?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

munternet,
Very nice tutorial!
Can't wait for trying to overclock my memories...




Module Manufacturer:KingstonModule Part Number:KHX3733C19D4/16GXModule Series:Undefined HyperX SeriesDRAM Manufacturer:HynixDRAM Components:H5AN8G8NDJR-UHCDRAM Die Revision / Process Node:D / 17 nmModule Manufacturing Date:Week 08, 2020Manufacturing Date Decoded:February 17-21, 2020Module Manufacturing Location:Keelung, TaiwanModule Serial Number:D16857EFhManufacturing Identification Number:0000008705923Module PCB Revision:00h

Physical & Logical Attributes



Fundamental Memory Class:DDR4 SDRAMModule Speed Grade:DDR4-2400T downbinBase Module Type:UDIMM (133.35 mm)Module Capacity:16 GBReference Raw Card:B2 (8 layers)JEDEC Raw Card Designer:SamsungModule Nominal Height:31 < H <= 32 mmModule Thickness Maximum, Front:1 < T <= 2 mmModule Thickness Maximum, Back:1 < T <= 2 mmNumber of DIMM Ranks:2Address Mapping from Edge Connector to DRAM:MirroredDRAM Device Package:Standard MonolithicDRAM Device Package Type:78-ball FBGADRAM Device Die Count:Single dieSignal Loading:Not specifiedNumber of Column Addresses:10 bitsNumber of Row Addresses:16 bitsNumber of Bank Addresses:2 bits (4 banks)Bank Group Addressing:2 bits (4 groups)DRAM Device Width:8 bitsProgrammed DRAM Density:8 GbCalculated DRAM Density:8 GbNumber of DRAM components:16DRAM Page Size:1 KBPrimary Memory Bus Width:64 bitsMemory Bus Width Extension:0 bitsDRAM Post Package Repair:SupportedSoft Post Package Repair:Supported

DRAM Timing Parameters



Fine Timebase:0.001 nsMedium Timebase:0.125 nsCAS Latencies Supported:10T, 11T, 12T, 13T,
14T, 15T, 16T, 17T,
18TMinimum Clock Cycle Time (tCK min):0.833 ns (1200.48 MHz)Maximum Clock Cycle Time (tCK max):1.600 ns (625.00 MHz)CAS# Latency Time (tAA min):13.750 nsRAS# to CAS# Delay Time (tRCD min):13.750 nsRow Precharge Delay Time (tRP min):13.750 nsActive to Precharge Delay Time (tRAS min):32.000 nsAct to Act/Refresh Delay Time (tRC min):45.750 nsNormal Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC1 min):350.000 ns2x mode Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC2 min):260.000 ns4x mode Refresh Recovery Delay Time (tRFC4 min):160.000 nsShort Row Active to Row Active Delay (tRRD_S min):3.300 nsLong Row Active to Row Active Delay (tRRD_L min):4.900 nsWrite Recovery Time (tWR min):15.000 nsShort Write to Read Command Delay (tWTR_S min):2.500 nsLong Write to Read Command Delay (tWTR_L min):7.500 nsLong CAS to CAS Delay Time (tCCD_L min):5.000 nsFour Active Windows Delay (tFAW min):21.000 nsMaximum Active Window (tMAW):8192*tREFIMaximum Activate Count (MAC):Unlimited MACDRAM VDD 1.20 V operable/endurant:Yes/Yes

Thermal Parameters



Module Thermal Sensor:Not Incorporated

SPD Protocol



SPD Revision:1.1SPD Bytes Total:512SPD Bytes Used:384SPD Checksum (Bytes 00h-7Dh):F56Ch (OK)SPD Checksum (Bytes 80h-FDh):C6ABh (OK)

Part number details



JEDEC DIMM Label:16GB 2Rx8 PC4-2400T-UB2-11



Any tip?


----------



## rstolpe

Betroz said:


> A test size in Prime95.


I see in the custom window? What do you recommend that I put inthere to really test the CPU to try to get WHEA errors?


----------



## acoustic

What has been the average SP of these chips thus far? Just put together a friend's PC. I'm still on my 9900K so was the first time playing around with a Z490. He bought most of the parts on his own without much input but did ok in my opinion. The Z490 Strix-E seems a little better built than most of Asus boards on Z390. Was not a fan of the Z390 Maximus Hero that killed itself and was replaced by an EVGA DARK.

He has an SP80 according to the board. Didn't have much time to OC, will be doing that in a few days. Curious how far it'll go on a 360 NZXT CLC.


----------



## Betroz

acoustic said:


> What has been the average SP of these chips thus far?


SP63


----------



## Betroz

rstolpe said:


> I see in the custom window? What do you recommend that I put inthere to really test the CPU to try to get WHEA errors?


----------



## Robertomcat

Hello, good morning!

Let's see how you like the OC configuration I have right now.

I have the 10900K running with all cores at 5.2 and the cache at 4.8 (The motherboard is an MSI Z490 Gaming Plus) Except for the frequency and voltage, everything else is on automatic, and HWinfo shows me a Vcore of 1,358-1,360.

As the computer is for work, I have four 32GB modules of Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3600MHz C18 RAM with all automatic values by default. I don't know if these RAM modules could be set to 4000MHz just by modifying the frequency, but I have never done OC to the memory modules.

Without making any stress test as the Prime95, the computer stays completely stable, and can pass the Cinebench R20 without any problem, although sometimes I get some internal CPU error (WHEA). Can it be due to a lack of voltage?

Greetings!


----------



## Betroz

Robertomcat said:


> sometimes I get some internal CPU error (WHEA). Can it be due to a lack of voltage?


First try more vcore or adjust your Load Line Calibration setting. If you use your computer for work, you should test stability more thoroughly.


----------



## Robertomcat

Betroz said:


> First try more vcore or adjust your Load Line Calibration setting. If you use your computer for work, you should test stability more thoroughly.


Here I was recommended that the maximum to put in the MSI motherboards was LLC 4, but I have it in automatic. The MSI LLC system I think works unlike all other motherboards, and I don't know if the number should be raised or lowered.

I also just realized that I get some L0 cache error, and I understand that it may be due to lack of voltage.


----------



## Betroz

Robertomcat said:


> I also just realized that I get some L0 cache error, and I understand that it may be due to lack of voltage.


Correct.


----------



## Circaflex

Robertomcat said:


> Here I was recommended that the maximum to put in the MSI motherboards was LLC 4, but I have it in automatic. The MSI LLC system I think works unlike all other motherboards, and I don't know if the number should be raised or lowered.
> 
> I also just realized that I get some L0 cache error, and I understand that it may be due to lack of voltage.
> 
> View attachment 2461721


I too am confused about MSI's implementation. Auto is LLC3, i wish it was a standard across everyone.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

I get the best results on MSI by leaving everything on auto except multiplier, ring, core voltage and IO/SA voltage.


----------



## fidalgodev

Hitting pretty much 100C sometimes on my 10900K.
Using a Artic Freezer 240 II with 2 x Noctua NF12 PWM inside a NCase M1.

All cores at 4.9Ghz
Cache at 4.6Ghz

LLC Level 1
Fixed voltage of 1.3 on bios

ASRock Z490 Gaming ITX AC/TB3

Isn't this too hot for this cooler?
Should I try re-seat the cooler on the CPU?

I also noticed my board sensor doesn't show VCore, only "VR VOUT".. Hitting 1.25V more or less under load.

isn't this too much heat for this voltage?


----------



## geriatricpollywog

fidalgodev said:


> Hitting pretty much 100C sometimes on my 10900K.
> Using a Artic Freezer 240 II with 2 x Noctua NF12 PWM inside a NCase M1.
> 
> All cores at 4.9Ghz
> Cache at 4.6Ghz
> 
> LLC Level 1
> Fixed voltage of 1.3 on bios
> 
> ASRock Z490 Gaming ITX AC/TB3
> 
> Isn't this too hot for this cooler?
> Should I try re-seat the cooler on the CPU?
> 
> I also noticed my board sensor doesn't show VCore, only "VR VOUT".. Hitting 1.25V more or less under load.
> 
> isn't this too much heat for this voltage?
> 
> View attachment 2461849


Actually 1.293 under load if you look at the max column. Voltage seems high for that clock speed, more on the level of a 10850k.

You are cooling 230 watts with that 240 AIO. Try again with the panels off, AIO fans at max, and a large fan blowing onto your case. Can you run a lower core voltage too?


----------



## fidalgodev

0451 said:


> Actually 1.293 under load if you look at the max column. Voltage seems high for that clock speed, more on the level of a 10850k.
> 
> You are cooling 230 watts with that 240 AIO. Try again with the panels off, AIO fans at max, and a large fan blowing onto your case. Can you run a lower core voltage too?


This was under load, RealBench was running... So its using 1.25 more or less under load. I dont get how maximum is almost 1.3 when LLC is at Level 1 (maximum in Asrock boards)


----------



## geriatricpollywog

fidalgodev said:


> This was under load, RealBench was running... So its using 1.25 more or less under load. I dont get how maximum is almost 1.3 when LLC is at Level 1 (maximum in Asrock boards)


Use auto llc there is a lot to unpack here. I am trying to see why a 10900k is struggling to reach 5.0ghz. There are 3 possibilities:

1) Incorrect bios settings
2) Cooling
3) Silicon quality

I’m trying to eliminate 1 and 2. Also, what benchmark are you running? Try 1 pass of Cinebench R20 from cold. We aren’t checking for stability or cooling capacity, just trying to find peak clock speed.


----------



## fidalgodev

0451 said:


> Use auto llc there is a lot to unpack here. I am trying to see why a 10900k is struggling to reach 5.0ghz. There are 3 possibilities:
> 
> 1) Incorrect bios settings
> 2) Cooling
> 3) Silicon quality
> 
> I’m trying to eliminate 1 and 2. Also, what benchmark are you running? Try 1 pass of Cinebench R20 from cold. We aren’t checking for stability or cooling capacity, just trying to find peak clock speed.


Tried LLC auto, but when I input a voltage the BIOS automatically changes it to LLC1.

Tried 5GHZ and 4.7cache on cinebench, here are the results:
It passed.
The VCore option appeared on Hwinfo under my motherboard. Using 1.325V in bios and getting 1.312V in Hwinfo (both load and stressing)

I also noticed my board disables Power States C6/7 when I enable the XMP profile. (G skill Trident Z - 2 x 16GB 3600Mhz CL16)

Bios settings attached too


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Should probably take long duration maintained off auto
If you use manual vcore minimum vid would be load vcore which looks the same as the other listing you saw.

But too much temperature and throttling will activate.


----------



## fidalgodev

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Should probably take long duration maintained off auto
> If you use manual vcore minimum vid would be load vcore which looks the same as the other listing you saw.
> 
> But too much temperature and throttling will activate.


So I should set that to maximum? I think its 128S


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Looking better but you still have a cooling problem. Take off panels, crank up fans, and blow a fan i to your case and try 5.1ghz. Don’t raise voltage unless HWInfo throws errors or your system crashes.


----------



## fidalgodev

0451 said:


> Looking better but you still have a cooling problem. Take off panels, crank up fans, and blow a fan i to your case and try 5.1ghz. Don’t raise voltage unless HWInfo throws errors or your system crashes.


Radiator fans at full speed.
Also added a top fan at full speed.

5.1Ghz passed Cinebench with this temps:
I just find it weird that at 1.312V it throws so much heat? Is that normal?

Also about Intel SpeedStep/Shift, are they relevant? Is it okay to have them off?


----------



## fidalgodev

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Should probably take long duration maintained off auto
> If you use manual vcore minimum vid would be load vcore which looks the same as the other listing you saw.
> 
> But too much temperature and throttling will activate.


From asrock website:
*Long Duration Maintained*
Configure the period of time until the CPU ratio is lowered when the Long
Duration Power Limit is exceeded

Since long duration power limit is set a 4096, it will never be exceeded, so I guess this setting will never be used.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

I go off core “VID” voltage because my ghetto MSI board doesn’t report vcore. Your VID is over 1.5v which seems high. I am seeing 1.42v max when pushing over 330 watts at 1.41 bios set voltage, auto llc (MSI).

You are manually clocking all core, so I don’t think speed step or speed shift is relevant.


----------



## fidalgodev

0451 said:


> I go off core “VID” voltage because my ghetto MSI board doesn’t report vcore. Your VID is over 1.5v which seems high. I am seeing 1.42v max when pushing over 330 watts at 1.41 bios set voltage, auto llc (MSI).
> 
> You are manually clocking all core, so I don’t think speed step or speed shift is relevant.


Meaning i have bad silicon, right?

I will try to settle at 5GHz and 4.7Ghz Cache and lower my voltage until I can I guess?


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Can’t tell. Try lowering voltage 10mv at a time until Cinebench crashes. Alternatively, raise multiplier by 1 until Cinebench crashes. Make sure your radiator cools down fully between passes. Keep thermal throttle limit at 100C.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

If you want to completely take cooling out of the equation and see what your system can do on an open loop, take the fans off your AIO and stick the radiator into a bucket of slightly chilled water.


----------



## fidalgodev

I can live with 5GHz its totally fine.
Dialed down to 5Ghz and cache at 4.7Ghz.

Fixed voltage at 1.26 in bios.

Shows around 1.25V Vcore under load.

I think disabling Intel speedstep/shift and Power States C6/7 helped me a lot

Runned cinebench like 7 times.
This was on the 6th time


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Looking good. Now check for stability with some longer tests.


----------



## fidalgodev

0451 said:


> Looking good. Now check for stability with some longer tests.


Yup trying Real Bench stress test with 16Gb of RAM for 30 min


----------



## ThrashZone

fidalgodev said:


> So I should set that to maximum? I think its 128S


Hi,
Yeah depends what you're doing
Benchmarking absolutely or long stress testing too wouldn't want frequencies to drop.


----------



## fidalgodev

0451 said:


> Looking good. Now check for stability with some longer tests.


Would a custom loop with only a 240mm radiator on the side of the ncase m1 improve my temps by a lot?


----------



## ThrashZone

fidalgodev said:


> Would a custom loop with only a 240mm radiator on the side of the ncase m1 improve my temps by a lot?


Hi,
No.
360mm and a very good water block and D5 pump may.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

fidalgodev said:


> Would a custom loop with only a 240mm radiator on the side of the ncase m1 improve my temps by a lot?


No. You already have a 240mm AIO. If you really want to take off the restrictor plate and find out what your CPU can do in the 1/4 mile try the water bucket trick with your AIO and add a few ice cubes, but not enough to cause condensation.


----------



## fidalgodev

0451 said:


> No. You already have a 240mm AIO. If you really want to take off the restrictor plate and find out what your CPU can do in the 1/4 mile try the water bucket trick with your AIO and add a few ice cubes, but not enough to cause condensation.


Got blue screens with Real Bench :/
Bumped from 1.26V to already 1.305V... Will test again to see if it crashes again.

This is at 5Ghz with 4.7 cache


----------



## geriatricpollywog

What was your max core temp?
Another guy was having temp issues with an AIO and he found that one of the 4 studs holding the cooler in place wasn’t tightened all the way.


----------



## fidalgodev

0451 said:


> What was your max core temp?
> Another guy was having temp issues with an AIO and he found that one of the 4 studs holding the cooler in place wasn’t tightened all the way.


Last stress test I tried 1.295 in bios and it was hitting around 97/98C even with full fans and the top fan.

I will try to re-seat the AIO


----------



## garyd9

0451 said:


> Actually 1.293 under load if you look at the max column. Voltage seems high for that clock speed, more on the level of a 10850k.
> 
> You are cooling 230 watts with that 240 AIO. Try again with the panels off, AIO fans at max, and a large fan blowing onto your case. Can you run a lower core voltage too?


Even for a 10850K, that's a pretty high voltage. My 10850k has 1.279v programmed in the CPU for a 50x multiplier (viewable with the VF table exposed in an Asus BIOS, but I think Intel's XTU tool will also show it), and I run that with a -0.04 offset (1.239v) on all cores even with AVX/AVX2 workloads. I wouldn't expect any real 10900K to need MORE voltage than a 10850K that failed binning to 10900k


----------



## fidalgodev

garyd9 said:


> Even for a 10850K, that's a pretty high voltage. My 10850k has 1.279v programmed in the CPU for a 50x multiplier (viewable with the VF table exposed in an Asus BIOS, but I think Intel's XTU tool will also show it), and I run that with a -0.04 offset (1.239v) on all cores even with AVX/AVX2 workloads. I wouldn't expect any real 10900K to need MORE voltage than a 10850K that failed binning to 10900k


Well mine is only stable with 1.305 in bios.

That's around 1.3V at load...

Maybe I should return it?! lol


----------



## geriatricpollywog

garyd9 said:


> Even for a 10850K, that's a pretty high voltage. My 10850k has 1.279v programmed in the CPU for a 50x multiplier (viewable with the VF table exposed in an Asus BIOS, but I think Intel's XTU tool will also show it), and I run that with a -0.04 offset (1.239v) on all cores even with AVX/AVX2 workloads. I wouldn't expect any real 10900K to need MORE voltage than a 10850K that failed binning to 10900k


Someone has a 10850k stable at 5.2, not sure if it’s you. So there is some overlap in binning.


----------



## Sync0r

It would be interesting to see what a de-lidded 10850k can do with direct die cooling. Do you think Intel bin their chips with the IHS on? As my SP63 10900k improved massively after de-lid and direct die cooling.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

People who buy the10850k and 10700k are likely to buy a motherboard that costs less than the CPU, but 10900k buyers obviously want the best and are often willing to spend $500+ on the board. This may skew the tribal knowledge of what the 10850k is capable of. Fidelgodev’s Asrock board is more likely to be paired with a 10850k yet he is running a 10900k.

MSI Unify is the best bang for buck if you are on a budget because it is $300 yet has 16 90-amp smart power stages like the Maximus 12 Extreme.

Intel could also be binning 10850k and 10900k completely at random, which wouldn’t surprise me based on some of the recent 10900k results.


----------



## garyd9

0451 said:


> Someone has a 10850k stable at 5.2, not sure if it’s you. So there is some overlap in binning.


I've done 5.1, but wasn't happy with the heat/voltage vs performance trade-off so backed down to 50x. I never tried 5.2, In the case of my particular 10850k, I think the IMC sucks (though it's also possible it's the motherboard.) I can run my b-die at 4000-16-16-16-36 @1.46, but can't even do 4100-18-20-20-40 @ 1.5v. 

I'm kind of old school in regards to overclocking: To me, it's about getting more performance for less money, and not overpaying for parts that don't give corresponding performance value for my money. That very much differs from the current trend of over-paying for top-end chips and motherboards solely for overclocking. (I will admit, however, that I bought higher-end RAM, but it was the first time I've owned b-die, and wanted to play with it.)

The 10850K was a nice compromise for me. I get all 10 cores and can overclock with reasonable heat/voltage to speeds higher than the stock 10900K (and without various "thermal boost" intel limitations of the high speeds.) The cost of the 10900K at the time I purchased was about $200 (US) more than the 10850K (microcenter.) 

The motherboard I'm less happy with, but it seemed like the best choice that was available when I purchased the CPU. I probably won't be buying asus boards in the future, however.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

garyd9 said:


> I've done 5.1, but wasn't happy with the heat/voltage vs performance trade-off so backed down to 50x. I never tried 5.2, In the case of my particular 10850k, I think the IMC sucks (though it's also possible it's the motherboard.) I can run my b-die at 4000-16-16-16-36 @1.46, but can't even do 4100-18-20-20-40 @ 1.5v.
> 
> I'm kind of old school in regards to overclocking: To me, it's about getting more performance for less money, and not overpaying for parts that don't give corresponding performance value for my money. That very much differs from the current trend of over-paying for top-end chips and motherboards solely for overclocking. (I will admit, however, that I bought higher-end RAM, but it was the first time I've owned b-die, and wanted to play with it.)
> 
> The 10850K was a nice compromise for me. I get all 10 cores and can overclock with reasonable heat/voltage to speeds higher than the stock 10900K (and without various "thermal boost" intel limitations of the high speeds.) The cost of the 10900K at the time I purchased was about $200 (US) more than the 10850K (microcenter.)
> 
> The motherboard I'm less happy with, but it seemed like the best choice that was available when I purchased the CPU. I probably won't be buying asus boards in the future, however.


Old school for me was delidding my Slot-A Athlon by prying off the Nintendo cartridge style housing and overclocking it by plugging a daughterboard with dip switches into the top of the board. This is how I overclocked when I was a kid.


----------



## fidalgodev

0451 said:


> People who buy the10850k and 10700k are likely to buy a motherboard that costs less than the CPU, but 10900k buyers obviously want the best and are often willing to spend $500+ on the board. This may skew the tribal knowledge of what the 10850k is capable of. Fidelgodev’s Asrock board is more likely to be paired with a 10850k yet he is running a 10900k.
> 
> MSI Unify is the best bang for buck if you are on a budget because it is $300 yet has 16 90-amp smart power stages like the Maximus 12 Extreme.
> 
> Intel could also be binning 10850k and 10900k completely at random, which wouldn’t surprise me based on some of the recent 10900k results.


Yeah im a bit disappointed with mine...
Stable at 5GHz with 1.25V at load on multiple Cinebench runs.

But for Real Bench it needs around 1.3V to be stable at 5Ghz 

I saw Optimum Tech on youtube getting 5.2Ghz at 1.23V so it hurts that I need 1.3V for 5Ghz


----------



## Betroz

fidalgodev said:


> I saw Optimum Tech on youtube getting 5.2Ghz at 1.23V so it hurts that I need 1.3V for 5Ghz


Silicon lottery.


----------



## fidalgodev

Betroz said:


> Silicon lottery.


Yeah I also think they send better binned CPU's to reviewers? 

I will try to get a new 10900K. Hopefully it will be better than my current one.
I doubt it can be worse than 1.3V for 5Ghz?


----------



## Betroz

fidalgodev said:


> I doubt it can be worse than 1.3V for 5Ghz?


My 10900K is stable at 5.0 Ghz with 1.217v under load in Prime95 112k (1.35v set in BIOS with LLC6 on my Apex).


----------



## fidalgodev

Betroz said:


> My 10900K is stable at 5.0 Ghz with 1.217v under load in Prime95 112k (1.35v set in BIOS with LLC6 on my Apex).


1.21V under load, is that the Vcore? Or VR out?
Vcore usually is Socket sense.
VR Out is normally Die sense.

Die sense is normally the must accurate one of what the CPU is getting


----------



## Betroz

fidalgodev said:


> 1.21V under load, is that the Vcore?


Yes. I have an Apex board.


----------



## fidalgodev

Betroz said:


> Yes. I have an Apex board.


Does Apex boards show the Vcore accurate? Kinda like VR Out?


----------



## Betroz

fidalgodev said:


> Does Apex boards show the Vcore accurate?


Yes.


----------



## munternet

I have been at 5.2/49 with 1.3vcore LLC8 running fine but now I am ready for adaptive
@Betroz has got me most of the way,  thanks mate, but now I want to add a little vcore under heavy load
I'm now at 5.2 Ghz with 1.288v under load in Prime95 112k (1.433v set in BIOS with LLC6 on my Apex XII) with errors
I was previously error free at just over 1.3vcore with the allcore fixed overclock
Also should I be set to die sense or socket sense?
Cheers


----------



## Falkentyne

munternet said:


> I have been at 5.2/49 with 1.3vcore LLC8 running fine but now I am ready for adaptive
> @Betroz has got me most of the way,  thanks mate, but now I want to add a little vcore under heavy load
> I'm now at 5.2 Ghz with 1.288v under load in Prime95 112k (1.433v set in BIOS with LLC6 on my Apex XII) with errors
> I was previously error free at just over 1.3vcore with the allcore fixed overclock
> Also should I be set to die sense or socket sense?
> Cheers


Zero reason to use socket sense.

The only reason that option is there is to give vcore equalization read with other boards that don't have VR VOUT (none of the others have die sense, although apparently MSI is "supposed" to get VR VOUT working on Z490, and the only other non Maximus Z390 boards that had die sense as Vcore (rather than VR VOUT, which is always die sense) was one of the Asrock models (I think the Phantom gaming ITX).

And huh?? 1.433v Bios set = 1.288v load in 112k prime95?? Are you sure that isn't LLC5 ?

That's 150mv of vdroop....is that AVX enabled or something? AVX or FMA3 112k is a hell test.
vdroop with LLC6 should only be about 110mv in AVX disabled 112k at 5.2 ghz...


----------



## fidalgodev

Falkentyne said:


> Zero reason to use socket sense.
> 
> The only reason that option is there is to give vcore equalization read with other boards that don't have VR VOUT (none of the others have die sense, although apparently MSI is "supposed" to get VR VOUT working on Z490, and the only other non Maximus Z390 boards that had die sense as Vcore (rather than VR VOUT, which is always die sense) was one of the Asrock models (I think the Phantom gaming ITX).
> 
> And huh?? 1.433v Bios set = 1.288v load in 112k prime95?? Are you sure that isn't LLC5 ?
> 
> That's 150mv of vdroop....is that AVX enabled or something? AVX or FMA3 112k is a hell test.
> vdroop with LLC6 should only be about 110mv in AVX disabled 112k at 5.2 ghz...


Yeah mine is Asrock Z490 GAming ITX/TB3

And VR Out is always much lower than Vcore. Meaning VCore is using Socket sense instead of Die sense.


----------



## munternet

Falkentyne said:


> Zero reason to use socket sense.
> 
> The only reason that option is there is to give vcore equalization read with other boards that don't have VR VOUT (none of the others have die sense, although apparently MSI is "supposed" to get VR VOUT working on Z490, and the only other non Maximus Z390 boards that had die sense as Vcore (rather than VR VOUT, which is always die sense) was one of the Asrock models (I think the Phantom gaming ITX).
> 
> And huh?? 1.433v Bios set = 1.288v load in 112k prime95?? Are you sure that isn't LLC5 ?
> 
> That's 150mv of vdroop....is that AVX enabled or something? AVX or FMA3 112k is a hell test.
> vdroop with LLC6 should only be about 110mv in AVX disabled 112k at 5.2 ghz...


Thanks for the reply 
If I raise the bios set voltage it doesn't have the same effect on the load vcore. I raised it to 1.46v with no gain under load.
Do you have a tutorial on adaptive overclock I can reference?
It was a no AVX test btw
Cheers


----------



## RobertoSampaio

fidalgodev said:


> Last stress test I tried 1.295 in bios and it was hitting around 97/98C even with full fans and the top fan.
> 
> I will try to re-seat the AIO


Check if the pump is configured to max speed...
I have a Corsair 280 mm and the only way to keep low temps is setting the pump to max speed.


----------



## fidalgodev

0451 said:


> What was your max core temp?
> Another guy was having temp issues with an AIO and he found that one of the 4 studs holding the cooler in place wasn’t tightened all the way.


Just got another 10900K.
This one can be stable at 5Ghz using Real Bench for 30 min at 1.28V in bios. This under load uses 1.23V Die sense.
Temps stay around 85/90C when stress testing for a while.

Quite a bit better than my last chip/


----------



## Falkentyne

fidalgodev said:


> Just got another 10900K.
> This one can be stable at 5Ghz using Real Bench for 30 min at 1.28V in bios. This under load uses 1.23V Die sense.
> Temps stay around 85/90C when stress testing for a while.
> 
> Quite a bit better than my last chip/


What motherboard and LLC level?


----------



## fidalgodev

Falkentyne said:


> What motherboard and LLC level?


Asrock z490 gaming itx/tb3

llc1. (maximum on asrock boards) they recommend this one, it even changes automatically to LLC1 when you change voltages everytime.


----------



## sabishiihito

fidalgodev said:


> Yeah I also think they send better binned CPU's to reviewers?
> 
> I will try to get a new 10900K. Hopefully it will be better than my current one.
> I doubt it can be worse than 1.3V for 5Ghz?


Did you happen to catch what the batch# was on that 5.2GHz chip? I wouldn't be surprised if it was week 18 or earlier.


----------



## munternet

I have been doing some testing with P95 112k ffts no AVX while trying to stabilize an adaptive overclock 5.2GHz 4900 cache.
Have only been using this particular testing method very recently.
Haven't had much success even with 1.32 load vcore with my 4300c17 memory overclock which tested stable fixed 5.2GHz with TM5 Extreme1 and GSAT.
I decided to go back to the fixed 5.2/49 overclock with the 4300c17 memory overclock and test with 112k ffts and see how that went. I got an error after about 5 minutes when the test changed up a gear.
My next step was to use the same 112k ffts test on other profiles to see if they could pass.
So far I have only tested my saved 5.2/49 4200c17 profile with surprising results.
It passed 1 1/4 hours easily with only 1.288 vcore under load and 1.2v sa and io.
It's got me wondering if any CPU instability I have is induced by the ram overclock?
Can someone tell me what is failing at the higher memory overclocks and how I can remedy it?
Cheers


----------



## Falkentyne

munternet said:


> I have been doing some testing with P95 112k ffts no AVX while trying to stabilize an adaptive overclock 5.2GHz 4900 cache.
> Have only been using this particular testing method very recently.
> Haven't had much success even with 1.32 load vcore with my 4300c17 memory overclock which tested stable fixed 5.2GHz with TM5 Extreme1 and GSAT.
> I decided to go back to the fixed 5.2/49 overclock with the 4300c17 memory overclock and test with 112k ffts and see how that went. I got an error after about 5 minutes when the test changed up a gear.
> My next step was to use the same 112k ffts test on other profiles to see if they could pass.
> So far I have only tested my saved 5.2/49 4200c17 profile with surprising results.
> It passed 1 1/4 hours easily with only 1.288 vcore under load and 1.2v sa and io.
> It's got me wondering if any CPU instability I have is induced by the ram overclock?
> Can someone tell me what is failing at the higher memory overclocks and how I can remedy it?
> Cheers
> 
> View attachment 2462302
> View attachment 2462304


Raise your tCWL to 16 and test 112k FFT on the one (4300C17?) that failed last time and report your results please.


----------



## munternet

Falkentyne said:


> Raise your tCWL to 16 and test 112k FFT on the one (4300C17?) that failed last time and report your results please.


Thanks for the reply
It turns out 2 of my tertiaries on the 4300c17 were on 5 which I raised to 6, same as the 4200c17 above and the 112k FFTs came good. 
I tested GSAT with those same settings and it spewed errors about a minute in. Raising tCWL to 16 and raising the associated values by 2 fixed that


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Hi,

I have an Asus Maximus XII Formula using 2 of 4 available DIMMs. 
I saw in BIOS I can disable the DIMMs That are not in use. 
The question is: Will I have any gain disabling the DIMMs sockets not in use?


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> Hi,
> 
> I have an Asus Maximus XII Formula using 2 of 4 available DIMMs.
> I saw in BIOS I can disable the DIMMs That are not in use.
> The question is: Will I have any gain disabling the DIMMs sockets not in use?


I have heard that if you do not disable the unused slots, the clock signal is still sent and you may get reflections. I don't know if that is accurate or not, but they put that setting in the bios for a reason. I always disabled slots not in use. Can't hurt.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> I have heard that if you do not disable the unused slots, the clock signal is still sent and you may get reflections. I don't know if that is accurate or not, but they put that setting in the bios for a reason. I always disabled slots not in use. Can't hurt.


Disabled !!!

Does anyone know what "Active frequency mode" does in DIP5? 
Turning it on, I have performance gains in cinebench. But always I restart windows it goes back to off...


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> Disabled !!!
> 
> Does anyone know what "Active frequency mode" does in DIP5?
> Turning it on, I have performance gains in cinebench. But always I restart windows it goes back to off...


Basically a power saving mode:
It varies the VRM frequency from lower frequency at low load (current) to higher frequency at high loads. You have to have VRM frequency set to auto and VRM spread spectrum set to disabled for this option to show up in the BIOS. So enabling this in AISuite overides these VRM settings you had in BIOS until the next boot.


----------



## BillyMartin1964

Got a strange situation maybe someone ran into:

New Gigabyte Aorus 490 Pro, I9-10900K, OLOy DDR4 RAM 64GB (2x32GB) 3000 MHz CL16 1.35V 288-Pin Desktop Gaming UDIMM (MD4U323016DJDA).

Had to throw in all these variables at once because I upgraded from an AMD.

Can't get it past 4900 for everyday work. Intel Extreme Benmark crashes it at 4800. It passes all tests with Intel Processor Diagnostic tool at 4600, but crashes at 4700.

Problem is, the crash is immediate. It never gets hot. I don't know if it's the motherboard, Ram, or some sucky silicone.

I also can't run this ram with the Xamp Profile on.

Any ideas would be appreciated. Not trying to win a speed contest, but would love 5100 and settle for a stable 5000.

Thanks.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Hi,

I need VCore=1.25 load to be stable @5.1GHz ...

I can do this with:

VID=1.34 and LLC=6
or
VID=1.28 and LLC=7

Which the better choice ?


----------



## GeneO

I would go for LLC6 with that low of a voltage. Transients will probably be less.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I'm testing LLC7 and the system is stable @VID=1.27 - VCore=1.24 load...

There is any problem to use a so high LLC?

LCC7 seems to be great !


----------



## GeneO

Potentially larger under and overshoot and higher voltage required to be stable.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

But do you think I could have problems running at LLC7?


----------



## geriatricpollywog

RobertoSampaio said:


> But do you think I could have problems running at LLC7?


Nobody has reported breaking a 10900k on this thread.


----------



## dseg

munternet said:


> I have an easy peasy method I use on the Apex for a fixed overclock. What board do you have?


Z490-E


----------



## munternet

RobertoSampaio said:


> But do you think I could have problems running at LLC7?


I prefer running LLC7 or 8 on the Apex XII, and I've reverted to a fixed overclock from the adaptive. Didn't like it.
I think the overshoot/transient intensity could depend on the VRM quality of your board and it's ability to stabilize quickly and smoothly on the required voltage


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I Never tried LLC8...
At 5.1Ghz
LLC6 I have 80mv droop
LLC7 I have 30mv droop
I'll find out Vdroop LLC8... LOL


----------



## munternet

dseg said:


> Z490-E


I don't know if the Strix and the Maximus range have the same BIOS but this is what mine looks like
Try at your own risk 
It's all on the Extreme Tweaker Tab and LLC is in the Digi VRM sub section
Obviously you will start around 5GHz and see how it goes

Edit: VCCIO and VCCSA are set for the ram overclock so yours might be much lower


----------



## Betroz

munternet said:


> I prefer running LLC7 or 8 on the Apex XII, and I've reverted to a fixed overclock from the adaptive. Didn't like it.


Did you lose latency/performance in BFV?


----------



## munternet

Betroz said:


> Did you lose latency/performance in BFV?


I'm a simple man and it just complicates things too much 
All my saved profiles are fixed and I can get my temps and voltages lower with fixed
Sure idle temps and frequency were lower but my PC never idles


----------



## caki

all of a sudden my 2080ti started working on pcie x2 instead of x16. Already tried with another 2080ti which also works only x2 (under load as well). Seated the card a few times but no avail. Tried the x8 pcie slot which works as it should with x8 speed but the x16 slot still working as x2. CPU doesn't show any signs of problem (same bench scores, temps and stability passes). So it seems like i f'd up something with my cpu while delidding (installed supercool computer direct die last week) which so far only affects the pcie lanes. Can't see anything wrong with the pins on the mb and cpu. I'd appreciate any ideas whether i should just switch to a new cpu or anything else to try before doing that.


----------



## ThrashZone

caki said:


> all of a sudden my 2080ti started working on pcie x2 instead of x16. Already tried with another 2080ti which also works only x2 (under load as well). Seated the card a few times but no avail. Tried the x8 pcie slot which works as it should with x8 speed but the x16 slot still working as x2. CPU doesn't show any signs of problem (same bench scores, temps and stability passes). So it seems like i f'd up something with my cpu while delidding (installed supercool computer direct die last week) which so far only affects the pcie lanes. Can't see anything wrong with the pins on the mb and cpu. I'd appreciate any ideas whether i should just switch to a new cpu or anything else to try before doing that.


Hi,
Someone else had an issue "didn't say anything about delid" and turned out after rma'ing the board formula same thing on a new
Turned out it was the 10900k oddly enough top pci-e slot issues.


----------



## caki

rather interesting... i coated around the die with clear nail polish and did a clean job cleaning the area around the die so i'm not sure what caused the damage unless its an issue with uneven pressure caused by the ihs replacement of the direct die cooler. cpu can still bench @5.4 1.35vload but its in a gaming rig so with this x2 speed its a bummer.


----------



## ThrashZone

caki said:


> rather interesting... i coated around the die with clear nail polish and did a clean job cleaning the area around the die so i'm not sure what caused the damage unless its an issue with uneven pressure caused by the ihs replacement of the direct die cooler. cpu can still bench @5.4 1.35vload but its in a gaming rig so with this x2 speed its a bummer.


Hi,
That was the deal on the other fellows rig 
Benchmarks were terrible and finally dropped the 2080ti to x8 slot and boom worked as was supposed too
Most everyone suspected the board but 10900k was the issue.

So put humpty dumpty 10900k back together and rma it.


----------



## ThrashZone

caki said:


> rather interesting... i coated around the die with clear nail polish and did a clean job cleaning the area around the die so i'm not sure what caused the damage unless its an issue with uneven pressure caused by the ihs replacement of the direct die cooler. cpu can still bench @5.4 1.35vload but its in a gaming rig so with this x2 speed its a bummer.


Here's the thread if you want to read about it and yes x3








X299 vs Z490 FPS drop on RTX2080ti Help!


Hi Everyone, I have a really weird problem here and I am hoping someone can suggest a fix for me or some things I can try. I recently swapped my X299 motherboard for a Z490 and I am now seeing around half the FPS in games than I was getting before using the same RTX2080ti GPU. This is really...




www.overclock.net


----------



## caki

its weird that guy's gpu-z kept showing 16x 3.0 in his main slot. Mine consistently shows x2 since the problem has begun. 

i uninstalled and reinstalled the cpu / cooler combo with a new application of LM on the die. guess what? gpu-z shows 16x 3.0 bandwidth! ran some benchmarks and after an hour or so performance plummeted suddenly and gpu z shows 2x 3.0 back again. 😕

even weirder but bios started showing the cpu as sp95 whereas it used to be a sp96 for the last 2 months lol


----------



## acoustic

Chip is bad


----------



## geriatricpollywog

caki said:


> all of a sudden my 2080ti started working on pcie x2 instead of x16. Already tried with another 2080ti which also works only x2 (under load as well). Seated the card a few times but no avail. Tried the x8 pcie slot which works as it should with x8 speed but the x16 slot still working as x2. CPU doesn't show any signs of problem (same bench scores, temps and stability passes). So it seems like i f'd up something with my cpu while delidding (installed supercool computer direct die last week) which so far only affects the pcie lanes. Can't see anything wrong with the pins on the mb and cpu. I'd appreciate any ideas whether i should just switch to a new cpu or anything else to try before doing that.


I had the exact same issue with a Maximus 9 Formula, 7700k and Vega 64. After removing and reinstalling the CPU, the card only worked in 2x mode in the x16 slot. The 8x slot worked fine. It turned out to be bent pins in the CPU socket. I sold the board and the buyer was able to carefully bend back the pins and get the x16 slot working again.


acoustic said:


> Chip is bad


Your assumption is bad.


----------



## caki

hmm time to switch the mb to see what happens. i could find some bent pins and fixed them as much as i could see (that gave me a migrain doh!) but still could be the culprit. Also just saw one of the contact pads on the cpu's 1st vertical line of contacts (from the side of arrow sign) was partially stripped exposing the nickel(?) like material beneath. So far i could get x4, x8 during a few more installations of the cpu but all went back to x2 after a few restarts.


----------



## acoustic

[QUOTE="0451, post: 28657355, member:
Your assumption is bad.
[/QUOTE]

The guy said he couldn't see any bent pins when I replied. I guess I should work on information that isn't available or be a mind-reader.

If you have bent pins in the mobo, then replace the mobo. I have no idea how you managed to bend pins AND scrape the bottom of the processor up, but maybe you'll get lucky..


----------



## caki

turns out as bent pins. thanks for all the inputs!


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Could someone explain to me how voltage control is done in the Maximus XII and I9-10900k set? 

It seems that there is a hierarchy ... fixed, Offset, V/F curve, Adaptive... 

Adaptive seems that it is only applied to the turbo boost, for everything else the system follows the V/F + offset curve. 
That's it?


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> Could someone explain to me how voltage control is done in the Maximus XII and I9-10900k set?
> 
> It seems that there is a hierarchy ... fixed, Offset, V/F curve, Adaptive...
> 
> Adaptive seems that it is only applied to the turbo boost, for everything else the system follows the V/F + offset curve.
> That's it?


Yes, for Asus boards.

There is also thermal velocity boost, which applies a correction to the VF curve depending on the temperature.


----------



## Robertomcat

A question about installing a new BIOS update on an MSI motherboard. 

On Gigabyte motherboards the settings are deleted when you install a new BIOS, but the MSI Z490 motherboard I have never updated the BIOS, and today I see that there is a new version. Also all the configuration is erased with the new version? Thank you!


----------



## munternet

I usually clr cmos or load optimized defaults prior to flashing to avoid lockups


----------



## acoustic

Typically I revert to default settings prior to flashing, and definitely clear the CMOS after the flash. You don't want any weird remnants from the old BIOS.


----------



## conpain

I am using a 10900k with a Gigabyte Z490 master, 32GB G.Skill 4000-CL19, Seasonic PRIME titanium 1000W PSU and as cooler the arctic freezer ii 360mm with push/pull configuration.
System: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/396277027096887308/763492853627224114/DSC_8147_00001_01.jpg

*A fresh 10900k (avengers edition)
* 5.2GHz @ 1.270v in BIOS *LLC-medium, P95 ~85°C (with 27°C ambient) with a z490 master
** RAM 4000 @ 4400 MHz CL19-19-19 1.35V*

P95 small https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/396277027096887308/767819493879316541/unknown.png
*CBR20 6801* https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachme...768017592728027136/6801_52_48_1.250_1.500.PNG
AIO Arctic 360mm push/pull https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/396277027096887308/763492853627224114/DSC_8147_00001_01.jpg
** 5.3GHz @ 1.350v in BIOS* LLC-medium
** RAM 4000 @ 4400 MHz CL19-19-19 1.35V*

P95 small is just shy under thermal throttling (kept it at default °C)
*CBR20 6926 *


https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/396277027096887308/763097714795085844/6926_53_48_1.350V_MEDIUM.png



I would like some OC suggestion how to get 5.3GHz stable without using 1.350V. I can boot into windows and run CBR20 with 5.3GHz + 1.280v in BIOS but it is not stable in Prime95_SMALL=noAVX.
I did not change much of the BIOS settings, disabled the Efficiencent-Turbo-Setting, disabled Turbo-Limits and just set multiplier and manual Vcore and DDR4 voltage to 1.35V. LLC is at medium, I did not see any improvements with HIGH/TURBO so I left it at medium. Lowering the cache OC did not do much. I am able to run 49x Cache multiplier, but the best benchmarks results were with 48x so I left it on 48. 50x Cache OC was instant crash allready in CBR20.

What setting could I try to lower the Vcore under 1.350v, because the AVX load with 290-300W is way to high for my cooler, I get peaks into 93°C at the start and it remains in the 92-93°C range with CBR20 allready.


----------



## Placekicker19

Just got a 10900k and the idle vid @ 5.1 is 1.24vs, load is 1.28v. I thought the chip was decent until checking the vid @ 5.2ghz, idle is 1.365 and load is 1.44. I cant even pass cinebench r15 @5.3ghz with 1.47 without errors/bsods, my temps reach 91 on the hottest core with a 480mm rad on its oen loop.

My 9900ks easily did 5.3ghz with 1.35vs bios, i haf direct die cooling and temps stayed below 70. Maybe if i get the temps down i can push 5.3ghz. I know the 9900KS stability was terrible once temps hit upper 80s, lower 90s.

What kind of temp drop do you see with direct die cooling in thr 10900k? Ive seen people report up to a 10degree drop from delidding alone. 


I


----------



## ThrashZone

acoustic said:


> Typically I revert to default settings prior to flashing, and definitely clear the CMOS after the flash. You don't want any weird remnants from the old BIOS.


Hi,
If bugs lived through bios flash new or flashback it's not saying much for bios writers lol and the process in general  
Only may need to clear cmos before not after bios flashing otherwise we're all screwed so yeah sorry overkill buddy.


----------



## acoustic

It takes 3 seconds to clear the CMOS these days. I'd rather do overkill considering the amount of time it takes


----------



## ThrashZone

acoustic said:


> It takes 3 seconds to clear the CMOS these days. I'd rather do overkill considering the amount of time it takes


Hi,
Actually I believe you're supposed to hold down the button 5 seconds.


----------



## acoustic

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Actually I believe you're supposed to hold down the button 5 seconds.


Ah ****, that changes everything!


----------



## ThrashZone

acoustic said:


> Ah ****, that changes everything!


Hi,
Yeah longer would be better 
For example not saying do it this long
But if you unplug your system from wall outlet to drain all power out the system you'd hold the power button for 45 seconds so a little longer than 5 won't hurt anything.


----------



## Placekicker19

Bought another 10900k to test and this one has a idle vid of 1.245 @ 5.1 , the first was 1.24 . However going to 5.2ghz has the exact same 1.365 idle vid, over 1.4 load . The chips were made in different weeks and one was made in Vietnam and the other china. The second can at least pass cinebench r15 and r20 @ 5.3ghz without error, It took a bios voltage setting of 1.415 and temps maxed at 89 on the hottest core. The first chip couldn't even pass r15 without errors and i tested all the way to 1.47. Hopefully with a delid and direct die i can drop temps 10+ degrees and I can run 5.3 daily. 

Have anyone used the rockit cool 9th gen delid kit on the 10th gen? I know the pcb and ihs are a different height on the 10th gen, which makes me think they are not compatible.


----------



## caki

yea i tried it with alphacool block. had to squeeze down the block much more than usual to get peoper contact but yes it improved temps around 10-12 compared to stock ihs.


----------



## cstkl1

@Falkentyne 

that whea thing you were saying on micraft..

its easily seen in Ghostrunner

so now i get to find the issue with this.. seems dram based on third timings...


----------



## cstkl1

this game is awesome..

btw after the latest game patch the fps took a dive..

day 1.. the rtx was ok but DLSS performance was jaggy just like legion
then nvidia driver released.. 
everything was good and insane jump
then game had a patch..
fps took a nose dive...

superb ram tester and cpu cache.. for 48 i had to recalculate all the v/f for vcore min for LL3 ( was using LL6 before this)


----------



## Betroz

cstkl1 said:


> superb ram tester and cpu cache.. for 48 i had to recalculate all the v/f for vcore min for LL3 ( was using LL6 before this)


Have you tried LLC8? The Apex seems to handle it very well.


----------



## cstkl1

Betroz said:


> Have you tried LLC8? The Apex seems to handle it very well.


Bro higher llc is higher cpu temp.

llc 1-3 actually the lowest

the cache issue for me i guess since i am using cstate


----------



## Nizzen

cstkl1 said:


> Bro higher llc is higher cpu temp.
> 
> llc 1-3 actually the lowest
> 
> the cache issue for me i guess since i am using cstate


Looks like you need Direct die cooling. Then you will never see high cpu temperature again


----------



## Betroz

cstkl1 said:


> llc 1-3 actually the lowest


Low LLC requires you to set a high vcore in BIOS, and if you are running manual vcore and no powersaving stuff, then that means very high idle voltage. I use mostly LLC6.



cstkl1 said:


> the cache issue for me i guess since i am using cstate


You don't need to have c-states enabled to let the CPU clock down.


----------



## cstkl1

Betroz said:


> Low LLC requires you to set a high vcore in BIOS, and if you are running manual vcore and no powersaving stuff, then that means very high idle voltage. I use mostly LLC6.
> 
> 
> You don't need to have c-states enabled to let the CPU clock down.


3-5A idle 8 w.. yes i do..


----------



## cstkl1

Nizzen said:


> Looks like you need Direct die cooling. Then you will never see high cpu temperature again


lol.. aint gonna fall for that.. infact this is the first intel cpu i havent delided since 3770k bro..
everyone of them hard to tell after a year of 24/7 use and basic ram raping.. degraded to a point i had to always check the substrate was intact etc...

anyway.. the temps is fine.. its reporting the max package temp from hwinfo..

btw i found something weird with rtx 3080.. gonna post it in the owners thread...


----------



## Betroz

cstkl1 said:


> 3-5A idle 8 w.. yes i do..


If you are worried about the electrical bill, then don't OC your CPU


----------



## cstkl1

Betroz said:


> If you are worried about the electrical bill, then don't OC your CPU


errr first you said you dont need cstate for clockdown and now you are stating my electricity bill which is usd 580 per month btw.. go biggie. 

v/f oc is pushing limits of stock behavior of a cpu.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

fidalgodev said:


> Would a custom loop with only a 240mm radiator on the side of the ncase m1 improve my temps by a lot?





fidalgodev said:


> Asrock z490 gaming itx/tb3
> 
> llc1. (maximum on asrock boards) they recommend this one, it even changes automatically to LLC1 when you change voltages everytime.


Did you realize your VCCIO=2,368V ?


----------



## munternet

RobertoSampaio said:


> Did you realize your VCCIO=2,368V ?


I just went back and had a look, well spotted 
You are correct, unless that's a glitch. Can't be good for it


----------



## RobertoSampaio

This explain why fidalgodev processor is running so hot and crashing, I guess...
PCH is high too...



https://www.overclock.net/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,onerror=redirect,width=1920,height=1920,fit=scale-down/https://www.overclock.net/attachments/capture-png.2461860/


----------



## Robertomcat

Hey guys, see if you can give me a hand. Thanks.
This afternoon I replaced my MSI motherboard with an Asus Maximus Formula, and migrated the NVMe disk to the new motherboard, previously removing all MSI software and drivers (without removing the operating system).
In the POST of the new motherboard, in the alphanumeric display on the upper right side, it is fixed in A2 (IDE Detect) and in the LCD display appears "HDD CMOS ERROR" without having any peripheral or SATA connected, only the D5 pump is connected in the specific port that indicates the motherboard, two fans and the NVMe.
The problem may come from the fact that the BIOS cannot communicate with the hard disk that has Windows? installed.

At the moment I have not been able to access the BIOS, because I do not have the graphics card, nor do I have a DP to USB-C adapter to connect the display to the motherboard. Thanks.

10900K
128GB Corsair LPX 3600MHz
Intel SSD 760p NVMe 250GB


----------



## RobertoSampaio

My video driver is crashing... Could be a low VCCIO or VCCSA? Or Memory OC failure?


----------



## ThrashZone

RobertoSampaio said:


> My video driver is crashing... Could be a low VCCIO or VCCSA? Or Memory OC failure?


Hi,
Have you ruled out global warming.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I live in global warming....LOL Here the room temps are about 33C... LOL.
I set VCCIO/SA 1.20/1.25 and Memory from 4133 to 4100, and solved the problem. I guess....


----------



## ThrashZone

RobertoSampaio said:


> I live in global warming....LOL Here the room temps are about 33C... LOL.
> I set VCCIO/SA 1.20/1.25 and Memory from 4133 to 4100, and solved the problem. I guess....


Hi,
Without any temp or voltage readings offered global warming was a best guess of which dimm temps can make or break an oc pretty easily.


----------



## Betroz

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Have you ruled out global warming.


No no, it's COVID-19 that has infected his computer  (you know, that fake virus)


----------



## ThrashZone

HI,
Yep both produce high fever


----------



## Memmento Mori

Dear Gents,
looking for any advice to get better results with my CPU. Had before 5,1Ghz/4,5Ghz Ring with 1,275V vCore but could not pass Cinebench R20 or RB..... Just Aida64 strestesting ....

Now I discovered that I can pass RB and CInebench with 5,0Ghz/4,5Ghz RIng with 1,265V vCore.... Im cooling the CPU with Thermalright Truespirit 140 Power....

Here are my settings:









































Are lower temps with same or higher clocks possible to achieve? (except to change the cooling solution...)

Tried to post same information and request in the "MSI MEG Z490 ACE & UNIFY Overclocking Club" thread, but no constructive reply, so im just trying to find some advice here....


Thanks for any advice 

BR,
MM.


----------



## acoustic

Lower temps can allow you to run a step or two lower voltage on the same clock speed, or a higher clock speed at the same voltage, but it's not going to be a dramatic 600Mhz difference.

I would stick to 5Ghz. Try to bump the cache up as far as you can before it causes instability, and then leave it. Running excess voltage on an air-cooler for 100Mhz won't be worth it.

I use a combo of Realbench overnight, and then 20 loop passes of Cinebench R20 and R15. After that, gaming is the long-term test..


----------



## Betroz

Memmento Mori said:


> Im cooling the CPU with Thermalright Truespirit 140 Power


10900K + air cooler + overclocking = fail. My advice : Run it at stock speed, but play with the power limit settings in BIOS to match what your cooler is able to cool. Let's say something between 150 and 200W. You could try to undervolt the CPU using negative vcore offset in BIOS.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I think CPU IO, CPU SA and DRAM voltage are too high... it is possible to run 53x3 52x5 51x8 50x10... but with low voltage as possible.


----------



## Robertomcat

Hello, good morning.

I am running the processor with all cores at 5.2GHz and a voltage of 1.355 and the computer is stable. Will there be any problem in the future leaving it with this configuration? 

I also have another question about the processor. The Asus motherboard tells me that I have an SP of 64, I understand that this is a relatively bad processor, right?


----------



## Betroz

Robertomcat said:


> The Asus motherboard tells me that I have an SP of 64, I understand that this is a relatively bad processor, right?


Most have SP63, like I have.


----------



## Robertomcat

Betroz said:


> Most have SP63, like I have.


So it's within the average of what you might call a normal processor, isn't it? Could you make it work at 5.3GHz?

What is the maximum voltage that should be used in this processor?

Eskerrik asko!


----------



## Nizzen

Betroz said:


> Most have SP63, like I have.


Direct die cooling3 pretty much unlocks sp63 

Myb 5.6ghz 3dmark results is with sp63 on water lol


----------



## Betroz

Robertomcat said:


> So it's within the average of what you might call a normal processor, isn't it? Could you make it work at 5.3GHz?


I only have a puny AIO, so 5.0 HT On or 5.2 HT Off.


----------



## Robertomcat

Betroz said:


> I only have a puny AIO, so 5.0 HT On or 5.2 HT Off.


I have a custom one, and at 5.2 it reaches a maximum temperature of 80°, so possibly at 5.3 (which I would be surprised if I could put) it could reach between 85 and 90°.


----------



## Betroz

Robertomcat said:


> I have a custom one, and at 5.2 it reaches a maximum temperature of 80°, so possibly at 5.3 (which I would be surprised if I could put) it could reach between 85 and 90°.


The jump in voltage between 5.2 and 5.3 is probably much higher than between 5.1 and 5.2. I would just keep it at 5.2.


----------



## Robertomcat

Betroz said:


> The jump in voltage between 5.2 and 5.3 is probably much higher than between 5.1 and 5.2. I would just keep it at 5.2.


Yes, and possibly the temperature is not 85° either, but more than 90°. I've tried to set it to 5.3 once, but the computer always locked up and I didn't try it any more. I think 5.2 is the most reasonable.


----------



## Memmento Mori

Betroz said:


> 10900K + air cooler + overclocking = fail. My advice : Run it at stock speed, but play with the power limit settings in BIOS to match what your cooler is able to cool. Let's say something between 150 and 200W. You could try to undervolt the CPU using negative vcore offset in BIOS.


As you can see the temps are under heavy load so the cooler is capable to handle it better then my old corsair with a 280 rad. Under Aida64 stresstesting i get max 91-93 degrees spikes mostly running at mid/end 80 degrees...Just playing games the temps are sitting between 55-65 max spikes. The air cooler is rated at 360w TPD... Also the system is stable and not running into any problems.... so it depends what air cooler and airflow you have... but ok thats my oppinion..

Now back to the settings is there anything i could improve?

Thanks for any advice 



RobertoSampaio said:


> I think CPU IO, CPU SA and DRAM voltage are too high... it is possible to run 53x3 52x5 51x8 50x10... but with low voltage as possible.


Well regarding the IO and SA voltage there is no unified opinion what is the limit and as the Dimms are originally rated at 3200 Mhz c14 i thing that the result and voltage is kinda ok.... or im missing something?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

This is true...

I'm testing vccsa/io... Could higher voltages produce better results in cb r20?


----------



## Circaflex

Stock IHS i hit 85/86C loaded at points, switched to copper IHS and it would load to 80/81, now moved to direct die and I load at 75 (granted the ambient temp is better right now too). No idea what SP my chip is, I am on MSI mobo. I hit 5.3ghz no issue with 50 ring using 1.36 volts.


----------



## Circaflex

Placekicker19 said:


> Bought another 10900k to test and this one has a idle vid of 1.245 @ 5.1 , the first was 1.24 . However going to 5.2ghz has the exact same 1.365 idle vid, over 1.4 load . The chips were made in different weeks and one was made in Vietnam and the other china. The second can at least pass cinebench r15 and r20 @ 5.3ghz without error, It took a bios voltage setting of 1.415 and temps maxed at 89 on the hottest core. The first chip couldn't even pass r15 without errors and i tested all the way to 1.47. Hopefully with a delid and direct die i can drop temps 10+ degrees and I can run 5.3 daily.
> 
> Have anyone used the rockit cool 9th gen delid kit on the 10th gen? I know the pcb and ihs are a different height on the 10th gen, which makes me think they are not compatible.


why not just do it right and get the new 10th gen kit? i got one and it works perfectly.


----------



## Danielboy

Hello guys new to the forum. Ive been having a blast playing around in bios with my new computer with a 10900k - z490 f gaming - G.skill ddr4 3600mhz 16-19-19-39 xmp profile.

My overclock id consider pretty avg but stable from alot of stresstests its mainly for a 24-7 setup and mostly gaming will be done.
5.1 Ghz @ 1.332 Vcore (Adaptive 1.250 Offset - 0.060 LLC6) So the avg vcore is quite low. Cache set to Auto - 50 multiplier in bios.

My question is mostly about Cache overclock...im curious why i cant get more then 4800mhz on Cache. If i set multiplier to 50 tests show 4800mhz is the top ever tracked. So how i configured was Minimum Auto and max 50. If i make Minimum Cache 46 and maximum 46 my computer tend to freeze at my current voltage settings.

Computer seem rock solid from everything activated in Aida64 temps pretty low and this is temps i will never see playing games aswell


----------



## Danielboy

RobertoSampaio said:


> I live in global warming....LOL Here the room temps are about 33C... LOL.
> I set VCCIO/SA 1.20/1.25 and Memory from 4133 to 4100, and solved the problem. I guess....


If i leave my vccio/sa auto with xmp profile i saw voltages of 1.33/1.536 so i put my manually to 1.22/1.22 lol


----------



## Daggaz

Hey everybody,
So I am new to this and could use some help. My system:

10900k 
Asus Rog Max 12 Hero (wifi)
JustWaiting for a GPU (NVIDIA!!!)
2x16Gb G.skill trident z rgb 3200 14 14 14 34 (XMP is currently enabled)
NH D15 + 5x 140mm PMW case fans, all operational

Ive been watching/reading a lot, but lot of conflicting information. Saw many buildzoid videos and I lean pretty hard towards his advice.. (smart guy but damn he rambles). So I guess my problems/questions are: 

1) I cant find the CPU core multiplier in my UEFI bios. 
2) If I set CPU voltage to manual from auto, I cant see how to actually set the voltage value. I might be ******ed.
3) My system prediction starts out looking good (160 pts for cooler, 69 sp which I guess is ok not great?), but the predicted voltage stability for 5300 MHz is 1.516 @L4, isn't that crazy high?? 

Anyhow, I've disabled MCE and I ran my system for 30 minutes with prime95 small FFT before getting those prediction values. My core temp goes from about 28C to 60C under that load, at stock settings. I would like to do some manual bumps and find a decent oc that is safe/stable without burning up my CPU, don't need to hit 5.3 but either way could definitely use some advice here. 

Thanks for reading my blog :^)


----------



## Daggaz

Ok I found the core multiplier. /facepalm


----------



## Daggaz

All right, think I am getting the hang of this. I've got all cores running at 5 Ghz with vcore at 1.34 and llc at 6. I can run cinebench 2.0 here no crashes (6309) but I hit temps of 80 to 85C. I can run prime95 fft with avx off no problem at all, cpu temps only get to about 70C. If i switch on AVX it will run without crashing but gets hot. Lowering llc to 5 will blue-screen pretty quick, so I must be on the edge of the voltage stability. 

I'm considering delidding and either going direct die or getting a copper ihs, but will probably put that off a bit until ive had time to really mess around and see if i need more power or not. 

If anybody here has some more technical or just general advice, that would be great. Also about how to properly stress test, if I am making any mistakes. I will try to read thru this giant thread again in the meantime. Thanks!


----------



## ThrashZone

HI,
CPU's already have copper ihs.


----------



## Daggaz

ThrashZone said:


> HI,
> CPU's already have copper ihs.


Intel stock IHS are nickel plated and smaller, so the heat transfer suffers slightly. I figure if Im going to delid in order to replace stock TIM solder with liquid metal, then might as well remove the stock IHS and either replace it or just go direct die. Id prefer direct, but the extra risk of mechanical damage is worrisome.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

There is a new bios Version 0805 for asus maximus XII...
Is it a good update?


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> There is a new bios Version 0805 for asus maximus XII...
> Is it a good update?


If you will tell me where I can find it for my Hero, I will let you know


----------



## Placekicker19

Circaflex said:


> why not just do it right and get the new 10th gen kit? i got one and it works perfectly.


I ordered a 10th gen direct die frame, USPS lost it though and rockit cool is sending another. I was just curious if the 9th gen delid kit was compatible since I already own one, and theres no point of buying another if 9th gen works.


----------



## cstkl1

__





We'll be back.






rog.asus.com





@shamino1978 
how useful is this??
cause just like stock.. theres no gain in that allocating 2 cores etc ever since intel EOLed that software thing in hedt x299 which will make sure games/software uses that two higher clocked cores...


----------



## tiefox

Anyone is going to try this 



 ?

Im inclined to try with direct die...but my 10900k is a bad bin, perhaps it is worth testing trying to get a better bin


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Dang an ek product must be 1k.us lol


----------



## shamino1978

cstkl1 said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We'll be back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rog.asus.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @shamino1978
> how useful is this??
> cause just like stock.. theres no gain in that allocating 2 cores etc ever since intel EOLed that software thing in hedt x299 which will make sure games/software uses that two higher clocked cores...


try it, try the +1boost at least first, pretty sure you can get one bin more in moments where there is therm margins, it just trying to milk the very last bit out. I know the what you set must be what u get all the time mentality, non-determinstic behavior puts off many people but this type of mentality actually sacrifice perf.


----------



## cstkl1

tiefox said:


> Anyone is going to try this
> 
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> Im inclined to try with direct die...but my 10900k is a bad bin, perhaps it is worth testing trying to get a better bin


Direct die and asus tvb bios.


----------



## Betroz

shamino1978 said:


> try it, try the +1boost at least first, pretty sure you can get one bin more in moments where there is therm margins, it just trying to milk the very last bit out. I know the what you set must be what u get all the time mentality, non-determinstic behavior puts off many people but this type of mentality actually sacrifice perf.


The people who run let's say a 10900K at a static allcore clock, with HT disabled too, are the ones who want as low latency as possible in competitive fps games. They say that enabling c-states and other stuff just adds latency.


----------



## cstkl1

shamino1978 said:


> try it, try the +1boost at least first, pretty sure you can get one bin more in moments where there is therm margins, it just trying to milk the very last bit out. I know the what you set must be what u get all the time mentality, non-determinstic behavior puts off many people but this type of mentality actually sacrifice perf.


bro theres a flaw.

if i set sync all core or do v/f oc per core usage

tvb on manual
the offset is on the sync all core cpu clock
meaning the max clock is sync all core cpu clock..

whats the issue. i cannot use v/f oc amd have to resort to cpu manual voltage oc
to lower down the voltage.

but using your profile though it works properly.

but no biggie i just adjust the last v/f point 8


----------



## shamino1978

meaning the max clock is sync all core cpu clock.. 
dont get what u mean
u synch all cores to 54x, save exit
enter bios
back into tvb page
the readback will then be based on the 54x.
if u do not save and exit, the readback will be the current values.
if you target say 55x and manual octvb, set 55x (again reminding u of cstate necessity) save exit
back into bios readback, manually customize rows needed, save exit
readback again, it should be what u would expect.


----------



## shamino1978

Betroz said:


> The people who run let's say a 10900K at a static allcore clock, with HT disabled too, are the ones who want as low latency as possible in competitive fps games. They say that enabling c-states and other stuff just adds latency.


maybe, but most others just go by pre conceived bias and have never actually compared actual perf between various methods.


----------



## GeneO

cstkl1 said:


> bro theres a flaw.
> 
> if i set sync all core or do v/f oc per core usage
> 
> tvb on manual
> the offset is on the sync all core cpu clock
> meaning the max clock is sync all core cpu clock..
> 
> whats the issue. i cannot use v/f oc amd have to resort to cpu manual voltage oc
> to lower down the voltage.
> 
> but using your profile though it works properly.
> 
> but no biggie i just adjust the last v/f point 8


I am 5.1 all-core. I am in a pickle. I either have to adjust VF7 and/or VF8 too high. otherwise the voltage interpolation betteen VF7 (50x) and VF8 (now 52x) is too low for 51x and unstable.


----------



## cstkl1

GeneO said:


> I am 5.1 all-core. I am in a pickle. I either have to adjust VF7 and/or VF8 too high. otherwise the voltage interpolation betteen VF7 (50x) and VF8 (now 52x) is too low for 51x and unstable.


nah bro just ignore it.
ok v/f oc.. hmm i couldnt get it to work properly on m12F.. it seems to always revert to cache voltage
but m12e works properly

best case scenario
so in per core usage i set 53|10
LL6
enable cstate
tvb enabled.
i set TEMP A 70,2, 80 ( since 77c is my prime95 5.1ghz no avx load).. to all of them
and its good...
tested prime 95.. it drops properly to 5.1ghz.. .. vid is as per my v/f for 5.1 1.274.. so it is working properly...

the second 80c up to u guys actually
so for v/f on 5.2ghz.. it works as well

best game to test atm is NFS heat since it uses avx...

basically WE GET BACK the 5.3ghz for gaming with our all core load for 10900k.. so for me its not a toss up between 54 gaming 52 all core ir 53G 51 A.. (G=Gaming, A= all core heavy load)

the biggest worry i have with this is cache oc stability. since cpu effects cache which affects vccio/vcssa pairing...


----------



## cstkl1

also another benefit of this..
51|48 i have issue with cpu internal error only on ghostrunner.. for LL6.. because suspect the vcore pairing between cores/cache is not good since the game stresses cache more than cpu. so with cstate.. etc its a bad idea...

but with 53 boosting like this.. i dont have to resort to using LL3...

so seriously thank you @shamino1978


----------



## cstkl1

so blissful.
but cache stability on oc still a issue

so 5.4 offset 2 hit temp A goes to 5.2.. if that hits temp B goes to 5.1

5.2 & 5.1 can use [email protected]/f...

if use 5.3 can control @v/f for 10900k

@shamino1978 
whats the math on 5.4.. seems alot and not using 5.3 v/f vid..


----------



## Betroz

cstkl1 said:


> but cache stability on oc still a issue


Yeah higher cache and memory OC gives a nice performance boost, maybe more than a bit higher clocks on the cores. Besides new games use 6+ cores anyways, so when will 5.3+ Ghz on lighter workloads really benefit games? Question for you too @shamino1978


----------



## cstkl1

Betroz said:


> Yeah higher cache and memory OC gives a nice performance boost, maybe more than a bit higher clocks on the cores. Besides new games use 6+ cores anyways, so when will 5.3+ Ghz on lighter workloads really benefit games? Question for you too @shamino1978


like @shamino1978 said try it
its not 6 core.. its ALL core.

now my 10900k complete. gaming its 5.3..
games that uses avx like nfs heat 5.3-5.2
light avx 240w 5.1ghz
heavy avx 5ghz
idle 8w..
i say thats perfect.

cache thing.. try playing ghosrunner with hwinfo osd with AB bro.

for maximus formula use LL5 with per core usage.. adjust on v/f and octvb.

@shamino1978 
any chance if having an option to change temp B offset default of 1.. ??


----------



## Betroz

cstkl1 said:


> its not 6 core.. its ALL core.


I said new games uses 6+ cores. I didn't say that this new feature does.



cstkl1 said:


> cache thing.. try playing ghosrunner with hwinfo osd with AB bro.


I watched your gameplay of Ghostrunner, and it's not a game for me. Battlefield 5 uses AVX, and that game I do play.

I use LLC6 on my Apex.


----------



## shamino1978

@shamino1978
any chance if having an option to change temp B offset default of 1.. ?? 

no knobs for this, but perhaps we can get creative here
so we got a mechanism for freq according to core usage
got a mechanism for specifying negative offsets by core usage according to temp thresholds
got a mechanism for specifying negative offsets if AVX
got a mechanism for applying voltage offsets according to various freq
got a mechanism for applying voltage offsets according to various loads (ACDCLL/Svid behavior)
got a mechanism for applying a voltage base after a certain freq (adaptive oc voltage)
got a mechanism for enforcing power and current thresholds
got a mechanism for enforcing a temp threshold (AI Features/temp regulator)
got a mechanism for rejecting a freq that would incur high current/ volt (VMax Stress)
got a mechanism for trimming voltage according to temps (TVB Voltage optimization)

you can get creative on how to mix and match, there surely are many methods of optimizing


----------



## cstkl1

Betroz said:


> I said new games uses 6+ cores. I didn't say that this new feature does.
> 
> 
> I watched your gameplay of Ghostrunner, and it's not a game for me. Battlefield 5 uses AVX, and that game I do play.
> 
> I use LLC6 on my Apex.


BFV pales in comparison to nfs heat bro

and cache oc.. ghostrunner or minecraft.. take your pick...


----------



## cstkl1

shamino1978 said:


> @shamino1978
> any chance if having an option to change temp B offset default of 1.. ??
> 
> no knobs for this, but perhaps we can get creative here
> so we got a mechanism for freq according to core usage
> got a mechanism for specifying negative offsets by core usage according to temp thresholds
> got a mechanism for specifying negative offsets if AVX
> got a mechanism for applying voltage offsets according to various freq
> got a mechanism for applying voltage offsets according to various loads (ACDCLL/Svid behavior)
> got a mechanism for applying a voltage base after a certain freq (adaptive oc voltage)
> got a mechanism for enforcing power and current thresholds
> got a mechanism for enforcing a temp threshold (AI Features/temp regulator)
> got a mechanism for rejecting a freq that would incur high current/ volt (VMax Stress)
> got a mechanism for trimming voltage according to temps (TVB Voltage optimization)
> 
> you can get creative on how to mix and match, there surely are many methods of optimizing


got a mechanism for enforcing a temp threshold (AI Features/temp regulator)
this only works with ai oc right... ?? 

got a mechanism for rejecting a freq that would incur high current/ volt (VMax Stress)
oh i thought this was anything above 5.3 the max vid on of 10900k.. care to explain bro...


----------



## Daggaz

I'm stuck (or hitting the cooling limit) trying to stabilize 5.1 all cores. Ive got it at Vcore 1.38 (system predicts 1.375 needed but this fails), LLC 6. I can run Cinebench r20 without crashing so far, but I got a cache error once and it hits the high 90s. At least I scored 6441 a new record for my machine. 

Is there anything else I can tweak to get it stable, or is this just thermal noise f-ing me over?


----------



## shamino1978

got a mechanism for enforcing a temp threshold (AI Features/temp regulator)
this only works with ai oc right... ??
no, works regardless, set the temp and enable regulation

got a mechanism for rejecting a freq that would incur high current/ volt (VMax Stress)
oh i thought this was anything above 5.3 the max vid on of 10900k.. care to explain bro...
specifics may vary but enabling it, say at a certain point of time, the processor was supposed to run to 51x with 1.49v but with the current draw it sees, it calculates that this would be over it's "vmax stress threshold" and therefore declines to go up to 51x and goes to 50x instead with a lower vid. the numbers are just for illustration.


----------



## Edge0fsanity

0451 said:


> People who buy the10850k and 10700k are likely to buy a motherboard that costs less than the CPU, but 10900k buyers obviously want the best and are often willing to spend $500+ on the board. This may skew the tribal knowledge of what the 10850k is capable of. Fidelgodev’s Asrock board is more likely to be paired with a 10850k yet he is running a 10900k.
> 
> MSI Unify is the best bang for buck if you are on a budget because it is $300 yet has 16 90-amp smart power stages like the Maximus 12 Extreme.
> 
> Intel could also be binning 10850k and 10900k completely at random, which wouldn’t surprise me based on some of the recent 10900k results.


Realize this is an old post but I thought I would share my results with a high end mobo in case anyone was interested. I bought a 10850k with an Aorus Z490 Extreme mobo. When I bought about a month or so ago 10900k was not available at retail prices. Didn't mind the lower binned 10850k since its just a placeholder until Rocket Lake where I will bin, delid, and run direct die. 

Currently running on a Corsair H150 elite AIO I am stable at 5.2ghz all core @ 1.29v on the VOUT sensor. LLC set to extreme, 1.32v in the bios. 4133mhz TZ 32gb c19 mem running XMP w/SA and VCCIO set to 1.25v. Uncore is stock, have not dialed it in yet. P95 small FFT no AVX stable for 30 mins with the hottest core peaking at 98C. No crashing threads, no cache errors, no freezes, no bsod. 

It seems this chip isn't far off from an average 10900k based on what I'm seeing in this thread.

This will be going under water soon, going to try for 5.3ghz with an Optimus foundation block. Picking up a ftw3 3090 this weekend and waiting on the optimus block to ship before I can do this. Will also dial in uncore and OC the mem further. May have to go to a cooler stress test like real bench to make it happen.


----------



## Daggaz

Why does my Vmin drop suddenly while running prime95, with a corresponding huge jump in CPU temp? I have a Vcore of 1.36 for example, and I put it under load with LLC 6 and it drops to a Vmin of 1.305... that will stay stable with temps around 70 to 75C for a seven minutes or so, and then it drops down to 1.261 volts and my CPU hits the high nineties almost immediately afterwards and starts throttling. My fan speeds are all constant. 

Please help. I know I am new here but I am doing my best to learn this stuff without destroying my computer. 

Also apparently my chip sucks, has a V/F jump of 166mv between 5.1 and 5.2GHz.


----------



## Betroz

Daggaz said:


> Why does my Vmin drop suddenly while running prime95


Firstly do not run Prime95 with AVX enabled in the program. You can turn it off. Secondly vcore is supposed to drop down when you run Prime95 with LLC6


----------



## Daggaz

No, I have AVX disabled. And yes, vcore drops (and stays stable at that new vmin for seven minutes or so), but then the problem is that after it has dropped and stabilized, it drops again (despite no more additional load on the CPU as far as I can tell, cores are all running at 5.0GHz and the memory usage remains constant at around 96%). When it drops the second time, and it is a sudden drop, the CPU immediately starts overheating drastically. Which is strange, because there is less voltage according to HWinfo.

I will add, I have played around with the step time in Prime95, shortening from the default 6 mins down to 2 mins. The voltage-drop/heat spike problem occurs at around 8 minutes in, regardless...


----------



## bigfootnz

Hi, I just got new toy to play i9 10900k and Asus Hero XII. CPU is SP 86 which is not bat at all. At the moment it is on test bench with crap memory 2x4GB and I'm just testing manual OC. So far I was able to pass 5/4.7 @1.28L4 bios which gives 1.154V load and 5.2/4.9 @1.31L4 bios which gives me 1.217V load. On those voltages I was able to do Prime 95 non AVX 2 hours, C20 looping for 30min, blender all 6 scenes and AIDA CPU FPU 1 hour but Realbench 2.56 is not passing. What is strange Realbench is reporting blender instability halted but it still keeps going. I've tried upping volatage for 5.2 to 1.254v but still the same error. From my previsous experience if Realbench detected instability it will stop by itself but in this case is still keep going. I'm not sure is it something wrong with Realbench or what. Please have in mind C drive was not clean install but from older Z390/9900K system. Is there something else what I can use for AVX test except Prime95 or games (as it is on bench with crap memory). Thanks
For OC using VF points do I need to find stable lowest OC voltage for all points and then manual adjust them or what?


----------



## GeneO

bigfootnz said:


> Hi, I just got new toy to play i9 10900k and Asus Hero XII. CPU is SP 86 which is not bat at all. At the moment it is on test bench with crap memory 2x4GB and I'm just testing manual OC. So far I was able to pass 5/4.7 @1.28L4 bios which gives 1.154V load and 5.2/4.9 @1.31L4 bios which gives me 1.217V load. On those voltages I was able to do Prime 95 non AVX 2 hours, C20 looping for 30min, blender all 6 scenes and AIDA CPU FPU 1 hour but Realbench 2.56 is not passing. What is strange Realbench is reporting blender instability halted but it still keeps going. From my previsous experience if Realbench detected instability it will stop by itself but in this case is still keep going. I'm not sure is it something wrong with Realbench or what. Please have in mind C drive was not clean install but from older Z390/9900K system. Is there something else what I can use for AVX test except Prime95 or games (as it is on bench with crap memory). Thanks
> For OC using VF points do I need to find stable lowest OC voltage for all points and then manual adjust them or what?


Yes, that is the best way to do it. You can limit the frequency in steps and adjust the VF offsets while running stress tests. Easiest way to do that is through AISuite, which exposes the VF settings in Windows. You can limit the maximum processor speed through AiSuite or through windows power management. Then apply the offsets in the BIOS when done.


----------



## bigfootnz

GeneO said:


> Yes, that is the best way to do it. You can limit the frequency in steps and adjust the VF offsets while running stress tests. Easiest way to do that is through AISuite, which exposes the VF settings in Windows. You can limit the maximum processor speed through AiSuite or through windows power management. Then apply the offsets in the BIOS when done.


When you say I can limit frequency in step, how I do that? Using AISuite? And also what latter on will determine CPU speed if I use VF OC? Will for example CPU try to run 5.3GHz and then if it is too hot or too much power/current comsumption then it will drop to 5.2 or 5.1?


----------



## GeneO

bigfootnz said:


> When you say I can limit frequency in step, how I do that? Using AISuite? And also what latter on will determine CPU speed if I use VF OC? Will for example CPU try to run 5.3GHz and then if it is too hot or too much power/current comsumption then it will drop to 5.2 or 5.1?


Yes, in AiSuite you can set the multiplier. You can also, through a registry edit, expose a Windows power plan setting that allows you to set processor frequency limit - this is what I use.


----------



## bigfootnz

GeneO said:


> Yes, in AiSuite you can set the multiplier. You can also, through a registry edit, expose a Windows power plan setting that allows you to set processor frequency limit - this is what I use.


OK, thank you. I'll try that but only after I find out why I'm not stable in Realbench as that is my main problem. 

Do you know what will be deciding factor on what speed CPU will be working if I use VF points?


----------



## GeneO

You should be able to attain the same speed as manual overclock. One thing to be aware of with VF overclocking: Once you go beyond the maximum turbo muliplier, VF8 follows your maximum muliplier. In this case, thie mutipliers between VF7 and VF8 are interpolated and the resulting voltage for them will be lower as you increaser the maximum multiplier. This could lead to instability, so you may have to raise either the Vf7 or VF8 offset, or both.


----------



## bigfootnz

GeneO said:


> You should be able to attain the same speed as manual overclock. One thing to be aware of with VF overclocking: Once you go beyond the maximum turbo muliplier, VF8 follows your maximum muliplier. In this case, thie mutipliers between VF7 and VF8 are interpolated and the resulting voltage for them will be lower as you increaser the maximum multiplier. This could lead to instability, so you may have to raise either the Vf7 or VF8 offset, or both.


My current VF8 is [email protected] just like VF7 [email protected] Did I understand you correctly, using VF point I can go beyond 5.3GHz?


----------



## GeneO

bigfootnz said:


> My current VF8 is [email protected] just like VF7 [email protected] Did I understand you correctly, using VF point I can go beyond 5.3GHz?


you can go to whatever multiplier you want, though it may not be stable. What I meant was that if you bumped your multiplier from 53 to 54, VF8 voltage would be applied to 5.4 GHz insteasd of 5.3 GHz.


----------



## bigfootnz

GeneO said:


> you can go to whatever multiplier you want, though it may not be stable. What I meant was that if you bumped your multiplier from 53 to 54, VF8 voltage would be applied to 5.4 GHz insteasd of 5.3 GHz.


OK, got it now. Thanks


----------



## bigfootnz

Did anyone noticed with latest CPU-z 1.94 CPU voltage read is incorrect? In my case it is showing 0.1V less. But with version 1.93 or 1.92 I do not have that problem.


----------



## Placekicker19

I ordered a direct die frame from rockit cool 2 weeks ago, unfortunately its lost in mail. The owner said he would ship me another on Monday, which he never did and now isn't answering my emails. 

Does anyone have a link to the direct die cpu block? I thought it was on facebook, im just having trouble finding it. Are there any other direct die kits or blocks that work on 10th gen? 
Thanks


----------



## GeneO

bigfootnz said:


> Did anyone noticed with latest CPU-z 1.94 CPU voltage read is incorrect? In my case it is showing 0.1V less. But with version 1.93 or 1.92 I do not have that problem.


Nope. Spot on for me for 1.94 (rog edition)


----------



## gecko991

Works good for me too.


----------



## bigfootnz

This is very interesting, I've downloaded all v1.94 and I've problem only with standard and ROG version. But all other versions are working OK. Reason why I've problem with standard and ROG as they are v1.94.8 and all other are v1.94.0. Can you please report what version you are running?


----------



## GeneO

bigfootnz said:


> This is very interesting, I've downloaded all v1.94 and I've problem only with standard and ROG version. But all other versions are working OK. Reason why I've problem with standard and ROG as they are v1.94.8 and all other are v1.94.0. Can you please report what version you are running?


My rog version is 1.94.0. I got it from here: 



We'll be back.


----------



## bigfootnz

Can you please try this v1.94.8 from CPUID web site? Thanks


----------



## GeneO

Yes, definitely off. Mystery solved. Chuck that version.


----------



## bigfootnz

Thank you, that is solved, now only to solve problem with Realbench.


----------



## GeneO

Unstable would be my guess. Are you running hwinfo64 along with it and monitoring for WHEA errors? I have never seen a mismatch.


----------



## bigfootnz

No WHEA errors at all, and what is confusing me if it is unstable why Realbecnh do not stop stress automatically, as that was happening always before. But in this case it finish test and report that stress has finished successful.


----------



## GeneO

Yeah, that's pretty odd.


----------



## kill_a_wat

What's everyones experience with the 10900KA (avengers edition)? Does it overclock the same as the normal 10900K?


----------



## bigfootnz

Mine one is 10900KA, but that was only on box. On CPU it is saying 10900K. It is SP86 and it looks that is good OC, but still testing. As I've strange problem with Realbench and not sure is it up to CPU or Realbench.


----------



## kill_a_wat

Nice! SP86 seems to be quite a good SP rating


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Vietnam 10900k chips anyone get anything higher than the sp60 range ?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Hi...
I have 32GB RAM and I'm using asus RamCache III...
The recommended setting is 2000MB... 
Is it a good idea to set to 8000MB?
Tx


----------



## bigfootnz

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Vietnam 10900k chips anyone get anything higher than the sp60 range ?


How I can tell from where is mine?


----------



## GeneO

bigfootnz said:


> How I can tell from where is mine?


On the label on the box it came in.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Yep on the box or the top of the chip.


----------



## bigfootnz

Mine one is Chinese


----------



## GeneO

bigfootnz said:


> Mine one is Chinese


What SP?


----------



## munternet

Same. Mine is SP86 from China


----------



## GeneO

Ah, missed that


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Z490 New bios with new feature OCTVB


you can tell the bios for the model from the link names: https://www.dropbox.com/s/kl65p17gjpbiyx4/ROG-STRIX-Z490-I-GAMING-ASUS-0901.rar?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/xng2l0aupm72osv/ROG-STRIX-Z490-H-GAMING-ASUS-0901.rar?dl=0...



rog.asus.com


----------



## Betroz

I have been experimenting with the new 0901 BIOS and OCTVB feature. I have set core ratios to X53 for two cores and X51 for the rest + 1X up OCTVB. Vcore under allcore load is well within safe ranges, but singel core vcore at 5.3 and 5.4 Ghz ramps up to 1.58v max... Should I be worried? Auto vcore btw.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I use 54x3, 53x5, 52x8, 51x1 - Adaptive @ 1.46V LLC # 6

The CPU is running at +2boost at 5.6GHz completely stable ! 
Max VID is 1.51v. Mas Vcore is 1.465v


----------



## Betroz

RobertoSampaio said:


> I use 54x3, 53x5, 52x8, 51x1 - Adaptive @ 1.46V LLC # 6
> 
> The CPU is running at +2boost at 5.6GHz completely stable !
> Max VID is 1.51v. Mas Vcore is 1.465v


I bet that you have a custom loop. I only have a 360mm AIO with stock fans.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

No I have a corsair 115... These high clocks only up when CPU is not in load and lower temps...


----------



## RobertoSampaio




----------



## RobertoSampaio




----------



## Betroz

Yeah my SP63 can't match that


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Mine is 86...
Under load, @51x I have vid 1,34 and vcore 1,25.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Sp86


----------



## Betroz

RobertoSampaio said:


> Sp86


With a chip like that, I could have run it at 5.2 allcore


----------



## Robertomcat

Betroz said:


> With a chip like that, I could have run it at 5.2 allcore


I have an SP 64 and run all cores at 5.2, and on the motherboard I have put the assembly of 1,355 and LLC Auto. I have a custom cooling and I have put liquid metal to the IHS, the maximum temperatures are 81°.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Hi guys...

Do you think VID=1.57V no load is dangerous?


----------



## cstkl1

Betroz said:


> I have been experimenting with the new 0901 BIOS and OCTVB feature. I have set core ratios to X53 for two cores and X51 for the rest + 1X up OCTVB. Vcore under allcore load is well within safe ranges, but singel core vcore at 5.3 and 5.4 Ghz ramps up to 1.58v max... Should I be worried? Auto vcore btw.


no. amps with temps kills cpu..


----------



## Robertomcat

Does anyone run this processor constantly at 1.4v?


----------



## Nizzen

Robertomcat said:


> Does anyone run this processor constantly at 1.4v?


Yes with direct die cooling  5.5ghz is just perfect for gaming 

Using it for gaming and benchmarking only.


----------



## Robertomcat

Nizzen said:


> Yes with direct die cooling  5.5ghz is just perfect for gaming
> 
> Using it for gaming and benchmarking only.


I have it running at 5.2 with a voltage of 1.355 and the Core VID tells me 1.385. I wish I could raise it to 5.3 but I don't know if going beyond 1.4 will be harmful to the processor.


----------



## ThrashZone

Robertomcat said:


> I have it running at 5.2 with a voltage of 1.355 and the Core VID tells me 1.385. I wish I could raise it to 5.3 but I don't know if going beyond 1.4 will be harmful to the processor.


Hi,
Intel prices will drop like a rock after amd gets done with them lol


----------



## Nizzen

Robertomcat said:


> I have it running at 5.2 with a voltage of 1.355 and the Core VID tells me 1.385. I wish I could raise it to 5.3 but I don't know if going beyond 1.4 will be harmful to the processor.


I upgrading every "season" so I don't care of longevity. I run pretty much every cpu on the edge. My 7980xe is running 4.7ghz "24/7", and it's over 3 years old. Most cpu's just refuse to die with normal overclocking and watercooling. I haven't seen any degrading either. PS: I don't run Prime 95 with AVX. I just use the computers with normal programs and games 
And of course [email protected]


----------



## Betroz

Nizzen said:


> I upgrading every "season" so I don't care of longevity. I run pretty much every cpu on the edge. My 7980xe is running 4.7ghz "24/7", and it's over 3 years old. Most cpu's just refuse to die with normal overclocking and watercooling. I haven't seen any degrading either. PS: I don't run Prime 95 with AVX. I just use the computers with normal programs and games
> And of course [email protected]


Still rocking LLC8 with your 10900K?


----------



## Robertomcat

Nizzen said:


> I upgrading every "season" so I don't care of longevity. I run pretty much every cpu on the edge. My 7980xe is running 4.7ghz "24/7", and it's over 3 years old. Most cpu's just refuse to die with normal overclocking and watercooling. I haven't seen any degrading either. PS: I don't run Prime 95 with AVX. I just use the computers with normal programs and games
> And of course [email protected]


Yeah, I see what you mean, that's where I was going, that it's not going to be as intensive as the benchmark programmes. This afternoon I'll try to set it to 5.3 to see if the MSI MPG Z490 Gaming Plus motherboard can handle it. I was also told not to go beyond LLC 4.


----------



## Nizzen

Betroz said:


> Still rocking LLC8 with your 10900K?


Yes, runned LLC6 for a while, but LLC 8 just works 

If the cpu is degrading or dies, I'll keep you guys updated 

People tend to say many things about "high" "voltage" and stuff, without having some proof that it being harmfull. If 1.4-1.45v on the cpu and 1.55-1.6 VCCSA and 1.4VCCIO is harmful for the cpu, My cpu's should be dead long time ago. Same as the 8700k and 9900k.


----------



## ThrashZone

Nizzen said:


> Yes, runned LLC6 for a while, but LLC 8 just works
> 
> If the cpu is degrading or dies, I'll keep you guys updated
> 
> People tend to say many things about "high" "voltage" and stuff, without having some proof that it being harmfull. If 1.4-1.45v on the cpu and 1.55-1.6 VCCSA and 1.4VCCIO is harmful for the cpu, My cpu's should be dead long time ago. Same as the 8700k and 9900k.


Love to see it 








Closed.


Hi, To be added to the boards on Post #2 just post info like below Otherwise you'll be rejected Single Core is optional Multi Core Score is mandatory Screen Shot does have to be easily readable no wasted blank space and Images must be Uploaded to OCN not a image hosting website and linked here...




www.overclock.net


----------



## Nizzen

ThrashZone said:


> Love to see it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Closed.
> 
> 
> Hi, To be added to the boards on Post #2 just post info like below Otherwise you'll be rejected Single Core is optional Multi Core Score is mandatory Screen Shot does have to be easily readable no wasted blank space and Images must be Uploaded to OCN not a image hosting website and linked here...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net


This? 
Not the best efficiency, but it's the daily OS with no tweaks for Cinebench used.


----------



## ThrashZone

Nizzen said:


> This?
> Not the best efficiency, but it's the daily OS with no tweaks for Cinebench used.
> View attachment 2465514


Hi,
Sub it over at the other thread with the data line 
Run R23 too


----------



## Betroz

ThrashZone said:


> Run R23 too


New version of Cinebench out?


----------



## ThrashZone

Betroz said:


> New version of Cinebench out?


Hi,
Yep 








Download MAXON Cinebench R23


Download the all-new Cinebench Release 23. Cinebench is now based on the latest Release 23 code using updated compilers, and has a minimum runtime activated by default (previously hidden in preferenc...




www.guru3d.com


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Hi,

Do you use AUTO VRM Switching frequency or fixed? In case of fixed, which frequency?
The ASUS AUTO is 300KHz?


----------



## Betroz

RobertoSampaio said:


> Hi,
> 
> Do you use AUTO VRM Switching frequency or fixed? In case of fixed, which frequency?
> The ASUS AUTO is 300KHz?


500


----------



## RobertoSampaio

You use 500 or 500 is the auto setting?


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Im rocking 1.55v llc6 and runs prime95 smallfft avx2. I hope it dies so I have a reason to upgrade.


----------



## Betroz

RobertoSampaio said:


> You use 500 or 500 is the auto setting?


I set 500 manually.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Asus default is 300kHz, right?
What is the benefit using 500?


----------



## Betroz

RobertoSampaio said:


> Asus default is 300kHz, right?
> What is the benefit using 500?


Yes. Somebody else could explain it better than me.


----------



## cstkl1

Robertomcat said:


> Does anyone run this processor constantly at 1.4v?


1.428vid llc [email protected] 5.3ghz drops to 1.35ish in gaming.


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> Asus default is 300kHz, right?
> What is the benefit using 500?


Higher switching frequency yields better transient response (responds more quickly to voltage change requests) and lower output voltage ripple so can lead to better stability.


----------



## bigfootnz

Can someone running 0901 TVB BIOS on ASUS boards and manual OC test something for me. I've 52/49 manual OC, with AVX 0 offset. When I use only memory bench (not cache) in AIDA or if I use TM5 my frequency is not 5.2GHz but it goes from 4.9GHz to 5.2GHz. Using Prime AVX/non AVX, Kahru RAM, GSAT, Realbench or blender it always stay on 5.2GHz. Thanks


----------



## shamino1978

this happens if u disable speed shift in bios


----------



## bigfootnz

Thank you for quick and very helpful response. Yes, I've disabled speed shift. You have saved me a lots of unnecessary testing. 

This is not affecting performance, or maybe I should enable speed shift?


----------



## shamino1978

speed shift is meant to improve perf, not deprove, what is the rationale behind disabling it?


----------



## bigfootnz

I was under impression that, due to comment of other people, regarding C-states and speed shift that is maybe better to disable it. But I'll enable it. Thank you


----------



## Betroz

shamino1978 said:


> speed shift is meant to improve perf, not deprove, what is the rationale behind disabling it?


Disabling C-states, speed shift and those settings is done for the sake of lower latency.

I tested this with the LatencyMon program in Windows :
Power saving stuff On = Average latency 6.88
Power saving stuff Off = Average latency 1.63 (Hyper Threading Off too, which saved me 0.5)


----------



## shamino1978

cstates yes, but not speed shift
it is meant to reduce latency and not increase it
ie, pstate manged by s/w or hw
enabled= hw= fast to react and knows when go P0


----------



## bigfootnz

What about SpeedStep, enabled or disabled?


----------



## shamino1978

i lose turbo mode if speedstep disabled on the bios im testing,
just leave it alone, the notion of oc working well with speedstep dis is ancient, before even the time of bloomfield, when turbo mode was making it's debut.


----------



## Betroz

shamino1978 said:


> cstates yes, but not speed shift
> it is meant to reduce latency and not increase it
> ie, pstate manged by s/w or hw
> enabled= hw= fast to react and knows when go P0


You are right of course. If you ask me, c-states is a feature that is more suited for laptops. But in order to use the new OCTVB feature, we need c-states as you said.


----------



## Isaias Angelis

Hi there!
First time here.
I have a 10850k
asus strix z490-e
Crucial Ballistix Black 32GB DDR4-3200MHz (BL2K16G32C16U4B)
I am triying to OC it to 5-5.1ghz stable.
I ll earn anything for gaming or not?
I have Arctic Liquid Freezer II 360 for cooling.
Cpu sp 57 from motherboad...
Is there any good guide for me please?
If i oc the ram to 3600 is it better for gaming?


----------



## ThrashZone

bigfootnz said:


> What about SpeedStep, enabled or disabled?


Hi,
Don't believe you have to switch anything off auto
Should be fine just activating c-states and the bios should know what to do.


----------



## bigfootnz

But if I want to disable cstates?


----------



## ThrashZone

bigfootnz said:


> But if I want to disable cstates?


Hi,
Then you haven't been following the recent posts


----------



## GeneO

bigfootnz said:


> What about SpeedStep, enabled or disabled?


\Either Windows controls P-states (speedstep) or delegates it to the processor (speedshift - aka "autonomous mode" in Windows).

Yet I am not sure if Windows will pick autonomous mode by default if you have speedstep and speedshift enabled, since I have both enabled in BIOS but explicitly enable autonoumous mode in windows (you can explicitly enable or disable autonomous mode in windows power management). If you do have both enabled in BIOS and explicitly disable atonomous mode in Windows, Windows will use speedstep instead. If you have speedstep disabled and speedshift enabled, Windows should enable autonomous mode.


----------



## bigfootnz

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Then you haven't been following the recent posts


Are you referring to use of TVB? As at the moment I'm not using it and only manual OC. But if not, can you point me in right direction? Thanks



GeneO said:


> \Either Windows controls P-states (speedstep) or delegates it to the processor (speedshift - aka "autonomous mode" in Windows).
> 
> Yet I am not sure if Windows will pick autonomous mode by default if you have speedstep and speedshift enabled, since I have both enabled in BIOS but explicitly enable autonoumous mode in windows (you can explicitly enable or disable autonomous mode in windows power management). If you do have both enabled in BIOS and explicitly disable atonomous mode in Windows, Windows will use speedstep instead. If you have speedstep disabled and speedshift enabled, Windows should enable autonomous mode.


I'll then also enable autonomous mode in windows. Thanks


----------



## ThrashZone

bigfootnz said:


> Are you referring to use of TVB? As at the moment I'm not using it and only manual OC. But if not, can you point me in right direction? Thanks
> 
> 
> I'll then also enable autonomous mode in windows. Thanks


Hi,
Posts started up over the newest beta bios and features in it couple pages back 
Start from this post








Overclocking 10900k results, bins and discussion


https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?121439-Z490-New-bios-with-new-feature-OCTVB&p=819250&posted=1#post819250 @shamino1978 how useful is this?? cause just like stock.. theres no gain in that allocating 2 cores etc ever since intel EOLed that software thing in hedt x299 which will make...




www.overclock.net


----------



## GeneO

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Posts started up over the newest beta bios and features in it couple pages back
> Start from this post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overclocking 10900k results, bins and discussion
> 
> 
> https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?121439-Z490-New-bios-with-new-feature-OCTVB&p=819250&posted=1#post819250 @shamino1978 how useful is this?? cause just like stock.. theres no gain in that allocating 2 cores etc ever since intel EOLed that software thing in hedt x299 which will make...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net


Or more directly here:

Z490 New bios with new feature OCTVB

and also latest Intel Xtreme Tuning Utility supports VF curves and OCTVB settings


----------



## bigfootnz

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Posts started up over the newest beta bios and features in it couple pages back
> Start from this post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overclocking 10900k results, bins and discussion
> 
> 
> https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?121439-Z490-New-bios-with-new-feature-OCTVB&p=819250&posted=1#post819250 @shamino1978 how useful is this?? cause just like stock.. theres no gain in that allocating 2 cores etc ever since intel EOLed that software thing in hedt x299 which will make...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net


OK, I know about those posts. But at the moment I'm running just manual OC and I’m getting info what I should disable and what not.



shamino1978 said:


> cstates yes, but not speed shift
> it is meant to reduce latency and not increase it
> ie, pstate manged by s/w or hw
> enabled= hw= fast to react and knows when go P0


As you can see shamino said that I should disable cstates for lower latency but not other two. So, I think that I didn't miss anything as those posts are for OCTVB what I'm not using at the moment.


GeneO said:


> Or more directly here:
> 
> Z490 New bios with new feature OCTVB
> 
> and also latest Intel Xtreme Tuning Utility supports VF curves and OCTVB settings


I didn't have time to go over those pages but I'll do it when I find time. Thanks


----------



## ThrashZone

bigfootnz said:


> OK, I know about those posts. But at the moment I'm running just manual OC and I’m getting info what I should disable and what not.
> 
> 
> As you can see shamino said that I should disable cstates for lower latency but not other two. So, I think that I didn't miss anything as those posts are for OCTVB what I'm not using at the moment.
> 
> 
> I didn't have time to go over those pages but I'll do it when I find time. Thanks


Hi,
Think we all should check out these new features eventually


----------



## bigfootnz

Yes for sure. But I want to do manual OC first so I know my CPU limits and then will do these smart and new features. Thanks


----------



## GeneO

bigfootnz said:


> Yes for sure. But I want to do manual OC first so I know my CPU limits and then will do these smart and new features. Thanks


quoted for wise.


----------



## Dvnsta

Circaflex said:


> why not just do it right and get the new 10th gen kit? i got one and it works perfectly.


I used my 6 gen delid tool from rockit cool as long as it sits down in the delid pocket works fine some of the older ones were shallower according to rockit cool.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Hi...

The V/F curve and SP prediction could change with time?
After a F5 (load Default) I never wait for asus training...
Is there a procedure for V/F curve or it come from inside the CPU?


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> Hi...
> 
> The V/F curve and SP prediction could change with time?
> After a F5 (load Default) I never wait for asus training...
> Is there a procedure for V/F curve or it come from inside the CPU?


The VF curve is Intel and won't change - it is a property of the chip. The voltages are fixed. The assignment of VF1-Vf7 and their offsets to multipliers will not change. VF8 voltage and offset are always assigned to the maximum multiplier if that multiplier is above the turbo multiplier, so if you change the maximum multiplier VF8 will follow it.

PPL have reported SP change. I believe this is an Asus thing and may change with BIOS. Maybe someone can correct me here. 

You can tune the offsets by limiting the maximum frequency in windows power management or through a tool like Asus AIsuite or Intel Extreme Tuning Utility. Limit the frquency to each frequency on the VF curve and test for stability while varying the offsets.


----------



## kill_a_wat

Quick stability test with my 10900K. Cooling is with a NZXT X72


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> The VF curve is Intel and won't change - it is a property of the chip. The voltages are fixed. The assignment of VF1-Vf7 and their offsets to multipliers will not change. VF8 voltage and offset are always assigned to the maximum multiplier if that multiplier is above the turbo multiplier, so if you change the maximum multiplier VF8 will follow it.
> 
> PPL have reported SP change. I believe this is an Asus thing and may change with BIOS. Maybe someone can correct me here.
> 
> You can tune the offsets by limiting the maximum frequency in windows power management or through a tool like Asus AIsuite or Intel Extreme Tuning Utility. Limit the frequency to each frequency on the VF curve and test for stability while varying the offsets.


Nice...

Another question...

If V/F 8 is assign to the 53x or the higher frequency I set, How about Adaptive? 

If I have V/F7(5200)=1.360, 
Set V/F8 to 5400=1,450 and 
Adaptive set to 1,435 (lower than V/F8)

What will be the VID assign to 5300 ? 
An interpolation of V/F 7 and V/F 8 or the adaptive? 
Or in this case Adaptive is null ?

tx


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> Nice...
> 
> Another question...
> 
> If V/F 8 is assign to the 53x or the higher frequency I set, How about Adaptive?
> 
> If I have V/F7(5200)=1.360,
> Set V/F8 to 5400=1,450 and
> Adaptive set to 1,435 (lower than V/F8)
> 
> What will be the VID assign to 5300 ?
> An interpolation of V/F 7 and V/F 8 or the adaptive?
> Or in this case Adaptive is null ?
> 
> tx


From my experience, a linear interpolation, so it will be (VF7+VF8)/2 in this case. So 1.3975


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> From my experience, a linear interpolation, so it will be (VF7+VF8)/2 in this case. So 1.3975


You mean 1.405 -> (1,36+1,45)/2... right?

And how about Cache rate. 
I'm stable 47x... 
If I try 48x the system freeze...
Rising VCCIO and VCCSa could help or its just depends on from VCORE?

Tx agian !


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> You mean 1.405 -> (1,36+1,45)/2... right?
> 
> And how about Cache rate.
> I'm stable 47x...
> If I try 48x the system freeze...
> Rising VCCIO and VCCSa could help or its just depends on from VCORE?
> 
> Tx agian !


I forgot to say adaptive only applies to multipliers > 53, so doesn't affect 53. I can only get my cache to go up 48 on my 10700k. Maybe a limitation of your chip, maybe more vcore needed.


----------



## Placekicker19

Direct die cooling has made a huge difference on my cpu. Before direct die cooling it took 1.390v bios to pass r20 without error @ 5.3ghz and 5ghz cache, and temps were reaching upper 80's. After the delid and direct die, I can pass r20 with only 1.27v set in bios, with a max temp of only 62c. It was only tested with 3 back to back runs just to show the difference. When I delidded I notice the solder was very thick in certain spots and i wonder if thats the reason I had a 14c difference between cores before the delid. My 5.2ghz vmin dropped from 1.285v to 1.23.


----------



## dr.Rafi

Quick comparisim 10900kf to 5800x , 10900kf @ 5.1 gigahz , ram medium overclock @4000 , reduced to 8cores only and power reduced to 140 watt in XTU timespy cpu scores comparing to best scores of 5800x , i have 5800x but for me i managed 4.8 all core overclcoked but couldnt reach even 12000 in time spy cpu scores.


----------



## dr.Rafi

Placekicker19 said:


> Direct die cooling has made a huge difference on my cpu. Before direct die cooling it took 1.390v bios to pass r20 without error @ 5.3ghz and 5ghz cache, and temps were reaching upper 80's. After the delid and direct die, I can pass r20 with only 1.27v set in bios, with a max temp of only 62c. It was only tested with 3 back to back runs just to show the difference. When I delidded I notice the solder was very thick in certain spots and i wonder if thats the reason I had a 14c difference between cores before the delid. My 5.2ghz vmin dropped from 1.285v to 1.23.


What is your setting for LLC ?, Mine is doing 5.1ghz @1.2 vmin ,but trying to decrease the idle Vcore currently 1.31v .


----------



## Placekicker19

dr.Rafi said:


> What is your setting for LLC ?, Mine is doing 5.1ghz @1.2 vmin ,but trying to decrease the idle Vcore currently 1.31v .


I use -50% vdroop setting, its equivalent to asus llc6, gigabyte llc turbo . Asus reports actual die voltage, Msi and gigabyte report vrout, which is the same as die voltage. Evga doesn't read die voltage, so voltage will read higher than the way other board manufacturers read voltages. 

I know on the evga z390 dark setting -50% vdroop with 1.25v resulted in a actual die voltage of 1.213. If the z490 is anything like the z390 my actual die voltage on 1.27 set it bios would be 1.223v. I wish the dark read die voltage that way you could compare it to other boards. Im not stable at 1.27, it was just my minimum set voltage it took to pass 3 b2b runs of r20 without error. 

You seem to have gotten a nice sample of a 10850k, have you attempted higher clocks yet?


----------



## Placekicker19

dr.Rafi said:


> Quick comparisim 10900kf to 5800x , 10900kf @ 5.1 gigahz , ram medium overclock @4000 , reduced to 8cores only and power reduced to 140 watt in XTU timespy cpu scores comparing to best scores of 5800x , i have 5800x but for me i managed 4.8 all core overclcoked but couldnt reach even 12000 in time spy cpu scores.
> View attachment 2465892


Don't go by famous youtube tech channels. The 10900k with fast ram and overclock beats the 5950x in most games. This youtuber does proper benchmarking. 

JackiesBenchmarks


----------



## dr.Rafi

Placekicker19 said:


> Don't go by famous youtube tech channels. The 10900k with fast ram and overclock beats the 5950x in most games. This youtuber does proper benchmarking.
> 
> JackiesBenchmarks


I used my actual testing, Amd Cpu pushed to limit from factory but intel give you a large head room for my comparaisim i limit the intel power consumption to 140 watt to mimic the max for 5800x and disable 2 cores for same reason, but still intel with double size 14nm teck. win the amd 7nm tecknology.
5800 x have high single core score but quickly sucks when using 3 or more core active, intel start suffer when go over 8 cores active .


----------



## dr.Rafi

Placekicker19 said:


> Don't go by famous youtube tech channels. The 10900k with fast ram and overclock beats the 5950x in most games. This youtuber does proper benchmarking.
> 
> JackiesBenchmarks


For games, Gear 5 the max i could get in 2k benchmark was 145 with 5800x for intel i can get 162 fps if pushed to limit but around 154 overclocked to 51ghz .


----------



## Placekicker19

dr.Rafi said:


> For games, Gear 5 the max i could get in 2k benchmark was 145 with 5800x for intel i can get 162 fps if pushed to limit but around 154 overclocked to 51ghz .


What was ur ram and cache/uncore overclocked to ?


----------



## joniosbra

Since I was getting no stability trying to rise uncore clock, I got a question about performance.

Clock 5.1ghz with 4.0ghz uncore will be faster than 4.9ghz with 4.8ghz uncore? Tks a lot!


----------



## Betroz

joniosbra said:


> Clock 5.1ghz with 4.0ghz uncore will be faster than 4.9ghz with 4.8ghz uncore? Tks a lot!


4.9 core and 4.8 uncore.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Hi...

I'm running 55x3, 54x5, 54x8, 53x10 - Adative = 1,460V.

Playing, the OCTVB reduce clock to 53x~51x @ 1,37 Vcore and the consumption is about 100W @55~60C

Under heavy load I Have 5.1GHz - 1.24Vcore

Do you think this voltage, power and temp are acceptable?


----------



## dr.Rafi

Placekicker19 said:


> What was ur ram and cache/uncore overclocked to ?


You mean on intel or AMD ?


----------



## dr.Rafi

GeneO said:


> Higher switching frequency yields better transient response (responds more quickly to voltage change requests) and lower output voltage ripple so can lead to better stability.


SO why not using max 1000khz not better ?


----------



## GeneO

dr.Rafi said:


> SO why not using max 1000khz not better ?


Well, the higher the frequency the higher the VRM temperature, so that depends on the VRM and how well it is cooled and the longevity of the components at these higher frequencies. In addition, the output filtering may be tuned to the frequency, so there may be an optimal frequency for a VRM, but I believe that at these higher frequencies this is not an issue.


----------



## Yelrah

Having not yet figured out adaptive voltage or offsets, I am trying to decide which way to go for a 24/7 OC. I am on a 10900K (SP 75) with an Asus Z490-E Gaming (0707 bios) and X73 AIO (360mm).

I am stable at 5.1 with LLC 5 and bios vCore set at 1.395. Temps at 30 minutes P95 Small FFT No AVX and 8 Hours Real Bench are 82-87. Under load, vCore is 1.350 and VID is 1.359. Running games, the vCore is 1.376, VID 1.325 and temps sit in the high 40s.

If possible, I would like to not have the CPU idling at this voltage. So, I figured I would try just setting the core ratio to 51 and leaving voltage and LLC to auto. Two minutes into P95 (Small FFT No AVX) temps were 91 to 95. vCore under load was 1.430 and VID was 1.395. While gaming, vCore was 1.483, VID was 1.490, and temps were in the mid 50s.

Obviously, I am not going to be stress testing my PC all the time, so I do not think the temps on P95 are a huge concern on auto. My rig is used for light productivity (MS Office) and gaming. When it comes to longevity, do you think I should go with the manual voltage at 1.395, or the auto voltage? Manual is cooler with lower voltage under load, but it sits at 1.395 all the time. Auto is hotter and higher voltage when gaming, but obviously the voltage drops off considerably while idle. For what its worth, I kept my last machine for 7 years, and would like to try to do the same with this one.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.


----------



## Placekicker19

Does anyone know if the EK-QuantumX Delta Tec will work with direct die cooling? 

5.5ghz&5.2 cache max temp 73, it sure is fun pushing the limits. 
5.3 should be no problem to daily, before the delid and direct die 5.2ghz hit 86c in real bench.


----------



## Placekicker19

dr.Rafi said:


> You mean on intel or AMD ?


Yes the intel


----------



## dr.Rafi

Yelrah said:


> Having not yet figured out adaptive voltage or offsets, I am trying to decide which way to go for a 24/7 OC. I am on a 10900K (SP 75) with an Asus Z490-E Gaming (0707 bios) and X73 AIO (360mm).
> 
> I am stable at 5.1 with LLC 5 and bios vCore set at 1.395. Temps at 30 minutes P95 Small FFT No AVX and 8 Hours Real Bench are 82-87. Under load, vCore is 1.350 and VID is 1.359. Running games, the vCore is 1.376, VID 1.325 and temps sit in the high 40s.
> 
> If possible, I would like to not have the CPU idling at this voltage. So, I figured I would try just setting the core ratio to 51 and leaving voltage and LLC to auto. Two minutes into P95 (Small FFT No AVX) temps were 91 to 95. vCore under load was 1.430 and VID was 1.395. While gaming, vCore was 1.483, VID was 1.490, and temps were in the mid 50s.
> 
> Obviously, I am not going to be stress testing my PC all the time, so I do not think the temps on P95 are a huge concern on auto. My rig is used for light productivity (MS Office) and gaming. When it comes to longevity, do you think I should go with the manual voltage at 1.395, or the auto voltage? Manual is cooler with lower voltage under load, but it sits at 1.395 all the time. Auto is hotter and higher voltage when gaming, but obviously the voltage drops off considerably while idle. For what its worth, I kept my last machine for 7 years, and would like to try to do the same with this one.
> 
> Any thoughts would be appreciated.


Same thing here still not sure how to set offcet or adaptive voltage


----------



## dr.Rafi

Placekicker19 said:


> Yes the intel


cash 48x with 51 cpu and ram [email protected] 16 16 16 36 370 2t and not any tweaking with secondary and tertiary , but graphic is rtx 3080 watercooled , shunted to 525 max real power which is boostong 2130-2115 during whole bench of gear5


----------



## dr.Rafi

Placekicker19 said:


> I use -50% vdroop setting, its equivalent to asus llc6, gigabyte llc turbo . Asus reports actual die voltage, Msi and gigabyte report vrout, which is the same as die voltage. Evga doesn't read die voltage, so voltage will read higher than the way other board manufacturers read voltages.
> 
> I know on the evga z390 dark setting -50% vdroop with 1.25v resulted in a actual die voltage of 1.213. If the z490 is anything like the z390 my actual die voltage on 1.27 set it bios would be 1.223v. I wish the dark read die voltage that way you could compare it to other boards. Im not stable at 1.27, it was just my minimum set voltage it took to pass 3 b2b runs of r20 without error.
> 
> You seem to have gotten a nice sample of a 10850k, have you attempted higher clocks yet?


Its 10900kf , @5.2 ghz with asus z490 formula, vcore set to 1.28 v bios fixed,ll7, ram to 4000 16161636 , cash 48x ,real bench stable 15min,max temp 78c but mostly 68 to 73c stable, prime 95 72c max no avx load, aida test any combination of fpu, cash, memory,cpu is stable. load voltage drop to 1.24 in heavy loads, 1.254v gaming,its Sp63 chip , and asus prediction is not correct, showing 53x vcore should be 1.5v vwhich is not true at all


----------



## LesPaulLover

Quick question for yall: How bad are 10850K in terms of binning compared to the full 10900k CPUs?


----------



## munternet

LesPaulLover said:


> Quick question for yall: How bad are 10850K in terms of binning compared to the full 10900k CPUs?


No guarantee of 5GHz from all accounts


----------



## Placekicker19

dr.Rafi said:


> Its 10900kf , @5.2 ghz with asus z490 formula, vcore set to 1.28 v bios fixed,ll7, ram to 4000 16161636 , cash 48x ,real bench stable 15min,max temp 78c but mostly 68 to 73c stable, prime 95 72c max no avx load, aida test any combination of fpu, cash, memory,cpu is stable. load voltage drop to 1.24 in heavy loads, 1.254v gaming,its Sp63 chip , and asus prediction is not correct, showing 53x vcore should be 1.5v vwhich is not true at all


Nice, how much voltage does 5.3 with 5 cache require ? Ive seen bad sp63 chips and awesome ones. I bought 2 chips and the one that had quite a bit lower vid could not pass cinebench r15 @ 5.3ghz without L0 cache errors, tested up to 1.45vs. The chip with the higher vid scaled much better with voltage. They both could boot 4800mhz cl19 ddr4.


----------



## ExDarkxH

I have a 10900kf and did direct die with liquid metal on a optimus foundation block

temps are phenomenal
Currently doing 5.2Ghz @ 1.375v with LLC set to 4
with cinebench r15 im topping out at 56c

HOWEVER, cinebench crashes when i try 5.3ghz. its definetly not the temps i think because LLC is at 4 its not getting enough power to handle 5.3

I tried up to 5.4Ghz on games without any issues though
should i just ignore cinebench and simply run this at 5.4?

Running an Apex mobo with 4200 CL 16 and left ring at 49 if that makes a difference


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Cinebench 15/ 15 extreme/ r20/ r23 are the easiest benchmark to get through.
Might be corrupt maybe restore a system image memory oc often scraps an oc pretty quickly.


----------



## Placekicker19

ExDarkxH said:


> I have a 10900kf and did direct die with liquid metal on a optimus foundation block
> 
> temps are phenomenal
> Currently doing 5.2Ghz @ 1.375v with LLC set to 4
> with cinebench r15 im topping out at 56c
> 
> HOWEVER, cinebench crashes when i try 5.3ghz. its definetly not the temps i think because LLC is at 4 its not getting enough power to handle 5.3
> 
> I tried up to 5.4Ghz on games without any issues though
> should i just ignore cinebench and simply run this at 5.4?
> 
> Running an Apex mobo with 4200 CL 16 and left ring at 49 if that makes a difference


Use load line 6 and try again. If you have apex LLC 6 is the minimum I would use, llc7 is safe too. Your temps are great so you have plenty of voltage headroom. Go by the load voltages not bios voltages. Load voltage is the actual voltage the cpu is receiving. Setting 1.375 llc4 is probably only like 1.2 actual volts. If your crashing in cinebench your cpu is very unstable. Run cinebench r20 like 5xs and check hwinfo64 for hardware errors. If it passes r20 then stress test real bench 2.56 for atleast 2 hours. If your stable in realbench you should be fine for gaming.


----------



## dr.Rafi

Placekicker19 said:


> Nice, how much voltage does 5.3 with 5 cache require ? Ive seen bad sp63 chips and awesome ones. I bought 2 chips and the one that had quite a bit lower vid could not pass cinebench r15 @ 5.3ghz without L0 cache errors, tested up to 1.45vs. The chip with the higher vid scaled much better with voltage. They both could boot 4800mhz cl19 ddr4.


Will try today going higher on cash but for my experince decreasing ram frequency or loosening ram timing make it easier to go higher with cash ,if you keep the whole voltages constant (vcore,ca,io,ddr voltage),not sure i have to find the max cash overclock on stock ram setting ,then go higher on ram ?


----------



## dr.Rafi

Also thinking not to delid the cpu but lapping the whole ihs until i expose the solder to die, so will have only the sides of the ihs left then clean the die solder and remove the square frame left of the ihs clean the silicon underneath, so after cleaning the silicon, recheck the ihs on cpu and sanding the ihs until i have couple micrometer of die higher than ihs frame, so i can use it as direct die frame to protect the die from damage with water block mounted , what do you thing guys any suggestion will be highly appretiated.
Simply dont want to pay for delid and direct frame and wait for 2 weeks shippings.


----------



## Placekicker19

dr.Rafi said:


> Will try today going higher on cash but for my experince decreasing ram frequency or loosening ram timing make it easier to go higher with cash ,if you keep the whole voltages constant (vcore,ca,io,ddr voltage),not sure i have to find the max cash overclock on stock ram setting ,then go higher on ram ?


I would max out my core and cache before working on ram. Leave ram at stock while dialing in your overclocks


----------



## Dvnsta

Sync0r said:


> It would be interesting to see what a de-lidded 10850k can do with direct die cooling. Do you think Intel bin their chips with the IHS on? As my SP63 10900k improved massively after de-lid and direct die cooling.


I delidded and i'm direct die with mine. Got 5.1 all core 1.38 vcore. llc6 maximus hero XII .


----------



## dr.Rafi

Interisting finding, i sanded the ihs from 2.6 mm to 1.4 mm,its really painfull process by hand, refit the cpu found that water block touching the intel mounting mechanism of the motherboard before touching the cpu so removed the mechanism and keep only its back metal plate with screws, so now the cpu is holded to the socket only by waterblock run some tests and overclocks, found i cant go higher than 49 on cash, then after couple hours 49 become unstable have to go 48 and after while i have to clock the cash on stock but the ram and core clock overclocked have no issue, so i thought really i degrade my my cash very quickly finally even stock setting start freezing, it turn the cpu start getting lose and no enough pressure is applied to socket was the problem and my water block flimsy metal mounting is not applying enough pressure,tightned more ande everything went normal, so definitly need delidding and direct die kit for best result because applying high pressure on motherboard pcb is not good for long term use .


----------



## ExDarkxH

So i made some adjustments and I'm running 5.3Ghz all core 10900kf @ 1.35v (bios) LLC6
moved cash to 50x and adjusted ram to 4266 cl16

Tested cinebench and still not touching 60c on any of the cores so i have more thermal headroom, but I'm actually happy with this setting. Did aida64 and prime 95 stress tests without errors


----------



## ExDarkxH

also, not sure how much stock to put into sp rating. My card is a 63 and hasnt really hindered me doing anything. I was gaming at 5.4Ghz for a few days with 1.375v llc4.
I set my vccio to 1.18 and SA to 1.23 mainly for my memory and it takes very well

I want to try gaming at 5.5Ghz. will report back how much voltage was needed. Regardless of the result though i will probably switch back to 5.3 as im quite content


----------



## munternet

I fitted my air cooled 3080 Tuf OC in place of my water cooled 1080 ti a few days back and since then I have had 2 bsod while running realbench 2.56. Something which never happened before. Been running this setup for a few months now with no problems at all.
I just now turned the GPU voltage limiter up from 100 to 110% in afterburner which seems to have solved the bluescreen problem but I'm not really sure why.
Having removed the GPU from the water loop I have a temporary soft section and I seem to get more restriction now as the coolant can't take the easier route through the GPU waterblock and must pass through the CPU block.
The block is very old and I'm wondering if I should bin it and get a new one? The pump really struggles to turn the flow wheel now and I'm wondering if the early EK blocks were any good?.
I was testing to see if I need to water cool the GPU and I don't think I will bother at this stage as the frames in BFV are plentiful.
Any suggestions appreciated as always 
Original loop and temporary loop pics


----------



## dr.Rafi

munternet said:


> I fitted my air cooled 3080 Tuf OC in place of my water cooled 1080 ti a few days back and since then I have had 2 bsod while running realbench 2.56. Something which never happened before. Been running this setup for a few months now with no problems at all.
> I just now turned the GPU voltage limiter up from 100 to 110% in afterburner which seems to have solved the bluescreen problem but I'm not really sure why.
> Having removed the GPU from the water loop I have a temporary soft section and I seem to get more restriction now as the coolant can't take the easier route through the GPU waterblock and must pass through the CPU block.
> The block is very old and I'm wondering if I should bin it and get a new one? The pump really struggles to turn the flow wheel now and I'm wondering if the early EK blocks were any good?.
> I was testing to see if I need to water cool the GPU and I don't think I will bother at this stage as the frames in BFV are plentiful.
> Any suggestions appreciated as always
> Original loop and temporary loop pics
> View attachment 2466687
> View attachment 2466688
> View attachment 2466689


I just feel (not sure)your old water loop have issue cooling both the cpu and gpu to max, putting 2 identical blocks like 2 gpus in pareller work well because they have same resistant to fluid flow and the fluid will pass equally in and out of both but having cpu/gpu blocks in parellel,if one of them is more resistant (ristricted flow) the coolant will pass through the other one faster and you lose the cooling effecincy in more resistant one, only what i am thinking, and what istudied back in school, but never tested, i always do cpu gpu in serial passing first through the gpu because want it better temp to perform well in gaming, then pass through cpu which usually run hotter in games than the gpu if both are on water.


----------



## munternet

dr.Rafi said:


> I just feel (not sure)your old water loop have issue cooling both the cpu and gpu to max, putting 2 identical blocks like 2 gpus in pareller work well because they have same resistant to fluid flow and the fluid will pass equally in and out of both but having cpu/gpu blocks in parellel,if one of them is more resistant (ristricted flow) the coolant will pass through the other one faster and you lose the cooling effecincy in more resistant one, only what i am thinking, and what istudied back in school, but never tested, i always do cpu gpu in serial passing first through the gpu because want it better temp to perform well in gaming, then pass through cpu which usually run hotter in games than the gpu if both are on water.


Hi dr.Rafi
I see what you are saying but I never had any overheating problems before and I think the extra flow actually helped bleed all the air from the top of system really well
I'm probably more interested in the reasons for the blue screens and whether I need to get a new waterblock tomorrow because it's black Friday 
I have turned the pump up from 45% to 80% and flow is slower than before


----------



## Placekicker19

munternet said:


> Hi dr.Rafi
> I see what you are saying but I never had any overheating problems before and I think the extra flow actually helped bleed all the air from the top of system really well
> I'm probably more interested in the reasons for the blue screens and whether I need to get a new waterblock tomorrow because it's black Friday
> I have turned the pump up from 45% to 80% and flow is slower than before


How old is the pump and what brand is it. Youtuber "der8auer" had a recent youtube video and he mentioned how his girls 9900k's system ddc pump has died and had to be replaced like 5xs. He was using pastel fluid so maybe it had something to do with that, but furthermore i would for sure check the pump. What bsod did you get? You could always run realbench testing cpu only to rule the cpu out.


----------



## bigfootnz

munternet said:


> I fitted my air cooled 3080 Tuf OC in place of my water cooled 1080 ti a few days back and since then I have had 2 bsod while running realbench 2.56. Something which never happened before. Been running this setup for a few months now with no problems at all.
> I just now turned the GPU voltage limiter up from 100 to 110% in afterburner which seems to have solved the bluescreen problem but I'm not really sure why.
> Having removed the GPU from the water loop I have a temporary soft section and I seem to get more restriction now as the coolant can't take the easier route through the GPU waterblock and must pass through the CPU block.
> The block is very old and I'm wondering if I should bin it and get a new one? The pump really struggles to turn the flow wheel now and I'm wondering if the early EK blocks were any good?.
> I was testing to see if I need to water cool the GPU and I don't think I will bother at this stage as the frames in BFV are plentiful.
> Any suggestions appreciated as always
> Original loop and temporary loop pics


Something is wrong with your loop. Are you sure that your CPU block or radiators aren't dirty and clog up? That hwinfo screen shot doing Realbench are really high temperatures for only CPU in loop. For comparison, my 10900k which is at the moment on test bench cooled with Corsair h115i platinum, are much cooler even on 5.3 cpu and 5GHz cache. You can say that EKWB is not greatest water cooling blocks/radiators but for sure they are better than one AIO.

I think that @Placekicker19 is maybe is right about your pump, especially as your flow has dropped when you have increased speed.

Here is it Prime95 nonAVX 5.3/5.0









And here it is Realbench on 5.3/5.0









And Blender 5.3/5.0









Now here it is prime95 nonAVX 5.2/4.9









And here it is Realbench on 5.2/4.9









And Blender 5.2/4.9


----------



## ThrashZone

munternet said:


> I fitted my air cooled 3080 Tuf OC in place of my water cooled 1080 ti a few days back and since then I have had 2 bsod while running realbench 2.56. Something which never happened before. Been running this setup for a few months now with no problems at all.
> I just now turned the GPU voltage limiter up from 100 to 110% in afterburner which seems to have solved the bluescreen problem but I'm not really sure why.
> Having removed the GPU from the water loop I have a temporary soft section and I seem to get more restriction now as the coolant can't take the easier route through the GPU waterblock and must pass through the CPU block.
> The block is very old and I'm wondering if I should bin it and get a new one? The pump really struggles to turn the flow wheel now and I'm wondering if the early EK blocks were any good?.
> I was testing to see if I need to water cool the GPU and I don't think I will bother at this stage as the frames in BFV are plentiful.
> Any suggestions appreciated as always
> Original loop and temporary loop pics
> View attachment 2466687
> View attachment 2466688
> View attachment 2466689


Hi,
That 90 degree fitting off your pump now might be killing flow ?
But I see a lot of 90's 7 to be exact hard 90's aren't great for flow.

3080 is a big jump from 1080ti drive wise but nothing to do with cpu temps obviously.


----------



## Placekicker19

bigfootnz said:


> Something is wrong with your loop. Are you sure that your CPU block or radiators aren't dirty and clog up? That hwinfo screen shot doing Realbench are really high temperatures for only CPU in loop. For comparison, my 10900k which is at the moment on test bench cooled with Corsair h115i platinum, are much cooler even on 5.3 cpu and 5GHz cache. You can say that EKWB is not greatest water cooling blocks/radiators but for sure they are better than one AIO.
> 
> I think that @Placekicker19 is maybe is right about your pump, especially as your flow has dropped when you have increased speed.
> 
> Here is it Prime95 nonAVX 5.3/5.0
> 
> View attachment 2466700
> 
> 
> And here it is Realbench on 5.3/5.0
> View attachment 2466701
> 
> 
> And Blender 5.3/5.0
> View attachment 2466704
> 
> 
> 
> Now here it is prime95 nonAVX 5.2/4.9
> View attachment 2466702
> 
> 
> And here it is Realbench on 5.2/4.9
> View attachment 2466703
> 
> 
> And Blender 5.2/4.9
> View attachment 2466705


Thats a nice chip you got there. It took me delidding with direct die cooling to be able to run 5.3ghz daily stable. The chip took 1.390 bios, -50% vdroop, just to pass cinebench @ 5.3ghz without error and temps hit 90c before delidding. After delid, 2 hour realbench is stable with temps in 60s using 1.325v bios set. Im on a custom watercooling with a 480mm rad dedicated to cpu only. 

I can run cinebench at 5.5ghz temps in 70s. I bet your chip would easily do 5.6 delidded and direct die. I bought 2 9900k and both were duds, then bought a 9900ks. I bought 2 10900ks and one couldnt even do 5.3ghz without error. My luck with the silicon lottery hasnt been great while my brother who only runs a aio gets golden cpus everytime. Its funny how that works. 

When really pushing these chips I wonder whats more harmful, temps, or amps. If I can keep my temps in the 70s I wonder how dangerous it is running high amp power draws?


----------



## munternet

Placekicker19 said:


> How old is the pump and what brand is it. Youtuber "der8auer" had a recent youtube video and he mentioned how his girls 9900k's system d5 pump has died and had to be replaced like 5xs. He was using pastel fluid so maybe it had something to do with that, but furthermore i would for sure check the pump. What bsod did you get? You could always run realbench testing cpu only to rule the cpu out.





bigfootnz said:


> Something is wrong with your loop. Are you sure that your CPU block or radiators aren't dirty and clog up? That hwinfo screen shot doing Realbench are really high temperatures for only CPU in loop. For comparison, my 10900k which is at the moment on test bench cooled with Corsair h115i platinum, are much cooler even on 5.3 cpu and 5GHz cache. You can say that EKWB is not greatest water cooling blocks/radiators but for sure they are better than one AIO.
> 
> I think that @Placekicker19 is maybe is right about your pump, especially as your flow has dropped when you have increased speed.
> 
> Here is it Prime95 nonAVX 5.3/5.0
> 
> View attachment 2466700
> 
> 
> And here it is Realbench on 5.3/5.0
> 
> View attachment 2466701
> 
> 
> And Blender 5.3/5.0
> 
> View attachment 2466704
> 
> 
> Now here it is prime95 nonAVX 5.2/4.9
> 
> View attachment 2466702
> 
> 
> And here it is Realbench on 5.2/4.9
> 
> View attachment 2466703
> 
> 
> And Blender 5.2/4.9
> 
> View attachment 2466705





ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> That 90 degree fitting off your pump now might be killing flow ?
> But I see a lot of 90's 7 to be exact hard 90's aren't great for flow.
> 
> 3080 is a big jump from 1080ti drive wise but nothing to do with cpu temps obviously.


It was flowing well with the same number of 90° fittings before according to the flow wheel so I don't think that's an issue.
I think the pump is OK. It's not very old and it only started going slow straight after I removed the GPU. The coolant only gets to about 31°c max.
I'm almost certain that the CPU waterblock is either clogged or just a very old design that was never intended for these CPUs.
I think I bought it used about 10 years ago so it was never designed for 10 cores 20 threads @ 5.2GHz 
I actually think it's causing an airlock in the top rad because the flow isn't purging the air.
I'll replace the block over the weekend and report back 
Cheers


----------



## cstkl1

Placekicker19 said:


> How old is the pump and what brand is it. Youtuber "der8auer" had a recent youtube video and he mentioned how his girls 9900k's system d5 pump has died and had to be replaced like 5xs. He was using pastel fluid so maybe it had something to do with that, but furthermore i would for sure check the pump. What bsod did you get? You could always run realbench testing cpu only to rule the cpu out.


it was his ddc not d5. 
but @owikh84 d5 pump just died.


----------



## bigfootnz

Placekicker19 said:


> Thats a nice chip you got there. It took me delidding with direct die cooling to be able to run 5.3ghz daily stable. The chip took 1.390 bios, -50% vdroop, just to pass cinebench @ 5.3ghz without error and temps hit 90c before delidding. After delid, 2 hour realbench is stable with temps in 60s using 1.325v bios set. Im on a custom watercooling with a 480mm rad dedicated to cpu only.
> 
> I can run cinebench at 5.5ghz temps in 70s. I bet your chip would easily do 5.6 delidded and direct die. I bought 2 9900k and both were duds, then bought a 9900ks. I bought 2 10900ks and one couldnt even do 5.3ghz without error. My luck with the silicon lottery hasnt been great while my brother who only runs a aio gets golden cpus everytime. Its funny how that works.
> 
> When really pushing these chips I wonder whats more harmful, temps, or amps. If I can keep my temps in the 70s I wonder how dangerous it is running high amp power draws?


I think that this is first time that I've won silicon lottery. With 9900k/ks I had 4 of them and second one was ok running 5/4.7 @1.18v load, but this 10900k is much better. Especially as that 9900k was getting really hot when I was running 5.1 and it was not worth additional heat for just 100MHz. 

I do not have any intention to delid this CPU as it is running really well under AIO and it should be much better under loop. Hopefully this weekend I'll be able to swap it with 9900k which is under custom loop and then see what this CPU can do. That 5.3/5.0 I was running with BIOS [email protected] and 5.2/4.9 was running in BIOS [email protected] And some quick test on 5/4.7 I was running below 1.1v load and I think it can even lower.


----------



## ThrashZone

munternet said:


> It was flowing well with the same number of 90° fittings before according to the flow wheel so I don't think that's an issue.
> I think the pump is OK. It's not very old and it only started going slow straight after I removed the GPU. The coolant only gets to about 31°c max.
> I'm almost certain that the CPU waterblock is either clogged or just a very old design that was never intended for these CPUs.
> I think I bought it used about 10 years ago so it was never designed for 10 cores 20 threads @ 5.2GHz
> I actually think it's causing an airlock in the top rad because the flow isn't purging the air.
> I'll replace the block over the weekend and report back
> Cheers


Hi,
Yeah the only difference is the 90 off the pump outlet :/


----------



## cstkl1

@shamino1978 

ok i tested the octvb insanely for gaming all core. bro. u da genius in ocing.

aslong a person has a decent 10900k with rog mobo. ocing now easy

its just insane easy

test your cooling with prime small fft see how far u can use syn all core 53 and below
leave everything auto. 

test at stock to get your ram stable

now 
octvb
set a higher cpu clock +1 to +2 on sync all core
octv set all one by one either 
for +2 higher core clock
temp A 70, offset 2temp B auto
or
Temp A 70, offset 1 temp B 80
for +1 higher core cmock
temp A 70, offset 1 temp B auto

game. 

then bump cache to a level where minecraft, ghostrunner shows no whea error in hwinfo

done. 

idle 0.79w , 1amp
gaming full +2 -+1 higher.. it not package temp and only that cpu cores etc.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
I need a new decoder ring


----------



## Placekicker19

cstkl1 said:


> it was his ddc not d5.
> but @owikh84 d5 pump just died.
> [/QUO
> 
> 
> bigfootnz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that this is first time that I've won silicon lottery. With 9900k/ks I had 4 of them and second one was ok running 5/4.7 @1.18v load, but this 10900k is much better. Especially as that 9900k was getting really hot when I was running 5.1 and it was not worth additional heat for just 100MHz.
> 
> I do not have any intention to delid this CPU as it is running really well under AIO and it should be much better under loop. Hopefully this weekend I'll be able to swap it with 9900k which is under custom loop and then see what this CPU can do. That 5.3/5.0 I was running with BIOS [email protected] and 5.2/4.9 was running in BIOS [email protected] And some quick test on 5/4.7 I was running below 1.1v load and I think it can even lower.
Click to expand...


----------



## ThrashZone

lol that quote went nowhere.


----------



## Placekicker19

ThrashZone said:


> lol that quote went nowhere.


Lol i dont know what happend , it put my message in the original quote.

Yeah that's a awesome chip, when did you buy it? I would love to get my hands on one of those Golden sample ones like Linus got. My 9900ks took 1.305 bios to do 5.2ghz/4.8 cache, 5.3 took about 1.38v. Atleast my 10900k is bit better taking 1.325 and the memory controller and cache are loads better, capable of 4800mhz and 5.2ghz. I still need to upgrade my gpu, I'm on the ancient 1080ti. It feels bad when the consoles have more gpu power than your pc.


----------



## Placekicker19

I discovered something odd. With 5.3ghz, 5 cache, cinebench r15 requires more voltage than r20 to pass without error. R20 takes 1.275 but R15 needs 1.295. 1.325 passed 2 hours of realbench. When going up to 5.4ghz, 5.1 cache its the opposite, R15 takes 1.355 and R20 takes 1.365 to pass without error. I always though R20 was more demanding and required more voltage to pass than R15, thats why i find it strange @ 5.3ghz, and only 5.3ghz R15 requires more voltage than R20. 5.4, 5.2, 5.1 require more voltage for R20. 

Would a powerdraw of 310 watts @ 1.385v be safe for daily usage. Actual die voltage is like 1.33.


----------



## dr.Rafi

munternet said:


> Hi dr.Rafi
> I see what you are saying but I never had any overheating problems before and I think the extra flow actually helped bleed all the air from the top of system really well
> I'm probably more interested in the reasons for the blue screens and whether I need to get a new waterblock tomorrow because it's black Friday
> I have turned the pump up from 45% to 80% and flow is slower than before


Blue screen can be related to not a stable overclock both before and after, but 3080 is loading the system further far more than than 1080ti ,i I always noticed across many years of overclocking , overclocking graphic card to max then overclock the cpu will give me less overclock headroom on cpu, and viseverca so consider adding 3080 instead of 1080ti like you overclocked your graphic much higher, the motherboard pcb have limits of what current and data they can deliver across components and now you have new graphic card which is double the sopeed of 1080ti, try to bench your cpu with very cpu bounded test , like zip encoding or prime 95 and compare, and also disable your graphic card drivers and do the same tests again and check if you will get the BSOD again.


----------



## munternet

dr.Rafi said:


> Blue screen can be related to not a stable overclock both before and after, but 3080 is loading the system further far more than than 1080ti ,i I always noticed across many years of overclocking , overclocking graphic card to max then overclock the cpu will give me less overclock headroom on cpu, and viseverca so consider adding 3080 instead of 1080ti like you overclocked your graphic much higher, the motherboard pcb have limits of what current and data they can deliver across components and now you have new graphic card which is double the sopeed of 1080ti, try to bench your cpu with very cpu bounded test , like zip encoding or prime 95 and compare, and also disable your graphic card drivers and do the same tests again and check if you will get the BSOD again.


Cheers for the info  

Which of these waterblocks will be the best for my 10900k to get good flow and cooling? Water Cooling>Blocks
Not too concerned about RGB but I like to see if there are any bubbles
1.0NZD = 0.70USD


----------



## bigfootnz

Placekicker19 said:


> Lol i dont know what happend , it put my message in the original quote.
> 
> Yeah that's a awesome chip, when did you buy it? I would love to get my hands on one of those Golden sample ones like Linus got. My 9900ks took 1.305 bios to do 5.2ghz/4.8 cache, 5.3 took about 1.38v. Atleast my 10900k is bit better taking 1.325 and the memory controller and cache are loads better, capable of 4800mhz and 5.2ghz. I still need to upgrade my gpu, I'm on the ancient 1080ti. It feels bad when the consoles have more gpu power than your pc.


I bought this chip two weeks ago. This is really good OC but not sure about MC, as at the moment I've 4x8GB on Hero XII which is not good combination for OC. At the moment I'm running 4x8GB at 4000C16. Will see later on to get some 2x16GB to see how much more I can get, but on Hero XII should not expected anything comparable to Apex.



munternet said:


> Cheers for the info
> 
> Which of these waterblocks will be the best for my 10900k to get good flow and cooling? Water Cooling>Blocks
> Not too concerned about RGB but I like to see if there are any bubbles
> 1.0NZD = 0.70USD


I was running EKWB Supremacy MX on my 9900ks then I've upgraded to Quantum Velocity. Not sure about difference in flow, but cooling difference was just 2-3C. I think that all of them are similar unless you push your chip to real high wattage then maybe more expensive is better. But question is do you want best buy of best what you can buy for money. From that link I would suggest Quantum Velocity, but if you want best then Magnitude, but again it is question how much it will be better than Quantum.


----------



## munternet

bigfootnz said:


> I was running EKWB Supremacy MX on my 9900ks then I've upgraded to Quantum Velocity. Not sure about difference in flow, but cooling difference was just 2-3C. I think that all of them are similar unless you push your chip to real high wattage then maybe more expensive is better. But question is do you want best buy of best what you can buy for money. From that link I would suggest Quantum Velocity, but if you want best then Magnitude, but again it is question how much it will be better than Quantum.


I bought the Quantum Velocity for about $200 less than the Magnitude. For ~2% difference in cooling I don't see the point. I could just increase the pump flow to compensate


----------



## ThrashZone

munternet said:


> Cheers for the info
> 
> Which of these waterblocks will be the best for my 10900k to get good flow and cooling? Water Cooling>Blocks
> Not too concerned about RGB but I like to see if there are any bubbles
> 1.0NZD = 0.70USD


Hi,
I'd check out TechN 120.us but nice design
Home - Techn GmbH


----------



## bigfootnz

munternet said:


> I bought the Quantum Velocity for about $200 less than the Magnitude. For ~2% difference in cooling I don't see the point. I could just increase the pump flow to compensate


I agree with you, I would do the same thing. Good look with new block.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

cstkl1 said:


> @shamino1978
> 
> ok i tested the octvb insanely for gaming all core. bro. u da genius in ocing.
> 
> aslong a person has a decent 10900k with rog mobo. ocing now easy
> 
> its just insane easy
> 
> test your cooling with prime small fft see how far u can use syn all core 53 and below
> leave everything auto.
> 
> test at stock to get your ram stable
> 
> now
> octvb
> set a higher cpu clock +1 to +2 on sync all core
> octv set all one by one either
> for +2 higher core clock
> temp A 70, offset 2temp B auto
> or
> Temp A 70, offset 1 temp B 80
> for +1 higher core cmock
> temp A 70, offset 1 temp B auto
> 
> game.
> 
> then bump cache to a level where minecraft, ghostrunner shows no whea error in hwinfo
> 
> done.
> 
> idle 0.79w , 1amp
> gaming full +2 -+1 higher.. it not package temp and only that cpu cores etc.



I agree... It's easy and work very well!
i9-10900kf - SP86
Adptive Votage = 1.440V - (1.245V [email protected] under load)
VCCIO = 1.080V
VCCSA = 1.130V
DRAM = 1.360V ([email protected])


----------



## munternet

RobertoSampaio said:


> I agree... It's easy and work very well!
> Adptive Votage = 1.440V - (1.245V [email protected] under load)
> VCCIO = 1.050V
> VCCSA = 1.100V
> DRAM = 1.360V ([email protected])
> 
> View attachment 2467015
> 
> 
> View attachment 2467007
> 
> 
> View attachment 2467034
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2467016
> 
> 
> View attachment 2467022
> 
> 
> View attachment 2467023
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2467012
> 
> 
> View attachment 2467035
> 
> 
> View attachment 2467064


This all looks very impressive
Is there an easy to follow step by step tutorial all in one place?
Can I extend/alter my current fixed overclock?

On another note:
I figured out basically what the problem with my cooling loop is and I expect a few people have the same issue and blame it on a faulty pump or restrictions in the elbows etc

When I had the GPU waterblock in the loop in parallel with the CPU waterblock there was almost no flow restriction in the loop and that is why the pump purged the air through the radiators so easily
Now with the restriction of the CPU block and no way for the coolant to bypass it the flow is slowed right down and there is a big airlock in the front, vertical radiator
When I enter the BIOS and turn the pump to full speed air bubbles pass through the pump and lower the level in the reservoir proving there is still a large mass of air trapped
I thought about fitting a bypass pipe with a valve to increase the flow and make it easy to purge the radiators and just shut it off after purging


----------



## RobertoSampaio

*munternet,*

I think Vertical radiator is not a good idea anyway. I have an AIO corsair 115i and is better the pump stay below the radiator. For custom loop you can see the air bubbles... AIOs not...

By the way, I did the memory overclock using the guide you indicated to me. Tx !


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Better for corsair seeing aio has 5 year warranty if it dies early you get a new one after usually 30-36 months


----------



## RobertoSampaio

There is a new 1002 ASUS maximus XII BIOS, but no change log in asus website...
Do you know what changed from 0901 ?


----------



## ThrashZone

RobertoSampaio said:


> There is a new 1002 ASUS maximus XII BIOS, but no change log in asus website...
> Do you know what changed from 0901 ?


Hi,
Probably mistake released not sure why all beta versions haven't been released like that now lol


----------



## Robertomcat

Hello, good morning. I would like to know your opinion about this motherboard ROG STRIX Z490-E GAMING, because around here everybody (or almost everybody) has a Maximus XII, but I don't see that they have a lower range. Thank you!


----------



## ThrashZone

Robertomcat said:


> Hello, good morning. I would like to know your opinion about this motherboard ROG STRIX Z490-E GAMING, because around here everybody (or almost everybody) has a Maximus XII, but I don't see that they have a lower range. Thank you!


Hi,
I'd avoid strix and if on a budget just go for the hero.


----------



## Robertomcat

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> I'd avoid strix and if on a budget just go for the hero.


But the Hero is worth 100 euros more (or more), and it's also 14 + 2 phases just like the Strix. I don't know if it's worth paying the difference.


----------



## ThrashZone

Robertomcat said:


> But the Hero is worth 100 euros more (or more), and it's also 14 + 2 phases just like the Strix. I don't know if it's worth paying the difference.


Hi,
Hero has better Ethernet options and raid, looks like both have wifi and bios flash back
Intel Ethernet sucks I haven't had any issues on my apex with it though.


----------



## Robertomcat

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Hero has better Ethernet options and raid, looks like both have wifi and bios flash back
> Intel Ethernet sucks I haven't had any issues on my apex with it though.


I find very few differences that convince me to buy the Hero. These days I have seen that on Amazon.fr it has been for the 280 euros, so it is worth buying the Strix. Thank you!


----------



## ThrashZone

Robertomcat said:


> I find very few differences that convince me to buy the Hero. These days I have seen that on Amazon.fr it has been for the 280 euros, so it is worth buying the Strix. Thank you!


Hi,
Strix waste room on 4 usb-2 ports 
Hero has a nice clear cmos button




__





Compare ASUS Maximus XII Hero vs ASUS Strix Z490-E vs ASUS Z490-A


Compare ASUS Maximus XII Hero vs ASUS Strix Z490-E vs ASUS Z490-A



www.bhphotovideo.com


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Yeah hero is better well worth 100 extra for just enthernet/ clear cmos and usb port options


----------



## Robertomcat

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Yeah hero is better well worth 100 extra for just enthernet/ clear cmos and usb port options
> View attachment 2467239


For me it doesn't justify what you're telling me about the USB, the Clear CMOS button and the network card; the Strix network card is 2.5Gbps (where I live it only reaches 100 Mb). Thank you!


----------



## ThrashZone

Robertomcat said:


> For me it doesn't justify what you're telling me about the USB, the Clear CMOS button and the network card; the Strix network card is 2.5Gbps (where I live it only reaches 100 Mb). Thank you!


Hi,
I'd personally download the web pdf and read up on any board I was interested in before buying


----------



## cstkl1

ROG MAXIMUS XII EXTREME BIOS 1002 beta
Offer a Re-size BAR Support option to enhance GPU performance.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

cstkl1 said:


> ROG MAXIMUS XII EXTREME BIOS 1002 beta
> Offer a Re-size BAR Support option to enhance GPU performance.


And what is it? Could you explain ?


----------



## dr.Rafi

RobertoSampaio said:


> And what is it? Could you explain ?


I think not sure ,its the nvidia that promised to lunch similar enhancment like AMD 6000 series gpus that is called smart access memory so the cpu can use the graphic card memory to process game data faster through pci express 4 bandwidth please correct me if iam wrong, so Nvidia promised to lunch it on both amd and intel systems.


----------



## dr.Rafi

My results before and after delidding using rocketcool delidding and direct die kit.with custom water loop, ek quantum velocity block and 420 radiator ,vcore bios 1.28 volt LLC 7 load 1.254 volts ,5.3 is fully stable too but need 1.35 vcore bios and 1.305 load voltage. I dont know why cpuz on Z490 formula is not showing vcore properly bios using die sense though.


----------



## cstkl1

RobertoSampaio said:


> And what is it? Could you explain ?


afaik only 6800xt ppl atm can test this

@shamino1978
its based on gpu driver support right??

also suprise this might would for gen 3. i thought amd marketed it as gen 4 only


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Asus Brings Resizable BAR Support to Z490 Motherboards


Free performance for Intel owners too




www.tomshardware.com





Is this useful with i9 10900k and a rtx 3080?


----------



## Nizzen

RobertoSampaio said:


> Asus Brings Resizable BAR Support to Z490 Motherboards
> 
> 
> Free performance for Intel owners too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.tomshardware.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this useful with i9 10900k and a rtx 3080?


We need nVidia to release driversupport for "SAM"

They said "coming soon"


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Someone forgot to remind them bars are closed and already were resized to 20% capacity before totally closing them again permanently lol


----------



## cstkl1

Nizzen said:


> We need nVidia to release driversupport for "SAM"
> 
> They said "coming soon"


also guess intel no 1 board partner always get the good stuff quick when paired with legendary shamino.

6800xt.. its easier for me to buy couple of 3080 than finding one 6800xt


----------



## Placekicker19

dr.Rafi said:


> My results before and after delidding using rocketcool delidding and direct die kit.with custom water loop, ek quantum velocity block and 420 radiator ,vcore bios 1.28 volt LLC 7 load 1.254 volts ,5.3 is fully stable too but need 1.35 vcore bios and 1.305 load voltage. I dont know why cpuz on Z490 formula is not showing vcore properly bios using die sense though.
> View attachment 2467342


Is your gpu and cpu on the same loop?
Did you use the ek motherboard standoffs that were included with your waterblock? I found the standoffs were just a little to high and didnt provide proper contact between the block and the die on the 10900k, the 9900ks worked fine though with the ek standoffs. I ordered some 40mm M4 threaded rods on Amazon and used them instead of the ek standoffs. Your temps are still good but with direct die and a custom loop I think they should be lower. Running 5.4ghz with 1.390 bios /1.34 die my hottest core hits mid 60s in realbench. 

How hot are your temps at 5.3ghz with your stable setting after 15min of realbench or cinebench r20/23?


----------



## nederhash

Hey guys,
i´ve got a new 10900k with a MSI Z490 Carbon EK-X. Lovely Setup but i have a question, i noticed high clock rates and switching frequency when my 10900k is idle on Desktop.

I did a clean new Install (20H2) to make sure no background process is preventing the cpu from ideling, still the same...
Windows Powerplan is Balanced.
Also no OC at the moment, all BIOS settings on default.

Is this normal behavior for a 10900K?

Thanks!


----------



## DyndaS

I have 10850k + MSI Tomahawk Z490. Not sure how good or bad my chip is.

5Ghz + 4,8 cache it need around 1,25V I think. It did pass 100x of cinebench R20. Temps around 70c.
5,1Ghz did pass 20x R20 at 1,31V.
5,2Ghz at 1,41V I did pass 2 times but temp was around 100c. Crash at 1,37V at the start of first run. 

Is there any point to test stability with occt avx2 small data set?


----------



## cstkl1

DyndaS said:


> I have 10850k + MSI Tomahawk Z490. Not sure how good or bad my chip is.
> 
> 5Ghz + 4,8 cache it need around 1,25V I think. It did pass 100x of cinebench R20. Temps around 70c.
> 5,1Ghz did pass 20x R20 at 1,31V.
> 5,2Ghz at 1,41V I did pass 2 times but temp was around 100c. Crash at 1,37V at the start of first run.
> 
> Is there any point to test stability with occt avx2 small data set?


games softwares now are heading to cache intensive.. with light avx.. which effects stability on ram oc and gpu oc.. so going avx stable gonna be a thing soon. 
octvb helps with this. 

my advice. get avx stable.. use octvb for game stable.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Hi @Shamino,

How could I test the BAR in the new 1002 BIOS?

Tx.


----------



## itssladenlol

RobertoSampaio said:


> Hi @Shamino,
> 
> How could I test the BAR in the new 1002 BIOS?
> 
> Tx.


Only with 6800 XT


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Hi...
Could anyone tell me the difference between using adaptive voltage against rising the voltage in the point 8 of the v/f curve?

Tx


----------



## murenitu

Hi

First of all, thank you for the post and that you are still here giving war with the 10900k!

Finally after 2 months I have been able to mount the micro with the asus formula XII and I have some important doubts that I need to clarify.

Been doing tests with the micro in manual voltage at 1,320 / 1,330 with LLC6 and I can do 5.3 all cores avx0. so far fine but when I try to replicate this same scenario with adaptive voltage I go crazy because I can't make the board work as I want.

After investigating, I see that whenever he marks an adaptive voltage lower than the one I market in Vid, he ignores me ... finally I had to put an adaptive voltage almost equal to the VID and apply a SUBTRACTION - from the amount that I want to remove the vid so that it remains as before in manual, thus giving a voltage again of 1,320 / 1,330 in adaptive? This is so?

I ask this because, obviously I have a fairly high voltage in bios in adaptive but applying the negative offset it stays what I want. It is right?

On the other hand I put some photos of the bios! 5.3 all cores avx0 with ram 32gb at 4200 cl 17.

The temperatures that I have over playing about 40/55 more or less and doing tests over 70º


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I have the Maximus XII formula and I'd suggest you to select "best scenario", LLC6 and do 52x3 52x5 51x8 51x10, set TVB to +2 (this will make 54x3 54x5 53x8 53x10), adaptive voltage to 1.3v (this way adaptive will be ignored and the VID will follow the V/F curve) than test stability. Lower/rise the last 3 V/F points looking for the lower voltage as possible. After the system is stable you can rise multiplier and V/F voltage until you want.

I'm stable using (10900KF-SP86)
V/F6 (5100) -1.329 + 0.016 = 1.345V (UNDER LOAD-AVX=0 - VCORE=1,250V)
V/F7 (5200) - 1.329 + 0.021 =1.350V
V/F8 (5400) - 1.428 - 0.068 = 1.360V


----------



## murenitu

I have not understood anything of what you have put! hahaha but I'm glad you have a good mic too


----------



## RobertoSampaio

murenitu said:


> I have not understood anything of what you have put! hahaha but I'm glad you have a good mic too


LOL....
What part did you not understand ?

I'm fighting to adaptive and decided not use it, setting a value lower than V/F curve... This is the beginning ... Use V/F curve!


----------



## murenitu

pero ¿por qué usar la curva v / f? ¿Es por tener un par de núcleos a 5.4 durante unos segundos? y otros a 51? No entiendo cómo funciona o va la curva con respecto al voltaje adaptativo.

Además, no sé cómo establecer el orden de cores / hz que me has puesto, que tengo que poner un oc por core? o todo el núcleo?


----------



## murenitu

you will have to make me fools!

photo by photo xD but I don't know hahah


----------



## murenitu

When I do the sequence of cores that I understand that it should be done in OC core by core, if I do a test they all set to 51 and they do not respect the + 2boost and all the cores are not kept at 53.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Multi core enhancement should be enabled
You might go to ROG forum
ROG


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Try to understand this ... 
TVB is great !






MCE explanations and others


MCE IÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢m seeing quite a lot of misunderstanding the workings of MCE so IÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢m partly writing this to address it. It is not the taboo that it has been made up to become. There are 3 options for it, namely Auto, enabled and disabled. Enabled merely maxes out...



rog.asus.com


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Yeah lots of killed words on that write up lol so much for proof reading


----------



## CENS

Anyone has had the luck to get a SP100++ chip? I'm looking for a chip to put under LN2


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
You can freeze a sp60 just as easy as any other chip.


----------



## CENS

Hi Trash, isn't worth it.


----------



## ThrashZone

CENS said:


> Hi Trash, isn't worth it.


Hi,
Really ?
People going direct die and that new cool direct die water block on sp60+ and doing quite well 5.5 just on ambient water :/


----------



## CENS

I'm not saying there aren't any exceptions... even one SP50 was good. But generally speaking high SP is better for XOC. Had a few cold by now.


----------



## CENS

You can't really judge how a chip behaves cold -196C by ambient results. One SP88 had rly nice low VID... and up to 6.6G used very little Vcore but then didn't even hit 6.8G. My best chip which is also currently the highest scoring retail chip on hwbot I believe did 6.9G and that was SP99... ES samples are a different ball park.


----------



## ThrashZone

CENS said:


> You can't really judge how a chip behaves cold -196C by ambient results. One SP88 had rly nice low VID... and up to 6.6G used very little Vcore but then didn't even hit 6.8G. My best chip which is also currently the highest scoring retail chip on hwbot I believe did 6.9G and that was SP99... ES samples are a different ball park.


Hi,
You can always open a Want to buy thread on the market place


----------



## CENS

Thanks that would be nice!


----------



## ThrashZone

CENS said:


> Thanks that would be nice!


Hi,
Done


----------



## RobertoSampaio

If you want to download the OCTVB app for runtime adjustment....
Thanks to Shamino for that !









octvb.rar


Shared with Dropbox




www.dropbox.com


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> If you want to download the OCTVB app for runtime adjustment....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> octvb.rar
> 
> 
> Shared with Dropbox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com


Thanks to Shamino for that.


----------



## Nizzen

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Really ?
> People going direct die and that new cool direct die water block on sp60+ and doing quite well 5.5 just on ambient water :/


Yep, my early SP 63 can easily benchmark on 5600mhz on cold water, and looping cb 20 on 1.3v 5.3ghz on 30c water. 

My sp87 is better, but not that much. This is direct die cooled, so it's very cold all the time.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

What version of "TurboV Core" are you using? Is it working with the last win10 update?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Hi,

I'm trying to predict VID using the last V/F8 point and adaptive voltage but I don't know how to calculate the part of adaptive in the final VID. 
Anyone could help me?


----------



## Thrakis

Falkentyne said:


> Hmm. Memtweakit 2.02.46 has these settings too. This version wasn't released to the public?
> Probably an older version of the CD. So everyone should have this version already on their CD?


Hi,
I'm unsing MemTweakIt_V20248 on Maximus VIII Ranger (newest bios 3802) with 6700K on Win10 Pro 64bit without KB4571756, with IME & chipset drivers installed.
Mem TweakIt starts and loads fine, reads all timings as intended, but I can't write any values.
Within "Timings #1" tab any change is getting reverted by clicking the "apply" button.
Within "Timings #2" tba any change is not getting reverted by clicking the "apply" button, though closing and re-opening the Mem TweakIt loads original-unchanged values.
Is there anything I'm missing here? Is there any bios setting needing to be enabled/disabled?
Did You Guys manage the change timings online on Hedt CPUs only? 
Would be grateful for any hints.
Best regards


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Hi Guys,
First, sorry for the bad English...

I find out a really weird thing...

Please, if you have an Asus Maximus XII, could you please test the same to see if you have the sames results?

I'm running a SP86 and the BIOS 1002.
So I did a F5 (load defaults) and start from the beginning...

I thought to try the Asus AI overclock and followed the instruction...
After some training the system self configured to 53x3 - 52x5 - 51x8 - 50x10 - Adaptive=1,392V.
After that I stopped training.

Now I start some tests...
I know I can do 50x10 at load with Vcore=1,190v... so I thought to change SVID to "best scenario" as I always did... but this time I decided to choose "trained".

At this point I had 50x10 vcore at load = 1,30v... Very bad!

So I decided to go to V/F6 curve (5100) and start to lower it.

At "best scenario" I need V/F6(5100) VID=1,34 that results a 5000_VID = 1,28... That results [email protected]=1,20v (LLC5)

So I lowered V/F6 until 1,25V and have the same [email protected]=1,20 (LLC4 !!!).

All VID could be lower this way that results the same Vcore before...

Now OCTVB is working much better.

Any idea what changed that caused so big difference in the VID needed?

The Vcore follow VID so close that seems I'm using LLC8...


----------



## Salve1412

RobertoSampaio said:


> Hi Guys,
> First, sorry for the bad English...
> 
> I find out a really weird thing...
> 
> Please, if you have an Asus Maximus XII, could you please test the same to see if you have the sames results?
> 
> I'm running a SP86 and the BIOS 1002.
> So I did a F5 (load defaults) and start from the beginning...
> 
> I thought to try the Asus AI overclock and followed the instruction...
> After some training the system self configured to 53x3 - 52x5 - 51x8 - 50x10 - Adaptive=1,392V.
> After that I stopped training.
> 
> Now I start some tests...
> I know I can do 50x10 at load with Vcore=1,190v... so I thought to change SVID to "best scenario" as I always did... but this time I decided to choose "trained".
> 
> At this point I had 50x10 vcore at load = 1,30v... Very bad!
> 
> So I decided to go to V/F6 curve (5100) and start to lower it.
> 
> At "best scenario" I need V/F6(5100) VID=1,34 that results a 5000_VID = 1,28... That results [email protected]=1,20v (LLC5)
> 
> So I lowered V/F6 until 1,25V and have the same [email protected]=1,20 (LLC4 !!!).
> 
> All VID could be lower this way that results the same Vcore before...
> 
> Now OCTVB is working much better.
> 
> Any idea what changed that caused so big difference in the VID needed?
> 
> The Vcore follow VID so close that seems I'm using LLC8...


Hi, I can try to do that. I have a Maximus XII Extreme BIOS 1002 and a SP88 10900K. So basically what you did was loading defaults, then choosing AI Optimized in BIOS to overclock and adjusting the V/F Curve to correct the excessive amount of Vcore, all of this while selecting "Trained" SVID instead of "Best Case Scenario"? Or did you start the whole process from AI Suite in Windows (I don't have it installed)? Also, when tou say "after some training" you mean rebooting several times from within the BIOS?

Just out of curiosity, when you are on "Trained" SVID behavior, which values does HWInfo report for AC/DC loadline? You find them under IA Domain Loadline (e.g. see the picture attached, I'm on Best Case Scenario=0.01/0.01)


----------



## RobertoSampaio

You got !
But in this case (0.54) I should have a large dropout...
What is happening is the opposite...

I just loaded defaults and select ai overclock in bios. After that a run benchmarks to stress CPU... After a couple of restarts the system show a message, before boot, informing the system was trained. I went to bios and select stop training. After that, knowing the vcore for 50x to be stable, I reduced the v/f6 point at load until min vcore stable to 5GHz (1,19v in my case). I reduced 79mv in v/f6. After that I decided to reduce 40mv in v/f7 and 20mv in v/f8 and test...
So I can do light loads using octvb at 55x3, 54x5, 53x8, 52x10 with max vid (v/f8) 1,41v....
adaptive is set AUTO (AI) 1,392v.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I found this text from Falkentyne... But It's a bit complicated for me..

If I understood AC loadline =0.01mOhm is not a good idea using different cores multipliers and Adaptive voltage, OCTVB, C3 states, etc... because in the real world the loadline is higher than 0.01mOhm and different loads in different cores with different multipliers will mess the voltage a lot.

The AC loadline is an important component for stability.

Am I right?


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/intel/comments/bz7vdo


----------



## GeneO

^ No. To start all active cores have the same multiplier and voltage at any given instance.


----------



## Salve1412

RobertoSampaio said:


> You got !
> But in this case (0.54) I should have a large dropout...
> What is happening is the opposite...
> 
> I just loaded defaults and select ai overclock in bios. After that a run benchmarks to stress CPU... After a couple of restarts the system show a message, before boot, informing the system was trained. I went to bios and select stop training. After that, knowing the vcore for 50x to be stable, I reduced the v/f6 point at load until min vcore stable to 5GHz (1,19v in my case). I reduced 79mv in v/f6. After that I decided to reduce 40mv in v/f7 and 20mv in v/f8 and test...
> So I can do light loads using octvb at 55x3, 54x5, 53x8, 52x10 with max vid (v/f8) 1,41v....
> adaptive is set AUTO (AI) 1,392v.


I see, thanks for the explanation. I can try to do the same next Monday (I'm out for the weekend). However I think that what is happening (to say things in a highly inaccurate and non-technical way) is just that AC loadline at 0.54 mOhms is boosting your load voltage (compared to 0.01 of Best Case Scenario), letting you reduce Offset in V/F Curve as well as use a lower LLC level at the same time (you didn't mention if you touched LLC, but I assume that you left it on Auto and that it was automatically set on Level 4, right?) So basically instead of the combination of e.g. 0.01 LLC6 you are now running with 0.54 LLC4, I think. Of course this makes sense if you didn't edit AC settings under CPU Power Management in BIOS, because manually set values would override Auto settings.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Yes, I was running 53x3, 52x5, 51x8, 50x10 (V/F6=1,34) LLC5 -> [email protected]=1,19v
Now running 53x3......50x10 (V/F6=1,25) LLC4 -> [email protected]=1,19v
The big difference is in 55x3 (OCTVB). I needed V/F8 ~1,49v and now I need ~1,41v
So "VMax stress" don't clip the high frequencies because VID don't go over 1,50v


----------



## Robertomcat

I will add a 10900KF to a ROG STRIX Z490-E GAMING motherboard. In the manual I found this feature, it would be interesting to activate it?


----------



## eminded1

i got a new i9 10900kf Q0/G1 Stepping.. running at 5.1GHZ ALL CORE NO AVX vcore is at 1.375 and LLC is at Lvl 5, I got it in a z490 Maximus XII Hero Board with latest bios. it stays cool temps average around 83c while hamming it with p95 small fft 325w load with spikes to 87c. i have it on a h150i XT Pro Corsiar 360mm cooler with 6 fans. its not delid yet.
i think i have won the silicon lottery with this chip.. under max load prime 95 small FFT AVX Load the Vcore is at solid 1.217 and its stable 100% at 5.1ghz. i will be trying 5.3 and a -2AVX offset soon. butyea this chip i got is golden.. amazing. im not even delid yet. im gona delid and go direct die with cool labratory liquid pro and ill post back my results.
here are my settings
i9 10900kf @ 5.1GHZ 0 AVX MCE Disabled
VCore set at 1.375
LLC Lvl 5
140% 4096 Maxed
64GB DDR4 4000mhz c18 1.4VDIMM, 1.2 IO 1.2 SA .95 DMI

5ghz no avx offset AVX Load and NON AVX Load only requires 1.163 to be stable

I will try an avx offset and higher non avx frequency and report back.


----------



## ThrashZone

Robertomcat said:


> I will add a 10900KF to a ROG STRIX Z490-E GAMING motherboard. In the manual I found this feature, it would be interesting to activate it?
> 
> View attachment 2469185


Hi,
Yeah x99 cpu death switch lol wonder if asus made it better now


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I Have PCI/PCIe Bus Error.
What cause this kind of error?


----------



## Falkentyne

RobertoSampaio said:


> I found this text from Falkentyne... But It's a bit complicated for me..
> 
> If I understood AC loadline =0.01mOhm is not a good idea using different cores multipliers and Adaptive voltage, OCTVB, C3 states, etc... because in the real world the loadline is higher than 0.01mOhm and different loads in different cores with different multipliers will mess the voltage a lot.
> 
> The AC loadline is an important component for stability.
> 
> Am I right?
> 
> (snipped)


Please keep in mind that that post was regarding Z390 boards.
Z490 is different, because these chips would before the octvb option try to request (1.5v) at full load at default settings at their highest turbo multiplier (I haven't really checked octvb, been very busy with my 3090 FE), and the old AC/DC Loadline formula for getting the original load voltage doesn't work the same way anymore, since max VID is no longer 1.520v).

Yes AC Loadline =0.01 mOhms will use the chip's base VID (+TVB scaling), but it's really so much different than before. On Z390 it was extremely simple.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

[QUOTE = "Falkentyne, post: 28692632, membro: 54143"]
Lembre-se de que essa postagem era sobre placas Z390.
Z490 é diferente, porque esses chips tentariam antes da opção octvb solicitar (1.5v) em carga total nas configurações padrão em seu turbo multiplicador mais alto (eu realmente não verifiquei o octvb, estive muito ocupado com meu 3090 FE), e o a antiga fórmula AC / DC Loadline para obter a tensão de carga original não funciona mais da mesma forma, pois o VID máximo não é mais 1.520v).

Sim AC Loadline = 0,01 mOhms usará o VID básico do chip (+ escala TVB), mas é realmente muito diferente do que antes. No Z390, era extremamente simples.
[/CITAR]

Então, no z490, uma linha de carga AC / DC de 0,54mohm é uma boa ideia para octvb?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Hi Guys,

What value do you use for AC loadline and DC loadline?

Asus "trained" setting for me is 0,56/1,10mohm, and now I have the VID exact the same as VCore. 
I think this make everything easy to find out the adjusts and the limits.
Why people use "best scenario" (0.01/0.01mohm)? 
I'm trying to learn about theses loadlines...
Do you know where can I find some texts about it?


----------



## Robertomcat

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Yeah x99 cpu death switch lol wonder if asus made it better now


To do a normal overclock like the one I'm going to do, I don't think I need to activate this feature.


----------



## cstkl1

RobertoSampaio said:


> View attachment 2468652
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I'm trying to predict VID using the last V/F8 point and adaptive voltage but I don't know how to calculate the part of adaptive in the final VID.
> Anyone could help me?


i stopped using best case scenario. many things break. just leave svid behavior on auto and change via v/f

btw the reason y you had high vcore was because if u set best case scenario, disable ringdown on cache or sat min/max on cache that high.. the vcore will follow the vid of the cache.


----------



## Placekicker19

eminded1 said:


> i got a new i9 10900kf Q0/G1 Stepping.. running at 5.1GHZ ALL CORE NO AVX vcore is at 1.375 and LLC is at Lvl 5, I got it in a z490 Maximus XII Hero Board with latest bios. it stays cool temps average around 83c while hamming it with p95 small fft 325w load with spikes to 87c. i have it on a h150i XT Pro Corsiar 360mm cooler with 6 fans. its not delid yet.
> i think i have won the silicon lottery with this chip.. under max load prime 95 small FFT AVX Load the Vcore is at solid 1.217 and its stable 100% at 5.1ghz. i will be trying 5.3 and a -2AVX offset soon. butyea this chip i got is golden.. amazing. im not even delid yet. im gona delid and go direct die with cool labratory liquid pro and ill post back my results.
> here are my settings
> i9 10900kf @ 5.1GHZ 0 AVX MCE Disabled
> VCore set at 1.375
> LLC Lvl 5
> 140% 4096 Maxed
> 64GB DDR4 4000mhz c18 1.4VDIMM, 1.2 IO 1.2 SA .95 DMI
> 
> 5ghz no avx offset AVX Load and NON AVX Load only requires 1.163 to be stable
> 
> I will try an avx offset and higher non avx frequency and report back.


If you delid I would recommend doing direct die cooling. Rockit Cool sells direct die mounting frames that work with aios. Once I delidded and went direct die cooling it allowed my chip to easily do 5.3/5.4ghz daily and bench at 5.5ghz. Theres other members who can bench @ 5.6 using a direct die waterblock from "super cool computers", on Facebook.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

cstkl1 said:


> i stopped using best case scenario. Many things break. just leave svid behavior on auto and change via v/f
> 
> btw the reason y you had high vcore was because if u set best case scenario, disable ringdown on cache or sat min/max on cache that high.. the vcore will follow the vid of the cache.


I'm using svid behavior = trained. It set AC loadline=0,56 and DC loadline=1,1.
And max cache=47 and min=AUTO.

By the way do you know what could cause a "PCI/PCIe Bus Error" ? 
Tx.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Oc'ing memory blk ?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Oc'ing memory blk ?


No....


----------



## Nizzen

Placekicker19 said:


> If you delid I would recommend doing direct die cooling. Rockit Cool sells direct die mounting frames that work with aios. Once I delidded and went direct die cooling it allowed my chip to easily do 5.3/5.4ghz daily and bench at 5.5ghz. Theres other members who can bench @ 5.6 using a direct die waterblock from "super cool computers", on Facebook.


Yes supercool computer direct die , direct in socket coolers is the best there is. I don't understand people buying anything else


----------



## cstkl1

RobertoSampaio said:


> I'm using svid behavior = trained. It set AC loadline=0,56 and DC loadline=1,1.
> And max cache=47 and min=AUTO.
> 
> By the way do you know what could cause a "PCI/PCIe Bus Error" ?
> Tx.


Whats the loadline you are using??
I never seen that error on z490

norm is cpu internal whea on hwinfo


----------



## RobertoSampaio

cstkl1 said:


> Whats the loadline you are using??
> I never seen that error on z490
> 
> norm is cpu internal whea on hwinfo


It happened one time...
I'm using LLC4


----------



## cstkl1

RobertoSampaio said:


> It happened one time...
> I'm using LLC4


that confirms the difference between m12e
m12e its 0.45/1.1 on llc4 trained


----------



## WayWayUp

I dont know about this supercool computer direct die thing you guys are talking about.

I use a normal waterblock, the optimus foundation cpu block direct die w/ LM. Very stable in stress tests. Great results i max out @ 60 C on the hottest core (average 57-58c) in cinebench @ 5.3GHz LLC 6
1.375v, avx offset 0

The cpu runs games with 1.35v llc4 but crashes in tougher benchmarks with those settings so i raised the llc, but its completely gaming stable at 1.35 llc4

Never seen any type of workload that could bring my temps to 70 c, not even for 1 second on a single core.

That said, it's not a golden chip due to the voltage requirements. people look at temps and then say " i have a golden chip"
nope. golden is mostly defined by how much voltage is needed to run at a specific speed. plain jane sp63 chip with fantastic cooling solution


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Yeah just another alternative seeing optimus blocks are nonexistent and might have better luck on facebook asking for one from supercool computer lol


----------



## geriatricpollywog

WayWayUp said:


> I dont know about this supercool computer direct die thing you guys are talking about.
> 
> I use a normal waterblock, the optimus foundation cpu block direct die w/ LM. Very stable in stress tests. Great results i max out @ 60 C on the hottest core (average 57-58c) in cinebench @ 5.3GHz LLC 6
> 1.375v, avx offset 0
> 
> The cpu runs games with 1.35v llc4 but crashes in tougher benchmarks with those settings so i raised the llc, but its completely gaming stable at 1.35 llc4
> 
> Never seen any type of workload that could bring my temps to 70 c, not even for 1 second on a single core.
> 
> That said, it's not a golden chip due to the voltage requirements. people look at temps and then say " i have a golden chip"
> nope. golden is mostly defined by how much voltage is needed to run at a specific speed. plain jane sp63 chip with fantastic cooling solution
> 
> View attachment 2469594


I’m getting great results with the RockitCool direct die frame too, combined with my old EK Supremacy Evo nickel waterblock. I can run the 10 min Cinebench R23 loop at 5.5ghz. Sometimes I wonder if the supercool direct die block would unlock another 100mhz, but I doubt it. It’s physics, not magic. All that matters is that the block makes flat contact with the die.


----------



## ThrashZone

0451 said:


> I’m getting great results with the RockitCool direct die frame too, combined with my old EK Supremacy Evo nickel waterblock. I can run the 10 min Cinebench R23 loop at 5.5ghz. Sometimes I wonder if the supercool direct die block would unlock another 100mhz, but I doubt it. It’s physics, not magic. All that matters is that the block makes flat contact with the die.


Hi,
Main difference is taking the socket apart for the direct die frame opposed to slipping the supercool block into the stock clip and boom you're done


----------



## eminded1

somone shoudl buy 100 of the super cool computer direct die block and sell it in the US.. iv talked to the guy once he said its about 120$ usd threw paypal to have shipped to usa.. hes from thailand


----------



## cstkl1

just wanna share something...

so hmm had a 10900k for months.. all perfect running 4400.. just perfect...passed everything to a ridoncolous level hci 3000%, tm extreme, uzmuz v3 40 runs, fft112 8 hour runs, linpack etc etc etc... 

@Falkentyne mentioned about minecraft issue etc.. but since only way to see that was to subscribe and i not gonna waste time on that...

then ghostrunner came.. most ppl wouldnt know that when u enable RT in this game its running some java scripting thing...
so cache oc became a issue.. keep seeing whea cpu internal error

so after weeks/months testing testing testing.. finally solved it...

heck now for fun i can even boot into windows run aida cache 51 for cpu 51...

all this to be frank is when i plugged in a ampere gpu. its not only me another friend also noticed this.. it sort of aggravated settings on auto from cache to switching frequency etc.. 

if you want u can try running ghost runner rt enabled.. level climb onwards with hwinfo open...


----------



## murenitu

I have a 10900k and the cache is only 46! Can you give more info on how I could adjust it more?


----------



## cstkl1

murenitu said:


> I have a 10900k and the cache is only 46! Can you give more info on how I could adjust it more?


mobo??

for asus you need to disable ringdown to break the 3 difference from core limit.


----------



## murenitu

es una XII fórmula mobo









201216175721


Image 201216175721 hosted in ImgBB




ibb.co












201216175729


Image 201216175729 hosted in ImgBB




ibb.co












201216175741


Image 201216175741 hosted in ImgBB




ibb.co












201216175750


Image 201216175750 hosted in ImgBB




ibb.co












201216175806


Image 201216175806 hosted in ImgBB




ibb.co












Captura


Image Captura hosted in ImgBB




ibb.co












Captura2


Image Captura2 hosted in ImgBB




ibb.co












Captura3


Image Captura3 hosted in ImgBB




ibb.co












Sin-t-tulo


Image Sin-t-tulo hosted in ImgBB




ibb.co












Sin-t-tulo2


Image Sin-t-tulo2 hosted in ImgBB




ibb.co












Sin-t-tulo3


Image Sin-t-tulo3 hosted in ImgBB




ibb.co












Sin-t-tulo4


Image Sin-t-tulo4 hosted in ImgBB




ibb.co












Sin-t-tulo5


Image Sin-t-tulo5 hosted in ImgBB




ibb.co












Sin-t-tulo6


Image Sin-t-tulo6 hosted in ImgBB




ibb.co












Sin-t-tulo7


Image Sin-t-tulo7 hosted in ImgBB




ibb.co












Sin-t-tulo7


Image Sin-t-tulo7 hosted in ImgBB




ibb.co


----------



## itssladenlol

cstkl1 said:


> just wanna share something...
> 
> so hmm had a 10900k for months.. all perfect running 4400.. just perfect...passed everything to a ridoncolous level hci 3000%, tm extreme, uzmuz v3 40 runs, fft112 8 hour runs, linpack etc etc etc...
> 
> @Falkentyne mentioned about minecraft issue etc.. but since only way to see that was to subscribe and i not gonna waste time on that...
> 
> then ghostrunner came.. most ppl wouldnt know that when u enable RT in this game its running some java scripting thing...
> so cache oc became a issue.. keep seeing whea cpu internal error
> 
> so after weeks/months testing testing testing.. finally solved it...
> 
> heck now for fun i can even boot into windows run aida cache 51 for cpu 51...
> 
> all this to be frank is when i plugged in a ampere gpu. its not only me another friend also noticed this.. it sort of aggravated settings on auto from cache to switching frequency etc..
> 
> if you want u can try running ghost runner rt enabled.. level climb onwards with hwinfo open...


So what did you do to solve the cache related WHEA errors?


----------



## gecko991

murenitu said:


> es una XII fórmula mobo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 201216175721
> 
> 
> Image 201216175721 hosted in ImgBB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ibb.co
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 201216175729
> 
> 
> Image 201216175729 hosted in ImgBB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ibb.co
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 201216175741
> 
> 
> Image 201216175741 hosted in ImgBB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ibb.co
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 201216175750
> 
> 
> Image 201216175750 hosted in ImgBB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ibb.co
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 201216175806
> 
> 
> Image 201216175806 hosted in ImgBB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ibb.co
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Captura
> 
> 
> Image Captura hosted in ImgBB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ibb.co
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Captura2
> 
> 
> Image Captura2 hosted in ImgBB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ibb.co
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Captura3
> 
> 
> Image Captura3 hosted in ImgBB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ibb.co
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sin-t-tulo
> 
> 
> Image Sin-t-tulo hosted in ImgBB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ibb.co
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sin-t-tulo2
> 
> 
> Image Sin-t-tulo2 hosted in ImgBB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ibb.co
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sin-t-tulo3
> 
> 
> Image Sin-t-tulo3 hosted in ImgBB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ibb.co
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sin-t-tulo4
> 
> 
> Image Sin-t-tulo4 hosted in ImgBB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ibb.co
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sin-t-tulo5
> 
> 
> Image Sin-t-tulo5 hosted in ImgBB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ibb.co
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sin-t-tulo6
> 
> 
> Image Sin-t-tulo6 hosted in ImgBB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ibb.co
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sin-t-tulo7
> 
> 
> Image Sin-t-tulo7 hosted in ImgBB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ibb.co
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sin-t-tulo7
> 
> 
> Image Sin-t-tulo7 hosted in ImgBB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ibb.co


Nice.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

murenitu said:


> es una XII fórmula mobo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 201216175721
> 
> 
> Image 201216175721 hosted in ImgBB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ibb.co
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 201216175729
> 
> 
> Image 201216175729 hosted in ImgBB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ibb.co
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 201216175741
> 
> 
> Image 201216175741 hosted in ImgBB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ibb.co
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 201216175750
> 
> 
> Image 201216175750 hosted in ImgBB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ibb.co
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 201216175806
> 
> 
> Image 201216175806 hosted in ImgBB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ibb.co
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Captura
> 
> 
> Image Captura hosted in ImgBB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ibb.co
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Captura2
> 
> 
> Image Captura2 hosted in ImgBB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ibb.co
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Captura3
> 
> 
> Image Captura3 hosted in ImgBB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ibb.co
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sin-t-tulo
> 
> 
> Image Sin-t-tulo hosted in ImgBB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ibb.co
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sin-t-tulo2
> 
> 
> Image Sin-t-tulo2 hosted in ImgBB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ibb.co
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sin-t-tulo3
> 
> 
> Image Sin-t-tulo3 hosted in ImgBB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ibb.co
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sin-t-tulo4
> 
> 
> Image Sin-t-tulo4 hosted in ImgBB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ibb.co
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sin-t-tulo5
> 
> 
> Image Sin-t-tulo5 hosted in ImgBB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ibb.co
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sin-t-tulo6
> 
> 
> Image Sin-t-tulo6 hosted in ImgBB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ibb.co
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sin-t-tulo7
> 
> 
> Image Sin-t-tulo7 hosted in ImgBB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ibb.co
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sin-t-tulo7
> 
> 
> Image Sin-t-tulo7 hosted in ImgBB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ibb.co


There is something strange...

Why under load vcore=1,29v and cpuz report 1,17v?

I think it's impossible to be stable 5.3GHz with 1,17v... 

Is system stable at idle?

Adaptive voltage = 1,275v is below v/f6, so adaptive is null...

What SVID (AC/DC loadline) is selected?


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> There is something strange...
> 
> Why under load vcore=1,29v and cpuz report 1,17v?
> 
> I think it's impossible to be stable 5.3GHz with 1,17v...
> 
> Is system stable at idle?
> 
> Adaptive voltage = 1,275v is below v/f6, so adaptive is null...
> 
> What SVID (AC/DC loadline) is selected?


Cpuz 1.94.8 reports incorrect vcore. 1.94.0 reports correctly.


----------



## Falkentyne

cstkl1 said:


> just wanna share something...
> 
> so hmm had a 10900k for months.. all perfect running 4400.. just perfect...passed everything to a ridoncolous level hci 3000%, tm extreme, uzmuz v3 40 runs, fft112 8 hour runs, linpack etc etc etc...
> 
> @Falkentyne mentioned about minecraft issue etc.. but since only way to see that was to subscribe and i not gonna waste time on that...
> 
> then ghostrunner came.. most ppl wouldnt know that when u enable RT in this game its running some java scripting thing...
> so cache oc became a issue.. keep seeing whea cpu internal error
> 
> so after weeks/months testing testing testing.. finally solved it...
> 
> heck now for fun i can even boot into windows run aida cache 51 for cpu 51...
> 
> all this to be frank is when i plugged in a ampere gpu. its not only me another friend also noticed this.. it sort of aggravated settings on auto from cache to switching frequency etc..
> 
> if you want u can try running ghost runner rt enabled.. level climb onwards with hwinfo open...


So....how did you fix it? or did you fix it?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

This is tr


GeneO said:


> Cpuz 1.94.8 reports incorrect vcore. 1.94.0 reports correctly.


This is true...I forgot to see the cpuz version...

But I still curious about SVID and system stability...


----------



## GeneO

nm


----------



## cstkl1

itssladenlol said:


> So what did you do to solve the cache related WHEA errors?


theres a lot of ram timings on second /third you can use for any tcl.. concentrating arnd twcl from 8 all the way twcl=tcl
same thing iol offset pairing theres many


Falkentyne said:


> So....how did you fix it? or did you fix it?


it was a pain..so far only for 51|49

but 52 and 53 still havent.. 

switching frequency, dram third timing with twcl, vccio/vcssa pairing, svid behaviour, rtl/iol with iol offset pairing i am using default x299 ...
so far 51 works with all llc 2-6 with cache 49

52 still work in progress. 

one of the interesting one i wanted to ask @shamino1978 
intel default spec dr lowest value is 4
(10th core gen datasheet vol 2 page 84-87)

in bios 0901 onwards noticed asus defaults to 3 on jdec. this another weird one. nvr noticed this on my ram kit in m12e but the gskill 4266 2x16gb kit on jdec with m12f

so mind asking that ram fae buddy of yours. 

@Falkentyne 
so its alot of testing with different pairing of twcl is kindda crucial as you know we can choose any twcl from 10 onwards. anything below 9 makes the twr math off which affects that two timings.


----------



## cstkl1

RobertoSampaio said:


> This is tr
> 
> 
> This is true...I forgot to see the cpuz version...
> 
> But I still curious about SVID and system stability...


svid trained.. i couldnt get it fft112 stable at 51 default vid on any llc


----------



## cstkl1

intel 10900k - sp81
M12E - Bios 1002
*
51|49 - sync 51 auto vid 1.274 llc6
svid = auto
2x16gb 4400 [email protected]
vccio/vcssa = 1.35/1.25
ppd/txp = 0/4









52|50 ht off - sync 52 vid 1.314 llc6
svid = best case scenario
2x16gb 4400 18-18-18-38 1.4v
vccio/vcssa = 1.35/1.35
ppd/txp = 0/4









*
ht off can run 1.25/1.25 to pass all testing for 4400.. but hmm steam loadup will have vulkan error and ghostrunner says hell no. 

so figuring this out before trying ht on for 52|50


----------



## Imprezzion

Resurrecting this since I need a bit of help / advice. I got bored working from home so I went for some overclocking on the side as it's fun to do.

Now, I have the 10900KF with a MSI Z490 Ace and a EK Phoenix 280 cooler.

It's been rock solid at 5.1Ghz all core AVX0 5Ghz cache for a few months now. 1.290v fixed LLC3 which under AVX Prime95 is about 1.286v. Temps low 80c range. It passed a full 8 hour Prime95 test (blend with avx) and several 1 hour Small FFT AVX runs, several hours of realbench, 3Dmark and whatever I can throw at it and never gave a single error or even WHEA error in months of daily usage so I can be sure that it stable.

I tried pushing it to 5.2Ghz all core now and while it will do any and all tests at 1.346v just fine Prime95 AVX will BSOD or hard lock within minutes. I can't really push voltage higher as I'm already well into the 90's temp wise on AVX Prime95.

I wonder if the CPU is actually unstable at those clocks with AVX or whether it's temp or power related crashes as it does seem to handle gaming and tests like realbench just fine.

What do you guys think. Unstable or something else causing the lock ups other then stability.

I did a short 30 minute realbench test at 5.3 all core 1.365v and it passed fine.

Also played like 2 hours of GTA V races and 2.5 hours of Halo 4 (MCC) at 5.2Ghz 1.345v and also no issues. Temps around high 60's. 

If they are likely to be temp related I can go ahead and lap the IHS as I haven't done that yet and swap the PK-3 for Conductonaut to try and drop temps a few C. Or even delid and go direct die like I did on my old 9900KS. Block mount is already modified to allow direct die contact. Just don't have the correct delidding tool at the moment.


----------



## Falkentyne

Imprezzion said:


> Resurrecting this since I need a bit of help / advice. I got bored working from home so I went for some overclocking on the side as it's fun to do.
> 
> Now, I have the 10900KF with a MSI Z490 Ace and a EK Phoenix 280 cooler.
> 
> It's been rock solid at 5.1Ghz all core AVX0 5Ghz cache for a few months now. 1.290v fixed LLC3 which under AVX Prime95 is about 1.286v. Temps low 80c range. It passed a full 8 hour Prime95 test (blend with avx) and several 1 hour Small FFT AVX runs, several hours of realbench, 3Dmark and whatever I can throw at it and never gave a single error or even WHEA error in months of daily usage so I can be sure that it stable.
> 
> I tried pushing it to 5.2Ghz all core now and while it will do any and all tests at 1.346v just fine Prime95 AVX will BSOD or hard lock within minutes. I can't really push voltage higher as I'm already well into the 90's temp wise on AVX Prime95.
> 
> I wonder if the CPU is actually unstable at those clocks with AVX or whether it's temp or power related crashes as it does seem to handle gaming and tests like realbench just fine.
> 
> What do you guys think. Unstable or something else causing the lock ups other then stability.
> 
> I did a short 30 minute realbench test at 5.3 all core 1.365v and it passed fine.
> 
> Also played like 2 hours of GTA V races and 2.5 hours of Halo 4 (MCC) at 5.2Ghz 1.345v and also no issues. Temps around high 60's.
> 
> If they are likely to be temp related I can go ahead and lap the IHS as I haven't done that yet and swap the PK-3 for Conductonaut to try and drop temps a few C. Or even delid and go direct die like I did on my old 9900KS. Block mount is already modified to allow direct die contact. Just don't have the correct delidding tool at the moment.


If it doesn't crash in games, don't worry about it. AVX small FFT Prime95 draws more amps and heat than any game will even come close to. Passing realbench at 5.3 ghz without reaching 100C is impressive. Was that realbench 2.56?


----------



## Imprezzion

Falkentyne said:


> If it doesn't crash in games, don't worry about it. AVX small FFT Prime95 draws more amps and heat than any game will even come close to. Passing realbench at 5.3 ghz without reaching 100C is impressive. Was that realbench 2.56?


Yes. Realbench 2.56 stress test mode. Infinite time 16GB max RAM. The first few minutes it doesn't even break 70c during the handbrake tests. I'm re-running it now with HWiNFO64 running so I can log what it does over time in terms of voltage, amperage / wattage and temps. If it doesn't crash lol.

I did see Prime95 AVX running like 380-400w on the CPU which is insane but I just prefer my overclock to pass everything, even worst case scenario's like that. Just so that I'm sure it will never crash a game on me mid raid / mid race lol.

EDIT: realbench 1 hour @ 5.2 1.35v (load 1.351v ish) Max temps didn't even touch 85c and no errors. 

These same settings BSOD within 1 minute of AVX Prime95..


----------



## murenitu

if the truth is that I have no problem! I am using a profile right now! It is a high voltage since being in adaptive I have peaks without load that exceed 1.35 !! between 1.35 and 1.39v although when charged it always stays below 1.35! which doesn't concern me as these are just momentary uploads for the responsive theme.

Now I have 54x4 and 53x10 profile all cores with avx0 always! sin hang up!

I post some photos of the BIOS as is at 54x4 and 53x10 avx0 as I have it! and some screenshots of a test that I was doing at 55x2,54x4 and 53x10! that I am testing! been testing for 1h and well although I have some hang and so I returned to 54x4 and 53x10 avx0 where I am totally stable!


----------



## murenitu

if the truth is that I have no problem! I am using a profile right now! It is a high voltage since being in adaptive I have peaks without load that exceed 1.35 !! between 1.35 and 1.39v although when charged it always stays below 1.35! which doesn't concern me as these are just momentary uploads for the responsive theme.

Now I have 54x4 and 53x10 profile all cores with avx0 always! sin hang up!

I post some photos of the BIOS as is at 54x4 and 53x10 avx0 as I have it! and some screenshots of a test that I was doing at 55x2,54x4 and 53x10! that I am testing! been testing for 1h and well although I have some hang and so I returned to 54x4 and 53x10 avx0 where I am totally stable!









34a2b748c993803f555407af322e46189fc04a10e12f6ca334430ec64a675c81


Image 34a2b748c993803f555407af322e46189fc04a10e12f6ca334430ec64a675c81 hosted in ImgBB




ibb.co












289b3fd4b73d90803df075866c5cbfe79e97bf9896f02293427dc95153ce46b4


Image 289b3fd4b73d90803df075866c5cbfe79e97bf9896f02293427dc95153ce46b4 hosted in ImgBB




ibb.co












201219123316


Image 201219123316 hosted in ImgBB




ibb.co












201219123325


Image 201219123325 hosted in ImgBB




ibb.co












201219123331


Image 201219123331 hosted in ImgBB




ibb.co












201219123340


Image 201219123340 hosted in ImgBB




ibb.co












201219123345


Image 201219123345 hosted in ImgBB




ibb.co












201219123350


Image 201219123350 hosted in ImgBB




ibb.co












201219123358


Image 201219123358 hosted in ImgBB




ibb.co












201219123403


Image 201219123403 hosted in ImgBB




ibb.co












201219123408


Image 201219123408 hosted in ImgBB




ibb.co












201219123414


Image 201219123414 hosted in ImgBB




ibb.co












201219123419


Image 201219123419 hosted in ImgBB




ibb.co












201219123427


Image 201219123427 hosted in ImgBB




ibb.co












201219123434


Image 201219123434 hosted in ImgBB




ibb.co












201219123506


Image 201219123506 hosted in ImgBB




ibb.co












201219123518


Image 201219123518 hosted in ImgBB




ibb.co












c029818db1f958d859f6241f2755e70ff6feba46ac8d703b3ad45b2e305218a7


Image c029818db1f958d859f6241f2755e70ff6feba46ac8d703b3ad45b2e305218a7 hosted in ImgBB




ibb.co












cd9b44f870d3815df0430a9e130e315eab19d27e4d09d628dc04e12753f4d53b


Image cd9b44f870d3815df0430a9e130e315eab19d27e4d09d628dc04e12753f4d53b hosted in ImgBB




ibb.co


----------



## Imprezzion

I tried something like that using Turbo Frequency overclocks in stead of Fixed Mode, it works up to x53 just fine but no matter what i set i can't get x54 to work even on 1-2 core loads. It barely passes Windows boot with x54 set to 1-2 cores @ 1.380v. 

I did do some further testing window open max fan speed like 10c ambient here to see if more voltage would fix the crashes in Prime95 AVX and yes, while 1.356v 5.2 AVX0 passes Realbench 2.5.6 just fine it needs 1.382v to not CLOCK_WATCHDOG BSOD in Prime95 AVX. So, it's only actually "stable" at 1.380v. 

Now, under normal ambients i can't effectively cool that in Prime95 AVX. It will hit as high as 96-98c across all cores at 20c ambient. (I have max temp and throttle point set to 105c). This is fine for gaming honestly as it probably will barely touch the 70's in games (maybe low 80's when loading something with all 20 threads?) and is that a problem, no not really. Stock these CPU's run way hotter so.. i'm fine with that. 

I also tested 5.3Ghz all core, it passed Realbench 1 hour fine on 1.385v but again, needs a lot more for Prime95 AVX. I could run this at x53 AVX -1 for example but that doesn't really give a performance boost in general.


----------



## eminded1

i got my i9 10900kf direct die and lapped on a h150i. currently im stress testing 5.2ghz All Core OC its going well. this chip is a great OCer.
here are my settings:
i9 10900kf Clocked at 5.2 GHZ All core
Voltage: 1.35
LLC - LVL 6
Idle Voltage 1.35
Load Voltage 1.225 (Small FFT Prime 95 350w Load)
I attached a screen shot for records. i will be testing higher frequency's also. i tried 5.3 all core but it wasn't stable i dont want to give the chip more LLC as im at lvl 6 right now and the VID is like 1.46 under load but the die sence is at 1.225. why is the VID so high??? thanks for your help
Max Temp at 5.2 All Core is 75C.. it will not break 75C amazing what delid and direct die can do.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

eminded1 said:


> i got my i9 10900kf direct die and lapped on a h150i. currently im stress testing 5.2ghz All Core OC its going well. this chip is a great OCer.
> here are my settings:
> i9 10900kf Clocked at 5.2 GHZ All core
> Voltage: 1.35
> LLC - LVL 6
> Idle Voltage 1.35
> Load Voltage 1.225 (Small FFT Prime 95 350w Load)
> I attached a screen shot for records. i will be testing higher frequency's also. i tried 5.3 all core but it wasn't stable i dont want to give the chip more LLC as im at lvl 6 right now and the VID is like 1.46 under load but the die sence is at 1.225. why is the VID so high??? thanks for your help
> Max Temp at 5.2 All Core is 75C.. it will not break 75C amazing what delid and direct die can do.
> View attachment 2470180


What SVID (AC/DC loadline) are you using?

I have a Maximus XII Formula and using:

SVID=Trained (AC_Loadline=0.56 / DC_Loadline=1.1)
LCC#4
For me using these setting Vcore match VID.

Ps.: I think you can use VCCIO and VCCSA=1.15 and still be stable.


----------



## Imprezzion

1.46v @ 5.3? That isn't a high VID at all lol. Mine has 1.50v on 5.3.. and this is a very strong CPU as well.

I mean. I've been playing and testing all day so far and I got it set up to run 5.2 @ 1.335v no AVX and 1.375v with AVX enabled by using Advanced Offset feature. So far it runs fine.

It passed Realbench 2.56 1 hour @ 32GB stress at about 84c max. That is AVX test and AVX0 5.2Ghz so 1.376-1.380v load. VID at that point is just the max 1.52v so I run -0.170v offset.

It also passed Prime95 large and small fft without AVX for 2 hours just fine.

AVX Prime95 is a different beast. It's stable at 1.380v but gets too hot and once the loop warms up and core temps get to 96-99c it will BSOD because either temperature or voltage throttling and crashing.

Oh and my VRM switching frequency is 800 and AC/DC load line is "mode 1" on MSI. It doesn't show actual resistance. I do know "mode 8" is 70/70 but I don't know what mode 1 is.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

You can find AC/DC Loadline value at HWiNFO32


----------



## eminded1

RobertoSampaio said:


> What SVID (AC/DC loadline) are you using?
> 
> I have a Maximus XII Formula and using:
> 
> SVID=Trained (AC_Loadline=0.56 / DC_Loadline=1.1)
> LCC#4
> For me using these setting Vcore match VID.
> 
> Ps.: I think you can use VCCIO and VCCSA=1.15 and still be stable.


the ACDC Loadline is at auto i haven't set those. im still on manual voltage and switch to adaptive and use those id set them to like .01 each yes i do remember that on my old i7 8700k .. i will try those settings you have but i usually do .01 each.

i have my ram at 4000 c18 and its 64gb 2x32gb it needs 1.3 VCCIO and VCCSA to be stable anything under 1.3 it will crash in prime95 blend and large fft.

i have been testing 2+ hrs with 1.35 @ LLC 6 at 5.2GHZ All Core now and its 100% stable, it never broke 75c. i did try 5.3 but load wattage was getting into the 400W area. to me thats too much really on a 125w chip, but i dont wana go over 1.4vcore for daily usage so im settling for 5.2 at 1.35 LLC6,

im on the Maximus XII Hero


----------



## murenitu

copia mi bios y prueba!


----------



## cstkl1

10900k - sp81
M12E - 1002
*
52|50 @ vid 1.334 LL4
Svid behavior auto
2x16gb [email protected]
vccio/vcssa - 1.35/1.35
txp/ppd - 4/0
*


----------



## RobertoSampaio

eminded1 said:


> the ACDC Loadline is at auto i haven't set those. im still on manual voltage and switch to adaptive and use those id set them to like .01 each yes i do remember that on my old i7 8700k .. i will try those settings you have but i usually do .01 each.
> 
> i have my ram at 4000 c18 and its 64gb 2x32gb it needs 1.3 VCCIO and VCCSA to be stable anything under 1.3 it will crash in prime95 blend and large fft.
> 
> i have been testing 2+ hrs with 1.35 @ LLC 6 at 5.2GHZ All Core now and its 100% stable, it never broke 75c. i did try 5.3 but load wattage was getting into the 400W area. to me thats too much really on a 125w chip, but i dont wana go over 1.4vcore for daily usage so im settling for 5.2 at 1.35 LLC6,
> 
> im on the Maximus XII Hero


I'm not an expert, but I think 400W is unreal. Maybe a DC loadline error. 

I found this text from Falkentyne that explain AC/DC loadlines in a Z390:


AC Loadline, DC Loadline and VRM Loadline.

*AC Loadline affects operating voltages. This influences the voltage that will get sent to the VRM as a target voltage, BEFORE vdroop is applied.* AC Loadline bias will change depending on idle and load and also the type of load. The way this influences this isn't fully clear. AC Loadline is in mOhms (resistance) and maximum AC Loadline for 8 core CFL is 1.6 mOhms and for 4 and 6 core CFL is 2.10 mOhms. At max single core turbo ratio, AC Loadline can boost the input voltage to the VRM up to 1.519v (which is max VID mentioned in the Intel documents). This is why Loadline Calibration must _NOT_ be used on auto voltages, unless ACLL is reduced or a negative offset applied. AC Loadline has NO effect on the VRM whatsoever when using manual (static) voltages.

*DC loadline is used ONLY for power measurements.* Usually DC Loadline affects the Q point and other factors, but this seems to be irrelevant on desktop motherboards. *DC Loadline affects the VID that is reported by the CPU to the operating system and directly influences "CPU Package Power.*" CPU Package Power is equal precisely to CPU VID * Amps. DC Loadline has absolutely NO effect on CPU Vcore or voltages at all (tested on a Gigabyte board with auto voltages; 0.01 mOhms DCLL vs 3.6 mOhms DC LL; 3.6 mOhms caused a massive reduction in CPU Package Power and a massive vdroop on the VID, but VR VOUT (Gigabyte's on-die sense voltage), Current IOUT (Amps) and core temps were unaffected. If DC Loadline is set equal to VRM Loadline in mOhms on auto voltages, VCC_Sense (VR VOUT if your board supports this on HWinfo64) will be equal to CPU VID.

VRM Loadline is the vdroop of the CPU Vcore, as its fed to the CPU as VCC_Sense (On-die sense) voltage. VRM Loadline, by default, is usually set to the same value as the default AC Loadline and DC loadline value, in mOhms. Gigabyte Z390 "Standard" and "Normal" Loadline Calibration values both use 1.6 mOhms for 8 core at these settings. (Asus is untested).

Loadline Calibration reduces the vdroop by lowering the resistance in mOhms. Manufacturers for some reasons still fail to tell you that Loadline is mOhms and what step of loadline calibration is what mOhms value. Elmor made a nice chart explaining exactly how vdroop and loadlines work.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

cstkl1 said:


> 10900k - sp81
> M12E - 1002
> 
> *52|50 @ vid 1.334 LL4
> Svid behavior auto
> 2x16gb [email protected]
> vccio/vcssa - 1.35/1.35
> txp/ppd - 4/0*


cstkl1, there is an option in VRM settings that "*Synch AC/DC loadline with VRM loadline*".

Do you use it enabled or disabled?

I think if it is enabled the LLC chose number will be ignored once the LLC is in fact a loadline impedance. Or SVID will be ignored and AC/DC loadline will be the same impedance of LLC.

The problem is the title is: *Synch AC/DC loadline with VRM loadline*
And the ASUS explanation is :* If enable VRM loadline will folow AC/DC loadline.*
The title and the explanation are opposite...LOL

Did you test it or know something about how this parameter works?

I tested it enable and disable and AC/DC still the same (0.56/1.1mohm)

Tx.


----------



## murenitu

Repito, copie mi biografia y vea si puede retenerlo! ¡Deberías ir bien y no tendrás más de 1.25v a cargo!


----------



## GeneO

English please.


----------



## cstkl1

RobertoSampaio said:


> cstkl1, there is an option in VRM settings that "*Synch AC/DC loadline with VRM loadline*".
> 
> Do you use it enabled or disabled?
> 
> I think if it is enabled the LLC chose number will be ignored once the LLC is in fact a loadline impedance. Or SVID will be ignored and AC/DC loadline will be the same impedance of LLC.
> 
> The problem is the title is: *Synch AC/DC loadline with VRM loadline*
> And the ASUS explanation is :* If enable VRM loadline will folow AC/DC loadline.*
> The title and the explanation are opposite...LOL
> 
> Did you test it or know something about how this parameter works?
> 
> I tested it enable and disable and AC/DC still the same (0.56/1.1mohm)
> 
> Tx.


no idea but i can guess base on shamino explanation with octvb etc etc that is few pages inconjuction with adaptive voltage in rog forum which also includes tvb voltage optimization setting..

1.. it should only work in adaptive since changing ac/dc only works in adaptive/offset mode .. 

2. guessing this is a way to customize loadline.. atm if u look at ac/dc on trained.. the dc is set at 1.1mohm and ac scales 
but in best case scenario its always 0.01 in all loadline but the problem with that is we have to calcualte the v/f for all the loadline. 
the magician shamino made it easy when set svid at default it will auto calculate whatever vcore needed for 5.1ghz.. on all loadline. 
and all the voltages is either perfect or overvolted. havent seen one that lower...that what is required .

so my guess is u got to set svid to auto , set sync and then manipulate ac/dc... there has to be some svid behaviour for this to work properly in conjunction with manual input in ac/dc...
my guess...

btw 1.1mohm loadline is the default intel spec for 10900k

btw i caution u.. and i cant say enough.. playing with 0.01.. to 0.15 etc on ac/dc kindda harmless but dont go putting in 1.1 etc until theres a clear picture on this ya.. 
dont burn baby burn...the cpu..


----------



## RobertoSampaio

eminded1 said:


> the ACDC Loadline is at auto i haven't set those. im still on manual voltage and switch to adaptive and use those id set them to like .01 each yes i do remember that on my old i7 8700k .. i will try those settings you have but i usually do .01 each.
> 
> i have my ram at 4000 c18 and its 64gb 2x32gb it needs 1.3 VCCIO and VCCSA to be stable anything under 1.3 it will crash in prime95 blend and large fft.
> 
> i have been testing 2+ hrs with 1.35 @ LLC 6 at 5.2GHZ All Core now and its 100% stable, it never broke 75c. i did try 5.3 but load wattage was getting into the 400W area. to me thats too much really on a 125w chip, but i dont wana go over 1.4vcore for daily usage so im settling for 5.2 at 1.35 LLC6,
> 
> im on the Maximus XII Hero


I told you about VCCIO/SA because I have a similar RAM and I can use 1.15V


----------



## eminded1

RobertoSampaio said:


> I told you about VCCIO/SA because I have a similar RAM and I can use 1.15V
> 
> View attachment 2470224


right but you have the 32gb kit, i have the 64gb kit. i tried 1.15 and the computer crashed. i tried 1.2 VCCIO and 1.2VCCSA and it works fine for gaming and everything but when i run prime95 blend test after about 20min it crashes. with VCCIO and VCCSA 1.3 my cpu doesn't crash and does hrs and hrs with prime95 blend test.


----------



## Imprezzion

Well, I got it mostly fixed with Advanced Offsets and Dynamic Frequency. Running 5.2Ghz AVX0 with the x8 to x48 Offsets set to +0.150 and x51 on -0.020 as that's where it is stable and tested before and X52 on -0.170.

With LLC3 and AC/DC Mode 1 this results in 1.356v load in games and such and several hours of Division 2 and Cyberpunk has proven to be stable as well as 1 hour of Realbench 2.56 @ 16GB RAM load.

Max temps I saw in Realbench were around the 84c mark and gaming 74c. That is within reason as my radiator fans PWM curve doesn't really ramp up untill 75c so mostly around 900RPM for the fans in gaming.

I am also running the RAM @ 4400 17-17-17-36-320-2T @ 1.46v DRAM, 1.400v SA 1.35v IO (yes, I need that high with 5Ghz cache / ring).

It's up there voltage and temp wise but it is stable and not "too" hot so I'll stick with this for a while.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

One question...
If I play BF-V @ 5.0 the power stay below 125W...
If I play @ 5.1GHz CPU power stay all the time around 150W...
Is it a problem for a 10900kf?


----------



## bigfootnz

If you can cool it than it is fine. But that is maybe to much for 5.1 power/voltage wise. For me at 5.2 with OTVB to 5.3 mine average consumption is around 120w in BFV


----------



## Imprezzion

I've seen mine doing close to 200w in like, Division 2 or Cyberpunk lol. Mostly during loading and not per se gameplay but still. 200w+ peaks isn't weird for my CPU @ 5.2 1.35v.

It's such a shame I can't run 5.3 all core... I mean, the CPU probably can with enough voltage I just don't see a way for me to cool it. I doubt even delidding and direct die water will save enough degrees to make 5.3 all core achievable.


----------



## murenitu

you should get your hands on that cpu to be able to do 5.3 all cores! a delid with a modified ihs and a nice water loop should be able to hold 5.3 all cores!


----------



## cstkl1

RobertoSampaio said:


> One question...
> If I play BF-V @ 5.0 the power stay below 125W...
> If I play @ 5.1GHz CPU power stay all the time around 150W...
> Is it a problem for a 10900kf?


frostbyte engine uses avx bro

try nfs heat and u be seeing it hitting 100%


----------



## cstkl1

Imprezzion said:


> I've seen mine doing close to 200w in like, Division 2 or Cyberpunk lol. Mostly during loading and not per se gameplay but still. 200w+ peaks isn't weird for my CPU @ 5.2 1.35v.
> 
> It's such a shame I can't run 5.3 all core... I mean, the CPU probably can with enough voltage I just don't see a way for me to cool it. I doubt even delidding and direct die water will save enough degrees to make 5.3 all core achievable.


octvb.


----------



## cstkl1

talking about avx. it show how many ppl have bad oc and especially bad loadline etc on ryzen.

cause cyberpunk patch had to remove it from certain scenes since ppl computer cant handle it


----------



## Imprezzion

Lol. That's why I always verify my OC with Prime95 AVX and realbench and not just non-avx stress tests because I wanna be sure it will survive a worst-case scenario.

Speaking of that, it did lock up again even with Advanced Offsets.. it actually locked up in a loading screen for division 2 the second it dropped to 4.3Ghz shortly it locked up.. 

This is getting so frustrating.. I know it's cache related as it works fine on "Auto" cache but manual cache + adaptive voltages + dynamic ratio is a disaster..


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Running 53x3, 52x5x 51x10 with +2Boost_OCTVB I can run light load @ 55x3, 54x5, 53x10.

When I'm playing BF-V, all cores down to 51, power stay around 150W and temps around 70ºC.

If I run 53x3, 52x5, 51x8, 50x10 +2Boost_OCTVB, all cores down to 50, power stay around 120W and temps around 65ºC.

I'm afraid about long time running higher than TDP specification.


----------



## murenitu

For now I am using 53x10 and 54x4 as soon as it is like this for a few weeks and see that it is stable! I will try to press something else with 1 + boost to see what happens ...


----------



## Imprezzion

With CPU Lite Load (aka AC/DC load line in MSI's name) any mode other then mode 1 will throw voltage through the roof.

For example, there's 23 modes. I know mode 8 is 70/70 AC/DC (i guess that's in mOhm?).

Mode 8 gives 1.668v, mode 20 gives like 1.74v, even mode 1 is still 1.51v on Auto + Offset / Adaptive. So even now I have to use -0.170 offset to get a bit of a normal voltage. This is almost 100% what is causing my idle crashes as -0.170 is so low that idle clocks are like 0.600v and crash.

How am I ever going to fix this like...


----------



## murenitu

[QUOTE = "Imprezzion, publicación: 28697449, miembro: 138398"]
Con CPU Lite Load (también conocida como línea de carga AC / DC en el nombre de MSI) cualquier modo que no sea el modo 1 arrojará voltaje por las nubes.

Por ejemplo, hay 23 modos. Sé que el modo 8 es 70/70 AC / DC (¿supongo que está en mOhm?).

El modo 8 da 1.668v, el modo 20 da como 1.74v, incluso el modo 1 sigue siendo 1.51v en Auto + Offset / Adaptive. Entonces, incluso ahora tengo que usar una compensación de -0.170 para obtener un poco de voltaje normal. Esto es casi el 100% lo que está causando mis bloqueos inactivos ya que -0.170 es tan bajo que los relojes inactivos son como 0.600v y se bloquean.

¿Cómo voy a arreglar esto como ...
[/ CITAR]

that's why i hate msi! by god mount something asus! I don't know how you can deal with those motherboards


----------



## cstkl1

RobertoSampaio said:


> Running 53x3, 52x5x 51x10 with +2Boost_OCTVB I can run light load @ 55x3, 54x5, 53x10.
> 
> When I'm playing BF-V, all cores down to 51, power stay around 150W and temps around 70ºC.
> 
> If I run 53x3, 52x5, 51x8, 50x10 +2Boost_OCTVB, all cores down to 50, power stay around 120W and temps around 65ºC.
> 
> I'm afraid about long time running higher than TDP specification.


current kills.
for daily 24/7 i always put a safeguard at powerlimit. 240/240 and with octvb another safe guard. 

one thing. octvb is better you run a fixed fan/pump speed. 



Imprezzion said:


> With CPU Lite Load (aka AC/DC load line in MSI's name) any mode other then mode 1 will throw voltage through the roof.
> 
> For example, there's 23 modes. I know mode 8 is 70/70 AC/DC (i guess that's in mOhm?).
> 
> Mode 8 gives 1.668v, mode 20 gives like 1.74v, even mode 1 is still 1.51v on Auto + Offset / Adaptive. So even now I have to use -0.170 offset to get a bit of a normal voltage. This is almost 100% what is causing my idle crashes as -0.170 is so low that idle clocks are like 0.600v and crash.
> 
> How am I ever going to fix this like...


very hard to say anything since with msi garbage bios which is is archaic way of oc

when with asus.. its gone to a level where.. its literally magical disneyland. idle 1A. less tha 1watt. FULL on 5.3ghz

also octvb solves the 4 season issue of overclocking. summer hits you dont have to redo your oc.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

cstkl1 said:


> current kills.
> for daily 24/7 i always put a safeguard at powerlimit. 240/240 and with octvb another safe guard.
> 
> one thing. octvb is better you run a fixed fan/pump speed.


I tested Cinebench and realbench and maximum power was 220W @ 5GHz.
Where you set this power limit? Short and long, right?

Going to test @5.1GHz....
5.1GHz -> 238W...

So I'll put this safeguard too !

Thanks for the tip!

And what do you think about playing for hours with package power @ 150W?

I'm thinking if there is a way to maintain 53x3, 52x5, 51x10 +2Boost_OCTVB and reduce this power when I'm playing BFV...


----------



## cstkl1

RobertoSampaio said:


> I tested Cinebench and realbench and maximum power was 220W @ 5GHz.
> Where you set this power limit? Short and long, right?
> 
> Going to test @5.1GHz....
> 5.1GHz -> 238W...
> 
> So I'll put this safeguard too !
> 
> Thanks for the tip!
> 
> And what do you think about playing for hours with package power @ 150W?
> 
> I'm thinking if there is a way to maintain 53x3, 52x5, 51x10 +2Boost_OCTVB and reduce this power when I'm playing BFV...


the pl safeguard is on power
octvb safeguard is temp
tvb voltage optimization to lower vmin
loadline to reduce vmax

so with both combine with reduced the current bro which ensures no bsod even prime95 avx2.. just throttling
avx is because the amount of current reduces the vmin
lower temps reduces the power hence current
tvb voltage optimization lowers voltage depending on temp

btw can u get fft112 to pass on svid trained on loadline 4, 5.1ghz default vid?? .. cause i cant.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

cstkl1 said:


> the pl safeguard is on power
> octvb safeguard is temp
> tvb voltage optimization to lower vmin
> loadline to reduce vmax
> 
> so with both combine with reduced the current bro which ensures no bsod even prime95 avx2.. just throttling
> avx is because the amount of current reduces the vmin
> lower temps reduces the power hence current
> tvb voltage optimization lowers voltage depending on temp
> 
> btw can u get fft112 to pass on svid trained on loadline 4, 5.1ghz default vid?? .. cause i cant.


No... I have BSOD, but I never use prime 95 to test... I think it's an unreal load... Don't you?
And I'm using a negative offset of -0.040 in V/F6... 5100 VID=1,28v... cinebench and realbench are OK...


----------



## cstkl1

RobertoSampaio said:


> No... I have BSOD, but I never use prime 95 to test... I think it's an unreal load... Don't you?
> And I'm using a negative offset of -0.040 in V/F6... 5100 VID=1,28v... cinebench and realbench are OK...
> 
> View attachment 2470394


for me its fft112.

you need voltage guardband against the worst transient scenario. btw pretty amazing u went lower so much @5.1 vid. i wonder how big of difference your per core vid..

you can pass all stresstest even avx 2.. but if it cant pass fft112 non avx.. . thats just a bsod or hang or unexplained crashes in games/software going to happen where users always blame the game.

get ghostrunner . if u can. play with rtx. especially lvl "climb."..
have hwinfo open.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

A long time I dont use prime 95... I'll test 
what should I do? Just select custom min and max =112 ? Any other configuration?


----------



## cstkl1

RobertoSampaio said:


> A long time I dont use prime 95... I'll test
> what should I do? Just select custom min and max =112 ? Any other configuration?


custom
min max fft112 fft in place
avx/avx2 disable

oc ram speeds up the hitting vmin faster


----------



## RobertoSampaio

this way?
No BSOD... LOL
*

























*


----------



## cstkl1

RobertoSampaio said:


> this way?
> No BSOD... LOL
> *
> View attachment 2470464
> 
> 
> View attachment 2470465
> 
> 
> View attachment 2470466
> *


no clue why u even post that screenshot that shows nothing. 
anyways so keep using fft112


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I'd like to show Voltage droop at load using LLC4 and VID=1.28 and SVID=trained.


----------



## cstkl1

for ppl who run 24/7 dual rank


RobertoSampaio said:


> I'd like to show Voltage droop at load using LLC4 and VID=1.28 and SVID=trained.


okie dokie.


----------



## Imprezzion

Well, thank you Intel XTU and MSI's new OCTVB BIOS.

I tested it out, leaving everything on Auto as the manual for TVB suggests (c-states. Ratio clipping, thermal monitor, CPU lite load, LLC, everything Auto) and selecting the "water cooler" power profile as that's what I have.

I put single core on x54, 3 core on x53 and the rest on x52, leaving voltages all Auto Adaptive to be controlled by TVB and ran the version of Prime95 which is included in XTU itself.

That ran straight flat on the thermal throttling wall for 2-3 minutes before I was like, Why are you throttling so bad.. even without running AVX... even a fixed 5.2Ghz AVX0 @ 1.356v OC doesn't throttle in Prime95 WITH AVX so..this must be running insane voltages due to TVB...

So I checked HWiNFO64 and lo and behold, 1.668v vCore under load not throttling at all.. Yeah great, TVB. Great. I thought it couldn't go above 1.52v. well, it can. A lot. And it's supposed to throttle the voltages and clocks above 75c. Nope, sat flatlined at 105c the entire time without throttling voltage at all.

Luckily the CPU is fine and didn't sustain any real damage.

I did do something else, I lapped it just now to coper 3000 grit mirror finish. Took me like 2 hours but it was concave as all heck.

I also went from PK-3 paste to Conductonaut and that dropped temps from 99-103c @ 5.2 AVX0 1.356-1.368v to about 84-88c all cores. It saved easily 10c lol.

So yeah. I'm fine, even with full AVX, on 5.2 all core temp and voltage wise only issue now is the fact OCTVB won't let me do 5.3 1-3 cores without flipping out voltage wise and it needs too much to run 5.3 all core. (About 1.44v)

EDIT: Ok, it might have actually caused some serious damage. Either the TVB overvolt or the lapping or the Conductonaut that sprayed over the CPU and "might" have gotten into the socket lol.

I can run fine, I can get into windows fine, but every few minutes the PC just shuts down and reboots. It can sit in the BIOS indefinitely without powering off tho which makes it weird.. that wouldn't indicate liquid metal somewhere it shouldn't be..


----------



## Robertomcat

I have the processor locked at 5.2 with a voltage of 1,370 in Override Mode (MSI MPG motherboard). For the day it's completely stable, but in the long run I get some internal CPU error, or L0 cache error.

The configuration I only touched is the voltage one, everything else is in automatic. Do you have any suggestions to improve without having to increase the voltage?


----------



## Imprezzion

Cache error is usually either too high of a cache frequency or memory overclock or too little VCCSA / VCCIO.

Try boosting VCCSA / VCCIO by 0.100v and test again.

I got my rig up and running again sort of? It seems to have been related to some Conductonaut that made it's way under the socket and also my front USB3 connector that i somehow moved half out of the slot and that is already super janky because it's too tight with the cable management holes so there's a lot of tension on the plug already.. 

Now, downgraded to the 12W BIOS as well as that worked by far the best on this board so far and i'm going to try and get C-states and idle clocks working now..


----------



## Robertomcat

Imprezzion said:


> Cache error is usually either too high of a cache frequency or memory overclock or too little VCCSA / VCCIO.
> 
> Try boosting VCCSA / VCCIO by 0.100v and test again.


What are the specific effects of these two parameters you indicated on the state of the processor? Are they only related to the memory RAM voltages?

I have never modified them. What I had modified before was the frequency of the cache, which was previously at 4.8 and now in automatic is at 4.3, and the internal error of the CPU appears the same in one frequency as in the other. Thank you.


----------



## murenitu

It will help you to balance the bmi of the mic to have the ram a little controlled! watch out because too much also causes instability and there shouldn't be a big jump between one voltage and another! what coreratio do you have now?


----------



## Robertomcat

murenitu said:


> It will help you to balance the bmi of the mic to have the ram a little controlled! watch out because too much also causes instability and there shouldn't be a big jump between one voltage and another! what coreratio do you have now?


Okay, I'll keep that in mind. The core ratio is now 4.3 in automatic, but I'll go back to 4.8, and I'll also modify the values that my colleague told me about. Thank you.


----------



## murenitu

ponlos a 1.2! y pueba


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Hi...
I lowered all v/f curve and have no CPU errors... But started to have disk errors...
Is it possible? How?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Hi...
I lowered all v/f curve and have no CPU errors... But started to have disk errors...
Is it possible? How?


----------



## murenitu

Imprezzion said:


> Well, thank you Intel XTU and MSI's new OCTVB BIOS.
> 
> I tested it out, leaving everything on Auto as the manual for TVB suggests (c-states. Ratio clipping, thermal monitor, CPU lite load, LLC, everything Auto) and selecting the "water cooler" power profile as that's what I have.
> 
> I put single core on x54, 3 core on x53 and the rest on x52, leaving voltages all Auto Adaptive to be controlled by TVB and ran the version of Prime95 which is included in XTU itself.
> 
> That ran straight flat on the thermal throttling wall for 2-3 minutes before I was like, Why are you throttling so bad.. even without running AVX... even a fixed 5.2Ghz AVX0 @ 1.356v OC doesn't throttle in Prime95 WITH AVX so..this must be running insane voltages due to TVB...
> 
> So I checked HWiNFO64 and lo and behold, 1.668v vCore under load not throttling at all.. Yeah great, TVB. Great. I thought it couldn't go above 1.52v. well, it can. A lot. And it's supposed to throttle the voltages and clocks above 75c. Nope, sat flatlined at 105c the entire time without throttling voltage at all.
> 
> Luckily the CPU is fine and didn't sustain any real damage.
> 
> I did do something else, I lapped it just now to coper 3000 grit mirror finish. Took me like 2 hours but it was concave as all heck.
> 
> I also went from PK-3 paste to Conductonaut and that dropped temps from 99-103c @ 5.2 AVX0 1.356-1.368v to about 84-88c all cores. It saved easily 10c lol.
> 
> So yeah. I'm fine, even with full AVX, on 5.2 all core temp and voltage wise only issue now is the fact OCTVB won't let me do 5.3 1-3 cores without flipping out voltage wise and it needs too much to run 5.3 all core. (About 1.44v)
> 
> EDIT: Ok, it might have actually caused some serious damage. Either the TVB overvolt or the lapping or the Conductonaut that sprayed over the CPU and "might" have gotten into the socket lol.
> 
> I can run fine, I can get into windows fine, but every few minutes the PC just shuts down and reboots. It can sit in the BIOS indefinitely without powering off tho which makes it weird.. that wouldn't indicate liquid metal somewhere it shouldn't be..



what a danger! have you get make it work? or is it still hanging on windows? check well that there is no liquid metal anywhere ...

I always use liquid pro but I am extremely careful,


----------



## Imprezzion

It's back alive. No permanent issues. I cleaned the socket area again (had a little bit of residue on / under the black plastic socket part), had a bad USB3 header plug, had a air bubble in the pump, a broken RGB controller that did some weird shorting stuff and other small things.

I don't know which one of these things was the final fix but the PC is working just fine and the overclocks are solid. I just can't use OC TVB as it will overvolt to oblivion lol. I tried again to set it up to do 5.3Ghz 1-4 cores and 5.2Ghz 5-10 cores but nah it went straight to like 1.57v so well above 1.52v max VID.

I know it was "Auto" (Mode_8) Lite Load that causes this. If I manually set this to Mode_1, the lightest mode, it doesn't act strange at all voltage wise.


----------



## eminded1

im testing at 5.1ghz all core OC on my i9 10900kf delid and direct die max temp of 71c at 1.172V its so far stable in prime95 smallFFT w AVX, 12+ hrs and going. i will post back at 24HR to confirm the OC is stable at specified voltage


----------



## Imprezzion

Well, that is a full 0.1v lower then my KF is stable at at 5.1 AVX lol. I need 1.290v for it to be stable in AVX Prime95.

Good chip you got there as even mine is above average lol.

I do assume you use a reliable read out source like VCC Sense or VR VOut?


----------



## Nizzen

Imprezzion said:


> Well, that is a full 0.1v lower then my KF is stable at at 5.1 AVX lol. I need 1.290v for it to be stable in AVX Prime95.
> 
> Good chip you got there as even mine is above average lol.
> 
> I do assume you use a reliable read out source like VCC Sense or VR VOut?


Do you run direct die cooling?
Direct die pretty much unlock 2-300mhz more


----------



## Imprezzion

Nizzen said:


> Do you run direct die cooling?
> Direct die pretty much unlock 2-300mhz more


No, it is 3000 grit lapped flat to the copper and I'm using Conductonaut but it's not really possible to order a delid tool and I'm not vice delidding this one like I did my 4790K and 7700K haha.

I do wanna do direct die and both my block and mount are prepared for it.


----------



## eminded1

Imprezzion said:


> Well, that is a full 0.1v lower then my KF is stable at at 5.1 AVX lol. I need 1.290v for it to be stable in AVX Prime95.
> 
> Good chip you got there as even mine is above average lol.
> 
> I do assume you use a reliable read out source like VCC Sense or VR VOut?


Its the load voltage of 1.172 at full 300w load. From die sence. The bios is set at LLC 6 with a vcore value of 1.33 but all it needs in 1.17 for stability at 5.1 all core no avx, I may up the LLC and lower the vcore too maybe mess with the adaptive voltage and set the AC/DC load line to .01 and ill check back


----------



## RobertoSampaio

RobertoSampaio said:


> Hi...
> I lowered all v/f curve and have no CPU errors... But started to have disk errors...
> Is it possible? How?


Hi Guys,

Just for sharing information....
I find out the problem that was causing disk errors.
It was VCCSA.
Just raised it to 1.20V and the problem was gone.


----------



## Placekicker19

RobertoSampaio said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> Just for sharing information....
> I find out the problem that was causing disk errors.
> It was VCCSA.
> Just raised it to 1.20V and the problem was gone.


Were you getting a bsod or just a random error?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Placekicker19 said:


> Were you getting a bsod or just a random error?


No bsod, no CPU error, no freezing... Just error checking disk.
I restore the drive image and after a few minutes if I check disk I find errors again...
Very strange... But rising vccsa from 1,15 to 1,20 the problem disappear.


----------



## Leoniums

I have settle to do 5.2Ghz @1.335v. I run prime95 w AVX for almost 2h w/o any issue. Is this any good or should i get another chip?


----------



## Imprezzion

Leoniums said:


> I have settle to do 5.2Ghz @1.335v. I run prime95 w AVX for almost 2h w/o any issue. Is this any good or should i get another chip?


That is incredibly good. I struggled to get that stable @ 1.364v AVX on mine and mine is slightly above average judging by Silicon Lottery's average OC sheet.


----------



## Leoniums

Then i am going to keep it, because i was ready to sent it back. The only bad thing is that my vccsa is 1.385 due to my 4x8Gb sticks @3600 cl16.
I was going to return this chip because even if i bought it new... the chip had thermal paste residue on it... and i was like ...wth... but since shops were closed due to Christmas days, i said to check what this chip can do... 
You sure is a good one? VR Vout from 1.3v up to 1.337 max into hwinfo64. temps get up to 95*C on some cores while running prime95, but on normal situations, even realbench etc dont pass 72*C


----------



## Betroz

Leoniums said:


> Then i am going to keep it, because i was ready to sent it back. The only bad thing is that my vccsa is 1.385 due to my 4x8Gb sticks @3600 cl16.
> I was going to return this chip because even if i bought it new... the chip had thermal paste residue on it... and i was like ...wth... but since shops were closed due to Christmas days, i said to check what this chip can do...
> You sure is a good one? VR Vout from 1.3v up to 1.337 max into hwinfo64. temps get up to 95*C on some cores while running prime95, but on normal situations, even realbench etc dont pass 72*C


1.385v SA is a bit high for only 3600 memory speed. You should not need any more than ~1.20v for that.

Do not run Prime95 with AVX on... At that CPU speed it draws a lot of current, enough to degrade or kill your CPU over time. If you want to test AVX, use Blender Open Data or play some Battlefield 5.


----------



## Leoniums

even with stock settings, vccsa going up to 1.3 maybe a little bit higher.
I was running prime95 blend at the same time with unigine heaven. after 3h or something i used ctrl+alt to see if prime95 had any issues, while i was with vccsa 1.25 and vccio 1.2 and windows freezed.
Windows had been corrupted due to previous oc tries, not sure if that was the reason for freezing.
I tried same stress combination with auto vccsa vccio and manage to do 7h w/o any issue.
After that i restart and tried BF V. 
I got so much stuttering.
I went back to bios to put everything stock and try again BFV but windows were totally corrupted. 
I believe isnt my current oc, but previous oc attemps made this mess.
I am gonna re install windows, put my oc up and try directly BFV.
The thing is... should i keep this chip or send it back since it was sold for new, but was a used one?
Do you think its going good at such voltages?


----------



## wally6666

Guys, I am new to overclocking 10gen with all the crazy options in BIOS I'm quite lost and there is no good manual on Gigabyte mobos, so forgive my lack of knowledge.

I build my new PC with 10850k, set everything on stock/default in BIOS and the voltage on Core X VID in HWINFO spikes to 1.6V. so that seems excessive for non overclocked CPU. MCE is disabled, all C-states, EIST enabled, basically default settings.

CPU boosts to 5.2Ghz on few cores on very low utilization and during load stays at 4.8GHz all core.
Is my CPU a bad bin that needs such high voltage from factory?


----------



## Betroz

wally6666 said:


> I build my new PC with 10850k, set everything on stock/default in BIOS and the voltage on Core X VID in HWINFO spikes to 1.6V. so that seems excessive for non overclocked CPU. MCE is disabled, all C-states, EIST enabled, basically default settings.
> 
> CPU boosts to 5.2Ghz on few cores on very low utilization and during load stays at 4.8GHz all core.


That 1.6v reading was for singel core boost of 5.2 GHz probably. Did you check it during an allcore load with Cinebench R20?


----------



## Imprezzion

Leoniums said:


> Then i am going to keep it, because i was ready to sent it back. The only bad thing is that my vccsa is 1.385 due to my 4x8Gb sticks @3600 cl16.
> I was going to return this chip because even if i bought it new... the chip had thermal paste residue on it... and i was like ...wth... but since shops were closed due to Christmas days, i said to check what this chip can do...
> You sure is a good one? VR Vout from 1.3v up to 1.337 max into hwinfo64. temps get up to 95*C on some cores while running prime95, but on normal situations, even realbench etc dont pass 72*C


I hit 93c max in Prime95 AVX FMA3 @ 1.364v. It is lapped to 3000 grit with Conductonaut and water-cooled of course.

I run 1.40v SA because of 2x16GB Dual-rank @ 4400C17. We'll see how long it lasts at that SA..

I mean, 1.385v is fine probably, many high frequency kits XMP higher then that anyway. It is really high for only 3600Mhz tho like Betroz mentioned.


----------



## Leoniums

i will re install w8ndows then, put my oc with vccsa vccio 1.25 and 1.20 and see how it will perform on BFV.
Chip doesnt seem bad huh?


----------



## Betroz

Leoniums said:


> i will re install w8ndows then, put my oc with vccsa vccio 1.25 and 1.20 and see how it will perform on BFV.
> Chip doesnt seem bad huh?


Do ONE setting at a time. If you adjust too many settings at once, you won't know what is causing the problem.


----------



## Leoniums

True. 
Settings 1.
Vcore 1.335, LLC Auto, SA/IO auto
Prime95 with AVX almost 2h w/o issues.
Tried prime95 blend, with unigine heaven running at the same time, after 2h 1 worker stopped.
=====
Settings 2
Vcore 1.34, LLC Auto, SA/IO 1.25 / 1.2
Prime 95 with avx almost 2h w/o issues.
Tried BFV had huge stutters though.
Tried 2 runs realbench no issues.
Tried prime95 blend, with unigine heaven running at the same time, after 2h and while i used ctrl+alt to check hwinfo64, pc freezed.
=====
Settings 3
Vcore 1.34, LLC Auto, SA/IO Auto
Tried 2 runs realbench no issues.
Tried prime95 blend, with unigine heaven running at the same time, after 7h and while i used ctrl+alt to check hwinfo64 no issues, no errors. VCCSA hit 1.385 though. 
Tried BFV and was stuterring all the time... huge stutters. No errors though.

So now i am confused. I know that previous oc tries, damaged windows and had to use restore points, or and repair. I didnt spend time to reinstall windows till i got something "stable". So now i am confused, did my windows freezed and BFV was stuterring due to corrupted files or due to vccsa/io.
So as i said, now i am planning to make a fresh install of windows, try vccsa/io auto and try BFV. 
After that i ll try lower vccsa/io and try again BFV.
If everything seems good i will try more stress programs to make sure that everything looks ok.
Do you agree? Anything to suggest maybe?


----------



## wally6666

Betroz said:


> That 1.6v reading was for singel core boost of 5.2 GHz probably. Did you check it during an allcore load with Cinebench R20?


Thanks. Just set the Vcore mode to Normal plus -0,07V offset.
The Core X VID is 1.360V and Vcore 1.285V during Cinebench R23 multithreaded benchmark while all cores stay at 4.8Ghz from beginning of test.
Is that ok?


----------



## Betroz

wally6666 said:


> The Core X VID is 1.360V and Vcore 1.285V during Cinebench R23 multithreaded benchmark while all cores stay at 4.8Ghz from beginning of test.


1.285v for 4.8 Ghz is a lot. Granted the 10850K is not binned as good as the 10900K, but still the vcore is high for 4.8 Ghz.


----------



## Imprezzion

Leoniums said:


> True.
> Settings 1.
> Vcore 1.335, LLC Auto, SA/IO auto
> Prime95 with AVX almost 2h w/o issues.
> Tried prime95 blend, with unigine heaven running at the same time, after 2h 1 worker stopped.
> =====
> Settings 2
> Vcore 1.34, LLC Auto, SA/IO 1.25 / 1.2
> Prime 95 with avx almost 2h w/o issues.
> Tried BFV had huge stutters though.
> Tried 2 runs realbench no issues.
> Tried prime95 blend, with unigine heaven running at the same time, after 2h and while i used ctrl+alt to check hwinfo64, pc freezed.
> =====
> Settings 3
> Vcore 1.34, LLC Auto, SA/IO Auto
> Tried 2 runs realbench no issues.
> Tried prime95 blend, with unigine heaven running at the same time, after 7h and while i used ctrl+alt to check hwinfo64 no issues, no errors. VCCSA hit 1.385 though.
> Tried BFV and was stuterring all the time... huge stutters. No errors though.
> 
> So now i am confused. I know that previous oc tries, damaged windows and had to use restore points, or and repair. I didnt spend time to reinstall windows till i got something "stable". So now i am confused, did my windows freezed and BFV was stuterring due to corrupted files or due to vccsa/io.
> So as i said, now i am planning to make a fresh install of windows, try vccsa/io auto and try BFV.
> After that i ll try lower vccsa/io and try again BFV.
> If everything seems good i will try more stress programs to make sure that everything looks ok.
> Do you agree? Anything to suggest maybe?


Save your current OC as a profile, go back to completely stock settings, run BF V to check if stuttering still there. If it is it isn't specifically OC related. If it isn't then something is definitely not happy with the OC.


----------



## Leoniums

Well, i re install everything... tried to install origin got a msg that a dll was missing... never had such issue. I install some files found on net and BFV started. Still stuttering, not like before but its there.
Tried to restart, back into bios, load default settings, restart...... windows corrupted... wth...
Something is really wrong here, shouldnt corrupt windows.


----------



## wally6666

Betroz said:


> 1.285v for 4.8 Ghz is a lot. Granted the 10850K is not binned as good as the 10900K, but still the vcore is high for 4.8 Ghz.


Thanks, I tried just out of curiosity to overclock to 5ghz but when I set ratio to 50, fixed voltage, enable MCE, disable all energy saving, limits and boost options the chip somehow still stays stuck at 4.8Ghz. How is that possible?


----------



## Betroz

wally6666 said:


> Thanks, I tried just out of curiosity to overclock to 5ghz but when I set ratio to 50, fixed voltage, enable MCE, disable all energy saving, limits and boost options the chip somehow still stays stuck at 4.8Ghz. How is that possible?


Probably something you set wrong. Difficult for me to say.


----------



## eminded1

wally6666 said:


> Thanks, I tried just out of curiosity to overclock to 5ghz but when I set ratio to 50, fixed voltage, enable MCE, disable all energy saving, limits and boost options the chip somehow still stays stuck at 4.8Ghz. How is that possible?


you need to clear your CMOS. i had this happen to my on a z490 master, it wouldn't change the values. so i cleared cmos and then set it and the set went through


----------



## SmackHisFace

Sorry to post a slightly unrelated issue here but my 10700k is driving me mad. Everything was fine for months; now when I load into COD my clocks drop from 5.1 to 4.8 and stay at 4.8 until I reboot even after closing COD and launching other games. Attaching picture of settings and video of it happening. Driving me a little mad. I updated to latest bios and reentered all settings but nothing. Video: Streamable Video Bios settings:


http://imgur.com/a/Afh54BP


----------



## Robertomcat

SmackHisFace said:


> Sorry to post a slightly unrelated issue here but my 10700k is driving me mad. Everything was fine for months; now when I load into COD my clocks drop from 5.1 to 4.8 and stay at 4.8 until I reboot even after closing COD and launching other games. Attaching picture of settings and video of it happening. Driving me a little mad. I updated to latest bios and reentered all settings but nothing. Video: Streamable Video Bios settings:
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/a/Afh54BP


Hello, good morning. Something similar happened to me too, and that is that I do OC from the BIOS, but if later in the Dragon Center you choose one of the options that has not been "Custom" modify the BIOS, try to see.


----------



## SmackHisFace

Robertomcat said:


> Hello, good morning. Something similar happened to me too, and that is that I do OC from the BIOS, but if later in the Dragon Center you choose one of the options that has not been "Custom" modify the BIOS, try to see.


 YES removing Dragon Center fixed it right away!!! Thank you!


----------



## Betroz

Have anyone here tested the newer 1003 BIOS for XII Apex? Any point in upgrading from 0901 BIOS?


----------



## TK421

Betroz said:


> Have anyone here tested the newer 1003 BIOS for XII Apex? Any point in upgrading from 0901 BIOS?


0088 seems to still be the choice for people on hwbot



not sure if regression also apply on newer bioses


----------



## Robertomcat

Hey guys, good afternoon.

I'm doing OC tests with an Asus ROG Strix Z490-E motherboard, with a 10900KF. I have removed the power limits from the BIOS settings, Ring Ratio at 48, LLC 5, and voltage at 1,390 (the BIOS tells me an SP63 with the latest update 1003). Everything else is in automatic mode and I don't know if VCCIO and VCCSA will be running at a high voltage.

The screenshot I have built in is at full capacity with the Cinebench R23. I also see that the Vcore is not running at the default voltage that I have manually set on the motherboard. Any suggestions to better optimize the system?


----------



## Placekicker19

Robertomcat said:


> Hey guys, good afternoon.
> 
> I'm doing OC tests with an Asus ROG Strix Z490-E motherboard, with a 10900KF. I have removed the power limits from the BIOS settings, Ring Ratio at 48, LLC 5, and voltage at 1,390 (the BIOS tells me an SP63 with the latest update 1003). Everything else is in automatic mode and I don't know if VCCIO and VCCSA will be running at a high voltage.
> 
> The screenshot I have built in is at full capacity with the Cinebench R23. I also see that the Vcore is not running at the default voltage that I have manually set on the motherboard. Any suggestions to better optimize the system?
> 
> View attachment 2472465


Do you have your sa&io voltages set manually, or are you using auto voltages? What is your ram frequency and timings ? Z490 can handle higher sa&io voltages. Overclocking memory can provide a great performance boost.


----------



## Robertomcat

Placekicker19 said:


> Do you have your sa&io voltages set manually, or are you using auto voltages? What is your ram frequency and timings ? Z490 can handle higher sa&io voltages. Overclocking memory can provide a great performance boost.


The SA&IO mounts are in automatic and the RAM configuration is in the XMP profile and I haven't touched anything related to latencies or voltages, they are two Corsair LPX 3600 modules of 32GB each.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Robertomcat said:


> Hey guys, good afternoon.
> 
> I'm doing OC tests with an Asus ROG Strix Z490-E motherboard, with a 10900KF. I have removed the power limits from the BIOS settings, Ring Ratio at 48, LLC 5, and voltage at 1,390 (the BIOS tells me an SP63 with the latest update 1003). Everything else is in automatic mode and I don't know if VCCIO and VCCSA will be running at a high voltage.
> 
> The screenshot I have built in is at full capacity with the Cinebench R23. I also see that the Vcore is not running at the default voltage that I have manually set on the motherboard. Any suggestions to better optimize the system?
> 
> View attachment 2472465


Hi,

You can try the folowing:
LLC:4
VCCIO: 1.15
VCCSA: 1.20
Ring down bin "Enabled", Max 47, Min AUTO
SVID Behavior: TRAINED

And try to find the minimum VCORE...


----------



## Imprezzion

It is running 1.390v it just has too much droop under load at this LLC and Digi+ VRM setting.

Then again, 1.390v is way too much to cool unless you have quite the waterloop and at least a lapped CPU or even delidded & direct die. At which point the thermal surface area will probably still get overwhelmed and not allow lower temps..

1.390v in any AVX workload will be almost impossible to cool, maybe in non-AVX but that means you have to set up a AVX offset as well.


----------



## Robertomcat

RobertoSampaio said:


> Hi,
> 
> You can try the folowing:
> LLC:4
> VCCIO: 1.15
> VCCSA: 1.20
> Ring down bin "Enabled", Max 47, Min AUTO
> SVID Behavior: TRAINED
> 
> And try to find the minimum VCORE...


But those OR and AC voltages will be too low, won't they? I had understood that the minimum should be 1.20.

The Ring Bown Bin is already activated but minimum and maximum at 48.

The SVID I haven't touched anything, I'll look at it. Thank you!



Imprezzion said:


> It is running 1.390v it just has too much droop under load at this LLC and Digi+ VRM setting.
> 
> Then again, 1.390v is way too much to cool unless you have quite the waterloop and at least a lapped CPU or even delidded & direct die. At which point the thermal surface area will probably still get overwhelmed and not allow lower temps..
> 
> 1.390v in any AVX workload will be almost impossible to cool, maybe in non-AVX but that means you have to set up a AVX offset as well.


The cooling system is very large, I have put two 420 radiators.

As for the voltage, if you look at the HWinfo capture, this information with the computer at full load running Cinebench R23, and the Vcore does not reflect the load of 1,390, but the VID does exceed 1,400. I'm not an expert in OC and I'd like to be able to leave it as tight as possible by running at 5.2GHz. Thank you!


----------



## RobertoSampaio

You could try to active C states than use octvb...

Just use the config I suggest you before and by core 53x3, 52x5, 51x8, 50x10 with +2boost octvb and adaptive voltage 1,46...
You will run 55x3, 54x5, 53x8, 52x10 at light loads and 50x10 at full load...
That is my 24/7 configuration...

You can try 52x10 with +1boost octvb if you want 52x at full load..


----------



## Robertomcat

RobertoSampaio said:


> You could try to active C states than use octvb...
> 
> Just use the config I suggest you before and by core 53x3, 52x5, 51x8, 50x10 with +2boost octvb and adaptive voltage 1,46...
> You will run 55x3, 54x5, 53x8, 52x10 at light loads and 50x10 at full load...
> That is my 24/7 configuration...
> 
> You can try 52x10 with +1boost octvb if you want 52x at full load..


I'll have to look into octvb, I don't know what it is. What I haven't looked at is whether the C states of Intel are on or off, I'll look into it.

And as for the daily configuration, I prefer to keep all cores at 5.2. I will have to configure it little by little to leave the computer as stable as possible. Thank you!


----------



## sabishiihito

I've managed to get some SP 63 chips to pass Cinebench R15 at 5.4GHz surprisingly, albeit on custom loop and fairly high (1.4v+) BIOS-set vcore, though true VROUT/die sense is lower.


----------



## Robertomcat

sabishiihito said:


> I've managed to get some SP 63 chips to pass Cinebench R15 at 5.4GHz surprisingly, albeit on custom loop and fairly high (1.4v+) BIOS-set vcore, though true VROUT/die sense is lower.


Can you send me some screenshots of the BIOS settings? You can put them here as thumbnails, or send them to me in a private message. Thank you.


----------



## sabishiihito

Robertomcat said:


> Can you send me some screenshots of the BIOS settings? You can put them here as thumbnails, or send them to me in a private message. Thank you.


No problem. Re-ran on my new Asus Maximus XII Extreme and it worked just as well.


----------



## Robertomcat

sabishiihito said:


> No problem. Re-ran on my new Asus Maximus XII Extreme and it worked just as well.


The truth is that I also want to put that configuration, but it won't be a bit extreme?


----------



## asdkj1740

it is sooooo painful to watch all most all oc results online as most of them do dont even tell your whether the core voltage is die sense or socket sense.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Asus z490 BIOS update.... V.2002...


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> Asus z490 BIOS update.... V.2002...


Only thing listed in release notes is it provides support for rocket lake processors.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> Only thing listed in release notes is it provides support for rocket lake processors.


Maybe any improvement for 10th Gen Intel ?


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> Maybe any improvement for 10th Gen Intel ?


Kind of doubt it. Asus almost always list "Improve System Performance". That was conspicuously missing from 2002. Ususally I would jump on trying a new BIOS but I have made enough changes on my system this last couple of weeks. LOL


----------



## RobertoSampaio

And how about the new nvidia driver for Z490 for resizable BAR? Any news ?


----------



## GeneO

I suspect that may require a Video BIOS update not a driver update. I haven't heard anything.


----------



## Nizzen

RobertoSampaio said:


> And how about the new nvidia driver for Z490 for resizable BAR? Any news ?


When it's done


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Does anyone have problem when enabling OCTBV MAX STRESS?
When I enable it, eventually I have BSOD @ idle...


----------



## AeonMW2

is 1.39v idle/1.3v cinebench load VR VOUT considered 24/7 safe for a 10900K?


----------



## Thomas Cawley

I have a direct die liquid metal I9 10900K and its currently running at 5.3 on 1.34v (temps at idle 29-31 under load 65-70). I ran prime95 on blend over night for 10 hours and the hottest temp I got was 72. I have been running it at 5.2 on 1.28v for over 3 months with no issues and lower temps. My question is, is the extra 100mhz and slightly higher temps worth it for gaming?


----------



## Imprezzion

At that small of a temp increase? Heck yeah. I mean, you didn't spend all that time and effort going direct die LM just to run 5.2Ghz right? 

Hell, I'd say push on to 5.4Ghz. Plenty of thermal headroom and I wouldn't personally be scared to run 1.4+v if temps allowed it..


----------



## Thomas Cawley

Imprezzion said:


> At that small of a temp increase? Heck yeah. I mean, you didn't spend all that time and effort going direct die LM just to run 5.2Ghz right?
> 
> Hell, I'd say push on to 5.4Ghz. Plenty of thermal headroom and I wouldn't personally be scared to run 1.4+v if temps allowed it..


Ok, I’ll give it a try. Unfortunately I did not test the cpu before de lidding it and I’m also using a optimus cpu block so I don’t know which is giving what kinda results (I’m happy with the outcome though) but yeah I’ll pump up the voltage and Hz and see why she’ll do...

update I got it to 5.4 on 1.4v testing on OCCT small data (I like to test with OCCT first than I’ll go to prime 95) and my temps are hitting 80° So far. Not sure if I’ll use this as a daily though


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Does anyone know the default (AUTO) VRM switching frequency for ASUS Maximus XII?


----------



## Imprezzion

Thomas Cawley said:


> Ok, I’ll give it a try. Unfortunately I did not test the cpu before de lidding it and I’m also using a optimus cpu block so I don’t know which is giving what kinda results (I’m happy with the outcome though) but yeah I’ll pump up the voltage and Hz and see why she’ll do...
> 
> update I got it to 5.4 on 1.4v testing on OCCT small data (I like to test with OCCT first than I’ll go to prime 95) and my temps are hitting 80° So far. Not sure if I’ll use this as a daily though


Is that with or without AVX. It might be a bit YOLO to daily it but man that is a nice bin lol.

I can't even get 5.3Ghz stable at all due to temps.. I hit 93c in Prime95 AVX FMA3 already at 5.2Ghz but that's cause I use a KF that isn't the best bin ever and it already needs 1.364v to do 5.2Ghz stable in AVX workloads.


----------



## Nizzen

A lot of degraded chips I see 🤭

Way safer to run 1000w bios 3090 on air, than prime95 avx on Intel cpu's "max" overclocked


----------



## murenitu

Thomas Cawley said:


> Ok, I’ll give it a try. Unfortunately I did not test the cpu before de lidding it and I’m also using a optimus cpu block so I don’t know which is giving what kinda results (I’m happy with the outcome though) but yeah I’ll pump up the voltage and Hz and see why she’ll do...
> 
> update I got it to 5.4 on 1.4v testing on OCCT small data (I like to test with OCCT first than I’ll go to prime 95) and my temps are hitting 80° So far. Not sure if I’ll use this as a daily though


very good chip! don't be shy, I'm at 54x4 and 53 all AVX 0 cores with temperatures over 80 in the test at 1.39v // 1.40v and I have no problem with a core ratio at 48 for now with 4100ram cl17 t2!


----------



## gecko991

I agree. I run my 9700K at 5302 24/7 at 1.370v on liquid, temps are not an issue.


----------



## Imprezzion

Nizzen said:


> A lot of degraded chips I see 🤭
> 
> Way safer to run 1000w bios 3090 on air, than prime95 avx on Intel cpu's "max" overclocked


I agree, I only ran it for an hour just to see if it was "stable" in small fft cause if it'll probably survive that it can do anything gaming related with zero issues IMHO.

I have no idea what the "safe" voltage range is for this generation but since it's still 14nm skylake derivative and that handles 1.45-1.5v fine I don't think 1.40v ish is going to be a problem for 10xxx as long as temps are good.

Mine never goes over 68c in gaming (cyberpunk, borderlands, division 2, world of tanks, warzone) with the rad fans not even spinning up past 900 RPM so I'm happy here. I did test 5.3Ghz all core with just gaming, not stress, at 1.42v, and it works sort of. It did give me a few WHEA CPU Core related errors in HWInfo64 so I don't think I can get away with it..


----------



## Thomas Cawley

Imprezzion said:


> Is that with or without AVX. It might be a bit YOLO to daily it but man that is a nice bin lol.
> 
> I can't even get 5.3Ghz stable at all due to temps.. I hit 93c in Prime95 AVX FMA3 already at 5.2Ghz but that's cause I use a KF that isn't the best bin ever and it already needs 1.364v to do 5.2Ghz stable in AVX workloads.


It’s with avx, I ran prime 95 also for a few hours and temps hovered around 75-80. Playing Warzone my temps were still good averaging about 55°. My water temp at idle is about 29° and while under load (prime95 blend) it raised to 35°-38°. I may have fun with it until winter is over, it gets hot and humid in Texas and I know it’ll make a big difference on my cooling when spring comes around.


----------



## murenitu

¡ahí tienes mi última actualización!

10900k a 54x4 + 53x10 todos los núcleos AVX0.

Con perfil 1 + Boost por tanto resulta final si hace frío: 55x4 + 54x10 todos los núcleos AVX0!

Lo estoy probando y por ahora he estado con él durante unos días y parece un voltaje adaptativo estable a 1.399v

Ram 4100Cl 17/18/18/38


----------



## cou60

10850k 5 ghz AVX2, 1.25V,

how bad the chip is ? seem to be in the lower end in the silicon lottery


----------



## murenitu

How weird at that voltage you should be able to do at least 5.1 ... all cores! you are using mother asus?? what this your SP????


----------



## cou60

murenitu said:


> How weird at that voltage you should be able to do at least 5.1 ... all cores! you are using mother asus?? what this your SP????


i have an MSI board, MSI GAMING EDGE Z490, don't know how to see the sp of this chip, my vid was 1.22V for 4.8 ghz


----------



## cou60

i saw silicon lottery statistic for the 10850/10900k. there is not a lot of 10850k/10900k that can do 5 ghz AVX2 all core

this is hard to compare with my result because my motherboard don't have a die sense. 

only 6% for 5820k can do 4.9 ghz AVX2 at 1.17V die sense

i am using 1.25V (VCC sense ) for 5 ghz.

maybe i am pushing this cpu to much 



Historical Binning Statistics – Silicon Lottery


----------



## acoustic

The 10850K are poorly binned 10900K's, hence the cheaper price. 5Ghz all-core seems pretty good all things considered, and 1.25V doesn't seem excessive.

I've been watching the rumors/leaks of Rocket Lake-S, and quite frankly looks like those with 10900Ks have zero reason to upgrade. If I can snag a Z490 DARK or Maximus APEX for cheap, I'll probably grab a 10900K eventually. Again, based off the leaks we've seen thus far. I'm hoping they turn out wrong and Intel delivers a hammer, but I just can't see them making up the two core reduction through IPC.

I still haven't heard anything about the successor to the X299 platform, and quite honestly I'm very much considering grabbing an HEDT chip rather than staying on the consumer platform.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

cou60 said:


> i saw silicon lottery statistic for the 10850/10900k. there is not a lot of 10850k/10900k that can do 5 ghz AVX2 all core
> 
> this is hard to compare with my result because my motherboard don't have a die sense.
> 
> only 6% for 5820k can do 4.9 ghz AVX2 at 1.17V die sense
> 
> i am using 1.25V (VCC sense ) for 5 ghz.
> 
> maybe i am pushing this cpu to much
> 
> 
> 
> Historical Binning Statistics – Silicon Lottery


A bad 10900K can do 5.1 all core with 1.28V VCC sense=~1.35V socket sense.


----------



## Imprezzion

That's about where my "bad" 10900KF sits. 1.27v for 5.1 all core VCC Sense and 1.364v for 5.2 all core VCC Sense. That is AVX2 FMA3 enabled Prime95 stable. Shame MSI boards don't really have a way of seeing SP but mine's probably a 63 I guess.


----------



## gerardfraser

Well I run my bad 10850k at 5200Mhz all the time.I am so unlucky. What do I need to do to be accepted to the 10900K club of superiority.





*EDIT:I am in the wrong thread,so stupid of me.I will make a 10850K thread for the dumb people.Sorry peeps for posting here*


----------



## cou60

OLDFATSHEEP said:


> A bad 10900K can do 5.1 all core with 1.28V VCC sense=~1.35V socket sense.


my 10850k cannot do 5.1 ghz at 1.28V,

it's survive at bit with prime 95 AVX2 FMA3 smallest FTT. probably need a little more voltage, so a bit worst than the worst 10900k, my 360 AIO cannot handle the heat at 5.1 ghz, the power consuption is 320watt for 5.1 ghz and the temperature go above 95C.

how do you do to handle all the heat ?

i will change my cpu for the 11900k, i think the 11900k will destroy my 10850k,


----------



## gerardfraser

cou60 said:


> my 10850k cannot do 5.1 ghz at 1.28V,
> 
> it's survive at bit with prime 95 AVX2 FMA3 smallest FTT. probably need a little more voltage, so a bit worst than the worst 10900k, my 360 AIO cannot handle the heat at 5.1 ghz, the power consuption is 320watt for 5.1 ghz and the temperature go above 95C.
> 
> how do you do to handle all the heat ?
> 
> i will change my cpu for the 11900k, i think the 11900k will destroy my 10850k,


Wholly f Dude,do you realize it makes no difference in performance at the CPU clocks mentioned. DO not change a 10 core CPU to an 8 CORE CPU .Brainwashed is the only thing that comes to my mind.

Just advice from a fellow Canadian,I really do not give a F what you do.


----------



## OLDFATSHEEP

cou60 said:


> my 10850k cannot do 5.1 ghz at 1.28V,
> 
> it's survive at bit with prime 95 AVX2 FMA3 smallest FTT. probably need a little more voltage, so a bit worst than the worst 10900k, my 360 AIO cannot handle the heat at 5.1 ghz, the power consuption is 320watt for 5.1 ghz and the temperature go above 95C.
> 
> how do you do to handle all the heat ?
> 
> i will change my cpu for the 11900k, i think the 11900k will destroy my 10850k,


I cool my 5.3 all core 10900K with 150i XT and 3x A12X25.

Can do 30min R20 loop after ram OC but small FTT will fail due to heat.


----------



## Imprezzion

I lapped mine to bare copper 3000 grit, use Conductonaut LM, lapped my block, and run a EK Phoenix 280 kit which is a Semi-AIO with QDC's, a proper EK Supremacy block and a 280 rad with 4 Cooler Master MF140's in push-pull. Pump maxed out. 

In Prime95 AVX FMA3 smallest I max out around 92-93c hottest core in a 1 hour run @ 1.364v VCC 5.2Ghz all core. Power consumption around 340-350w.

Gaming 55-65c. Cinebench and realbench 70-75c with super low fan speeds (fans only ramp up from idle 700-900RPM above 72c)


----------



## cou60

gerardfraser said:


> Wholly f Dude,do you realize it makes no difference in performance at the CPU clocks mentioned. DO not change a 10 core CPU to an 8 CORE CPU .Brainwashed is the only thing that comes to my mind.
> 
> Just advice from a fellow Canadian,I really do not give a F what you do.



i said i will change my 10850k for an 11900k, the 11900k is not a skylake arcitecture and have a better IPC, intel will not release an 11900k that is slower than the 10900k.

well i think 5 ghz is what this cpu can do, my cooler is not good enough for more. some 10850k cannot do 5 ghz, so i should be happy with that


----------



## cou60

s


----------



## WayWayUp

my issue isnt heat as 1.375v bios llc6 doesnt even bring every core into the 60s @5.3ghz
some cores will get as hot as 65c under heavy stress test but ive never seen 70c on any core at any point regardless of load. Has a lot to do i suppose with LM direct die.

My issue however is voltage. need 1.45v llc6 just to be fully stable @5.4 all core. I guess that is to be expected with a sp63 chip
Next time around i will pay extra for a 1% chip from SL. The 12900k most likely


----------



## Nizzen

I don't understand that so many her isn't running direct die cooled 10900k/10850k/10700k?


----------



## Imprezzion

Resale value. With how fast new CPU's come out I like to switch things just out of boredom basically and I wanna minimize the loss. Delidded CPU's don't resell easily here as everyone is scared of them in general.

Otherwise I would've done it as soon as I got mine. I used to run it delidded with my 6700K and 7700K and my block mount is already modified to apply the correct mounting pressure so.. maybe I should just buy a delid tool and go for it..


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I have a SP86... 

I can do all cores 
5.0GHz @1.19V... (~75C)
5.1Ghz @ 1,24V and (~85C)
5.2GHz @1.30V (~95C)
(die-sense).

For 24/7 I'm using:
55x3, 54x5, 53x8, 52x10 (+2Boost-OCTVB)
Adaptive = 1,450V


----------



## murenitu

I'm loving it, if I have it modified, but I can do 55x4 and 54x10 if it's cold. if it is hot 54x4 and 53x10 !! always with AVX0


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Here the TechN Waterblock vs. XPX and the TechN with DirectDie, by DirectDie the springs are to short, so i must use the springs from the XPX Cooler.

Prime Smalls, VCore Load 5,[email protected],19-1,99V PrimeSmalls 3h (24k/28k max. heat), with lower Flow the TechN are more stronger than the XPX,
by DirectDie i would like to say very strong.
I can say in every Case the TechN ist better some degrease
Sensor are digital Calitemp.Pump 2xDDC3.25 EK TurboTop and 2xMora3 420.

*Techn tested with Arctic MX2 and XPX Kryonaut, because my Kryonaut was empty.
So perhaps 1degrease the TechN will be more better with also kryonaut.*
















For People with average Flow it´s a nice Upgrade.
Tested at 5,2/4,8/[email protected] 




























And now DirectDie, i must say better then execpted.









And with same Setting and VCore 5,3Ghz.


----------



## junglechocolate

Boy y'all don't know how good you have it. My 10850K can do 5.0 ghz all cores but thats at a bios voltage of 1.47 and Vcore of 1.32V. I assume this is what you guys call VCC sense? I would push for 5.1 but I'm on air and the temps on everything but Prime95 will go to around 90C


----------



## asdkj1740

simply set tjmax to 115c.


any good 360mm aio recommandation??
nzxt x73//phanteks 360mmaio///corsair h150i elite capellix?
arctic 420mm freezer II?


----------



## junglechocolate

asdkj1740 said:


> simply set tjmax to 115c.
> 
> 
> any good 360mm aio recommandation??
> nzxt x73//phanteks 360mmaio///corsair h150i elite capellix?
> arctic 420mm freezer II?


Arctic Freezer II seems to be the best value for performance. It doesn't have RGB at all. 

I actually have both the 280 and 360mm but I never opened them and intend to return them. I worry about longetivity. Comes with only 2 year warranty and no way for me to refill it. They are CLCs. I tried the EK 360MM rgb which is extremely similar to AF II but I think I got a bad one in the sense that the plate wasn't even. my temps were worse than my Noctua so I am back on air for the time being.


----------



## acoustic

$450 for a 10900K, and an open box ASUS Maximus Formula for $350. Gonna grab this at Microcenter maybe tomorrow or Monday.

What are good batches of 10900K? My store has 25+ in stock so I'll probably sift through them to grab a good clocker. I'd like to get minimum 5Ghz all-core with low voltage. I'm replacing a rather good sample 9900K (5Ghz @ 1.26v under load with no AVX offset)


----------



## Imprezzion

Freezer ii is obviously better temp wise but it's stock fans are quite loud. X73 kinda underwhelmed me on a 3700X.

EK AIO 360 would be another option.


----------



## itssladenlol

Imprezzion said:


> Freezer ii is obviously better temp wise but it's stock fans are quite loud. X73 kinda underwhelmed me on a 3700X.
> 
> EK AIO 360 would be another option.


The liquid freezer II has p12pwm Fans which are amongst the Most quiet Fans out there. 
Only the noctua Nf-a12x25 is a bit more quiet. 
So if the Stock fans are "loud", i know wanna know what Fans you are using that are not "loud"


----------



## junglechocolate

itssladenlol said:


> The liquid freezer II has p12pwm Fans which are amongst the Most quiet Fans out there.
> Only the noctua Nf-a12x25 is a bit more quiet.
> So if the Stock fans are "loud", i know wanna know what Fans you are using that are not "loud"


Reviews by gamer nexus show that AF II are quiet and one of the best efficient CLCs ever.
I notice nobody talks about this. We don't we overclock the cache as well?






So I never hear people talk about cache overclocking.... But look at what happened in this video.. He got more gains overclocking his cache frequency


----------



## Imprezzion

itssladenlol said:


> The liquid freezer II has p12pwm Fans which are amongst the Most quiet Fans out there.
> Only the noctua Nf-a12x25 is a bit more quiet.
> So if the Stock fans are "loud", i know wanna know what Fans you are using that are not "loud"


I only read The Arctic Cooling Liquid Freezer II 240 & 420 AIO Coolers Review: Big and Effective and they claimed it was loud. I never used one myself except for a Hybrid II on a GPU and that was quiet.

My fans are way louder, Cooler Master MF140's aren't quiet by any means but I run low enough RPM on them to be kinda quiet.


----------



## GeneO

Yes, it is the noise normalized performance you should look at. Why many CLC at full speed are quite loud, what matters is how well they perform compared to other coolers at the same sound level. The Arctic Freezer II 360 and the EK-AIO 360 D-RGB are the top in cooling (nearly identical) when noise normalized.


----------



## Falkentyne

RobertoSampaio said:


> I have a SP86...
> 
> I can do all cores
> 5.0GHz @1.19V... (~75C)
> 5.1Ghz @ 1,24V and (~85C)
> 5.2GHz @1.30V (~95C)
> (die-sense).
> 
> For 24/7 I'm using:
> 55x3, 54x5, 53x8, 52x10 (+2Boost-OCTVB)
> Adaptive = 1,450V


These are load voltages are voltages set in the BIOS?
Is this under prime95 AVX / FMA3 or SSE2? Or another program/test?


----------



## asdkj1740

i wonder how much better is arctic 420mm aio over its 360mm.
i really need that extra few celsius as my 10850k is freaking hot and weak.


----------



## junglechocolate

asdkj1740 said:


> i wonder how much better is arctic 420mm aio over its 360mm.
> i really need that extra few celsius as my 10850k is freaking hot and weak.


for what>? gaming? I am sticking with a D15 and running 5Ghz for gaming. But for video encoding, I'll drop down to 4.9ghz as my temps hit 87C during video encoding.


----------



## BobBobFSGG

Is it normal to have mounting marks on IHS on brand new CPU?

Got a new 10900K, haven't opened it yet. It's hard to capture it through plastic window since it reflects, but it's definitively there - that circular impact mark in bottom right isn't a smudge and is on IHS too. Factory seals seems intact - i'm guessing it could be from pretesting at the factory, but i honestly don't remember how my 4790K looked fresh from the box back then.


----------



## acoustic

Heading to Microcenter today. Any word on whether the "V" batches are better or worse than the original "X" batches?

Really hoping to grab an SP90+ chip today. I don't want to end up with a heat monster that will struggle to run 5Ghz cool and quietly.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Falkentyne said:


> These are load voltages are voltages set in the BIOS?
> Is this under prime95 AVX / FMA3 or SSE2? Or another program/test?


Load Voltages running R23 and realbench.
I use SVID=trained, so VID match VCore under load.
AC/DC_loadline =0.51/1.1mOhm
LLC=4
VCCIO/SA=1.18/1.23v
[email protected]/23/23/43

Right now I'm running 55x3, 54x5, 53x8, 53x10 (+2Boost OCTVB)
V/F#4=1.05v
V/F#5=1.14v
V/F#6=1.29v
V/F#7=1.32v
V/F#8=1.43v
Adptive =1.45v
VRM=600KHz

If I run 55x3, 54x5, 53x2, 52x10 (+2Boost OCTVB)
V/F#4=1.05v
V/F#5=1.14v
V/F#6=1.28v
V/F#7=1.32v
V/F#8=1.43v
Adptive =1.45v
VRM=500KHz


----------



## acoustic

You all failed me 

SP63 from Microcenter. Oof. I also watched someone walk out with the Formula I wanted as I was coming in. The only other board was a Formula (also open box) that had nothing except the board. I didn't like that.

Ended up with an open box Maximus Extreme. Now I'm overbudget with a ****ty binned chip.

Should have stuck with my 9900K.


----------



## Falkentyne

acoustic said:


> You all failed me
> 
> SP63 from Microcenter. Oof. I also watched someone walk out with the Formula I wanted as I was coming in. The only other board was a Formula (also open box) that had nothing except the board. I didn't like that.
> 
> Ended up with an open box Maximus Extreme. Now I'm overbudget with a ****ty binned chip.
> 
> Should have stuck with my 9900K.


Did you test that chip?
Just because it's a SP63 doesn't mean it's going to do badly.
Try a stress test of Prime95 30.4 build 6, small FFT FMA3 -->15K in-place fixed FFT.

5.0ghz Core, 4.6 ghz Cache, Bios set: 1.275v, LLC=Level 6.
Have hwinfo64 running in the background and look for CPU Cache L0 errors.

Report your results.


----------



## acoustic

Falkentyne said:


> Did you test that chip?
> Just because it's a SP63 doesn't mean it's going to do badly.
> Try a stress test of Prime95 30.4 build 6, small FFT FMA3 -->15K in-place fixed FFT.
> 
> 5.0ghz Core, 4.6 ghz Cache, Bios set: 1.275v, LLC=Level 6.
> Have hwinfo64 running in the background and look for CPU Cache L0 errors.
> 
> Report your results.


I didn't get very far in testing. The Maximus Extreme is defective. I'm getting horrid coil whine out of my GPU that was not there with my 9900K @ 5.1 and EVGA Z390 DARK. I don't get the whine under CPU load, but holy hell the AC: Valhalla benchmark was squealing like a pig. It's not like I'm CPU limited at 3840x1600, and my average FPS was exactly the same as my 9900K.

I set a quick and dirty 5.2Ghz all-core with Cache on auto (likely 4.2Ghz) at LLC4 1.375V in BIOS (didn't check load voltage) and my DRAM set to 3800 15-15-15-28. Pulled a 6766 in Cinebench R15.

I had to call it quits because I had to tear the rig down to box the Maximus back up so I can return it tomorrow. The board was an open box, and besides something being wrong with the PCIEx16 slot causing coil whine, I had an issue with the top PCIEx4 being too close to the GPU. My sound-card was literally sitting on my GPU and didn't really fit, had to pretty much wedge it in there. I tried using the 2nd PCIEx16 slot for the sound-card and no matter what config I tried, the GPU would not go to 16x. This is the second time I've been extremely, extremely disappointed with an ASUS board. My Z390 Hero was absolutely garbage, and for a $750 board, this Maximus Extreme is another terrible offering. I cannot express how confused I am at how they ****ed it up. My Creative AE-5 should be able to fit.

I'm hoping Microcenter has something I'm interested in, but I don't want an MSI board and I didn't see anything too good from Gigabyte there.

I may just put my 9900K+DARK back in and tell my buddy he will have to wait. I wasn't super impressed by what I saw.


----------



## asdkj1740

junglechocolate said:


> Arctic Freezer II seems to be the best value for performance. It doesn't have RGB at all.
> 
> I actually have both the 280 and 360mm but I never opened them and intend to return them. I worry about longetivity. Comes with only 2 year warranty and no way for me to refill it. They are CLCs. I tried the EK 360MM rgb which is extremely similar to AF II but I think I got a bad one in the sense that the plate wasn't even. my temps were worse than my Noctua so I am back on air for the time being.


i doubt air cooler like noctua d15 would be better or at least on par with 360mm aio when the cpu is drawing more than 300w. maybe air coolers are better in game when power draw of cpu is likely to be under 100w.

kind of worry about the two years warranty about arctic aio although they are dirt cheap.




junglechocolate said:


> for what>? gaming? I am sticking with a D15 and running 5Ghz for gaming. But for video encoding, I'll drop down to 4.9ghz as my temps hit 87C during video encoding.


for feeling better i guess. because my all default cpu peak at 113c in prime95 avx when the ambient temp is just 17c.


----------



## junglechocolate

asdkj1740 said:


> i doubt air cooler like noctua d15 would be better or at least on par with 360mm aio when the cpu is drawing more than 300w. maybe air coolers are better in game when power draw of cpu is likely to be under 100w.
> 
> kind of worry about the two years warranty about arctic aio although they are dirt cheap.
> 
> 
> 
> for feeling better i guess. because my all default cpu peak at 113c in prime95 avx when the ambient temp is just 17c.


Oh I never said air would compete... I said from my own experience, the only AIO from reviews that go 1:1 with the AF II is the EK AIO 360. Mine was worse than my U14s and I don't like the short warranty on the AF II and its lack of a fill port so I said screw it, air it is. 

My temps do hit 65C gaming on air with the D15 (though I don't remember this happening with the U14s) and if I need to do AVX video stuff, I'll just go down to 4.9 which runs at a much lower voltage. 

All this work aint worth for me. I game at 4K.


----------



## Imprezzion

Get intel protection plan, send it in, profit.


acoustic said:


> I didn't get very far in testing. The Maximus Extreme is defective. I'm getting horrid coil whine out of my GPU that was not there with my 9900K @ 5.1 and EVGA Z390 DARK. I don't get the whine under CPU load, but holy hell the AC: Valhalla benchmark was squealing like a pig. It's not like I'm CPU limited at 3840x1600, and my average FPS was exactly the same as my 9900K.
> 
> I set a quick and dirty 5.2Ghz all-core with Cache on auto (likely 4.2Ghz) at LLC4 1.375V in BIOS (didn't check load voltage) and my DRAM set to 3800 15-15-15-28. Pulled a 6766 in Cinebench R15.
> 
> I had to call it quits because I had to tear the rig down to box the Maximus back up so I can return it tomorrow. The board was an open box, and besides something being wrong with the PCIEx16 slot causing coil whine, I had an issue with the top PCIEx4 being too close to the GPU. My sound-card was literally sitting on my GPU and didn't really fit, had to pretty much wedge it in there. I tried using the 2nd PCIEx16 slot for the sound-card and no matter what config I tried, the GPU would not go to 16x. This is the second time I've been extremely, extremely disappointed with an ASUS board. My Z390 Hero was absolutely garbage, and for a $750 board, this Maximus Extreme is another terrible offering. I cannot express how confused I am at how they ****ed it up. My Creative AE-5 should be able to fit.
> 
> I'm hoping Microcenter has something I'm interested in, but I don't want an MSI board and I didn't see anything too good from Gigabyte there.
> 
> I may just put my 9900K+DARK back in and tell my buddy he will have to wait. I wasn't super impressed by what I saw.


Mind if I ask what's wrong with MSI? The Z490 Unify and Ace are plenty capable boards tbh.


----------



## acoustic

Imprezzion said:


> Mind if I ask what's wrong with MSI? The Z490 Unify and Ace are plenty capable boards tbh.


I'm not a fan of their business practices. I may have to make an exception because after looking at a bunch of boards yesterday, the Unify, Ace, and Master look like the only three I have any interest in. The increased prices of the APEX push me even further away from ASUS than what the last two ASUS boards have .. lol. If the APEX was selling at it's original MSRP, I would have given it one last hurrah.

I love my Z390 DARK but it's just not a great daily driver motherboard. The Z490 DARK looks to be in the same boat.


----------



## newls1

acoustic said:


> Heading to Microcenter today. Any word on whether the "V" batches are better or worse than the original "X" batches?
> 
> Really hoping to grab an SP90+ chip today. I don't want to end up with a heat monster that will struggle to run 5Ghz cool and quietly.


my "V" batched 10900k is light years better then my original "X" batched 10900k i bought on launch day. Obviously silicon lottery still falls into play here, but i was shocked with how much of a difference my 2 10900k's clocked


----------



## Imprezzion

Is there any way to find out what SP I have when using MSI board? I mean, VID @ Stock suggests SP63 but it clocks way too good for that.. It will do 5.1Ghz all core AVX0 at 1.272v (+0.020 adaptive offset) and 5.2Ghz all core AVX0 at 1.364v VCC Sense, BIOS at adaptive offset +0.170 LLC3. This is the same vCore as setting 1.380v fixed LLC3. 

I'll check my box to see what batch I have even tho it is a KF not a K.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Test Cinebench at 5Ghz if you can do less then 1,15V it´s a better one.If you can drive 1,1V or less it´s really good.The best can do arround 1,054V on Asus.
For Voltage use HWinfo, the last CPU-Z dont read correct on Asus MB.
It´s the same like 9900k.

5Ghz ist good for testing because cooling is there not so important, the CPU need´s a min. VCore for that, my VCore on 5Ghz is the same with HS and with Direct Die.


----------



## Imprezzion

PhoenixMDA said:


> Test Cinebench at 5Ghz if you can do less then 1,15V it´s a better one.If you can drive 1,1V or less it´s really good.The best one can do arround 1,054V.
> For Voltage use HWinfo, the last CPU-Z dont read correct on Asus MB.


Cinebench R20 or R23? I can try it out tomorrow or Wednesday.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Imprezzion said:


> Cinebench R20 or R23? I can try it out tomorrow or Wednesday.


Its nearly the same what you want R20/R23, if you can drive under 1,15V Load Voltage that´s good, 1,1V is really nice,lower is awesome and rar.
For higher Frequency you need DirectDie and good temp´s to get with a "gold sample" low Voltage.

Here my best CPU ever by 5,4Ghz^^


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Does anybody know why some average core voltages are higher them others?

Core9=1.3v
core8=1.22v
core7=1,14v
Core0 to core 6 = 1,0v

EDITED:
I think they are the preferred cores...
But in BIOS the preferred cores are 2 and 3, not the 7,8 or 9...
How windows select the preferred cores?


----------



## GeneO

Preferentially selected to run. Windows 10 is supposed to be aware of the core preference (at least more recent versions). but that preference is for boost level frequencies. The OS could selectively choose those cores (7-9) for, say, interrupt processing or deferred interrupt execution at lower frequencies.


----------



## cletus-cassidy

Random question: Did anyone else upgrade to the latest Asus Maximus XII BIOS with re-sizable bar support and start getting WHEA errors "PCI/PCIE Device Error" in HWiNFO64? I tried the latest two bioses (1003 and 2004), each of which have resizable bar support and it happened. Downgraded to the last bios pre-resizable bar (901) and no problems again. Hoping it's not something with my 3090....


----------



## RobertoSampaio

cletus-cassidy said:


> Random question: Did anyone else upgrade to the latest Asus Maximus XII BIOS with re-sizable bar support and start getting WHEA errors "PCI/PCIE Device Error" in HWiNFO64? I tried the latest two bioses (1003 and 2004), each of which have resizable bar support and it happened. Downgraded to the last bios pre-resizable bar (901) and no problems again. Hoping it's not something with my 3090....


I had... raised 5mv VCCIO/SA and problem solved.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> Preferentially selected to run. Windows 10 is supposed to be aware of the core preference (at least more recent versions). but that preference is for boost level frequencies. The OS could selectively choose those cores (7-9) for, say, interrupt processing or deferred interrupt execution at lower frequencies.


Core 7, 8 and 9 are always running at higher frequencies ...
I didn't note that before ASUS 2004 BIOS... but Not sure if it started with this last update.


----------



## GeneO

Well the last two core4s on my 10700K are running at higher frequency on average as well. To me this just indicates that they are getting more work while the other cores are idle, skewing the averages. Maybe Windows just utilizes the last few cores for it's work.


----------



## GeneO

Well I think I do have some insight into this now. I have both speedshift (known as autonomous mode in Windows 10 ) and speedstep enabled in BIOS. Window wills default to speedshift in this case, for which I see this behavior with frequencies.. If I disable autonomous mode in windows power management settings, the average frequencies across processors do not appear to vary. So I am thinking with speedshift, it is the way the processor allocates cores, whereas when windows does the allocation in speedstep, it randomizes cores. Then again it could be just be some obscure difference in the way the information is gathered between the cases.

But in general, an algorithm that would favor the selection of some cores would probably not be a good thing for the longevity of the processor. So I hope that is not the case with speedshift.

It may be interesting to look at the core utilization. Do the 7-9 have higher utilization according to HWINFO64? I don't see it, but ut us late.


----------



## Imprezzion

PhoenixMDA said:


> Its nearly the same what you want R20/R23, if you can drive under 1,15V Load Voltage that´s good, 1,1V is really nice,lower is awesome and rar.
> For higher Frequency you need DirectDie and good temp´s to get with a "gold sample" low Voltage.
> 
> Here my best CPU ever by 5,4Ghz^^
> View attachment 2474692
> 
> View attachment 2474693


Well, that ain't predicting a lot good for my poor CPU.

1.120v doesn't even boot Windows. 1.152v does. It also kind of runs Cinebench R23 as in, under load it's fine, but stopping or changing tests BSOD's half the time with a interrupt BSOD even on fixed voltage fixed frequency so it's far from stable.

This almost has to mean it's a pretty poor bin (probably 63).

Still, it runs 5.2 all core 1.364v daily with no issues at all and manageable temps under 70c in day to day task and under 90 in most stress tests except Prime95 AVX which sees about 92-93c so..

I'm going to experiment with OCTVB ratio's and advanced offsets a little with trying to get 1-4 cores to do 5.3Ghz.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> Well I think I do have some insight into this now. I have both speedshift (known as autonomous mode in Windows 10 ) and speedstep enabled in BIOS. Window wills default to speedshift in this case, for which I see this behavior with frequencies.. If I disable autonomous mode in windows power management settings, the average frequencies across processors do not appear to vary. So I am thinking with speedshift, it is the way the processor allocates cores, whereas when windows does the allocation in speedstep, it randomizes cores. Then again it could be just be some obscure difference in the way the information is gathered between the cases.
> 
> But in general, an algorithm that would favor the selection of some cores would probably not be a good thing for the longevity of the processor. So I hope that is not the case with speedshift.
> 
> It may be interesting to look at the core utilization. Do the 7-9 have higher utilization according to HWINFO64? I don't see it, but ut us late.


Very stranger....
The higher core utilization go to #1, 2 and 5
The higher frequency (and voltage) go to #7, 8 and 9


----------



## Robertomcat

Imprezzion said:


> Still, it runs 5.2 all core 1.364v daily with no issues at all and manageable temps under 70c in day to day task and under 90 in most stress tests except Prime95 AVX which sees about 92-93c so..


And that with what configuration? Because my motherboard (Rog Strix Z490-E) indicates that I have an SP 63 chip and I have to put a voltage of 1.4 with LLC 6 to avoid internal CPU and L0 cache errors. Although later at full load l Vcore indicates me 1.38.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> Well the last two core4s on my 10700K are running at higher frequency on average as well. To me this just indicates that they are getting more work while the other cores are idle, skewing the averages. Maybe Windows just utilizes the last few cores for it's work.



Running @ 5.5Ghz is the same...

Core #9 is always the higher frequency and voltage and core #1 the most used...
Is there a way to control this in windows?


----------



## Imprezzion

Robertomcat said:


> And that with what configuration? Because my motherboard (Rog Strix Z490-E) indicates that I have an SP 63 chip and I have to put a voltage of 1.4 with LLC 6 to avoid internal CPU and L0 cache errors. Although later at full load l Vcore indicates me 1.38.


MSI Z490 Ace, LLC3, Adaptive Offset -0.170.
AVX Voltage Offsets left on Auto and it does correct it properly.
Idle it runs 1.375v when not in EIST / C-States. Prime95 AVX OFF it runs 1.334v, AVX ON 1.364v after LLC / Droop.

If I drop offset on either AVX or non-AVX to -0.180 it will error with L0 errors after like 15-20 minutes so i'm at the absolute edge of what's stable however it is solid and has never given my any errors at all in several months of gaming, benching or stress testing memory overnight.

Just tried 5.3 1-3 cores in OCTVB, it ain't happy with it. At the normal 1.364v it won't even boot Windows, with around 1.43v for 1-3 cores it will but temps are way too high.


----------



## acoustic

My MSI MEG ACE shows up today, to replace the defective Maximus XII Extreme I returned at Microcenter.

Hopefully this chip is good. The Maximus board said it's an SP63. My chip is a "V" batch with the 2nd letter being an "E".


----------



## asdkj1740

Imprezzion said:


> Is there any way to find out what SP I have when using MSI board? I mean, VID @ Stock suggests SP63 but it clocks way too good for that.. It will do 5.1Ghz all core AVX0 at 1.272v (+0.020 adaptive offset) and 5.2Ghz all core AVX0 at 1.364v VCC Sense, BIOS at adaptive offset +0.170 LLC3. This is the same vCore as setting 1.380v fixed LLC3.
> 
> I'll check my box to see what batch I have even tho it is a KF not a K.


msi introduces similar things to its z590, not only the memory force but also the cpu force this time.
dont know whether they will add back this new feature to z490s.


----------



## Imprezzion

acoustic said:


> My MSI MEG ACE shows up today, to replace the defective Maximus XII Extreme I returned at Microcenter.
> 
> Hopefully this chip is good. The Maximus board said it's an SP63. My chip is a "V" batch with the 2nd letter being an "E".


Once you have it, update the BIOS to either the latest stable available or Beta 12W * (which is what I run) from Here otherwise you won't have PPD support (power down disable stuff) for the RAM. It improves latency massively so you'd want it.

Use LLC3 when overclocking. Flattest response.
Disable TVB Optimizations (both) in Advanced CPU Features, set power to Water Cooling (this will disable all power related throttling, same as setting 4096w power limit and max current limit).

You can either use Fixed mode for CPU and voltage to always run te set clock speed even in idle or use Dynamic Mode with either a All Core or Turbo Offset combined with Enhanced Turbo and EIST for proper idle clocks. Combine this with Adaptive + Offset for the voltage. This MAY be unstable in idle situations iff the offset is too far negative like mine (-0.170) as it drops too low idle. Correct this by using Advanced Offsets and setting all voltages with x48 and lower multiplier to +0.005 to apply correct idle voltages.

Memory OC is a absolute breeze on this board / BIOS. Make sure PPD is 0 and Power Down is disabled, use Fixed Mode for tertiary / RTL IO if you wanna enter manual values. RTL/IO trains the best when using Fixed Mode and leaving the values on Auto and using RTL / IO Initials to train them combined with IO Offsets.

The cache cannot be set as an offset, only manually. It will down clock idle as long as CPU is in Dynamic Mode.

If there's something you need help with / need explained, ask away. I know this boards BIOS inside out thanks to the many many hours spend tweaking it and reading up about which setting does what.

*
There might be a problem with certain UEFI GPU's not showing the BIOS screen when using DisplayPort. Use HDMI or set BIOS to CSM mode with a HDMI monitor or through the iGPU, that should work.


----------



## acoustic

Imprezzion said:


> Once you have it, update the BIOS to either the latest stable available or Beta 12W * (which is what I run) from Here otherwise you won't have PPD support (power down disable stuff) for the RAM. It improves latency massively so you'd want it.
> 
> Use LLC3 when overclocking. Flattest response.
> Disable TVB Optimizations (both) in Advanced CPU Features, set power to Water Cooling (this will disable all power related throttling, same as setting 4096w power limit and max current limit).
> 
> You can either use Fixed mode for CPU and voltage to always run te set clock speed even in idle or use Dynamic Mode with either a All Core or Turbo Offset combined with Enhanced Turbo and EIST for proper idle clocks. Combine this with Adaptive + Offset for the voltage. This MAY be unstable in idle situations iff the offset is too far negative like mine (-0.170) as it drops too low idle. Correct this by using Advanced Offsets and setting all voltages with x48 and lower multiplier to +0.005 to apply correct idle voltages.
> 
> Memory OC is a absolute breeze on this board / BIOS. Make sure PPD is 0 and Power Down is disabled, use Fixed Mode for tertiary / RTL IO if you wanna enter manual values. RTL/IO trains the best when using Fixed Mode and leaving the values on Auto and using RTL / IO Initials to train them combined with IO Offsets.
> 
> The cache cannot be set as an offset, only manually. It will down clock idle as long as CPU is in Dynamic Mode.
> 
> If there's something you need help with / need explained, ask away. I know this boards BIOS inside out thanks to the many many hours spend tweaking it and reading up about which setting does what.
> 
> *
> There might be a problem with certain UEFI GPU's not showing the BIOS screen when using DisplayPort. Use HDMI or set BIOS to CSM mode with a HDMI monitor or through the iGPU, that should work.


Awesome! Thanks a ton for the info. This is my first time EVER with an MSI board in 20+ years of building, so I'm going to be in for a learning curve. I'll likely start with fixed voltage with speedster/c-states disabled until I figure out what the chip can do.

I've always run my chips the old school way with all the power stuff disabled, but with this one, I think I'm going to try adaptive and letting the chip use it's power states. With my 9900K, I just couldn't get it stable, but truthfully didn't try very hard to get it working.


----------



## Robertomcat

Imprezzion said:


> MSI Z490 Ace, LLC3, Adaptive Offset -0.170.
> AVX Voltage Offsets left on Auto and it does correct it properly.
> Idle it runs 1.375v when not in EIST / C-States. Prime95 AVX OFF it runs 1.334v, AVX ON 1.364v after LLC / Droop.
> 
> If I drop offset on either AVX or non-AVX to -0.180 it will error with L0 errors after like 15-20 minutes so i'm at the absolute edge of what's stable however it is solid and has never given my any errors at all in several months of gaming, benching or stress testing memory overnight.
> 
> Just tried 5.3 1-3 cores in OCTVB, it ain't happy with it. At the normal 1.364v it won't even boot Windows, with around 1.43v for 1-3 cores it will but temps are way too high.


Interesting, although there are some options that may vary from using an MSI motherboard to an ASUS. I'll keep a few tips in mind. Thank you!


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Imprezzion said:


> Well, that ain't predicting a lot good for my poor CPU.
> 
> 1.120v doesn't even boot Windows. 1.152v does. It also kind of runs Cinebench R23 as in, under load it's fine, but stopping or changing tests BSOD's half the time with a interrupt BSOD even on fixed voltage fixed frequency so it's far from stable.
> 
> This almost has to mean it's a pretty poor bin (probably 63).
> 
> Still, it runs 5.2 all core 1.364v daily with no issues at all and manageable temps under 70c in day to day task and under 90 in most stress tests except Prime95 AVX which sees about 92-93c so..
> 
> I'm going to experiment with OCTVB ratio's and advanced offsets a little with trying to get 1-4 cores to do 5.3Ghz.


My first 2x10900k was also SP63 and 5,2Ghz is possible with good Cooling, if you want to test AVX i think it´s enough to test 192k-1344k AVX for 1,5h.
The low k-Size has an extrem Wattage, my CPU is really good in Voltage and Power Draw and i drive DirectDie with big Custom Watercooling
and my Power Draw is heavy by AVX Smalls by only 5,2Ghz.


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> Very stranger....
> The higher core utilization go to #1, 2 and 5
> The higher frequency (and voltage) go to #7, 8 and 9


Like I said, try disabling speedshift and enable speedstep instead in BIOS to see if you notice a difference. 

I think it comes down to how the data is collected for speedshift. Not the first time I have seen erroneous reporting of some data with speedshift. Going to run some tests.

Here is a test I have run with speedshift enabled. Prime95 1344/1344 in-place with only 4 threads so that all cores are not occupied. Purpose is to see if the threads are preferentially assign over time to specific cores and if the MHz is uniform when the processor is not fully loaded. Conclusion is that under a non-fully loaded system the threads are pretty much uniformly distributed across cores. Just appears with light loads and speedshift. for me


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> Like I said, try disabling speedshift and enable speedstep instead in BIOS to see if you notice a difference.
> 
> I think it comes down to how the data is collected for speedshift. Not the first time I have seen erroneous reporting of some data with speedshift. Going to run some tests. Will report back.


I have no idea how to disable speedshift...


----------



## GeneO

Its a setting in BIOS. But nevermind. I would not worry about it.


----------



## newls1

testing out my new 10900k to see what it would take to pass OCCT test, cinebench r20, and my games @ 5.2ghz. Set Voltage in bios with LLC4 (asus equivlent) 1.305v (load is 1.27ish) got multi cache errors and whea errors showing in hwinfo64. Raised to 1.330 (1.305ish load) had 1 whea error and 1 cache error... set 1.350 (1.320 load) everything stable at this point. 3 back to back runs of CB20, games, and everything else i do for day to day tasks. So my question is this... is that about average quality of 10900k to sustain 5.2ghz all core with 1.320v loaded?


----------



## murenitu

newls1 said:


> testing out my new 10900k to see what it would take to pass OCCT test, cinebench r20, and my games @ 5.2ghz. Set Voltage in bios with LLC4 (asus equivlent) 1.305v (load is 1.27ish) got multi cache errors and whea errors showing in hwinfo64. Raised to 1.330 (1.305ish load) had 1 whea error and 1 cache error... set 1.350 (1.320 load) everything stable at this point. 3 back to back runs of CB20, games, and everything else i do for day to day tasks. So my question is this... is that about average quality of 10900k to sustain 5.2ghz all core with 1.320v loaded?


is in the average so to speak! neither good nor bad, shooting at medium good.

I have 5.3 all cores at 1.37v with avx 0 at full load, although now I can do 54x4 // 53x10 with a 1boost profile .... that uses 100mhz more! look at my posts for this thread a few pages back.


----------



## Trucker79

Looking forward to getting mine overclocked once I get everything under water


----------



## gecko991

Got a build ready on liquid just waiting for a Card. A ny.


----------



## acoustic

Falkentyne said:


> Did you test that chip?
> Just because it's a SP63 doesn't mean it's going to do badly.
> Try a stress test of Prime95 30.4 build 6, small FFT FMA3 -->15K in-place fixed FFT.
> 
> 5.0ghz Core, 4.6 ghz Cache, Bios set: 1.275v, LLC=Level 6.
> Have hwinfo64 running in the background and look for CPU Cache L0 errors.
> 
> Report your results.


Not sure what LLC level correlates on this MSI board. 1.275v @ Mode5 gave me 1.19v under load. What does LLC6 on the Maximus give you?

It also immediately blue-screened when I started the test. Lol

Mode4 gives me 1.262 under load. Temps are pretty crazy .. 90c even at this voltage. These chips run a lot hotter than my 9900K did, phew; either that, or I have a bad mount.


----------



## Falkentyne

acoustic said:


> Not sure what LLC level correlates on this MSI board. 1.275v @ Mode5 gave me 1.19v under load. What does LLC6 on the Maximus give you?
> 
> It also immediately blue-screened when I started the test. Lol
> 
> Mode4 gives me 1.262 under load. Temps are pretty crazy .. 90c even at this voltage. These chips run a lot hotter than my 9900K did, phew; either that, or I have a bad mount.


Use Mode 3 or 4 on your board. Lower modes =less vdroop but worse transients (this is the opposite of Asus and Gigabyte). Also you need to use VR VOUT on your board with I forgot, die sense setting in the bios (I dont know how it works on the MSI but it was messed up for awhile).

1.270v Bios set @ 5 ghz (ring 4.7 ghz) + LLC6 = 1.148v load in Prime95 small FFT 15k (fixed) FMA3.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Nizzen said:


> I don't understand that so many her isn't running direct die cooled 10900k/10850k/10700k?


I’m running direct die and


Imprezzion said:


> Once you have it, update the BIOS to either the latest stable available or Beta 12W * (which is what I run) from Here otherwise you won't have PPD support (power down disable stuff) for the RAM. It improves latency massively so you'd want it.
> 
> Use LLC3 when overclocking. Flattest response.
> Disable TVB Optimizations (both) in Advanced CPU Features, set power to Water Cooling (this will disable all power related throttling, same as setting 4096w power limit and max current limit).
> 
> You can either use Fixed mode for CPU and voltage to always run te set clock speed even in idle or use Dynamic Mode with either a All Core or Turbo Offset combined with Enhanced Turbo and EIST for proper idle clocks. Combine this with Adaptive + Offset for the voltage. This MAY be unstable in idle situations iff the offset is too far negative like mine (-0.170) as it drops too low idle. Correct this by using Advanced Offsets and setting all voltages with x48 and lower multiplier to +0.005 to apply correct idle voltages.
> 
> Memory OC is a absolute breeze on this board / BIOS. Make sure PPD is 0 and Power Down is disabled, use Fixed Mode for tertiary / RTL IO if you wanna enter manual values. RTL/IO trains the best when using Fixed Mode and leaving the values on Auto and using RTL / IO Initials to train them combined with IO Offsets.
> 
> The cache cannot be set as an offset, only manually. It will down clock idle as long as CPU is in Dynamic Mode.
> 
> If there's something you need help with / need explained, ask away. I know this boards BIOS inside out thanks to the many many hours spend tweaking it and reading up about which setting does what.
> 
> *
> There might be a problem with certain UEFI GPU's not showing the BIOS screen when using DisplayPort. Use HDMI or set BIOS to CSM mode with a HDMI monitor or through the iGPU, that should work.


This. Use the A2W bios, not the latest, as there is no performance benefit. After switching to the latest bios, my CPU is no longer stable at 5.4/5.5 ghz and I'm stuck at 5.1 because of thermals. Something is permanently damaged. It could also have to do with the fact that I'm running direct die and could have cracked the substrate. Or from running P95 small fft AVX2 in short bursts.


----------



## acoustic

What's this "VCC Sense" or "Socket Sense"? Never had an option like this before with my DARK or ASUS boards. Currently using VCC Sense

Flashed to the A2W BIOS. I don't plan on flashing again because that's the 3rdbtime I've had to re-do my fan control settings lol.

I am thoroughly impressed with this board. I may have become an MSI mobo fan. Once I get the CPU figured out, I'm really excited to try getting these sticks to 4000Mhz. The DARK really held them back.

5Ghz/4.6 Cache @ 1.275v BIOS. LLC: Mode4 = 1.225v VR VOUT under load. Getting the hang of this!

How long do you run this P95 small FFT? The temps are insane and so is the power draw. I feel like this could easily smoke a processor. Woah! No errors after 5 minutes.

1.235v BIOS = 1.189 VR VOUT under load; blue-screened after 2min. Trying 1.25v BIOS = 1.2 VR VOUT under load -- 1.25v gave cache L0 error after 2min. 1.26-1.265 might be the sweet spot, so roughly 1.21-1.22v under load.

You have a very nice chip Falken. 1.149 seems quite low, or I just have a dud. I could return it and grab a different chip, but the thought of tearing my PC down again is kind of off-putting .. and that also seems like a dickbag thing to do.


----------



## Falkentyne

acoustic said:


> What's this "VCC Sense" or "Socket Sense"? Never had an option like this before with my DARK or ASUS boards. Currently using VCC Sense
> 
> Flashed to the A2W BIOS. I don't plan on flashing again because that's the 3rdbtime I've had to re-do my fan control settings lol.
> 
> I am thoroughly impressed with this board. I may have become an MSI mobo fan. Once I get the CPU figured out, I'm really excited to try getting these sticks to 4000Mhz. The DARK really held them back.
> 
> 5Ghz/4.6 Cache @ 1.275v BIOS. LLC: Mode4 = 1.225v VR VOUT under load. Getting the hang of this!
> 
> How long do you run this P95 small FFT? The temps are insane and so is the power draw. I feel like this could easily smoke a processor. Woah! No errors after 5 minutes.
> 
> 1.235v BIOS = 1.189 VR VOUT under load; blue-screened after 2min. Trying 1.25v BIOS = 1.2 VR VOUT under load -- 1.25v gave cache L0 error after 2min. 1.26-1.265 might be the sweet spot, so roughly 1.21-1.22v under load.
> 
> You have a very nice chip Falken. 1.149 seems quite low, or I just have a dud. I could return it and grab a different chip, but the thought of tearing my PC down again is kind of off-putting .. and that also seems like a dickbag thing to do.


I can't help with MSI boards. Sorry. They did some weird thing where VCC_Sense gives a different VR VOUT at load than "Socket Sense", like they didn't code the Bios correctly or something. Because VCC_Sense is supposed to give perfect vcore on the VCORE sensor, and is supposed to be the exact same reading as VR VOUT. VR VOUT is the voltage coming directly from the VRM. Gigabyte did this correctly (Their VR VOUT is accurate) but MSI did something strange. This was like 2 months ago when they "finally" opened up VR VOUT to be read by Hwinfo64. And only one of the LLC values gives 'correct' VR VOUT at full load and I do not remember which, on that older bios, nor do I remember if Die sense or Socket Sense was calibrated properly, but I do remember it was Mode 4 at least. There was discussion about that with other MSI users on the discord and I think on one of the MSI threads. You need to ask them, not me. I have absolutely no reason to keep up on MSI boards when I have an Asus.

I'm sorry I simply can not help with your system. It's impossible. 
My CPU is above average but is not even close to the best. And it's an engineering sample also. SP94, good enough for top 20% in overall samples. Good enough to game on at 5.3 ghz with a high vcore and an aggressive LLC (like 1.430v Bios set, LLC=6 @ 5.3 ghz, 5 ghz cache (lower cache for minecraft), Asus LLC6 is about equal to MSI's Mode 3 LLC. And 5.4 can be gamed on with hyperthreading disabled only (i don't really bother disabling per-core hyperthreading; I already forgot what my weakest cores are, I'm sure I wrote it down somewhere).


----------



## geriatricpollywog

acoustic said:


> How long do you run this P95 small FFT? The temps are insane and so is the power draw. I feel like this could easily smoke a processor. Woah! No errors after 5 minutes.


Did you just read what I wrote?

Nevermind, please run it overnight. This will help me confirm the issue.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> Its a setting in BIOS. But nevermind. I would not worry about it.


I found this program... Seems to be a nice option...

I'm testing and trying to learn about speedshift and speedstep.

Have you ever see this program?
Do you know where can I find some reading for learning about C-states, speedshift and speedstep?



StackPath


----------



## Imprezzion

acoustic said:


> What's this "VCC Sense" or "Socket Sense"? Never had an option like this before with my DARK or ASUS boards. Currently using VCC Sense
> 
> Flashed to the A2W BIOS. I don't plan on flashing again because that's the 3rdbtime I've had to re-do my fan control settings lol.
> 
> I am thoroughly impressed with this board. I may have become an MSI mobo fan. Once I get the CPU figured out, I'm really excited to try getting these sticks to 4000Mhz. The DARK really held them back.
> 
> 5Ghz/4.6 Cache @ 1.275v BIOS. LLC: Mode4 = 1.225v VR VOUT under load. Getting the hang of this!
> 
> How long do you run this P95 small FFT? The temps are insane and so is the power draw. I feel like this could easily smoke a processor. Woah! No errors after 5 minutes.
> 
> 1.235v BIOS = 1.189 VR VOUT under load; blue-screened after 2min. Trying 1.25v BIOS = 1.2 VR VOUT under load -- 1.25v gave cache L0 error after 2min. 1.26-1.265 might be the sweet spot, so roughly 1.21-1.22v under load.
> 
> You have a very nice chip Falken. 1.149 seems quite low, or I just have a dud. I could return it and grab a different chip, but the thought of tearing my PC down again is kind of off-putting .. and that also seems like a dickbag thing to do.


VCC Sense is the more accurate one. I prefer to use LLC3 as it has the flattest, most predictable response. 

Your CPU seems to be quite a dud yeah, mine is average / below average and I can do 5.0/4.7 around 1.18-1.19v. It will pass cinebench and such at 1.156v but not stable in stress tests.

I never really ran 5.0 tho and went straight for 5.1/4.8 as my cooling can quite easily handle that however I did lap my CPU (and block of course) to 3000 grit and flat and I'm using Conductonaut so temps might be a lot lower than yours.

5.1/4.8 at 1.272-1.280v VCC Sense sits around 76c in Prime95 AVX Small. 

If I go for my daily 5.2/4.9 at 1.364v VCC Sense it's about 93c which for AVX2 Prime95 I find acceptable enough.


----------



## acoustic

Falkentyne said:


> I can't help with MSI boards. Sorry. They did some weird thing where VCC_Sense gives a different VR VOUT at load than "Socket Sense", like they didn't code the Bios correctly or something. Because VCC_Sense is supposed to give perfect vcore on the VCORE sensor, and is supposed to be the exact same reading as VR VOUT. VR VOUT is the voltage coming directly from the VRM. Gigabyte did this correctly (Their VR VOUT is accurate) but MSI did something strange. This was like 2 months ago when they "finally" opened up VR VOUT to be read by Hwinfo64. And only one of the LLC values gives 'correct' VR VOUT at full load and I do not remember which, on that older bios, nor do I remember if Die sense or Socket Sense was calibrated properly, but I do remember it was Mode 4 at least. There was discussion about that with other MSI users on the discord and I think on one of the MSI threads. You need to ask them, not me. I have absolutely no reason to keep up on MSI boards when I have an Asus.
> 
> I'm sorry I simply can not help with your system. It's impossible.
> My CPU is above average but is not even close to the best. And it's an engineering sample also. SP94, good enough for top 20% in overall samples. Good enough to game on at 5.3 ghz with a high vcore and an aggressive LLC (like 1.430v Bios set, LLC=6 @ 5.3 ghz, 5 ghz cache (lower cache for minecraft), Asus LLC6 is about equal to MSI's Mode 3 LLC. And 5.4 can be gamed on with hyperthreading disabled only (i don't really bother disabling per-core hyperthreading; I already forgot what my weakest cores are, I'm sure I wrote it down somewhere).


No problem! I really don't need much help; Imprezzion gave me a lot of quick info to learn this MSI BIOS rather quickly, and I can figure the rest out from here on my own. It's definitely a bit of a learning curve having used only ASUS boards, but it's all good. Makes things a bit more interesting. I'll need your help later in the DDR4 stability thread when I try pushing my sticks from 3800 15-15-15-28 to hitting that golden 4000Mhz number LOL. Appreciate your posts bud!

I'm not a fan of running P95 AVX like I did last night, and won't be doing that again. I believe the reason I was getting errors was more due to the heat, as I was hitting 95c on a couple cores after 2-3 minutes. I didn't run it longer than 5min as I just wasn't comfortable with that. I can see how it can be a quick gauge of your chips potential, but seeing the chip draw over 320watts while hitting those kind of temps at that much voltage is pretty insane and doesn't seem safe, even in short bursts.



0451 said:


> Did you just read what I wrote?
> 
> Nevermind, please run it overnight. This will help me confirm the issue.


I was on my mobile phone and posted without refreshing. I didn't see your post. Relax bud. I'm not new to this and would never run P95 for an extended period of time. 5minutes felt like far too long, at least for my current cooling capabilities.



Imprezzion said:


> VCC Sense is the more accurate one. I prefer to use LLC3 as it has the flattest, most predictable response.
> 
> Your CPU seems to be quite a dud yeah, mine is average / below average and I can do 5.0/4.7 around 1.18-1.19v. It will pass cinebench and such at 1.156v but not stable in stress tests.
> 
> I never really ran 5.0 tho and went straight for 5.1/4.8 as my cooling can quite easily handle that however I did lap my CPU (and block of course) to 3000 grit and flat and I'm using Conductonaut so temps might be a lot lower than yours.
> 
> 5.1/4.8 at 1.272-1.280v VCC Sense sits around 76c in Prime95 AVX Small.
> 
> If I go for my daily 5.2/4.9 at 1.364v VCC Sense it's about 93c which for AVX2 Prime95 I find acceptable enough.


I'm going to go to my normal stress-testing with Realbench, loops of CB15+CB20, and tons of gaming. That worked well for my 9900K. I'm not touching P95 again; there is just zero reason to push that much wattage through the chip as it will never see a load like that in it's life. I'm all for ensuring 100% max stability, but I'm also not trying to roast the chip and turn it into a $450 paperweight.

I like Mode4 as you want a bit of vDroop to help with transient spikes. You don't want a 1:1 idle:load voltage as that means the transients that aren't picked up by any software monitoring can be quite high. Mode4 seems like a perfect amount of droop, much like LLC5 would on an ASUS board.

I may lap the CPU eventually; I do want to go custom watercooling and this chip might be what pushes me over the edge. I'm not expecting miracles but I should be able to get 5.1, maybe 5.2 stable for gaming. Maybe not P95 AVX2 lava-volcano tested, but tested none-the-less.

I'm using a EVGA 360mm CLC w/ 3x Noctua A12x25s. I used KPx for thermal paste, figured I'd give them a shot; kind of tired of Kryonaut and wanted to try something else.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> Its a setting in BIOS. But nevermind. I would not worry about it.


I disabled speedshift and the problem solved...
Is there a way to "fix" windows speedshift?


----------



## asdkj1740

[XF 開箱] Z590 終支援 PCIe Gen4　14+2 供電延續信仰 ASUS ROG MAXIMUS XIII HERO


序言及 Intel 500 系列晶片介紹 現時對於 Intel 平台的用家，與 AMD 平台的最大差異在於缺少了對 PCIe G...



hk.xfastest.com





interestingly asus finally joins the party of isl69269 instead of using asp stuffs.
curious to see what would be reported on hwnifo about the isl69269's vrout on asus mobo.


----------



## Robertomcat

Hello, good afternoon. I wanted to ask if any of you who live in the EU have bought RockitCool delid tools. I would like to know if it has tariffs when arriving to our countries. I am interested in buying it, because they have the socket to put the block completely flat to the processor, and I can't find another company that has this feature.


----------



## murenitu

[QUOTE = "Robertomcat, publicación: 28723078, miembro: 639016"]
Hola, buenas tardes. Quería preguntarles si alguno de ustedes que vive en la UE ha comprado herramientas delid RockitCool. Me gustaría saber si tiene aranceles al llegar a nuestros países. Me interesa comprarlo, porque tienen el zócalo para poner el bloque completamente plano al procesador, y no encuentro otra empresa que tenga esta característica.
[/CITAR]
te lo recomiendo yo lo estoy usando...y me va perfect!


----------



## Robertomcat

murenitu said:


> [QUOTE = "Robertomcat, publicación: 28723078, miembro: 639016"]
> Hola, buenas tardes. Quería preguntarles si alguno de ustedes que vive en la UE ha comprado herramientas delid RockitCool. Me gustaría saber si tiene aranceles al llegar a nuestros países. Me interesa comprarlo, porque tienen el zócalo para poner el bloque completamente plano al procesador, y no encuentro otra empresa que tenga esta característica.
> [/CITAR]
> te lo recomiendo yo lo estoy usando...y me va perfect!


But you have bought it from their website without having to pay duties?


----------



## Salve1412

Robertomcat said:


> But you have bought it from their website without having to pay duties?


I live in Italy and on July 2019 I bought their "Direct to die frame kit complete" for my previous 9th generation CPU (9900K). When it arrived courier was FedEx) I had to pay duties: I don't remember exactly how much it was, I think about 25€ (the total amount of the order shipping included was ~65€).


----------



## Robertomcat

Salve1412 said:


> I live in Italy and on July 2019 I bought their "Direct to die frame kit complete" for my previous 9th generation CPU (9900K). When it arrived courier was FedEx) I had to pay duties: I don't remember exactly how much it was, I think about 25€ (the total amount of the order shipping included was ~65€).


Well, then there are tariffs. In my case I would have to buy the complete kit, because I don't have anyone who can lend me the component that removes the IHS. Then I will have to add $25 more for customs. Thank you!


----------



## murenitu

I am from Barcelona, and I have it to remove the ihs!


----------



## Robertomcat

murenitu said:


> I am from Barcelona, and I have it to remove the ihs!


And I come from a village in Valencia! Well, if I buy the sockets and you want to leave me the tool to remove the IHS, I'll be delighted. Thank you.


----------



## murenitu

no problem, if you promise to return it to me!

I send it to you by ordinary mail, I understand that you are in Spain?
what do you need exactly?


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> I disabled speedshift and the problem solved...
> Is there a way to "fix" windows speedshift?


I don't understand what you mean. If you disabled speedshift you should enable speedstep in bios if you are running adaptive mode voltage.
Speedshift is better in the sense that it responds more quickly and with less overhead because the processor is making the decissions. On the other hand, with speedstep, Windows makes the decisions on frequency and voltage and tells the processor, and the OS has more information available to make those decisions. 

I think the problem is just the way data is collected and reported for speedshift, and there is no real issue with using it.


----------



## Salve1412

GeneO said:


> I don't understand what you mean. If you disabled speedshift you should enable speedstep in bios if you are running adaptive mode voltage.
> Speedshift is better in the sense that it responds more quickly and with less overhead because the processor is making the decissions. On the other hand, with speedstep, Windows makes the decisions on frequency and voltage and tells the processor, and the OS has more information available to make those decisions.
> 
> I think the problem is just the way data is collected and reported for speedshift, and there is no real issue with using it.


I'm sorry to intrude. Was it you who back then in the Z390 Aorus Owners thread noticed that Speedshift acted weirdly so that you preferred to disable it (= disabling Autonomous mode in Windows Power Plan)? I did that too when I had my Z390 Aorus Master, because it looked to me that voltage dropping in idle or medium-load scenarios was better handled by Speedstep (in my case combined with C3), with more various and more frequent voltage changes (at least according to software -HWInfo- voltage readings). I followed the same path once I upgraded to Z490 XII Extreme with 10900K (left Speedshift disabled amd enabled Speedstep in combination with C3). Do you think there's no downside if I switch to Speedshift? Sorry again for bothering, just curious to know your opinion!


----------



## GeneO

Salve1412 said:


> I'm sorry to intrude. Was it you who back then in the Z390 Aorus Owners thread noticed that Speedshift acted weirdly so that you preferred to disable it (= disabling Autonomous mode in Windows Power Plan)? I did that too when I had my Z390 Aorus Master, because it looked to me that voltage dropping in idle or medium-load scenarios was better handled by Speedstep (in my case combined with C3), with more various and more frequent voltage changes (at least according to software -HWInfo- voltage readings). I followed the same path once I upgraded to Z490 XII Extreme with 10900K (left Speedshift disabled amd enabled Speedstep in combination with C3). Do you think there's no downside if I switch to Speedshift? Sorry again for bothering, just curious to know your opinion!


Yes it was me. I think it is a monitoring issue. With speedstep, the windows control and the reporting are all within windows, with speedshift, monitoring data must be collected from something that is acting autonomous to Windows.
The vcore reporting looks correct (that was where I saw an issue with Aorus master vrvout). Here it the frequency reporting. But even if it is not a monitoring issue, but the way speedshift allocates cores and frequency, I have convinced myself with data that it must be occuring at very light loads, as I posted earlier. so I am not concerned. I have been, and will continue to run with speedshift enabled.


----------



## Blackfyre

Hi 10900K folk, got a couple of questions. Right now in Australia we're getting periodic discounts on the 10900K, 10900KF, and 10900KA (all going for cheaper than a 5800X).

How well does a Noctua NH-D15 perform with the 10900K series?

And I am considering the ASUS Z490 Hero for the motherboard, how does AI Overclocking operate? Does it just overclock all cores? Or does it do 2 cores at 5.3Ghz, 2 cores at 5.1Ghz, the rest at 4.8Ghz, etc?

Is that possible with a Noctua NH-D15? How does single core overclocking work? I have been reading that I should be able to achieve 5.0Ghz all core with a Noctua NH-D15, but is it possible to achieve 5.3Ghz for example on 2 cores only, and 5.1Ghz on 2 other cores, and then leave the rest at 4.8Ghz for example? Would overclocking in that fashion be possible and yield better results in games, etc?


----------



## Salve1412

GeneO said:


> Yes it was me. I think it is a monitoring issue. With speedstep, the windows control and the reporting are all within windows, with speedshift, monitoring data must be collected from something that is acting autonomous to Windows.
> The vcore reporting looks correct (that was where I saw an issue with Aorus master vrvout). Here it the frequency reporting. But even if it is not a monitoring issue, but the way speedshift allocates cores and frequency, I have convinced myself with data that it must be occuring at very light loads, as I posted earlier. so I am not concerned. I have been, and will continue to run with speedshift enabled.


I see, thanks for the explanation!


----------



## Salve1412

Blackfyre said:


> Hi 10900K folk, got a couple of questions. Right now in Australia we're getting periodic discounts on the 10900K, 10900KF, and 10900KA (all going for cheaper than a 5800X).
> 
> How well does a Noctua NH-D15 perform with the 10900K series?
> 
> And I am considering the ASUS Z490 Hero for the motherboard, how does AI Overclocking operate? Does it just overclock all cores? Or does it do 2 cores at 5.3Ghz, 2 cores at 5.1Ghz, the rest at 4.8Ghz, etc?
> 
> Is that possible with a Noctua NH-D15? How does single core overclocking work? I have been reading that I should be able to achieve 5.0Ghz all core with a Noctua NH-D15, but is it possible to achieve 5.3Ghz for example on 2 cores only, and 5.1Ghz on 2 other cores, and then leave the rest at 4.8Ghz for example? Would overclocking in that fashion be possible and yield better results in games, etc?


I don't know how much silicon quality would play a role in terms of temperatures for, let's say, 5.1 across all 10 cores, but previously I had a Noctua NH-D15 to cool my 10900K, which is an above average chip (Silicon Prediction 88 in ASUS BIOS): I could do 5.1GHz all core 4.8GHz Cache with a good RAM overclock (4400 CL16 with tightened timings and subtimings: fine-tuned RAM overclock does increase your temperatures) reaching ~86 degrees in tests such as P95 Small FFT AVX Disabled, P95 In-place fixed 112K AVX Disabled (Vmin was 1.181V and 1.19V respecticely, I think), and ~83/84 after 1h RealBench 2.56 Stability test or a bunch of CB20 runs.

Also, with your eventual Z490 Hero updated to the most recent BIOS versions you could make use of OCTVB feature, which would allow your CPU to stay at higher frequencies until a (customizable) temperature threshold is reached, a feature really useful for gaming.


----------



## Blackfyre

Salve1412 said:


> (Silicon Prediction 88 in ASUS BIOS)


ASUS Bios has a silicon quality prediction algorithm?  That's awesome.



Salve1412 said:


> I could do 5.1GHz all core 4.8GHz Cache with a good RAM overclock (4400 CL16 with tightened timings and subtimings: fine-tuned RAM overclock does increase your temperatures) reaching ~86 degrees in tests such as P95 Small FFT AVX Disabled, P95 In-place fixed 112K AVX Disabled (Vmin was 1.181V and 1.19V respecticely, I think), and ~83/84 after 1h RealBench 2.56 Stability test or a bunch of CB20 runs.


Those temps are acceptable.



Salve1412 said:


> Also, with your eventual Z490 Hero updated to the most recent BIOS versions you could make use of OCTVB feature, which would allow your CPU to stay at higher frequencies until a (customizable) temperature threshold is reached, a feature really useful for gaming.


Interesting... So with this feature you could tell the CPU not to clock down until 85 degress is reached for example? Nice.


----------



## kairi_zeroblade

just a dumb inquiry, does buying a 10900k from caseking (binned/tested by Der8auer) guarantee a higher overclock or still depends on how dumb one can really get?? I feel ripped/exasperated on how high the price is and I feel really nothing is guaranteed..

Any opinions on this??


----------



## asdkj1740

kairi_zeroblade said:


> just a dumb inquiry, does buying a 10900k from caseking (binned/tested by Der8auer) guarantee a higher overclock or still depends on how dumb one can really get?? I feel ripped/exasperated on how high the price is and I feel really nothing is guaranteed..
> 
> Any opinions on this??


if you are able to achieve their cooling performance, and use the same mobo, it should be fine.
you cant directly compared cpuz's reported votlages on different brands z490 mobos.




Blackfyre said:


> Hi 10900K folk, got a couple of questions. Right now in Australia we're getting periodic discounts on the 10900K, 10900KF, and 10900KA (all going for cheaper than a 5800X).
> 
> How well does a Noctua NH-D15 perform with the 10900K series?
> 
> And I am considering the ASUS Z490 Hero for the motherboard, how does AI Overclocking operate? Does it just overclock all cores? Or does it do 2 cores at 5.3Ghz, 2 cores at 5.1Ghz, the rest at 4.8Ghz, etc?
> 
> Is that possible with a Noctua NH-D15? How does single core overclocking work? I have been reading that I should be able to achieve 5.0Ghz all core with a Noctua NH-D15, but is it possible to achieve 5.3Ghz for example on 2 cores only, and 5.1Ghz on 2 other cores, and then leave the rest at 4.8Ghz for example? Would overclocking in that fashion be possible and yield better results in games, etc?






i guess if your room temp is about 15c, and set tjmax to 115c, you maybe able to keep the i9 (330w 1.225v asus die sense 5.1ghz avx) under 115c by d15(maybe a14 3000rpm are needed).

hicookie has posted a video showing 5.4ghz running non avx prime95 test if i remember it correctly.


----------



## murenitu

asdkj1740 said:


> if you are able to achieve their cooling performance, and use the same mobo, it should be fine.
> you cant directly compared cpuz's reported votlages on different brands z490 mobos.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i guess if your room temp is about 15c, and set tjmax to 115c, you maybe able to keep the i9 (330w 1.225v asus die sense 5.1ghz avx) under 115c by d15(maybe a14 3000rpm are needed).
> 
> hicookie has posted a video showing 5.4ghz running non avx prime95 test if i remember it correctly.


I have the memory at 4000 and I would like to push it further, but seeing those values that the people of vccio and vcsa put, I don't know to what extent it is safe! I see people above 4000 with these values at least at 1.4v!


----------



## eminded1

Sometimes you win the slicon lottery. And go direct die and liquid metal is must. Some chips run cooler and require ledd voltage than others. Like my chip i can run p95 small fft w avx at 5.2 all core, load voltage is 1.225 and its 100% stable max temp is 80c. 5.1 all core is 75c. I have the i9 10900kf direct die with h150i pro, 6 fans in push pull configuration. Bios for 5.2 all core is 1.37 manual vcore, and a llc of 6 I may try 5.3 all core with a voltage of 1.4 around 1.4 and llc6 and ill post back
Most chips can do 5.1 non avx with 1.35 but with a 2 avx offset, and temps are at 83c max now Matter if you direct die or not. All chips are different. Getting a binned chip is not worth it in my opinion just do direct die w liquid metal and lap the die and waterblock on atleast a 360mm rad and ill be all set.


----------



## Imprezzion

I still need to get the proper delid tool for the 10900KF. What is the recommended tool? I assume the rockitcool one?


----------



## asdkj1740

murenitu said:


> I have the memory at 4000 and I would like to push it further, but seeing those values that the people of vccio and vcsa put, I don't know to what extent it is safe! I see people above 4000 with these values at least at 1.4v!


1.4v is safe for 10th cpu. even 1.5v is fine.
just dont push too far on your ram kit if you are afriad of 1.4v or above.


----------



## eminded1

Imprezzion said:


> I still need to get the proper delid tool for the 10900KF. What is the recommended tool? I assume the rockitcool one?


I got this one on ebay
Delid tool for intel
It says for 9700k but it works 100% with 10th gen. Iv used this on a few i7 10700k and a few i9 10900k and f and it works perfect. Iv never used the rockit cool one. But I recommend this one from ebay. U have to delid it a few times In different directions in order to break the solder. Works everything. Then I use a guitar pic to scrap the glue residue off. Then I tape the cpu to a granite counter top on a peice of paper towel to protect the caps underneath. Then I use the quicksilver to soften the solder on the die and then I use a large flat razer to shave off the solder. And once you get the solder off. Take 1500grit sandpaper and sand the top of the die be careful not to hit the edges of chip. Then its all set just wipe with isopropyl and put the liquid metal on the sanded surface and don't forget to sand the waterblock to. Place the liquid metal on the cpu die and put the block on in place. Then take the block off and the liquid metal will leave an imprint on the block to paint another layer of liquid metal on.
BTW
U can never use too much liquid metal. The more the better I think. Just make sure it doesn't overflow and connect components.

Also make sure with that delid tool you apply oil to the screw so it doesn't strip.


----------



## Imprezzion

Yeah I did my 3770K and up with a block of wood, a vice and a rubber hammer.. my 9900K came pre-delidded, so haven't done any soldered CPU's yet. n
Not doing that on a 10900KF hehe. 

That tool is pretty cheap so I might just take the gamble with it. I have a lapping plate obviously as my IHS is already 3000 grit lapped at the moment but I need more cooling lol. Still hits 93c in AVX2 @ 5.2 all core 1.364v..


----------



## murenitu

Aqui unos settings jugando durante 40min!











































here I am giving it with the Cod! I have had to lower the ram, since I don't want to raise the VCCIO and VCCSA much more so as not to migrate the ICM much ... I would need more time to go up from 4200mhz which is what more or less I have gotten stability


----------



## mki233

Over this past Black Friday I updated my old Haswell system to a 10850k on the Maximus XII Hero. I went for the 10850k since it was over $200 cheaper than the 10900k at the time, and I figured there couldn't be that much difference between the two as far as overclocking ability was concerned. I was wrong. My 10850k had a SP of 57 and took 1.38v at LLC4 to hold 4.8 core/4.5 cache and wouldn't boot my 4000 cl15 memory at anything past 4400. But the other day I saw the 10900kf on sale for $499 so I bought one and it showed up today. And I have apparently struck gold on this one because it has an SP of 115. I'm convinced it can probably to 5.4 with my 360 AIO, but I don't the knowledge or experience to be able to do it. I've got a "quick and dirty" 5.3/5.0 that looks stable but hasn't been put through any rigorous testing yet. I would desperately like some advice on how to get the most out of this chip.


----------



## Placekicker19

mki233 said:


> Over this past Black Friday I updated my old Haswell system to a 10850k on the Maximus XII Hero. I went for the 10850k since it was over $200 cheaper than the 10900k at the time, and I figured there couldn't be that much difference between the two as far as overclocking ability was concerned. I was wrong. My 10850k had a SP of 57 and took 1.38v at LLC4 to hold 4.8 core/4.5 cache and wouldn't boot my 4000 cl15 memory at anything past 4400. But the other day I saw the 10900kf on sale for $499 so I bought one and it showed up today. And I have apparently struck gold on this one because it has an SP of 115. I'm convinced it can probably to 5.4 with my 360 AIO, but I don't the knowledge or experience to be able to do it. I've got a "quick and dirty" 5.3/5.0 that looks stable but hasn't been put through any rigorous testing yet. I would desperately like some advice on how to get the most out of this chip.
> 
> View attachment 2475821
> View attachment 2475822
> View attachment 2475823


Wow, great cpu you got there, one of the best I've seen. Where did you buy it? If you really want the most out of it, a delid and direct die kit from Rockit Cooling would be your best option. I purchased 3 10900k's and all had sp 63 quality. Two clocked horribly but one does decent with direct die and dedicated 480mm rad.


----------



## GeneO

mki233 said:


> Over this past Black Friday I updated my old Haswell system to a 10850k on the Maximus XII Hero. I went for the 10850k since it was over $200 cheaper than the 10900k at the time, and I figured there couldn't be that much difference between the two as far as overclocking ability was concerned. I was wrong. My 10850k had a SP of 57 and took 1.38v at LLC4 to hold 4.8 core/4.5 cache and wouldn't boot my 4000 cl15 memory at anything past 4400. But the other day I saw the 10900kf on sale for $499 so I bought one and it showed up today. And I have apparently struck gold on this one because it has an SP of 115. I'm convinced it can probably to 5.4 with my 360 AIO, but I don't the knowledge or experience to be able to do it. I've got a "quick and dirty" 5.3/5.0 that looks stable but hasn't been put through any rigorous testing yet. I would desperately like some advice on how to get the most out of this chip.
> 
> View attachment 2475821
> View attachment 2475822
> View attachment 2475823


Awesome. 👍 to here it paid of so well. Good luck in overclocking it.


----------



## Robertomcat

Placekicker19 said:


> Wow, great cpu you got there, one of the best I've seen. Where did you buy it? If you really want the most out of it, a delid and direct die kit from Rockit Cooling would be your best option. I purchased 3 10900k's and all had sp 63 quality. Two clocked horribly but one does decent with direct die and dedicated 480mm rad.


I also have three 10900 processors, one K and two KF, and they are all SP63. All three run at 5.2, but are close to the 1.4 voltage. Do you have them with delid? I just want to know if they can go up to 5.3.


----------



## murenitu

mki233 said:


> Over this past Black Friday I updated my old Haswell system to a 10850k on the Maximus XII Hero. I went for the 10850k since it was over $200 cheaper than the 10900k at the time, and I figured there couldn't be that much difference between the two as far as overclocking ability was concerned. I was wrong. My 10850k had a SP of 57 and took 1.38v at LLC4 to hold 4.8 core/4.5 cache and wouldn't boot my 4000 cl15 memory at anything past 4400. But the other day I saw the 10900kf on sale for $499 so I bought one and it showed up today. And I have apparently struck gold on this one because it has an SP of 115. I'm convinced it can probably to 5.4 with my 360 AIO, but I don't the knowledge or experience to be able to do it. I've got a "quick and dirty" 5.3/5.0 that looks stable but hasn't been put through any rigorous testing yet. I would desperately like some advice on how to get the most out of this chip.
> 
> View attachment 2475821
> View attachment 2475822
> View attachment 2475823


very good luck! I am glad that after the disaster you have some better fortune!

Do 5,3 sure you can, if I can ... you should be able to too.

I can do 55/54 on homework (not games) so you sure do too!

Hit it hard and if you need info ask everything you need


----------



## Placekicker19

Robertomcat said:


> I also have three 10900 processors, one K and two KF, and they are all SP63. All three run at 5.2, but are close to the 1.4 voltage. Do you have them with delid? I just want to know if they can go up to 5.3.


Haha, you seem to have my luck with cpus. My current cpu that is delidded and direct die cooled took 1.385vs just to pass cinebench r15 without errors at 5.3ghz. Temps hit 90c and it's on its own 480mm radiator. Once I delidded and went direct die my temps stay in the 60s @ 5.4ghz stressing realbench. 5.3ghz only takes 1.285v to pass cinebench and avx loads take 1.32vs. 5.4ghz takes 1.355 to pass cinebench without errors, 1.385v is stable in everything at 5.4ghz. All voltages are bios set using -50% vdroop on z490 dark.

I think some 10900ks have inferior soldering because my temps at stock were horrible for a custom loop with a 480 rad and once I delidded and went direct die, i saw a 30c drop @ 5.3ghz. My 9900KS had decent stock temps and delidding and direct die cooling that cpu only netted a 13c drop running @ same voltage and frequency using the same cooling set up.

If you delid you have to direct die to really see the difference. It will turn your 5.2ghz into a 5.4ghz cpu. Keeping the 10900k cool does wonderful things. I can bench @ 5.5ghz and the hottest core temp ive seen in r20/r23 is 74c. The highest ive seen a 10900k bench on direct die is 5.6ghz. It seems like 5.6ghz is the wall for even the best 10900ks using direct die and water cooling.


----------



## Robertomcat

Placekicker19 said:


> Haha, you seem to have my luck with cpus. My current cpu that is delidded and direct die cooled took 1.385vs just to pass cinebench r15 without errors at 5.3ghz. Temps hit 90c and it's on its own 480mm radiator. Once I delidded and went direct die my temps stay in the 60s @ 5.4ghz stressing realbench. 5.3ghz only takes 1.285v to pass cinebench and avx loads take 1.32vs. 5.4ghz takes 1.355 to pass cinebench without errors, 1.395v is stable in everything at 5.4ghz. All voltages are bios set using -50% vdroop on z490 dark.
> 
> I think some 10900ks have inferior soldering because my temps at stock were horrible for a custom loop with a 480 rad and once I delidded and went direct die, i saw a 30c drop @ 5.3ghz. My 9900KS had decent stock temps and delidding and direct die cooling that cpu only netted a 13c drop running @ same voltage and frequency using the same cooling set up.


I was also interested in putting the processors in direct die, but rockitcool ships their products from the US, and to get to Europe you need to pay customs.

I don't understand how there is so much difference when you remove the IHS, and that the processors are soldered with a metal alloy.


----------



## Placekicker19

Robertomcat said:


> I was also interested in putting the processors in direct die, but rockitcool ships their products from the US, and to get to Europe you need to pay customs.
> 
> I don't understand how there is so much difference when you remove the IHS, and that the processors are soldered with a metal alloy.


Its because the quality solder intel uses isnt the best for heat transfer. Also if you get a chip that has a bad soldering job like my 10900k, your temps will drop even more. 
What are you temps @ 5.2ghz doing 3 b2b runs on r23? When you say your chip requires 1.4vs, do you mean set voltage or load voltage?


----------



## Robertomcat

Placekicker19 said:


> Its because the quality solder intel uses isnt the best for heat transfer. Also if you get a chip that has a bad soldering job like my 10900k, your temps will drop even more.
> What are you temps @ 5.2ghz doing 3 b2b runs on r23? When you say your chip requires 1.4vs, do you mean set voltage or load voltage?


I have set the voltage to manual, and it is at 1.395, LLC 6 so that I don't get internal CPU or L0 cache errors. I have the ring frequency set to 4.6. And the SVID section is set to "trained".

When the computer is at full load, the Vcore voltage is at 1.39. There are a lot of settings to tweak in the BIOS, but I'm no expert either.


----------



## Placekicker19

Robertomcat said:


> I have set the voltage to manual, and it is at 1.395, LLC 6 so that I don't get internal CPU or L0 cache errors. I have the ring frequency set to 4.6. And the SVID section is set to "trained".
> 
> When the computer is at full load, the Vcore voltage is at 1.39. There are a lot of settings to tweak in the BIOS, but I'm no expert either.


What motherboard and cooling setup are you using? What are your temps @ 5.2ghz? Keeping the 10900k below 80c really improves stability. Rockit cool sells on Amazon too. How much would customs charge on a item like that. The direct die frame is very small, light and could be mailed in a regular envelope.


----------



## Robertomcat

Placekicker19 said:


> What motherboard and cooling setup are you using? What are your temps @ 5.2ghz? Keeping the 10900k below 80c really improves stability. Rockit cool sells on Amazon too. How much would customs charge on a item like that. The direct die frame is very small, light and could be mailed in a regular envelope.


The motherboard is an Asus Rog Strix Z490-E Gaming, and the liquid cooling is customised with an EKWB block and two 420×45 radiators (to cool two processors). Temperatures are around 80° at full load, although if you do pass some stress tests, it goes a little over 80°. We do not carry rockitcool products on Amazon Spain.


----------



## Placekicker19

Robertomcat said:


> The motherboard is an Asus Rog Strix Z490-E Gaming, and the liquid cooling is customised with an EKWB block and two 420×45 radiators (to cool two processors). Temperatures are around 80° at full load, although if you do pass some stress tests, it goes a little over 80°. We do not carry rockitcool products on Amazon Spain.


So your actual die voltage is much lower than what its showing, you have very good cooling so direct die would work great, it works much better on custom loops. 
Another option is "Supercool Computers" sell a direct die cpu waterblock that actually mounts in the socket. Several users here have had great success using it. You have to send them a message on facebook and use paypal to purchase it. I' think they are located in Korea.


----------



## mki233

Placekicker19 said:


> Wow, great cpu you got there, one of the best I've seen. Where did you buy it? If you really want the most out of it, a delid and direct die kit from Rockit Cooling would be your best option. I purchased 3 10900k's and all had sp 63 quality. Two clocked horribly but one does decent with direct die and dedicated 480mm rad.


 I bought it from Newegg. And I didn't have any plans on delidding it. If they weren't soldered, then sure, I'd have done it in a heartbeat since I have the Delid Die-Mate 2 from delidding my 4770k a couple of years back. But I'm not risking this golden sample.


----------



## Imprezzion

Haha and I think the exact other way around. I don't really wanna risk my "bad" 10900KF as I won't gain anything from delidding except lower temps. This poor thing will never do 5.3 all core. 5.2 is all I'm ever going to get. Already run VCC Sense / VR VOut 1.364v for 5.2, imagine what 5.3 would need to be stable in AVX workloads.. probably well in excess of 1.42v.. not even a delid is going to cool that with a EK Supremacy block and a single 280 rad I imagine.

I wanna delid one, but only a good one that I know for sure will benefit clock wise from it. So I will probably need a chip with an SP of >100 to do that.


----------



## murenitu

I do not know how you can not contain it to 5.2 really I have mine with delid and ihs custom fullcooper with magnitude block and although to make 5.3 it needs 1.34 // 1.32 with LLC7 well you have my bios above!

Although if necessary I will publish the complete bios again, I can handle it even if it is hot over 80º in continuous runs of R20 or R23 and that cpu is literal ****, it has an sp of 80!


----------



## Imprezzion

I can handle it fine. I hit about 92-93c with AVX2 FMA3 Prime95 worst-case and in daily usage I have never seen it go above 68c in games or whatever.

Problem is, even if I save 20c with a ddirect die delid which is rather optimistic I still don't think I can keep 5.3 @ ~1.44v cool with just a 280 rad and a Supremacy block (especially using QDC fittings since it's basically a "EK Phoenix" kit).


----------



## murenitu

so you can evaluate, I am using RL system cpu + gpu + vrm

2 radiators 360x2 + 120x3
the 2 push / pull radiators of 360mm the one of 120mm only pull.


----------



## itssladenlol

mki233 said:


> Over this past Black Friday I updated my old Haswell system to a 10850k on the Maximus XII Hero. I went for the 10850k since it was over $200 cheaper than the 10900k at the time, and I figured there couldn't be that much difference between the two as far as overclocking ability was concerned. I was wrong. My 10850k had a SP of 57 and took 1.38v at LLC4 to hold 4.8 core/4.5 cache and wouldn't boot my 4000 cl15 memory at anything past 4400. But the other day I saw the 10900kf on sale for $499 so I bought one and it showed up today. And I have apparently struck gold on this one because it has an SP of 115. I'm convinced it can probably to 5.4 with my 360 AIO, but I don't the knowledge or experience to be able to do it. I've got a "quick and dirty" 5.3/5.0 that looks stable but hasn't been put through any rigorous testing yet. I would desperately like some advice on how to get the most out of this chip.
> 
> View attachment 2475821
> View attachment 2475822
> View attachment 2475823


What bios? 
Stock bios on maximus XII hero always shows SP115....
Update your bios and see the real SP. 
Mine shows SP115 also with Stock bios.


----------



## itssladenlol

Robertomcat said:


> I was also interested in putting the processors in direct die, but rockitcool ships their products from the US, and to get to Europe you need to pay customs.
> 
> I don't understand how there is so much difference when you remove the IHS, and that the processors are soldered with a metal alloy.


Im from Europe and it took 5 days for my rockit cool direct die Kit to arrive Here. 
Paid no customs.


----------



## Robertomcat

itssladenlol said:


> Im from Europe and it took 5 days for my rockit cool direct die Kit to arrive Here.
> Paid no customs.


Well, maybe it also depends on the countries and the type of tariffs that each one has, because the other day an Italian guy told me that he did have to pay tariffs. I also sent a message to Rockitcool, but they didn't answer me.


----------



## mki233

itssladenlol said:


> What bios?
> Stock bios on maximus XII hero always shows SP115....
> Update your bios and see the real SP.
> Mine shows SP115 also with Stock bios.


It's not stock. I updated the bios before I even installed Windows. It's either 0707 or 0804, but I believe it's 0804.

_Edit_ Correction: It is 0901.


----------



## Salve1412

Robertomcat said:


> Well, maybe it also depends on the countries and the type of tariffs that each one has, because the other day an Italian guy told me that he did have to pay tariffs. I also sent a message to Rockitcool, but they didn't answer me.


I think most of the time (certainly here in Italy) it's a matter of luck...sometimes the Customs ignores a parcel, sometimes randomly checks another one and applys custom tariffs to it.


----------



## Placekicker19

Imprezzion said:


> Haha and I think the exact other way around. I don't really wanna risk my "bad" 10900KF as I won't gain anything from delidding except lower temps. This poor thing will never do 5.3 all core. 5.2 is all I'm ever going to get. Already run VCC Sense / VR VOut 1.364v for 5.2, imagine what 5.3 would need to be stable in AVX workloads.. probably well in excess of 1.42v.. not even a delid is going to cool that with a EK Supremacy block and a single 280 rad I imagine.
> 
> I wanna delid one, but only a good one that I know for sure will benefit clock wise from it. So I will probably need a chip with an SP of >100 to do that.


If you delid and direct die your cpu will gain atleast 1 bin at the same voltage. It took me 1.385v to pass cinebench @ 5.3ghz and realbench was impossible. After delid and direct die Cinebench takes 1.28vs and 2 hour realbench takes 1.32 to pass. Delidding and direct die cooling made it feel like a completely different cpu, keeping temps below 75 greatly improves stability. I know its not for everyone, but i enjoy pushing the limits on both cpu&ram for daily performance.


----------



## Placekicker19

mki233 said:


> I bought it from Newegg. And I didn't have any plans on delidding it. If they weren't soldered, then sure, I'd have done it in a heartbeat since I have the Delid Die-Mate 2 from delidding my 4770k a couple of years back. But I'm not risking this golden sample.


I hear you man, your voltage and temps are already so low 5.4ghz should be possible. How much voltage does 5.3ghz /5 cache need to pass 30 minute of realbench and what are your max temps and powerdraw?


----------



## mki233

Placekicker19 said:


> I hear you man, your voltage and temps are already so low 5.4ghz should be possible. How much voltage does 5.3ghz /5 cache need to pass 30 minute of realbench and what are your max temps and powerdraw?


Well, I got a L0 error about 8 minutes in at 1.35v @ LLC6, and I have my VCCIO/SA both at 1.25 for my 2x8 4000 cl 15-16-16-36 with tuned secondary and tertiary timings, so I'm not sure where I should start. Should I raise IO/SA and see if that helps first? Drop to LLC5 and allow a bit more v-droop? Add 10-20mV of v-core and try again? Honestly speaking, I know just about enough to be dangerous so I'm open to suggestions.


----------



## Placekicker19

mki233 said:


> Well, I got a L0 error about 8 minutes in at 1.35v @ LLC6, and I have my VCCIO/SA both at 1.25 for my 2x8 4000 cl 15-16-16-36 with tuned secondary and tertiary timings, so I'm not sure where I should start. Should I raise IO/SA and see if that helps first? Drop to LLC5 and allow a bit more v-droop? Add 10-20mV of v-core and try again? Honestly speaking, I know just about enough to be dangerous so I'm open to suggestions.


L6 already has alot of droop on asus boards. What was your max temp during the test? If it took 8min to error you shouldn't need much more voltage, try adding 20mv and test again. You could also try lowering your cache to 48 or 49. One of my cpus had 20mv lower vid and it ran 5.2ghz fine but hit a wall there. I couldnt get r15 to pass without cache errors @ 5.3ghz and I tested up to 1.46vs.


----------



## munternet

mki233 said:


> Well, I got a L0 error about 8 minutes in at 1.35v @ LLC6, and I have my VCCIO/SA both at 1.25 for my 2x8 4000 cl 15-16-16-36 with tuned secondary and tertiary timings, so I'm not sure where I should start. Should I raise IO/SA and see if that helps first? Drop to LLC5 and allow a bit more v-droop? Add 10-20mV of v-core and try again? Honestly speaking, I know just about enough to be dangerous so I'm open to suggestions.


I ended up with LLC7 on the Apex 5.2GHz 1.32 vcore. Runs cooler stable than LLC6 for me


----------



## Robertomcat

munternet said:


> I ended up with LLC7 on the Apex 5.2GHz 1.32 vcore. Runs cooler stable than LLC6 for me


Can the use of LLC 7 be dangerous in the long term?


----------



## munternet

Robertomcat said:


> Can the use of LLC 7 be dangerous in the long term?


I'm not really pushing it and have been running at this for well over 6 months
Normal use with gaming etc it won't even see 75°c
I know of people that were using L8


----------



## Robertomcat

munternet said:


> I'm not really pushing it and have been running at this for well over 6 months
> I know of people that were using L8


I'm using LLC6, for fear of turning it up more, but maybe I'll also put it on LLC7 and try to lower the voltage a bit. Thank you.


----------



## mki233

Okay, so I just got through running the test again, and it passed with no errors this time. But I'm not sure if it's because I bumped VCCIO and SA to 1.3V after remembering I had to have at 1.35V on the 10850k's worse IMC, or if it's because I was a good boy this time and remembered to disconnect from the internet and shut down all the extraneous background tasks before starting the test. Attached are the results. Max temp was 85C according to HWiNFO, 87C by Realbench. Power draw was 225W/229W package/core. Max VID was 1.318, but that was only on core 9, the rest were 1.314. I'm thinking 5.4 might not be outside the realms of possibility for gaming, which is what this is for, but I'm not sure.


----------



## Placekicker19

Robertomcat said:


> I'm using LLC6, for fear of turning it up more, but maybe I'll also put it on LLC7 and try to lower the voltage a bit. Thank you.


Higher LLC works much better on z490 then it did on z390. Z490 has much better voltage regulation.


----------



## Robertomcat

mki233 said:


> Okay, so I just got through running the test again, and it passed with no errors this time. But I'm not sure if it's because I bumped VCCIO and SA to 1.3V after remembering I had to have at 1.35V on the 10850k's worse IMC, or if it's because I was a good boy this time and remembered to disconnect from the internet and shut down all the extraneous background tasks before starting the test. Attached are the results. Max temp was 85C according to HWiNFO, 87C by Realbench. Power draw was 225W/229W package/core. Max VID was 1.318, but that was only on core 9, the rest were 1.314. I'm thinking 5.4 might not be outside the realms of possibility for gaming, which is what this is for, but I'm not sure.
> View attachment 2476110
> View attachment 2476111


It is evident that you do not have an SP63 



Placekicker19 said:


> Higher LLC works much better on z490 then it did on z390. Z490 has much better voltage regulation.


I'll give it a try then, and lower the voltage a bit. Thank you.


----------



## Placekicker19

mki233 said:


> Okay, so I just got through running the test again, and it passed with no errors this time. But I'm not sure if it's because I bumped VCCIO and SA to 1.3V after remembering I had to have at 1.35V on the 10850k's worse IMC, or if it's because I was a good boy this time and remembered to disconnect from the internet and shut down all the extraneous background tasks before starting the test. Attached are the results. Max temp was 85C according to HWiNFO, 87C by Realbench. Power draw was 225W/229W package/core. Max VID was 1.318, but that was only on core 9, the rest were 1.314. I'm thinking 5.4 might not be outside the realms of possibility for gaming, which is what this is for, but I'm not sure.
> View attachment 2476110
> View attachment 2476111


Maybe you needed alittle higher sa and io voltage to stabilize the 5ghz cache. Its hard getting a high cache clock with such a low vcore. That's a awesome chip though with a very low load voltage for 5.3ghz. 

When running realbench I'll keep hwinfo open and use google just to put alittle more load on the cpu. If having some programs opened caused your crashing, it means your overclock is on the edge of stability.

Running cinebench @5.5 with only hwinfo open gives me no cache errors, however if i have Google and a few other programs open ill get errors.


----------



## murenitu

Placekicker19 said:


> Maybe you needed alittle higher sa and io voltage to stabilize the 5ghz cache. Its hard getting a high cache clock with such a low vcore. That's a awesome chip though with a very low load voltage for 5.3ghz.
> 
> When running realbench I'll keep hwinfo open and use google just to put alittle more load on the cpu. If having some programs opened caused your crashing, it means your overclock is on the edge of stability.
> 
> Running cinebench @5.5 with only hwinfo open gives me no cache errors, however if i have Google and a few other programs open ill get errors.


I'm sorry to say, that this is far from stability, normally as almost all of you already know, passing a test or several tests without doing or having any process underneath is almost always a symbol of instability and not always "of little" the real world of testing it's really playing games, when avx loads are applied with normals continuously and those transitions are the ones to tame.

This is sometimes very far from the reality even margins of 0.030v or more ...


----------



## Placekicker19

murenitu said:


> I'm sorry to say, that this is far from stability, normally as almost all of you already know, passing a test or several tests without doing or having any process underneath is almost always a symbol of instability and not always "of little" the real world of testing it's really playing games, when avx loads are applied with normals continuously and those transitions are the ones to tame.
> 
> This is sometimes very far from the reality even margins of 0.030v or more ...


I was never claiming my 5.5ghz was stable, i was giving a example about being on the edge of stability, and how having more programs open will cause errors when your on that edge. mki233 had a cache error 8 min into realbench, but he had other programs running during the test. He retested but added more sa and io voltage but closed all programs and passed 30min realbench. I was telling him hes either on the edge of stability or adding more sa and io solved his error. 

I personally do 8 hours of realbench, tm5 extreme anta 777 and hci memtest 1000% coverage, along with gaming, for my stability testing and its served me well.


----------



## Imprezzion

Thanks to placekicker I noticed something strange with VCC Sense and Socket Sense on my Z490 Ace + 10900KF combo. 

Settings: 
5.2Ghz all-core Dynamic frequency
4.9Ghz cache
Adaptive + Offset voltage
VCC Sense - 0.170v
Socket Sense -0.130v

Testing worst-case load Prime95 28.9 Small FFT with AVX on and off.

Readouts for minimum stable voltages for a 30 minute run. vCore is the same value for all tests in BIOS, CPU-Z and HWINFO64.

VCC Sense:

AVX On: 1.364v, 95c.
AVX Off: 1.334v, 84c.

Socket Sense: 

AVX On: 1.416v, 86c.
AVX Off: 1.364v 77c.

So, socket sense required a way way higher voltage but stays considerably cooler up to 11c with higher voltage, same voltage is over 15c cooler. Power draw is identical, 335-340w according to HWINFO64.

I went as high as 1.465v socket sense for 5.3, clock watchdog bsod within minutes of Prime95 AVX, non AVX is stable. Still well under 95c even at that high of a voltage.

Anyone got some insight into this maybe?


----------



## Robertomcat

Hello, good evening.

Well just now I was testing the configuration on LLC7 (which is the maximum that has my motherboard) and gives a power surge to the processor, I had to lower the voltage from 1.4 to 1.37 (At full load passing the cinebench voltage rises to 1.42). I didn't expect there to be such a difference from having it on LLC6 to LLC7. The motherboard is a Rog Strix Z490-E Gaming and 10900KF.

I don't know if it's a good configuration to keep it on LLC7, but for the moment I like it because I've had to reduce the voltage, and in less heavy tasks the temperature difference is noticeable. Problem? It's a PC that is running 24/7, but not always working.

And a question. How should I leave the SVID configuration? Sometimes I've tried it in trained, but right now it's in automatic.


----------



## Placekicker19

Imprezzion said:


> Thanks to placekicker I noticed something strange with VCC Sense and Socket Sense on my Z490 Ace + 10900KF combo.
> 
> Settings:
> 5.2Ghz all-core Dynamic frequency
> 4.9Ghz cache
> Adaptive + Offset voltage
> VCC Sense - 0.170v
> Socket Sense -0.130v
> 
> Testing worst-case load Prime95 28.9 Small FFT with AVX on and off.
> 
> Readouts for minimum stable voltages for a 30 minute run. vCore is the same value for all tests in BIOS, CPU-Z and HWINFO64.
> 
> VCC Sense:
> 
> AVX On: 1.364v, 95c.
> AVX Off: 1.334v, 84c.
> 
> Socket Sense:
> 
> AVX On: 1.416v, 86c.
> AVX Off: 1.364v 77c.
> 
> So, socket sense required a way way higher voltage but stays considerably cooler up to 11c with higher voltage, same voltage is over 15c cooler. Power draw is identical, 335-340w according to HWINFO64.
> 
> I went as high as 1.465v socket sense for 5.3, clock watchdog bsod within minutes of Prime95 AVX, non AVX is stable. Still well under 95c even at that high of a voltage.
> 
> Anyone got some insight into this maybe?


Whats so strange is how much cooler temps are at the same power draw. 

Socket sense reads voltages feomnthe socket and vcc reads from the die right? So voltages will read higher when using socket sense


----------



## Imprezzion

Does the Ace have readout points on it for a DMM? I can't seem to find any info on it and my case is pretty packed so it's not easy to visually check lol.

I've been gaming on Socket Sense 1.416v for a bit yesterday and also in gaming the temps are much lower and it's stable.. usually in Division 2 for example it would hit 66-68c across the cores with 1.364v VCC Sense but it only hit 59c across the cores on Socket Sense 1.416v..

Another positive thing, with my CPU on Dynamic ratio and C-States + EIST enabled on VCC Sense it would often lock up when going from a load to idle as the response wasn't fast enough and with a negative offset of -0.170 the idle voltages would be too low to be stable. At Socket Sense I have not had any idle crashes at all and also going from loads back to idle seems to work just fine even at 800Mhz with C-States and EIST enabled..


----------



## sabishiihito

Imprezzion said:


> Does the Ace have readout points on it for a DMM? I can't seem to find any info on it and my case is pretty packed so it's not easy to visually check lol.


Four voltage check points just above the 24-pin ATX connector (from TweakTown).


----------



## Imprezzion

Well, that's going to be tight but I should be able to make enough room between the ARGB and fan wires to fit my DMM probes in there. I'll try to measure some stuff.


----------



## Placekicker19

Imprezzion said:


> Does the Ace have readout points on it for a DMM? I can't seem to find any info on it and my case is pretty packed so it's not easy to visually check lol.
> 
> I've been gaming on Socket Sense 1.416v for a bit yesterday and also in gaming the temps are much lower and it's stable.. usually in Division 2 for example it would hit 66-68c across the cores with 1.364v VCC Sense but it only hit 59c across the cores on Socket Sense 1.416v..
> 
> Another positive thing, with my CPU on Dynamic ratio and C-States + EIST enabled on VCC Sense it would often lock up when going from a load to idle as the response wasn't fast enough and with a negative offset of -0.170 the idle voltages would be too low to be stable. At Socket Sense I have not had any idle crashes at all and also going from loads back to idle seems to work just fine even at 800Mhz with C-States and EIST enabled..


So do you feel like socket sense is any more stable than vcc sense? Have you test different loadline to see how it behaves? I do know when using socket sense your actual die voltage is much lower than whats reported. On the z490 dark with socket sense using -25% vdroop, reported voltage is is about 70mv higher than actual die voltage.


----------



## Imprezzion

Placekicker19 said:


> So do you feel like socket sense is any more stable than vcc sense? Have you test different loadline to see how it behaves? I do know when using socket sense your actual die voltage is much lower than whats reported. On the z490 dark with socket sense using -25% vdroop, reported voltage is is about 70mv higher than actual die voltage.


Had some weird light load crashes in games on socket sense. I decided to get the DMM out. It's only 2 decimals not 3 but yeah.. still gives some insights.

LLC3, mode 1 for the AC/DC Lite Load @ 5.2Ghz all-core 4.9Ghz cache used for the test.

VCC Sense setpoint 1.34v (-0.170)
Idle BIOS: 1.332v
Actual DMM: 1.30-1.31v

Load Prime95 AVX FMA3 small fft.
HWINFO64: 1.364-1.387v
Actual DMM: 1.36-1.37v

Load Prime95 AVX OFF Small fft.
HWINFO64: 1.334v
Actual DMM: 1.31v.

Load booting Windows from BIOS and loading the world in Division 2:
Actual DMM average: 1.31-1.35v with spikes to 1.36v.

Socket Sense setpoint: 1.39v (-0.120)
Idle BIOS: 1.370v
Actual DMM: 1.33-1.34v

Load Prime95 AVX FMA3 small fft.
HWINFO64: 1.411-1.414v
Actual DMM: 1.30v

Load Prime95 AVX OFF Small fft.
HWINFO64: 1.380-1.392v
Actual DMM: 1.28-1.29v.

Load booting Windows from BIOS and loading the world in Division 2:
Actual DMM average: 1.34-1.36v with spikes to 1.39v.

So yeah, it's a full 0.11v under what it reads out under load on socket sense and VCC Sense is pretty accurate in the worst cases. 

Which is why it's both cooler and not stable under certain loads but under others it's the opposite. 

The whole regulation completely changes even with identical VRM settings, same LLC, same lite load, same transient response frequency, vdrop on Socket Sense is about 0.03-4v DOWN while with VCC Sense it goes 0.03-4v UP in some loads but in others they behave about the same with the exception of a toooootally different set point. So it does completely change the regulation of the core voltage.

Mind you, this does not apply to IO, DRAM and SA voltages which remained the exact same every test. 1.40v SA 1.42v DMM 1.35v IO 1.33v DMM. 1.52v DRAM 1.52v DMM. These are all consistent and accurate with what te BIOS and HWINFO64 reports them to be.


----------



## acoustic

I picked up a RockitCool Direct-die kit. Going to strap it up to my EVGA 360mm CLC. I've been running 5.1/4.8 stable at 1.26v under load (Realbench), lots of gaming, and Cinebench loops.

With the direct-die, I'll be more comfortable pumping the voltage up and shoot for 5.2/4.9, or 5.3/5.0. I don't know what kind of voltage it will take for 5.3, but 5.2 should be fine around 1.31v under load, I'm assuming. I hit 78-84c on the cores with Realbench at my current 5.1 setting, so should see a nice drop in temps. I'm going to use KingpinX for TIM on the die, as I'm just not a fan of liquid metal, and I also don't feel like sanding down the coldplate on my EVGA CLC. If I had a custom loop and waterblock, then yeah I'd probably do it.

We'll see how it goes. I've been very impressed with the platform overall and I've never bothered with direct-die, but I think this will be fun


----------



## munternet

acoustic said:


> I picked up a RockitCool Direct-die kit. Going to strap it up to my EVGA 360mm CLC. I've been running 5.1/4.8 stable at 1.26v under load (Realbench), lots of gaming, and Cinebench loops.
> 
> With the direct-die, I'll be more comfortable pumping the voltage up and shoot for 5.2/4.9, or 5.3/5.0. I don't know what kind of voltage it will take for 5.3, but 5.2 should be fine around 1.31v under load, I'm assuming. I hit 78-84c on the cores with Realbench at my current 5.1 setting, so should see a nice drop in temps. I'm going to use KingpinX for TIM on the die, as I'm just not a fan of liquid metal, and I also don't feel like sanding down the coldplate on my EVGA CLC. If I had a custom loop and waterblock, then yeah I'd probably do it.
> 
> We'll see how it goes. I've been very impressed with the platform overall and I've never bothered with direct-die, but I think this will be fun


What CPU?


----------



## acoustic

10900K


----------



## Vld

10900K + direct die + EKWB Delta TEC

Has anyone tried this combination, will it work ? Or better to use die - LM - cooper IHS - LM - plate of waterblock ?


----------



## Placekicker19

acoustic said:


> I picked up a RockitCool Direct-die kit. Going to strap it up to my EVGA 360mm CLC. I've been running 5.1/4.8 stable at 1.26v under load (Realbench), lots of gaming, and Cinebench loops.
> 
> With the direct-die, I'll be more comfortable pumping the voltage up and shoot for 5.2/4.9, or 5.3/5.0. I don't know what kind of voltage it will take for 5.3, but 5.2 should be fine around 1.31v under load, I'm assuming. I hit 78-84c on the cores with Realbench at my current 5.1 setting, so should see a nice drop in temps. I'm going to use KingpinX for TIM on the die, as I'm just not a fan of liquid metal, and I also don't feel like sanding down the coldplate on my EVGA CLC. If I had a custom loop and waterblock, then yeah I'd probably do it.
> 
> We'll see how it goes. I've been very impressed with the platform overall and I've never bothered with direct-die, but I think this will be fun


I tested a normal delidded 10900k with thermal paste on the die and temps were much worse than the stock solder. Maybe it will work a bit better with direct die but normally when you delid a soldered cpu, you have to use liquid metal to see any improvement. Solder is better than thermal paste and liquid metal is better than both.

I'm curious of your results, and if thermal paste shows any benefit with direct die over stock in temps.


----------



## acoustic

Placekicker19 said:


> I tested a normal delidded 10900k with thermal paste on the die and temps were much worse than the stock solder. Maybe it will work a bit better with direct die but normally when you delid a soldered cpu, you have to use liquid metal to see any improvement. Solder is better than thermal paste and liquid metal is better than both.
> 
> I'm curious of your results, and if thermal paste shows any benefit with direct die over stock in temps.


I seen some people doing it with KPx and having some good results. If it doesn't work well, I have some Conductonaut and I'll go LM, but I'd prefer not to.


----------



## Imprezzion

Imprezzion said:


> Had some weird light load crashes in games on socket sense. I decided to get the DMM out. It's only 2 decimals not 3 but yeah.. still gives some insights.
> 
> LLC3, mode 1 for the AC/DC Lite Load @ 5.2Ghz all-core 4.9Ghz cache used for the test.
> 
> VCC Sense setpoint 1.34v (-0.170)
> Idle BIOS: 1.332v
> Actual DMM: 1.30-1.31v
> 
> Load Prime95 AVX FMA3 small fft.
> HWINFO64: 1.364-1.387v
> Actual DMM: 1.36-1.37v
> 
> Load Prime95 AVX OFF Small fft.
> HWINFO64: 1.334v
> Actual DMM: 1.31v.
> 
> Load booting Windows from BIOS and loading the world in Division 2:
> Actual DMM average: 1.31-1.35v with spikes to 1.36v.
> 
> Socket Sense setpoint: 1.39v (-0.120)
> Idle BIOS: 1.370v
> Actual DMM: 1.33-1.34v
> 
> Load Prime95 AVX FMA3 small fft.
> HWINFO64: 1.411-1.414v
> Actual DMM: 1.30v
> 
> Load Prime95 AVX OFF Small fft.
> HWINFO64: 1.380-1.392v
> Actual DMM: 1.28-1.29v.
> 
> Load booting Windows from BIOS and loading the world in Division 2:
> Actual DMM average: 1.34-1.36v with spikes to 1.39v.
> 
> So yeah, it's a full 0.11v under what it reads out under load on socket sense and VCC Sense is pretty accurate in the worst cases.
> 
> Which is why it's both cooler and not stable under certain loads but under others it's the opposite.
> 
> The whole regulation completely changes even with identical VRM settings, same LLC, same lite load, same transient response frequency, vdrop on Socket Sense is about 0.03-4v DOWN while with VCC Sense it goes 0.03-4v UP in some loads but in others they behave about the same with the exception of a toooootally different set point. So it does completely change the regulation of the core voltage.
> 
> Mind you, this does not apply to IO, DRAM and SA voltages which remained the exact same every test. 1.40v SA 1.42v DMM 1.35v IO 1.33v DMM. 1.52v DRAM 1.52v DMM. These are all consistent and accurate with what te BIOS and HWINFO64 reports them to be.


Ok so, gaming the whole evening with the DMM hooked up means that it does require the same actual load voltage to be stable no matter if I use VCC or Socket Sense. It displays a different voltage and load behavior is different with one showing a rise in load voltage with heavier loads and one showing a drop in load voltage under heavier loads this being inherently more unstable and needing a higher starting voltage. 

Is one better then the other, no not really.

VCC Sense is way more accurate being almost spot on in idle on the DMM but it has a lot of voltage climb under load even at LLC3 that the voltage in HWINFO64 doesn't tell you. It gets far hotter under AVX loads then it has to be as voltage rises further then necessary. 

Socket Sense on the other hand has way tighter regulation but it also needs at least a full 0.1v more voltage displayed. So, 1.31v actual needs 1.411v in BIOS / HWINFO64. It's got a flatter response but is harder to get stable because without a DMM you can't really see software wise what the voltage is doing.


----------



## Placekicker19

Vld said:


> 10900K + direct die + EKWB Delta TEC
> 
> U hi&;u\​





Imprezzion said:


> Ok so, gaming the whole evening with the DMM hooked up means that it does require the same actual load voltage to be stable no matter if I use VCC or Socket Sense. It displays a different voltage and load behavior is different with one showing a rise in load voltage with heavier loads and one showing a drop in load voltage under heavier loads this being inherently more unstable and needing a higher starting voltage.
> 
> Is one better then the other, no not really.
> 
> VCC Sense is way more accurate being almost spot on in idle on the DMM but it has a lot of voltage climb under load even at LLC3 that the voltage in HWINFO64 doesn't tell you. It gets far hotter under AVX loads then it has to be as voltage rises further then necessary.
> 
> Socket Sense on the other hand has way tighter regulation but it also needs at least a full 0.1v more voltage displayed. So, 1.31v actual needs 1.411v in BIOS / HWINFO64. It's got a flatter response but is harder to get stable because without a DMM you can't really see software wise what the voltage is doing.


I guess the overshoot with vcc sense is why buildzoid said socket sense has better voltage regulation. I wonder if other boards that have both vcc and socket votlage readouts experience the same irregularities, the msi board is experiencing when switching between voltage read points.

Even though vcc overshoots more, the overshoot still isnt that bad. I remember some of z390 boards had terrible overshoot. Z490 voltage regulation has greatly improved.


----------



## sabishiihito

Micro Center started selling 10900KF chips out of the blue. I tried two, one got SP 81, the 2nd got 59


----------



## Placekicker19

sabishiihito said:


> Micro Center started selling 10900KF chips out of the blue. I tried two, one got SP 81, the 2nd got 59


My buddy just got a chip from amazon and i helped him set it up. Its the worst 10900k ive ever tested/seen. I couldnt even pass R15 @ 5.2ghz with 1.4vs with -50% droop. It wouldnt even make it half way through the bench. This is on a custom loop, tested on a z490 dark kingpin . Definitely one of them sp 50's chips. 

It seems Intel has lowered their binning quality even further on the 10900ks. Its not even my chip and even I felt disappointed.


----------



## asdkj1740

i cant lock my cpu to 5.1ghz...even i set 51x in bios, it will still drop to 4.8ghz from time to time...


----------



## Imprezzion

asdkj1740 said:


> i cant lock my cpu to 5.1ghz...even i set 51x in bios, it will still drop to 4.8ghz from time to time...


Did you set the short and long duration power and current limits higher / maxed out?


----------



## asdkj1740

Imprezzion said:


> Did you set the short and long duration power and current limits higher / maxed out?


it happens even at idle so i don think it is related to those power limits.

turns out it is the avx offset... i have no idea what triggered the avx offset even at idle and prime 95 non avx test...so strange.. the cpu frequceny fluctuates back and forth between 4.8ghz and 5.1ghz when i set "3" as avx offest in bios.
gigabyte new f20a beta bios...

my cpu even runs into ~115c in prime95 4.8ghz avx at the voltage i use for 5.1g 24/7 daily (non avx)...


----------



## GeneO

asdkj1740 said:


> it happens even at idle so i don think it is related to those power limits.
> 
> turns out it is the avx offset... i have no idea what triggered the avx offset even at idle and prime 95 non avx test...so strange.. the cpu frequceny fluctuates back and forth between 4.8ghz and 5.1ghz when i set "3" as avx offest in bios.
> gigabyte new f20a beta bios...
> 
> my cpu even runs into ~115c in prime95 4.8ghz avx at the voltage i use for 5.1g 24/7 daily (non avx)...


Well your processor is rarely, if ever, totally idle with the OS and programs running tasks in the background. The operating system uses AVX instructions which trigger the offset.
IMO, AVX offset is pretty useless and becomes more and more useless over time because of this.


----------



## unclewebb

Delete


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Why new CPU-Z wrong reads Vcore in ASUS motherboards?


----------



## GeneO

A software bug? 1.94.0 works correctly.


----------



## Yachtie2020

Hi All

I have finished building my 10900k.

Gigabyte Master z490
10900k
GSKill 64gb 16-16-16-36-1.35
CoolerMaster AIO 360

5.1Ghz
LLC: Turbo
O/C: Fixed
Vcore Bios: 1.29
VR Out: 1.240
VCCIO: 1.25
VCCSA: 1.30
avx offset 0
Temps: 85 with prime95 with no avx, small. (I want stable system regardless load)
Most efficiency stuff and voltage optimization etc turned off.

I can push it to 5.2, but will need to delid due to heat or do less stressful test, so I lost silicon lottery.

To get to some ball park starting figures for 5 minutes in prime I did these tests:
Vcore Bios LLC VR Out Status
1.350 Medium 1.230 Pass (VR Out Idle 1.340V)
1.340 Medium 1.222 Fail
1.330 High 1.230 Fail
1.270 Turbo 1.220 Fail
1.280 Turbo 1.228 Pass





I have seen the video with oscilloscope and recommendation not to go above medium, but the sag is pretty bad, I have had no issues with Turbo so far. I am after 24/7 machine that will last, so I didn't want to push voltage at idle on VR Out above 1.350. I know there is many recommendations saying no more than 1.4 is ok, but I do not know if this is VR Out or VCore sensor or Vcore Bios.

Questions:
1: If anyone has any suggestions, let me know, but I think I have hit a wall.
2: Has anyone used Adaptive or Override? The video above loves override, but there where some spikes not mentioned in the video, mentioned in comments.
3: I see many comments around LLC: 6 etc, does this imply that many are using Asus? is this more popular?
4: I am thinking about delidding and using Conductonaut based on reviews. I rather a system I don't have to touch much, hence Conductonaut as it seems it does not need reapplying every few years (unless you care about say 1-2c). Is there anything I have missed?

Cheers


----------



## bei fei

Just picked up a new chip. Is this a good SP?


----------



## murenitu

bei fei said:


> Just picked up a new chip. Is this a good SP?
> View attachment 2477623


very good! congratulations


----------



## Nizzen

bei fei said:


> Just picked up a new chip. Is this a good SP?
> View attachment 2477623


It isn't any good before you show us some benchmarking results 

My delidded SP 87 ran Cinebench r20 @ 5600mhz with 1.42v load voltage on Apex. Your better do 5600mhz with 1.3v


----------



## murenitu

Please I think that we should be more conservative a new micro that does not know how it behaves to do 5.6 as by mistake it occurs to him to have it in automatic or all the cores, there may be a risk of breakage ...

First of all everything from stock ... see VID ... voltages, then a soft all cores ... like 5.0 or 5.1 ... and see how it behaves automatically.


----------



## bei fei

I did some quick testing before I delid. 5.0 @ 1.15 prime95 for about 1hr. The highest core temp was 85 on a single 200mm Radiator with my 2080 in the same loop.

Tried to boot 5.6 @ 1.4 but it was unstable in windows. I didn't want to push it to hard considering I am using an Asus z490i. 

My other board is a Asus z490-e better VRM than the ITX, but no Apex.



murenitu said:


> First of all everything from stock ... see VID ... voltages, then a soft all cores ... like 5.0 or 5.1 ... and see how it behaves automatically.


Gonna see what it does before I shut down for delid and copper IHS instal.


----------



## Imprezzion

I got my Rockitcool Delid + direct die kit and 5 packs of Coollaboratory Liquid Ultra on it's way for my 10900KF but I might just decide to also buy a second CPU. This one is half decent but nothing special. 5.2Ghz all core 4.9Ghz cache AVX0 Prime95 AVX stable at 1.344v. Temps around 95c so yeah, that's why it needs a Delid.

It's stock VID and voltage needed for 5.0 indicated this should be around SP63 so. I just build a system for a friend with the same board as mine and a new 10900KF, it's also terrible. Stock VID was 1.300.. that's even higher then mine lol.


----------



## bei fei

Here is the VID table.

5.3 auto vCore is 1.4v
5.0 auto vCore is 1.2v


----------



## murenitu

[QUOTE = "murenitu, publicación: 28735386, miembro: 479267"]
Por favor creo que deberíamos ser más conservadores un micro nuevo que no sabe como se comporta hacer 5.6 ya que por error se le ocurre tenerlo en automático o todos los núcleos, puede haber riesgo de rotura ...

Primero que nada todo de stock ... ver VID ... voltajes, luego un soft all cores ... como 5.0 o 5.1 ... y ver cómo se comporta automáticamente.
[/CITAR]


bei fei said:


> Here is the VID table.
> 
> 5.3 auto vCore is 1.4v
> 5.0 auto vCore is 1.2v
> 
> View attachment 2477735


it's very good, to do 5.3 I need 1.4 and a bit !! so squeeze you have margin!

Although my mic is a bit weird because it has sp80 but I can do 5.3 all cores with reasonable thermals, thanks to the delid and the ihs!

I also thought about changing it for another 10900k and be lucky ... but seeing the 11900k it is very possible that I will change for that


----------



## sabishiihito

bei fei said:


> Here is the VID table.
> 
> 5.3 auto vCore is 1.4v
> 5.0 auto vCore is 1.2v
> 
> View attachment 2477735


Two questions.
1. WHERE DID YOU BUY THAT CHIP?!
2. What's the batch #?


----------



## bei fei

Fresh Delid and new copper IHS
5.1 now needs 1.15 under load. Tried to boot 5.6 with auto voltage it made it into windows and BSOD.
Prime 95 temps are no greater than 65c after 30 minutes.
I haven't tested the IMC yet. Hopefully my memory can keep up. Did 3800 C14 on Z390. I couldn't get any higher due to a BIOs bug on my Asrock board.










sabishiihito said:


> Two questions.
> 1. WHERE DID YOU BUY THAT CHIP?!
> 2. What's the batch #?


Microcenter DFW
V041F479


----------



## Placekicker19

Imprezzion said:


> I got my Rockitcool Delid + direct die kit and 5 packs of Coollaboratory Liquid Ultra on it's way for my 10900KF but I might just decide to also buy a second CPU. This one is half decent but nothing special. 5.2Ghz all core 4.9Ghz cache AVX0 Prime95 AVX stable at 1.344v. Temps around 95c so yeah, that's why it needs a Delid.
> 
> It's stock VID and voltage needed for 5.0 indicated this should be around SP63 so. I just build a system for a friend with the same board as mine and a new 10900KF, it's also terrible. Stock VID was 1.300.. that's even higher then mine lol.


Can you pass r15 without cpu cache errors @ 5.3ghz on ur current 10900kf, if so how much voltage does it take? I have tested 2 newer 10900ks and they were both terrible. One couldn't pass r15 @ 5.2ghz without errors with 1.4vs (1.36 actual). The other cpu was barely any better. It seems like its alot harder now to get a decent bin.


----------



## acoustic

bei fei said:


> Fresh Delid and new copper IHS
> 5.1 now needs 1.15 under load. Tried to boot 5.6 with auto voltage it made it into windows and BSOD.
> Prime 95 temps are no greater than 65c after 30 minutes.
> I haven't tested the IMC yet. Hopefully my memory can keep up. Did 3800 C14 on Z390. I couldn't get any higher due to a BIOs bug on my Asrock board.
> View attachment 2477831
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Microcenter DFW
> V041F479



5.1 @ 1.15v under load? What the **** ..


----------



## bigfootnz

bei fei said:


> Fresh Delid and new copper IHS
> 5.1 now needs 1.15 under load. Tried to boot 5.6 with auto voltage it made it into windows and BSOD.
> Prime 95 temps are no greater than 65c after 30 minutes.
> I haven't tested the IMC yet. Hopefully my memory can keep up. Did 3800 C14 on Z390. I couldn't get any higher due to a BIOs bug on my Asrock board.
> View attachment 2477831
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Microcenter DFW
> V041F479


I think that your CPU should do better as it is SP 116 and delidded. Mine SP 86 can done 5.1 as 1.15v load Prime95 nonAVX with max temp of 66C and it is not delidded. Or your CPU is similar like lower SP CPU on lower frequencies but it will shine on higher frequencies.


----------



## Imprezzion

Placekicker19 said:


> Can you pass r15 without cpu cache errors @ 5.3ghz on ur current 10900kf, if so how much voltage does it take? I have tested 2 newer 10900ks and they were both terrible. One couldn't pass r15 @ 5.2ghz without errors with 1.4vs (1.36 actual). The other cpu was barely any better. It seems like its alot harder now to get a decent bin.


Yeah I can around 1.48v VCC Sense (1.43-1.44v actual) for 5.3Ghz. Temps in the mid 90's tho.. can't even touch Prime95 or it'll throttle over 105c. I tested it with realbench and some gaming and it doesn't WHEA error or crash but temps are so high I can't run it 24/7 so that's why I'm going direct die. Even 5.2 @ 1.41v (actual 1.35-1.36v) is pushing it a lot with AVX Prime going to 95-98c and some games pushing well over 70c which I don't like as it's winter and ambient in the summer can get way way higher even with my A/C.

That whole socket sense we talked about is nice but there's a reason it stayed cooler, it also is impossible to stabilize for some reason. I have been having so many weird crashes and BSOD's even that I gave up on it and went back to VCC Sense cause at least there I can trust that it's solid.


----------



## Placekicker19

Imprezzion said:


> Yeah I can around 1.48v VCC Sense (1.43-1.44v actual) for 5.3Ghz. Temps in the mid 90's tho.. can't even touch Prime95 or it'll throttle over 105c. I tested it with realbench and some gaming and it doesn't WHEA error or crash but temps are so high I can't run it 24/7 so that's why I'm going direct die. Even 5.2 @ 1.41v (actual 1.35-1.36v) is pushing it a lot with AVX Prime going to 95-98c and some games pushing well over 70c which I don't like as it's winter and ambient in the summer can get way way higher even with my A/C.
> 
> That whole socket sense we talked about is nice but there's a reason it stayed cooler, it also is impossible to stabilize for some reason. I have been having so many weird crashes and BSOD's even that I gave up on it and went back to VCC Sense cause at least there I can trust that it's solid.


Once temps get over 80 the chip requires alot more vcore to get stable. Before my delid i needed 1.325 volts to pass realbench @ 5.2ghz, now i can I pass realbench @ 5.3ghz with same voltage, and I see good scaling to 5.4ghz since temps remain below 70. My chip was really hot, some chips have inferior soldering. If you get those temps down you will see a great improvement. Make sure you get some thru bolts to mount your waterblock, that way the block makes proper contact with the die. The ek standoffs were to high for me.


----------



## Imprezzion

Placekicker19 said:


> Once temps get over 80 the chip requires alot more vcore to get stable. Before my delid i needed 1.325 volts to pass realbench @ 5.2ghz, now i can I pass realbench @ 5.3ghz with same voltage, and I see good scaling to 5.4ghz since temps remain below 70. My chip was really hot, some chips have inferior soldering. If you get those temps down you will see a great improvement. Make sure you get some thru bolts to mount your waterblock, that way the block makes proper contact with the die. The ek standoffs were to high for me.


My standoffs are already ground down for direct die with stronger springs under the screws. I used to have this block on a direct die 7700K before. So, as long as the die isn't much lower then a 7700K die I should be fine.

Package is going to take long to get here, we're kinda snowed in lol.


----------



## Placekicker19

Imprezzion said:


> My standoffs are already ground down for direct die with stronger springs under the screws. I used to have this block on a direct d7 ie 7700K before. So, as long as the die isn't much lower then a 7700K die I should be fine.
> 
> Package is going to take long to get here, we're kinda snowed in lol.


Yeah my EK standoffs worked fine with the 9900k direct die but since the 10900k die isn't as thick they were just a tad to high.

Yeah my last rockit cool order took a while to get.

Microcenter has the 10900kf for 399.99, awesome price, to bad its in store only.


----------



## Imprezzion

If I buy a second CPU for binning it will be a normal K or K Avengers. Not a F. Too much bad luck with those.

Mates new KF is also horrible. It cannot run 5.1ghz all core under 1.36v which gets way too hot so we're stuck on turbo offsetting all core to 5Ghz 1.27v just to make it run 4.7Ghz cache.

Memory controllers a tank weirdly enough. 4400C17 2x16GB DR B-Die stable at only 1.25v SA 1.20v IO.


----------



## murenitu

that memory controller is incredible I can't go beyond 4000 cl17 32gb in 4 sticks!


----------



## Imprezzion

Yeah it's just a shame his cores are so bad. Stock VID at 5Ghz was 1.30....

Mines kinda the middle ground. Memory controller handles 4533 DR 2x16GB but only at 1.40v SA 1.35v IO but at least I can do 5.2 all core.

My Delid tool + direct die frame should be here Wednesday according to the tracking code as will my CLU.


----------



## Placekicker19

Imprezzion said:


> If I buy a second CPU for binning it will be a normal K or K Avengers. Not a F. Too much bad luck with those.
> 
> Mates new KF is also horrible. It cannot run 5.1ghz all core under 1.36v which gets way too hot so we're stuck on turbo offsetting all core to 5Ghz 1.27v just to make it run 4.7Ghz cache.
> 
> Memory controllers a tank weirdly enough. 4400C17 2x16GB DR B-Die stable at only 1.25v SA 1.20v IO.


Both cpus I just tested were regular 10900k's and were both terrible. One chip had a lower VID than my current cpu but actually required much higher voltage than what its vid stated to even be stable. My cpu is stable at a much lower voltage than its vid. 

Ive tested like 7 10900ks and all have been sp63 quality chips or lower, only 2 could pass r15 @ 5.3ghz before a delid under 1.45vs without errors. Ive never been lucky with cpus, however my brother who uses a aio gets the most golden cpus on his first purchase. My 3770k maxed @ 4.5ghz with 1.45vs, brothers did 5.2ghz with 1.39v, bought both from the same store and same batch #. 

I'll pay more for a binned cpu my next upgrade. It wasnt worth the hassle and money binning 9th&10th gen cpus.


----------



## Imprezzion

That gives me an idea. I might just order a Silicon Lottery pre-binned chip lol. Or wait for 11900K benches.. choices choices. I am definitely delidding and direct die cooling my KF since it's lapped already. And if I mess up and break it, expensive lesson but I'll just order a new K or KF. They are cheap at the moment and plenty in stock locally.


----------



## acoustic

I wouldn't waste the $$ on a pre-binned. They're pretty expensive on their website if I'm not mistaken. My suggestion is to hold out. Ride that 5.2 chip (maybe 5.3 after de-lid) and save that money for Alder Lake, DDR5, and a badass motherboard in 2022.

If there was tangible improvements or you had an actually bum chip (like your friends, lol) then I'd say go for it.. but your chip is decent. I'm at 5.1/4.8 @ 1.27v under load now with 1.195 VCCSA/IO for 4133 17-17-17-32. I thought my chip was garbage because P95 smallFFT was forcing crashes due to the temperatures, but it's not so bad. Realbench, Cinebench loops, and tons of gaming have shown the chip is better than what I thought.


----------



## Imprezzion

Yeah I saw their prices.. $839 for a 5,1 validated chip.. I'll just get one for like $450 (€400 here) and call it a day if something does go wrong with the Delid.

I'm not scared it will tho. I delidded many CPU's in a vice with a block of wood, a rubber mallet and a cloth and they all survived so a proper tool should make this easy.

The guy I was yesterday did some further testing, it may also be a temperature problem like you said. He's using a push pull ML360R and it does the job but at 1.36v for 5.1 it goes well into the upper 90's in Prime95. It will pass benches just fine we just can't stress test it. It's running just stick OCTVB with a turbo offset of +1 on the 10 core load to do 5.3/5.1/5.0 with 4.7 cache and 4400 memory now on 1.26v all core and it's fine. Mid 80's in stress tests and it's stable at least.

The other guys chip is just bad lol.


----------



## menko2

I haven't played much with mine because I bought a z590 mobo. Maximus XIII HERO.

I did achieve 5.1ghz all core with 1.3v and LLC 5. Temps around 77°C max on Prime 95.

Not sure if it's good bin or not.


----------



## bei fei

Looks like I need to get a different board. The Strix itx vrms can’t power the CPU good enough.
Wish I could find the Apex at MSRP.


----------



## asdkj1740

bei fei said:


> Looks like I need to get a different board. The Strix itx vrms can’t power the CPU good enough.
> Wish I could find the Apex at MSRP.


among z490 itx, the asus itx has the best vrm thermal performance. 
just zip tie a small fan on top of the top vrm heatsink.


----------



## JF050

What 10900k is better V batch or X batch? I have an unopened V036F907 batch here but I want to know what cpu is best for 5-5.2 ghz? What is your opinion about it?


----------



## bei fei

asdkj1740 said:


> among z490 itx, the asus itx has the best vrm thermal performance.
> just zip tie a small fan on top of the top vrm heatsink.


I believe it’s an issue with total power output. Chip needs more power. I have an Asus Z490-e that I can test the chip on until I get a proper board.

EDIT* Decided to buy a Z490 Maximus Formula it should be here next week.

Did a bit more testing

5.3 Cinebench runs pass @ 1.315 Bios LLC5 1.26 Loaded VCore. Max temps 66C
5.4 Cinebench runs pass @ 1.35 Bios LLC6 1.323 Loaded VCore. Max temps 68C


----------



## Imprezzion

Aight so, I got the CPU delidded and direct die cooled now with Coollaboratory Liquid Ultra and the Rockitcool EK mount and EK Phoenix 280 kit which is basically a Supremacy block with a Coolstream SE 280 rad and a DDC pump and QDC's.

Temps basically remained the exact same.

Idle and game load is exactly the same, AVX Prime95 worst-case is maybe 3-4c better but still 92-93c at 5.2/4.9 1.364v VCC Sense.

So I get the feeling either the mount is pretty bad / not enough pressure / not enough CLU (or too much) or the bottleneck isn't the CPU IHS / Die --> Block part but more the loop itself or maybe the block that is not exactly flat anymore (lapped it as good as it's going to be..)

I'll pull it apart again and see if I can get a tighter mount and a new application of CLU. If temps are the same again after 2-3 mounts it's 100% not the bottleneck and I need a better loop / cooler lol.

EDIT: Nevermind, remount fixed it. I had way way too much CLU on it and the direct die frame wasn't tight enough either so the block hit the frame and not just the die making uneven mount.

Fixed it, new CLU on it, now temps are between 84-88c across the cores in AVX Prime95 5.2/4.9 1.364v coming from basically 96-103c. 
So yeah, 10-12c difference. Still won't make this chip capable of 5.3Ghz in any way but this at least runs more comfortably on 5.2 also in the summer and such. And my fanspeed doesn't have to be so high lol. And I can use this delid tool on any of my mates chips or maybe even when i decide to get another chip for myself to bin against this one. 

Shame it comes with so little quicksilver tho.. 

Oh and heating up the IHS with a hairdryer on max heat for a minute or two before delidding makes it SO much easier. Both the Indium and the glue is much softer then.


----------



## Nizzen

JF050 said:


> What 10900k is better V batch or X batch? I have an unopened V036F907 batch here but I want to know what cpu is best for 5-5.2 ghz? What is your opinion about it?


You have to test them both. Best is testing it with an Asus MB to see SP value  It looks to be pretty random in the same batches, so you need to test them all 

PS: SP is not all, there is very good SP63 too


----------



## murenitu

Seeing the information of the 11900k it is very possible that I sell my 10900k ihs fullcoper sp80 5.3 all cores avx 0 to 1.38v and look to put a 11900k to the formula z490 !!

I know I won't win much but the important thing for me is the games.


----------



## Nizzen

murenitu said:


> Seeing the information of the 11900k it is very possible that I sell my 10900k ihs fullcoper sp80 5.3 all cores avx 0 to 1.38v and look to put a 11900k to the formula z490 !!
> 
> I know I won't win much but the important thing for me is the games.


I will test 11900k, but already we see 10 core is better than 8 core in some games. My best delidded 10900k does 5.5ghz all core in gaming, så 11900k better popping off in games that scales with more than 8 cores....


----------



## Imprezzion

What would you guys call acceptable for 24/7 clocks, voltages and temps all-core?

I delidded and direct die cooled the 10900KF now with Liquid Ultra under water which got me like a 12-14c boost over lapped IHS.

Now I can do 5.2/4.9 all core AVX0 with 1.344v in stead of 1.365v. Which is nice. Prime95 AVX FMA3 small fft stable around 80-83c across the cores.

So, I wanted to push for 5.3Ghz all core. But, here's the problem. This chip has quite the voltage wall around 5.2 unfortunately so to be able to get even close to 5.3Ghz AVX0 I'd have to push way above 1.40v. I tried it quickly with 1.448v and even tho it seems stable it runs like 95-98c in Prime95 AVX Small.


----------



## Nizzen

Imprezzion said:


> What would you guys call acceptable for 24/7 clocks, voltages and temps all-core?
> 
> I delidded and direct die cooled the 10900KF now with Liquid Ultra under water which got me like a 12-14c boost over lapped IHS.
> 
> Now I can do 5.2/4.9 all core AVX0 with 1.344v in stead of 1.365v. Which is nice. Prime95 AVX FMA3 small fft stable around 80-83c across the cores.
> 
> So, I wanted to push for 5.3Ghz all core. But, here's the problem. This chip has quite the voltage wall around 5.2 unfortunately so to be able to get even close to 5.3Ghz AVX0 I'd have to push way above 1.40v. I tried it quickly with 1.448v and even tho it seems stable it runs like 95-98c in Prime95 AVX Small.


Everything under 5.5ghz isn't acceptable for me 

I don't do Prime 95 with mainstream cpu's. I use them for gaming only 


1.38v load @ 5.5ghz in games like BF V. SP87 Direct die cooled with Supercool Computer direct die cooler.


----------



## Imprezzion

Nizzen said:


> Everything under 5.5ghz isn't acceptable for me
> 
> I don't do Prime 95 with mainstream cpu's. I use them for gaming only
> 
> 
> 1.38v load @ 5.5ghz in games like BF V. SP87 Direct die cooled with Supercool Computer direct die cooler.


I mean, it's not like I use Prime95 for anything but it's a very nice worst-case test for a CPU. If it can handle half an hour of Prime95 AVX FMA3 small fft it can handle anything lol.

So far I'm at 1.435v for 5.3Ghz all core (VCC Sense) at about 90-92c. It should be fine here. I'll game on it a bit.

EDIT: It's solid at 5.3Ghz all core 4.9Ghz cache @ 1.435v. Survived all matter of different Prime95 AVX, FMA3 and non-AVX tests and a few raids on Division 2. Max temps in Prime95 AVX 93c, in Division 2 (and Cyberpunk) 63c.


----------



## Falkentyne

Imprezzion said:


> What would you guys call acceptable for 24/7 clocks, voltages and temps all-core?
> 
> I delidded and direct die cooled the 10900KF now with Liquid Ultra under water which got me like a 12-14c boost over lapped IHS.
> 
> Now I can do 5.2/4.9 all core AVX0 with 1.344v in stead of 1.365v. Which is nice. Prime95 AVX FMA3 small fft stable around 80-83c across the cores.
> 
> So, I wanted to push for 5.3Ghz all core. But, here's the problem. This chip has quite the voltage wall around 5.2 unfortunately so to be able to get even close to 5.3Ghz AVX0 I'd have to push way above 1.40v. I tried it quickly with 1.448v and even tho it seems stable it runs like 95-98c in Prime95 AVX Small.


24/7? Any load voltage of 1.3v or lower is great for 24/7. Clocks don't matter whatsoever, that's based on your lottery. If you can do 6 ghz at 1.3v stable (yeah, right), why not? What matters is voltage (current) and heat.

With 10 second boot times or multiple ways to change v/f in windows these days, really no need to yeet the voltages if you aren't benching or need every bit of FPS from a CPU limited game or app.


----------



## Imprezzion

Load voltage at 5.3 measured with a DMM on the DMM ports of my board is about 1.36-1.38v on 5.3Ghz and it's stable so far after an evening of gaming.


----------



## asdkj1740

Imprezzion said:


> Load voltage at 5.3 measured with a DMM on the DMM ports of my board is about 1.36-1.38v on 5.3Ghz and it's stable so far after an evening of gaming.


my poor boy is running at 1.4v (isl69269 reading//vcc or die sense) in games lol.
it will drop to 1.36v when stressing by prime95.

i want the voltage in games lower (like 1.36v) while having the same level of voltage in prime95 (1.36v) plus having some vdroop for stability.


----------



## Placekicker19

Imprezzion said:


> Load voltage at 5.3 measured with a DMM on the DMM ports of my board is about 1.36-1.38v on 5.3Ghz and it's stable so far after an evening of gaming.


Prime avx is such a unrealistic test if you only plan to game. How much voltage do you require for 2 hour of realbench 2.56 and what are your temps running it?

What type cpu block and rad size are you using? I replaced my motherboard standoffs with some m4 threaded bolts that way my block makes good contact with the die. My temps stay under 70 @ 5.4 and 1.385v but I only test with realbench. I just wonder how good your contact is, you said you had trouble with high temps on ur first mount.
Have you took apart & cleaned your cpu block recently? A clogged block really hurts temps.


----------



## Imprezzion

asdkj1740 said:


> my poor boy is running at 1.4v (isl69269 reading//vcc or die sense) in games lol.
> it will drop to 1.36v when stressing by prime95.
> 
> i want the voltage in games lower (like 1.36v) while having the same level of voltage in prime95 (1.36v) plus having some vdroop for stability.


VCC Sense (software) is 1.435v in idle condition, 1.406v under AVX load, 1.390v under non AVX load.
DMM is about 0.03v under all these software readings.

So yeah, I am lol. I can do 5.2/4.9 on much nicer voltages but I didn't Delid and direct die this thing with water to not push it to the absolute limit.

@Placekicker19 I run a EK Supremacy with a Coolstream SE 280 and a DDC in a "pre-build" kit by EK (EK Phoenix 280).

It's very old, 3-4 years now, never cleaned internally, only replaced fluid once or twice with Demi water and a bit of car coolant and flushed it.

It is lapped flat copper mirror finish polished and all.

The mount I'm using is the stock EK mount with the Rockitcool washers and it does seem to work but pressure is quite weak, it barely has 0.2mm or so till it touches the standoffs so it can't ever have much pressure. Then again, the CLU spread is very nice and temps are so even across the cores I doubt the mount is bad.

I am going full new custom loop as soon as I can get a 3080 with 3x8 pin and a block for that. That would be a HWLabs Nemesis GTS 420 + 280 in push pull so I can keep it all with 140mm fans, a random D5 of course with probably a EK res and a Bitspower Premium Summit M Mystic Black block because that block is absolutely beautiful.


----------



## Robertomcat

Hi guys! Is there any difference in activating the physical clip on Asus motherboards for OC?


----------



## Placekicker19

Imprezzion said:


> VCC Sense (software) is 1.435v in idle condition, 1.406v under AVX load, 1.390v under non AVX load.
> DMM is about 0.03v under all these software readings.
> 
> So yeah, I am lol. I can do 5.2/4.9 on much nicer voltages but I didn't Delid and direct die this thing with water to not push it to the absolute limit.
> 
> @Placekicker19 I run a EK Supremacy with a Coolstream SE 280 and a DDC in a "pre-build" kit by EK (EK Phoenix 280).
> 
> It's very old, 3-4 years now, never cleaned internally, only replaced fluid once or twice with Demi water and a bit of car coolant and flushed it.
> 
> It is lapped flat copper mirror finish polished and all.
> 
> The mount I'm using is the stock EK mount with the Rockitcool washers and it does seem to work but pressure is quite weak, it barely has 0.2mm or so till it touches the standoffs so it can't ever have much pressure. Then again, the CLU spread is very nice and temps are so even across the cores I doubt the mount is bad.
> 
> I am going full new custom loop as soon as I can get a 3080 with 3x8 pin and a block for that. That would be a HWLabs Nemesis GTS 420 + 280 in push pull so I can keep it all with 140mm fans, a random D5 of course with probably a EK res and a Bitspower Premium Summit M Mystic Black block because that block is absolutely beautiful.


The stock ek supremacy evo standoffs worked good for my 9900k direct die, however the 10900k die is much shorter and they were a hair to tall at providing proper die contact.
You should see huge improvements with another rad and that new block. I bet your current block is quite dirty too if its never been cleaned internally. The water channels are so small it doesnt take much to gunk it up and have a negative effect on temperatures. Evga finally contacted me for the rtx 3090 ftw I preordered back at launch, but seeing the kingpin has released, is only a couple hundred more, and comes with a 360mm aio I just couldnt pull the trigger on the ftw. I dont even game much, the last game i played was witcher 3, it came out on my bday and I had the 980ti at the time. I go through gaming phases in life, ill game alot for a few years and then go maybe 5 years without playing one game. I do like playing online poker through and its important to have a fast pc when you have many tables up.


----------



## Imprezzion

I'm done testing for now with the chip. I really should upgrade the loop and block.. you're right. Might just order the block, pump and a 420 Nemesis GTS soon and expand it later for the GPU once I get a proper block for that.

10900KF Delid + Direct Die (Rockitcool frame) batch# X032G247.

5.0 on 1.210v, 5.1 on 1.272v, 5.2 on 1.334v and 5.3 on 1.390v. 1 hour Prime95 non-AVX small fft measured and tested.

All tests done with a MSI Z490 Ace, BIOS 12.W BETA, 4.9Ghz cache, 4400C17 RAM, 1.40v SA 1.35v IO, LLC3, Mode_1 Lite Load, 700Mhz switching frequencies for the MOSFET's. C-States disabled, TVB disabled, speed shift disabled, EIST enabled, Turbo and enhanced turbo enabled. Windows power plan Balanced with idle clocks enabled.

For AVX stability I need about 0.02-0.03v more for all voltages and frequencies.

All voltages are VCC Sense through software (HWINFO64). MSI Z490 Ace board.

Just in case someone wants to compare batches or something.

I am now daily driving 5.3/4.9 and temps are great. 90c hottest core Prime95 AVX FMA3 small fft after 1h, 82c non AVX.

In gaming I've seen it hit 67c, in benchmarks like 3DMark and Cinebench it hits about 77-78c. Fans only ramp up above 75c so this is still with barely any fanspeed on the rad. In games the fans just stay at idle 900 RPM.

Seems like a great CPU to me even tho it needs quite a bit of juice. Cache is strong, IMC is quite strong with enough IO/SA and handles 32GB DR B-Die at 4533Mhz just fine (4400 daily). It's relatively well behaved cooling wise after the direct die mod as well. I like it ☺


----------



## CENS

Anyone has a SP110+ Chip and did not delid it?


----------



## aznguyen316

Is sp48 possible on a 10900k? This is what I have lol. I checked on updated bios on a z590 Strix A and a z490 strix E and Both showed sp48 (the Z490 Strix E had 87 but it was old May 2020 bios, after updating to Dec Bios it showed 48). I only checked SP on the Z490 Strix E as I borrowed the board. Currently have it in the z590 strix A.

here is the VF curve which doesn’t seem that bad does it? On the Asus it doesn’t seem to overclock very well.

Also Vcore doesn't seem to show properly on the Z590 Strix A in hwinfo. Doesn't ever seem to go higher than 0.746V, same with CPU-Z









Additional information.

Z590 auto seems to want to enable MCE by default rather than the F1 F3 when a new CPU is installed on Z490 asking to use Intel spec or not. I left it on Auto, optimized defaults.

VID on optimized defaults, which I think MCE is auto on.. (all auto, no ram OC etc.) - it bounces the CPU around from 4.9-5.1Ghz all core just sitting at desktop idling.








Average VID was 1.25-1.26V when it was bouncing around

When I set sync all core 5.0Ghz everything else on auto I see average 1.37V with min 1.36V for VID.

When I set all core 5.1Ghz everything on auto, I see average 1.415V, min 1.38V.

_edit_ disabled MCE in BIOS to enforce stock limits. here are results:

Auto clocks still bounce from around 4.9-5.1
VID: min 1.19-1.203V; max is 1.299-1.31V

Sync all cores to 5.0Ghz MCE OFF:
VID: min: 1.345-1.352V; max 1.389V - 1.4V

All cores 5.1Ghz MCE OFF:
VID: min 1.40 -1.404V max 1.415-1.42V

Hope this helps. Thanks in advance.


----------



## sabishiihito

aznguyen316 said:


> Is sp48 possible on a 10900k? This is what I have lol. I checked on updated bios on a z590 Strix A and a z490 strix E and Both showed sp48 (the Z490 Strix E had 87 but it was old May 2020 bios, after updating to Dec Bios it showed 48). I only checked SP on the Z490 Strix E as I borrowed the board. Currently have it in the z590 strix A.
> 
> here is the VF curve which doesn’t seem that bad does it? On the Asus it doesn’t seem to overclock very well.
> 
> Also Vcore doesn't seem to show properly on the Z590 Strix A in hwinfo. Doesn't ever seem to go higher than 0.746V, same with CPU-Z
> 
> View attachment 2479038


This is what an SP 59 V/F curve looks like, so I got bad news for you:


----------



## aznguyen316

sabishiihito said:


> This is what an SP 59 V/F curve looks like, so I got bad news for you:
> 
> View attachment 2479108


Thanks. Maybe I don’t understand fully. Is SP based off VID @5.3Ghz? Because my VF curve up to 5.2Ghz seems to have a lower VID compared to that SP59 you shared? I mean I’m not aiming for 5.3Ghz but **** even 5.1Ghz would be nice I’m not sure where I sit for that.


----------



## sabishiihito

aznguyen316 said:


> Thanks. Maybe I don’t understand fully. Is SP based off VID @5.3Ghz? Because my VF curve up to 5.2Ghz seems to have a lower VID compared to that SP59 you shared? I mean I’m not aiming for 5.3Ghz but **** even 5.1Ghz would be nice I’m not sure where I sit for that.


That's what seems to be the deciding factor, the VID at 5.3. I noticed all other points were lower for you as well. Contrast with an 81:


----------



## Placekicker19

Imprezzion said:


> I'm done testing for now with the chip. I really should upgrade the loop and block.. you're right. Might just order the block, pump and a 420 Nemesis GTS soon and expand it later for the GPU once I get a proper block for that.
> 
> 10900KF Delid + Direct Die (Rockitcool frame) batch# X032G247.
> 
> 5.0 on 1.210v, 5.1 on 1.272v, 5.2 on 1.334v and 5.3 on 1.390v. 1 hour Prime95 non-AVX small fft measured and tested.
> 
> All tests done with a MSI Z490 Ace, BIOS 12.W BETA, 4.9Ghz cache, 4400C17 RAM, 1.40v SA 1.35v IO, LLC3, Mode_1 Lite Load, 700Mhz switching frequencies for the MOSFET7777\\\\ü's. C-States disabled, TVB disabled, speed shift disabled, EIST enabled, Turbo and enhanced turbo enabled. Windows power plan Balanced with idle clocks enabled.
> 
> For AVX stability I need about 0.02-0.03v more for all voltages and frequencies.
> 
> All voltages are VCC Sense through software (HWINFO64). MSI Z490 Ace board.
> 
> Just in case someone wants to compare batches or something.
> 
> I am now daily driving 5.3/4.9 and temps are great. 90c hottest core Prime95 AVX FMA3 small fft after 1h, 82c non AVX.
> 
> In gaming I've seen it hit 67c, in benchmarks like 3DMark and Cinebench it hits about 77-78c. Fans only ramp up above 75c so this is still with barely any fanspeed on the rad. In games the fans just stay at idle 900 RPM.
> 
> Seems like a great CPU to me even tho it needs quite a bit of juice. Cache is strong, IMC is quite strong with enough IO/SA and handles 32GB DR B-Die at 4533Mhz just fine (4400 daily). It's relatively well behaved cooling wise after the direct die mod as well. I like it ☺


Just being able to run prime 95 small avx @5.3ghz is a accomplishment. What kind of amps/wattage are you pulling during it. You just wanna be careful about running a high amp load like that for any extended period.


----------



## acoustic

Out of your mind running P95 smallFFT for an hour lol


----------



## Imprezzion

It's the first and last time I'm going to do that, just wanted to be sure it can handle any AVX load I might some day throw at it. I know it's risky on modern architectures.

Wattage around 335-340w btw so about 240-244 amps.

Never doing that again that's for sure lol. But, it stayed under 95c throttling limit. So far I've been gaming, benching 3DMark Time Spy and playing around with FL Studio a bit building some hardstyle like I used to do 5 years ago and it's solid. Zero issues so far and temps are great. Max I've seen rendering is 72c without the fans ramping up, 3DMark CPU test got to 77c with a slight increase in fan speeds but it seems happy here.


----------



## gecko991

Nice chip.


----------



## Nizzen

Asus z590 Apex prordered 😎

Hoping for fun times with 4266c17 2x16GB watercooled 🤓







ASUS ROG MAXIMUS XIII APEX Hovedkort - Intel Z590 - Intel LGA1200 socket - DDR4 RAM - ATX


3 490,00 kr Hovedkort, ATX, Intel LGA1200 Socket, Intel Z590, 1 x PCI-Express 4.0 x16 (11th Gen) & 1 x PCI-Express 3.0 x16, Dual DDR4-3200 - 2 x DIMM slots, 8 x SATA-600 / 3 x M.2 NVMe PCI-Express 3.0 & 1 x M.2 NVMe PCI-Express 4.0 (2242 / 2260 / 2280), USB 3.2 Gen 2 Type A & C, Intel I225-V 2.5...




www.proshop.no


----------



## sabishiihito

I think I'm going to give up at this point. I shan't be blessed with a 100 SP chip.

V102F106 from Micro Center


----------



## schoolofmonkey

sabishiihito said:


> I think I'm going to give up at this point. I shan't be blessed with a 100 SP chip.
> 
> V102F106 from Micro Center
> 
> View attachment 2479679


I've got a 85 SP 1090k chip, so you're doing better than me.

What's the best overclock for these, Sync all Cores or By Core Usage.

I'm currently using By Core Usage
Turbo Ratio Limit 0: 53
Turbo Ratio Cores 0: 3
Turbo Ratio Limit 1: 52
Turbo Ratio Cores 1: 6
Turbo Ratio Limit 2: 51
Turbo Ratio Cores 2: 10

With 1.37v, LLC 3.

It's stable (OCCT Everything but Small FFT AVX 2, Realbench 2.56 and 2.44, Cinebench 15/23)
I could only get a 5.1Ghz all core overclock with the same voltage.
This is on a Maximus XII Hero.

My ram XMP II set the VCCSA to 1.4v, dropped it down to 1.3v, VCCIO was 1.3v.
I am using 4x 8GB GSkill Ripjaws V 3600Mhz (CL16-19-19-39).

Had them in the previous 5900x machine that the CPU died 2 weeks of having it (WHEA and Hard Reboots), went back to a 10900k, never had a Intel CPU die on me EVER.


----------



## Nizzen

sabishiihito said:


> I think I'm going to give up at this point. I shan't be blessed with a 100 SP chip.
> 
> V102F106 from Micro Center
> 
> View attachment 2479679


Run direct die cooling, and you pretty much unlock the cpu to a SP110 😉


----------



## Robertomcat

A question colleagues. I have the processor with a manual voltage of 1.365, but in HWinfo it shows me a very high voltage when idle. The processor is locked at 5.1 and the ring at 4.8 LLC 6. Why is this happening?

The motherboard is a Rog Strix Z490-E Gaming with a 10900K SP69.


----------



## Imprezzion

Robertomcat said:


> A question colleagues. I have the processor with a manual voltage of 1.365, but in HWinfo it shows me a very high voltage when idle. The processor is locked at 5.1 and the ring at 4.8 LLC 6. Why is this happening?
> 
> The motherboard is a Rog Strix Z490-E Gaming with a 10900K SP69.
> View attachment 2479761


1.403 idle and 1.376v lowest. Nothing weird considering AVX vs non-AVX and LLC6. I see nothing weird. Is this board reading VCC or Socket Sense?


----------



## Robertomcat

Imprezzion said:


> 1.403 idle and 1.376v lowest. Nothing weird considering AVX vs non-AVX and LLC6. I see nothing weird. Is this board reading VCC or Socket Sense?


Well, I don't know specifically, the voltage I reported to you was taken from the Vcore. And I also don't understand how I have peaks of 97° having a custom liquid cooling, with EK block and 240 × 60 radiator. thanks.


----------



## acoustic

1.43v under load is a lot. What were you using to stress-test?


----------



## Robertomcat

acoustic said:


> 1.43v under load is a lot. What were you using to stress-test?


Under load voltage is 1.368. The voltage in the photograph is at idle.


----------



## acoustic

Robertomcat said:


> Under load voltage is 1.368. The voltage in the photograph is at idle.


You peaked at 1.43. That's a large transient spikes then.


----------



## Robertomcat

acoustic said:


> You peaked at 1.43. That's a large transient spikes then.


So how can I solve these peaks? I'll have to try, but if I change the voltage too much, at full load it is not stable and cache errors appear. Thank you.


----------



## acoustic

Robertomcat said:


> So how can I solve these peaks? I'll have to try, but if I change the voltage too much, at full load it is not stable and cache errors appear. Thank you.


You can try LLC5. I believe LLC6 is what most people use on Z490, but I don't own an ASUS board this round.

What voltage do you have set in BIOS, and double check you're on LLC6. What were you using to stress-test?


----------



## Robertomcat

acoustic said:


> You can try LLC5. I believe LLC6 is what most people use on Z490, but I don't own an ASUS board this round.
> 
> What voltage do you have set in BIOS, and double check you're on LLC6. What were you using to stress-test?


Yes, maybe it's just a case of trying again. I've done a stress test of the Prime95 with L1, L2 and L3 cache, which is a lot. Then I've also been testing 10 minutes of CinebenchR23. Let's see if this afternoon I can modify the voltage again. thanks.


----------



## Nabonidus

Hi all,

My current settings:

Overclocked 10900k by core usage
53
4
52
6
51
10

Avx 0
Adaptive voltage 1.375V with offset bringing it down to 1.290V
Stable throughout no issues so far
XMPII 3000MHZ
LLC 3
Max vcore during cinebench run 1.146V

Worth pushing more?

P.s ignore cinebench score, I wasn't really going for the highest score was just testing stability etc.


----------



## Nabonidus

Well After some tweaks I figured I can't push anymore unless I delid.

5.5GHZ on 6 Cores

5.3 on 7 Cores

5.1 on 10 cores

Avx -1

Cache clock 46min 47 max


----------



## apw63

Some OCing with my new CPU,MB and RAM
10900K direct die cooling 
MB Maximus XII Apex
Vengeance Pro 2x8 3200

OC settings
52
XMP I
MCE enabled
Sync All Cores
Cache ring min/max 48
LLC 7
BCLK AAV enabled
CPU Core/Cache Voltage MM
CPU CVO 1.375

Ill do some longer stress testing. But ave temp after 1 hr mid 60s.


----------



## Nabonidus

apw63 said:


> Some OCing with my new CPU,MB and RAM
> 10900K direct die cooling
> MB Maximus XII Apex
> Vengeance Pro 2x8 3200
> 
> OC settings
> 52
> XMP I
> MCE enabled
> Sync All Cores
> Cache ring min/max 48
> LLC 7
> BCLK AAV enabled
> CPU Core/Cache Voltage MM
> CPU CVO 1.375
> 
> Ill do some longer stress testing. But ave temp after 1 hr mid 60s.
> View attachment 2480610
> View attachment 2480611
> View attachment 2480612


 What is your SP?


----------



## Nabonidus

I managed to squeeze slightly more but I cba with deliding atm.


----------



## apw63

Nabonidus said:


> What is your SP?


My SP is 75 pretty much average i would think

I don't think ill run it at 5.2 24/7. After some more testing ill drop it back to 5.1, I'll play around with some per core OCing.


----------



## Nabonidus

apw63 said:


> My SP is 75 pretty much average i would think
> 
> I don't think ill run it at 5.2 24/7. After some more testing ill drop it back to 5.1, I'll play around with some per core OCing.


Yeah mine is 63 . found 5.1GHZ to be the sweet spot on all 10.


----------



## apw63

Nabonidus said:


> Yeah mine is 63 . found 5.1GHZ to be the sweet spot on all 10.


other than buying a 5.0 silicone lottery cpu that OCed to 5.1, this is the best cpu lottery I’ve ever somewhat won. I feel your pain. Most of my past cpu have been lower end.


----------



## Nabonidus

apw63 said:


> other than buying a 5.0 silicone lottery cpu that OCed to 5.1, this is the best cpu lottery I’ve ever somewhat won. I feel your pain. Most of my past cpu have been lower end.


Yeah, I did try to run 5.2GHZ and I was able to boot up, load cinebench but as soon as I start it hits 100 instantly. So deliding may actually get me there. 

I tried stopping myself but it's too addictive this OC business 😅


----------



## murenitu

Nabonidus said:


> Yeah, I did try to run 5.2GHZ and I was able to boot up, load cinebench but as soon as I start it hits 100 instantly. So deliding may actually get me there.
> 
> I tried stopping myself but it's too addictive this OC business 😅
> 
> View attachment 2480717


how weird. your score is surprisingly low!


----------



## Rbk_3

So I got my 10900kF yesterday and here is where I am at. I passed everything in OCCT without errors but Linepak Small froze after 30 min with no errors. What does that likely mean? What tweaks should I do? I have an Aorus Eilte AC MB

1.32v
LLC Auto 
5.0 core 
4.8 ring

B-die 4000 16-16-38 1.45V 1.25 VCSSA and VCCIO


----------



## Rbk_3

So I think this looks pretty solid?

1.28V
LLC Auto
50 Core
47 Ring 
4000 16-16-16-38 1.45V 1.30 SA/IO (will lower this and test)

I passed 1 hour of Small data set in OCCT and Linpack Extreme. Do all these numbers look ok?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Do you know how windows controls CPU cores? Is there any place I can configure it?
I'm using 55x3, 54x5, 53x8, 52x10.
If I do a fresh win_10 install all my cores perform 5,5GZ all the time (speedshift and speedstep enable)... 
After I install all asus stuff and programs I use the CPU become slow and occasionally goes to 5,5Gz. The load distribution across the cores became strange.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Ok, now I've pounded my 5.1Ghz OC with everything, no BSOD, no WHEA error.

But playing Valheim I got this error:

A corrected hardware error has occurred.

Reported by component: Processor Core
Error Source: Unknown Error Source
Error Type: Internal parity error
Processor APIC ID: 16

The details view of this entry contains further information.

Now I've seen it popup in this thread last year, so I did the Jave Minecraft test and it's easily to recreate within the first minute of the game.

So I never did see a definitive answer to what it was.

Like I said I can pass every stress test including prime, but Minecraft will throw this error in under a minunte, Valhelm takes a tad longer.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

schoolofmonkey said:


> Ok, now I've pounded my 5.1Ghz OC with everything, no BSOD, no WHEA error.
> 
> But playing Valheim I got this error:
> 
> A corrected hardware error has occurred.
> 
> Reported by component: Processor Core
> Error Source: Unknown Error Source
> Error Type: Internal parity error
> Processor APIC ID: 16
> 
> The details view of this entry contains further information.
> 
> Now I've seen it popup in this thread last year, so I did the Jave Minecraft test and it's easily to recreate within the first minute of the game.
> 
> So I never did see a definitive answer to what it was.
> 
> Like I said I can pass every stress test including prime, but Minecraft will throw this error in under a minunte, Valhelm takes a tad longer.


I can pass all tests too, but playing PlanetSide2 I had this error occasionally.
Rising VCCIO/SA from 1.15/1.20v to 1.20/1.25v the problem was solved.
Try and tell me...


----------



## schoolofmonkey

RobertoSampaio said:


> I can pass all tests too, but playing PlanetSide2 I had this error occasionally.
> Rising VCCIO/SA from 1.15/1.20v to 1.20/1.25v the problem was solved.
> Try and tell me...


I changed my LLC from 3 to 4 (ROG XII Hero), seemed to stop the errors in Minecraft/Valheim.
Don't get it, thrashed my machine for days with LLC 3 (Prime, OCCT, Realbench), then 1 game can throw errors, well 2, all the latest AAA titles as well as the system strainers worked perfectly.

Ah well, that's the odd nature of Overclocking now isn't it.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I think "overclock" the EVO using ecuflash and evoscan is easier... LOL


----------



## schoolofmonkey

RobertoSampaio said:


> I think "overclock" the EVO using ecuflash and evoscan is easier... LOL
> 
> View attachment 2481226


Man after my own heart, got a Ralliart myself.
My car overclock will be happening on the 29th of this month, there will be a 750bhp Intense 5960RS turbo going on, then a 2.2 litre Stroker rebuild done


----------



## cstkl1

schoolofmonkey said:


> I changed my LLC from 3 to 4 (ROG XII Hero), seemed to stop the errors in Minecraft/Valheim.
> Don't get it, thrashed my machine for days with LLC 3 (Prime, OCCT, Realbench), then 1 game can throw errors, well 2, all the latest AAA titles as well as the system strainers worked perfectly.
> 
> Ah well, that's the odd nature of Overclocking now isn't it.


is yours a KA CPU.


----------



## apw63

schoolofmonkey said:


> Ok, now I've pounded my 5.1Ghz OC with everything, no BSOD, no WHEA error.
> 
> But playing Valheim I got this error:
> 
> A corrected hardware error has occurred.
> 
> Reported by component: Processor Core
> Error Source: Unknown Error Source
> Error Type: Internal parity error
> Processor APIC ID: 16
> 
> The details view of this entry contains further information.
> 
> Now I've seen it popup in this thread last year, so I did the Jave Minecraft test and it's easily to recreate within the first minute of the game.
> 
> So I never did see a definitive answer to what it was.
> 
> Like I said I can pass every stress test including prime, but Minecraft will throw this error in under a minunte, Valhelm takes a tad longer.


just a thought, have you tested your memory? Down clock your memory or add some volts.


----------



## Rbk_3

Overclocking 10900k to 5.1ghz but when I run Cinebench my clocks drop to 5.0mhz. Thermals are not an issue. Any ideas?

Is there a setting I am missing that could be causing this? Aorus Elite Z490 board


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## apw63

Rbk_3 said:


> Overclocking 10900k to 5.1ghz but when I run Cinebench my clocks drop to 5.0mhz. Thermals are not an issue. Any ideas?
> 
> Is there a setting I am missing that could be causing this? Aorus Elite Z490 board
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Sounds like you have a AXV offset of 1 set in the bios


----------



## schoolofmonkey

apw63 said:


> just a thought, have you tested your memory? Down clock your memory or add some volts.


Yeah, I'm not exactly new to this, there's a checklist, memory is one of them, I don't overclock other than the standard XMP, then tweak the settings a little as it is for a daily machine.
Memory passes Memtestpro, Realbench 2.43 (Non AVX) and 2.56, so yeah memory is fine.

I just changed my LLC from 3 to 4 and it stopped, say like it was pointed out before Minecraft Java is hammering the cache harder than anything else (talked about back on page 147).

Played 6 hours of Valheim no WHEA error.

There's a good test for you all, Minecraft Java and Valheim...


----------



## apw63

schoolofmonkey said:


> Yeah, I'm not exactly new to this, there's a checklist, memory is one of them, I don't overclock other than the standard XMP, then tweak the settings a little as it is for a daily machine.
> Memory passes Memtestpro, Realbench 2.43 (Non AVX) and 2.56, so yeah memory is fine.
> 
> I just changed my LLC from 3 to 4 and it stopped, say like it was pointed out before Minecraft Java is hammering the cache harder than anything else (talked about back on page 147).
> 
> Played 6 hours of Valheim no WHEA error.
> 
> There's a good test for you all, Minecraft Java and Valheim...


Glad you got it figured out. I find that handbrake will find any flaws in an OC. If you can run handbrake for 6 or 7 hrs more times than not your OC will be golden.


----------



## Falkentyne

schoolofmonkey said:


> Ok, now I've pounded my 5.1Ghz OC with everything, no BSOD, no WHEA error.
> 
> But playing Valheim I got this error:
> 
> A corrected hardware error has occurred.
> 
> Reported by component: Processor Core
> Error Source: Unknown Error Source
> Error Type: Internal parity error
> Processor APIC ID: 16
> 
> The details view of this entry contains further information.
> 
> Now I've seen it popup in this thread last year, so I did the Jave Minecraft test and it's easily to recreate within the first minute of the game.
> 
> So I never did see a definitive answer to what it was.
> 
> Like I said I can pass every stress test including prime, but Minecraft will throw this error in under a minunte, Valhelm takes a tad longer.


To fix internal parity error:

1) Raise LLC (higher LLC stabilizes cache even if vcore transient response is worse and may cause L0's on CPU Core (CPU Cache L0 error isn't really related to the cache ratio at all, it's a famous skylake arch issue with high overclocks with hyperthreading enabled if you're not stable, just like Internal Parity Error is related to high cache ratio issues)

2) Raise CPU Vcore.

3) Reduce cache ratio (this always works)

4) Adjust VCCSA and/or VCCIO (may have a small effect as they affect the cache in different ways)

5) Adjust RAM subtimings and Tertiary timings (I don't know enough about this. I'm a noob and just copy other people's settings. @cstkl1 knows how to fix that)

6) Minecraft: Reduce thread affinity amount, limit Minecraft java's exe to 6 threads in affinity editor/task manager.

7) Don't use Skylake cores arch.

Don't get me started on CPU Cache L0 errors. These are some instability with hyperthreaded cores only when you're not stable. Depending on your stress test, raising VCCIO or VCCSA can either make things better or worse. (prime95 small FFT SSE2 responds very differently than AVX1).


----------



## Rbk_3

apw63 said:


> Sounds like you have a AXV offset of 1 set in the bios


No it’s set to 0 and I also tried it on auto. Something weird happening. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Falkentyne said:


> 6) Minecraft: Reduce thread affinity amount, limit Minecraft java's exe to 6 threads in affinity editor/task manager.


This worked for Minecraft, everything else is fine after setting LLC4, played about 6 hours of Vahleim today, no errors.
Minecraft did, but not for at least 30 minutes, when I set the affinity it was fine, not that I play Minecraft anymore, but it was just for testing, my 8yo son usually uses my Java install/account.

Honestly I wouldn't of even known unless I was running HWINFO.


----------



## robalm

Hi guys i just upgraded to a i9 10900kf and man oh man do i have problem .
I really hope someone can help me out before i go crasy.
Here is some problem.

1: XMP is not working when i run my 2 sticks in slot 1 and 3. But works perfect in slot 2 and 4, i have tested on 2 asus z490 f gaming motherboard and it's the same problem.

2: The cpu runs at 200w (cpu power) @1.34v stock in cpuz stresstest and it never down klock it runs and 4.9ghz even when i get 200w.
I have tested all mch "Enforce All Limits and Enable - Remove All Limits-stock" but it give me the same result, 200w and 4.9ghz in cpuz stresstest no downclock at all.

3. Vcore is not correct. If i set vcore manuall (stock clock) i get 1.137v i load whatever vcore i set. I have tested LLC from 2 to 6 but i get the same vcore 1.137v.
If i use adoptive vcore at 1.2v it give me 1.6v!! In windows and got about 60c idle!.
If i set the clock speed at up to 5.1ghz it always get the same vcore in load 1.137v.
But if i go to 5.3ghz i will get 1.356v even if i run manuell vcore at 1.2v llc 2 to 4.

This is insane i upgraded from a i7 9700k with asus z390 f gaming. And i never have any problem like this.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

robalm said:


> Hi guys i just upgraded to a i9 10900kf and man oh man do i have problem .
> I really hope someone can help me out before i go crasy.
> Here is some problem.
> 
> 1: XMP is not working when i run my 2 sticks in slot 1 and 3. But works perfect in slot 2 and 4, i have tested on 2 asus z490 f gaming motherboard and it's the same problem.
> 
> 2: The cpu runs at 200w (cpu power) @1.34v stock in cpuz stresstest and it never down klock it runs and 4.9ghz even when i get 200w.
> I have tested all mch "Enforce All Limits and Enable - Remove All Limits-stock" but it give me the same result, 200w and 4.9ghz in cpuz stresstest no downclock at all.
> 
> 3. Vcore is not correct. If i set vcore manuall (stock clock) i get 1.137v i load whatever vcore i set. I have tested LLC from 2 to 6 but i get the same vcore 1.137v.
> If i use adoptive vcore at 1.2v it give me 1.6v!! In windows and got about 60c idle!.
> If i set the clock speed at up to 5.1ghz it always get the same vcore in load 1.137v.
> But if i go to 5.3ghz i will get 1.356v even if i run manuell vcore at 1.2v llc 2 to 4.
> 
> This is insane i upgraded from a i7 9700k with asus z390 f gaming. And i never have any problem like this.



Yeah things are a little different than previous gen (I had a 9900k).

With the XMP I had to use XMP II, XMP I causes blue screens with my 4x8GB 3600Mhz sticks.
VCCSA/IO were pretty high SA was 1.42v, knocked it back down to 1.3v which seems to be fine.

With manual vcore, mine does seem to go over what's set at idle, under load depending on the LLC it will go under the set vcore.
Adaptive you need to set a negative offset or it'll just use what voltage it thinks it needs regardless of what voltage you stick in the manual section.
I have a negative offset of -0.100, which keeps it at around 1.37v for 5.1Ghz.


----------



## robalm

schoolofmonkey said:


> Yeah things are a little different than previous gen (I had a 9900k).
> 
> With the XMP I had to use XMP II, XMP I causes blue screens with my 4x8GB 3600Mhz sticks.
> VCCSA/IO were pretty high SA was 1.42v, knocked it back down to 1.3v which seems to be fine.
> 
> With manual vcore, mine does seem to go over what's set at idle, under load depending on the LLC it will go under the set vcore.
> Adaptive you need to set a negative offset or it'll just use what voltage it thinks it needs regardless of what voltage you stick in the manual section.
> I have a negative offset of -0.100, which keeps it at around 1.37v for 5.1Ghz.


I got a new cpu a i9 10900k and it's the same problem.
I don't understand how when i set manuell vcore it should not go down to 0.684v idle and go to 1.199v in load (when i set 1.32v in bios with LLC at 4).

The only thing i can think of is something with the VID. But i can't even disable it, if i do so i can not get paste bios screen it just frezes.


----------



## Imprezzion

Manual will not let you go to idle voltages. You need either adaptive+offset or just offset. I use adaptive + offset at -120 at 5.3Ghz all core AVX offset 0. This results in about 1.411v idle 1.390v load on LLC3 + AC/DC Mode_1 on the MSI Ace.


----------



## robalm

Imprezzion said:


> Manual will not let you go to idle voltages. You need either adaptive+offset or just offset. I use adaptive + offset at -120 at 5.3Ghz all core AVX offset 0. This results in about 1.411v idle 1.390v load on LLC3 + AC/DC Mode_1 on the MSI Ace.


On my system it do 
I know it's strange, never seen any things like this in the paste, i mean on my old system when you set a manuell vcore it will not drop to idle voltage.
Here you can see.
On this photos all i have done is enable XMP profile and set the vcore to manual at 1.25v.
And a photo when i booted into windows.















Here is a photo when i set adaptive vcore to 1.2v. But in windows i get over 1.6v!


----------



## Cpfan2

Should i get k or kf version for potentally better oc and imc? Box or tray? 

The 11700k looks like poo and i dont see 11900k being much better.


----------



## robalm

Cpfan2 said:


> Should i get k or kf version for potentally better oc and imc? Box or tray?
> 
> The 11700k looks like poo and i dont see 11900k being much better.


My kf was running 1.336v stock and my k runs 1.288v.


----------



## Imprezzion

Statistically (source: siliconlottery.com) a KF is a few % more likely to hit 5.1 but there's no real difference. Me and a few mates all got KF's and put of a sample size of 4 only 1 (mine) is quite good, 5.3 AVX0 direct die @ 1.39v and 5.1 AVX0 not delidded or anything at first @ 1.26v under a simple 360 AIO. One of the cpu's can do 5.1 as well but needs 1.33v for it in AVX so we run AVX -1 and the other 2 cannot do 5.1 at a voltage coolable with a AIO. Both require well over 1.35v.


----------



## Cpfan2

Thanks for advice. Is avengers edition any better than kf? Maybe these were produced/packed in late 2020 and regular ones are newer ones, maybe these late 2020 batches are better.


----------



## Nizzen

Cpfan2 said:


> Thanks for advice. Is avengers edition any better than kf? Maybe these were produced/packed in late 2020 and regular ones are newer ones, maybe these late 2020 batches are better.


There is no better, since every K,KF,KA is random lottery.

My best 10900k is actually from the first batch. I bought KA and KF, and they where trash. Lottery

Want better chance? Buy 20 pcs and keep the best. Or buy a prebinned chip


----------



## RobertoSampaio

robalm said:


> On my system it do
> I know it's strange, never seen any things like this in the paste, i mean on my old system when you set a manuell vcore it will not drop to idle voltage.
> Here you can see.
> On this photos all i have done is enable XMP profile and set the vcore to manual at 1.25v.
> And a photo when i booted into windows.
> 
> View attachment 2481599
> View attachment 2481600
> 
> 
> Here is a photo when i set adaptive vcore to 1.2v. But in windows i get over 1.6v!
> View attachment 2481601


Hi...

Try to Set "SVID Behaivor" to TRAINED.


----------



## robalm

RobertoSampaio said:


> Hi...
> 
> Try to Set "SVID Behaivor" to TRAINED.



Thanks for the tips. But i got a new moderboard, got it today. Will test it later today to see if i get the same problem.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Hi...
I was observing cores and I think Core 0 is weaker than others...
I cant remember if It always had a weak perform. Could it be wear?
Is it normal?


----------



## menko2

I got a 10900k with SP 63 and Cooler 169 (Arctic freezer ii 420).

Pretty bad SP. I still go 5.1ghz @1.30v with no problems. LL5 and 1.25-1.25 vccio-sa.

Is it accurate the SP result from the Bios?


----------



## Imprezzion

That seems about right for a 63. Is that AVX stable or just offset / not tested.


----------



## aDyerSituation

Ordered my 10900k and Z490e yesterday 
hoping for 5.1


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Is this a good tool to test CPU?









The Intel® Processor Diagnostic Tool Overview, Download, and...


Intel® Processor Diagnostic Tool resources, download links, and documentation.




www.intel.com


----------



## cstkl1

Nizzen said:


> There is no better, since every K,KF,KA is random lottery.
> 
> My best 10900k is actually from the first batch. I bought KA and KF, and they where trash. Lottery
> 
> Want better chance? Buy 20 pcs and keep the best. Or buy a prebinned chip


or do a virgin sacrifice blood ritual.

hehe.


----------



## normy80

Hi There, I have recently purchased a 10900k and a Asus Z590 Hero Motherboard and have dabbled with a bit of overclocking and wanted to check my settings with people who know what they are doing as I am a complete noob at these things and followed videos and forums like these. Ive attached photos of the settings I have changed. If its not on the photograph then i aint changed it. I guess I am seeking a bit of reassurance. My temps are really good surprisingly to me. I have overclocked to 5.2Ghz and my temps very rarely go above 72C which is a massive improvement in the 9900k I had previously.

Thanks in advance


----------



## gecko991

Nice chip.


----------



## robalm

Anyone know a good way to undervolt, i always have been using adoptive vcore but on z490 it's to hard for me.
Can i use offset?
Or
AC Loadline
DC Loadline


----------



## RobertoSampaio

normy80 said:


> Hi There, I have recently purchased a 10900k and a Asus Z590 Hero Motherboard and have dabbled with a bit of overclocking and wanted to check my settings with people who know what they are doing as I am a complete noob at these things and followed videos and forums like these. Ive attached photos of the settings I have changed. If its not on the photograph then i aint changed it. I guess I am seeking a bit of reassurance. My temps are really good surprisingly to me. I have overclocked to 5.2Ghz and my temps very rarely go above 72C which is a massive improvement in the 9900k I had previously.
> 
> Thanks in advance


I suggest you to install WH-INFO.
I think VCCSA and VCCIO, with XMP, are very hi.
You can set 1.25/1.25v and test.
You can try use "SVID Behaivor" -> "Trained" and use LLC4.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

This is my setting...
Important setting are in Bold.
These setting use speedstep with OCTVB 55x3-54x5-53x8-52x10.
Under load I have 5GHz with Vcore=1.20V.

[2021/03/14 16:44:30]
*Ai Overclock Tuner [Manual]*
BCLK Frequency [100.0000]
PCIE Frequency [100.0000]
*ASUS MultiCore Enhancement [Enabled – Remove All limits]
SVID Behavior [Trained]*
AVX Instruction Core Ratio Negative Offset [User Specify]
AVX Instruction Core Ratio Negative Offset Value [0]
*CPU Core Ratio [By Core Usage]
Turbo Ratio Limit 0 [55]
Turbo Ratio Cores 0 [3]
Turbo Ratio Limit 1 [54]
Turbo Ratio Cores 1 [5]
Turbo Ratio Limit 2 [53]
Turbo Ratio Cores 2 [8]
Turbo Ratio Limit 3 [52]
Turbo Ratio Cores 3 [10]
Turbo Ratio Limit 4 [Auto]
Turbo Ratio Cores 4 [Auto]*
BCLK Frequency : DRAM Frequency Ratio [Auto]
DRAM Odd Ratio Mode [Enabled]
DRAM Frequency [DDR4-4133MHz]
*Xtreme Tweaking [Enabled]*
CPU SVID Support [Auto]
Maximus Tweak [Auto]
DRAM CAS# Latency [18]
DRAM RAS# to CAS# Delay [23]
DRAM RAS# ACT Time [42]
DRAM Command Rate [Auto]
DRAM RAS# to RAS# Delay L [6]
DRAM RAS# to RAS# Delay S [4]
DRAM REF Cycle Time [490]
DRAM REF Cycle Time 2 [Auto]
DRAM REF Cycle Time 4 [Auto]
DRAM Refresh Interval [65535]
DRAM WRITE Recovery Time [17]
DRAM READ to PRE Time [12]
DRAM FOUR ACT WIN Time [16]
DRAM WRITE to READ Delay [Auto]
DRAM WRITE to READ Delay L [Auto]
DRAM WRITE to READ Delay S [Auto]
DRAM CKE Minimum Pulse Width [Auto]
DRAM Write Latency [17]
ODT RTT WR (CHA) [Auto]
ODT RTT PARK (CHA) [Auto]
ODT RTT NOM (CHA) [Auto]
ODT RTT WR (CHB) [Auto]
ODT RTT PARK (CHB) [Auto]
ODT RTT NOM (CHB) [Auto]
ODT_READ_DURATION [Auto]
ODT_READ_DELAY [Auto]
ODT_WRITE_DURATION [Auto]
ODT_WRITE_DELAY [Auto]
Data Rising Slope [Auto]
Data Rising Slope Offset [Auto]
Cmd Rising Slope [Auto]
Cmd Rising Slope Offset [Auto]
Ctl Rising Slope [Auto]
Ctl Rising Slope Offset [Auto]
Clk Rising Slope [Auto]
Clk Rising Slope Offset [Auto]
Data Falling Slope [Auto]
Data Falling Slope Offset [Auto]
Cmd Falling Slope [Auto]
Cmd Falling Slope Offset [Auto]
Ctl Falling Slope [Auto]
Ctl Falling Slope Offset [Auto]
Clk Falling Slope [Auto]
Clk Falling Slope Offset [Auto]
DRAM RTL INIT value [Auto]
DRAM IOL INIT value(CHA) [Auto]
DRAM IOL INIT value(CHB) [Auto]
DRAM RTL (CHA DIMM0 Rank0) [Auto]
DRAM RTL (CHA DIMM0 Rank1) [Auto]
DRAM RTL (CHA DIMM1 Rank0) [Auto]
DRAM RTL (CHA DIMM1 Rank1) [Auto]
DRAM RTL (CHB DIMM0 Rank0) [Auto]
DRAM RTL (CHB DIMM0 Rank1) [Auto]
DRAM RTL (CHB DIMM1 Rank0) [Auto]
DRAM RTL (CHB DIMM1 Rank1) [Auto]
DRAM IOL (CHA DIMM0 Rank0) [Auto]
DRAM IOL (CHA DIMM0 Rank1) [Auto]
DRAM IOL (CHA DIMM1 Rank0) [Auto]
DRAM IOL (CHA DIMM1 Rank1) [Auto]
DRAM IOL (CHB DIMM0 Rank0) [Auto]
DRAM IOL (CHB DIMM0 Rank1) [Auto]
DRAM IOL (CHB DIMM1 Rank0) [Auto]
DRAM IOL (CHB DIMM1 Rank1) [Auto]
CHA IO_Latency_offset [Auto]
CHB IO_Latency_offset [Auto]
CHA RFR delay [Auto]
CHB RFR delay [Auto]
Early Command Training [Auto]
SenseAmp Offset Training [Enabled]
Early ReadMPR Timing Centering 2D [Enabled]
Read MPR Training [Enabled]
Receive Enable Training [Enabled]
Jedec Write Leveling [Enabled]
LPDDR4 Write DQ DQS Retraining [Enabled]
Early Write Time Centering 2D [Auto]
Early Read Time Centering 2D [Auto]
Write Timing Centering 1D [Enabled]
Write Voltage Centering 1D [Auto]
Read Timing Centering 1D [Auto]
Dimm ODT Training* [Auto]
DIMM RON Training* [Auto]
Write Drive Strength/Equalization 2D* [Disabled]
Write Slew Rate Training* [Auto]
Read ODT Training* [Auto]
Read Equalization Training* [Auto]
Read Amplifier Training* [Auto]
Write Timing Centering 2D [Auto]
Read Timing Centering 2D [Auto]
Command Voltage Centering [Auto]
Write Voltage Centering 2D [Auto]
Read Voltage Centering 2D [Auto]
Late Command Training [Auto]
Round Trip Latency [Auto]
Turn Around Timing Training [Disabled]
Rank Margin Tool [Auto]
Margin Check Limit [Disabled]
Memory Test [Disabled]
DIMM SPD Alias Test [Auto]
Receive Enable Centering 1D [Auto]
Retrain Margin Check [Disabled]
Write Drive Strength Up/Dn independently [Disabled]
CMD Drive Strength and Tx Equalization [Auto]
CMD Slew Rate Training [Auto]
Command Normalization [Disabled]
Early DQ Write Drive Strength and Equalization Training [Disabled]
Read Voltage Centering 1D [Enabled]
Dimm ODT CA Training [Enabled]
DQ DFE Training [Disabled]
tRDRD_sg_Training [Auto]
tRDRD_sg_Runtime [Auto]
tRDRD_dg_Training [Auto]
tRDRD_dg_Runtime [Auto]
tRDWR_sg [10]
tRDWR_dg [10]
tWRWR_sg [Auto]
tWRWR_dg [Auto]
tWRRD_sg [30]
tWRRD_dg [23]
tRDRD_dr [Auto]
tRDRD_dd [Auto]
tRDWR_dr [10]
tRDWR_dd [10]
tWRWR_dr [7]
tWRWR_dd [7]
tWRRD_dr [7]
tWRRD_dd [7]
TWRPRE [Auto]
TRDPRE [Auto]
tREFIX9 [Auto]
OREF_RI [Auto]
TXP [Auto]
PPD [Auto]
MRC Fast Boot [Auto]
Delay after Train [Disabled]
DRAM CLK Period [Auto]
Memory Scrambler [Enabled]
Channel A DIMM Control [Disable DIMM0]
Channel B DIMM Control [Disable DIMM0]
Trace Centering [Disabled]
MCH Full Check [Auto]
Mem Over Clock Fail Count [Auto]
Training Profile [Auto]
DLLBwEn [Auto]
Legacy Mode [Disabled]
SPD Write Disable [TRUE]
XTU Setting [Auto]
*Voltage Monitor [Die Sense]
CPU Load-line Calibration [Level 4:Recommended for OC]
Synch ACDC Loadline with VRM Loadline [Disabled]
CPU Current Capability [Auto]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Manual]
Fixed CPU VRM Switching Frequency(KHz) [600KHz]
CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe]
CPU Power Phase Control [Auto]
CPU Power Thermal Control [130]
CPU VRM Thermal Control [Auto]*
DRAM Current Capability [100%]
DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto]
CPU Core/Cache Boot Voltage [Auto]
DMI Boot Voltage [Auto]
CPU System Agent Boot Voltage [Auto]
CPU VCCIO Boot Voltage [Auto]
PLL Termination Boot voltage [Auto]
CPU Standby Boot Voltage [Auto]
CPU Core Auto Voltage Cap [Auto]
CPU VCCIO Auto Voltage Cap [Auto]
CPU System Agent Auto Voltage Cap [Auto]
Maximum CPU Core Temperature [Auto]
*CPU Core/Cache Current Limit Max. [Auto]
Long Duration Package Power Limit [220]
Package Power Time Window [Auto]
Short Duration Package Power Limit [225]*
IA AC Load Line [Auto]
IA DC Load Line [Auto]
*TVB Voltage Optimizations [Auto]
V-Max Stress [Auto]
Overclocking TVB [Enabled]
1-Core Active [Enabled]
Temperature A [68]
Negative Ratio Offset A [Auto]
Temperature B for additional -1x Ratio [78]
2-Core Active [Enabled]
Temperature A [64]
Negative Ratio Offset A [Auto]
Temperature B for additional -1x Ratio [74]
3-Core Active [Enabled]
Temperature A [60]
Negative Ratio Offset A [Auto]
Temperature B for additional -1x Ratio [70]
4-Core Active [Enabled]
Temperature A [62]
Negative Ratio Offset A [Auto]
Temperature B for additional -1x Ratio [72]
5-Core Active [Enabled]
Temperature A [58]
Negative Ratio Offset A [Auto]
Temperature B for additional -1x Ratio [68]
6-Core Active [Enabled]
Temperature A [60]
Negative Ratio Offset A [Auto]
Temperature B for additional -1x Ratio [70]
7-Core Active [Enabled]
Temperature A [56]
Negative Ratio Offset A [Auto]
Temperature B for additional -1x Ratio [66]
8-Core Active [Enabled]
Temperature A [52]
Negative Ratio Offset A [Auto]
Temperature B for additional -1x Ratio [62]
9-Core Active [Enabled]
Temperature A [64]
Negative Ratio Offset A [Auto]
Temperature B for additional -1x Ratio [74]
10-Core Active [Enabled]
Temperature A [60]
Negative Ratio Offset A [Auto]
Temperature B for additional -1x Ratio [70]
Offset Mode Sign 1 [-]
V/F Point 1 Offset [0.004]
Offset Mode Sign 2 [-]
V/F Point 2 Offset [0.004]
Offset Mode Sign 3 [-]
V/F Point 3 Offset [0.004]
Offset Mode Sign 4 [-]
V/F Point 4 Offset [0.004]
Offset Mode Sign 5 [-]
V/F Point 5 Offset [0.029]
Offset Mode Sign 6 [-]
V/F Point 6 Offset [0.039]
Offset Mode Sign 7 [+]
V/F Point 7 Offset [0.001]
Offset Mode Sign 8 [+]
V/F Point 8 Offset [0.002]
Realtime Memory Timing [Enabled]*
FCLK Frequency for Early Power On [Auto]
Initial BCLK Frequency [Auto]
BCLK Amplitude [Auto]
BCLK Slew Rate [Auto]
BCLK Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
BCLK Frequency Slew Rate [Auto]
PCIE/DMI Amplitude [Auto]
PCIE/DMI Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
PCIE/DMI Frequency Slew Rate [Auto]
PCIE/DMI Slew Rate [Auto]
Cold Boot PCIE Frequency [Auto]
DRAM VTT Voltage [Auto]
VPPDDR Voltage [Auto]
DMI Voltage [Auto]
Internal PLL Voltage [Auto]
GT PLL Voltage [Auto]
Ring PLL Voltage [Auto]
System Agent PLL Voltage [Auto]
Memory Controller PLL Voltage [Auto]
CPU Standby Voltage [Auto]
PLL Bandwidth [Auto]
Eventual DRAM Voltage [Auto]
Eventual CPU Standby Voltage [Auto]
Eventual PLL Termination Voltage [Auto]
Eventual CPU VCCIO Voltage [Auto]
Eventual DMI Voltage [Auto]
System Agent Bandgap Workaround [Auto]
*Package Temperature Threshold [85]
Regulate Frequency by above Threshold [Enabled]
Cooler Efficiency Customize [User Specify]
Cooler Score [152]
Cooler Re-evaluation Algorithm [Normal]
Optimism Scale [100]
Ring Down Bin [Auto]
Min. CPU Cache Ratio [Auto]
Max CPU Cache Ratio [47]
BCLK Aware Adaptive Voltage [Enabled]
CPU Core/Cache Voltage [Adaptive Mode]*

*Offset Mode Sign [+]*
*Additional Turbo Mode CPU Core Voltage [1.460]*
*Offset Voltage [Auto]*
*DRAM Voltage [1.37000]
CPU VCCIO Voltage [1.20000]
CPU System Agent Voltage [1.25000]
PLL Termination Voltage [Auto]
PCH Core Voltage [Auto]*
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHA [Auto]
DRAM CTRL REF Voltage on CHB [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHA DIMM0 Rank0 BL0 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHA DIMM0 Rank0 BL1 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHA DIMM0 Rank0 BL2 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHA DIMM0 Rank0 BL3 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHA DIMM0 Rank0 BL4 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHA DIMM0 Rank0 BL5 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHA DIMM0 Rank0 BL6 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHA DIMM0 Rank0 BL7 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHA DIMM0 Rank1 BL0 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHA DIMM0 Rank1 BL1 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHA DIMM0 Rank1 BL2 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHA DIMM0 Rank1 BL3 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHA DIMM0 Rank1 BL4 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHA DIMM0 Rank1 BL5 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHA DIMM0 Rank1 BL6 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHA DIMM0 Rank1 BL7 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHA DIMM1 Rank0 BL0 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHA DIMM1 Rank0 BL1 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHA DIMM1 Rank0 BL2 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHA DIMM1 Rank0 BL3 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHA DIMM1 Rank0 BL4 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHA DIMM1 Rank0 BL5 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHA DIMM1 Rank0 BL6 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHA DIMM1 Rank0 BL7 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHA DIMM1 Rank1 BL0 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHA DIMM1 Rank1 BL1 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHA DIMM1 Rank1 BL2 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHA DIMM1 Rank1 BL3 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHA DIMM1 Rank1 BL4 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHA DIMM1 Rank1 BL5 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHA DIMM1 Rank1 BL6 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHA DIMM1 Rank1 BL7 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHB DIMM0 Rank0 BL0 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHB DIMM0 Rank0 BL1 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHB DIMM0 Rank0 BL2 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHB DIMM0 Rank0 BL3 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHB DIMM0 Rank0 BL4 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHB DIMM0 Rank0 BL5 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHB DIMM0 Rank0 BL6 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHB DIMM0 Rank0 BL7 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHB DIMM0 Rank1 BL0 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHB DIMM0 Rank1 BL1 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHB DIMM0 Rank1 BL2 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHB DIMM0 Rank1 BL3 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHB DIMM0 Rank1 BL4 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHB DIMM0 Rank1 BL5 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHB DIMM0 Rank1 BL6 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHB DIMM0 Rank1 BL7 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHB DIMM1 Rank0 BL0 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHB DIMM1 Rank0 BL1 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHB DIMM1 Rank0 BL2 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHB DIMM1 Rank0 BL3 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHB DIMM1 Rank0 BL4 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHB DIMM1 Rank0 BL5 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHB DIMM1 Rank0 BL6 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHB DIMM1 Rank0 BL7 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHB DIMM1 Rank1 BL0 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHB DIMM1 Rank1 BL1 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHB DIMM1 Rank1 BL2 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHB DIMM1 Rank1 BL3 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHB DIMM1 Rank1 BL4 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHB DIMM1 Rank1 BL5 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHB DIMM1 Rank1 BL6 [Auto]
DRAM DATA REF Voltage on CHB DIMM1 Rank1 BL7 [Auto]
*PCI Express Native Power Management [Enabled]
Native ASPM [Enabled]
DMI Link ASPM Control [L0s]
ASPM [L0sL1]
L1 Substates [Disabled]
PCI Express Clock Gating [Enabled]
DMI Link ASPM Control [L1]
PEG - ASPM [ASPM L0sL1]
ASPM L0s [Both Root and Endpoint Ports]
Software Guard Extensions (SGX) [Disabled]
Tcc Offset Time Window [Auto]
Hardware Prefetcher [Enabled]
Adjacent Cache Line Prefetch [Enabled]
Intel (VMX) Virtualization Technology [Enabled]
Active Processor Cores [All]
Hyper-Threading [Enabled]
Hyper-Threading of Core 0 [Enabled]
Hyper-Threading of Core 1 [Enabled]
Hyper-Threading of Core 2 [Enabled]
Hyper-Threading of Core 3 [Enabled]
Hyper-Threading of Core 4 [Enabled]
Hyper-Threading of Core 5 [Enabled]
Hyper-Threading of Core 6 [Enabled]
Hyper-Threading of Core 7 [Enabled]
Hyper-Threading of Core 8 [Enabled]
Hyper-Threading of Core 9 [Enabled]
MonitorMWait [Enabled]
Boot performance mode [Auto]
Intel(R) SpeedStep(tm) [Auto]
Intel(R) Speed Shift Technology [Auto]
Intel(R) Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0 [Enabled]
Turbo Mode [Enabled]
CPU C-states [Enabled]
Enhanced C-states [Enabled]
CPU C3 Report [Enabled]
CPU C6 Report [Enabled]
CPU C7 Report [CPU C7]
CPU C8 Report [Enabled]
CPU C9 Report [Enabled]
CPU C10 Report [Enabled]
Package C State Limit [C8]
Thermal Monitor [Enabled]
Dual Tau Boost [Disabled]*
VT-d [Disabled]
Memory Remap [Enabled]
PCIEX16_1 Link Speed [Auto]
PCIEX16_2 Link Speed [Auto]
PCIe Speed [Auto]
SATA Controller(s) [Enabled]
SATA Mode Selection [AHCI]
Aggressive LPM Support [Disabled]
SMART Self Test [Enabled]
SATA6G_1 [Enabled]
SATA6G_1 Hot Plug [Disabled]
SATA6G_2 [Enabled]
SATA6G_2 Hot Plug [Disabled]
SATA6G_3 [Enabled]
SATA6G_3 Hot Plug [Disabled]
SATA6G_4 [Enabled]
SATA6G_4 Hot Plug [Disabled]
SATA6G_5 [Enabled]
SATA6G_5 Hot Plug [Disabled]
SATA6G_6 [Enabled]
SATA6G_6 Hot Plug [Disabled]
PTT [Disable]
Discrete Thunderbolt(TM) Support [Disabled]
*Above 4G Decoding [Enabled]
Re-Size BAR Support [Auto]*
SR-IOV Support [Disabled]
Legacy USB Support [Enabled]
XHCI Hand-off [Enabled]
U32G1_E3 [Enabled]
U32G1_E4 [Enabled]
U32G1_E5 [Enabled]
U32G1_E6 [Enabled]
U32G2_3 [Enabled]
U32G2_5 [Enabled]
U32G2_6 [Enabled]
U32G1_7 [Enabled]
U32G1_8 [Enabled]
U32G1_9 [Enabled]
U32G1_10 [Enabled]
U32G1_E1 [Enabled]
U32G1_E2 [Enabled]
USB3.2_1 [Enabled]
U32G2_C4 [Enabled]
Network Stack [Disabled]
PCIe Bandwidth Bifurcation Configuration [Auto]
HD Audio [Enabled]
Intel LAN [Disabled]
MARVELL 10G LAN [Enabled]
Asmedia USB 3.0 Controller [Enabled]
USB power delivery in Soft Off state (S5) [Enabled]
Connectivity mode (Wi-Fi & Bluetooth) [Enabled]
When system is in working state [All On]
Q-Code LED Function [Auto]
When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [Aura Only]
When system is in working state [On]
When system is in sleep, hibernate or soft off states [Off]
M.2_1 Configuration [Auto]
M.2_2 Configuration [M.2_2 X4]
M.2_3 Configuration [Auto]
U32G2_1 Type C Power Mode [Auto]
U31G2_C4 Type C Power Mode [Auto]
Restore AC Power Loss [Power Off]
Energy Star Ready [Disabled]
ErP Ready [Disabled]
Power On By PCI-E [Disabled]
Power On By RTC [Disabled]
Device [WDC WD10EZEX-00RKKA0]
CPU Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Package Temperature [Monitor]
MotherBoard Temperature [Monitor]
VRM Temperature [Monitor]
Chipset Temperature [Monitor]
T_Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
Water In T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
Water Out T Sensor Temperature [Monitor]
CPU Fan Speed [Monitor]
CPU Optional Fan Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed [Monitor]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed [Monitor]
High Amp Fan Speed [Monitor]
Water Pump+ Speed [Monitor]
AIO Pump Speed [Monitor]
CPU Core Voltage [Monitor]
12V Voltage [Monitor]
5V Voltage [Monitor]
3.3V Voltage [Monitor]
Flow Rate [Monitor]
AI Cooling [Disabled]
CPU Fan Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
CPU Fan Step Up [12 sec]
CPU Fan Step Down [12 sec]
CPU Fan Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
CPU Fan Profile [Manual]
CPU Fan Upper Temperature [75]
CPU Fan Max. Duty Cycle (%) [80]
CPU Fan Middle Temperature [60]
CPU Fan Middle Duty Cycle (%) [70]
CPU Fan Lower Temperature [40]
CPU Fan Min Duty Cycle (%) [25]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
Chassis Fan 1 Q-Fan Source [Water Out T Sensor]
Chassis Fan 1 Step Up [12 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Step Down [12 sec]
Chassis Fan 1 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 1 Profile [Manual]
Chassis Fan 1 Upper Temperature [75]
Chassis Fan 1 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
Chassis Fan 1 Middle Temperature [42]
Chassis Fan 1 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [100]
Chassis Fan 1 Lower Temperature [30]
Chassis Fan 1 Min Duty Cycle (%) [20]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Control [DC Mode]
Chassis Fan 2 Q-Fan Source [T_Sensor]
Chassis Fan 2 Step Up [12 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Step Down [12 sec]
Chassis Fan 2 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 2 Profile [Manual]
Chassis Fan 2 Upper Temperature [75]
Chassis Fan 2 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
Chassis Fan 2 Middle Temperature [65]
Chassis Fan 2 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [100]
Chassis Fan 2 Lower Temperature [40]
Chassis Fan 2 Min Duty Cycle (%) [30]
Allow Fan Stop [Disabled]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Control [DC Mode]
Chassis Fan 3 Q-Fan Source [T_Sensor]
Chassis Fan 3 Step Up [12 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Step Down [12 sec]
Chassis Fan 3 Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
Chassis Fan 3 Profile [Manual]
Chassis Fan 3 Upper Temperature [75]
Chassis Fan 3 Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
Chassis Fan 3 Middle Temperature [68]
Chassis Fan 3 Middle Duty Cycle (%) [100]
Chassis Fan 3 Lower Temperature [40]
Chassis Fan 3 Min Duty Cycle (%) [30]
Allow Fan Stop [Disabled]
High Amp Fan Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
High Amp Fan Q-Fan Source [Water Out T Sensor]
High Amp Fan Step Up [12 sec]
High Amp Fan Step Down [12 sec]
High Amp Fan Speed Low Limit [200 RPM]
High Amp Fan Profile [Manual]
High Amp Fan Upper Temperature [75]
High Amp Fan Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
High Amp Fan Middle Temperature [42]
High Amp Fan Middle Duty Cycle (%) [100]
High Amp Fan Lower Temperature [30]
High Amp Fan Min Duty Cycle (%) [30]
Water Pump+ Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
Water Pump+ Q-Fan Source [Chipset]
Water Pump+ Upper Temperature [75]
Water Pump+ Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
Water Pump+ Middle Temperature [50]
Water Pump+ Middle Duty Cycle (%) [40]
Water Pump+ Lower Temperature [30]
Water Pump+ Min Duty Cycle (%) [30]
AIO Pump Q-Fan Control [PWM Mode]
AIO Pump Q-Fan Source [Chipset]
AIO Pump Upper Temperature [75]
AIO Pump Max. Duty Cycle (%) [100]
AIO Pump Middle Temperature [50]
AIO Pump Middle Duty Cycle (%) [40]
AIO Pump Lower Temperature [30]
AIO Pump Min Duty Cycle (%) [30]
CPU Temperature LED Switch [Enabled]
Launch CSM [Disabled]
OS Type [Windows UEFI mode]
Fast Boot [Enabled]
Next Boot after AC Power Loss [Fast Boot]
Boot Logo Display [Auto]
POST Delay Time [3 sec]
Bootup NumLock State [On]
Wait For 'F1' If Error [Enabled]
AMI Native NVMe Driver Support [Enabled]
Option ROM Messages [Force BIOS]
Interrupt 19 Capture [Disabled]
Setup Mode [Advanced Mode]
Boot Sector (MBR/GPT) Recovery Policy [Local User Control]
Next Boot Recovery Action [Skip]
Flexkey [Reset]
Setup Animator [Disabled]
Load from Profile [6]
Profile Name [55V39V01T70M33]
Save to Profile [6]
DIMM Slot Number [DIMM_A2]
Download & Install ARMOURY CRATE app [Enabled]


----------



## fray_bentos

normy80 said:


> Hi There, I have recently purchased a 10900k and a Asus Z590 Hero Motherboard and have dabbled with a bit of overclocking and wanted to check my settings with people who know what they are doing as I am a complete noob at these things and followed videos and forums like these. Ive attached photos of the settings I have changed. If its not on the photograph then i aint changed it. I guess I am seeking a bit of reassurance. My temps are really good surprisingly to me. I have overclocked to 5.2Ghz and my temps very rarely go above 72C which is a massive improvement in the 9900k I had previously.
> 
> Thanks in advance
> 
> View attachment 2482484
> View attachment 2482485
> View attachment 2482486
> View attachment 2482487


Your system agent voltage is 1.584 V, which is dangerously high! Try setting 1.3 V for IO and SA, then lower to 1.25 V, then if stable lower to 1.20 V.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

normy80 said:


> Hi There, I have recently purchased a 10900k and a Asus Z590 Hero Motherboard and have dabbled with a bit of overclocking and wanted to check my settings with people who know what they are doing as I am a complete noob at these things and followed videos and forums like these. Ive attached photos of the settings I have changed. If its not on the photograph then i aint changed it. I guess I am seeking a bit of reassurance. My temps are really good surprisingly to me. I have overclocked to 5.2Ghz and my temps very rarely go above 72C which is a massive improvement in the 9900k I had previously.
> 
> Thanks in advance
> 
> View attachment 2482484
> View attachment 2482485
> View attachment 2482486
> View attachment 2482487


Run Minecraft Java edition, it produces interesting results with said stable overclocks, which I found out recently when Valheim produced the same result, just not as quickly as Minecraft..


----------



## normy80

Hi, I think I have changed the setting you mentioned. I have attached a screenshot and underlined the setting i have changed. The voltage has come down to 1.296v. Is that acceptable now?


fray_bentos said:


> Your system agent voltage is 1.584 V, which is dangerously high! Try setting 1.3 V for IO and SA, then lower to 1.25 V, then if stable lower to 1.20 V.


----------



## fray_bentos

normy80 said:


> Hi, I think I have changed the setting you mentioned. I have attached a screenshot and underlined the setting i have changed. The voltage has come down to 1.296v. Is that acceptable now?
> 
> View attachment 2482575


The lower the better, as long as you keep stability. For comparison I run 1.20 V on both IO and SA with my RAM at 3900 MHz 14-15-15-33, you might still be stable at 1.25 V, or lower. The lower it is, the lower the risk of IMC degradation, and the better the temperatures and power consumption.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Anyone here has a collector edition 10900k? What is your sp?


----------



## Nizzen

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Anyone here has a collector edition 10900k? What is your sp?


I bought one 10900KA. It was SP63 and the worst 10900k from 11pcs 🤣

All 10900k/KA/KF is random bin.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Nizzen said:


> I bought one 10900KA. It was SP63 and the worst 10900k from 11pcs 🤣
> 
> All 10900k/KA/KF is random bin.


Not the KA. The one comes with cooler master Tec and the outside box is yellow. I think its a prize from somewhere.


----------



## normy80

fray_bentos said:


> The lower the better, as long as you keep stability. For comparison I run 1.20 V on both IO and SA with my RAM at 3900 MHz 14-15-15-33, you might still be stable at 1.25 V, or lower. The lower it is, the lower the risk of IMC degradation, and the better the temperatures and power consumption.


I have took your suggestion and managed to lower it a bit more. Even managed to raise my cinebench scores a little. I did notice that my temps were a little higher, but only by a few degrees so im not to concerned.












schoolofmonkey said:


> Run Minecraft Java edition, it produces interesting results with said stable overclocks, which I found out recently when Valheim produced the same result, just not as quickly as Minecraft..


I don't play minecraft I'm afraid. Must be one of those odd people that has never been interested in it


----------



## fray_bentos

normy80 said:


> I have took your suggestion and managed to lower it a bit more. Even managed to raise my cinebench scores a little. I did notice that my temps were a little higher, but only by a few degrees so im not to concerned.
> 
> View attachment 2482618
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't play minecraft I'm afraid. Must be one of those odd people that has never been interested in it


Glad you acheived that, and a performance boost. Not sure I understand the higher temperatures from lowered voltages, but observation is observation. Next I would see if VCCIO can come down to 1.25 V as well. Indeed, VCCIO is normally run at a lower voltage than VCCSA. VCCIO is normally the one people are most concerned about keeping low.


----------



## sabishiihito

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Not the KA. The one comes with cooler master Tec and the outside box is yellow. I think its a prize from somewhere.


The one Linus got is 100+ so I'd assume all of them are.


----------



## Nabonidus

one for sale here









🔥 GOLDEN SAMPLE Intel i9-10900K LIMITED EDITION 1/200 +ML360 Cooler! RARE! 🔥 | eBay


Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for 🔥 GOLDEN SAMPLE Intel i9-10900K LIMITED EDITION 1/200 +ML360 Cooler! RARE! 🔥 at the best online prices at eBay! Free delivery for many products!



www.ebay.co.uk





The guy must be smoking something to be asking for £3k+ for it


----------



## normy80

fray_bentos said:


> Glad you acheived that, and a performance boost. Not sure I understand the higher temperatures from lowered voltages, but observation is observation. Next I would see if VCCIO can come down to 1.25 V as well. Indeed, VCCIO is normally run at a lower voltage than VCCSA. VCCIO is normally the one people are most concerned about keeping low.


Okay so I have been tweaking as you suggested and It still seems to run okay. Done a few minor benchmarks but about to try Aida64 which came free with my mobo. Do have a query though. What is PLL Termination Voltage? I don't ever remember touching this setting and previous screenshots have shown it was set to AUTO. But now it shows in red 1.60000. Is this a problem for me?
















EDIT:

So I noticed after I set the VCCIO Voltage manually, my temps were idling at around 48-51c which is crazy high to me, they would normally be around 28c at idle. I have reset both back to idle until i figure it out. No idles around 31c.


----------



## Imprezzion

Difficult question for you guys. I get some occasional crashes only in certain games (like BF4) with a 0x0000005 application error. I'm not even sure they are overclock related but it "feels" like they are. I did throw about every single stress test you can imagine at my overclock and they all pass fine so I'm not sure where to look.

I run: 10900KF direct-die @ 5.3 all core AVX0 1.390v VCC Sense (under load, idle 1.411v) adaptive offset LLC3 AC/DC mode_1. Cache 4.9Ghz. RAM 4400 17-17-17-36-330-2T with 1.50v DRAM, 1.40v SA 1.35v IO. This passes overnight TestMem5 Anta777 Extreme without errors, HCI overnight no errors as well. Prime95 AVX off overnight, also tested with full AVX FMA3 but I'm not keen on running that for a long period of time, not because of temps, they are well under control (hiting 90-92c peak on AVX Small and like 78-81c without AVX) but because of the long term 355w power draw which is quite ridiculous.. I did test it with small FTT for an hour or so and it handled it fine. I also ran realbench 2.56 overnight, no errors, some rendering H.265 test someone linked overnight, no errors either. 

But yeah, generally a 0x05 error is somehow RAM related so it points me towards the OC. It doesn't happen often, like once every 8-10 hours of gameplay and I only ever saw it happen in BF4 and once in Cyberpunk but never in Control, Division 2 or Borderlands 3 for example.

Any insight what it could be or what other stress test or specific Prime95 FFT I should test with?


----------



## Salve1412

Imprezzion said:


> Difficult question for you guys. I get some occasional crashes only in certain games (like BF4) with a 0x0000005 application error. I'm not even sure they are overclock related but it "feels" like they are. I did throw about every single stress test you can imagine at my overclock and they all pass fine so I'm not sure where to look.
> 
> I run: 10900KF direct-die @ 5.3 all core AVX0 1.390v VCC Sense (under load, idle 1.411v) adaptive offset LLC3 AC/DC mode_1. Cache 4.9Ghz. RAM 4400 17-17-17-36-330-2T with 1.50v DRAM, 1.40v SA 1.35v IO. This passes overnight TestMem5 Anta777 Extreme without errors, HCI overnight no errors as well. Prime95 AVX off overnight, also tested with full AVX FMA3 but I'm not keen on running that for a long period of time, not because of temps, they are well under control (hiting 90-92c peak on AVX Small and like 78-81c without AVX) but because of the long term 355w power draw which is quite ridiculous.. I did test it with small FTT for an hour or so and it handled it fine. I also ran realbench 2.56 overnight, no errors, some rendering H.265 test someone linked overnight, no errors either.
> 
> But yeah, generally a 0x05 error is somehow RAM related so it points me towards the OC. It doesn't happen often, like once every 8-10 hours of gameplay and I only ever saw it happen in BF4 and once in Cyberpunk but never in Control, Division 2 or Borderlands 3 for example.
> 
> Any insight what it could be or what other stress test or specific Prime95 FFT I should test with?


Have you tried to run Prime95 112k-112k in place fixed FFT, AVX2/AVX disabled? It seems to hit the Cache really hard and it's particularly good at detecting combo (CPU+RAM) overclock instability. I usually get rounding errors in the application or L0 Cache Errors in HWInfo within one hour if I'm not enough stable.


----------



## Imprezzion

Salve1412 said:


> Have you tried to run Prime95 112k-112k in place fixed FFT, AVX2/AVX disabled? It seems to hit the Cache really hard and it's particularly good at detecting combo (CPU+RAM) overclock instability. I usually get rounding errors in the application or L0 Cache Errors in HWInfo within one hour if I'm not enough stable.


I haven't yet but just did this test. Also again passed just fine, no errors in 1h.


----------



## fray_bentos

normy80 said:


> Okay so I have been tweaking as you suggested and It still seems to run okay. Done a few minor benchmarks but about to try Aida64 which came free with my mobo. Do have a query though. What is PLL Termination Voltage? I don't ever remember touching this setting and previous screenshots have shown it was set to AUTO. But now it shows in red 1.60000. Is this a problem for me?
> View attachment 2482742
> View attachment 2482742
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> So I noticed after I set the VCCIO Voltage manually, my temps were idling at around 48-51c which is crazy high to me, they would normally be around 28c at idle. I have reset both back to idle until i figure it out. No idles around 31c.


The temps should not be related to VCCIO. My PC idles at 23 C with VCCIO and SA both set to 1.20 V, but I have adaptive voltage and all Intel power saving modes on. I don't know what PLL termination voltage is as that is not on my MSI board, but all my PLL-related voltages are 0.95 V to 1.3 V. If you search around some people report 1.1 to 1.3 V for PLL termination voltage. Perhaps you accidentally knocked it off auto, when changing the other settings, or perhap setting something else to manual changes PLL termination also to a manual mode. People also report lower PLL termination voltage = lower temperatures, but that's because the lower voltage seems to make the temperature sensor report incorrect temperatures. Nonethless, 1.6 V definitely sounds way too high. Can an ASUS board owner contribute a sensible PLL termination voltage? I think your idle temperature problems are related to the PLL voltage, not the VCCIO being fixed at 1.2 V.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Nabonidus said:


> one for sale here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 🔥 GOLDEN SAMPLE Intel i9-10900K LIMITED EDITION 1/200 +ML360 Cooler! RARE! 🔥 | eBay
> 
> 
> Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for 🔥 GOLDEN SAMPLE Intel i9-10900K LIMITED EDITION 1/200 +ML360 Cooler! RARE! 🔥 at the best online prices at eBay! Free delivery for many products!
> 
> 
> 
> www.ebay.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The guy must be smoking something to be asking for £3k+ for it











Intel Core Gold Sample I9-10900K Limited Edition + Cooler Master ML360 Sub-Zero | eBay


My loss is your gain. Good luck!



www.ebay.com


----------



## Imprezzion

Imprezzion said:


> I haven't yet but just did this test. Also again passed just fine, no errors in 1h.
> 
> View attachment 2482784


Ok so, even after also running this test (112k no avx in-place) it still crashed BF4 once and also weirdly enough Control once with a 0x05 application error in event viewer. I'm going to drop everything down a step, so a proven stable 5.2Ghz all core for the CPU and a proven stable profile for the RAM at 4200C16 and see if it still happens.. If it remains stable for a few days gaming it is something related to the overclocks and I can play around with the voltages a bit.


----------



## Placekicker19

Imprezzion said:


> Ok so, even after also running this test (112k no avx in-place) it still crashed BF4 once and also weirdly enough Control once with a 0x05 application error in event viewer. I'm going to drop everything down a step, so a proven stable 5.2Ghz all core for the CPU and a proven stable profile for the RAM at 4200C16 and see if it still happens.. If it remains stable for a few days gaming it is something related to the overclocks and I can play around with the voltages a bit.


I got the 0x05 application errors when pushing very high memory clocks. My cpu needed more vcore when running 4700 cl17 ram. You could always try 20mv more vcore and see if it still crashes. It seems your right on the edge. What are your ram temps when you crash ?


----------



## Imprezzion

Placekicker19 said:


> I got the 0x05 application errors when pushing very high memory clocks. My cpu needed more vcore when running 4700 cl17 ram. You could always try 20mv more vcore and see if it still crashes. It seems your right on the edge. What are your ram temps when you crash ?


Around 39c. I re-ran my overnight TM5 run and it gave 1 single error at the 3h5m mark. I know 4400 is at the edge of what my IMC can comfortably do, I got 4533C17 stable but had to loosen up a lot of other timings and run 1.46v SA 1.44v IO and considerably more vCore to do it and on 5.3Ghz I don't really have the room to increase vCore. As I said I'm already at 92c in AVX stress tests and high 60's to low 70's in gaming and it isn't even summer yet. This poor EK Phoenix 280 just can't handle it lol. It is direct die cooled with liquid metal so the bottleneck now is definitely either the block which is a EK Supremacy (gen 1) or the poor single EK Coolstream SE 280 rad.

I dropped the CPU down to 5.2 all core 4.9 cache @ 1.344v and the RAM to 4200 15-17-17-35-280-2T @ 1.60v DRAM 1.25v IO 1.35v SA. This is what I used to run before the Delid and before I re-did all the overclocks and that never gave any issues in months of running it even tho RAM temps are much higher at 1.60v (46-48c). TM5 is running, we'll see what happens in a few hours.


----------



## CENS

Hi guys, anyone that was fortunate enough to find a SP100+ chip?


----------



## Imprezzion

I have found one, it just isn't mine lol. Mate's bought a 10900KF which was terrible, SP53 and didn't wanna run basically anything over stock MCE so he sent it back and bought another one which was a SP105 which is doing much much better but he doesn't have the cooling for it. It runs 5.1Ghz all core AVX0 with 5Ghz cache and 4400C17 RAM at 1.26v vcore (vcc sense) if I remember correctly. Mine is on a MSI board so I can't see the actual SP but judging by the voltages needed for 5, 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 it should be a SP80 ish.

My previous post update: Seems fine so far on the "old" settings:









Let's game on this for a few days and see if the 0x05 errors come back or stay away now.


----------



## CENS

Yes they are super rare.


----------



## Robertomcat

Hi guys, good afternoon!

Well, I have already received the tools to put the processor on direct die. I'm from Spain and I bought them from RockitCool, and the shipment has been very fast from Texas, in less than a week I had the product at home; of course, I had to pay customs duties.

I have already put the processor with the DD with an EK Velocity water block and an EK XE 360 radiator, the temperatures are tremendously good, I didn't think that the simple fact of removing the IHS was going to make such a big difference of 20° +/-.

Previously I had the processor locked at 5.2, with a voltage of 1.375 without any problems or errors. Today I tried setting it to 5.3 and a voltage of 1.390 with the ring at 48, but the computer restarts when it has a fairly high workload on the RAM and processor. The motherboard is an MSI and I have set the LLC to 2. All other settings are on automatic.

The Vcore voltage at full load is 1,408, VID 1,428, VCCIO 1,194 and VCCSA 1,256. Any recommendations on how to maintain stability, because I think it is very close to being stable. I understand that I could raise the voltage a bit more, but I think that would be overdoing it. 

Thank you.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Sometimes I have "CPU internal Error"... What could be?


----------



## Imprezzion

Probably cache or a L0 error which is usually vCore related.


----------



## Falkentyne

RobertoSampaio said:


> Sometimes I have "CPU internal Error"... What could be?


Usually cache related. An Internal Error is usually a parity error, unless you really messed up and got a translation lookaside buffer error. These only happen on Skylake cores (Skylake/Kabylake etc, 6700k-10900k)

Rocket Lake is a new core so you won't see these anymore.

Only fix is:
1) lower CPU multiplier
2) lower cache multiplier
3) increase vcore.
4) increase loadline calibration (cache is affected by transients less than the core, so a steeper LLC helps reduce the chance of "Parity Errors", but this could increase the chances of an L0 error during heavy load if your core isn't stable (L0's only happen if hyperthreading is enabled). LLC8 is actually extremely effective in stopping parity errors.


----------



## Astral85

Does anybody know anything about the batch number starting with V0? I've got a batch number of V036G224


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Falkentyne said:


> 4) increase loadline calibration (cache is affected by transients less than the core, so a steeper LLC helps reduce the chance of "Parity Errors", but this could increase the chances of an L0 error during heavy load if your core isn't stable (L0's only happen if hyperthreading is enabled). LLC8 is actually extremely effective in stopping parity errors.


This is how I fixed my Minecraft Parity errors, went from LLC 4 to LLC 5, they stopped about a good 2 hours of Minecraft (I've never played it that long in one sitting..lol).
I even bumped up my cache from the stock 43 to 45 with LLC 5.


----------



## lolhaxz

For those struggling with stability... if its a poor "bin" and the default VID is too high at the target frequency you want, that is a pretty good indicator that's all she wrote - the only exception being keeping it stone cold [ie, direct die, good block, fast pump, lots of radiator]

On this generation you cannot set a voltage lower than the burned in VID, and it would be pointless anyway as in MOST (but not all) cases it's almost exactly the required voltage [at a reasonable LLC] for something nasty like Prime95...

Offset mode with Best-case scenario SVID behaviour and LLC 6 (Asus Formula XII) has treated me the best - this will follow the programmed VID with the lowest voltage as possible, chuck +20-30mv offset back in for low-end stability, then pull out as much as you can at the peak V/F point(s), ie. 5.2 and 5.3GHz, - 40-50mv [strongly determined by cooling]

Note: Don't run offset mode without a offset - it will add 200mv on some boards! - always specify something minimal and test it with a lower multiplier first.

Just so happened to be re-testing basic stability after some changes:

SP80 10900K, XII Formula (hence crap ram overclock), BIOS 2004; LLC6, Offset +30mv and 5.3GHz V/F -40mv

Prime95 - 80K No AVX has been the best determiner of stability for me, 112K can pass all day...









Getting some vicious transients in there from your video card is also helpful:










Run realbench they say, it's a lighter load they say... ummm yeah... maybe when GPU's didn't pull 400+W and you now have to keep 650W+ "cool".


----------



## aznguyen316

Thanks for the tips @lolhaxz

What do you mean by the VF -40mV offset? I understand the cpu core voltage offset +30mv but I haven’t messed with vf curve at all

Attached is my current 10900k VF curve sp82 z590-E Strix. Does this mean 5.2 and 5.3Ghz require similar voltage?

_edit_
Looked through your current settings. 5.3Ghz all core impressive. So I see now in VF point 7 you had offset -.20’and VF8 -40mV so I think I understand now. I’ll try this and run some games I play. I find the FFXV benchmark seems nice for some cpu load. I’ll play some warzone too and test stability.


----------



## murenitu

[QUOTE = "aznguyen316, publicación: 28760495, miembro: 223960"]
View attachment 2483211
Gracias por los consejos [USER = 468742] @lolhaxz [/ USER]

¿Qué quiere decir con la compensación VF -40mV? Entiendo la compensación de voltaje del núcleo de la CPU + 30mv pero no me he metido con la curva vf en absoluto

Se adjunta mi curva VF actual de 10900k sp82 z590-E Strix. ¿Significa esto que 5.2 y 5.3Ghz requieren un voltaje similar?

_editar_
Revisó su configuración actual. 5.3Ghz todo el núcleo impresionante. Así que veo ahora en el punto 7 de VF que tenía un desplazamiento de -.20 'y VF8 -40mV, así que creo que lo entiendo ahora. Intentaré esto y ejecutaré algunos juegos que juego. Encuentro que el punto de referencia FFXV parece bueno para alguna carga de CPU. También jugaré algo de zona de guerra y probaré la estabilidad.
[/CITA]

¡Deberías poder hacer 53 todos los núcleos! Tengo un sp80 y aunque lo tengo bastante frio lo puedo manejar


----------



## Nizzen

murenitu said:


> [QUOTE = "aznguyen316, publicación: 28760495, miembro: 223960"]
> View attachment 2483211
> Gracias por los consejos [USER = 468742] @lolhaxz [/ USER]
> 
> ¿Qué quiere decir con la compensación VF -40mV? Entiendo la compensación de voltaje del núcleo de la CPU + 30mv pero no me he metido con la curva vf en absoluto
> 
> Se adjunta mi curva VF actual de 10900k sp82 z590-E Strix. ¿Significa esto que 5.2 y 5.3Ghz requieren un voltaje similar?
> 
> _editar_
> Revisó su configuración actual. 5.3Ghz todo el núcleo impresionante. Así que veo ahora en el punto 7 de VF que tenía un desplazamiento de -.20 'y VF8 -40mV, así que creo que lo entiendo ahora. Intentaré esto y ejecutaré algunos juegos que juego. Encuentro que el punto de referencia FFXV parece bueno para alguna carga de CPU. También jugaré algo de zona de guerra y probaré la estabilidad.
> [/CITA]
> 
> ¡Deberías poder hacer 53 todos los núcleos! Tengo un sp80 y aunque lo tengo bastante frio lo puedo manejar


Say what?


----------



## aznguyen316

murenitu said:


> ¡Deberías poder hacer 53 todos los núcleos! Tengo un sp80 y aunque lo tengo bastante frio lo puedo manejar


Thank you. I am trying. I think I am thermally limited. I am testing 5.2Ghz 1.4V bios set LLC6 right now but it will thermally throttle after 30 min running cinebench loop. 360mm AIO EKWB basic with noctua nf a12x25


----------



## Imprezzion

aznguyen316 said:


> Thank you. I am trying. I think I am thermally limited. I am testing 5.2Ghz 1.4V bios set LLC6 right now but it will thermally throttle after 30 min running cinebench loop. 360mm AIO EKWB basic with noctua nf a12x25


Those kinds of voltages are only doable direct die or maybe delidded with liquid metal


----------



## karate

Robertomcat said:


> Hi guys, good afternoon!
> 
> Well, I have already received the tools to put the processor on direct die. I'm from Spain and I bought them from RockitCool, and the shipment has been very fast from Texas, in less than a week I had the product at home; of course, I had to pay customs duties.
> 
> I have already put the processor with the DD with an EK Velocity water block and an EK XE 360 radiator, the temperatures are tremendously good, I didn't think that the simple fact of removing the IHS was going to make such a big difference of 20° +/-.
> 
> Previously I had the processor locked at 5.2, with a voltage of 1.375 without any problems or errors. Today I tried setting it to 5.3 and a voltage of 1.390 with the ring at 48, but the computer restarts when it has a fairly high workload on the RAM and processor. The motherboard is an MSI and I have set the LLC to 2. All other settings are on automatic.
> 
> The Vcore voltage at full load is 1,408, VID 1,428, VCCIO 1,194 and VCCSA 1,256. Any recommendations on how to maintain stability, because I think it is very close to being stable. I understand that I could raise the voltage a bit more, but I think that would be overdoing it.
> 
> Thank you.


I also order RockitCool DD kit and using same velocity block to you. Do you have some tips to install? It did not contain instruction. You are talking about 20c more cold? This is very exciting because for mine 10700 CPU not so good he need a lot of volts to become stable so mean he must run 40 - 50c on top the water temps. On worst day this mean max peak 85c in the game.


----------



## Robertomcat

karate said:


> I also order RockitCool DD kit and using same velocity block to you. Do you have some tips to install? It did not contain instruction. You are talking about 20c more cold? This is very exciting because for mine 10700 CPU not so good he need a lot of volts to become stable so mean he must run 40 - 50c on top the water temps. On worst day this mean max peak 85c in the game.


Yes, the DD makes a lot of difference between having the IHS on or not, they lower the temperatures a lot using liquid metal, Thermal Grizzly's is the best on the market. As for advice, there is little to advise, you have to be subtle and delicate when incorporating the liquid metal in both parts and that's it. 

The tool to remove the IHS looks very good quality, and they send you a lot of products in each package. I did not order the tool to incorporate the IHS back into another copper IHS, but it was sent to me. I made a purchase of 265 $, and I had to pay 39 € in duties (15 € was only for the shipping company's handling).


----------



## menko2

Robertomcat said:


> Yes, the DD makes a lot of difference between having the IHS on or not, they lower the temperatures a lot using liquid metal, Thermal Grizzly's is the best on the market. As for advice, there is little to advise, you have to be subtle and delicate when incorporating the liquid metal in both parts and that's it.
> 
> The tool to remove the IHS looks very good quality, and they send you a lot of products in each package. I did not order the tool to incorporate the IHS back into another copper IHS, but it was sent to me. I made a purchase of 265 $, and I had to pay 39 € in duties (15 € was only for the shipping company's handling).
> 
> View attachment 2483273


Is there a store that sell delidded-binned 10900k in Europe?


----------



## Nizzen

menko2 said:


> Is there a store that sell delidded-binned 10900k in Europe?


Maybe overclockers.co.uk


----------



## Astral85

Can anyone tell me what the 10900K SP number is all about?


----------



## Robertomcat

menko2 said:


> Is there a store that sell delidded-binned 10900k in Europe?


I have no idea, but it's a fairly simple process to do.


----------



## menko2

Astral85 said:


> Can anyone tell me what the 10900K SP number is all about?


It's a number the Asus Motherboard takes somehow from the chips to determine the binned quality.

You install the chip and the bios gives your straight away the SP number. Around 50 is more or less bad and around 100 the best binned.


----------



## Nabonidus

I'm still trying to figure out the SP number. I have a SP63 Yet I get a 5.3GHZ all core boosting 5.4GHZ on 7 cores and 5.5GHZ on 6 cores. Underload it's 1.332V Adaptive.


----------



## Nizzen

Nabonidus said:


> I'm still trying to figure out the SP number. I have a SP63 Yet I get a 5.3GHZ all core boosting 5.4GHZ on 7 cores and 5.5GHZ on 6 cores. Underload it's 1.332V Adaptive.


SP isn't all, but there is no doubt high SP is better than the average chips.

I had a SP 63 very early batch that did 5.3ghz with 1.28v load llc8. Could run benchmarks easy @ 5.5 ghz. My best 10900k is SP 87, and this can run CB r20 @ 5.6ghz @ 1,42v llc8. 

There are good IMC and bad IMC too. The luck i pretty random.


----------



## Nabonidus

Nizzen said:


> SP isn't all, but there is no doubt high SP is better than the average chips.
> 
> I had a SP 63 very early batch that did 5.3ghz with 1.28v load llc8. Could run benchmarks easy @ 5.5 ghz. My best 10900k is SP 87, and this can run CB r20 @ 5.6ghz @ 1,42v llc8.
> 
> There are good IMC and bad IMC too. The luck i pretty random.


Woah 5.6GHZ @ 1.42V nice. I was thinking of buying the 10900k golden chip samples (same one as the one on linustechtips) but it isnt worth paying £1k for the cryo tech and a handpicked 10900k when I can run 5.5GHZ. They are SP126 though.


----------



## menko2

Nizzen said:


> SP isn't all, but there is no doubt high SP is better than the average chips.
> 
> I had a SP 63 very early batch that did 5.3ghz with 1.28v load llc8. Could run benchmarks easy @ 5.5 ghz. My best 10900k is SP 87, and this can run CB r20 @ 5.6ghz @ 1,42v llc8.
> 
> There are good IMC and bad IMC too. The luck i pretty random.


I decided to take the risk of returning the 10900k i had and bought another one.

The one I had was a SP 63. 
The new one is a SP 92.

i guess I can be more than happy about it right?


----------



## Nizzen

menko2 said:


> I decided to take the risk of returning the 10900k i had and bought another one.
> 
> The one I had was a SP 63.
> The new one is a SP 92.
> 
> i guess I can be more than happy about it right?


Epic trade


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Nabonidus said:


> Woah 5.6GHZ @ 1.42V nice. I was thinking of buying the 10900k golden chip samples (same one as the one on linustechtips) but it isnt worth paying £1k for the cryo tech and a handpicked 10900k when I can run 5.5GHZ. They are SP126 though.


How do you know they are sp126?


----------



## Falkentyne

Those 5.5 ghz chips are nice but very very very hard to avoid Internal Parity Error.
Try this in minecraft with all cores loaded. 5.5 ghz all cores is guaranteed parity error.
Only way to avoid it is to use very high LLC and even that isn't a sure thing. That will bring the cache voltage higher up, which isn't affected by transient penalty like the core is.


----------



## bastian

10900ks have dropped in price a good amount. Thinking I may try the lottery and buy one and see if its better than my current 10900k.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Falkentyne said:


> Those 5.5 ghz chips are nice but very very very hard to avoid Internal Parity Error.
> Try this in minecraft with all cores loaded. 5.5 ghz all cores is guaranteed parity error.
> Only way to avoid it is to use very high LLC and even that isn't a sure thing. That will bring the cache voltage higher up, which isn't affected by transient penalty like the core is.


That Minecraft drove me nuts, tweaked my OCD BIGTIME, so if it's not Minecraft stable, I ain't stable  
[email protected] 5 for 5.1Ghz to get 2 hours of Minecraft running a AMPED Biome...
Anything less and it's Internal Parity error within 60-120 seconds.


----------



## Falkentyne

schoolofmonkey said:


> That Minecraft drove me nuts, tweaked my OCD BIGTIME, so if it's not Minecraft stable, I ain't stable
> [email protected] 5 for 5.1Ghz to get 2 hours of Minecraft running a AMPED Biome...
> Anything less and it's Internal Parity error within 60-120 seconds.


The minecraft bug has to do with thread loading. The more threads you have, the far more likely you are to get a parity error.
This issue can be instantly fixed with zero FPS loss by just limiting the # of threads to 6 in Task manager.

I tested this on my Kaby Lake BGA laptop today. I overclocked the core to where it's not even completely bench stable, with no loadline calibration (Fixed Vcore simply changes the VID, so you rely on the VID/SVID to do its work), at 4.8 ghz all core, 4.5 cache and left Minecraft running for hours. No parity errors whatsoever. That's because this is only 4C/8T. There aren't enough threads to generate the exceptions that cause the parity error.

Yet 4.8/4.5 would fail stress tests (or would trip the motherboard VRM protection as there are no overrides for the amps limit).

That's the reason why you didn't hear about the parity issue with Minecraft for so many years, even though the game has been out for more than a decade.
that's also why if you limit the # of threads to 6 in Minecraft on a 10900k, you won't get a parity error (you're then more likely to get a L0 or BSOD).


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Falkentyne said:


> The minecraft bug has to do with thread loading. The more threads you have, the far more likely you are to get a parity error.
> This issue can be instantly fixed with zero FPS loss by just limiting the # of threads to 6 in Task manager.


Yeah it'll happen when running completely stock all Auto in BIOS, so I figured it's not a big issue and it was the number of threads like you'd said way back when...

I know even at the voltages I have now I can pass most stress tests fine, AVX/AVX2 Small FFT/data set not so much, temps get out of control, everything else completely stable at a lower vcore, so the added extra I used for the Minecraft stability adds piece of mind.

You know what's funny, Valheim will also throw the same Parity errors, not as quick as Minecraft, but the more people you have on a personal server the quicker it'll happen.
Had my wife, son and daughter connected to my local server, threw a parity error after 2 hours, a little vcore bump fixed it, but also led me to look up the error in the first place.


----------



## bastian

Well, the lottery was a little fortunate for me. Bought a 10900k yesterday and it came with SP78. Better than the SP63 of my launch day 10900k


----------



## aDyerSituation

aDyerSituation said:


> Ordered my 10900k and Z490e yesterday
> hoping for 5.1


Got my strix z490e and 10900k setup today.
SP63 5.1ghz/4.8 uncore
Bios 1.37v HWinfo: 1.356(LLC6)

Temps low 80s under EK 360 AIO

I'm guessing this is probably the end of the road for me? I have some temperature room left but voltage, probably not


----------



## Nizzen

aDyerSituation said:


> Got my strix z490e and 10900k setup today.
> SP63 5.1ghz/4.8 uncore
> Bios 1.37v HWinfo: 1.356(LLC6)
> 
> Temps low 80s under EK 360 AIO
> 
> I'm guessing this is probably the end of the road for me? I have some temperature room left but voltage, probably not


You just started 

Try 50-51 on ring.

Then focus on memory tweaking. That's where the most performance is hidden


----------



## aDyerSituation

Nizzen said:


> You just started
> 
> Try 50-51 on ring.
> 
> Then focus on memory tweaking. That's where the most performance is hidden


Yeah struggling on the memory front.
It is a 4x8 bdie kit (came from 7820x x299)
Could do 3800cl16 1t
Have to do 3600cl16 2t here.
dram voltage 1.5 VCCSA 1.3 VCCIO 1.25. Would like to get 4000 but could never do it before doubt I can do it here either >.>
trfc @ 400 for now, everything else auto

update: 3800 is stable @ 17-18-18-38 but 4000 wasnt stable at incredibly loose timing - wouldnt even post. even increased vccsa to 1.28 and vccio to 1.35 no luck.

Is it worth it to buy a 2x16 kit or just accept what I have? I don't really NEED 32gb but it's nice to have. Maybe I should pull out 2 sticks and see what I can do


----------



## aDyerSituation

sorry to derail just looking for advice.
Should I buy a pair of 2x8 4400 cl19 patriots to test? they are pretty cheap right now. and like I said, I don't really need 32gb.


----------



## menko2

aDyerSituation said:


> sorry to derail just looking for advice.
> Should I buy a pair of 2x8 4400 cl19 patriots to test? they are pretty cheap right now. and like I said, I don't really need 32gb.


I'm in the same boat. I just need 2x8gb for gaming hight end kit. 

I have a g.skill samsung b die. 3600mhz 15-15-15-35 @1.35v. Can get around 4000mhz with those timings with 1.5v but would like to get higher. Maybe dual rank 2x16gb so I'll follow the post if someone recomends you a kit.


----------



## aDyerSituation

I went ahead and bought these for $150 total including tax. 4400 cl19 version





Are you a human?







www.newegg.com


----------



## Jeges

aznguyen316 said:


> Is sp48 possible on a 10900k? This is what I have lol. I checked on updated bios on a z590 Strix A and a z490 strix E and Both showed sp48 (the Z490 Strix E had 87 but it was old May 2020 bios, after updating to Dec Bios it showed 48). I only checked SP on the Z490 Strix E as I borrowed the board. Currently have it in the z590 strix A.
> 
> here is the VF curve which doesn’t seem that bad does it? On the Asus it doesn’t seem to overclock very well.
> 
> Also Vcore doesn't seem to show properly on the Z590 Strix A in hwinfo. Doesn't ever seem to go higher than 0.746V, same with CPU-Z
> 
> View attachment 2479038
> 
> 
> Additional information.
> 
> Z590 auto seems to want to enable MCE by default rather than the F1 F3 when a new CPU is installed on Z490 asking to use Intel spec or not. I left it on Auto, optimized defaults.
> 
> VID on optimized defaults, which I think MCE is auto on.. (all auto, no ram OC etc.) - it bounces the CPU around from 4.9-5.1Ghz all core just sitting at desktop idling.
> View attachment 2479043
> 
> 
> Average VID was 1.25-1.26V when it was bouncing around
> 
> When I set sync all core 5.0Ghz everything else on auto I see average 1.37V with min 1.36V for VID.
> 
> When I set all core 5.1Ghz everything on auto, I see average 1.415V, min 1.38V.
> 
> _edit_ disabled MCE in BIOS to enforce stock limits. here are results:
> 
> Auto clocks still bounce from around 4.9-5.1
> VID: min 1.19-1.203V; max is 1.299-1.31V
> 
> Sync all cores to 5.0Ghz MCE OFF:
> VID: min: 1.345-1.352V; max 1.389V - 1.4V
> 
> All cores 5.1Ghz MCE OFF:
> VID: min 1.40 -1.404V max 1.415-1.42V
> 
> Hope this helps. Thanks in advance.


I think this sp rating system is broken, atleast for now!
I had a sp 63 10900kf before with that i can't reach stability at 5.1 ghz even at extreme high voltages
I bought a second one (non kf) from a good batch it has the same sp 48 rating as yours with the latest bios!









But as you can see it performs way better.


----------



## aznguyen316

Jeges said:


> I think this sp rating system is broken, atleast for now!
> I had a sp 63 10900kf before with that i can't reach stability at 5.1 ghz even at extreme high voltages
> I bought a second one (non kf) from a good batch it has the same sp 48 rating as yours with the latest bios!
> View attachment 2484387
> 
> 
> But as you can see it performs way better.
> View attachment 2484389


Interesting. Mind sharing your VF curve? Someone else shared some comparison sp and VF curves and it seems it might be based off the 53x VID? I have tested a couple more 10900K and the sp48 actually had lowest VID for 51x and less than an sp82 and sp88. It just had a really ****ty 53X VID at 1.6V. The Sp82 had lower 53x vid and The sp88 though has a lower vid for 52x and 53x and performs well. So it’s not totally broken but it also isn’t the end all unless you want 53x all core I guess?

I didn’t do enough further testing on the sp48 chip with lower frequency on my newest board. 

Added some pics I took for records.


----------



## Falkentyne

aznguyen316 said:


> Interesting. Mind sharing your VF curve? Someone else shared some comparison sp and VF curves and it seems it might be based off the 53x VID? I have tested a couple more 10900K and the sp48 actually had lowest VID for 51x and less than an sp82 and sp88. It just had a really ****ty 53X VID at 1.6V. The Sp82 had lower 53x vid and The sp88 though has a lower vid for 52x and 53x and performs well. So it’s not totally broken but it also isn’t the end all unless you want 53x all core I guess?
> 
> I didn’t do enough further testing on the sp48 chip with lower frequency on my newest board.
> 
> Added some pics I took for records.


The chips don't have a x53 VID, afaik. The x53 is the "OC Ratio" and is set to whatever the max OC ratio is. This VID is also set by "pcode" which I believe is a value based on scaling. Shamino knows more about this. It may be related to thermal velocity boost on favored cores.


----------



## Jeges

Here is my VF curve


----------



## Falkentyne

Jeges said:


> Here is my VF curve
> View attachment 2484458


Entire curve looks pretty normal almost like an SP 80 curve, until that 5.2 ghz point. Then it goes south and gets yeeted from there. Ouch.


----------



## menko2

Falkentyne said:


> Entire curve looks pretty normal almost like an SP 80 curve, until that 5.2 ghz point. Then it goes south and gets yeeted from there. Ouch.


What is the max voltaje and LLC for the 10900k to run 24/7 without degradation?

I have a 10900k SP 92 not delided and arctic freezer ii 420.

I'm running now 5.1ghz with 1.31v LLC 5.

I only use it for gaming. A few benchmarks to help people here and compare but that's it.

Just want to max it out without risking it.


----------



## Nizzen

menko2 said:


> What is the max voltaje and LLC for the 10900k to run 24/7 without degradation?
> 
> I have a 10900k SP 92 not delided and arctic freezer ii 420.
> 
> I'm running now 5.1ghz with 1.31v LLC 5.
> 
> I only use it for gaming. A few benchmarks to help people here and compare but that's it.
> 
> Just want to max it out without risking it.


Noone knows. Are you afraid of degrading, don't turn the computer on 

People asuming and believe about "safe" voltages, but noone has a clue.
On 8700k, 9900k and 10900k I used 1.35v-1.45v corefor delidded cpu's. VccSA up to 1.55- 1.6v with 4700c17 tweaked memory. No degration seen yet. 

Buying new cpu's every season, so I don't care so much either


----------



## menko2

Nizzen said:


> Noone knows. Are you afraid of degrading, don't turn the computer on
> 
> People asuming and believe about "safe" voltages, but noone has a clue.
> On 8700k, 9900k and 10900k I used 1.35v-1.45v corefor delidded cpu's. VccSA up to 1.55- 1.6v with 4700c17 tweaked memory. No degration seen yet.
> 
> Buying new cpu's every season, so I don't care so much either


My 8700k delidded degradated with 1.34v with 5.1ghz in a couple years. 

I needed higher voltage or lower to 5.0ghz since it didn't matter much in games.


----------



## Imprezzion

Weird.. got a WHEA Internal Parity Error after being stable for weeks.. what was the cause and fix of these again?


----------



## Placekicker19

Im thinking of buying a Gold Sample 10900k. Someone Locally has one and im just waiting on a price. I know a few sold on eBay around 1k with the cooler. I dont want the cooler because ill be direct die cooling. 

Wonder if 5.7ghz r20 is a possibility on gold samples with direct die.


----------



## Nizzen

Placekicker19 said:


> Im thinking of buying a Gold Sample 10900k. Someone Locally has one and im just waiting on a price. I know a few sold on eBay around 1k with the cooler. I dont want the cooler because ill be direct die cooling.
> 
> Wonder if 5.7ghz r20 is a possibility on gold samples with direct die.


I looped R20 with my direct die cooled SP87 5.6Ghz with 1.42V LLC8. So, it may be possible 

I even looped R20 5.5ghz on SP 63 direct die cooled...


----------



## menko2

Nizzen said:


> I looped R20 with my direct die cooled SP87 5.6Ghz with 1.42V LLC8. So, it may be possible
> 
> I even looped R20 5.5ghz on SP 63 direct die cooled...


I have a sp 92 and i don't want to break it.

Is it difficult to do a direct die on a 10900k for someone without experience in delid or liquid metal? Or it's better to find someone who delid it for me?


----------



## PhoenixMDA

menko2 said:


> I have a sp 92 and i don't want to break it.
> 
> Is it difficult to do a direct die on a 10900k for someone without experience in delid or liquid metal? Or it's better to find someone who delid it for me?


With an AOI-cooling system i would say let it be, it´s good to have there a custom, cooling system with highflow, that bring the best results.
.if you flow to low it can be that the temp worse as dellided with hs.

here you see the difference between flow and cooler in my case.
[Sammelthread] - OC Prozessoren Intel Sockel 1200 (Comet Lake-S) Laberthread

and here with directDie High flow, but the TechN cooler dont work with the original springs at DirectDie, i have taken the springs from XPX.
[Sammelthread] - OC Prozessoren Intel Sockel 1200 (Comet Lake-S) Laberthread


----------



## menko2

PhoenixMDA said:


> With an AOI-cooling system i would say let it be, it´s good to have there a custom, cooling system with highflow, that bring the best results.
> .if you flow to low it can be that the temp worse as dellided with hs.
> 
> here you see the difference between flow and cooler in my case.
> [Sammelthread] - OC Prozessoren Intel Sockel 1200 (Comet Lake-S) Laberthread
> 
> and here with directDie High flow, but the TechN cooler dont work with the original springs at DirectDie, i have taken the springs from XPX.
> [Sammelthread] - OC Prozessoren Intel Sockel 1200 (Comet Lake-S) Laberthread


Ok thank you. So no direct die.

And delid? It should take around 8°C right?


----------



## PhoenixMDA

menko2 said:


> Ok thank you. So no direct die.
> 
> And delid? It should take around 8°C right?


Yes dellided you can do it bring normally over 5 °C.
But dont forget 100Mhz+ are 2% more it's like nothing.

I have done it because if nice temps, not to drive 5,4GHZ.


----------



## menko2

PhoenixMDA said:


> Yes dellided you can do it bring normally over 5 °C.
> But dont forget 100Mhz+ are 2% more it's like nothing.
> 
> I have done it because if nice temps, not to drive 5,4GHZ.


What voltage and LLC do you use for 5.4ghz?


----------



## PhoenixMDA

menko2 said:


> What voltage and LLC do you use for 5.4ghz?


I use everytime LLC5, its best for stability, i don't drive 5,4Ghz.
If i would drive this really in the sommer 100% stable i would need arround 1,27V load voltage with higher H2O temps without whea.

For low Voltage Run for the list i need 1,248V load thats are 1,385V Bios or so.cb23 is possible with 1,225v load.


----------



## menko2

PhoenixMDA said:


> I use everytime LLC5, its best for stability, i don't drive 5,4Ghz.
> If i would drive this really in the sommer 100% stable i would need arround 1,27V load voltage with higher H2O temps without whea.
> 
> For low Voltage Run for the list i need 1,248V load thats are 1,385V Bios or so.cb23 is possible with 1,225v load.
> View attachment 2485236


Thank you man.

Can I ask which ram are you using? Amazing score.

My ram 3600mhz samsung b die 2x8gb single rank the max i can get is this.

I'm looking for a dual rank 2x16gb to perform like yours.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

This is only possible on Apex 2Dimm Board, with 4Dimm Board i think you can get stable arround 4266-4400 with 2x16GB and 10900k.

Perhaps higher, but i dont think so and the z590 is more optimated for rkl.
I have selected at myself 3200Cl14-14 kit's, but thats hard you can buy 5 Kit's and have luck like i, you can also buy 10 Kit's without to get a really one.
To drive CL17 on 4500+ needs also experience in RamOC.CL16 is much easier.
My can do up to [email protected],57V, also important is cooling, direct air cooling is min.

The easier way ist to selected this Kit's, these are the best BIN's,
F4-4266C17D-32GTRSB
F4-4000C16D-32GVK
F4-3800C14D-32GTZN
F4-3600C14D-32GVK

Cl17 is more difficult as cl16, but needs lower voltages and is more temp stable.
Im not a friend to uses crowbar voltages.


----------



## menko2

PhoenixMDA said:


> This is only possible on Apex 2Dimm Board, with 4Dimm Board i think you can get stable arround 4266-4400 with 2x16GB and 10900k.
> 
> Perhaps higher, but i dont think so and the z590 is more optimated for rkl.
> I have selected at myself 3200Cl14-14 kit's, but thats hard you can buy 5 Kit's and have luck like i, you can also buy 10 Kit's without to get a really one.
> To drive CL17 on 4500+ needs also experience in RamOC.CL16 is much easier.
> My can do up to [email protected],57V, also important is cooling, direct air cooling is min.
> 
> The easier way ist to selected this Kit's, these are the best BIN's,
> F4-4266C17D-32GTRSB
> F4-4000C16D-32GVK
> F4-3800C14D-32GTZN
> F4-3600C14D-32GVK
> 
> Cl17 is more difficult as cl16, but needs lower voltages and is more temp stable.
> Im not a friend to uses crowbar voltages.


I can find the F4-4000C16D-32GVK kit here in spain.

I'm just worried that the PCB is 8 layers compared to the other trident z that have 10 layers.

This one looks very similar but 10 layer F4-4000C16D-32GTZR

Is it much the difference because of the layers?


----------



## PhoenixMDA

I have self selekted F4-3200C14D-32GVK , the SPD dont must be right, but there also written 8-layer.
I think the ripjaw´s at now are perhaps also 10-layer, but i dont know it.Perhaps its really 8 layer, but i dont have seen any higher clock in 24/7 as my.


----------



## Placekicker19

Nizzen said:


> I looped R20 with my direct die cooled SP87 5.6Ghz with 1.42V LLC8. So, it may be possible
> 
> I even looped R20 5.5ghz on SP 63 direct die cooled...


The guy wants $1500 for only the cpu and the kicker is, he opened the sealed golden packet.

I told him, "you killed all the collectible value by opening it, and now theres no way of telling if the cpu had been swapped out for another". There's alot of shady people out there and I just don't understand why you would open something like this, especially if you planned of selling it right away. 

I guess that dream is dead, oh well.


----------



## munternet

menko2 said:


> What is the max voltaje and LLC for the 10900k to run 24/7 without degradation?
> 
> I have a 10900k SP 92 not delided and arctic freezer ii 420.
> 
> I'm running now 5.1ghz with 1.31v LLC 5.
> 
> I only use it for gaming. A few benchmarks to help people here and compare but that's it.
> 
> Just want to max it out without risking it.


To give you an idea I have been running this setup for a couple of months now with some "crowbar" voltages with no obvious ill effects LLC7
No delidding with custom loop I see max 69°c in BFV after a long session and the water cooled ram sees max 35°c
Not saying it won't deteriorate, but we will see


----------



## aznguyen316

munternet said:


> To give you an idea I have been running this setup for a couple of months now with some "crowbar" voltages with no obvious ill effects LLC7
> No delidding with custom loop I see max 69°c in BFV after a long session and the water cooled ram sees max 35°c
> Not saying it won't deteriorate, but we will see
> 
> View attachment 2485338
> View attachment 2485339


Is the 10900k running at all core 5.2Ghz? 1.325 LLC7? Mind sharing your core ratio settings and VF curve? I have a 10900k sp 88 I haven’t tuned and would like to run at 5.2Ghz stable. Thanks


----------



## murenitu

I can't improve with 100% stability to go from here!

I have 4 8gb modules! Actually they are 2 packs of 16gb each, so I understand that it is even more difficult to tune and tune and also 2xdual channel maybe just putting 2 dimms and using 1 dual channel could improve for sure.

running at 53x10 avx0

54x4cores and 53x10cores always avx0 to which I also apply 1 boost core if it is cold

so I have effective speeds of 55x4 and 54x10


----------



## munternet

aznguyen316 said:


> Is the 10900k running at all core 5.2Ghz? 1.325 LLC7? Mind sharing your core ratio settings and VF curve? I have a 10900k sp 88 I haven’t tuned and would like to run at 5.2Ghz stable. Thanks


It's all core 52 with no avx offset. I'm at work on a different pc so can't post the VF curve right now sorry


----------



## Astral85

Hello everyone,

Upgraded from an 8700K and just got my 10900K up and running. I'm trying to work out the changes with this CPU and BIOS. I started out with manual/fixed voltage but didn't like that neither Speedstep/Speedshift work in manual mode. My UPS output at the wall was 160-170W (idle) up from 100-120W on the 8700K system. However I passed several runs of CB R20 5Ghz all core. 

So now I am trying adaptive mode but can't seem to stop the voltage overshoot/padding. I've set adaptive 1.260V, offset + 0.020V with LLC 4. That I guess should be roughly 1.280 -1.3V but I'm getting 1.340V max voltage. What's still padding the voltage?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Hi,
I'm running "by core" 55x5 - 54x7 - 53x10 - ring @48 (+2Boost_OCTVB) adaptive 1.460v.
I was testing some benchmarks and realized if run [email protected] the results are better...
Is this make any sense?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Here is a new 2102 BIOS









ASUS ROG MAXIMUS XII EXTREME (Z490) Discussion &amp...


On Hero,2101 BIOS fan control is fubar. May be specific to motherboard. I use AIsuite for fan control anyway. Besides that it is fine on my Hero/10700, 5.1 GHz OC transferred over fine.




www.overclock.net


----------



## acoustic

I updated my MSI Z490 Ace to the February BIOS for the ReBAR support. I know some of the prior BIOS' had removed the "Power Down" settings for memory, and that's why many recommended the beta BIOS from September.

Very happy to see the Power Down settings were there on this new BIOS. My 5.1/4.8/4133 settings carried over perfectly.

ReBAR gave me a whopping +3 FPS average in AC: Valhalla benchmark.

I've barely been on my PC lately as I was able to snag a PS5 and playing a free game (Days Gone) that Sony is offering. Looks great on my 65" OLED. Really looking forward to this 42" LG will be releasing so I can bring the PS5 down to the basement with the PC, and replace my 38GL950G with a sweet OLED


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Hi,
Do you know what is the last version of the MemTweakIt for Maximus XII Formula? 
Could share?


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> Hi,
> Do you know what is the last version of the MemTweakIt for Maximus XII Formula?
> Could share?


I do not believe there is one that works correctly for the 10th gen.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

The version of MemTweakIt I have doesn't work correctly. 

Did anybody test OCTVB with "Voltage Optimization" enable? 
Is this magic? I can't understand how it lower the voltage and the system still running... 
With it disabled I need VID=1,500v @5,5GHz (no load) to be stable. 
Enabling it the system is running VID=1,400v @5,5GHz...
How could be possible? No errors so far...


----------



## Robertomcat

RobertoSampaio said:


> Did anybody test OCTVB with "Voltage Optimization" enable?


In which section of the BIOS is this feature to be activated?


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> The version of MemTweakIt I have doesn't work correctly.
> 
> Did anybody test OCTVB with "Voltage Optimization" enable?
> Is this magic? I can't understand how it lower the voltage and the system still running...
> With it disabled I need VID=1,500v @5,5GHz (no load) to be stable.
> Enabling it the system is running VID=1,400v @5,5GHz...
> How could be possible? No errors so far...


With voltage optimization enabled, the voltage will get adjusted downwards based on how far the core temperature is from TjMAX. It takes advantage of the fact that the lower the core temperature, the less voltage you need to run stable. if you disable it, it will run at the voltage required for Tjmax = 100c.

From a post by Falkentyne, the voltage scaling is as follows:

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

So as run run at idle, the temperature is low enough to significantly lower the VID. If you then run a stress test, it wiill heat up and your savings in VID will be reduced. 

You need to be a little careful though. If you adjusted your voltage to the minimum required to be stable at load with voltage optimization disabled, then you enable it, your voltage load will somewhat smaller and your system will probably be unstable. You need to enable it, then adjust your voltage for stability under load.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> With voltage optimization enabled, the voltage will get adjusted downwards based on how far the core temperature is from TjMAX. It takes advantage of the fact that the lower the core temperature, the less voltage you need to run stable. if you disable it, it will run at the voltage required for Tjmax = 100c.
> 
> From a post by Falkentyne, the voltage scaling is as follows:
> 
> 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
> 
> So as run run at idle, the temperature is low enough to significantly lower the VID. If you then run a stress test, it wiill heat up and your savings in VID will be reduced.
> 
> You need to be a little careful though. If you adjusted your voltage to the minimum required to be stable at load with voltage optimization disabled, then you enable it, your voltage load will somewhat smaller and your system will probably be unstable. You need to enable it, then adjust your voltage for stability under load.


 Very nice... I need to adjust all again...
At load, it is working fine... but I have some freezing at idle...
I'll try to rise adaptive voltage 30mv and test...


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Very strange... Adaptive voltage seems to have no effect when Voltage Optimization is enable... 
Should I adjust V/F curve or adaptive voltage to rise VID at idle?


----------



## GeneO

What do you mean by has no effect?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> What do you mean by has no effect?


With Voltage Optimization disabled and Adaptive @1.460V I have VID~1.480v @5,5GHz @Idle

With Voltage Optimization enabled and Adaptive @1.460V I have VID~1.400v @5,5GHz @Idle (unstable) 

With Voltage Optimization enabled and Adaptive @1.490V I have the same 1.400v @5,5GHz @Idle (unstable)

Rising adaptive I think VID should rise...


----------



## GeneO

Best bet is to adjust the idle V/F point.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> Best bet is to adjust the idle V/F point.


I'm thinking I'll have a lot of job to get stable and will arrive at the same point I'm without voltage optimization... LOL.


----------



## Falkentyne

RobertoSampaio said:


> With Voltage Optimization disabled and Adaptive @1.460V I have VID~1.480v @5,5GHz @Idle
> 
> With Voltage Optimization enabled and Adaptive @1.460V I have VID~1.400v @5,5GHz @Idle (unstable)
> 
> With Voltage Optimization enabled and Adaptive @1.490V I have the same 1.400v @5,5GHz @Idle (unstable)
> 
> Rising adaptive I think VID should rise...


You need to look at vcore, not just VID.
VID doesn't account for vdroop. Your LLC will affect vcore in the end.
And what is the AC/DC Loadline value? This heavily influences VID. HWinfo64 "CPU information" section will show the AC/DC Loadline.
This is set by SVID Behavior in BIOS. Auto usually sets this to best case scenario, which is 0.01 mOhms. That's designed for good chips. There is also trained, where along with AI Optimized, BIOS will set what it feels your CPU needs, although I didn't test this. 0.01 mOhms for AC/DC Loadline on adaptive voltage requires good silicon. You can set it manually to typical. This will raise the VID. Typical is for average chips. I believe that sets AC/DC to 0.6 mOhms or close to it. Worst case scenario is for bad chips. Intel fail safe are the max intel values (1.1 mOhms, IIRC), which should only be used at intel default loadline calibration (Level 3 ONLY).


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Falkentyne said:


> You need to look at vcore, not just VID.
> VID doesn't account for vdroop. Your LLC will affect vcore in the end.
> And what is the AC/DC Loadline value? This heavily influences VID. HWinfo64 "CPU information" section will show the AC/DC Loadline.
> This is set by SVID Behavior in BIOS. Auto usually sets this to best case scenario, which is 0.01 mOhms. That's designed for good chips. There is also trained, where along with AI Optimized, BIOS will set what it feels your CPU needs, although I didn't test this. 0.01 mOhms for AC/DC Loadline on adaptive voltage requires good silicon. You can set it manually to typical. This will raise the VID. Typical is for average chips. I believe that sets AC/DC to 0.6 mOhms or close to it. Worst case scenario is for bad chips. Intel fail safe are the max intel values (1.1 mOhms, IIRC), which should only be used at intel default loadline calibration (Level 3 ONLY).


Maximus XII Formula
I use LLC#4 @800KHz
Adaptive 1.460v
10900kf-SP-86
V/F8 (5500MHz): 1.428 / +0.012
By core: 55x4, 54x7, 53x10 (+2Boost OCTVB)
Vcore=1,24v @load @51x
Ring @47x
VCCIO/SA: 1.19/1.24v - 
DRAM= 1,37v @4100MHz
IA Domain Loadline (AC/DC): 0.510 / 1.100 mOhm (SVID:trained)

This config above is extreme stable... So I think I will let Voltage Optimization disabled...


----------



## Falkentyne

RobertoSampaio said:


> Maximus XII Formula
> I use LLC#4 @800KHz
> Adaptive 1.460v
> 10900kf-SP-86
> V/F8 (5500MHz): 1.428 / +0.012
> By core: 55x4, 54x7, 53x10 (+2Boost OCTVB)
> Vcore=1,24v @load @51x
> Ring @47x
> VCCIO/SA: 1.19/1.24v -
> DRAM= 1,37v @4100MHz
> IA Domain Loadline (AC/DC): 0.510 / 1.100 mOhm (SVID:trained)
> 
> This config above is extreme stable... So I think I will let Voltage Optimization disabled...


This makes sense.
ACLL: 0.51 mOhms gives a small amount of vrise at load (compared to idle) on base VID.
DCLL: 1.1 mOhms matches LLC3. LLC4 is 0.90 mOhms so your vcore will be slightly higher than the VID (I think). Lower mOhms is less droop, but DCLL does not give voltage droop, its only a measurement "estimate" of vdroop. Vdroop is exclusively your LLC (Loadine calibration).
Voltage optimizations: disabled means your "base" VID for the V/F point will function as if your CPU were 100C always.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

This configuration makes VID = VCore at load and idle.
I have VID = 1,30 = Vcore (idle) and VID = 1,25 = Vcore (full load).
Vcore is always equal VID.
I dont know if it is good, but makes all adjusts easier...

Below the system is at full load.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I think I get it stable...LOL


----------



## menko2

Falkentyne said:


> This makes sense.
> ACLL: 0.51 mOhms gives a small amount of vrise at load (compared to idle) on base VID.
> DCLL: 1.1 mOhms matches LLC3. LLC4 is 0.90 mOhms so your vcore will be slightly higher than the VID (I think). Lower mOhms is less droop, but DCLL does not give voltage droop, its only a measurement "estimate" of vdroop. Vdroop is exclusively your LLC (Loadine calibration).
> Voltage optimizations: disabled means your "base" VID for the V/F point will function as if your CPU were 100C always.


I'm straight away and overclock all core of my 10909k SP 92. 

Right nod i have just 5.1ghz all core with 1.31v. No delided.

How much "safe" i can overclock this baby for 24/7? I heard the safest will be 1.35v max LLC4 but I want to double check with you. Would like 5.4ghz with 5.1 ring but non delided probably won't happen with 1.35v

Overlock is quite complicated with all core at same speed. For 11900k is not that simple with the v/f curves like 10 gen right?


----------



## aDyerSituation

aDyerSituation said:


> I went ahead and bought these for $150 total including tax. 4400 cl19 version
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a human?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newegg.com



And no surprise, they don't boot at 4400 and error out in Karhu real quick at 4266(19-19-39-2t 1.5v)
I have such bad luck with ram


----------



## Falkentyne

aDyerSituation said:


> And no surprise, they don't boot at 4400 and error out in Karhu real quick at 4266(19-19-39-2t 1.5v)
> I have such bad luck with ram


What board? 
I had those sticks (still have them as they're useless to me, 2x8 GB is too little memory) and I tested them for a bit in my M12E. They ran stable at 4400 17/17/39, 1.5v, but I didn't spend much time trying to tighten the incredibly loose timings.
They don't have temp sensors, though and when I tested them, it was open bench, so they would get really hot without airflow then error.


----------



## aDyerSituation

Z490 strix. I have the side panel open atm for testing


----------



## Falkentyne

aDyerSituation said:


> Z490 strix. I have the side panel open atm for testing


I mean error in TM5 extreme1, but they were stable otherwise. Only tested them in a case with fans once, just to see that they were stable at 4400 C17 but got bored with them. I do remember something about errors if I went below tRFC 400 though.

I do remember something about those sticks being a lottery, and something about the PCB type version, I don't remember anymore. A0 or something? I forgot.


----------



## cptclutch

Sorry if this has been covered already, but from what I've seen it seems like the 10900K is a bit better overall than the KF with getting to 5.1/5.2 (one SP63 and one SP75). Is there any validity to that? I've tried two KF's now and both just can't really get stable at 5.1 even with load voltages approaching 1.4V. Thinking about returning my most recent one and trying the K instead. I know it's all luck, but seems like I see more KF's struggling than K's.

Edit:
Swapped my KF for a K and testing it out now. SP63, but seems stable at 5.2 at 1.375v. So probably just luck, but even a lower rated K chip outperformed my slightly higher rated KF.


----------



## aDyerSituation

Falkentyne said:


> I mean error in TM5 extreme1, but they were stable otherwise. Only tested them in a case with fans once, just to see that they were stable at 4400 C17 but got bored with them. I do remember something about errors if I went below tRFC 400 though.
> 
> I do remember something about those sticks being a lottery, and something about the PCB type version, I don't remember anymore. A0 or something? I forgot.


You're definitely right about about the temps. I was able to 1000% Karhu(I stopped it for now) by lowering the voltage from 1.45/1.5 to 1.4 at 4400 and default timings.
Interesting to say the least. might jerry rig this vrm fan onto them and see if it helps


----------



## aDyerSituation

cptclutch said:


> Sorry if this has been covered already, but from what I've seen it seems like the 10900K is a bit better overall than the KF with getting to 5.1/5.2 (one SP63 and one SP75). Is there any validity to that? I've tried two KF's now and both just can't really get stable at 5.1 even with load voltages approaching 1.4V. Thinking about returning my most recent one and trying the K instead. I know it's all luck, but seems like I see more KF's struggling than K's.
> 
> Edit:
> Swapped my KF for a K and testing it out now. SP63, but seems stable at 5.2 at 1.375v. So probably just luck, but even a lower rated K chip outperformed my slightly higher rated KF.


My sp63 10900k is stable at 5.1 at 1.36v. 5.2 seems to be a no go even at 1.41


----------



## cptclutch

aDyerSituation said:


> My sp63 10900k is stable at 5.1 at 1.36v. 5.2 seems to be a no go even at 1.41


Looks like I got lucky on my 3rd try with this one. Been running OCCD for awhile with no errors at 5.2 1.4 LLC5. That sp75 couldn't stay at 5.1 without errors at 1.4v under load.


----------



## Imprezzion

I got super lucky then with my KF I guess. I do 5.2 at 1.334v LLC3 (MSI Board so levels are different) and 5.3 at 1.390v LLC3. Both stable as a rock in any test you can throw at it including P95 AVX. Gets a bit hot tho on 5.3 even with my direct die water lol. I'm not going to run P95 AVX on that clock but I did test it out temp wise once for a few minutes just to see what would happen. Well, 356w power draw and 92-96c across the cores, that happened lol.

Right now I daily 5.2/4.9 AVX0 @ 1.334v LLC3 AC/DC Mode_1 with IO 1.25v SA 1.35v with 2x16GB B-Die Trident-Z Neo's @ 4200C15 1.60v DRAM Voltage. This is about mid 80's in P95 AVX Small and never goes above 70c in any game / normal load. Stuff like unpacking large highly compressed files or rendering a video take it to 69-70c but gaming always under 65c.


----------



## cptclutch

Any idea why I'm getting blue screens when I try to start 3Dmark? It's passing OCCD stress tests but for some reason the initial startup of 3Dmark keeps crashing.


----------



## munternet

cptclutch said:


> Any idea why I'm getting blue screens when I try to start 3Dmark? It's passing OCCD stress tests but for some reason the initial startup of 3Dmark keeps crashing.


Need more info about your overclock and hardware
Do you have a fixed, all core overclock or adaptive etc
Edit: Just looking at your first post you say on the other chip you had load voltage of 1.4v for 5.1
Seems a little high


----------



## cptclutch

munternet said:


> Need more info about your overclock and hardware
> Do you have a fixed, all core overclock or adaptive etc
> Edit: Just looking at your first post you say on the other chip you had load voltage of 1.4v for 5.1
> Seems a little high


I'm running around 1.385v now under load with a 5.2ghz all core right now. It's stable in OCCT and AIDA. Seems like its some strange software issue with 3Dmark. Just instant blue screen when it goes into the system monitor part of the initial loading. Not really sure what to do to fix that, but honestly I guess it doesn't matter much if its stable otherwise.


----------



## Imprezzion

Seems like the system monitor is trying to read or access something that it can't or isn't working properly.

According to a quick Google search this can be monitoring programs and overlays like CAM, MSI AB and even the xbox / game bar conflicting with it and even stuff like usb hubs and controllers like a xbox controller can cause this. Try running 3dmark with all monitoring and overlays closed and as few as possible peripherals. 

I have never had any issues with 3dmark and CAM + AB running but hey, it's worth a shot.


----------



## munternet

cptclutch said:


> I'm running around 1.385v now under load with a 5.2ghz all core right now. It's stable in OCCT and AIDA. Seems like its some strange software issue with 3Dmark. Just instant blue screen when it goes into the system monitor part of the initial loading. Not really sure what to do to fix that, but honestly I guess it doesn't matter much if its stable otherwise.


Can you take a snippy or lightshot of HWinfo64 with the CPU under load using the bench section of CPU-Z please
It may just be a conflict but it's good practice to supply an HWinfo64 shot for the big picture
1.385v under load still seems quite high for 5.2. Mine is about 1.3v load and 1.325v set LLC7
One test I do to test real world stability, along with realbench, is converting a 5GB movie file to MP4 using VLC Player with HWinfo64 open to check for WHEA errors


----------



## cptclutch

Imprezzion said:


> Seems like the system monitor is trying to read or access something that it can't or isn't working properly.
> 
> According to a quick Google search this can be monitoring programs and overlays like CAM, MSI AB and even the xbox / game bar conflicting with it and even stuff like usb hubs and controllers like a xbox controller can cause this. Try running 3dmark with all monitoring and overlays closed and as few as possible peripherals.
> 
> I have never had any issues with 3dmark and CAM + AB running but hey, it's worth a shot.


Thanks, I got the same results and have been trying to stop anything in the background but it's still crashing. I think it might be some strange driver related issue.



munternet said:


> Can you take a snippy or lightshot of HWinfo64 with the CPU under load using the bench section of CPU-Z please
> It may just be a conflict but it's good practice to supply an HWinfo64 shot for the big picture
> 1.385v under load still seems quite high for 5.2. Mine is about 1.3v load and 1.325v set LLC7
> One test I do to test real world stability, along with realbench, is converting a 5GB movie file to MP4 using VLC Player with HWinfo64 open to check for WHEA errors


I can do that, but I definitely didn't get a golden sample with this one, I'm just stoked to be at 5.2 under 1.4v honestly. Those other two KF's couldn't hit 5.1 stable at 1.4v and I was pretty disappointed with that. I'm just gaming so I think I'm safe with low temps even at a bit of a high voltage. Now I'm just going to focus on memory tuning. Just benched on CPUZ and got 7820/627.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Does anyone use OCTVB with "Voltage Optimization" enable?


----------



## cptclutch

munternet said:


> Can you take a snippy or lightshot of HWinfo64 with the CPU under load using the bench section of CPU-Z please
> It may just be a conflict but it's good practice to supply an HWinfo64 shot for the big picture
> 1.385v under load still seems quite high for 5.2. Mine is about 1.3v load and 1.325v set LLC7
> One test I do to test real world stability, along with realbench, is converting a 5GB movie file to MP4 using VLC Player with HWinfo64 open to check for WHEA errors


So I'm a bit confused at this point because this new chip seems to be unstable and now after some stress testing doesn't look like it can really do anything past 5.0 stable at any voltage under 1.4 (which is what my other two did as well). Am I just getting unlucky here?

I don't understand how so many people seem to be running these at such low voltages. Is my motherboard holding me back or something (strix z490-e)? These 3 chips I've gotten so far just seem to be terrible compared to almost everything I've found online. Are people getting their vcore temps in a different way? I see that the Maximus offers the die sense option. I'm just struggling to see how I've gotten 3 chips that can't seem to hit 5.1 stable now, but that could also just be bad luck?


----------



## aznguyen316

cptclutch said:


> So I'm a bit confused at this point because this new chip seems to be unstable and now after some stress testing doesn't look like it can really do anything past 5.0 stable at any voltage under 1.4 (which is what my other two did as well). Am I just getting unlucky here?
> 
> I don't understand how so many people seem to be running these at such low voltages. Is my motherboard holding me back or something (strix z490-e)? These 3 chips I've gotten so far just seem to be terrible compared to almost everything I've found online. Are people getting their vcore temps in a different way? I see that the Maximus offers the die sense option. I'm just struggling to see how I've gotten 3 chips that can't seem to hit 5.1 stable now, but that could also just be bad luck?


The die sense reading will be lower than what the Strix will show, so you will want to follow what the Bios set voltages and LLC are. 

So 1.38V LLC5 can’t do sync all cores 5.1Ghz? The Strix boards are solid. I haven’t had issues with two I’ve used. Maybe just bad chips. What’s SP and VF curve look like on the one installed?


----------



## cptclutch

aznguyen316 said:


> The die sense reading will be lower than what the Strix will show, so you will want to follow what the Bios set voltages and LLC are.
> 
> So 1.38V LLC5 can’t do sync all cores 5.1Ghz? The Strix boards are solid. I haven’t had issues with two I’ve used. Maybe just bad chips. What’s SP and VF curve look like on the one installed?


I just ran OCCT AVX2 large for an hour without any errors at around 1.385v (under load). Seems like stuff like real bench that really push the temps are what cause instability. Seeing as I'm just gaming should I just go with this OC and not worry about those high temp crashes? It's an SP63.


----------



## aznguyen316

cptclutch said:


> I just ran OCCT AVX2 large for an hour without any errors at around 1.385v (under load). Seems like stuff like real bench that really push the temps are what cause instability. Seeing as I'm just gaming should I just go with this OC and not worry about those high temp crashes? It's an SP63.


That seems fine. You could try even lower voltage slightly if you want to dial in real close to stable for lowest temps. For gaming my temps are always much lower than the all core workloads. Some games load up cores when loading levels or doing other stuff on your PC like unpacking or downloading/installing from steam store you don’t want to crash so it’s good to do the OCCT at least. 

The load voltage for vcore die sense will be lower reading than what the Strix is reporting so as long as you’re not being throttled either that’s good. Can keep going down .05V and run OCCT again until you get errors. Time consuming though but if you’re happy I would call it good.


----------



## cptclutch

aznguyen316 said:


> That seems fine. You could try even lower voltage slightly if you want to dial in real close to stable for lowest temps. For gaming my temps are always much lower than the all core workloads. Some games load up cores when loading levels or doing other stuff on your PC like unpacking or downloading/installing from steam store you don’t want to crash so it’s good to do the OCCT at least.
> 
> The load voltage for vcore die sense will be lower reading than what the Strix is reporting so as long as you’re not being throttled either that’s good. Can keep going down .05V and run OCCT again until you get errors. Time consuming though but if you’re happy I would call it good.


Do we know what kind of difference there is between my readout and die? Is 1.4v under load on my reported vcore the highest you'd recommend for longevity? I don't really mind high temps or power, just don't want to fry my chip. Thanks!


----------



## GeneO

somewhere in the 30 to 50 mv range from my experience.


----------



## cptclutch

GeneO said:


> somewhere in the 30 to 50 mv range from my experience.


So my 1.4v readout is actually a good bit safer due to the fact that I'm not reading die voltages? It's so confusing seeing all these posts with voltages and not knowing how accurate the readouts are and if they are different (like the die sense).


----------



## GeneO

IDK. I used consider 1.3v socket sense was my 24x7 limit, now I consider 1.3v die sense my limit. LOL. I am conservative though.


----------



## Falkentyne

GeneO said:


> IDK. I used consider 1.3v socket sense was my 24x7 limit, now I consider 1.3v die sense my limit. LOL. I am conservative though.


Reasonable limits for a daily.


----------



## cptclutch

Isn't that very conservative? Seems like these modern 14nm chips have been proven to handle 1.4v pretty easily. If I'm gaming and my temps are always below 60c I should be safe at a socket load of 1.4v right? 

I'm testing out another one and it seems like it can handle 5.2 at around 1.39v socket under load.


----------



## GeneO

cptclutch said:


> Isn't that very conservative? Seems like these modern 14nm chips have been proven to handle 1.4v pretty easily. If I'm gaming and my temps are always below 60c I should be safe at a socket load of 1.4v right?
> 
> I'm testing out another one and it seems like it can handle 5.2 at around 1.39v socket under load.


Maybe, but AFAIK the finer the lithography, the less voltage (current) the chip should be able to handle as far as degradation. But I think 60c and reasonable current yes.


----------



## cptclutch

GeneO said:


> Maybe, but AFAIK the finer the lithography, the less voltage (current) the chip should be able to handle as far as degradation. But I think 60c and reasonable current yes.


Well looks like the 4th time is the charm then. Passes OCCT and real bench at 1.385v socket under load at 5.2ghz. Seems like its especially hard to win the lottery these days. I've seen some posts about the higher rated SP's dropping early and the later chips being lower quality and it definitely seems like this is the case. Intel trying to get people to upgrade to 11th gen? 😂


----------



## Robertomcat

cptclutch said:


> Well looks like the 4th time is the charm then. Passes OCCT and real bench at 1.385v socket under load at 5.2ghz. Seems like its especially hard to win the lottery these days. I've seen some posts about the higher rated SP's dropping early and the later chips being lower quality and it definitely seems like this is the case. Intel trying to get people to upgrade to 11th gen? 😂


Mine also works at that voltage so I can run it at 5.2. I have the ring set at 4.8 and LLC6. The motherboard is a Strix-E.


----------



## techenth

I have recently adopted a 10900k and got it to work at 5.1core 4.8 [email protected] I have removed all power limits, cores stay at 5.1 at all times and everything seems stable but my bench scores fluctuate greatly from run to run. For e.g. in R20 it benches 6700 in couple of runs and when I open/close an app and rebench it randomly drops to 6200-6300(even lower than stock) and never benches higher again until I restart the PC. And even then it sometimes benches in the lower range until couple of restarts. This is valid for every bench I've tried and also happens with an 5ghz OC. I've tried raising VCC, VCIO, VCSA and nothing helped. I'm also getting lower scores in CPU-Z's bench at around 602-606 single core score at 5.1ghz. Seems around 20 points lower than usual. 

I'm starting to think that the CPU is defective, any thoughts?


----------



## Falkentyne

techenth said:


> I have recently adopted a 10900k and got it to work at 5.1core 4.8 [email protected] I have removed all power limits, cores stay at 5.1 at all times and everything seems stable but my bench scores fluctuate greatly from run to run. For e.g. in R20 it benches 6700 in couple of runs and when I open/close an app and rebench it randomly drops to 6200-6300(even lower than stock) and never benches higher again until I restart the PC. And even then it sometimes benches in the lower range until couple of restarts. This is valid for every bench I've tried and also happens with an 5ghz OC. I've tried raising VCC, VCIO, VCSA and nothing helped. I'm also getting lower scores in CPU-Z's bench at around 602-606 single core score at 5.1ghz. Seems around 20 points lower than usual.
> 
> I'm starting to think that the CPU is defective, any thoughts?


 Windows installed clean?


----------



## techenth

Falkentyne said:


> Windows installed clean?


I've had a 10600k in place, just replaced the CPU thinking a format wouldn't be needed. I'll try doing a clean install.


----------



## Falkentyne

techenth said:


> I've had a 10600k in place, just replaced the CPU thinking a format wouldn't be needed. I'll try doing a clean install.


You can try a repair install first (install the 20H2 or 21H1 ISO, then just keep personal files and apps).


----------



## techenth

Falkentyne said:


> You can try a repair install first (install the 20H2 or 21H1 ISO, then just keep personal files and apps).


I have tried doing a clean install, dialing back my Cache&RAM OC, checking my PSU Voltage rails (5.050V and 12.048V) and even connecting the second 4-pin CPU EPS but still having the same problem. The issue is persistent between Cinebench R20, R23 and 3DMark's CPU test. Lowers my performance to below stock values. From 6700 to 6200-6300 and 17500 to 16100. I have observed that one of the threads is lagging behind during Cinebench runs so I'm inclined towards defective but I'm open to any ideas.

Ps. My CPU barely breaks 200W total consumption at 1.32V is that normal?


----------



## unclewebb

@techenth Try running HWiNFO and watch the Effective Clock data. Some people have seen this drop from 100% to 90% when stress testing. After this happens, the problem continues in any benchmark. Post a HWiNFO sensors screenshot if you have this problem.

Another slow down problem has been linked to Microsoft Defender. It seems to kick in hard while running some specific benchmarks.


----------



## techenth

unclewebb said:


> @techenth Try running HWiNFO and watch the Effective Clock data. Some people have seen this drop from 100% to 90% when stress testing. After this happens, the problem continues in any benchmark. Post a HWiNFO sensors screenshot if you have this problem.
> 
> Another slow down problem has been linked to Microsoft Defender. It seems to kick in hard while running some specific benchmarks.


Thanks for the feedback you were right. Does this mean it needs more juice?


Edit. More Vcore didn't help.


----------



## unclewebb

Your HWiNFO screenshot was taken when your computer was idle. I am not sure if it shows the throttling problem.

Normally while running a test like Cinebench, the CPU cores should be spending 100.0% of their time in the C0 state working on the task. The Effective Clock speed should be consistent across all threads. When the throttling bug hits, the CPU C0 residency will usually drop down to between 90% and 100%. After this happens, even if you quit your test, the CPU will not be able to get back up to full speed again until after the next reboot. 

Here is your C0% data.










While full load stress testing, you should see 100.0%. Your screenshot shows 99.2% which is suspicious. Watch this data and the Effective Clock data closely while testing next time. 

If you have this specific throttling problem, try running ThrottleStop. I have been helping some people on the Linus Tech Tips forum with this problem but still not sure why this is happening. Reduced C0% is a sign of internal throttling but nothing is showing up in any of the throttling flags that HWiNFO reports. 

Sometimes this happens immediately after booting up and sometimes it happens 5 or 10 minutes into a benchmark. The amount of throttling may not be huge but throttling is throttling. Running ThrottleStop has been able to immediately fix this problem and C0% returns to the full 100%. Benchmark scores return to their normal values. Here is a link to some more info on the LTT forum.






9600k hwinfo64 effective clock readings inconsistent between OC's


New here so I hope this is in the right place, and hasn't been answered already (all the threads I've found didn't give me a satisfying explanation). I've got two overclocks, one at 4.6 and one at 4.8, the 4.6 fully loaded in prime95 seems to read a stable 4.6ghz effective clock, but the 4.8 roam...




linustechtips.com













ThrottleStop (9.5) Download


ThrottleStop is a small application designed to monitor for and correct the three main types of CPU throttling that are being used on many lapto




www.techpowerup.com


----------



## techenth

unclewebb said:


> Your HWiNFO screenshot was taken when your computer was idle. I am not sure if it shows the throttling problem.
> 
> Normally while running a test like Cinebench, the CPU cores should be spending 100.0% of their time in the C0 state working on the task. The Effective Clock speed should be consistent across all threads. When the throttling bug hits, the CPU C0 residency will usually drop down to between 90% and 100%. After this happens, even if you quit your test, the CPU will not be able to get back up to full speed again until after the next reboot.
> 
> Here is your C0% data.
> 
> View attachment 2487122
> 
> 
> While full load stress testing, you should see 100.0%. Your screenshot shows 99.2% which is suspicious. Watch this data and the Effective Clock data closely while testing next time.
> 
> If you have this specific throttling problem, try running ThrottleStop. I have been helping some people on the Linus Tech Tips forum with this problem but still not sure why this is happening. Reduced C0% is a sign of internal throttling but nothing is showing up in any of the throttling flags that HWiNFO reports.
> 
> Sometimes this happens immediately after booting up and sometimes it happens 5 or 10 minutes into a benchmark. The amount of throttling may not be huge but throttling is throttling. Running ThrottleStop has been able to immediately fix this problem and C0% returns to the full 100%. Benchmark scores return to their normal values. Here is a link to some more info on the LTT forum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9600k hwinfo64 effective clock readings inconsistent between OC's
> 
> 
> New here so I hope this is in the right place, and hasn't been answered already (all the threads I've found didn't give me a satisfying explanation). I've got two overclocks, one at 4.6 and one at 4.8, the 4.6 fully loaded in prime95 seems to read a stable 4.6ghz effective clock, but the 4.8 roam...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> linustechtips.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThrottleStop (9.5) Download
> 
> 
> ThrottleStop is a small application designed to monitor for and correct the three main types of CPU throttling that are being used on many lapto
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.techpowerup.com


The one on the far left is taken during the bench and effective clocks vary between 4600 and 5050Mhz, as seen in the picture.
You have identified and defined the problem perfectly, thanks a lot for coming up with a solution.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Hi Guys,

Do you think I could have any problem running these voltages 24/7?
Under heavy load I have 5.1GHz - Vcore=1,25v (LLC4) - 85ºC - 245W
But idle, frequency arrives 5.6GHz - Vcore=1.47v
What do you think?


----------



## PhoenixMDA

I dont think that you get thís stable, it only look´pretty the 5,6Ghz, but not in performance/stability.
And dont forget only 5° more CPU temp and you need more VCore for stability.
The 5,[email protected],25V is very much, but perhaps of the temp, with 70° i think 1,2V can be enough.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I'm using OCTVB, VMaxStress and Voltage Optimization set in BIOS (ASUS Maximus Formula XII)

-> 56x3 - 55x5 - 54x8 - 53x10 (+2Boost)

I can run full load 5,1 GHz @ 1,22v "almost stable" but the Voltage Optimization set in BIOS make a mess when idle, so I need a little more voltage.

This configuration is pretty stable at load and idle. I'm testing it for a week...

My concern is about idle vcore, that achieves 1.48v.
*Is 1.48v safe @ idle?*
VMaxStress logic limit voltage at 1,50v

I need the following idle voltages to be stable:

1,[email protected],6GHz
1,[email protected],5GHz
1,[email protected],4GHz
1,[email protected],3GHz
1,[email protected],2GHz
1,[email protected],1GHz

At full load OCTVB reduce the clock to 5,1GHz and Voltage Optimization apply Vcore ~1,25V

The OCTVB +2Boost, voltage optimization, and VMaxStress is the key. At idle it achieves high clocks.










I'm going to try 57x3 - 56x5 - 55x8 - 54x10...LOL


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Hi, @Falkentyne 

Please give me a help...

I guess I got the CPU stable 56x4 - 55x6 - 54x8 - 53x10
Do you think I can trust VMaxStress and VoltageOptimization and will be safe with Vcore =1,485v @ idle?
I'm using Adaptive @1,550v


----------



## cptclutch

Any reason why my performance would increase when I lower my cache ratio (47 from 49). Was my higher ratio maybe causing instability? Seems pretty strange.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

cptclutch said:


> Any reason why my performance would increase when I lower my cache ratio (47 from 49). Was my higher ratio maybe causing instability? Seems pretty strange.


It happens to me too... I think could be the low voltage for that clock.


----------



## Imprezzion

What are you benching with to see that difference? I wanna test it myself. I normally run 5.2 x10 / 5.3 x6 and below with 5.0 cache but i'm curious to see if 4.9 or 4.7 or whatever is better.


----------



## cptclutch

RobertoSampaio said:


> It happens to me too... I think could be the low voltage for that clock.


You must be right, just bumped up my VCCIO and gained a bunch of performance.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

cptclutch said:


> You must be right, just bumped up my VCCIO and gained a bunch of performance.


For me the best ring ratio is 47... If I try 48 or 49 I need to rise VCCIO/SA .
I'm testing 56x4 - 55x6 - 54x8 - 53x10 with Ring at 47.
VCCIO/SA @ 1.19/1.24V - DRAM @1.37 - 4100MHz
The other strange thing is If VCCIO is too low I have disk errors...


----------



## superkyle1721

Hey guys I’ve got a sp106 chip from the golden sample pack. (Not bad but not as high as I’ve seen some at 120). I’m coming from a 6700k that I set an all core OC and left it. For a chip such as this is it more beneficial to run say 5.4 all core and 5.5 for 5 cores and 5.6 for 2? I want to really maximize what I can get out of the chip and confirm stability before messing with memory but these new features such as V/F curve have me feeling a bit dated haha


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Very nice, you are really a lucky one.

You can also do manuell Vcore, that is most stable.
I have Bios 1,3V LLC5 and set Core Ratio by Core Usage
4x5,4Ghz, 7x 5,3Ghz and 10x 5,2Ghz, so i have 1,29V Idle and heavy Prime NonAVX Load 1,18V, i use only my Voltage for 5,2Ghz allcore Setting.

Here you see the Performance, that´s i think is good.









ASUS System Product Name - Geekbench Browser


----------



## cptclutch

PhoenixMDA said:


> Very nice, you are really a lucky one.
> 
> You can also do manuell Vcore, that is most stable.
> I have Bios 1,3V LLC5 and set Core Ratio by Core Usage
> 4x5,4Ghz, 7x 5,3Ghz and 10x 5,2Ghz, so i have 1,29V Idle and heavy Prime NonAVX Load 1,18V, i use only my Voltage for 5,2Ghz allcore Setting.
> 
> Here you see the Performance, that´s i think is good.
> View attachment 2487269
> 
> 
> ASUS System Product Name - Geekbench Browser
> View attachment 2487271
> View attachment 2487275


Thats impressive, I'm going to have to mess around with core usage. If I'm stable at 5.2 all core right now can I just swap to something like yours without losing stability or will I have to retune?

Edit: Just tried to setup by core OC and it doesn't seem like its working. I used the same parameters as above. Seems like it's staying at my 5.2 all core OC and not adapting to my by core settings. On an Asus z490-e strix. Any advice?


----------



## PhoenixMDA

I´m working with an Apex XII,but i think it must be works at the same.
I have only set Core Ratio by Core Usage and 4x5,4Ghz, 7x 5,3Ghz and 10x 5,2Ghz at my Voltage 1,3V LLC5.
My sample need´s lower then 1,17V for 5,2Ghz, arround 1,2V for 5,3 and for 5,4Ghz arround1,25V with, my idle Voltage´s is 1,29V.

With low load it´s enough VCore for 4x 5,4Ghz and not heavy load enough for 7x5,3Ghz and heavy load 5,2Ghz you see the 1,171V.
You see it in the picture i have give Prime 4 core´s threat´s that you can see it.
In the most cases it´s arround 5,3, if a Game or system use more 5,2ghz, if really low load with only few thread´s then 5,4ghz.
The 4 thread in this case are only 3 core´s and "one HT core"

But with the same voltage 1,3V LLC5 for 5,2Ghz allcore it´s like for free performance.


----------



## cptclutch

PhoenixMDA said:


> I´m working with an Apex XII,but i think it must be works at the same.
> I have only set Core Ratio by Core Usage and 4x5,4Ghz, 7x 5,3Ghz and 10x 5,2Ghz at my Voltage 1,3V LLC5.
> My sample need´s lower then 1,17V for 5,2Ghz, arround 1,2V for 5,3 and for 5,4Ghz arround1,25V with, my idle Voltage´s is 1,29V.
> 
> With low load it´s enough VCore for 4x 5,4Ghz and not heavy load enough for 7x5,3Ghz and heavy load 5,2Ghz you see the 1,171V.
> You see it in the picture i have give Prime 4 core´s threat´s that you can see it.
> In the most cases it´s arround 5,3, if a Game or system use more 5,2ghz, if really low load with only few thread´s then 5,4ghz.
> The 4 thread in this case are only 3 core´s and "one HT core"
> 
> But with the same voltage 1,3V LLC5 for 5,2Ghz allcore it´s like for free performance.
> View attachment 2487281


Turns out it was because I had cstate turned off. Working great now and gained a bunch of single core performance! 

Whats the best way to test stability for a per core OC? Does running those few cores at 5.4 decrease stability compared to an all core OC? I've been mainly using OCCT, but seems like its just going to test all cores and not push that per core frequency up.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

I have it so done, i know that i need for a vcore for stable 5,4Ghz, 5,3Ghz.
I have tested how low is the voltage with 3,4,5 Core's heavy load, 5 cores heavy load is the voltage to low for 5,4Ghz, but at 4 cores its ok and the same with 5,3Ghz, with 7 cores the vcore is high enough for 5,3ghz.


----------



## cptclutch

PhoenixMDA said:


> I have it so done, i know that i need for a vcore for stable 5,4Ghz, 5,3Ghz.
> I have tested how low is the voltage with 3,4,5 Core's heavy load, 5 cores heavy load is the voltage to low for 5,4Ghz, but at 4 cores its ok and the same with 5,3Ghz, with 7 cores the vcore is high enough for 5,3ghz.


What is your SP rating on your CPU? Looks like I can do 2x 5.4, 4x 5.3, and the rest at 5.2.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

My SP is only 83, but the Chip is better as the most SP9x.The rest is cooling, it's directdie with 200l in 24/7.
But it gives also chips are better than my, but super rare like SP100+.
The SP107 from youtube needs under same conditions 20mv less at 5,4ghz and 40mv less at 5,5ghz as my chip.

The Chips scale extrem with the temp.At 15° H2O i can Pass 5,4ghz cb23 at 1,208V.20° [email protected],225v.


----------



## Nizzen

superkyle1721 said:


> Hey guys I’ve got a sp106 chip from the golden sample pack. (Not bad but not as high as I’ve seen some at 120). I’m coming from a 6700k that I set an all core OC and left it. For a chip such as this is it more beneficial to run say 5.4 all core and 5.5 for 5 cores and 5.6 for 2? I want to really maximize what I can get out of the chip and confirm stability before messing with memory but these new features such as V/F curve have me feeling a bit dated haha


This better du 5.6 ghz all core in gaming, or it's epic fail 

Best you can do is to run direct die to cool it enough, even it's a good bin.

I could run CB20 5.6ghz all core 10900k with sp87 with direct die cooling. 1.42v load.

No direct die, and 5.4ghz was max.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

5,6ghz i think is to much for allcore 24/7^^.5,5ghz is possible, but best for maxed out is i think allcore 5,4ghz and some cores higher, or you use cryo cooling with hard low temps.
5,6Ghz allcore Prime at 70-80° on the cores is like impossible.

But perhaps it give the one 10900k sample can do that.^^


----------



## Nizzen

PhoenixMDA said:


> 5,6ghz i think is to much for allcore 24/7^^.5,5ghz is possible, but best for maxed out is i think allcore 5,4ghz and some cores higher, or you use cryo cooling with hard low temps.
> 5,6Ghz allcore Prime at 70-80° on the cores is like impossible.
> 
> But perhaps it give the one 10900k sample can do that.^^


If you use the cpu for gaming, there is no need to do prime 95. Play Battlefield V and Warzone for a few hours, and it's stresstest enough 
BF V is using avx, so it's stressing the cpu very good 

The current when using prime 95 is a good way to degrade the cpu.

Play games on sp100+ 10900k @ only 5.4ghz is a bit shame. I can do the same on sp63


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I have a Maximus XII Formula with SP86 running as follows:

56x4 - 55x6 - 54x8 - 53x10
Adaptive 1,555v, LLC#4, [email protected], SVID=>Trained
VCCIO/SA - 1,19/1,24v
OCTVB=> +2Boost, VMaxStress=>Enable and VoltageOptimization=>Enable

Voltage Optimization works great !
From a post by Falkentyne, the voltage scaling is as follows:

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

So, CPU at 40C => 5,[email protected]=1,462v
At full load 80C => 5,[email protected]=1,250v


Tested with BFV for hours and light loads.


----------



## menko2

PhoenixMDA said:


> My SP is only 83, but the Chip is better as the most SP9x.The rest is cooling, it's directdie with 200l in 24/7.
> But it gives also chips are better than my, but super rare like SP100+.
> The SP107 from youtube needs under same conditions 20mv less at 5,4ghz and 40mv less at 5,5ghz as my chip.
> 
> The Chips scale extrem with the temp.At 15° H2O i can Pass 5,4ghz cb23 at 1,208V.20° [email protected],225v.


I bought recently a hero XIII with a 10900k for gaming.

The 10900k is SP92. 

I have it overclocked all core [email protected] LLC 5.

Is there any guide or introduction to overclock what I'm reading here depending on the number of core used? 5.6ghz for 2 cores is quite a lot and sounds great.

I have no idea about v/f curves..


----------



## RobertoSampaio

menko2 said:


> I bought recently a hero XIII with a 10900k for gaming.
> 
> The 10900k is SP92.
> 
> I have it overclocked all core [email protected] LLC 5.
> 
> Is there any guide or introduction to overclock what I'm reading here depending on the number of core used? 5.6ghz for 2 cores is quite a lot and sounds great.
> 
> I have no idea about v/f curves..


First thing: Go to OCTVB and enable VMaxStress... This will prevent Vcore goes over 1,5V. Its a safe condition that allow you to do any Cshit... LOL


----------



## PhoenixMDA

@Nizzen
You forget it gives also games like horizon zero dawn, if the game decompress data it's really like prime 100% and really heavy load.
I had before 2xsp63 need's a little bit arround 1,25V load vcore for 5,2/4,8 dellided no directdie.
5,4ghz stable is to high for such Chips, max. current is arround 240A for 10900k.
My chip needs for 5,4ghz allcore prime nonavx run max 195A, for me it must be also stable with 32° water, i dont want to see whea's by playing games.
10° are arround 40-50mV.

5,5Ghz cb23 i can do 1,288V at 17° H2O and 1,32V at 26°H2O.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

@menko2
Test it with Benchmark, if you have it only as idle clock is useless.
And also test the stability with high load install horizon zero dawn start it with high allcore clock and you will see.

And don't forget more temp needs more Vcore.
You can also set with octvb, that is also no bad choice.
So looks a stability test for allstable by me with 5,2Ghz.


----------



## menko2

PhoenixMDA said:


> @menko2
> Test it with Benchmark, if you have it only as idle clock is useless.
> And also test the stability with high load install horizon zero dawn start it with high allcore clock and you will see.
> 
> And don't forget more temp needs more Vcore.
> You can also set with octvb, that is also no bad choice.
> So looks a stability test for allstable by me with 5,2Ghz.
> View attachment 2487352


For me it's been stable 5.2ghz all core.

Since I have seen the thermal velocity boost going very high i was thinking it could be good for single thread games.

I guess I keep my Overclock.

Still no updates of anyone testing gaming 10900k vs 11900k with the bios updates provided.


----------



## Imprezzion

Ok, so, I got bored, flashed the new ReBAR BIOS on my Z490 Ace and that also has improved OCTVB microcode and such so decided to give it a try in stead of just manual all core OC.

It works nicely. I can get away with 1x55 4x54 10x53 just fine (it also does manual all core x53 just fine so no surprise there) but there is some weirdness.

If I for example stress test it for a few minutes with different loads like Prime95 AVX, Non AVX, IBT, loading CP2077 and Division 2, there's a massive difference in voltages.. like AVX stuff like BFV and IBT/Prime go to like 1.376v which is fine because that's what it generally needs in fixed x53 as well. But, lighter stuff like CP2077 can see voltages as high as 1.460-1.474v.. why does it do that.. if I disable TVB Voltage Optimization it's even worden it goes to the moon @ 1.536v...

Now, in the end this isn't a big problem as cooling wise direct die water can handle it just fine, even CP2077 @ 5.3 1.474v barely touched 55c at 150w+ constant load. I mean, ofc 380w Prime95 Small FFT with AVX enabled will go straight to 100c but yeah.. it's TVB, it drops 1-2 bins after 80c anyway. That's what it's for.

So, basically, can a 10900KF survive 1.47-1.48v if temps <70c and can I keep my nice new 1x55 4x54 10x53?


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Yes thats possible, but you need much Power by gaming.you can also set short/ long watt. 


1 core is like never only used, so it's like useless.Most cases 6-10 cores load.
I have tested today in some Games, i have decide to take my stable voltage for 5,3Ghz 55° and if the CPU has 55° 5,2Ghz.
So i have low voltage, the same you can do for 5,4Ghz and the temp you have by gaming, i have never 55° by playing games.

I think so you can drive lower vcore with same performance in 24/7 gaming.


----------



## Imprezzion

I agree, I could just ignore the stress test voltages and drop the per point offset to whatever is stable but I just wanna be sure it's always stable. Not just in gaming. If I like, render a BF4 epic kills compilation I'd like it to not drop voltage way too low and crash while rendering which uses AVX (and so does BFV btw) so I'm kinda stuck here.

I played around with the different AC/DC levels and at what MSI calls "mode 9" aka 80/80 it's better. 1.380v AVX load with light loads sitting around 1.430-1446v. That's almost 40mv less at 5.3 all core. Oh and I run 5.4 2 cores (4 threads) and 5.3 10 cores. 2 of my cores can handle 5.4 at the same voltage just fine. 

Now all I have to do is check if it's stable in idle / watching YouTube and such as it sometimes had the tendency to boost to 5.3/5.4 very shortly and doesn't raise the voltage enough or fast enough at least. Might have to add a bit higher VRM switching frequency. I'm at the default 500 now. Might need 700-800 to prevent this.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I think overclocking is like to play a game. I have more fun overclocking than playing ...LOL

First sorry my "Brazilian English".. LOL

My last CPU was a 3770K and the last time overclocked it was 2014...2015...
So I had to learn all new for the 10900K, and to become familiar with the ASUS Maximus XII formula BIOS menu.

The first thing I decided was to NOT sync all cores and NOT use fixed voltage. If I have the technology "by core", C states, OCTVB, etc, I decided to start from beginning using it.

I started deciding the full load frequency. Initially I used 5GHz and start to find the minimum voltage for it.
Like as Asus automatic overclock, I decided to use 4 steps scaling frequencies. So I used 50x3 - 50x5 - 50x8 - 50x10 (almost the same of sync all cores)
In this case minimum [email protected]=1.18v. I adjusted the interpolation of V/F#6 (51x) and V/F#5 (48x) to get the desired value.

At this point I realized if I use SVID=trained and LLC#4 the VID become equal Vcore, making the job easier.
Next step was to find the stable voltages for higher frequencies.
Realized that If I use VRM switching frequency= 800KHz the system became more stable.

Changed to 51x3 - 51x5 - 51x8 - 50x10.
I found the stable voltage for 51X light load.
Tested this V/F#6 voltage for 51X heavy loads and found the minimum Vcore: 1,24V. Adjust the V/F#6 again (V/F#6=1,315V).

Changed to 52x3 - 52x5 - 52x8 - 50x10 and find V/F#7 minimum light load voltage. (V/F#7=1,38V. Obs.: At this value starts the interpolation of next frequency's voltage)
Tested 53x3 - 53x5 - 53x8 - 51x10 and adjust V/F#8
Tested 54x3 - 54x8 - 54x8 - 54x10 and adjust V/F#8 again. (V/F#8=1,47V. I'll adjust it again on the next step).

I went to OCTVB and enable VMAXStress, voltage optimization and +2Boost profile.
I rose the adaptive voltage until the L0 erros stops.


Now, with voltage optimization enable the voltage scaling works "upside down" starting from 100ºC.
+53x: -1.55mv /-1C
52x: -1.45mv / -1C
51x: -1.15mv / -1C
50x: -0.9mv / -1C

Now I started to adjust adaptive voltage for 56x3 - 55x5 - 54x8 - 53x10:
At idle, [email protected]ºC I need:
56x: 1,54v (adaptive with voltage optimization "making the magic" and VMaxStress limiting voltage at 1,500v)
I rose V/F#8 to 1,500V to rise 53x, 54x and 55x voltage a bit.
55x: 1,47v (interpolated)
54x: 1,42v (interpolated)
53x: 1,38v (interpolated) - Remember that V/F#8= 1,47 at 100ºC => working with voltage optimization: [1470mv - (60*1,55)]=1,377

After that I tested 56x4 - 55x6 - 54x8 - 53x10 and all is working fine...


----------



## PhoenixMDA

@Imprezzion 
I mean it more so, i need normal for 5,4Ghz nonAVX 1,25V load up to 60°, in normal case i would do for 24/7 1,27V load that i can do up to 65° or 1,29V for up to 70°, to be at higher room temps safe, thats also enough for normal avx load.

If i cap it by 55° and say now 5,3Ghz i dont to go higher with the voltage as 1,25V load.

For really heavy load i cap the watt short(long+10-20w) and long therm to max Prime nonavx watt.
So I know that the voltage can never drop lower as necessary as needed.

It's more only too spare the safe voltages for higher temps, not more.
I will see it in long time test, that it is also stable or not without whea.


----------



## Astral85

RobertoSampaio said:


> I have a Maximus XII Formula with SP86 running as follows:
> 
> 56x4 - 55x6 - 54x8 - 53x10
> Adaptive 1,555v, LLC#4, [email protected], SVID=>Trained
> VCCIO/SA - 1,19/1,24v
> OCTVB=> +2Boost, VMaxStress=>Enable and VoltageOptimization=>Enable
> 
> Voltage Optimization works great !
> From a post by Falkentyne, the voltage scaling is as follows:
> 
> 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
> 
> So, CPU at 40C => 5,[email protected]=1,462v
> At full load 80C => 5,[email protected]=1,250v
> 
> 
> Tested with BFV for hours and light loads.
> 
> View attachment 2487344
> View attachment 2487345
> View attachment 2487346
> View attachment 2487349
> View attachment 2487350


I am trying the setup you've laid out. BTW I am noob to the 10900K, I've just the had 10900K + M13H for about 2 weeks (coming from Z390). I've been experimenting with TVB and find the results somewhat confusing. I was using core ratio - AI optimized with TVB but wouldn't get any TVB boost at the desktop.

So anyway I have set mine up like yours but have some questions. My performance appears to be poor. I ran CB R23 with this config and the effective core clock during the run (on Windows performance power plan) was only 3.9Ghz. The only thing I have set differently is the per core usage ratios. I copied a friends but don't actually understand how to configure it. I think I have set 53x3, 52x10.

My other question is how does the TVB voltage optimization interact with adaptive Vcore? I have set Adaptive + additional Vcore 1.400V, offset Auto. I'm still seeing overshoot to 1.456V. I attached some screenshots. Any help with this would greatly appreciated. 

BTW what is the OCTVB software you have in the screenshot?


----------



## menko2

Astral85 said:


> I am trying the setup you've laid out. BTW I am noob to the 10900K, I've just the had 10900K + M13H for about 2 weeks (coming from Z390). I've been experimenting with TVB and find the results somewhat confusing. I was using core ratio - AI optimized with TVB but wouldn't get any TVB boost at the desktop.
> 
> So anyway I have set mine up like yours but have some questions. My performance appears to be poor. I ran CB R23 with this config and the effective core clock during the run (on Windows performance power plan) was only 3.9Ghz. The only thing I have set differently is the per core usage ratios. I copied a friends but don't actually understand how to configure it. I think I have set 53x3, 52x10.
> 
> My other question is how does the TVB voltage optimization interact with adaptive Vcore? I have set Adaptive + additional Vcore 1.400V, offset Auto. I'm still seeing overshoot to 1.456V. I attached some screenshots. Any help with this would greatly appreciated.
> 
> BTW what is the OCTVB software you have in the screenshot?
> 
> View attachment 2487503
> 
> 
> View attachment 2487504
> 
> 
> View attachment 2487505


I have the same system as you.

I'm leaving all core 5.2ghz at 1.34v llc 4. 

I have no idea of how to use thermal velocity boost. I only tried a little but I dont have much time now.


----------



## Astral85

menko2 said:


> I have the same system as you.
> 
> I'm leaving all core 5.2ghz at 1.34v llc 4.
> 
> I have no idea of how to use thermal velocity boost. I only tried a little but I dont have much time now.


Seems like some of the guys here understand it well. Some of the posts on the previous pages are already helpful but I still have some questions. Thermal Velocity Boost as I understand it takes advantage of low thermals to be able get additional light load boost. It can boost to these really high clocks with little voltage simply because the chip is running cool. That's my simple understanding of it...


----------



## Astral85

@RobertoSampaio

Additionally with per core usage OC + TVB my idle package power is way too high. Idle Vcore is 1.344V. Speedshift and C-States are enabled. Is the CPU supposed to be constantly boosting to the +2 TVB? That is what mine is doing...

Edit: I run Corsair's iCUE 4 software which likes to keep cores active. It's iCUE that is keeping the CPU TVB boosting with high voltage. When I exit CUE 4 the CPU goes into the power saving C-States. This is not ideal.


----------



## Imprezzion

Been playing some Wolfenstein Youngblood and Cyberpunk 2077 today with the OC @ 54x2 53x10 on V/F Curve. Runs fine, no weirdness, no WHEA errors either. It's been stable so far on idle as well. Load voltage sits around 1.440v which is way higher then I need but I can't regulate it any better.

I'm going to try to set up my manual 5.3Ghz all core in the BIOS not using TVB with proper LLC and AC/DC and see if I can control the voltage better. Problem with that is that it gets super unstable at idle especially when coming down from a high load it often just freezes unless I disable SpeedShift and C-States all together. Gotta find a fix for that.

K been playing with it a bit further. Manual is a mess, it just will not stabilize when I try to set the voltage regulation to a flat regulation (so every load the same voltage). It will always crash when idle or when dropping from load to idle.. 

This board is almost forcing me to run Auto LLC and AC/DC and let it do the regulation otherwise it just will not run stable. This forces me to run a much higher voltage. Weirdly enough, even on that higher voltage, temperatures in both games and stress tests is actually noticably *lower**. No idea how this is possible.

* For example P95 small FFT @ TVB 5.3 all core regulation on Auto with just a V/F Curve negative offset @ 1.440v it's between 78-82c across the cores. 

Manual 5.3 all core using adaptive + offset at 1.390v LLC3 AC/DC Mode 1 it runs at "1.390v" but gets up to like 88-91c.. so less reported voltage (measured with a DMM on the boards measuring points as well, it IS lower), is a much much higher temperature. Also, at 1.390 manual it reports 409w power consumption with AVX on, on 1.440 TVB Auto it reports like 355w even with more voltage. And performance bench wise is identical so it's not like it performs any worse..

This stuff is weird man..

Also, do not let TVB / XTU decide everything for you, I have seen 1.68v several times during testing because it set the curve to the moon for some reason. It can go way way way out of 1.52v VID spec even with everything in the BIOS on Auto and just letting XTU control everything.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Astral85 said:


> @RobertoSampaio
> 
> Additionally with per core usage OC + TVB my idle package power is way too high. Idle Vcore is 1.344V. Speedshift and C-States are enabled. Is the CPU supposed to be constantly boosting to the +2 TVB? That is what mine is doing...
> 
> Edit: I run Corsair's iCUE 4 software which likes to keep cores active. It's iCUE that is keeping the CPU TVB boosting with high voltage. When I exit CUE 4 the CPU goes into the power saving C-States. This is not ideal.
> View attachment 2487510


Hi @Astral85 ,
I sent you a PM...


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Imprezzion said:


> Been playing some Wolfenstein Youngblood and Cyberpunk 2077 today with the OC @ 54x2 53x10 on V/F Curve. Runs fine, no weirdness, no WHEA errors either. It's been stable so far on idle as well. Load voltage sits around 1.440v which is way higher then I need but I can't regulate it any better.
> 
> I'm going to try to set up my manual 5.3Ghz all core in the BIOS not using TVB with proper LLC and AC/DC and see if I can control the voltage better. Problem with that is that it gets super unstable at idle especially when coming down from a high load it often just freezes unless I disable SpeedShift and C-States all together. Gotta find a fix for that.
> 
> K been playing with it a bit further. Manual is a mess, it just will not stabilize when I try to set the voltage regulation to a flat regulation (so every load the same voltage). It will always crash when idle or when dropping from load to idle..
> 
> This board is almost forcing me to run Auto LLC and AC/DC and let it do the regulation otherwise it just will not run stable. This forces me to run a much higher voltage. Weirdly enough, even on that higher voltage, temperatures in both games and stress tests is actually noticably *lower**. No idea how this is possible.
> 
> * For example P95 small FFT @ TVB 5.3 all core regulation on Auto with just a V/F Curve negative offset @ 1.440v it's between 78-82c across the cores.
> 
> Manual 5.3 all core using adaptive + offset at 1.390v LLC3 AC/DC Mode 1 it runs at "1.390v" but gets up to like 88-91c.. so less reported voltage (measured with a DMM on the boards measuring points as well, it IS lower), is a much much higher temperature. Also, at 1.390 manual it reports 409w power consumption with AVX on, on 1.440 TVB Auto it reports like 355w even with more voltage. And performance bench wise is identical so it's not like it performs any worse..
> 
> This stuff is weird man..
> 
> Also, do not let TVB / XTU decide everything for you, I have seen 1.68v several times during testing because it set the curve to the moon for some reason. It can go way way way out of 1.52v VID spec even with everything in the BIOS on Auto and just letting XTU control everything.


Which motherboard are you using?
I think 355~400W look like unreal. Seems like you have a DC load line issue.

EDITED: Ops... [email protected] could be 350W or more...LOL


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Astral85 said:


> I am trying the setup you've laid out. BTW I am noob to the 10900K, I've just the had 10900K + M13H for about 2 weeks (coming from Z390). I've been experimenting with TVB and find the results somewhat confusing. I was using core ratio - AI optimized with TVB but wouldn't get any TVB boost at the desktop.
> 
> So anyway I have set mine up like yours but have some questions. My performance appears to be poor. I ran CB R23 with this config and the effective core clock during the run (on Windows performance power plan) was only 3.9Ghz. The only thing I have set differently is the per core usage ratios. I copied a friends but don't actually understand how to configure it. I think I have set 53x3, 52x10.
> 
> My other question is how does the TVB voltage optimization interact with adaptive Vcore? I have set Adaptive + additional Vcore 1.400V, offset Auto. I'm still seeing overshoot to 1.456V. I attached some screenshots. Any help with this would greatly appreciated.
> 
> BTW what is the OCTVB software you have in the screenshot?
> 
> View attachment 2487503
> 
> 
> View attachment 2487504
> 
> 
> View attachment 2487505


You can do better...


----------



## Imprezzion

RobertoSampaio said:


> Which motherboard are you using?
> I think 355~400W look like unreal. Seems like you have a DC load line issue.
> 
> EDITED: Ops... [email protected] could be 350W or more...LOL


Yeah usually it's like 355-360w but I saw it hit 409 once in HWINFO64. I am using a MSI Z490 Ace with the latest BIOS. This board is amazing for "fixed" core overclocking but when you want full dynamic OC with power saving and per core boost and such it's a mess. AC/DC is all over the place. LLC is a disaster on Auto, it just behaves weird.

I'm using XTU to tweak within Windows while having the BIOS on all stock "Auto" settings except for AC/DC and LLC and CPU (VRM) Switching Frequency.

Up to 5.1Ghz all core it kinda behaves nice, above that it's just yeet ALL the volts. Doesn't matter if I set LLC2 or LLC8 or 1/1 AC/DC or 210/160 it just goes like, you want 5.2 or 5.3? With that SP/VID? Ok, here's 1.476v at the lowest possible LLC and AC/DC.

So I am forced to run massive negative V/F offsets which don't particularly help in stabilizing low load and idle to load and load to idle switching...

I am only doing very short <20 sec Prime95 AVX Small FFT runs just to see where the voltage is going because it scares me to death to blow this CPU to kingdom come running 1.50v AVX @ 400w+ under just mere direct die ambient water. I mean, it thermal shutdowns at 100c but still. Poor thing.

BTW, Game stable @ 5.4 all core @ 1.51v. I let OCTVB do it's thing and limit it to 5.1 above 80c but it never got to 80c in CP2077. Was running happily at 55 ish across the cores @ 1.51-1.536v (VR VOut 1.488-1.512v). I'm just too much of a ***** to YOLO 1.50v on a 10900KF even tho they are pretty cheap and dispensable these days.. and I used to love just pushing well past the known limits just to see what would happen. (2500K @ 5.3Ghz 1.536v 24/7, still lives. Not even degraded)


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Imprezzion said:


> Yeah usually it's like 355-360w but I saw it hit 409 once in HWINFO64. I am using a MSI Z490 Ace with the latest BIOS. This board is amazing for "fixed" core overclocking but when you want full dynamic OC with power saving and per core boost and such it's a mess. AC/DC is all over the place. LLC is a disaster on Auto, it just behaves weird.
> 
> I'm using XTU to tweak within Windows while having the BIOS on all stock "Auto" settings except for AC/DC and LLC and CPU (VRM) Switching Frequency.
> 
> Up to 5.1Ghz all core it kinda behaves nice, above that it's just yeet ALL the volts. Doesn't matter if I set LLC2 or LLC8 or 1/1 AC/DC or 210/160 it just goes like, you want 5.2 or 5.3? With that SP/VID? Ok, here's 1.476v at the lowest possible LLC and AC/DC.
> 
> So I am forced to run massive negative V/F offsets which don't particularly help in stabilizing low load and idle to load and load to idle switching...
> 
> I am only doing very short <20 sec Prime95 AVX Small FFT runs just to see where the voltage is going because it scares me to death to blow this CPU to kingdom come running 1.50v AVX @ 400w+ under just mere direct die ambient water. I mean, it thermal shutdowns at 100c but still. Poor thing.
> 
> BTW, Game stable @ 5.4 all core @ 1.51v. I let OCTVB do it's thing and limit it to 5.1 above 80c but it never got to 80c in CP2077. Was running happily at 55 ish across the cores @ 1.51-1.536v (VR VOut 1.488-1.512v). I'm just too much of a *** to YOLO 1.50v on a 10900KF even tho they are pretty cheap and dispensable these days.. and I used to love just pushing well past the known limits just to see what would happen. (2500K @ 5.3Ghz 1.536v 24/7, still lives. Not even degraded)


I really love ASUS MBs... LOL.
Before I had a 3770K with a P8Z77-V LX MB, and always used dynamic OC with power saving.

I think the key to make Dinamic OC easy is to adjust AC/DC loadlines.
In ASUS M12F I just use SVID= trained, so it makes IA Domain Loadline (AC/DC)=0.510 / 1.100 mOhm and If I use LLC#4 I'll ever have VID=Vcore (@Lights and heavy loads), this make everything easier.

Asus has a custom XTU software, but I don't like it... I prefer to make changes in BIOS and test.

The default ASUS VRM Switching Frequency is about 350KHz (not sure about this), and I really don't know how AUTO works. For me 800KHz works great and VRM temps stay below 65ºC without any water cooling solution.

I think the problem of V/F curves is the interpolation above 53X... I'm trying to reduce idle voltage but, in my case any change in adaptive changes the 56x,55x,54x and 53x points... And I'm trying to play with adaptive and V/F#8 trying to find the better voltage scale for this OC region.

I think benchmarks softwares are unrealistic. I prefer to test with BFV and YouTube... LOL. YouTube is a good way to test idle voltages and hi clocks... If the voltage is too low the system freezes or some L0 errors. Playing BFV I have all cores @5,1GHz, about 125W and temp around 65ºC.

I think 10900K can operate idle @ 1,470v, but not sure if I'll have any problem in the future. This is the only point I'm concerned about.


----------



## Imprezzion

RobertoSampaio said:


> I really love ASUS MBs... LOL.
> Before I had a 3770K with a P8Z77-V LX MB, and always used dynamic OC with power saving.
> 
> I think the key to make Dinamic OC easy is to adjust AC/DC loadlines.
> In ASUS M12F I just use SVID= trained, so it makes IA Domain Loadline (AC/DC)=0.510 / 1.100 mOhm and If I use LLC#4 I'll ever have VID=Vcore (@Lights and heavy loads), this make everything easier.
> 
> Asus has a custom XTU software, but I don't like it... I prefer to make changes in BIOS and test.
> 
> The default ASUS VRM Switching Frequency is about 350KHz (not sure about this), and I really don't know how AUTO works. For me 800KHz works great and VRM temps stay below 65ºC without any water cooling solution.
> 
> I think the problem of V/F curves is the interpolation above 53X... I'm trying to reduce idle voltage but, in my case any change in adaptive changes the 56x,55x,54x and 53x points... And I'm trying to play with adaptive and V/F#8 trying to find the better voltage scale for this OC region.
> 
> I think benchmarks softwares are unrealistic. I prefer to test with BFV and YouTube... LOL. YouTube is a good way to test idle voltages and hi clocks... If the voltage is too low the system freezes or some L0 errors. Playing BFV I have all cores @5,1GHz, about 125W and temp around 65ºC.
> 
> I think 10900K can operate idle @ 1,470v, but not sure if I'll have any problem in the future. This is the only point I'm concerned about.


I finally got it to work a lot better thanks to your advice. And yes, I don't stress test for stability, just to see what the LLC and AC/DC does at multiple levels of load. I run Prime95 small FTT AVX on, off, 20 threads, 10 threads, 5 threads, Large FFT with those same parameters. If all 8 tests are very close voltage wise I can continue testing. Problem is, if I had 1.390v dailed in for Small AVX 20T then Large no AVX 10T would be like 1.476v. The difference was too big.

Now I finally found a combination of LLC and AC/DC that pulls them very very close together. LLC 4 (slight drop under load) with AC/DC at "15". This has it do that they every so slightly undershoot the target in anything but 350w AVX. I might try 20 AC/DC to see if I can get it to sit at or slightly overshoot just to be sure it's stable. This also required quite minimal offsets for x51 and no offsets for x48 or below and only very large negative offsets for X52 and x53 otherwise they'd still be 1.505v. I am only at all-core now so no 1-2 cores higher. I will set up 2x55 4x54 10x53 if it can do it. 4x54 is fine at 1.505v but I doubt I have even 1 core capable of 5.5 lol.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Imprezzion said:


> I finally got it to work a lot better thanks to your advice. And yes, I don't stress test for stability, just to see what the LLC and AC/DC does at multiple levels of load. I run Prime95 small FTT AVX on, off, 20 threads, 10 threads, 5 threads, Large FFT with those same parameters. If all 8 tests are very close voltage wise I can continue testing. Problem is, if I had 1.390v dailed in for Small AVX 20T then Large no AVX 10T would be like 1.476v. The difference was too big.
> 
> Now I finally found a combination of LLC and AC/DC that pulls them very very close together. LLC 4 (slight drop under load) with AC/DC at "15". This has it do that they every so slightly undershoot the target in anything but 350w AVX. I might try 20 AC/DC to see if I can get it to sit at or slightly overshoot just to be sure it's stable. This also required quite minimal offsets for x51 and no offsets for x48 or below and only very large negative offsets for X52 and x53 otherwise they'd still be 1.505v. I am only at all-core now so no 1-2 cores higher. I will set up 2x55 4x54 10x53 if it can do it. 4x54 is fine at 1.505v but I doubt I have even 1 core capable of 5.5 lol.



Does MSI have "voltage optimization" and "VMaxStress" in the OCTVB menu?
Other thing... Does MSI LLC work "upside down" compared to ASUS?
Asus high LLC means less Vdroop.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

I think the clocks looks really nice, and it gives also good feeling.
But by playing games most time All cores load, so you have if you need performance the lowest clock.
It looks good, but with less performance then to do like allcore with tvb temp allcore.
There you can drive 5,3, 5,4Ghz allcore BF5.

But if it feels good it bring more then to be unsatisfied.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

PhoenixMDA said:


> I think the clocks looks really nice, and it gives also good feeling.
> But by playing games most time All cores load, so you have if you need performance the lowest clock.
> It looks good, but with less performance then to do like allcore with tvb temp allcore.
> There you can drive 5,3, 5,4Ghz allcore BF5.


Playing BFV I try to keep CPU around 125~130W max. 
I have a corsair 280mm, and the ambient temp in Brazil stay around 30ºC...
So if I go over 5,1GHz the water goes over 50ºC no mater how I increase fans rpm... 
So I have an ambient temp limitation unfortunately. 
With 5,1GHz the water stay around 42ºC and I can run fans at ~1000rpm. 
But I agree with you. I'd like to try the cryo cooler, but I think even with it I'll have problems, because the condensation below ambient temp...


----------



## Imprezzion

Here's 2 rounds of Grand Operations in BFV for my setup. (MSI Z490 Ace, Latest .17 BIOS, 10900KF delid + direct die, lapped EK Supremacy block and Coolaboratory Liquid Ultra TIM)
Fans only ramp up above 70c from their 15% PWM idle, water pump is at 72%, above it it whines very annoyingly.
I mean, peak temps are mid 70's, but that is nothing to worry about lol. Fans just didn't respond fast enough with 0.7 sec spool time set in the BIOS.










Oh and no, MSI LLC works the same way as ASUS. LLC1 is overshoot, LLC8 is no added voltage. LLC3 is flat response. MSI also does not currently have any SVID override like ASUS has and no VMaxStress option.

So I have to compensate for the AC/DC voltage by dropping LLC to 4 from 3 which lets it ever so slightly droop under load meaning the voltages between low loads and high loads are very very flat now with just a slight overshoot at specific AVX medium loads (like BFV loading screens) from 1.392v expected to 1.423v max. (LLC3 = 1.440v LLC4 = 1.423v).

BIOS: Manual RAM tuning, 1.25v IO 1.35v SA 1.50v DRAM 4400C17 with full manual subtimings and RTL/IO. CPU is all on Auto, CPU Voltage Auto, LLC 4 @ 800Mhz switching frequency with Enhanced current settings, maxed power limits and durations, AC/DC "20" (a.k.a. mode_2 but I use Advanced for setting mOhm directly).* Very important: TVB Voltage Optimization HAS to be Disabled otherwise voltage is ALL over the place and cannot be regulated properly. *

Intel XTU settings:
As you can see I have to run quite a high offset on all 3 major points because this CPU has a trash VID (and is probably very low SP) but it works and the lower frequencies and idle is stable like this. If I go for lower base voltage by dropping AC/DC and LLC or use a Core Voltage Offset it will crash in idle / load transitions.

As I have it set up now it's at x51 @ 1.270v, x52 @ 1.334v and x53 @ 1.390v. These 3 are all overnight tested to death with 3 different stress tests and a week of gaming using a manual, fixed all core OC with fixed voltage to see what voltage every point needs to be stable.
I know 5.4x10 is stable at ~1.505v but I can't sustain that temp wise so I leave my best 2 cores to handle that @ ~1.464v.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

One round of BFV....
I think the new 2103 M12F bios have a bug reading water in and water out sensors...


----------



## RobertoSampaio

.


----------



## Robertomcat

Good afternoon.
A question about my OC with a ROG Strix Z490-E motherboard.
The processor is an SP 73, which the OC configuration I've put on it is pretty basic.
I can't get it to be stable at 5.2 with a voltage of 1.390 and LLC 6 with the ring at 48. When the computer is idle the voltage is at 1,385, but when under load it drops to 1,375 and the VID goes up to 1,440.
The VCCIO and VCCSA are on automatic.
I understand that the voltage I have provided is high enough to withstand a load other than Prime95, but the computer restarts doing everyday heavy load tasks.
What could I tweak to improve stability? Thank you.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Robertomcat said:


> Good afternoon.
> A question about my OC with a ROG Strix Z490-E motherboard.
> The processor is an SP 73, which the OC configuration I've put on it is pretty basic.
> I can't get it to be stable at 5.2 with a voltage of 1.390 and LLC 6 with the ring at 48. When the computer is idle the voltage is at 1,385, but when under load it drops to 1,375 and the VID goes up to 1,440.
> The VCCIO and VCCSA are on automatic.
> I understand that the voltage I have provided is high enough to withstand a load other than Prime95, but the computer restarts doing everyday heavy load tasks.
> What could I tweak to improve stability? Thank you.


1 - Enable VMaxStress for safe. 
2 - Use SVID=Trained and LLC#4 (this will make VID=VCore). You will need to adjust all voltages again because now VID=Vcore.
3 - Automatic VCCIO and VCCSA normally is too high for hi DRAM frequency. When stable you could try 1,25v or less...
4 - Keep ring <= 47x 
5 - You can try OCTVB and VoltageOptimization, but you need to understand how it works (Its magic...LOL)


----------



## Robertomcat

RobertoSampaio said:


> 1 - Enable VMaxStress for safe.
> 2 - Use SVID=Trained and LLC#4 (this will make VID=VCore). You will need to adjust all voltages again because now VID=Vcore.
> 3 - Automatic VCCIO and VCCSA normally is too high for hi DRAM frequency. When stable you could try 1,25v or less...
> 4 - Keep ring <= 47x
> 5 - You can try OCTVB and VoltageOptimization, but you need to understand how it works (Its magic...LOL)


I'm not saying VMaxStress is on my motherboard, because I haven't seen it. Where can I find it?
I have used SVID before, but on other motherboards. I will apply it again to see if it is effective in this case.
As for OCTVB I see that you are using it quite a lot and that it gives very good results according to the comments I can read. This afternoon I'll test it again to see if I can stabilize it, although I think that LLC4 won't be enough. Thanks!


----------



## Imprezzion

I had a bad time with OCTVB Voltage Optimization enabled. Couldn't get the voltage to stabilize at one single value cause it does something with the voltage and temperatures so at one temperature it was fine at another it wasn't. I prefer to use TVB without Voltage Optimization so I always have the se voltage regardless of temperature.

My 2nd core is too weak to do 5.4Ghz at the same voltage I use for 53x10 (1.390) so it gave me a WHEA / L0 cache error.. now I have to run 54x1 instead of 54x2 to make it not error lol..


----------



## Salve1412

I've been playing a bit Ghostrunner (man if it is hard!), one of the games that apparently have a tendency to trigger the infamous Parity Errors that plague latest generations of Skylake-based CPUs, 10900K in particular (cstkl1 should be the one who reported these errors for this specific game). Among other things I was curious to test my otherwise stable CPU+RAM overclock (zero problems in various stress tests -OCCT, Prime, GSAT, TestMem5, HCI Memtest- as well as in games such as BFV and CoD Warzone).
Of course they were not long in coming: lots of "CPU Internal Errors" in HWInfo (Parity Errors in Event Viewer) popped up as soon as I began to play. The third level alone caused four of them and I hadn't even completed half of it! On top of that the game occasionally crashed to desktop, sometimes with a fatal error message, sometimes without.

What has surprised me is that disabling Ray Tracing seems to have completely fixed the issues. Not a single error or crash has occurred again in the next three hours, and I have replayed the critical third level twice. Is it really possible that keeping ray-tracing enabled contributes decisively to the triggering of those errors, at least for this game?

EDIT Dug a bit deeper in the thread and read some posts by ctskl1 who said that for this game Parity errors are indeed related to active ray tracing. So everything was already well documented.


----------



## Imprezzion

Luckily I was error free yesterday when running BFV Multiplayer with RT enabled and CP2077 with RT Psycho. Haven't tried Control yet but hey. I might.

I got a question tho. I'm currently limited to x48 cache because 49 isn't stable and 50 is instant crash territory when using OCTVB.

I do see XTU has a Cache Voltage Offset option, my BIOS does not have this option nor do I currently know of a way to actually see this voltage in likes HWINFO64 or something. I kinda wanna experiment with it but if I don't know the current cache voltage I can't determine which offset is safe and which isn't.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Imprezzion said:


> Luckily I was error free yesterday when running BFV Multiplayer with RT enabled and CP2077 with RT Psycho. Haven't tried Control yet but hey. I might.
> 
> I got a question tho. I'm currently limited to x48 cache because 49 isn't stable and 50 is instant crash territory when using OCTVB.
> 
> I do see XTU has a Cache Voltage Offset option, my BIOS does not have this option nor do I currently know of a way to actually see this voltage in likes HWINFO64 or something. I kinda wanna experiment with it but if I don't know the current cache voltage I can't determine which offset is safe and which isn't.


I installed XTU for curios and saw it too. My Asus M12F don't have this adjust in BIOS.

I can't do 48x cache stable, no matter what I do...

Did you test it?


----------



## PhoenixMDA

@Imprezzion 
Cache and the Core's have every time the same voltage, so if you do an Offset you do it to the vcore, be carefull.
Your Power in Watt is really heavy i cant believe that is only gaming.


----------



## Imprezzion

PhoenixMDA said:


> @Imprezzion
> Cache and the Core's have every time the same voltage, so if you do an Offset you do it to the vcore, be carefull.
> Your Power in Watt is really heavy i cant believe that is only gaming.


That last screenshot? That was BFV with DXR enabled. BFV uses AVX and the loading screens give me that power draw easily.

I tried the offset, yes it does do it on vCore. +100 gave me 5Ghz cache stable but also 1.474v load so.. that's not good hehe.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

My system is pretty stable at 47x cache. If I thy 48x it freezes when idle after few minutes. 
And one strange thing. I have best benchmarks with 47x than 48x.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Imprezzion said:


> That last screenshot? That was BFV with DXR enabled. BFV uses AVX and the loading screens give me that power draw easily.
> 
> I tried the offset, yes it does do it on vCore. +100 gave me 5Ghz cache stable but also 1.474v load so.. that's not good hehe.


Yes the 260W but i have seen if it´s loading the Map it goes to heavy load, i have test playing 20min 5,3ghz allcore 110-120W most time, other map 120-130W.
It´s like i said the games decompress map and so on, it does by some games really heavy cpu load.

InGame [email protected] RTX is 5,3Ghz ca. 110-130W and 5Ghz 75-90W, max watt 55W difference, i dont know it but i think by same FPS.^^


----------



## Imprezzion

Yeah I tested with CP2077 for the fun of it and I have to be honest. Standing still in a specific spot at 5.3/4.8 I got 80 FPS. At 4.0/4.3 underclocked I got.. 80. 

Then I did a FPS benchmark in Shadow of the Tomb Raider at 5.3 and at 4.0 and.. barely any difference outside of margin of error. At least for GPU limited single players with RTX it doesn't do anything lol.

I should basically keep it at 5.1/4.7 which takes way way less voltage (1.270v) and even in Prime95 Small FFT AVX it barely touches 70c and averages around 68c but this is more fun lol.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

If you think about FPS, 4.9 or 5.3GHz is the same... 
I'm trying to understand if I work with low voltages @ idle I'll have any CPU life preservation... 
There is a lot of CPUs SP63 that V/F#8 is greater than 1,5V.
So should I be concerned to apply 1,5V at idle? Will silicon degrade? 
I'd really like to find some research article about.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Now I'm trying to understand how "CPU Core Auto Voltage Cap" works...
I turn VMaxStress=Disable and set" CPU Core Auto Voltage Cap"= 1,465v, but It has no effect in VID or Vcore.
Does anyone know how it works?


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Imprezzion said:


> Yeah I tested with CP2077 for the fun of it and I have to be honest. Standing still in a specific spot at 5.3/4.8 I got 80 FPS. At 4.0/4.3 underclocked I got.. 80.
> 
> Then I did a FPS benchmark in Shadow of the Tomb Raider at 5.3 and at 4.0 and.. barely any difference outside of margin of error. At least for GPU limited single players with RTX it doesn't do anything lol.
> 
> I should basically keep it at 5.1/4.7 which takes way way less voltage (1.270v) and even in Prime95 Small FFT AVX it barely touches 70c and averages around 68c but this is more fun lol.


I have test with TVB, how stable it is.
I can say to you 5ghz 1,16V LLC5 allcore without TVB(Auto), i can play BF5 no whea etc, do prime and so on, the "VCore is limit to low" for 24/7 better 1,18V, but for testing it´s perfekt.AC/DC loadline all Auto only LLC5.
With TVB only activate same Allcore frequenz 5Ghz all is really the same and also tested AC/DC line 0.01 and Auto, it frezze by open HWInfo 🤷‍♂️.
I can drive best way on Apex XII without such thing´s with less VCore.

The most impact has the RamOC if you want to get performance and you are ready to do more Voltage do it to VDimm 1,6V+ or IO/SA up to arround 1,4V+.
And if i want to drive 5,4Ghz i stay at allcore manuell VCore LLC5^^, best stability and lowest Watt.
For best stabilty on Apex the IO/SA the same voltage, or SA 1-2 step´s mor in my case.

Here you see the 6% clock difference between 5 to 5,3Ghz by SoT.










@RobertoSampaio 
I think it´s only for Auto Voltage no adaptive and so on.


----------



## Cpfan1

Any advice on how to get 4.8 ring to be stable without degrading my chip in 4 years? My sp 63 10900k is terrible.


----------



## Nizzen

Cpfan1 said:


> Any advice on how to get 4.8 ring to be stable without degrading my chip in 4 years? My sp 63 10900k is terrible.


You need certain amount of vcore for ring.

There is no proof of running up to 1.45vcore will degrade your chip, so go high enough.

48 ring will need about 1.3vcore ?


----------



## Cpfan1

Nizzen said:


> You need certain amount of vcore for ring.
> 
> There is no proof of running up to 1.45vcore will degrade your chip, so go high enough.
> 
> 48 ring will need about 1.3vcore ?


1. Not the most reliable sources but i have heard values like 1.4 is max dailyable for core/sa/io (since they are being made from same parts/material) multiple times. Once from anta, then derbauer quoted an intel employee, then from buildzoid discord. I think my cache is bad enough not to work at 48 @ 1.38v.

2. At 48 ring i remember my pc behaving like my gpu driver crashed when i alt tabbed from overwatch to discord and started browsing, but my gpu is completely stable and this never happened on 4.6 ring. Screen freezed, i was able hear sound from the game and discord but my pc doesnt react to keyboard, cant even get to task manager. Might me io being "low" but i had it at 1.34 and all of that with HT disabled.

3. Which games you guys use to test ring stability?

Also have a laugh


----------



## Nizzen

Cpfan1 said:


> 1. Not the most reliable sources but i have heard values like 1.4 is max dailyable for core/sa/io (since they are being made from same parts/material) multiple times. Once from anta, then debrauer quoted an intel employee, then from buildzoid discord. I think my cache is bad enough not to work at 48 @ 1.38v.
> 
> 2. At 48 ring i remember my pc behaving like my gpu driver crashed when i alt tabbed from overwatch to discord and started browsing, but my gpu is completely stable and this never happened on 4.6 ring. Screen freezed, i was able hear sound from the game and discord but my pc doesnt react to keyboard, cant even get to task manager. Might me io being "low" but i had it at 1.34 and all of that with HT disabled.
> 
> 3. Which games you guys use to test ring stability?


Battlefield V multiplayer  Best "fun" stability tester


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Both of my SP63 was also possible to drive 48-49 Cache


Salve1412 said:


> I've been playing a bit Ghostrunner (man if it is hard!), one of the games that apparently have a tendency to trigger the infamous Parity Errors that plague latest generations of Skylake-based CPUs, 10900K in particular (cstkl1 should be the one who reported these errors for this specific game). Among other things I was curious to test my otherwise stable CPU+RAM overclock (zero problems in various stress tests -OCCT, Prime, GSAT, TestMem5, HCI Memtest- as well as in games such as BFV and CoD Warzone).
> Of course they were not long in coming: lots of "CPU Internal Errors" in HWInfo (Parity Errors in Event Viewer) popped up as soon as I began to play. The third level alone caused four of them and I hadn't even completed half of it! On top of that the game occasionally crashed to desktop, sometimes with a fatal error message, sometimes without.
> 
> What has surprised me is that disabling Ray Tracing seems to have completely fixed the issues. Not a single error or crash has occurred again in the next three hours, and I have replayed the critical third level twice. Is it really possible that keeping ray-tracing enabled contributes decisively to the triggering of those errors, at least for this game?
> 
> EDIT Dug a bit deeper in the thread and read some posts by ctskl1 who said that for this game Parity errors are indeed related to active ray tracing. So everything was already well documented.


I have tested the Demo Version 1/2h with RTX and DLSS, without DLSS i have only 35FPS^^, so it´s arround 80FPS+, i dont had the problem with RTX.
Tested in my UV Setting 5Ghz with RamOC, i have done 80k Prime also that you can see that is not much VCore vor 5/4,7/[email protected]
It make´s no difference to drive 5ghz low VCore or 5,2/5,3ghz with higher VCore.Allway LLC5 manuell VCore and sync allcore.

And the game use the CPU like nothing under 50W with 5ghz, that´s really not my game fuc... hard.
For longer playing, do not feel like it .


----------



## Astral85

@PhoenixMDA Your screenshots aren't enlarging for some reason.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Astral85 said:


> @PhoenixMDA Your screenshots aren't enlarging for some reason.


I think that is a bug, if you zoon in then it works by me.Or look at here.
1👈

P.S.
80-192k is worse case Prime with RamOC good for testing stability


----------



## Astral85

PhoenixMDA said:


> I think that is a bug, if you zoon in then it works by me.Or look at here.
> 1👈
> 
> P.S.
> 80-192k is worse case Prime with RamOC good for testing stability


Whatever you just did fixed it.


----------



## Salve1412

PhoenixMDA said:


> Both of my SP63 was also possible to drive 48-49 Cache
> 
> I have tested the Demo Version 1/2h with RTX and DLSS, without DLSS i have only 35FPS^^, so it´s arround 80FPS+, i dont had the problem with RTX.
> Tested in my UV Setting 5Ghz with RamOC, i have done 80k Prime also that you can see that is not much VCore vor 5/4,7/[email protected]
> It make´s no difference to drive 5ghz low VCore or 5,2/5,3ghz with higher VCore.Allway LLC5 manuell VCore and sync allcore.
> 
> And the game use the CPU like nothing under 50W with 5ghz, that´s really not my game fuc... hard.
> For longer playing, do not feel like it .


Thanks for the feedback! I installed the demo version with my other Steam account and played it twice. Same video settings, zero issues with Ray Tracing enabled (I'm not even sure it works properly, because when you activate it in the main menu of the full version you immediately notice some details in the background becoming brighter, while in the demo nothing seems to happen). Then I opened again the main game, enabled RT and crashed halfway through the first level. So I'm afraid you could only replicate errors/crashes playing the full game...

On another note, may I ask you if you could do for me a very quick test, if you have Intel Management Engine Interface drivers installed and active on your system? Could you check if your system properly resumes from Sleep with your 4666 RAM overclock? From 4400 on I have issues (resuming takes ages, and sometimes I even get Parity Errors in Hwinfo), but only if MEI driver is installed and enabled.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

The Demo is the same engine etc., and RTX is enable i think it´s a other problem,i don´t buy this boring game^^.

Intel driver are installed also RST driver etc., i have think before it don´t wake up, because it take really long, i have never waiting so long before.
But it wake´s really up, i have think it doesn´t work😅.With HWinfo open 4666cl17 and no WHEA.

By sleeping down postcode 03 and sleep, by wake up some postcode´s then 30 and after that i dont know 1min or so before wake up.


----------



## Salve1412

PhoenixMDA said:


> The Demo is the same engine etc., and RTX is enable i think it´s a other problem,i don´t buy this boring game^^.
> 
> Intel driver are installed also RST driver etc., i have think before it don´t wake up, because it take really long, i have never waiting so long before.
> But it wake´s really up, i have think it doesn´t work😅.With HWinfo open 4666cl17 and no WHEA.
> 
> By sleeping down postcode 03 and sleep, by wake up some postcode´s then 30 and after that i dont know 1min or so before wake up.


Yeah, it can be boring, punishment is immediate and I often get infuriated in no time, but somehow I like it, I feel satisfied when I learn how to proceed and I manage to do it proficiently, even after countless deaths😆.

Yes, 03 then 00 immediately before entering and some postcodes then 30 after resuming. If you temporarily disable Management Interface Engine Driver in Device Management does it resume faster? Also, do you see something like this after waking up (with MEI driver enabled)?









CPU Internal Errors, on the other hand, don't seem to occur anymore when resuming.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

I dont know it, i let it at "Standard", it works and that is ok, i don't use it so it's not important that it take long time.
The only thing i have noticed is if i only activate tvb i need more vcore, i think it's the same like using curve.


----------



## CZonin

Haven't revisited this thread in awhile but looking to see if I can give hitting 5.1 on my 10900k another try. My setup is a MSI MEG Z490i Unify with a Kraken X63. After my last attempt I ended with the following settings:

CPU Ratio = 51
AVX = 0
CPU Core Voltage = 1.345
Ring Ratio = 47
Core Voltage Mode = Override
Intel C-State = Disabled
LLC = 4
SA = 1.22
IO = 1.2
It was getting close to stable but would ultimately hit an error or crash after awhile. Also with trying to keep a relatively quiet fan curve on the AIO, it was getting pretty hot during stress tests.

Are there any other MSI specific settings that I might be missing or just anything else in general that I should try outside of increasing core voltage to 1.35?


----------



## Robertomcat

RobertoSampaio said:


> 1 - Enable VMaxStress for safe.
> 2 - Use SVID=Trained and LLC#4 (this will make VID=VCore). You will need to adjust all voltages again because now VID=Vcore.
> 3 - Automatic VCCIO and VCCSA normally is too high for hi DRAM frequency. When stable you could try 1,25v or less...
> 4 - Keep ring <= 47x
> 5 - You can try OCTVB and VoltageOptimization, but you need to understand how it works (Its magic...LOL)


Good afternoon.
Well, the truth is that I can't get it to be stable. What I don't understand is why the motherboard doesn't assign more voltage when it is at full load. The manual voltage that I set to 1.390 is of little use to me if when the motherboard is at full load the voltage that manages it is 1.375, having LLC 6.
The maximum Core VID is 1.458, and the maximum temperature the processor reaches is 80°, and when I least expect it the PC restarts.
VCCIO is still in automatic and the voltage it supplies is 1.168.
I have tested the SVID trained, but I have not found much difference.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Robertomcat said:


> Good afternoon.
> Well, the truth is that I can't get it to be stable. What I don't understand is why the motherboard doesn't assign more voltage when it is at full load. The manual voltage that I set to 1.390 is of little use to me if when the motherboard is at full load the voltage that manages it is 1.375, having LLC 6.
> The maximum Core VID is 1.458, and the maximum temperature the processor reaches is 80°, and when I least expect it the PC restarts.
> VCCIO is still in automatic and the voltage it supplies is 1.168.
> I have tested the SVID trained, but I have not found much difference.


Tell me about your setup... I'd like to help you, if I can....
If you prefer, send me a PM....


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Cpfan1 said:


> Any advice on how to get 4.8 ring to be stable without degrading my chip in 4 years? My sp 63 10900k is terrible.


Im running 1.515v llc6 man. Chip degradation hype is a joke.


----------



## Imprezzion

Hmm, got a single L0 error in BFV Multiplayer with DXR enabled.. None in other games or stress tests. Must be related to DXR as it didn't do it on DX11..

What was the fix for that again?


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Test it with manuell VCore allcore clock without tvb etc.. 
I think the problem ist more the change of CPU load, if activated tvb/curve.So it is by Asus, that need more vcore and perhaps lower Cache.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

This is about 1 hour at idle...
I'm working with Adaptive and V/F#8 trying to lower max VCore.
Before I had max [email protected]=1.475v... Now 1.465v
If I go lower I start to have L0 errors...


----------



## Robertomcat

RobertoSampaio said:


> Tell me about your setup... I'd like to help you, if I can....
> If you prefer, send me a PM....


ROG Strix Z490-E motherboard, 2x32 Corsair LPX 3200 RAM. The processor is cooled with an EK block and a 360 radiator.
The processor is an SP 73, which the OC configuration I've put on it is pretty basic.
I can't get it to be stable at 5.2 with a voltage of 1.390 and LLC 6 with the ring at 48. When the computer is idle the voltage is at 1,385, but when under load it drops to 1,375 and the VID goes up to 1,440. The VCCIO 1.168 and VCCSA 1.152 are on automatic.
What I would like is that when the PC is under load the voltage would not drop so much, and that it would be close to the manual voltage that I have set. Thank you.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Robertomcat said:


> ROG Strix Z490-E motherboard, 2x32 Corsair LPX 3200 RAM. The processor is cooled with an EK block and a 360 radiator.
> The processor is an SP 73, which the OC configuration I've put on it is pretty basic.
> I can't get it to be stable at 5.2 with a voltage of 1.390 and LLC 6 with the ring at 48. When the computer is idle the voltage is at 1,385, but when under load it drops to 1,375 and the VID goes up to 1,440. The VCCIO 1.168 and VCCSA 1.152 are on automatic.
> What I would like is that when the PC is under load the voltage would not drop so much, and that it would be close to the manual voltage that I have set. Thank you.


Send me a pic of BIOS V/F curve.


----------



## Robertomcat

RobertoSampaio said:


> Send me a pic of BIOS V/F curve.


I have now been running the test with the SVID trained, and I have also raised the voltage to 1.395.
Doing the OCCT stress test with the small, extreme and variable seems to be stable, but with temperatures of 95 ° and a consumption of 300 W, so the test I've only been doing for five minutes, but in this case it has been able to start, that at other times the computer stopped. No internal errors or L0 cache errors appeared.
In this configuration the Vcore is 1,385 and the VID is 1,250 at full load.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Robertomcat said:


> I have now been running the test with the SVID trained, and I have also raised the voltage to 1.395.
> Doing the OCCT stress test with the small, extreme and variable seems to be stable, but with temperatures of 95 ° and a consumption of 300 W, so the test I've only been doing for five minutes, but in this case it has been able to start, that at other times the computer stopped. No internal errors or L0 cache errors appeared.
> In this configuration the Vcore is 1,385 and the VID is 1,250 at full load.
> 
> View attachment 2488374


I think you can do easy all cores, full load:
[email protected],250v
[email protected],30v

But I suggest you 55x3 - 54x5 - 53x8 - 51x10.
Send me a message and I can help you...


----------



## Robertomcat

RobertoSampaio said:


> I think you can do easy all cores, full load:
> [email protected],250v
> [email protected],30v
> 
> But I suggest you 55x3 - 54x5 - 53x8 - 51x10.
> Send me a message and I can help you...


All cores at 52 and 1.3v I see it completely impossible, I can not start any test, the computer automatically crashes.
It seems that with this configuration that I have told you for the moment is stable, but of course, has a lot of voltage.
What I have pending is to put the DD to the processor, but I do not have time, to see if this weekend I can do it and I will continue working with the OC. Thanks, with anything I will send you a private message, so as not to fill the forum.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Robertomcat said:


> All cores at 52 and 1.3v I see it completely impossible, I can not start any test, the computer automatically crashes.
> It seems that with this configuration that I have told you for the moment is stable, but of course, has a lot of voltage.
> What I have pending is to put the DD to the processor, but I do not have time, to see if this weekend I can do it and I will continue working with the OC. Thanks, with anything I will send you a private message, so as not to fill the forum.


Ok...
Just a tip...
Start from beginning...

Use SVID=trained; LLC#4; [email protected]

You will see that VID will be equal VCore, at idle and at full load.
You will have Vdroop, but VID=VCore.
This will make everything easy for you.


----------



## Robertomcat

RobertoSampaio said:


> Ok...
> Just a tip...
> Start from beginning...
> 
> Use SVID=trained; LLC#4; [email protected]
> 
> You will see that VID will be equal VCore, at idle and at full load.
> This will make everything easy for you.


Yes, this weekend when I DD the processor I'll have to start over again, let's see what the results are. The frequency of the VRM I have never modified it, now with the stress tests the temperature of the VRM of 65 °. I will comment the process. Thank you very much!


----------



## techenth

CZonin said:


> Haven't revisited this thread in awhile but looking to see if I can give hitting 5.1 on my 10900k another try. My setup is a MSI MEG Z490i Unify with a Kraken X63. After my last attempt I ended with the following settings:
> 
> CPU Ratio = 51
> AVX = 0
> CPU Core Voltage = 1.345
> Ring Ratio = 47
> Core Voltage Mode = Override
> Intel C-State = Disabled
> LLC = 4
> SA = 1.22
> IO = 1.2
> It was getting close to stable but would ultimately hit an error or crash after awhile. Also with trying to keep a relatively quiet fan curve on the AIO, it was getting pretty hot during stress tests.
> 
> Are there any other MSI specific settings that I might be missing or just anything else in general that I should try outside of increasing core voltage to 1.35?


Try Mode 3 for the LLC. Should be enough to make it stable.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Hi guys,

Do you know how ASUS "spread spectrum" work?
I saw there are 2 SPSP options, one for BCLK and the other for PCIE.
I did enable and disable them, and can't see any difference.
Do you set them on or off? Why?

Tx


----------



## karate

I am thinking about update to 10900 CPU because IMC in 10700 too weak for fast RAM. I can not returning CPU to reroll better SP ranking. So is K at all better chance than KF for OC?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

karate said:


> I am thinking about update to 10900 CPU because IMC in 10700 too weak for fast RAM. I can not returning CPU to reroll better SP ranking. So is K at all better chance than KF for OC?


Maybe I'm wrong, but I think any SP-63 with a 280mm radiator could do easy 5.1~5.2GHz all cores @ full load, if AC/DC loadline & LLC are tuned correctly. 
5.3GHz all cores is not so easy... The problem isn't the temperature, but current and power.
What frequency are you thinking when you talk "better chance for OC"?


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> Do you know how ASUS "spread spectrum" work?
> I saw there are 2 SPSP options, one for BCLK and the other for PCIE.
> I did enable and disable them, and can't see any difference.
> Do you set them on or off? Why?
> 
> Tx


It is not an Asus thing, it is Intel. It is intended to reduce Electromagnetic Interference raiated by a circuit operating agt a fixed frequency (like BCLK = 100 MHz). It is done by varying the frequency over a narrow band. For instance, BCLK will vary slightly from 100 MHz in a randomish fashion, It impact performance and maybe stability slightly., so I lhave it since I don't have any issue with EMI.


----------



## karate

RobertoSampaio said:


> Maybe I'm wrong, but I think any SP-63 with a 280mm radiator could do easy 5.1~5.2GHz all cores @ full load, if AC/DC loadline & LLC are tuned correctly.
> 5.3GHz all cores is not so easy... The problem isn't the temperature, but current and power.
> What frequency are you thinking when you talk "better chance for OC"?


10700 OK 5.1 so hope more about 5.3 if 10900. The power I do not care about put little bit more and degrade in 2 year. Cooling not have problem use 1540mm direct die. So I am really wondering the K or KF any difference bin or they just checking about graphic? Actually this 10700 not a bad one just his IMC seem not strong enough 4400mhz RAM


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> It is not an Asus thing, it is Intel. It is intended to reduce Electromagnetic Interference raiated by a circuit operating agt a fixed frequency (like BCLK = 100 MHz). It is done by varying the frequency over a narrow band. For instance, BCLK will vary slightly from 100 MHz in a randomish fashion, It impact performance and maybe stability slightly., so I lhave it since I don't have any issue with EMI.


So keep it disabled?
I'm thinking "AUTO=Disable" in ASUS MBs.


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> So keep it disabled?
> I'm thinking "AUTO=Disable" in ASUS MBs.


Well yes, I thought I was clear - off.
I think you are right about auto , but I don't like undefined auto settings where there is a basic choice (on or off vs. a tuning like memory parameters). For one you do not know for sure what it means and secondly what it means can change without your knowing between BIOS versions. So I explicitly set it to off.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I don't know why ASUS do this. Should be "ENABLE" or "DISABLE". 
VmaxStress and VotageOptimization have the same problem... AUTO=DISABLE.
I think you'r right... could be a value from a memory position.
There are a lot of "AUTO" set in my BIOS... I'll check all one by one...


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> I don't know why ASUS do this. Should be "ENABLE" or "DISABLE".
> VmaxStress and VotageOptimization have the same problem... AUTO=DISABLE.
> I think you'r right... could be a value from a memory position.
> There are a lot of "AUTO" set in my BIOS... I'll check all one by one...


I agree. Not just Asus though.


----------



## Webbmaster

Hello Local Pro!
My present situation - very first time OC. Would you look at my BIOS settings screenshot and correct it please, what to do with CPU OC and in the end about DDR4 Crucial Ballistics opinions will be very welcomed and appreciated:

a) clear some statements like: As Bulldozer said, important is only Voltage under loading!??
For example to set Fixed voltage as 1.4V for 51-52x and then with normal (High) LLC under loading it will drop till 1,28-1,3V and will be still ok for CPU and long life?
or better use 1.35V with Turbo LLC? Or it all depends on drops off amplitude up and down - turbo with 1.36V is ok but not with 1.4V?


My config now :
mb Gigabyte Vision G Z490
i9-10900K at 51x (48x cache) stable.
AIO NZXT 360mm


Main open questions:
a) CPU - I can't make it work at any voltages close to 1,25-1,3 as many reviewers-overclockers have. May they mean it after stress test drops by VR OUT?

For now I have setup: Fixed Vcore set = 1.380V (VR OUT in HwInfo shows 1.378V) LLС-level High or 1.35 with Turbo LLC !?
In CPUID = 1.380V and with Drop-off under loading in Cinebench20 - VR VOUT = going down till 1.289V and still working ok!
Same time if I set the same in Bios - can't load windows with 1.28-1.3V value in BIOS.

With stress tests- in Prime95 in SmallFFTs with Disable AVX2 was stable even with 1.35-1.36V only with TURBO LLC, what is it no good - because of Drops and returns amplituda too high for Turbo LLC?
Getting temperature in Cinebench20 with this Voltage till 94C :-( I have good enough working 9 Fan=6 in, 3 out middletower.)
Because of 1.380V?


Is it more proper check CPU with PRime95 SmallFFts NO AVX2?

Tried btw for a short period - 1.4V for 52x could be not enough to load windows and run stress-tests.
=====================================================================================================================
========================================================================================================================

b) I Have no idea how to set up a recommendation by everybody "Override Voltage" at Gigabyte (Adaptive too).
How am I supposed to use it after FIXED CORE for example 1.380V at 51x and High LLC?


c) So what are my options for 51-52x with fixed Voltage code, Override(Adaptive) Voltage.

PS. BTW Can't find SVID to switch it OFF as in ASUS mb instructions. Does it exist in Gigabyte mb?
PS2. CFG Lock OFF is ok?
========================================================================================================================

PS. About OC DDR4 Crucial Ballistix:

DDR-4 2x16Gb Micron b-die Crucial Ballistix Game 3200 16-18-18-38 Standard XMPm now OC -> 3500 15-18-18-36 (trfc 560) with 1.39V.
TCMD = 1T and Trefi auto. (or 3600 18-18-18-38 but it is slower?).

Why slow memory test or is it a Gigabyte mb typical issue? After updates for some betas speeds fell down - from 40 to 30 Gb/s.


I read many reviews about good DDR4 OC but this is the max without errors in TestMem extreme profiles etc. VCCIO + VCCSA set till 1.3V nothing makes it stable.
And still in AIDa64 memory bandwidth are lower than in Cache-memory test around as 41-4-38 Gb/s and latency 63.3nc

Thank you for any answers and sorry so many questions to clear out.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Webbmaster said:


> Hello Local Pro!
> My present situation - very first time OC. Would you look at my BIOS settings screenshot and correct it please, what to do with CPU OC and in the end about DDR4 Crucial Ballistics opinions will be very welcomed and appreciated:
> 
> a) clear some statements like: As Bulldozer said, important is only Voltage under loading!??
> For example to set Fixed voltage as 1.4V for 51-52x and then with normal (High) LLC under loading it will drop till 1,28-1,3V and will be still ok for CPU and long life?
> or better use 1.35V with Turbo LLC? Or it all depends on drops off amplitude up and down - turbo with 1.36V is ok but not with 1.4V?
> 
> 
> My config now :
> mb Gigabyte Vision G Z490
> i9-10900K at 51x (48x cache) stable.
> AIO NZXT 360mm
> 
> 
> Main open questions:
> a) CPU - I can't make it work at any voltages close to 1,25-1,3 as many reviewers-overclockers have. May they mean it after stress test drops by VR OUT?
> 
> For now I have setup: Fixed Vcore set = 1.380V (VR OUT in HwInfo shows 1.378V) LLС-level High or 1.35 with Turbo LLC !?
> In CPUID = 1.380V and with Drop-off under loading in Cinebench20 - VR VOUT = going down till 1.289V and still working ok!
> Same time if I set the same in Bios - can't load windows with 1.28-1.3V value in BIOS.
> 
> With stress tests- in Prime95 in SmallFFTs with Disable AVX2 was stable even with 1.35-1.36V only with TURBO LLC, what is it no good - because of Drops and returns amplituda too high for Turbo LLC?
> Getting temperature in Cinebench20 with this Voltage till 94C :-( I have good enough working 9 Fan=6 in, 3 out middletower.)
> Because of 1.380V?
> 
> 
> Is it more proper check CPU with PRime95 SmallFFts NO AVX2?
> 
> Tried btw for a short period - 1.4V for 52x could be not enough to load windows and run stress-tests.
> =====================================================================================================================
> ========================================================================================================================
> 
> b) I Have no idea how to set up a recommendation by everybody "Override Voltage" at Gigabyte (Adaptive too).
> How am I supposed to use it after FIXED CORE for example 1.380V at 51x and High LLC?
> 
> 
> c) So what are my options for 51-52x with fixed Voltage code, Override(Adaptive) Voltage.
> 
> PS. BTW Can't find SVID to switch it OFF as in ASUS mb instructions. Does it exist in Gigabyte mb?
> PS2. CFG Lock OFF is ok?
> ========================================================================================================================
> 
> PS. About OC DDR4 Crucial Ballistix:
> 
> DDR-4 2x16Gb Micron b-die Crucial Ballistix Game 3200 16-18-18-38 Standard XMPm now OC -> 3500 15-18-18-36 (trfc 560) with 1.39V.
> TCMD = 1T and Trefi auto. (or 3600 18-18-18-38 but it is slower?).
> 
> Why slow memory test or is it a Gigabyte mb typical issue? After updates for some betas speeds fell down - from 40 to 30 Gb/s.
> 
> 
> I read many reviews about good DDR4 OC but this is the max without errors in TestMem extreme profiles etc. VCCIO + VCCSA set till 1.3V nothing makes it stable.
> And still in AIDa64 memory bandwidth are lower than in Cache-memory test around as 41-4-38 Gb/s and latency 63.3nc
> 
> Thank you for any answers and sorry so many questions to clear out.


Hi,

I never had a Gigabyte MB... But I can try to help you...
Please, take a pic of this...


----------



## Webbmaster

Hello Roberto -
I did!


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Webbmaster said:


> Hello Roberto -
> I did!


I sent you a PM...


----------



## acoustic

Man the 10900KF is down to $379 at Microcenter. That is a seriously good deal!


----------



## aznguyen316

acoustic said:


> Man the 10900KF is down to $379 at Microcenter. That is a seriously good deal!


A month ago the 10850k was $320 and the 10900KF was $330 at Microcenter.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

aznguyen316 said:


> A month ago the 10850k was $320 and the 10900KF was $330 at Microcenter.


Here in Brazil the best price for an i9-10900K is Us$ 725.00. 
The AMD Threadripper PRO 3995WX costs Us$ 8,200.00


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Hi....

Running RealBech I have the following information:

"CPU: Intel Processor - Speed 3693.4MHz - Multi: 154.0 - Bus: 24.0 MHz"

What does "multi: 154.0" and "bus 24.0 MHz" mean ?


----------



## arrow0309

I'm gonna ask here as well, Pwm frequency Auto or higher (switching freq for both cpu and sa)?
I've a Z490 Ace @5.2, 1.38v override.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

arrow0309 said:


> I'm gonna ask here as well, Pwm frequency Auto or higher (switching freq for both cpu and sa)?
> I've a Z490 Ace @5.2, 1.38v override.


Higher VRM SF means lower transients.
If you use an override voltage, and a fixed clock frequency, your VRM will be asked to supply a non-variable voltage.
My CPU scales from 640mv to 1500mv in a very short period of time.
In this case, the fast VRM response is the difference of to be stable or BSOD.
In your case, the only difference you'll see will be the temperature.
But even knowing this I'd test anyway... LOL


----------



## PhoenixMDA

RobertoSampaio said:


> Hi....
> 
> Running RealBech I have the following information:
> 
> "CPU: Intel Processor - Speed 3693.4MHz - Multi: 154.0 - Bus: 24.0 MHz"
> 
> What does "multi: 154.0" and "bus 24.0 MHz" mean ?
> 
> 
> View attachment 2489029


He read it wrong, that is 5,2Ghz allcore it´s the same wrong BCLK and multi.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

PhoenixMDA said:


> He read it wrong, that is 5,2Ghz allcore it´s the same wrong BCLK and multi.
> View attachment 2489099


I asked because a friend of mine has different results using the same processor with a Maximus XIII.
I'm curious about what is these "multi and Bus".

By the way, what is your DRAM benchmarks ?


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Its that here.


----------



## unclewebb

RobertoSampaio said:


> multi and Bus


It is a bug. RealBench 2.56 needs an update. It does not know how to correctly determine the CPU speed or the BCLK speed.

Some common timers within Intel CPUs run at 24.0 MHz or 19.2 MHz. Instead of RealBench determining the correct BCLK speed, it finds one of these timers and takes a wild guess that this must be the BCLK speed. After that it takes another wild guess. The CPU is running at 3693.4 MHz so ...

3693.4 MHz / 24.0 MHz = 153.9

It rounds that up to 154 and thinks that the CPU must be using the 154 multiplier which of course is impossible.

The 10900K uses a base multiplier of 37.

3693.4 MHz / 37 = 99.8 MHz

That looks pretty close to the actual BCLK speed that your CPU is running at.

Long story short, the multi and bus reported by RealBench are two meaningless numbers. Ignore those numbers.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

PhoenixMDA said:


> Its that here.
> View attachment 2489107



70,000MB/s and 34ns really make difference !


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Yes that push the performance extreme and not only in FPS, the most programs get a really good gain.
That does much more as 2% for 100mhz CPU clock, the second thing is it needs not much more Power, at 5ghz the CPU is really good at fps per Watt, better than an AMD.

In the most cases i drive only 5ghz 4666CL17-17 because same FPS but much lower power arround 20-35W in game.


----------



## CENS

I'm curious, did anyone findd a 10900k SP110+ in the meantime here?


----------



## Astral85

PhoenixMDA said:


> Its that here.
> View attachment 2489107


Your pic isn't enlarging again...


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Zoom in and click on the picture.


----------



## arrow0309

PhoenixMDA said:


> Its that here.
> View attachment 2489107


There's a lot of juice here mate, I'd really like to try your dram settings one day.
Very very nice and not a high rocket vccio / sa voltages as well.
Congrats


----------



## PhoenixMDA

In all cases it's possible to find a good setup, in my case it's with selected hw so it's more possible as normal.


----------



## arrow0309

RobertoSampaio said:


> Higher VRM SF means lower transients.
> If you use an override voltage, and a fixed clock frequency, your VRM will be asked to supply a non-variable voltage.
> My CPU scales from 640mv to 1500mv in a very short period of time.
> In this case, the fast VRM response is the difference of to be stable or BSOD.
> In your case, the only difference you'll see will be the temperature.
> But even knowing this I'd test anyway... LOL


I've tested with 800KHz and seen high vrm temps after only 1h of Realbench (the vrloop 2 max may be bugged though):










So I went back to default, just in case anyone is using like 600 or 700KHz?



PhoenixMDA said:


> In all cases it's possible to find a good setup, in my case it's with selected hw so it's more possible as normal.


I see, delidded I suppose as well.
I've only put some liquid metal (Thermalright) on the top of the cpu and gained those 3 degrees, the American RockitCool stuff is still too expensive to get shipped to the UK (and customs cleared).
Anyway I'm gonna try this 4600 cl17 profile from my Ace's "Memory Try It" within the bios.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

I know that is possible with 2x16GB to boot 4600Mhz on Z490 Ace, but the stable limit by snakeeyes from Hardwareluxx Forum was 4400mhz with GSat,
perhaps with newer Bios is possible.There was it also CL16-18 is easier than CL17.


----------



## fray_bentos

Hi all. I finally got my hands on a 10900KF at a decent price. So far I am very impressed with the overclocking experience coming from a 10600K (which was much less forgiving in terms of voltages and temperature).

Obviously the 10900KF pulls more current, so Vdroop is greater than I was used to with the 10600K.

So far I am experimenting with HT off and trying to get 5.4 GHz all core (for gaming), I can set something like 1.41 V adaptive LLC5 (MSI) and see maximum Vcore readings of 1.326 V in HWiNFO. Previously, I got good results with even droopier adaptive LLC6 (MSI) on the 10600K, possibly due to better transients with the droop.

My question is, if I set 1.41 Vcore in BIOS, will any part of the chip be receiving anything in the range 1.41 V - 1.35 V that might potentially cause degradation (i.e before droop is applied), or am I simply safe with it as is (given the low Vcore reading of 1.326 V, max VID of 1.352 V and temps <66 C)?

For example, would it be better to go for a less droopy LLC setting and setting a lower Vcore in BIOS, but with the risk that it makes transients worse?

Any hints and tips would be much appreciated!

Edit: no longer pursuing HT off, both GTA V and AC:Oddssey had noticably lower minimums/dropped frames with HT off at 5.3 GHz vs. HT on (though I have yet to get 5.3 GHz HT on fully stable = occassional level 0 cache errors). Instead, currently running happily with HT on 5.2 GHz all core, LLC6 (MSI, very droopy), adaptive 1.41 V set in BIOS, 62 C and 1.29 V (under gaming load), max observed Vcore is 1.33 V (transient low load). I keep dipping into 5.3 GHz all core, but may need to go a bit harder on LLC to LLC4 or 5 (MSI); though I am not sure it will be worthwhile, depending on the voltage increase needed under load.


----------



## hemon

Can someone help me to set correctly the adaptive voltage, please?

Actually I have a fix voltage of 1.34v (LLC4 on Asus Z490-E) and in load of 1.261v. Now, I can set as adaptive voltage whatever I want (I tried both 1.34v and 1.261v): on load it always stays at 1.19v, so it does not change at all! 

What should I do in order to reach 1.261v?


----------



## fray_bentos

hemon said:


> Can someone help me to set correctly the adaptive voltage, please?
> 
> Actually I have a fix voltage of 1.34v (LLC4 on Asus Z490-E) and in load of 1.261v. Now, I can set as adaptive voltage whatever I want (I tried both 1.34v and 1.261v): on load it always stays at 1.19v, so it does not change at all!
> 
> What should I do in order to reach 1.261v?


Using offset mode, or modify individual VF points often seems to overcome these sorts of issues. The other factor can be making sure that voltage control software such as XTU, throttle stop, (MSI) Dragon Centre are uninstalled as they can override BIOS voltage settings. Also moving up to the next most aggressive LLC notch up can sometimes fix this sometimes, I was seeing similar in my initial testing.


----------



## hemon

fray_bentos said:


> Using offset mode, or modify individual VF points often seems to overcome these sorts of issues. The other factor can be making sure that voltage control software such as XTU, throttle stop, (MSI) Dragon Centre are uninstalled as they can override BIOS voltage settings.


How should I use offset mode or modify the individual VF points?

I don't have such software.


----------



## fray_bentos

hemon said:


> How should I use offset mode or modify the individual VF points?
> 
> I don't have such software.


I'm not an Asus user, you'll have to look up a video on how to do this in your BIOS. Might be easier for you to try LLC3 first.


----------



## hemon

fray_bentos said:


> I'm not an Asus user, you'll have to look up a video on how to do this in your BIOS. Might be easier for you to try LLC3 first.


I almost solved using offset mode (+0.050v).

However, the voltage goes rarely to 1.241v as with the fixed voltage, then it stays at 1.252v in load – also if I set +0.040v offset.

Do you know how could I solve this?


----------



## fray_bentos

hemon said:


> I almost solved using offset mode (+0.050v).
> 
> However, the voltage goes rarely to 1.241v as with the fixed voltage, then it stays at 1.252v in load – also if I set +0.040v offset.
> 
> Do you know how could I solve this?


Too much Vdroop, possibly defaulting to the standard VF curve. Drop Vcore back down a bit and go up an LLC notch. If that doesn't work, keep the new LLC setting but also nudge Vcore up step by step.


----------



## hemon

fray_bentos said:


> Too much Vdroop, drop Vcore back down a bit and go up an LLC notch. If that doesn't work, keep the new LLC setting but nudge Vcore up step by step.


I think, I solved the problem, thank you very much for the effort.

For 1.243v (@5.0 GHz) adaptive voltage I must use:

LLC4, vcore 1.240v, offset +0.040v. On Windows the max vcore is 1.323v

OR

LLC5, vcore 1.240v, offset +0.015v. On Windows the max vcore is 1.279v. So there is much less drop as with LLC4. For info: with a offset +0.010v I have as vcore sometime 1.234v and sometime 1.243v while stressing. So, I must set this "0.05v" more if I want to stay fix at 1.243v while stressing.

I would say, that I must stay with the LLC5 option, right?


----------



## fray_bentos

hemon said:


> I think, I solved the problem, thank you very much for the effort.
> 
> For 1.243v adaptive voltage I must use:
> 
> LLC4, vcore 1.240v, offset +0.040v. On Windows the max vcore is 1.323v
> 
> OR
> 
> LLC5, vcore 1.240v, offset +0.015v. On Windows the max vcore is 1.279v. So there is much less drop as with LLC4. For info: with a offset +0.010v I have as vcore sometime 1.234v and sometime 1.243v while stressing. So, I must set this "0.05v" more if I want to stay fix at 1.243v while stressing.
> 
> I would say, that I must stay with the LLC5 option, right?


It does look like your LLC5 setting is the best, provided that it remains stable. Glad that worked out for you!


----------



## RobertoSampaio

The system is completely stable at:

56x4 - 55x6 - 54x8 - 53x10 (+2Boost-OCTVB)


Now I'm testing

57x2 - 56x4 - 55x6 - 54x8 - 53x10 (+2Boost-OCTVB)


----------



## Nabonidus

10900k - SP103, 5.3 All core, 5.5 on 7 core, 5.6 on 5 core. Cache 5.1GHZ. Vcore adaptive @ 1.410V. LLC set to 6. Not delided. Ram 3200MHZ CL13. Gaming temps in warzone never exceed 67 degrees after 5+ hours of gaming. Stress test temps max of 75 in cini, realbench.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Nabonidus said:


> 10900k - SP103, 5.3 All core, 5.5 on 7 core, 5.6 on 5 core. Cache 5.1GHZ. Vcore adaptive @ 1.410V. LLC set to 6. Not delided. Ram 3200MHZ CL13. Gaming temps in warzone never exceed 67 degrees after 5+ hours of gaming. Stress test temps max of 75 in cini, realbench.


Which value are you using for AC/DC loadline?
Which MB are you using?


----------



## Nabonidus

RobertoSampaio said:


> Which value are you using for AC/DC loadline?
> Which MB are you using?


0.1v mate.

Asus maximus Extreme






I have changed some of the values since that video. If you want I can take a better video.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

@Nabonidus 
Nice Chip, can you test how much Load VCore you need for 5,4Ghz or 5,5Ghz CB23 run Allcore LLC5 or 6?


----------



## Cpfan1

How much IO voltage would you guys consider "dailyable"? Mine piece of crap needs like 1.38 IO for 4533 c17-18-39


----------



## Imprezzion

1.35v with my max being 1.40v and SA 1.40 max 1.45v even tho I would rather scale back to 440017-17 with less voltage at that point.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Hi Folks,

Do you know the exact value of LLC in milliohms for M12F (or any other Maximus XII MB)?

1 = ?
2 = ?
3 = ?
4 = 1.07 milliohms (I guess)
5 = ?
6 = ?
7 = ?
8 = ?


----------



## GeneO

Here is what I measured for my 10700k on Hero FWIW. I calculated under p95 load LLC (mohm) = 1000 * (avg. requested vid - avg vcore)/ (avg current)
LLC7 .11
LLC6 .56
LLC5 .7
LLC4 1.02
LLC3 1.13


----------



## Nabonidus

PhoenixMDA said:


> @Nabonidus
> Nice Chip, can you test how much Load VCore you need for 5,4Ghz or 5,5Ghz CB23 run Allcore LLC5 or 6?


These are my predictions for those frequencies.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> Here is what I measured for my 10700k on Hero FWIW. I calculated under p95 load LLC (mohm) = 1000 * (avg. requested vid - avg vcore)/ (avg current)
> LLC7 .11
> LLC6 .56
> LLC5 .7
> LLC4 1.02
> LLC3 1.13


I thought the same:
load LLC (mohm) = 1000 * (avg. requested vid - avg vcore)/ (avg current)


But to do this I need to right set DC_LL...
And how to set DC_LL if I don't know LLC (mohm)?


----------



## PhoenixMDA

@Nabonidus
Yes but how much you need real for 5,3/5,4Ghz load voltage cinebench23?

I need load voltage, clock and the temp on the core´s, so i see how much better your chip is as lower SP.


----------



## Falkentyne

RobertoSampaio said:


> I thought the same:
> load LLC (mohm) = 1000 * (avg. requested vid - avg vcore)/ (avg current)
> 
> 
> But to do this I need to right set DC_LL...
> And how to set DC_LL if I don't know LLC (mohm)?


DC Loadline is not important.
It is only used for VID readout reporting. DCLL is the predicted value based on loadline calibration (so DC LL should match LLC mOhms for accurate reporting).
DCLL does not affect Vcore. ACLL does (unless you are using fixed vcore, then ACLL is ignored for vcore ,but still affects VID)).

For adaptive/VF points/offset modes, only AC Loadline and LLC level is important.


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> I thought the same:
> load LLC (mohm) = 1000 * (avg. requested vid - avg vcore)/ (avg current)
> 
> 
> But to do this I need to right set DC_LL...
> And how to set DC_LL if I don't know LLC (mohm)?


No quite sure where you are going, but I have AC/DC loadlines set to 0.01 mohm so they should not factor in.

Measured those some time back, thought I'd verify them by creating a custom hwnfo LLC (mohm) sensor to calculate ity and hence form an average and those numbers are what I get still. give r take a few percent.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> No quite sure where you are going, but I have AC/DC loadlines set to 0.01 mohm so they should not factor in.
> 
> Measured those some time back, thought I'd verify them by creating a custom hwnfo LLC (mohm) sensor to calculate ity and hence form an average and those numbers are what I get still. give r take a few percent.


I'm setting DC_LL for best accurate reporting.
For me, look like 1.08 works well for LLC#4.
I'm using Voltage Optimization and VMaxStress, so I need the AC_LL (0.52) voltage correction component to be stable at idle high frequencies and to keep voltage below 1.50v.
I'm not sure, but DC_LL seems to change VMaxStress frequency clip.


----------



## GeneO

But @Falkentyne - am I calculating this correctly? What does reported requested VID take into account? Does it already subtract the LLC and what about the TVB voltage optimization. I am thinking maybe I was naive when I first did those calculations.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I think DC_LL will affect this VMaxStress logic if in not accurate...


----------



## Falkentyne

GeneO said:


> But @Falkentyne - am I calculating this correctly? What does reported requested VID take into account? Does it already subtract the LLC and what about the TVB voltage optimization. I am thinking maybe I was naive when I first did those calculations.


TVB voltage boost (e.g. +1.5mv / 1C) or something is done on the ACLL side, before CPU gets the vcore (so it affects SVID, or vcore CPU requests from the VRM), as well as VF points and all the other stuff. vOffset is added or subtracted at the end.

DCLL is done after CPU already has the vcore from the VRM.

On Z390 it was simply "base VID mv + ((ACLL mOhms * I) - (LLC mOhms * dI)) + vOffset. where I=current and dI=loadstep current (d1-d0=dI, or change in one sample to the next sample or whatever Elmor explained).

On Z490 it's god knows what, with that +200mv VID offset possible whenever the CPU feels like it. I couldn't figure it out and I couldn't understand Shamino's explanation.
From my best guess it almost seemed like it was using "Half" of the current for "I" rather than the full current, like it was doing ACLL mOhms * (1/2 * I) and that's before that 200mv thing gets requested.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Falkentyne said:


> TVB voltage boost (e.g. +1.5mv / 1C) or something is done on the ACLL side, before CPU gets the vcore (so it affects SVID, or vcore CPU requests from the VRM), as well as VF points and all the other stuff. vOffset is added or subtracted at the end.
> 
> DCLL is done after CPU already has the vcore from the VRM.
> 
> On Z390 it was simply "base VID mv + ((ACLL mOhms * I) - (LLC mOhms * dI)) + vOffset. where I=current and dI=loadstep current (d1-d0=dI, or change in one sample to the next sample or whatever Elmor explained).
> 
> On Z490 it's god knows what, with that +200mv VID offset possible whenever the CPU feels like it. I couldn't figure it out and I couldn't understand Shamino's explanation.
> From my best guess it almost seemed like it was using "Half" of the current for "I" rather than the full current, like it was doing ACLL mOhms * (1/2 * I) and that's before that 200mv thing gets requested.


I have max frequency 56x, adaptive = 1524mv, VmaxStress and Votage Optimization enabled.
CPU runs most part of time at 55x because VmaxStress flag limit 56x.
I don't know why CPU achieve 56x easily if I lower DC_LL.
Does this make any sense?


----------



## Falkentyne

RobertoSampaio said:


> I have max frequency 56x, adaptive = 1524mv, VmaxStress and Votage Optimization enabled.
> CPU runs most part of time at 55x because VmaxStress flag limit 56x.
> I don't know why CPU achieve 56x easily if I lower DC_LL.
> Does this make any sense?


You always ask extremely difficult, confusing questions 
I simply do not know. Maybe DCLL reports to the bios? I don't know. You already know more than I do because you use these settings. I do not.
I've been trying to read your posts and it's nothing but a nonstop series of questions questions questions :/


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I ask because I trying to learn about...
And my questions are confusing because it's not easy to me to think in English.
I don't think you need to know all stuffs and answer my questions.
Please, forgive me. It's not my intention to upset you.
I think you are one of the bests in this forum... I always read what you write.


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> I think DC_LL will affect this VMaxStress logic if in not accurate...
> 
> View attachment 2489816


Looking back at these flow charts Shamino provided, VID includes AC loadline and TVB voltage optimizations but not LLC. So it is correct that
LLC (mohm) = 1000* (VID-Vcore) / CPU current.
I am sure I was using the voltage flowchart when I did the calculations, just forgot. Which is good because they are around the values you would expect 

For reference (and better resolutions)these 3 flowcharts are at:






Z490 New bios with new feature OCTVB - Page 7


you can tell the bios for the model from the link names: https://www.dropbox.com/s/kl65p17gjpbiyx4/ROG-STRIX-Z490-I-GAMING-ASUS-0901.rar?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/xng2l0aupm72osv/ROG-STRIX-Z490-H-GAMING-ASUS-0901.rar?dl=0...



rog.asus.com





Roberto, I don't quite follow where the OCTVB flowchart shows AC loadline involvement in any way,


----------



## Imprezzion

All I know is that not setting AC/DC properly according to LLC and "Auto" adaptive (TVB) voltages on my MSI Z490 Ace results in massive difference between low load and full load voltages and especially a lot of instability in idle and load-to-idle switches.

Currently I'm running 5.4x2 5.3x10 at V/F Curve (about -0.170v @ 5.3) with LLC 4 (slight droop) and AC/DC "mode_3" and MOSFET response at 800KHz I believe. I'd have to check the BIOS to be sure but yeah. This works fine, no load to idle crashes, light load voltage 1.423v max, full on AVX burn test 1.396v which is only about 0.025v difference with light loads having a slight overshoot to prevent it from crashing due to undershoot at fast load changes. Even at 1.423v my game temps are barely 70c and Prime95 Small AVX stays right under 95c so not even 355w of AVX burn test will throttle it.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> Looking back at these flow charts Shamino provided, VID includes AC loadline and TVB voltage optimizations but not LLC. So it is correct that
> LLC (mohm) = 1000* (VID-Vcore) / CPU current.
> I am sure I was using the voltage flowchart when I did the calculations, just forgot. Which is good because they are around the values you would expect
> 
> For reference (and better resolutions)these 3 flowcharts are at:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Z490 New bios with new feature OCTVB - Page 7
> 
> 
> you can tell the bios for the model from the link names: https://www.dropbox.com/s/kl65p17gjpbiyx4/ROG-STRIX-Z490-I-GAMING-ASUS-0901.rar?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/xng2l0aupm72osv/ROG-STRIX-Z490-H-GAMING-ASUS-0901.rar?dl=0...
> 
> 
> 
> rog.asus.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roberto, I don't quite follow where the OCTVB flowchart shows AC loadline involvement in any way,


I think "_LLC (mohm) = 1000* (VID-Vcore) / CPU current_" will be true if you do this with DC_LL=0.01
At the same condition, once you change DC_LL to other value, VID changes.

Do this test if you can...
Try DC_LL = 0.01 and DC_LL=1.10

AC_LL is here:


----------



## acoustic

Imprezzion said:


> All I know is that not setting AC/DC properly according to LLC and "Auto" adaptive (TVB) voltages on my MSI Z490 Ace results in massive difference between low load and full load voltages and especially a lot of instability in idle and load-to-idle switches.
> 
> Currently I'm running 5.4x2 5.3x10 at V/F Curve (about -0.170v @ 5.3) with LLC 4 (slight droop) and AC/DC "mode_3" and MOSFET response at 800KHz I believe. I'd have to check the BIOS to be sure but yeah. This works fine, no load to idle crashes, light load voltage 1.423v max, full on AVX burn test 1.396v which is only about 0.025v difference with light loads having a slight overshoot to prevent it from crashing due to undershoot at fast load changes. Even at 1.423v my game temps are barely 70c and Prime95 Small AVX stays right under 95c so not even 355w of AVX burn test will throttle it.


I'm about to try doing an adaptive OC with 5.1x10 5.2x2. I've been running it 5.1 all-core with override voltage. I believe the board is running Mode1 for AC/DC automatically.


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> I think "_LLC (mohm) = 1000* (VID-Vcore) / CPU current_" will be true if you do this with DC_LL=0.01
> At the same condition, once you change DC_LL to other value, VID changes.
> 
> Do this test if you can...
> Try DC_LL = 0.01 and DC_LL=1.10
> 
> AC_LL is here:
> 
> View attachment 2489860


Yes, I know AC LL is in the flowchart.

I believe DC LL affects reporting of voltages (but not the actual voltages themselves).


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> Yes, I know AC LL is in the flowchart.
> 
> I believe DC LL affects reporting of voltages (but not the actual voltages themselves).


I think the influence of DC_LL is here...
If I run DC_LL=1.10 I have no CPU errors.
If I run DC_LL < 1.10 I have errors @Idle

I think if DC_LL inform CPU a lower impedance, CPU decides for a low VID for that frequency, and in certain conditions VMax Stress allow high frequencies with less voltage.
If DC_LL inform a higer impedance CPU knows will be necessary more voltage, and VMax Stress flag forces frequency to be lower.
The Vcore itself is not affected (@full load), but some logic is, for sure. LOL

But all this is my guess. I didn't find any good explanation about DC_LL logic inside CPU.










If I try DC_LL=0.01 CPU cores go to 56x as soon as idle and crash.


----------



## GeneO

hmm, not what I would have expected. I wish we had better information on this. Maybe @shamino1978


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Full Load @51x:
LLC#4
AC_LL=0.52

DC_LL = 1.10


















DC_LL = 1.00


















DC_LL = 0.5



















Did you realize that "_LLC (mohm) = 1000* (VID-Vcore) / CPU current"_ will be not true if you didn't tune DC_LL before measure?


----------



## GeneO

No,, I don't understand what is going on there with dc ll.

According to Shimano's flowchart, vid includes ac ll adjustment, so I am not surprised dc would impact vid, i am just surprised it has any effect at all.

But my formula for llc is still valid since the dc loadline is included in the vid (and vcore) and hence is independent of dc ll.

To elaborate from what you posted and Shamino's voltage flowchart

Vbios = fixed voltage or VF point if adaptive as set in BIOS
I = current (Amps)
LLC = Load Line Calibration (Ohms)
AC LL and DC LL (Ohms)
TVBVO = TVB voltage optimization (volts/degree C)

VID = Vbios + AC LL* I - TVBVO*(TJMax-Tcore) + (some unknown function DC LL ?)
Vcore = VID - LLC * I


----------



## Astral85

Falkentyne said:


> DC Loadline is not important.
> It is only used for VID readout reporting. DCLL is the predicted value based on loadline calibration (so DC LL should match LLC mOhms for accurate reporting).
> DCLL does not affect Vcore. ACLL does (unless you are using fixed vcore, then ACLL is ignored for vcore ,but still affects VID)).
> 
> For adaptive/VF points/offset modes, only AC Loadline and LLC level is important.


So DC LL is not important for accurate power reporting under Adaptive, VF point, offset mode? How are you supposed to ensure DC LL and LLC match for accurate power reporting?


----------



## Astral85

@GeneO What is this flow chart? Do you have a link?

Edit: found it in post above.


----------



## Nabonidus

PhoenixMDA said:


> @Nabonidus
> Yes but how much you need real for 5,3/5,4Ghz load voltage cinebench23?
> 
> I need load voltage, clock and the temp on the core´s, so i see how much better your chip is as lower SP.


Unfortunately I do not have the time to be changing and going back. However, at 5.3GHZ in cini23 load voltage is 1.217v


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I'm not sure, but i think there is a "hidden" VID not showed in hw-info.
That one really sent to VRM (without DC_LL correction).

This could explain why when we set impedance of DC_LL = LLC we see VID=VCore.

But not explain why my system have instabilities if I set DC_LL=0.01


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Nabonidus said:


> Unfortunately I do not have the time to be changing and going back. However, at 5.3GHZ in cini23 load voltage is 1.217v
> 
> View attachment 2489998


Really good chip, i think perhaps a little bit better than my chip, i have get an WHEA error with Cache 50 at 1,217V undelided. 
Delidded you can also drive 5,4Ghz allcore without high temp´s, the 10900k scale awesome with the temp.


----------



## GeneO

Astral85 said:


> @GeneO What is this flow chart? Do you have a link?
> 
> Edit: found it in post above.


I posted them above in post #4081


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> I'm not sure, but i think there is a "hidden" VID not showed in hw-info.
> That one really sent to VRM (without DC_LL correction).
> 
> This could explain why when we set impedance of DC_LL = LLC we see VID=VCore.
> 
> But not explain why my system have instabilities if I set DC_LL=0.01


I don't know why there would be. The reported VID, current and vcore yield a LLC about what is expected - I am not going to try it with varying DC LL though. 
You also said your lost stability when changing DC LL so your vcore must have changed too (assuming it is not misreported).


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> I don't know why there would be. The reported VID, current and vcore yield a LLC about what is expected - I am not going to try it with varying DC LL though.
> You also said your lost stability when changing DC LL so your vcore must have changed too (assuming it is not misreported).


 It's not vcore that changes. 
VID changes, an I think vmax stress use this VID and make a mess.
I'm doing a lot of tests trying to understand...


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> It's not vcore that changes.
> VID changes, an I think vmax stress use this VID and make a mess.
> I'm doing a lot of tests trying to understand...


Well I am do not understand what you said. You said :

"I think the influence of DC_LL is here...
If I run DC_LL=1.10 I have no CPU errors.
If I run DC_LL < 1.10 I have errors @Idle"

so I don't know how you get the crashes if you only change DC load line but vcore does not change.

I have always gone by the presumption that DC LL does not affect any voltages, only the reporting of VID (and the package power calculated from it). And for accurate VID and power you need DC LL = AC LL. I do not understand why people use different values for both,


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> Well I am do not understand what you said. You said :
> 
> "I think the influence of DC_LL is here...
> If I run DC_LL=1.10 I have no CPU errors.
> If I run DC_LL < 1.10 I have errors @Idle"
> 
> so I don't know how you get the crashes if you change DC load line but vcore does not change.
> 
> I have always have gone under the
> I think the influence of DC_LL is here...
> If I run DC_LL=1.10 I have no CPU errors.
> If I run DC_LL < 1.10 I have errors @Idle
> that DC LL does not affect any voltages, only the reporting of VID (and the package power calculated from it). And for accurate VID and power you need DC LL = AC LL.


Do you know how vmaxstress works?


----------



## GeneO

Ah, OK, I finally got the whole picture. It is because affecting your vmaxstress and not limiting the voltage as needed. And you are trying to find out LLC so you can set DC load line = LLC. Which is circular.

I may be wrong, but I think what you want is DC LL = AC Ll, _*not *_DC LL = LLC.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> Ah, OK, I finally got the whole picture. It is because affecting your vmaxstress and not limiting the voltage as needed. And you are trying to find out LLC so you can set DC load line = LLC. Which is circular.
> 
> I may be wrong, but I think what you want is DC LL = AC Ll, _*not *_DC LL = LLC.



YES!!!!!

Here is the problem.
This VID is DC_LL sensitive.

If VID >1500mv than target ratio = target ratio -1

So, if I change DC_LL I change this logic.


----------



## GeneO

So I did performed some measurements varying DCLL and ACLL everything else being the same. Green set in BIOS, yellow measured averages in HWINFO64 and blue calculated.










Here Calc LLC = 1000*(VID-Vcore)/Current, which you were correct needs adjusted for DCLL per below

From which I conclude
VID = Vbios + ACLL*I - DCLL*I (ignoring other corrections like TVB voltage optimization)
LLC (mohm) = 1000* (VID-Vcore)/Current + DCLL (in mohm)
Conversely Vcore = VID - (LLC-DCLL)*I/1000 where the load lines are in mohm
And
DCLL has an effect only on VID, IA Core Power, Package Power and indirectly VMAX Stress. Other voltage and power (e.g. Vcore, CPU Core Power) are unaffected

EDIT: Of course when TVB Voiltage optimization is taken into account, these numbers don't quite add up when I work my way from tehe VF point on down. There is something missing that throws this off for a bit that I cannot figure. E.g The actual vid is too low for higher ACLL.


----------



## Imprezzion

I am so at the end of my radiator.. even with massively better fans that I just installed temps are basically the same. The rad just cannot dissipate more heat. Shame. I mean, it's only a EK Coolstream SE 280 (that's the rad EK used on the Phoenix kit that I have) but still...

What semi-AIO or even full AIO would outperform the Phoenix 280? Keep in mind, it has to support direct-die mounting!


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Imprezzion said:


> I am so at the end of my radiator.. even with massively better fans that I just installed temps are basically the same. The rad just cannot dissipate more heat. Shame. I mean, it's only a EK Coolstream SE 280 (that's the rad EK used on the Phoenix kit that I have) but still...
> 
> What semi-AIO or even full AIO would outperform the Phoenix 280? Keep in mind, it has to support direct-die mounting!


Sorry, I can't help you, but I really like to test this...









MasterLiquid ML360 SUB-ZERO


Cooler Master’s MasterLiquid ML360 SUB-ZERO is amongst the first Thermoelectric Cooling (TEC) AIO liquid coolers powered by Intel® Cryo Cooling Technology. Utilizing revolutionary TEC technology in the water block coupled with the redesigned 2nd Gen pump, no amount of heat can contest the...




www.coolermaster.com





Imagine this with direct-die mounting!

or this...









Intel & EK Bring You the EK-QuantumX Delta TEC


EK-QuantumX Delta TEC is a one-of-a-kind CPU water block designed for enthusiasts seeking consistent thermal performance and enhanced overclocking.




www.ekwb.com


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Imprezzion said:


> I am so at the end of my radiator.. even with massively better fans that I just installed temps are basically the same. The rad just cannot dissipate more heat. Shame. I mean, it's only a EK Coolstream SE 280 (that's the rad EK used on the Phoenix kit that I have) but still...
> 
> What semi-AIO or even full AIO would outperform the Phoenix 280? Keep in mind, it has to support direct-die mounting!


For directdie you need flow and radiator power is every time good, the dead for a good water flow are quick coupling^^
For the price of a good AOI you get a much better Custom with a good DDC310 with tube and tripple Radi.

A good cheap radiator was the Phobya G-Charger 360 price was arround 60-70,- euro, but EOL.


----------



## Imprezzion

PhoenixMDA said:


> For directdie you need flow and radiator power is every time good, the dead for a good water flow are quick coupling^^
> For the price of a good AOI you get a much better Custom with a good DDC310 with tube and tripple Radi.
> 
> A good cheap radiator was the Phobya G-Charger 360 price was arround 60-70,- euro.


I know but I have no real room for a pump + res in this case.. it does technically fit either a thick (60mm) 360 or a thin 420 in the top combined with a 60mm 280 front but no real room for a res unless I put it in front of the front rad.. which is ugly.. and I can't be bothered with the maintenance of a full custom loop. I had a swiftech custom loop back in the day and it was great but man the constant maintenance was a hassle.. that's why I like semi-AIO like the Phoenix or the Alphacool ones so much..

To be honest. I am expecting too much from this cooler. I'm running 5.3 all core @ 1.423v and it still keeps it under 95c with direct-die, lapped block and Liquid Ultra. Honestly, running Prime95 Small AVX at like 350w power draw and staying under 95c is amazing, but I want more lol...

If I ever decide to go custom I will get a
Bitspower Premium Summit M Mystic Black Metal Edition block, a D5 with a tube res from whoever has one in stock here (EK or Thermaltake or whatever), and a 360 Nemesis GTS top and a 280 Nemesis GTS front (x-flow if I can get them)..


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Let your cooling System so like it is for 24/7 its enough.
More i think is only good with more flow like ddc 3.2pwm/3.25 and then 1 or 2 bigger Radiator.

A custom watercooling you can drive also for years with doing nothing.In 7 years i have only one time cleaned the system^^


----------



## Imprezzion

PhoenixMDA said:


> Let your cooling System so like it is for 24/7 its enough.
> More i think is only good with more flow like ddc 3.2pwm/3.25 and then 1 or 2 bigger Radiator.
> 
> A custom watercooling you can drive also for years with doing nothing.In 7 years i have only one time cleaned the system^^


In normal 24/7 gaming and rendering music (FL studio) highest temp I've seen was 74c in Battlefield 5 Multiplayer (grand operations) with DX12 and Ray tracing Ultra (which is AVX obviously) but that is with fanspeed around 950-1000RPM cause I like to game in silence lol. Fancurve is set to only ramp up higher above what I can't hear at 85c. But I was just surprised to see that the change in fans from terrible airflow fans with zero static pressure to actual good radiator static pressure fans didn't make a single degree of difference. Just way more quiet. That would indicate the "temperature bottleneck" isn't the airflow but the heat dissipation capacity in general.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I think I managed to reach 57x @ idle.
Ran stable all day !
57x2 - 56x4 - 55x6 - 54x8 - 53x10
Full load [email protected],25v


----------



## PhoenixMDA

@Imprezzion
If i want with DirectDie good temp i need higher flow, if you have only 50l or lower it can be also an problem.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Anyone here has a rockitcool direct die 10th gen and use the optimus block? I dont know why I have bad contact with the die?


----------



## PhoenixMDA

I have with the TechN cooler, there is the ground is a little bit curved, to less LM is not good.
Here my results.
Beitrag im Thema 'OC Prozessoren Intel Sockel 1200 (Comet Lake-S / Rocket Lake-S)' [Sammelthread] - OC Prozessoren Intel Sockel 1200 (Comet Lake-S / Rocket Lake-S)


----------



## Imprezzion

I run that direct die kit as well on the EK Phoenix which is based on a Supremacy block and that works fine.

The pump in the Phoenix is a EK-SPC 60A 12V DC PWM Pump. No idea what it's based on but it probably ain't a D5 judging by the 2750RPM speed @ 100%.

It's supposed to have 250l/h max but that is without QDC's or restrictions obviously lol.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

If you dont have quick coupling, i think the pump is enough is ok for only CPU.
A second Radiator 480'er or so will bring a little bit better temps.


----------



## Imprezzion

PhoenixMDA said:


> If you dont have quick coupling, i think the pump is enough is ok for only CPU.
> A second Radiator 480'er or so will bring a little bit better temps.


Since I don't ever make use of the QDC's I might as well delete them and just swap to straight tubing lol. I don't think I've disconnected them even once since buying the cooler lol. I'll look into what tubing diameter it uses and whether the fittings are standard or not.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

All quick coupling i had was restrictiv, so i decide for ball valve´s, in my loop is really optimized at all, high flow and 2x Mora420.
Is the flow much to low you cant transfer the heat fast enough from the CPU, if your radiator´s are to weak, you bring the hot water back to the CPU.

From 100l to 200l are only arround 3° but better than nothing^^.
Lower temp´s and you need less VCore that make less watt and also lower temps^^


----------



## YaqY

For me direct die was a big improvement from using copper IHS delid on custom loop. Maybe 6-8 degrees better in large avx 2 for me on average temperature and lower temperature spikes, also allowing me to run 5.3/5.0 HT on with my 10700K. 2x360x60mm radiators on my setup with optimus block and two qdc because i run radiators externally. Here is my results for 4400C16 2x16 tuned memory + 5.3/5.0 HT large avx 2. I find this test harder than small no avx (with tuned memory) without pulling too much current.


----------



## Imprezzion

Yeah reading you guy's reactions basically makes me think removing the QDC'S will result in the radiator not being able to dissipate it. It's a single pass 280 28mm copper rad.. that won't ever dissipate 340w of heat lol. I mean, it'll handle the 200-240w peaks I see in some games (mainly bfv) but at that point the flow isn't the restriction.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Is the test more difficult as Prime custom, i have tested with my 24/7 so like i use it.
But my graka was working with 75W.^^


----------



## YaqY

PhoenixMDA said:


> Is the test more difficult as Prime custom, i have tested with my 24/7 so like i use it.
> But my graka was working with 75W.^^
> View attachment 2490183


For me I use my rig for gaming only. Never crash in games with this level of stability, can also try large avx 2 extreme I find it hits the imc well too. What prime settings do you suggest, 112K FFT is no problems I have tried it. Memory stability I like to test extensively.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Im testing for IO/SA 80k-192k that needs more as GSat, for 24/7 for me is enough to test Gsat and prime custom.
VCore i have take for arround 35°H2O more i never reach.
But i can say to you OCCT extrem need much more Vcore as Prime are CB23 10min run.I think it's because of AVX2.
Normaly i have 1,3V LLC5, for your test with extrem i need 1,31V LLC5.
The test at extrem is more as necessary i think^^.
Test is now at 20min.

@RobertoSampaio
Can you finished this test with your setting?
Normally is everytime allcore so 5,1Ghz in your case.

@YaqY 
here is the extrem test.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

I think that is ok and alltime stable.


----------



## YaqY

Very nice personally this is enough stability for me on daily gaming use.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

PhoenixMDA said:


> Im testing for IO/SA 80k-192k that needs more as GSat, for 24/7 for me is enough to test Gsat and prime custom.
> VCore i have take for arround 35°H2O more i never reach.
> But i can say to you OCCT extrem need much more Vcore as Prime are CB23 10min run.I think it's because of AVX2.
> Normaly i have 1,3V LLC5, for your test with extrem i need 1,31V LLC5.
> The test at extrem is more as necessary i think^^.
> Test is now at 20min.
> 
> @RobertoSampaio
> Can you finished this test with your setting?
> Normally is everytime allcore so 5,1Ghz in your case.
> 
> @YaqY
> here is the extrem test.
> View attachment 2490199



Are setting correct?


----------



## YaqY

Remember current draw will be low and this test is easy with untuned ram. Even setting 4/6/16 trrds/l/tfaw will increase difficulty and power draw considerably.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Can you show us clock, voltages, watt and so on, it dont must be for an hour, 10min are enough.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Are the OCCT settings correct ?


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Ok nice, you have only one disadvantage, you need more vcore for the clock as allcore to get it stable.
Not all good thing on one side.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

PhoenixMDA said:


> Ok nice, you have only one disadvantage, you need more vcore for the clock as allcore to get it stable.
> Not all good thing on one side.


I can lower VF#7 (5100), but system to become instable at idle and low temps due the Voltage Optimization. 
If I set all cores to 51x I can run full load @ 1.21v


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Yes the problem it need´s more load Vcore as fixed allcore without tvb, that´s the reason why i dont use it.
In most cases the most core needed by games, so i have allcore but with more voltage/watt.

The clock is not so important it´s only few percent, it´s better to increase the performance with ramoc.
the good thing is huge performance without much higher temps/voltage.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Sometimes I have "Cache Hierarchy Error"
Do you know what cause this?
Could be caused by video driver?


----------



## PhoenixMDA

No i think it´s from tvb/curve, if he changed the clock and voltage´s it can be give drop´s and then you get whea, perhaps it helps to set the cache low,
or you must give more voltage or change LLC.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

PhoenixMDA said:


> No i think it´s from tvb/curve, if he changed the clock and voltage´s it can be give drop´s and then you get whea, perhaps it helps to set the cache low,
> or you must give more voltage or change LLC.
> 
> Or drive with the same voltage 5,2ghz allcore without tvb.


I'll try cache 46x and test...


----------



## RobertoSampaio

PhoenixMDA said:


> No i think it´s from tvb/curve, if he changed the clock and voltage´s it can be give drop´s and then you get whea, perhaps it helps to set the cache low,
> or you must give more voltage or change LLC.


If I set max cache 47, and CPU is 50x or higher, cache will be 47x, right?
If CPU is running 49x, cache will lower to 46x ...
If CPU is running 48x, cache will lower to 45x
Is that how it works?


----------



## PhoenixMDA

I have only really tested allcore and there i drive LLC5 rest auto(ac/dc etc) only dram is fixed at 300khz.

You must test i drive at 5Ghz 4,7Ghz Cache, 5,2/4,8 5,3/4,9 and or 5,4/5.
For 24/7 5ghz or 5,2ghz, 5ghz most cases both same fps, but 5ghz less Watt.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

PhoenixMDA said:


> I have only really tested allcore and there i drive LLC5 rest auto(ac/dc etc) only dram is fixed at 300khz.
> 
> You must test i drive at 5Ghz 4,7Ghz Cache, 5,2/4,8 5,3/4,9 and or 5,4/5.
> For 24/7 5ghz or 5,2ghz, 5ghz most cases both same fps, but 5ghz less Watt.


If cache scale with CPU (CPU frequency - 3x), than I have cache running at 47x when CPU is 50X (and above), but CPU voltage for 50X is really low in my system.
I'm testing cache at 46x (max). If "Cache Hierarchy Error" stops the problem shall be the CPU voltage for 50x.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

PhoenixMDA said:


> Ok nice, you have only one disadvantage, you need more vcore for the clock as allcore to get it stable.
> Not all good thing on one side.



I'm reducing AC_LL from 0.51 to 0.44 and adjusting all V/F curves...
Now I can run full load [email protected]
When stable I'll try AC_LL= 0.37


----------



## RobertoSampaio

AC_LL = 0.37
Full load [email protected]











Edited: Not Stable with RB_256


----------



## PhoenixMDA

It´s not necessary to set anything,load defaults set LLC5, do your Ram OC manual, clock´s and voltage´s not more.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Has anyone tested the new Maximus XII beta BIOS 2201?


----------



## Sync0r

I've always clocked my CPUs by setting a fixed vcore and fixed multiplier, is there any benefit when gaming to use vf curve?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Sync0r said:


> I've always clocked my CPUs by setting a fixed vcore and fixed multiplier, is there any benefit when gaming to use vf curve?


I don't think so... Maybe loading the game...
Some games like PlanetSide2, DOOM, etc, that are not so heavy, CPU runs at 52x, sometimes 53x... 54x...
But BFV, and heavy games, CPU stays at 51x.
At light loads, in windows, CPU runs from 0.8x to 56x.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Sync0r said:


> I've always clocked my CPUs by setting a fixed vcore and fixed multiplier, is there any benefit when gaming to use vf curve?


No the most Stability you have at allcore with fixed vcore, only in some benchmark with very light load you get a higher score.
In all other cases like gaming with more core used, you need more vcore for the same clock.
As example my UV with 5,1ghz at allcore.With vf curve need´s more voltage/watt and higher temps.









And the Performance is more as enough, it´s not really necessary to drive higher clocks.
Sweetspot between Watt/Performance


----------



## Imprezzion

The only reason I use curve with XTU and not BIOS is so I can run Balanced power plan and keep C-States and 800Mhz idle. I don't need 5.3 all core with 4.8 cache at 1.42v idle the whole time when I'm just watching some stuff on YouTube or whatever.

I have all CPU ratio and voltage settings on Auto in the BIOS with manual LLC and AC/DC with all power saving and C-States left enabled and I let the curve do the x48, x51, x52 and x53 voltages and let the Auto voltage handle anything under x48.

I even made a little VBS script that auto applies my profile in XTU at boot using the per-app profiles on an app that always starts with Windows. In my case that is the Windows 7 Sidebar app that I still use on Windows 10 hehe.

Only thing that doesn't work is PCI-E Link Power States as using those will give me WHEA errors telling me a PCI-E device was removed (the GPU) and will crash the nVidia drivers when it goes from PCI-E 3.0 x16 to 1.1 x4.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

@Imprezzion
Perhaps it's on msi Board better with vf curve and i know idle it can be 5-10w more.
For me on Apex i like allcore more, it gives there no right/wrong.


----------



## acoustic

I don't understand this damn AC/DC Loadline thing on my Z490 ACE. I'm playing with the idea of going with a turbo ratio OC rather than my normal all-core fixed voltage/freq. I set vCore to Adaptive and Auto, and when I adjust AC/DC Loadline, I can see the VID going up as I adjust them, but my VR VOUT is the same 1.33v idle/1.3v load @ 5.2x10, which is not enough. Even when the VID is reading 1.4v. I'm going to try going to Mode3 for LLC, but yeah .. I don't understand what the AC/DC Loadline does. I went as far as going to Mode 20 (out of 23) and it's not any different than Mode 1 besides the VID moving.

I was under the impression you can control your vCore with the AC/DC Loadline, but I must be missing something or misunderstood. I miss when OCing was simple. I'm in over my head lol


----------



## Falkentyne

acoustic said:


> I don't understand this damn AC/DC Loadline thing on my Z490 ACE. I'm playing with the idea of going with a turbo ratio OC rather than my normal all-core fixed voltage/freq. I set vCore to Adaptive and Auto, and when I adjust AC/DC Loadline, I can see the VID going up as I adjust them, but my VR VOUT is the same 1.33v idle/1.3v load @ 5.2x10, which is not enough. Even when the VID is reading 1.4v. I'm going to try going to Mode3 for LLC, but yeah .. I don't understand what the AC/DC Loadline does. I went as far as going to Mode 20 (out of 23) and it's not any different than Mode 1 besides the VID moving.
> 
> I was under the impression you can control your vCore with the AC/DC Loadline, but I must be missing something or misunderstood. I miss when OCing was simple. I'm in over my head lol


You can only control VID request with AC/DC Loadline and only on Auto (or adaptive/offset) modes. That's assuming MSI is following Intel SVID spec.
AC loadline (what controls voltage request to the VRM) is part of SVID. Setting a fixed vcore bypasses SVID and writes to the VRM controller directly.
Loadline Calibration can be used in both modes, but you must be very careful not to set a high AC Loadline (e.g. 1.0 mohms+) and an aggressive loadline calibration (like mode 4 or stronger) at the same time in any mode where ACLL controls input voltage.

When you set a fixed voltage of any type, AC/DC Loadline is ignored.
If you set via V/F points, then AC/DC Loadline is used as V/F points affects VID.


----------



## acoustic

Falkentyne said:


> You can only control VID request with AC/DC Loadline and only on Auto (or adaptive/offset) modes. That's assuming MSI is following Intel SVID spec.
> AC loadline (what controls voltage request to the VRM) is part of SVID. Setting a fixed vcore bypasses SVID and writes to the VRM controller directly.
> Loadline Calibration can be used in both modes, but you must be very careful not to set a high AC Loadline (e.g. 1.0 mohms+) and an aggressive loadline calibration (like mode 4 or stronger) at the same time in any mode where ACLL controls input voltage.
> 
> When you set a fixed voltage of any type, AC/DC Loadline is ignored.
> If you set via V/F points, then AC/DC Loadline is used as V/F points affects VID.


Okay, starting to get the hang of this. The MSI Bios is definitely not intuitive for this type of OCing. I had the BIOS glitch a few times and not allow me to access the AC/DC_LL settings even though I was set to Offset for my vCore. My current issue seems to be my idle voltage dipping too low.

I'm set at 54x2, 53x5, 52x10. vCore set to Offset (-0.035v), I set my LLC to Mode8 (lowest setting on MSI), AC LL to "50" and DC LL to "90". This is giving me 1.380v in BIOS, and anywhere from 1.219v to 1.40v sitting in Windows. Under load, I'm getting 1.370-1.375v with Realbench.

I need to adjust the idle voltage up a tad, as those random incursions into the low 1.2v range are certain to cause instability, but not sure how to do that without causing my load voltage to also increase. I'm fairly certain I could drop down the load voltage to around 1.34-1.35. I see you explained AC LL, but what exactly does DC LL do? I set it to "90" rather than matching my AC LL, just to see what it changed, but I didn't notice anything as far as I can tell. The MSI BIOS in this case is also a bit annoying as the numbers are arbitrary. I have no idea what "90" relates to. 0.9mohm? 90 what? It's just a number. It goes up to 6250 in the BIOS which seems ridiculous.


----------



## Imprezzion

acoustic said:


> I don't understand this damn AC/DC Loadline thing on my Z490 ACE. I'm playing with the idea of going with a turbo ratio OC rather than my normal all-core fixed voltage/freq. I set vCore to Adaptive and Auto, and when I adjust AC/DC Loadline, I can see the VID going up as I adjust them, but my VR VOUT is the same 1.33v idle/1.3v load @ 5.2x10, which is not enough. Even when the VID is reading 1.4v. I'm going to try going to Mode3 for LLC, but yeah .. I don't understand what the AC/DC Loadline does. I went as far as going to Mode 20 (out of 23) and it's not any different than Mode 1 besides the VID moving.
> 
> I was under the impression you can control your vCore with the AC/DC Loadline, but I must be missing something or misunderstood. I miss when OCing was simple. I'm in over my head lol


Be careful with going over mode 9. I have seen well over 1.60v load with high modes over 10 on my Ace.

I'm on LLC4 with mode 2 (advanced values 20 / 20) and that works fine for me. I do still have to use negative offsets at 51 52 53 as my VID is very very high on this chip.


----------



## acoustic

Imprezzion said:


> Be careful with going over mode 9. I have seen well over 1.60v load with high modes over 10 on my Ace.
> 
> I'm on LLC4 with mode 2 (advanced values 20 / 20) and that works fine for me. I do still have to use negative offsets at 51 52 53 as my VID is very very high on this chip.


The Mode 20 I referred to was 20/20 advanced. At the time, I didn't realized Advanced had different max values than the "normal" mode settings. What offset are you using?

I also did accidentally blast the chip with 1.5v under load and booted into the BIOS accidentally with 1.62v idle .. learning curve lol


----------



## Imprezzion

Yeah the advanced mode is mode X10 and o think it's in mohm? Maybe?

I'm using -0.060 at x51 (1.270v load), -0.120 at x52 (1.334v load) and -0.170 at x53 (1.423v load).
Rest of the curve on default 0.000 so idle C-States und underclocking works without dropping too low on the voltage. If I set a general -0.170 offset it's fine under load but at 800Mhz that's like 0.610v which is way too little.


----------



## Sync0r

Third time lucky with my 10900KF purchase! An SP101! Just doing a bit of testing now 5.5Ghz @ 1.38v LLC8 (1.394v loaded). 

Other 2 chips were SP63, could only do 5.4Ghz with around 1.44v loaded.

Vf curve for anyone interested.


----------



## acoustic

Very nice! When I built my buddy his rig, his 10900K was a SP9x. I should take his damn chip since we run his rig stock, and give him the SP63 I've been stuck with from Microcenter. LOL


----------



## Sync0r

acoustic said:


> Very nice! When I built my buddy his rig, his 10900K was a SP9x. I should take his damn chip since we run his rig stock, and give him the SP63 I've been stuck with from Microcenter. LOL


Haha yes do it! They won't care.


----------



## acoustic

Sync0r said:


> Haha yes do it! They won't care.


I'm telling you, if I knew I would have got a "dud" chip, I would have. I've already de-lidded mine and run it direct-die. Hopefully I get a great chip with Alderlake. My 10900K is running 5.2x10 at 1.37v load (might be able to lower it a bit, I ran 5.1x10 @ 1.285v load for months, but haven't had time to tweak further) so the poor luck with this chip hopefully means my next one will be dynamite lol


----------



## Sync0r

acoustic said:


> I'm telling you, if I knew I would have got a "dud" chip, I would have. I've already de-lidded mine and run it direct-die. Hopefully I get a great chip with Alderlake. My 10900K is running 5.2x10 at 1.37v load (might be able to lower it a bit, I ran 5.1x10 @ 1.285v load for months, but haven't had time to tweak further) so the poor luck with this chip hopefully means my next one will be dynamite lol


Yeah I'm delidid and direct die. I put the chip in the socket with an air cooler to check SP rating, then immediately delidid it when I saw SP101 lol


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Has anyone tested the new beta BIOS 2201 for ASUS Maximus XII?


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

I have it now and dont see anything different than before except sp rating from 104 to 105.


----------



## Sync0r

After some testing I've got my 10900kf sp101 set at 5.5Ghz @ 1.376v loaded (1.48v LLC6). It will do 5.58Ghz 55 x 101.5 bclk with 1.46v (1.565v LLC6). Above 5.58Ghz it doesn't appear to be stable, increasing vcore doesn't help. Anyone know of any tricks to get a few more MHz for 5.6Ghz?
Chiller?


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Sync0r said:


> After some testing I've got my 10900kf sp101 set at 5.5Ghz @ 1.376v loaded (1.48v LLC6). It will do 5.58Ghz 55 x 101.5 bclk with 1.46v (1.565v LLC6). Above 5.58Ghz it doesn't appear to be stable, increasing vcore doesn't help. Anyone know of any tricks to get a few more MHz for 5.6Ghz?
> Chiller?


Can it run prime95 or linpack at that voltage or you just ran some r15?


----------



## Imprezzion

I mean, even my estimated SP80 ish chip can do CB R15/20/23 on 5.5Ghz quite easily.. I can even run realbench 2.56 @ 5.5Ghz 1.520v but it is however nowhere near stable enough for daily usage and for Prime or Linpack I max out at 5.3 all core @ 1.420v. I can do 5.4 @ 1.490v but can't control the temps. I have tested it the oldskool way with the radiator out the window on a cold night to keep it from throttling so I know 5.4 all core is possible but not realistic with my current cooling.

I'm reinstalling windows as my 5 year old install on the wrong SSD is showing more and more random problems, half of which are caused by the many crashes and windows repairs when I inevitably broke it again with a unstable memory OC. I am trying to set my OC that I had in Intel XTU in the BIOS manually now but even with the same values set the results voltage wise are totally different.. is there a difference in what XTU curve sets compared to just using advanced offset in BIOS with the same x48 x51 x52 x53 values?

Also, when I set the same values in the BIOS as I do in XTU voltage behaves totally different. It drops way way more under light loads and the idle crashes and crashes when coming off a high load start happening again as well.. it's almost like the MSI Ace BIOS treats the advanced offset (V/F Curve) totally different then XTU does from Windows. I have to basically +0.100 all points under x48 to even let it stand a chance of being stable in idle / switching loads and it drops a full 0.050v more under light / non-AVX loads.. so weird..


----------



## Sync0r

I've used Cinebench R23 as a quick test, then Realbench for 30 mins, gaming (res evil 8, battlefield 5) for about 3 hours and TM5 for memory, seems solid so far.

I'll carry on using it over the next week and report back.


----------



## acoustic

I've sorta figured out the Advanced Offset and I've got 5.4x2, 5.3x5, and 5.2x10 stable now. The load voltage fluctuates a lot more than I'd like; in my opinion running an override voltage is still a much more stable way of running the chip.

I had to add +0.080 to every single turbo ratio under 51x (+0.120 for ratio x8) in order to stop crashing when load would go from 100% to zero. Somewhere along the V/F curve I was hitting instability. This **** is time consuming, complicated, and frankly doesn't seem worth it. I feel like 5.1Ghz all-core with a fixed freq/voltage was more solid. Yes, the idle power usage is steadily higher (38-42watts with 5.1 fixed) but with this turbo ratio setup, power plan on balanced and just sitting at the Desktop, I was regularly seeing 60watt power usage as the chip would handle whatever Windows was doing. I run a very clean Windows without anything extra running in the background; I don't leave game launchers like Steam/B.Net etc running either.

Overall I'm a bit disappointed with it, especially since it was time consuming. The MSI BIOS is definitely not developed very well for this type of OCing either; I will say ASUS has the leg up in this regard.


----------



## arrow0309

Sync0r said:


> Yeah I'm delidid and direct die. I put the chip in the socket with an air cooler to check SP rating, then immediately delidid it when I saw SP101 lol


Exactly how are you going to delid it and then direct die if you don't mind sharing it mate?


----------



## acoustic

arrow0309 said:


> Exactly how are you going to delid it and then direct die if you don't mind sharing it mate?


I bought a RockitCool direct-die kit, and it's fairly simple. You can watch videos (I believe Derbauer has one on it), and RockItCool has a video as well. I put a blow-dryer on the IHS for about 3-4min, and then put it in the RockItCool de-lid tool. I gave it a couple turns to see how loose it had gotten. I got a little movement, so I put it back under heat for another minute or two and then she came right off. The kit comes with a direct-die mount and it worked perfectly with my EVGA 360 CLC. I had issues with contact, but that was due to the cooler coldplate being incredibly convex. I had to lap the coldplate, and now it works much better. It's still not perfect, but it's better.


----------



## arrow0309

acoustic said:


> I bought a RockitCool direct-die kit, and it's fairly simple. You can watch videos (I believe Derbauer has one on it), and RockItCool has a video as well. I put a blow-dryer on the IHS for about 3-4min, and then put it in the RockItCool de-lid tool. I gave it a couple turns to see how loose it had gotten. I got a little movement, so I put it back under heat for another minute or two and then she came right off. The kit comes with a direct-die mount and it worked perfectly with my EVGA 360 CLC. I had issues with contact, but that was due to the cooler coldplate being incredibly convex. I had to lap the coldplate, and now it works much better. It's still not perfect, but it's better.


I know that mate, I even have an account on their shop (bought one for my ex 7900X years ago) but I just don't wanna pay their stupid high shipping costs and also customs again.
I was asking him because it's from the UK (or at least that seems so according the the flag). 

Also there are different options / kits to buy from RockitCool


----------



## Sync0r

arrow0309 said:


> Exactly how are you going to delid it and then direct die if you don't mind sharing it mate?


I used the Der8auer delid tool and I bought the supercool computer direct die water block via Facebook messenger, you have to message the shop to buy it, was quite expensive, $130 I think plus import tax.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Sync0r said:


> After some testing I've got my 10900kf sp101 set at 5.5Ghz @ 1.376v loaded (1.48v LLC6). It will do 5.58Ghz 55 x 101.5 bclk with 1.46v (1.565v LLC6). Above 5.58Ghz it doesn't appear to be stable, increasing vcore doesn't help. Anyone know of any tricks to get a few more MHz for 5.6Ghz?
> Chiller?


LLC5 or 6 and a Chiller^^, temp is all at a good chip.


----------



## Sync0r

PhoenixMDA said:


> LLC5 or 6 and a Chiller^^, temp is all at a good chip.


Which chiller are you using?


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Sync0r said:


> Which chiller are you using?


No you see the H2O temp 17-18°, it's directdie and 2xddc an big radi 27x140mm for good H2O delta.^^


----------



## Sync0r

PhoenixMDA said:


> No you see the H2O temp 17-18°, it's directdie and 2xddc an big radi 27x140mm.^^
> View attachment 2490581


Nice, low ambient temps then, I might open a window or two tonight and give it a go.
Zalman reserator, takes me back!


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Yes the Zalman is my 3L AGB, it´s necessary because the Ek Dual Turbotop with 2xddc is really strong.
At PC Start the pump´s at full power and with my XPSC 500mm only foam through the hoses, from 180L+ i get air bubbles in the water.^^
With the 3L Water weight is quit and no air bubbles.👌


----------



## Imprezzion

arrow0309 said:


> I know that mate, I even have an account on their shop (bought one for my ex 7900X years ago) but I just don't wanna pay their stupid high shipping costs and also customs again.
> I was asking him because it's from the UK (or at least that seems so according the the flag).
> 
> Also there are different options / kits to buy from RockitCool


I bought the kit from the US straight to the Netherlands and it was pretty expensive shipping wise but still only like €28 shipping + customs. Total package was under €100 still. Fine with me. I use the direct die 10xxx kit with the direct die plate, no IHS and the EK mounting option for my Supremacy block. I didn't use the washers, plenty of pressure without. As a paste I use Coollaboratory Liquid Ultra as it works better then Conductonaut in general on bare die in my testing.

And I'm glad to see i'm not the only one that has issues with the advanced offset and it being horribly unstable when switching loads. I could always test it very easily by firing up Prime95 Small FFT AVX and then stopping the test after 10 seconds. It would 100% lock up or WHEA BSOD. You said you used +0.080, I needed +0.100 to make it stable but yeah same concept. Everything under x48 is +0.100, x51 is at -0.040, x52 at -0.110 and x53 at -0.120. This setup is totally stable at 5.3 all core with all power saving enabled so far including c-states and such. I run LLC4 with AC/DC advanced 20. Load voltages Prime95 Small FFT AVX 1.423v, Small FFT no AVX 1.396v, Large FFT AVX 1.416v, no AVX 1.390v. Light loads like half or quarter thread count or game loads are around 1.406-1.411v which is exactly what it needs. Temps low 70's in game, low 90's in Prime95 Small FFT AVX on. Pump in game running 70% as it whines a lot above that. Fans ~40% PWM 900 RPM. Single 280 EK Coolstream SE push pull Alpenfohn Wing Boost 3 ARGB fans (static pressure optimized).


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

I got 366s with 32M superpi. Is it normal or slow? Coz I saw sub 300s with 11900k .


----------



## acoustic

Imprezzion said:


> I bought the kit from the US straight to the Netherlands and it was pretty expensive shipping wise but still only like €28 shipping + customs. Total package was under €100 still. Fine with me. I use the direct die 10xxx kit with the direct die plate, no IHS and the EK mounting option for my Supremacy block. I didn't use the washers, plenty of pressure without. As a paste I use Coollaboratory Liquid Ultra as it works better then Conductonaut in general on bare die in my testing.
> 
> And I'm glad to see i'm not the only one that has issues with the advanced offset and it being horribly unstable when switching loads. I could always test it very easily by firing up Prime95 Small FFT AVX and then stopping the test after 10 seconds. It would 100% lock up or WHEA BSOD. You said you used +0.080, I needed +0.100 to make it stable but yeah same concept. Everything under x48 is +0.100, x51 is at -0.040, x52 at -0.110 and x53 at -0.120. This setup is totally stable at 5.3 all core with all power saving enabled so far including c-states and such. I run LLC4 with AC/DC advanced 20. Load voltages Prime95 Small FFT AVX 1.423v, Small FFT no AVX 1.396v, Large FFT AVX 1.416v, no AVX 1.390v. Light loads like half or quarter thread count or game loads are around 1.406-1.411v which is exactly what it needs. Temps low 70's in game, low 90's in Prime95 Small FFT AVX on. Pump in game running 70% as it whines a lot above that. Fans ~40% PWM 900 RPM. Single 280 EK Coolstream SE push pull Alpenfohn Wing Boost 3 ARGB fans (static pressure optimized).


How are you adjusting AC/DC LL? With Advanced Offset, the AC/DC LL is greyed out for me. I'm honestly noticing it glitches a LOT in the BIOS when it looks like it should be available.


----------



## Imprezzion

acoustic said:


> How are you adjusting AC/DC LL? With Advanced Offset, the AC/DC LL is greyed out for me. I'm honestly noticing it glitches a LOT in the BIOS when it looks like it should be available.


They are not greyed out for me lol. What BIOS version are you running? The latest .170? I'll make some screenshots. Gotta find a USB drive first lol.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

PhoenixMDA said:


> No you see the H2O temp 17-18°, it's directdie and 2xddc an big radi 27x140mm for good H2O delta.^^
> View attachment 2490581


2 mora and 17-18c water. What is your ambient? I have 3 mora and put them at the corner of the room and the delta is 5c so I switched to a chiller for daily usage.


----------



## Imprezzion

acoustic said:


> How are you adjusting AC/DC LL? With Advanced Offset, the AC/DC LL is greyed out for me. I'm honestly noticing it glitches a LOT in the BIOS when it looks like it should be available.


Slight difference, I'm running 1 mOhm not 20 at the moment, this is a bit easier to regulate with Mode_4 LLC.


----------



## acoustic

Imprezzion said:


> They are not greyed out for me lol. What BIOS version are you running? The latest .170? I'll make some screenshots. Gotta find a USB drive first lol.


It makes no sense, and it has to be a glitch. If I set Voltage to Adaptive and VCore to Auto, it'll unlock and stay unlocked unless I input a voltage. What else is weird, is that if I set Adaptive, it completely ignores the voltage I put in the vCore spot, even though it's available and not greyed out; at the same time, AC/DC LL will also be greyed out, so when I'm using Adaptive, I basically have zero control over vCore besides LLC, or setting Adaptive Auto and controlling through AC/DC LL.

The BIOS is definitely glitchy and makes no sense. If I set Adaptive Auto, it'll keep AC/DC LL unlocked if I go to Offset. If I go to Advanced Offset, it will grey out again.

This is on the latest BIOS for Re-BAR support.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Thanh Nguyen said:


> 2 mora and 17-18c water. What is your ambient? I have 3 mora and put them at the corner of the room and the delta is 5c so I switched to a chiller for daily usage.


I have regulate 3° delta for 24/7 up to 800/min for the 27 fan´s, last in the chain the Zalman is also to cooling down.
i can hold arround the 3° for arround 400-450W

The fan´s take less current all at max. 27W and regulate 5W idle to 11W, that´s really not much.A Chiller is loud and take´s much current.
My temp´s are good Graka in 24/7 arround 27°-35° and CPU 35-45° by gaming, no more necessary.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

PhoenixMDA said:


> I have regulate 3° delta for 24/7 up to 800/min for the 27 fan´s, last in the chain the Zalman is also to cooling down.
> i can hold arround the 3° for arround 400-450W


Ok. I put 1000w+ on 3 mora so 5c delta.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

For what^^I dont need more i have enough FPS.
My graka is shunt modded Watt*1,25, the good thing is it´s quit^^.


----------



## arrow0309

Imprezzion said:


> I bought the kit from the US straight to the Netherlands and it was pretty expensive shipping wise but still only like €28 shipping + customs. Total package was under €100 still. Fine with me. I use the direct die 10xxx kit with the direct die plate, no IHS and the EK mounting option for my Supremacy block. I didn't use the washers, plenty of pressure without. As a paste I use Coollaboratory Liquid Ultra as it works better then Conductonaut in general on bare die in my testing.
> 
> And I'm glad to see i'm not the only one that has issues with the advanced offset and it being horribly unstable when switching loads. I could always test it very easily by firing up Prime95 Small FFT AVX and then stopping the test after 10 seconds. It would 100% lock up or WHEA BSOD. You said you used +0.080, I needed +0.100 to make it stable but yeah same concept. Everything under x48 is +0.100, x51 is at -0.040, x52 at -0.110 and x53 at -0.120. This setup is totally stable at 5.3 all core with all power saving enabled so far including c-states and such. I run LLC4 with AC/DC advanced 20. Load voltages Prime95 Small FFT AVX 1.423v, Small FFT no AVX 1.396v, Large FFT AVX 1.416v, no AVX 1.390v. Light loads like half or quarter thread count or game loads are around 1.406-1.411v which is exactly what it needs. Temps low 70's in game, low 90's in Prime95 Small FFT AVX on. Pump in game running 70% as it whines a lot above that. Fans ~40% PWM 900 RPM. Single 280 EK Coolstream SE push pull Alpenfohn Wing Boost 3 ARGB fans (static pressure optimized).


Thanks pal, you mean this kit?









Direct Die Kit - Intel 9th & 10th Gen - Complete


Direct Die frame - Intel 9th & 10th Gen CPUs - Complete kit CNC machined to tight tolerances All the tools needed to delid CPU, install frame and adapt cooling solutions. Waterblock sits directly on the CPU DIE for maximum cooling Tough Cerakote finish Easy to install, no modifications needed...




rockitcool.myshopify.com





It also includes the soldering cleaning part stuff like Quicksilver and / or other solvents?
You said you didn't use washers, do you mean the square socket one?



https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1134/8418/products/Gasket_39e9696b-fcb1-4cc4-b2f9-bf29c146b48a_1024x1024.gif?v=1596814507





Imprezzion said:


> Slight difference, I'm running 1 mOhm not 20 at the moment, this is a bit easier to regulate with Mode_4 LLC.
> 
> View attachment 2490671
> 
> 
> View attachment 2490672
> 
> 
> View attachment 2490667
> 
> 
> View attachment 2490668
> 
> 
> View attachment 2490669
> 
> 
> View attachment 2490670


You mind sharing your ram timings and vdram?
Cause I can't get mine stable at 4400:



https://i.ibb.co/BCWGQjD/Ram-test-4400-01-stable.jpg



Went up a tad with dram, io and sa voltages:



https://i.ibb.co/bL8YF2d/Ram-test-4400-02-Aida.jpg



But it still crashes / bsod with Realbench
So I was thinking at 4200.


----------



## Imprezzion

arrow0309 said:


> Thanks pal, you mean this kit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Direct Die Kit - Intel 9th & 10th Gen - Complete
> 
> 
> Direct Die frame - Intel 9th & 10th Gen CPUs - Complete kit CNC machined to tight tolerances All the tools needed to delid CPU, install frame and adapt cooling solutions. Waterblock sits directly on the CPU DIE for maximum cooling Tough Cerakote finish Easy to install, no modifications needed...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rockitcool.myshopify.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It also includes the soldering cleaning part stuff like Quicksilver and / or other solvents?
> You said you didn't use washers, do you mean the square socket one?
> 
> 
> 
> https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1134/8418/products/Gasket_39e9696b-fcb1-4cc4-b2f9-bf29c146b48a_1024x1024.gif?v=1596814507
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mind sharing your ram timings and vdram?
> Cause I can't get mine stable at 4400:
> 
> 
> 
> https://i.ibb.co/BCWGQjD/Ram-test-4400-01-stable.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> Went up a tad with dram, io and sa voltages:
> 
> 
> 
> https://i.ibb.co/bL8YF2d/Ram-test-4400-02-Aida.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> But it still crashes / bsod with Realbench
> So I was thinking at 4200.


Yup that one. If you select a mount option (custom waterblock) it gives you washers to space the backplate from the motherboard to give it more mounting pressure / space for when there's no IHS but I didn't need them with the EK Supremacy mount. 

Here's the RAM screenshots. Voltage is 1.400v. I can use these exact same timings at 4400 as well with 1.500v but this is far more temperature efficient.


----------



## arrow0309

Imprezzion said:


> Yup that one. If you select a mount option (custom waterblock) it gives you washers to space the backplate from the motherboard to give it more mounting pressure / space for when there's no IHS but I didn't need them with the EK Supremacy mount.
> 
> Here's the RAM screenshots. Voltage is 1.400v. I can use these exact same timings at 4400 as well with 1.500v but this is far more temperature efficient.
> 
> View attachment 2490686
> 
> 
> View attachment 2490687
> 
> 
> View attachment 2490688
> 
> 
> View attachment 2490689


Thank you, yeah, the EK springs are real stiff, I'm sure my Velocity won't need those washers as well.
I'll see to it soon.

Also I'm gonna try your settings, I'm curious if they're gonna hold well on my dual rank 2x16gb.
I assume the vccio and sa are those from the other page, 1.25 - 1.35v aren't they?


----------



## acoustic

I did the stupid trick to get AC/DC Loadline to become available to edit. I'm running Advanced 2/2 on AC/DC LL now with Mode 6 LLC. 5.2Ghz all-core with dynamic ratio, and under load getting 1.36-1.365v under load. I noticed @Imprezzion that you're not running TVB Voltage Optimization, but my voltage is out of control if I have that off; load voltage will be 1.515v and go crazy. If I try to offset it, I end up with too low of an idle voltage.

My chip VID goes insane after 5.1Ghz. It's a real struggle trying to get 5.2Ghz stable. I'm running into a wall with my EVGA CLC where Core4 hits 90-93c during Realbench and I can pretty much guarantee you that's what is causing the stray Cache L0 error to appear. I'm getting more and more fed up with this cooler, especially after all the work I had to do just to get the direct-die working properly due to how convex the coldplate was. Regardless of size, no 28mm thick radiator is meant to try and dissipate 290w+ of heat.


----------



## Imprezzion

I don't use TVB Voltage Optimization cause I'm not using TVB lol. It's a fixed Turbo Ratio OC not a TVB one with different speeds per amount of cores. TVB Voltage will change Voltage depending on temperature and I don't want that. I always want the same Voltage, so I don't use it.


----------



## acoustic

Okay, I just did a CMOS clear and brain drain. I'm seeing some strange stuff out of the BIOS settings that just don't make sense. If I left TVB Voltage Optimization disabled, I was essentially losing control of my vCore all together. With TVB optimization enabled, the vCore was mostly functional but too high and causing my Core4 to hit 95c and slap me with a L0 Cache error. I was setting my offsets in massive sweeps to see if anything changed and it always gave me the same voltage every time..

I'm half tempted to just reflash the BIOS. The whole fiasco with Advanced Offset not unlocking my AC/DC LL settings is also incredibly weird. While I love this MSI board, I have to say .. I've never had these kind of strange bugs with ASUS.


----------



## fray_bentos

Imprezzion said:


> Yup that one. If you select a mount option (custom waterblock) it gives you washers to space the backplate from the motherboard to give it more mounting pressure / space for when there's no IHS but I didn't need them with the EK Supremacy mount.
> 
> Here's the RAM screenshots. Voltage is 1.400v. I can use these exact same timings at 4400 as well with 1.500v but this is far more temperature efficient.
> 
> View attachment 2490686
> 
> 
> View attachment 2490687
> 
> 
> View attachment 2490688
> 
> 
> View attachment 2490689


I suspect the real limitations are your SA and IO voltages. What are you using?


----------



## Imprezzion

fray_bentos said:


> I suspect the real limitations are your SA and IO voltages. What are you using?


For 4200 I use 1.35v SA 1.25v IO and for 4400 1.40v SA 1.30v IO. And limit in what exactly? Hehe. I am testing out now if I can drop the tRDWR to like, 12 ish with 1.40v and so far it's doing fine on all 12's but I only did some raids in Division 2, didn't actually TestMem5 it yet.


----------



## fray_bentos

Imprezzion said:


> For 4200 I use 1.35v SA 1.25v IO and for 4400 1.40v SA 1.30v IO. And limit in what exactly? Hehe. I am testing out now if I can drop the tRDWR to like, 12 ish with 1.40v and so far it's doing fine on all 12's but I only did some raids in Division 2, didn't actually TestMem5 it yet.


Thanks. Limit as in personally I wouldn't got that high for 4400. I am currently on 1.20 V for SA and IO at 4200 16-16-16-36 with 1.45 Vdimm. My prior 10600K could only hit 3900 14-15-15-33 with the same voltages (i.e IMC SA/IO limited).


----------



## fray_bentos

acoustic said:


> How are you adjusting AC/DC LL? With Advanced Offset, the AC/DC LL is greyed out for me. I'm honestly noticing it glitches a LOT in the BIOS when it looks like it should be available.


I think this might be designed behaviour. I am fairly sure that MSI only allows lite load (i.e. Loadline) to be changed when set on certain voltage settings ("auto" for sure), and perhaps also certain LLC combinations. This might be to prevent people from frying their CPUs with huge voltages under certain "bad" combinations. However, I am not 100% certain on the detailed behaviour, but Lite Load is only "ungreyed" on my board only in certain circumstances.


----------



## Astral85

What are your guys temps like playing BFV? I'm a bit miffed to see people reporting 10900K's with 5.1 (or more) OC's running BFV in the 50's with CLC's while I'm seeing peak core temps of 79C with a custom loop.


----------



## arrow0309

Imprezzion said:


> For 4200 I use 1.35v SA 1.25v IO and for 4400 1.40v SA 1.30v IO. And limit in what exactly? Hehe. I am testing out now if I can drop the tRDWR to like, 12 ish with 1.40v and so far it's doing fine on all 12's but I only did some raids in Division 2, didn't actually TestMem5 it yet.


I've managed to get the day off and trying your settings, they're just great mate: 











Yeah, for now I've left at their defaults (Auto) all those turn around timings and the RTL /IOL, only have set the PPD to 0.
But I'm pretty happy with the results anyway, testing with Karhu Memtest right now and seems stable.
Keep you informed 

EDIT:
Memtest error at 599%
I think 1.40v is a bit low for my ram, I'm trying with 1.45v

EDIT2:
With 1.45v I'm getting no aida cache & memory readings, all 0, ***?


----------



## Imprezzion

Might be. I'm running this low because I had issues with the GPU backplate putting a lot of heat into my DIMM's and getting errors due to temperature. They get unstable above 47-48c like most B-Die does at the edge of stability. I used to run 4200C15 @ 1.60v or 4400C17 @ 1.50v both of which can hit 50c even with a fan if ambients are hot enough lol.

Maybe I should get the vertical mount for my case..


----------



## arrow0309

Imprezzion said:


> Might be. I'm running this low because I had issues with the GPU backplate putting a lot of heat into my DIMM's and getting errors due to temperature. They get unstable above 47-48c like most B-Die does at the edge of stability. I used to run 4200C15 @ 1.60v or 4400C17 @ 1.50v both of which can hit 50c even with a fan if ambients are hot enough lol.
> 
> Maybe I should get the vertical mount for my case..


Or you (better) put your vga under water as well 
Anyway, strange with that behaviour of Aida64 cachemem before, at 1.45v, lowered to 1.42v and it's OK again:










I've also got one iol not perfect before, at 1.45v, like 1.40v was 4/8/4/8, then t'was 4/8/4/9 and now at 1.42 it's 4/8/4/8 again.
Let's try with Karhu Memtest again.


----------



## Imprezzion

You can pull those back in by adjusting the offset values. I run 23/21 otherwise mine are 7/7/9/9. I did test tRDWR on 12 in TM5 and it seemed fine but it did just randomly crash once when alt-tabbing out of a game so.. going back to 14.

And I like running 5.3 all core with 4.8 cache but it's getting very very hot at the 1.420-1.430v it needs.. games like BFV and Division 2 will go as high as 72-74c across the cores with power draw approaching 290w sometimes so... Maybe I should just go back to 5.1/4.8 which needs so much less voltage it barely touched 55c..


----------



## arrow0309

Imprezzion said:


> You can pull those back in by adjusting the offset values. I run 23/21 otherwise mine are 7/7/9/9. I did test tRDWR on 12 in TM5 and it seemed fine but it did just randomly crash once when alt-tabbing out of a game so.. going back to 14.


I don't understand why can't I just get stable with the turnaround and rtl / iol timings at their auto values (less tight), getting the same error at ~ 500% in Memtest (Karhu) even with 1.42v.
Maybe I should loosen one or two primary (or secondary) timings. 



Imprezzion said:


> And I like running 5.3 all core with 4.8 cache but it's getting very very hot at the 1.420-1.430v it needs.. games like BFV and Division 2 will go as high as 72-74c across the cores with power draw approaching 290w sometimes so... Maybe I should just go back to 5.1/4.8 which needs so much less voltage it barely touched 55c..


Imho 5.2 is the sweet oc spot for these 10900K, I wouldn't go over in daily gaming even if delidded.


----------



## acoustic

Imprezzion has a decent bin chip. My chip takes 1.285v under load for 5.1, and then a massive leap to 1.37v under load for 5.2. I haven't even bothered trying 5.3, as my EVGA CLC can't keep up despite being direct-die. This is an SP63 chip. My VID prior to 5.2 is pretty good, but once you hit that 52x ratio, it goes absolutely bananas; the VID by default is like 1.515v.

I've finally got the power saving settings enabled, with an All-Core 5.1Ghz OC. I was playing Hell Let Loose for a few hrs last night and it was smooth as butter as it's always been. I tried to make 5.2Ghz work, but I have one core that will spike 10c over the others (due to my mediocre lapping job on the EVGA CLC probably) that just gets too hot and will hit me with a Cache L0 error during Realbench. It'll go about 20-30min, and then as soon as the core touches 95c for a split second, boom! Cache L0 pops up.

Honestly, I'm not CPU limited at 5.1Ghz with a 3840x1600 resolution, so it doesn't matter. I was just bored. I'm glad I finally figured out the adaptive stuff; I've been so stuck in the old ways of fixed all-core OCs with fixed voltage and power savings all disabled. My PC is never left on unless it's being used, so it never bothered me much, but it's nice to have figured it out.


----------



## arrow0309

acoustic said:


> Imprezzion has a decent bin chip. My chip takes 1.285v under load for 5.1, and then a massive leap to 1.37v under load for 5.2. I haven't even bothered trying 5.3, as my EVGA CLC can't keep up despite being direct-die. This is an SP63 chip. My VID prior to 5.2 is pretty good, but once you hit that 52x ratio, it goes absolutely bananas; the VID by default is like 1.515v.
> 
> I've finally got the power saving settings enabled, with an All-Core 5.1Ghz OC. I was playing Hell Let Loose for a few hrs last night and it was smooth as butter as it's always been. I tried to make 5.2Ghz work, but I have one core that will spike 10c over the others (due to my mediocre lapping job on the EVGA CLC probably) that just gets too hot and will hit me with a Cache L0 error during Realbench. It'll go about 20-30min, and then as soon as the core touches 95c for a split second, boom! Cache L0 pops up.
> 
> Honestly, I'm not CPU limited at 5.1Ghz with a 3840x1600 resolution, so it doesn't matter. I was just bored. I'm glad I finally figured out the adaptive stuff; I've been so stuck in the old ways of fixed all-core OCs with fixed voltage and power savings all disabled. My PC is never left on unless it's being used, so it never bothered me much, but it's nice to have figured it out.


I think you better raise the cpu protection temp to 105° during the Realbench stress test (or other intensive avx stress tests) because if the temp protection kicks in and then the throttling with all the vrm / transient changes it will only do worse fort the stress test and with possible crashes for that instead. 
Anyway you'll be fine at 5.1ghz as well, an AIO is simply not enough for higher tdp's imo. 

@Imprezzion 
Switched back to 1.40 dram but raised the vccio to 1.30v, managed to get to 1052% coverage in Karhu then 1 error. 
Now I'm trying with the both vccio and sa at 1.35v.
Maybe my dual rank dimms stress the imc more, testing right now, seems stable (core max 62, dimm 1 max 47).


----------



## Imprezzion

arrow0309 said:


> I think you better raise the cpu protection temp to 105° during the Realbench stress test (or other intensive avx stress tests) because if the temp protection kicks in and then the throttling with all the vrm / transient changes it will only do worse fort the stress test and with possible crashes for that instead.
> Anyway you'll be fine at 5.1ghz as well, an AIO is simply not enough for higher tdp's imo.
> 
> @Imprezzion
> Switched back to 1.40 dram but raised the vccio to 1.30v, managed to get to 1052% coverage in Karhu then 1 error.
> Now I'm trying with the both vccio and sa at 1.35v.
> Maybe my dual rank dimms stress the imc more, testing right now, seems stable (core max 62, dimm 1 max 47).


Mine are dual rank as well. They need a lot of SA. IO not that much. SA 1.35v needed for 4200 1.40v for 4400 and at least 1.45v for anything above 4400.
I can do 5.3 on 1.420v (direct die with liquid metal) 5.2 on 1.334v and 5.1 at 1.270v. Problem with 5.1 @ 1.270v is that that's not enough for 4.8 cache and I can't adjust cache voltage seperately.. I really do not wanna drop the cache speed any lower lol..


----------



## arrow0309

Imprezzion said:


> Mine are dual rank as well. They need a lot of SA. IO not that much. SA 1.35v needed for 4200 1.40v for 4400 and at least 1.45v for anything above 4400.
> I can do 5.3 on 1.420v (direct die with liquid metal) 5.2 on 1.334v and 5.1 at 1.270v. Problem with 5.1 @ 1.270v is that that's not enough for 4.8 cache and I can't adjust cache voltage seperately.. I really do not wanna drop the cache speed any lower lol..


Then I don't know, tried again with the both IO and SA at 1.35v and it still gives me the bloody error at ~1200% coverage.
5.2Ghz, 1.38v override, cache at 4.7 (with this last bios) but I was keeping it at 4.8 with the last beta BIOS so I don't think it's the cache.
So it seems I either have a less binned imc / cpu or a less capable ram (or both) so right now I really don't know what timings or voltages to try.


----------



## Imprezzion

Try this: SA 1.35 IO 1.30 RAM 1.45 and 4400Mhz 17-17-17-36-340-2T and leave everything else timing and RTL wise on Auto. If it passes, the IMC and RAM is decent and just needs some more tuning. If it fails, try again with 1.50 and 1.55 RAM, if the errors don't go away or change in terms of percentage it's the IMC. If they do go away the RAM is pretty poor bin.

If it doesn't POST at those timings try 1.40 SA 1.35 IO or even 1.45 SA. If that fixes not POSTing the IMC is bad.


----------



## arrow0309

Imprezzion said:


> Try this: SA 1.35 IO 1.30 RAM 1.45 and 4400Mhz 17-17-17-36-340-2T and leave everything else timing and RTL wise on Auto. If it passes, the IMC and RAM is decent and just needs some more tuning. If it fails, try again with 1.50 and 1.55 RAM, if the errors don't go away or change in terms of percentage it's the IMC. If they do go away the RAM is pretty poor bin.
> 
> If it doesn't POST at those timings try 1.40 SA 1.35 IO or even 1.45 SA. If that fixes not POSTing the IMC is bad.


You're sure about the freq? 4400? not 4200?
Running the Memtest at 4400 anyway for testing SA 1.35 IO 1.30 RAM 1.45.


----------



## Imprezzion

arrow0309 said:


> You're sure about the freq? 4400? not 4200?
> Running the Memtest at 4400 anyway for testing SA 1.35 IO 1.30 RAM 1.45.


Yeah 4400 because we want to test the overall bin. Any B-Die will do 4200. 4400 is where it gets more a comparison of good bins. And we wanna know if the IMC is a problem or not. Also same thing, 4400 is enough load to discern between bad tuning and a bad IMC lol.


----------



## arrow0309

Imprezzion said:


> Yeah 4400 because we want to test the overall bin. Any B-Die will do 4200. 4400 is where it gets more a comparison of good bins. And we wanna know if the IMC is a problem or not. Also same thing, 4400 is enough load to discern between bad tuning and a bad IMC lol.


OK thanks, so it's up and running right now, 1.45v weren't just enough and I got the error on Karhu Memtest at ~200% but now with 1.50v it's over 2800% (over 1h) and running without errors.
On Karhu they say you'll have to run at least 6500% for a decent stability.

Anyway I've thrown a 120mm fan over the ram, got 39.8°C max lol.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Astral85 said:


> What are your guys temps like playing BFV? I'm a bit miffed to see people reporting 10900K's with 5.1 (or more) OC's running BFV in the 50's with CLC's while I'm seeing peak core temps of 79C with a custom loop.
> 
> View attachment 2490779


That is a question of quality CPU how high is the needed voltage, at allcore and without curve is also less.More watt=more temp.
With directdie or not, how much water flow you have and how high are the water temp´s.
Here is my at 5,1ghz 1,23V LLC5 with 26°H2O [email protected], BF5 has heavy cpu load for a game.It´s like best case.


----------



## arrow0309

Imprezzion said:


> Try this: SA 1.35 IO 1.30 RAM 1.45 and 4400Mhz 17-17-17-36-340-2T and leave everything else timing and RTL wise on Auto. If it passes, the IMC and RAM is decent and just needs some more tuning. If it fails, try again with 1.50 ...
> [... cut ...]


OK passed with 1.50v:










How is it?
And now returning at 4200 c17, maybe loosen some of those secondary timings will help?

Secondary timings only (since the Turnaround Timings were all left on Auto anyway) which of these I should increase (or Trefi decrease)?



https://www.overclock.net/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,onerror=redirect,width=1920,height=1920,fit=scale-down/https://www.overclock.net/attachments/ramtimings-png.2490686/





https://www.overclock.net/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,onerror=redirect,width=1920,height=1920,fit=scale-down/https://www.overclock.net/attachments/ramtimings_01-png.2490687/


----------



## Astral85

PhoenixMDA said:


> That is a question of quality CPU how high is the needed voltage, at allcore and without curve is also less.More watt=more temp.
> With directdie or not, how much water flow you have and how high are the water temp´s.
> Here is my at 5,1ghz 1,23V LLC5 with 26°H2O [email protected], BF5 has heavy cpu load for a game.It´s like best case.
> View attachment 2511261


You're stable with 5.1 x 10 @ 1.23V in BFV? That is a very low voltage, how is that possible? Do you have a high SP chip?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Deleted


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Deleted


----------



## PhoenixMDA

@Astral85
Very good chip only SP83, but much better as the SP says.my chip is more like SP100+.
The most sp90 + can´t do this.
5,1ghz 1,23V LLC5 is also primestable or occt.
undelidded at 14°H2O was possible to do 5,[email protected] 1,134V load Voltage 45min prime custom run with whea.

I know that one sp107 chip is at 5,4ghz 20mv better as my and at 5,5ghz its more, the chip scale better.


----------



## Imprezzion

arrow0309 said:


> OK passed with 1.50v:
> 
> View attachment 2511272
> 
> 
> How is it?
> And now returning at 4200 c17, maybe loosen some of those secondary timings will help?
> 
> Secondary timings only (since the Turnaround Timings were all left on Auto anyway) which of these I should increase (or Trefi decrease)?
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.overclock.net/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,onerror=redirect,width=1920,height=1920,fit=scale-down/https://www.overclock.net/attachments/ramtimings-png.2490686/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.overclock.net/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,onerror=redirect,width=1920,height=1920,fit=scale-down/https://www.overclock.net/attachments/ramtimings_01-png.2490687/


Well, we now know the IMC isn't a problem. Your DIMM's are worse bin then mine but not terrible. They do 4400C17 at a somewhat reasonable voltage. If temps are good for the RAM (not above 46-47c due to temperature instability) you can stick with that and just drop the secondary / tertiary timings.

Most of them have difficult formulas that determine what should be what, same with RTL/IO, but in general I would always start with tWR, tCWL and tFAW + tRRD_s and l. See if it'll do 16 tWR, 16 tCWL, 16 tFAW, 4 tRRD_s and 6 tRRD_l. If that passes, go on to the other timings. RTL/IO last. Be sure to check and read the Intel memory 24/7 topic and this guide.









integralfx/MemTestHelper


C# WPF to automate HCI MemTest. Contribute to integralfx/MemTestHelper development by creating an account on GitHub.




github.com





That guide is pretty much gospel hehe.


----------



## arrow0309

Imprezzion said:


> Well, we now know the IMC isn't a problem. Your DIMM's are worse bin then mine but not terrible. They do 4400C17 at a somewhat reasonable voltage. If temps are good for the RAM (not above 46-47c due to temperature instability) you can stick with that and just drop the secondary / tertiary timings.
> 
> Most of them have difficult formulas that determine what should be what, same with RTL/IO, but in general I would always start with tWR, tCWL and tFAW + tRRD_s and l. See if it'll do 16 tWR, 16 tCWL, 16 tFAW, 4 tRRD_s and 6 tRRD_l. If that passes, go on to the other timings. RTL/IO last. Be sure to check and read the Intel memory 24/7 topic and this guide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> integralfx/MemTestHelper
> 
> 
> C# WPF to automate HCI MemTest. Contribute to integralfx/MemTestHelper development by creating an account on GitHub.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> github.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That guide is pretty much gospel hehe.


Thanks but temperature wise I'd like to go with 4200, same primary timings, a bit less IO / SA, 1.40 - 1.42 vdram.
Shall I start with the same 16 tWR, 16 tCWL, 16 tFAW, 4 tRRD_s and 6 tRRD?

Edit:
Maybe I'll give 4400 another try, what the hell.


----------



## fray_bentos

arrow0309 said:


> Thanks but temperature wise I'd like to go with 4200, same primary timings, a bit less IO / SA, 1.40 - 1.42 vdram.
> Shall I start with the same 16 tWR, 16 tCWL, 16 tFAW, 4 tRRD_s and 6 tRRD?


As an aside, I'm on F4-3600C15D-16GTZ (SR B die), 4200 16-16-16-36, 330, 32000, and that is working out well for me so far at 1.45 Vdimm, 1.20 SA, 1.20 IO. RAM temps <42 C, but that depends on case airflow. Likely room for further tweaking when I have the patience (might drop 36 to 33-34). I haven't tried lowering Vdimm yet (but I needed that for my prior 10600K before this current 10900KF).


----------



## Imprezzion

Still the idle crashes.. it will sit at the desktop idle for hours but as soon as I use like light stuff like chrome or RuneScape or whatever it just still randomly crashes every few hours.. no event log, no WHEA, no bsod, just a hard freeze. This adaptive offset / LLC / AC DC stuff is getting really freaking annoying on this MSI board..


----------



## arrow0309

fray_bentos said:


> As an aside, I'm on F4-3600C15D-16GTZ (SR B die), 4200 16-16-16-36, 330, 32000, and that is working out well for me so far at 1.45 Vdimm, 1.20 SA, 1.20 IO. RAM temps <42 C, but that depends on case airflow. Likely room for further tweaking when I have the patience (might drop 36 to 33-34). I haven't tried lowering Vdimm yet (but I needed that for my prior 10600K before this current 10900KF).


Hmmmmmm, I might try that but I doubt it will hold especially with those low voltages.



Imprezzion said:


> Still the idle crashes.. it will sit at the desktop idle for hours but as soon as I use like light stuff like chrome or RuneScape or whatever it just still randomly crashes every few hours.. no event log, no WHEA, no bsod, just a hard freeze. This adaptive offset / LLC / AC DC stuff is getting really freaking annoying on this MSI board..


I know, next time will come back to the Asus ROG at least a Hero, for now I'm OK with the classical vcore override, even with the Dynamic OC.
Anyway, tried those timings you said above (16 tWR, 16 tCWL, 16 tFAW, 4 tRRD_s and 6 tRRD_l ) and got an error pretty soon at ~250% on Karhu.


----------



## Imprezzion

arrow0309 said:


> Hmmmmmm, I might try that but I doubt it will hold especially with those low voltages.
> 
> 
> 
> I know, next time will come back to the Asus ROG at least a Hero, for now I'm OK with the classical vcore override, even with the Dynamic OC.
> Anyway, tried those timings you said above (16 tWR, 16 tCWL, 16 tFAW, 4 tRRD_s and 6 tRRD_l ) and got an error pretty soon at ~250% on Karhu.


Yeah I usually avoid gigabyte because their BIOS is pretty trash in general but this is shockingly bad.. I like everything else about the Ace but honestly I should've gone for either a Strix-E or a Hero or even a Apex even tho that is kind of a different price point all together.

Also found out there's no way to disable the additional 0.05v AVX voltage MSI gives it no matter what settings you use. I can get regulation without AVX so tight that ANY load from idle to 1 core to 5 cores to 20 cores is exactly 1.406v. And then I do a AVX test. Instantly 1.454v.. even with only 1 thread. It's like no, you need this. No actually I don't board.

I also know exactly what is causing the crashes. It's cache clock combined with the adaptive / offset. If I leave cache on Auto (4300) it's totally fine on any setting. As soon as you manually set the cache frequency it will drop voltage before it drops cache speed in power saving so that's why it crashes.

I can replicate this super easy. Just set 5.1 all core @ adaptive + offset -0.030 with LLC 3 and AC/DC 1 which is 1.291v. With manual 4.8 cache it will instantly crash once desktop is loaded. Every boot. Put the cache on Auto (4300) and it runs fine. Idles fine, clocks down just fine, no crashes.


----------



## fray_bentos

arrow0309 said:


> Hmmmmmm, I might try that but I doubt it will hold especially with those low voltages.


Well, I'm using nothing fancy; 1.20 V SA and 1.20 V IO worked fine on both a 10600K and 10900KF on a lowly MSI Z490-A PRO. Edit: I now see above DR might need higher SA voltages; mine is SR.



Imprezzion said:


> I also know exactly what is causing the crashes. It's cache clock combined with the adaptive / offset. If I leave cache on Auto (4300) it's totally fine on any setting. As soon as you manually set the cache frequency it will drop voltage before it drops cache speed in power saving so that's why it crashes.
> 
> I can replicate this super easy. Just set 5.1 all core @ adaptive + offset -0.030 with LLC 3 and AC/DC 1 which is 1.291v. With manual 4.8 cache it will instantly crash once desktop is loaded. Every boot. Put the cache on Auto (4300) and it runs fine. Idles fine, clocks down just fine, no crashes.


This mirrors my own experiences on two different CML CPUs (10600K and 10900KF) when pursuing adaptive voltage overclocks. Those chips weren't truly stable (i.e. no level0 cache errors) until I eventually worked down to cache ratios of 45x (10600K @ 4.9 GHz and 10900KF @5.2 GHz both adaptive all core). Meanwhile, some claim to have stable cache ratios just 200-300 MHz under their CPU ratio, but are still chasing "better" overclocks and true stability. Back off on the cache and rare/occassional stability issues/l0 cache errors quickly become a thing of the past... I similarly note @Falkentyne commenting that one of his 10900Ks was not stable unless cache was lowered to 45x. Cache overclocking gives barely any difference in benchmarks in my experience anyway, so best to take it easy. I've only had this 10900KF for a week, so I expect that I may need to lower cache further when I get future sporadic L0 cache error(s), but that's just the reality of the situation. Pumping more Vcore/higher LLC just to get a stable higher speed cache (with little performance benefit) isn't worth it at the cost of ramping up power, heat, and current (and with it, the increased risk of degradation). I suspect this scenario contributes to view that adaptive isn't as stable as fixed voltage/clocks, and also leads to the use of more aggressive LLC settings (since such settings sustain higher voltages).


----------



## Imprezzion

I get that, the problem is not the voltage under load tho. On fixed voltage its perfectly stable at 48 and even 49 cache if I run 5.3 all core with the needed voltage. It's just that it crashes somehow with adaptive and when it switches loads and clocks dynamically. Almost like it requests 4.8 cache with a core clock that is x48 or lower and doesn't give the required voltage at that point.

I tested it with 5.1 @ 1.290v now and it is stable in switching loads up to 45 cache. 46 freezes occasionally and 47 instantly freezes. On fixed voltage it's fine at 47. 48 gives L0 errors at 1.290 5.2 but at 1.344v 5.2 it's fine again.


----------



## acoustic

Imprezzion said:


> Still the idle crashes.. it will sit at the desktop idle for hours but as soon as I use like light stuff like chrome or RuneScape or whatever it just still randomly crashes every few hours.. no event log, no WHEA, no bsod, just a hard freeze. This adaptive offset / LLC / AC DC stuff is getting really freaking annoying on this MSI board..


Try +.120 at x8, and +.100 on everything before 48x. 48x I'm running +.040. Try that. I've noticed my crashes were coming from the 48x multi.


----------



## Cpfan1

Are there any super secret settings to prever overwatch from randomly crashing to desktop? i would like to test my cpu in prime95 for more than 1 hour but i dont play prime

Trained
llc5 
Vrm something-something extreme/extreme
Spread specturm disabled
1.38 io 1.39 sa
HT off
1.41 vcore


----------



## Cpfan1

Also would appreciate any apex 12 bios profiles to examine 🙃


----------



## fray_bentos

Imprezzion said:


> I get that, the problem is not the voltage under load tho. On fixed voltage its perfectly stable at 48 and even 49 cache if I run 5.3 all core with the needed voltage. It's just that it crashes somehow with adaptive and when it switches loads and clocks dynamically. Almost like it requests 4.8 cache with a core clock that is x48 or lower and doesn't give the required voltage at that point.
> 
> I tested it with 5.1 @ 1.290v now and it is stable in switching loads up to 45 cache. 46 freezes occasionally and 47 instantly freezes. On fixed voltage it's fine at 47. 48 gives L0 errors at 1.290 5.2 but at 1.344v 5.2 it's fine again.


Have you tried LLC6? I have best outcomes with both of my CML CPUs on MSI boards when running adaptive with LLC6 and 1.40 or 1.41 V set on BIOS. The highest I have seen Vcore reported on my 10900KF is 1.340 whether under light or heavy load, and this board lacks proper die sense, so the actual voltage is probably lower than that. I wonder if LLC6 happens to give the best control of transients when voltages are bouncing around as they do in adaptive mode. For example, I (believe that I am) currently stable at 1.41 V set LLC6 on my 10900KF, but if I shift to the more aggressive LLC5 at 1.38 to 1.41 V set, I am not stable. This points to transients and not Vmins being the issue. I think you might also need to forget about 48x cache though. Let it go...


----------



## Cpfan1

fray_bentos said:


> Have you tried LLC6? I have best outcomes with both of my CML CPUs on MSI boards when running adaptive with LLC6 and 1.40 or 1.41 V set on BIOS. The highest I have seen Vcore reported on my 10900KF is 1.340 whether under light or heavy load, and this board lacks proper die sense, so the actual voltage is probably lower than that. I wonder if LLC6 happens to give the best control of transients when voltages are bouncing around as they do in adaptive mode. For example, I (believe that I am) currently stable at 1.41 V set LLC6 on my 10900KF, but if I shift to the more aggressive LLC5 at 1.38 to 1.41 V set, I am not stable. This points to transients and not Vmins being the issue. I think you might also need to forget about 48x cache though. Let it go...


ill try if i crash again, i dont know what i did, havent crashed in 3 hours and i actually changed my llc to 4


----------



## Mitos

I think I came across a good chip.
[email protected], AVX 0, GB 490 AUROS ELITE AC*,* RAM 16GB(2х8) DDR4 [email protected]/17-16-16-36 2T

LinX 0.9.1 - Memory- Max, 1 hour, NZXT Kraken X52(Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut) 20 degrees ambient temperature


----------



## fray_bentos

Cpfan1 said:


> ill try if i crash again, i dont know what i did, havent crashed in 3 hours and i actually changed my llc to 4


I was replying to Imprezzion, but LLC4 on Asus (your board) is likely similar to LLC6 on MSI. On MSI LLC8 is most droopy, while on Asus LLC1 is most droopy.


----------



## Imprezzion

fray_bentos said:


> I was replying to Imprezzion, but LLC4 on Asus (your board) is likely similar to LLC6 on MSI. On MSI LLC8 is most droopy, while on Asus LLC1 is most droopy.


I'll give it a shot. Is there any way to disable AVX overvolting on the MSI? I haven't found it yet but every time I run a AVX load it just causally adds 0.05v which at 1.41v is a lot.. as in 1.41v small FFT fma3/avx I sit at high 80's low 90's. When it decided to give it 1.454v it instantly went into thermal protection hitting 98-99c on most cores. I don't need 1.454v, I need 1.406v, which I get in any load that isn't AVX.. same for 5.1 @ 1.290. Light loads are 1.270v ish which for non-AVX is fine and then AVX goes straight to 1.320v.. it only needs 1,290v to be stable but there seems to be no way to adjust the added AVX voltage..

EDIT: tried 5.3/4.8 LLC6, AC/DC 1 and initially the AVX voltage is fine but it has way way too much droop at LLC6. It drops all the way from 1.423v idle to 1.334v small FFT no AVX. That is way way too much and crashes instantly.


----------



## Cpfan1

so i just realized why i stopped crashing to desktop - i had vcore on auto and it showed me 1.54v in bios  49 ring 53 core


----------



## fray_bentos

Cpfan1 said:


> so i just realized why i stopped crashing to desktop - i had vcore on auto and it showed me 1.54v in bios  49 ring 53 core


Oooof. I'd recommend leaving HWiNFO64 running and continually monitoring your voltages (and checking for WHEA errors), all the time, for the first few weeks/months of trying any new OC.



Imprezzion said:


> I'll give it a shot. Is there any way to disable AVX overvolting on the MSI? I haven't found it yet but every time I run a AVX load it just causally adds 0.05v which at 1.41v is a lot.. as in 1.41v small FFT fma3/avx I sit at high 80's low 90's. When it decided to give it 1.454v it instantly went into thermal protection hitting 98-99c on most cores. I don't need 1.454v, I need 1.406v, which I get in any load that isn't AVX.. same for 5.1 @ 1.290. Light loads are 1.270v ish which for non-AVX is fine and then AVX goes straight to 1.320v.. it only needs 1,290v to be stable but there seems to be no way to adjust the added AVX voltage..
> 
> EDIT: tried 5.3/4.8 LLC6, AC/DC 1 and initially the AVX voltage is fine but it has way way too much droop at LLC6. It drops all the way from 1.423v idle to 1.334v small FFT no AVX. That is way way too much and crashes instantly.


I gave up trying on 5.3, it became rapidly apparent that it is not worth the effort based on the massive drop in stability and the large step up in terms of extra volts/tuning needed compared to 5.2 GHz all core. For me, even an extra 0.05 V doesn't put me into the red zone with temps, voltages or current (my reported Vcore hasn't risen over 1.340 V, ever and under heavier (AVX) load my Vcore is much lower than that, 1.25 V). I also don't stress in Prime 95; I use my real-life loads, AVX gaming and multi-core quantum chemical calculations (which can be rather demanding and prolonged). I've not had a program crash, BSOD, or L0 error for a week so far... and I'm at my PC ~12 hours a day (work and play). I know LLC5 (MSI) works less well for me, but I am not pushing up against that 5.3 GHz wall (with larger Vdroop) like you are. If anything goes wrong, I'll lower cache ratio or bump Vcore a bit (depending on the type error). Still early days for me.
Edit: and down to 45x cache we go


----------



## Imprezzion

fray_bentos said:


> Oooof. I'd recommend leaving HWiNFO64 running and continually monitoring your voltages (and checking for WHEA errors), all the time, for the first few weeks/months of trying any new OC.
> 
> 
> I gave up trying on 5.3, it became rapidly apparent that it is not worth the effort based on the massive drop in stability and the large step up in terms of extra volts/tuning needed compared to 5.2 GHz all core. For me, even an extra 0.05 V doesn't put me into the red zone with temps, voltages or current (my reported Vcore hasn't risen over 1.340 V, ever and under heavier (AVX) load my Vcore is much lower than that, 1.25 V). I also don't stress in Prime 95; I use my real-life loads, AVX gaming and multi-core quantum chemical calculations (which can be rather demanding and prolonged). I've not had a program crash, BSOD, or L0 error for a week so far... and I'm at my PC ~12 hours a day (work and play). I know LLC5 (MSI) works less well for me, but I am not pushing up against that 5.3 GHz wall (with larger Vdroop) like you are. If anything goes wrong, I'll lower cache ratio or bump Vcore a bit (depending on the type error). Still early days for me.


True. Problem with my specific CPU is the fact it won't really do 5.2 that much lower voltage wise. Absolute minimum for 5.3 (fixed vcore llc3) is 1.390v. For 5.2 it's 1.344v. The Max I can cool is about 1.43v. Anything over that will go too deep into the 90's in Prime95. And I only run Prime95 for a few seconds / minute at best just to see what worst-case scenario power draw would give me. And to test vdroop under different loads and amount of threads.

I think I'll stick to 5.1/4.6 @ 1.270v for now. (Non-AVX 1.270v AVX 1.313v)


----------



## Salve1412

Imprezzion said:


> I'll give it a shot. Is there any way to disable AVX overvolting on the MSI?


Isn't the AVX workload voltage boost (~+0.030V) due to an Intel VID thing? I don't know the technical aspects, but I had it back in the days with my 9900KS tuned with DVID on a Gigabyte Aorus Master and I still have it on my Maximus XII Extreme with a 10900K 5.2 Cache 4.8 on Adaptive through V/F point Offsets (e.g. with identical current amps, Prime95 112k AVX disabled 1.243V, minimum load voltage to be stable, while OCCT Large AVX2 1.279V). I think it's one of the downsides of running Adaptive compared to Fixed Vcore, during AVX workloads you get a higher voltage than your required Vmin at a given frequency. 0.050 seems too much, though.


----------



## fray_bentos

Salve1412 said:


> Isn't the AVX workload voltage boost (~+0.030V) due to an Intel VID thing? I don't know the technical aspects, but I had it back in the days with my 9900KS tuned with DVID on a Gigabyte Aorus Master and I still have it on my Maximus XII Extreme with a 10900K 5.2 Cache 4.8 on Adaptive through V/F point Offsets (e.g. with identical current amps, Prime95 112k AVX disabled 1.243V, minimum load voltage to be stable, while OCCT Large AVX2 1.279V). I think it's one of the downsides of running Adaptive compared to Fixed Vcore, during AVX workloads you get a higher voltage than your required Vmin at a given frequency. 0.050 seems too much, though.


Good point. @Imprezzion could the extra 0.05 V be due to Intel Thermal Velocity Boost. i.e. temps increase under AVX, which then results in Vcore being pumped (not the other way around)? You can disable Intel TVB in the MSI bios if not already (maybe you already stated this, if so sorry). Edit: see a few pages ago you had this disabled. Consider turning it back on if you hit a wall at 5.2 GHz also? I think of Intel TVB as keeping voltages lower, and therefore temps lower, when under light/moderate load. I have kept it turned on. I did try it turned off with my former 10600K, but that made voltages and temps worse, and this is the important part; _for no gain in stability, or additional clock speed_.

Good idea on using Prime 95 to briefly examine worst case scenarios; I never understood why people want to fry their lovely delicate brand new CPUs.


----------



## Imprezzion

Hell I'm not pumping 355w through that poor thing any longer then I have to to observe the vdroop lol.

TVB Voltage Optimization is off. And ratio clipping as well. 

And yeah it's more or less 0.030v. Probably looks like more due to my LLC and AC/DC being at advanced "1" aka 1 mOhm. If I leave that on Auto (~40mOhm) the VID rockets through the roof and it runs 1.548v idle lol. That would mean way too high of a negative offset (~-0.140-150) and isn't exactly stable at lower clocks lol. That's why I run 1 mOhm to reduce the VID as much as I can before applying a negative offset.


----------



## fray_bentos

Imprezzion said:


> Hell I'm not pumping 355w through that poor thing any longer then I have to to observe the vdroop lol.
> 
> TVB Voltage Optimization is off. And ratio clipping as well.
> 
> And yeah it's more or less 0.030v. Probably looks like more due to my LLC and AC/DC being at advanced "1" aka 1 mOhm. If I leave that on Auto (~40mOhm) the VID rockets through the roof and it runs 1.548v idle lol. That would mean way too high of a negative offset (~-0.140-150) and isn't exactly stable at lower clocks lol. That's why I run 1 mOhm to reduce the VID as much as I can before applying a negative offset.


Ah... yeah. When I run "adaptive" on my board that greys out AC/DC and locks it to mode 1 "Lite Load". I think that is by design to prevent the VID rocketing as you say. However, some voltage modes allow AC/DC to be changed (automatic voltage). I think that changing settings in certain order can "trick" the motherboard into letting you change AC/DC when otherwise you shouldn't be able to. I had that problem on my former CPU when I had one set of BIOS presets that some how had LiteLoad set on mode 8, and another on mode 1 (I couldn't initially work out why one was stable/pumping higher voltage than another BIOS preset). A motherboard bug I think.


----------



## Imprezzion

I guess? I run Adaptive + Offset now and that allows me to change AC/DC. mode 1 is the same as advanced 1 mOhm so.


----------



## Salve1412

@Imprezzion about this AVX workload Voltage boost on Adaptive I remembered a question I asked when I was doing experiments on Z390. I'll put a link to it and the answer I received from Falkentyne. At least in principle (no TVB back then, though, for example) this should still be valid for 10th gen, I guess?









(Gigabyte Z390 AORUS Owners Thread)


My quality of life has been so much better after I've stopped messing with ram overclocking. No more stress testing, no more looking at my uEFI screen or GSAT/RAMTEST 90% of the time I'm at my computer. No more seeing my monitor suddenly blank out and me thinking it crashed. I'm actually...




www.overclock.net


----------



## Intrud3r

Just to share my experience:

I had troubles with crashes (idle crashes) when setting my uncore / cache ratio anything higher then 4.3
This happened when I had adaptive voltage set in bios.

As soon as I upped my cache ratio higher then 4.3, it crashed on the desktop after loading my profile after like 30 seconds to 1 minute and about 12 seconds ... always between those to time values after a boot.

Now that I've changed adaptive voltage --> auto voltage. Installed Intel XTU and change the offsets in XTU I have 0 problems with my cache at 4.8. Cores are running at 5.2.

This now works at the same voltage I used when I had adaptive voltage set with offsets in bios, still it crashed before and does not now.

I've ran prime 112 no avx in place for at least 45 minutes, no problems.
OCCT large avx extreme for about 45 minutes, no problems.
OCCT SSE small no avx for about 45 minutes, no problems.

Running 5.2 / .48 now for about 1 week without any hickups. No whea errors and no crashes at idle.


----------



## fray_bentos

Intrud3r said:


> Just to share my experience:
> 
> I had troubles with crashes (idle crashes) when setting my uncore / cache ratio anything higher then 4.3
> This happened when I had adaptive voltage set in bios.
> 
> As soon as I upped my cache ratio higher then 4.3, it crashed on the desktop after loading my profile after like 30 seconds to 1 minute and about 12 seconds ... always between those to time values after a boot.
> 
> Now that I've changed adaptive voltage --> auto voltage. Installed Intel XTU and change the offsets in XTU I have 0 problems with my cache at 4.8. Cores are running at 5.2.
> 
> This now works at the same voltage I used when I had adaptive voltage set with offsets in bios, still it crashed before and does not now.
> 
> I've ran prime 112 no avx in place for at least 45 minutes, no problems.
> OCCT large avx extreme for about 45 minutes, no problems.
> OCCT SSE small no avx for about 45 minutes, no problems.
> 
> Running 5.2 / .48 now for about 1 week without any hickups. No whea errors and no crashes at idle.


"after loading my profile", which profile? I've only seen things like this happen with overclocking software (e.g. MSI Dragon Centre, or indeed XTU) overiding BIOS settings. Possibly you have seen the reverse. Did you have some gigabyte motherboard software installed?


----------



## Intrud3r

fray_bentos said:


> "after loading my profile", which profile? I've only seen things like this happen with overclocking software (e.g. MSI Dragon Centre, or indeed XTU) overiding BIOS settings. Possibly you have seen the reverse. Did you have some gigabyte motherboard software installed?


I meant my windows profile, so just loggin in into windows, let it sit idle on desktop and watch it crash doing nothing ...

No gigabyte software installed.
Only MSI afterburner for my gpu and hwinfo to check values.

(ok, now also Intel XTU, but that works fine as long as I have vcore on auto in bios. Running AC/DC 1/1 with LLC = medium)

Just to be clear before another question is being asked about it, NO ... I did not have intel XTU installed when I had those idle crashes ....

It was only adaptive vcore set in bios, as soon as I changed to auto vcore (which still changes vcore according to clockspeed) the problems went away.


----------



## Imprezzion

Done the same on my old windows install. Auto BIOS + XTU works great. Only problem is, it doesn't auto start with windows. Or apply the profiles. I wrote a little .vbs script that would auto load the profile hooking into HWINFO64 which always starts on boot for me (but any program would work, heck even hooking explorer.exe should work) but I really couldn't be bothered to make that mess all work again on my fresh install of windows 10 20H2. So I tried to do it in the BIOS niemand ran into this well-known issue again.

Then again, I backed off from 5.3/4.8 to 5.1/4.6 now and it's stable from the BIOS at 46 cache and it requires a LOT less voltage for 5.1 so it's quiter, cooler, 80w less power consumption.. and for what performance loss. Like..

Maybe when I feel like it I'll re-make the whole XTU profile and the script (I did save it on my backup) for this specific install but...


----------



## Intrud3r

Just to make sure .... My Intel XTU works flawlessly atm .... applies the profile as soon as I start up windows every time. Only thing is .... I can't have Corsair icue installed, icue did not even need to be started (the service was active tho) but after a normal boot it just went max clock to 5.1 (instead of 5.2 with tvb frequency clipping at 78C -1), I had to open intel xtu and re-apply the settings to make it stick. Until I uninstalled icue ... then intel xtu worked flawlessly for me .... icue and intel xtu don't work nicely together.

I know most people dislike intel XTU ... .but I love it .... don't need to reboot to change my voltages, can even run a stresstest and add 0.010mv or distract it if needed ..... on the fly .... loving that instead of rebooting, changing, rebooting ... testing ...etc.

You just need to know how to use it and with what settings you need to set in bios to actually make it work like you want. Just my humble opinion.

To give you an idea, these are my current settings in XTU:









5.2 AVX is about 1.315V (could get away with lower voltage, but need fixed vcore for that, then no intel xtu anymore, would need about 1.280-1.290 if I'm not mistaken)
5.2 SSE is about 1.270V
5.1 AVX is about 1.215V
5.1 SSE is I have no idea, don't really care as it runs fine and temps are so low that I could add mV if needed. Didn't have any problems so far.

This is with:
AC/DC = 1/1
LLC = medium
Vcore = Auto
VCCIO = 1.320V
VCCSA = 1.356V

Resulting in:









This was after running 22 hours (it's a 24/7 system) with 1 cinebench R20 run. For the rest it was browsing and watching video's.

If I disable TVB frequency clipping my temps reach 87C which I don't really like .... so I just cap it around 80. Gaming (BF5) is around 50-65C.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

HI,

Do you know how to find out the LLC impedance of rog-strix-z490-e-gaming ?

This MB don't have Die Sense.


----------



## Intrud3r

RobertoSampaio said:


> HI,
> 
> Do you know how to find out the LLC impedance of rog-strix-z490-e-gaming ?
> 
> This MB don't have Die Sense.


I don't ... but maybe you can use this to find it out yourself? Don't know if it is applicable to your situation, you have to figure that out yourself.

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. 

Source:





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...



rog.asus.com


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Intrud3r said:


> I don't ... but maybe you can use this to find it out yourself? Don't know if it is applicable to your situation, you have to figure that out yourself.
> 
> 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.


1º thing I thought was to use this...
LLC (milliohms) = - (Vcore -VCPU - (ACLL*IOUT) - vOffset)/IOUT
But I don't have Vcore because there is no Die Sense... 
I think all MB manufactures should inform all yours LLC impedance in the users manual book.


----------



## GeneO

Intrud3r said:


> I don't ... but maybe you can use this to find it out yourself? Don't know if it is applicable to your situation, you have to figure that out yourself.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Source:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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...
> 
> 
> 
> rog.asus.com


Except as far as I can tell it isn't ACLL*IOUT and if you want to calculate VID you also have to subtract DCLL*IOUT (you don't need to for vcore). If you have TVB voltage optimizations you also have to subtract a temperature dependent contribution (which varies by multiplier).

So I took number of measurements on my Asus Hero varying ACLL and DCLL and the best fit I got was 1.46*ACLL*IOUT (and -0.8*DCLL when calculating VID). So I have no idea how this works, just the data, and the dependence was linear with these slopes. I also verified the temperature depended (for 51 multiplier about 1.1 mv/C as expected)

If you set ACLL=DCLL = 1 (.01 for ASUS) then you can ignore them and easily measure LLC

Ignoring offset Vcore = Vbios - VO*(Tjmax-T) - LLC*IOUT with ACLL and DCLL minimized. VO = Voltage optimization (volts/degree C)


----------



## Astral85

@Intrud3r What is the trouble with Intel XTU and iCUE? I'm running the new CUE 4.


----------



## Imprezzion

Well, I re-installed XTU and set up my BIOS like I had it on my old Windows install (had the profile saved) and ofc it doesn't work anymore 😂.

First of all I noticed that when using XTU the additional AVX Voltage does not get applied so regulation is much easier but while testing my previously working fine voltages everything is fine untill I run Small FFT AVX. It will instantly BSOD with Clock_Watchdog_Timeout. Any other test, including large FFT AVX is fine. So, I thought meh doesn't matter I know it's stable so loaded up Battlefield 5. Yeah, almost instantly BSOD's.. Something isn't happy but I don't know what yet..

Also XTU for some reason thinks my defaults from the BIOS is x53 all core when it's actually not and load also shows 5.1 which it shouldn't as it should be 4.9 all core not 5.1 all core so this is quite strange.. (enhanced turbo maybe?)

Maybe I need to just reset the BIOS and only apply my boot order and memory OC and just not touch anything else lol. I have profiles saved anyway so..


----------



## Intrud3r

Imprezzion said:


> Well, I re-installed XTU and set up my BIOS like I had it on my old Windows install (had the profile saved) and ofc it doesn't work anymore 😂.
> 
> First of all I noticed that when using XTU the additional AVX Voltage does not get applied so regulation is much easier but while testing my previously working fine voltages everything is fine untill I run Small FFT AVX. It will instantly BSOD with Clock_Watchdog_Timeout. Any other test, including large FFT AVX is fine. So, I thought meh doesn't matter I know it's stable so loaded up Battlefield 5. Yeah, almost instantly BSOD's.. Something isn't happy but I don't know what yet..
> 
> Also XTU for some reason thinks my defaults from the BIOS is x53 all core when it's actually not and load also shows 5.1 which it shouldn't as it should be 4.9 all core not 5.1 all core so this is quite strange.. (enhanced turbo maybe?)
> 
> Maybe I need to just reset the BIOS and only apply my boot order and memory OC and just not touch anything else lol. I have profiles saved anyway so..


I would try load optimized defaults indeed and only manually set LLC and AC/DC to 1 if needed and some VCCIO and VCCSA / VDIMM ... and don't touch anything else. This works on my board.

And I always just start at 4.9 (cause of auto crap in bios and c-states disabled), and slowly up 1 ratio at a time and apply it to double check the vcore it gets .... just to make sure.


----------



## Imprezzion

Intrud3r said:


> I would try load optimized defaults indeed and only manually set LLC and AC/DC to 1 if needed and some VCCIO and VCCSA / VDIMM ... and don't touch anything else. This works on my board.
> 
> And I always just start at 4.9 (cause of auto crap in bios and c-states disabled), and slowly up 1 ratio at a time and apply it to double check the vcore it gets .... just to make sure.


It's so weird how stuff like this happens. It was stable on my old bloaty messed up Windows install with this exact profile.. and now it acts totally different.

Well yeah, I have to be honest, at 5.3 all core in small FFT fma3 avx it will hit 95c throttle, so maybe that's it and it's tripping a protection somehow even tho my max temp in BIOS is set to 105..


----------



## Astral85

What are your guys understanding on AC LL? What does it do? What does it affect? I noticed on my setup I need LLC 6 to get AC LL 0.01 stable to boot. 

Currently I am running SVID trained/LLC 4 which is AC LL 0.45/DC LL 1.100. I'm also messing with the optimism scale and it's clear that when I raise the optimism scale it reduces the AC LL....Optimism scale 100 usually = 0.50/1.00. Optimism scale 115 = 0.43/1.00


----------



## Imprezzion

It's more or less dealing with how the VID is interpreted by the CPU / VRM right? I'm no expert so please others correct me / elaborate but I thought higher AC LL equals higher voltage give to the CPU from the VID? It does nothing with fixed vcore tho. Only on Auto or Adaptive. I always have to be very careful with it as I have seen too high values push 1.608v through my CPU so.. 

I am giving up on XTU or even higher clocks in general. I have a sweet spot set up in the BIOS which I should just use and give up on that extra 100-200Mhz lol.

LLC 4, AC/DC 1, Adaptive Offset -0.030, all core 5.1, cache 4.6, 1.35v SA 1.25v IO 4400C17 RAM and that is rock solid in idle, switching loads and full load from the BIOS without using XTU.
C-States and all other power saving is enabled. 

Load AVX 1.296-1.303v, load non-AVX 1.270-1.286v. Perfectly as it should be. Max temps in Prime95 Small FFT FMA3 AVX (worst-case scenario possible):










Not even 80c. 

I really should just stay here but yeah.. the urge of tweaking.. temp headroom for 5.2 is there but..


----------



## Astral85

Imprezzion said:


> It's more or less dealing with how the VID is interpreted by the CPU / VRM right? I'm no expert so please others correct me / elaborate but I thought higher AC LL equals higher voltage give to the CPU from the VID? It does nothing with fixed vcore tho. Only on Auto or Adaptive. I always have to be very careful with it as I have seen too high values push 1.608v through my CPU so..
> 
> I am giving up on XTU or even higher clocks in general. I have a sweet spot set up in the BIOS which I should just use and give up on that extra 100-200Mhz lol.
> 
> LLC 4, AC/DC 1, Adaptive Offset -0.030, all core 5.1, cache 4.6, 1.35v SA 1.25v IO 4400C17 RAM and that is rock solid in idle, switching loads and full load from the BIOS without using XTU.
> C-States and all other power saving is enabled.
> 
> Load AVX 1.296-1.303v, load non-AVX 1.270-1.286v. Perfectly as it should be. Max temps in Prime95 Small FFT FMA3 AVX (worst-case scenario possible):
> 
> View attachment 2511607
> 
> 
> Not even 80c.
> 
> I really should just stay here but yeah.. the urge of tweaking.. temp headroom for 5.2 is there but..


I think higher AC LL is supposed to boost the voltage/current but I don't know what effect it has when TVB voltage optimization + adaptive is enabled (such as I do). I'm going to have to run some more tests. I can't really see any difference when the AC LL is lowered using TVB voltage optimization...

When you say AC/DC 1 is that 1.000/1.000? Is that Sync all core + Offset mode or adaptive? Is TVB voltage optimization enabled or disabled? What cooler are you using on your CPU? Temps look pretty good for 5.1.


----------



## menko2

Imprezzion said:


> It's more or less dealing with how the VID is interpreted by the CPU / VRM right? I'm no expert so please others correct me / elaborate but I thought higher AC LL equals higher voltage give to the CPU from the VID? It does nothing with fixed vcore tho. Only on Auto or Adaptive. I always have to be very careful with it as I have seen too high values push 1.608v through my CPU so..
> 
> I am giving up on XTU or even higher clocks in general. I have a sweet spot set up in the BIOS which I should just use and give up on that extra 100-200Mhz lol.
> 
> LLC 4, AC/DC 1, Adaptive Offset -0.030, all core 5.1, cache 4.6, 1.35v SA 1.25v IO 4400C17 RAM and that is rock solid in idle, switching loads and full load from the BIOS without using XTU.
> C-States and all other power saving is enabled.
> 
> Load AVX 1.296-1.303v, load non-AVX 1.270-1.286v. Perfectly as it should be. Max temps in Prime95 Small FFT FMA3 AVX (worst-case scenario possible):
> 
> View attachment 2511607
> 
> 
> Not even 80c.
> 
> I really should just stay here but yeah.. the urge of tweaking.. temp headroom for 5.2 is there but..


It's strange that with a SP 92 chip i can't get stable with 1.34v for 5.1ghz core and 4.8ghz cache. LL4.

Any suggestions?


----------



## fray_bentos

menko2 said:


> It's strange that with a SP 92 chip i can't get stable with 1.34v for 5.1ghz core and 4.8ghz cache. LL4.
> 
> Any suggestions?


Lower the cache ratio to 45, then work back up step-by-step.


----------



## Imprezzion

Astral85 said:


> I think higher AC LL is supposed to boost the voltage/current but I don't know what effect it has when TVB voltage optimization + adaptive is enabled (such as I do). I'm going to have to run some more tests. I can't really see any difference when the AC LL is lowered using TVB voltage optimization...
> 
> When you say AC/DC 1 is that 1.000/1.000? Is that Sync all core + Offset mode or adaptive? Is TVB voltage optimization enabled or disabled? What cooler are you using on your CPU? Temps look pretty good for 5.1.


AC/DC Advanced "1" which I believe is the same as normal "mode_1". Sync all core + adaptive offset. TVB Voltage Optimization disabled.

Cooler is a EK Phoenix 280 kit which is a EK Coolstream SE 280 rad, EK Supremacy block, EK-SPC 60A 12V DC PWM Pump @ 70% and fitted with QDC fittings. Fans are push-pull Alpenfohn Wing Boost 3 ARGB's. Great radiator fans, very quiet and super high static pressure so I don't need a lot of RPM.

The CPU is delidded with the rockitcool kit and mounted with the direct die plate and using a mirror lapped block surface with Coollaboratory Liquid Ultra LM TIM.


----------



## robalm

When i run optimized default in bios vs all stock in bios but with XMP activated the AC/DC is higher.
Stock 0.670
XMP 0.900
Why is that?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Astral85 said:


> I think higher AC LL is supposed to boost the voltage/current but I don't know what effect it has when TVB voltage optimization + adaptive is enabled (such as I do). I'm going to have to run some more tests. I can't really see any difference when the AC LL is lowered using TVB voltage optimization...
> 
> When you say AC/DC 1 is that 1.000/1.000? Is that Sync all core + Offset mode or adaptive? Is TVB voltage optimization enabled or disabled? What cooler are you using on your CPU? Temps look pretty good for 5.1.


ASUS and MSI MB have different scales and way to set for AC/DC_LL and LLC.
Asus high LLC# means low impedance
MSI high LLC# means high impedance
I'm not sure if MSI allow you to direct set AC/DC_LL impedance.


----------



## arrow0309

@Imprezzion , thanks again for your tips mate, managed to get the ram stable, happy with the results, cheers!
(1.25v IO, 1.35v SA, 1.42v RAM)


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I'm trying to do an Excel sheet to predict VIDs...
If you could test it and make suggestion.
Fell free to change anything.
Remember your current (A) and temp (C) shall be coherent.

EDITED: I'm using voltage optimization... Need to update the sheet with an option to disable it.









Dropbox - File Deleted


Dropbox is a free service that lets you bring your photos, docs, and videos anywhere and share them easily. Never email yourself a file again!




www.dropbox.com


----------



## RobertoSampaio

With voltage Optimization option.









Dropbox - File Deleted


Dropbox is a free service that lets you bring your photos, docs, and videos anywhere and share them easily. Never email yourself a file again!




www.dropbox.com


----------



## Imprezzion

Hmm, this is interesting. While testing some overclocks at 5,2 all core using different methods of applying voltage (BIOS vs XTU, adaptive offset vs normal offset vs advanced offset) I found out my CPU actually does need a LOT less voltage to run SSe / Non-AVX loads.. For AVX at 5,2 all core I need 1.334v to pass Prime95 Small+ Large FFT AVX+FMA3. If I run Small FFT without AVX it passes with just 1.303v.. This is that exact +0.030v that Intel gives AVX by default.. maybe they did know what they were doing and it's perfectly acceptable to run lower without AVX..


----------



## Astral85

Does anyone here use Corsair CUE? I'm using the new CUE 4. I've spent weeks trying to figure out why the CPU will not power save at idle with CUE 4 running. After much testing I've determined that CUE does not cooperate with the Asus Per Core feature and TVB +2 boost. Only with Sync all cores, adaptive, +2 boost disabled will the CPU downclock with the software running. 

My theory is CUE is constantly triggering the +2 boost as a light load preventing the core clocks form relaxing. As for why it doesn't downclock under Asus Per Core I do not no.


----------



## acoustic

iCUE is an absolutely trash piece of software. I had issues with it back on my 9900K at one point causing random hard locks. Removed iCUE and suddenly stable again.


----------



## Falkentyne

Imprezzion said:


> Hmm, this is interesting. While testing some overclocks at 5,2 all core using different methods of applying voltage (BIOS vs XTU, adaptive offset vs normal offset vs advanced offset) I found out my CPU actually does need a LOT less voltage to run SSe / Non-AVX loads.. For AVX at 5,2 all core I need 1.334v to pass Prime95 Small+ Large FFT AVX+FMA3. If I run Small FFT without AVX it passes with just 1.303v.. This is that exact +0.030v that Intel gives AVX by default.. maybe they did know what they were doing and it's perfectly acceptable to run lower without AVX..


How do you manage to run 5.2 ghz small FFT FMA3 without instantly reaching 100C?


----------



## Imprezzion

Falkentyne said:


> How do you manage to run 5.2 ghz small FFT FMA3 without instantly reaching 100C?


Direct die + liquid metal + lapped mirror finish block? It stays under 80c on 5.1 and touches 85c on 5.2 maybe. (1.270v 5.1 and 1.334v 5.2).
I only test it very short duration just to see vdroop behavior and temps but yeah.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Hi,

Do you overclock BCLK?
What are the pros and cons?

And how about PCIE frequency?


----------



## Imprezzion

Have tried it, doesn't work. Gets very unstable quite quickly even tho it isn't linked like it used to be. Didn't make it past 104.xx at all.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Imprezzion said:


> Have tried it, doesn't work. Gets very unstable quite quickly even tho it isn't linked like it used to be. Didn't make it past 104.xx at all.


I'm testing...
I tried 101MHz, 102MHz and 103,7MHz...
For 103,7 I need to lower ring and cores 2x...
Could be nice to play with BCLK... but I realized VID not follow the multiplier. It follows the frequency.
If I have V/F#6 (5100) = 1.300v and V/F#7 (5200) = 1.380v
100x51 = 5100 => VID=1.300
101x51 = 5151 = VID rise to something between V/F6 and V/F7...


----------



## shamino1978

RobertoSampaio said:


> With voltage Optimization option.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dropbox - File Deleted
> 
> 
> Dropbox is a free service that lets you bring your photos, docs, and videos anywhere and share them easily. Never email yourself a file again!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com


Good job , have you tried reverse engineering vmax stress algo? I haven't, guessing vid + current must be 2 crucial variables


----------



## RobertoSampaio

shamino1978 said:


> Good job , have you tried reverse engineering vmax stress algo? I haven't, guessing vid + current must be 2 crucial variables


Yes, I'm trying some reverse engineering, but it's not so easy because there is a non-linear component in TVB and Voltage Optimization.
I'll try to do something with VMaxStress algo... 

This last version I did some adjusts trying to match the actual values read by WH-info.

If you have any other information I could use I'll appreciate. 










Dropbox - File Deleted


Dropbox is a free service that lets you bring your photos, docs, and videos anywhere and share them easily. Never email yourself a file again!




www.dropbox.com


----------



## shamino1978

you can toggle vmax stress on off on the fly with the tool as u know
as you do and offset voltage to the vid, you can slowly try light loads , observe current reading and the vid (better if you can rule out vid affecting factors such as AD DC and volt opt) 
toggle on and off vmax stress and see the point whereby the ratio starts to clip, if you can isolate to the point where by for the same vid, you have a current reading whereby it clips and another whereby it doesn't you have successfully isolated the contribution of current to the stress algo. like wise vice versa for vid


----------



## RobertoSampaio

shamino1978 said:


> you can toggle vmax stress on off on the fly with the tool as u know
> as you do and offset voltage to the vid, you can slowly try light loads , observe current reading and the vid (better if you can rule out vid affecting factors such as AD DC and volt opt)
> toggle on and off vmax stress and see the point whereby the ratio starts to clip, if you can isolate to the point where by for the same vid, you have a current reading whereby it clips and another whereby it doesn't you have successfully isolated the contribution of current to the stress algo. like wise vice versa for vid


I don't have this tool for toggle vmax stress on off on the fly. I have a tool for V/F points offset, for OCTVB and for Adaptive voltage.

I have this tool you gave me, but some functions does not work. (BCLK frequency set and some others functions are not working)









Dropbox - File Deleted


Dropbox is a free service that lets you bring your photos, docs, and videos anywhere and share them easily. Never email yourself a file again!




www.dropbox.com





Do you have a new complete tool for Z490 formula?


----------



## PhoenixMDA

@shamino1978 
We dont have the possiblity to get the full tool, why asus dont show us the trained value´s in Bios like ODT/Slope/Bitline´s?
It take really much work to find the right ODT/Slope´s, it will so much easier if i can see the set value´s from Bios.

It´s also a reason to buy such a board, so i´m able to do more stable as normaly possible in 24/7.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

With VMax Stress option.
EDITED: Just the clipping point above 1500mv










Dropbox - File Deleted


Dropbox is a free service that lets you bring your photos, docs, and videos anywhere and share them easily. Never email yourself a file again!




www.dropbox.com


----------



## Astral85

RobertoSampaio said:


> I don't have this tool for toggle vmax stress on off on the fly. I have a tool for V/F points offset, for OCTVB and for Adaptive voltage.
> 
> I have this tool you gave me, but some functions does not work. (BCLK frequency set and some others functions are not working)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dropbox - File Deleted
> 
> 
> Dropbox is a free service that lets you bring your photos, docs, and videos anywhere and share them easily. Never email yourself a file again!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dropbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a new complete tool for Z490 formula?


I think it's in the Intel/Controls settings. Down the bottom is a drop down menu with disable TVB Max Stress. Then Write button? I'm not sure. 

@Shamino is it possible to disable +2 boost with the tool?


----------



## shamino1978

Astral85 said:


> I think it's in the Intel/Controls settings. Down the bottom is a drop down menu with disable TVB Max Stress. Then Write button? I'm not sure.
> 
> @Shamino is it possible to disable +2 boost with the tool?


yes just write 1 to disable vmax stress : 0 = false, 1= true for these

yes just write 1 for TVB Clipping Disable


----------



## Intrud3r

Quick question, will that OCT tool also work on my Z490 Aorus Master ?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

shamino1978 said:


> yes just write 1 to disable vmax stress : 0 = false, 1= true for these
> 
> yes just write 1 for TVB Clipping Disable


Could you help me with how TVB Clipping works?
I think there is an option in BIOS for voltage clipping.
Is for that?


----------



## Salve1412

PhoenixMDA said:


> @shamino1978
> We dont have the possiblity to get the full tool, why asus dont show us the trained value´s in Bios like ODT/Slope/Bitline´s?
> It take really much work to find the right ODT/Slope´s, it will so much easier if i can see the set value´s from Bios.
> 
> It´s also a reason to buy such a board, so i´m able to do more stable as normaly possible in 24/7.


There is no hope, right?


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Salve1412 said:


> There is no hope, right?


This can only anyone from asus say.I have my slope setting at 4666CL17-17 with 1,35V IO/1,345V SA an 1,535V Vdimm , but it was much work for a really good one.

With such a setting is it possible to drive with lower voltage as auto and stable.


----------



## shamino1978

RobertoSampaio said:


> Could you help me with how TVB Clipping works?
> I think there is an option in BIOS for voltage clipping.
> Is for that?
> View attachment 2512061


No it shared in the same option as octvb. , if en or +boosts it is enabled


----------



## Astral85

shamino1978 said:


> yes just write 1 to disable vmax stress : 0 = false, 1= true for these
> 
> yes just write 1 for TVB Clipping Disable


TVB Clipping Disable - write 1 doesn't disable +2 boost...


----------



## RobertoSampaio

shamino1978 said:


> No it shared in the same option as octvb. , if en or +boosts it is enabled


@shamino1978 
Sometimes I have a bug in the tool... Is it because last BIOS update?
I can't remember this was happening before.


----------



## Astral85

RobertoSampaio said:


> @shamino1978
> Sometimes I have a bug in the tool... Is it because last BIOS update?
> I can't remember this was happening before.
> 
> View attachment 2512124


OCTVB appears to work better from within the OCT tool I'm finding. OCT/Work tool/CPU/OCTVB. I found the stand alone OCTVB tool to be buggy too.


----------



## Astral85

@shamino1978 Any update as to why TVB Clipping Disabled = True isn't disabling +2boost?


----------



## menko2

I have been trying to find out the effect of the L3 cache value for gaming.

So far what i found searching online is:

cache should be 300mhz less than cpu speed. 5.0ghz cpu then 4.7ghz cache.
higher cache needs more voltage to feed both values.
higher cpu speed is more important than higher cache for games (i found one post saying the opposite).

I have been playing with my 10900k SP 92 cache and cpu speed but the results are inconsistent.

What should be the best values for gaming?
1) 5.2ghz core 4.8ghz cache.
2) 5.1ghz core 4.9ghz cache.


----------



## Imprezzion

5.2/4.8. I ran many benchmarks and tests and after 46 cache there's almost zero scaling with 4400C17 RAM. Besides, my CPU does not like 47 or higher cache on adaptive / dynamic voltages. It crashes in idle / switching loads. 46 is fine tho.


----------



## menko2

Imprezzion said:


> 5.2/4.8. I ran many benchmarks and tests and after 46 cache there's almost zero scaling with 4400C17 RAM. Besides, my CPU does not like 47 or higher cache on adaptive / dynamic voltages. It crashes in idle / switching loads. 46 is fine tho.


Thank you for the info.

I thought the advantage of Intel vs amd was the L3 cache speed. And maybe that's why it can get better results making the cache speed higher.

Is it maybe then the memory latency the advange for gaming of Intel vs amd?


----------



## cptclutch

I'm building a loop for my 10900k and was wondering about what kind of performance I should be expecting. I realized that most of my instability is coming from my temps spiking during testing. Currently running a 5.2 all core at around 1.395v under load (strix 490-e). If I run a loop pretty aggressively I should be able to push it higher to something like 5.4 at 1.45v if my temps are low enough right? Right now its just on a corsair 280mm AIO.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I did several changes in Excel table...
If you can test it with your configuration and send a pic I'll appreciate. 
And tell me if the sheet is working for you...









Dropbox - File Deleted


Dropbox is a free service that lets you bring your photos, docs, and videos anywhere and share them easily. Never email yourself a file again!




www.dropbox.com


----------



## Astral85

cptclutch said:


> I'm building a loop for my 10900k and was wondering about what kind of performance I should be expecting. I realized that most of my instability is coming from my temps spiking during testing. Currently running a 5.2 all core at around 1.395v under load (strix 490-e). If I run a loop pretty aggressively I should be able to push it higher to something like 5.4 at 1.45v if my temps are low enough right? Right now its just on a corsair 280mm AIO.


From what I've seen custom loops cool the 10900K only a few degrees better than AIO's. More water pressure and cooling block design in the custom loop probably helps to get those few extra degrees. The biggest advantage to a custom loop is watercooling the GPU and removing all that heat and noise. GPU's respond to watercooling better than CPU's and reduce the temps more significantly. 

5.2 @ 1.395v is really the point where this chip gets very hot, especially under heavy load testing. What exactly are these temp spike numbers and what is the stress testing program/s? These temp spikes and instability may be incorrectly set/unstable OC. Tell us your config so we can offer some advice.


----------



## Imprezzion

Is the CPU delidded or direct die? The only real way to cool it further is doing either of those. More cooling capacity is nice but if the chip can't put heat into the loop faster or more efficiently it won't cool any better.


----------



## acoustic

I'll be going from a 10900K direct-die EVGA 360 CLC with 3 A12x25s to 2x 360-L Heatkiller rads paired to a Heatkiller IV block on direct-die. I'll be able to make some comparisons. I also have a low ambient basement (when I boot up, my GPU idles at 8-10c on the Hybrid cooler.. hehe) .. so I'll be able to give some useful info, I hope, for those on the fence about going custom loop. It'll be my first time leaving the AIO arena and venturing into the custom loop world.

I'm likely not going to put the 3080 into the loop. If I get my hands on a 3080TI, then I will absolutely throw it under water, but otherwise it'll stay on the hybrid cooler. I am slightly concerned about all my fan spots being radiators (except for one on the side) but I'll have to toy with it. I don't think, under any circumstance, I'll put the GPU back on the stock air cooler, but it might push me to buy a full cover block if I get annoyed enough.

We'll see!


----------



## Mat_UK

Hey everyone, 

So I am struggling to work out which is 'better' - by which I mean safer for the CPU over the long run for daily use (mostly gaming or just surfing).

I can run my 10900k at 5.2 all core with 50 cache (SP63 chip) with llc4, llc5 or llc6 - all of which are stable...



All Core / CacheBIOS CPU VoltageLLCvCore @ IdlevCore @ LOAD5.2/501.47541.4561.2885.2/501.43551.4211.2965.2/501.4361.4211.314


LLC4 gives me the coolest CB R20 under full load at 80c with the LLC6 settings hitting 85c (under water at constant 30c coolant temp).

I like LLC4 as the load vcore of 1.288 and the core temps are the lowest but is it a bad idea to run with 1.456 vcore at idle?

Also, in gaming the load is only partial (25% in AC Valhalla) and the vcore sits around 1.38 to 1.4 pulling approx 70 - 150 watts with temps 52c to 54c.

Does any of this look worrisome for daily use or should I stop worrying and just chill with LLC4 and let the vdroop do its thing?

(If the vcore looks too high, should I maybe drop the cache to 48 and see if I can trim the core voltage down a bit?)

Thanks !


----------



## acoustic

I wouldn't worry much about the 1.45v idle. As long as it's not under load, the voltage won't really do any harm. Now if you had the chip constantly under full load at 1.45v, the power draw would be immense, and THAT would be what would damage the chip. Idling at 1.45v is likely around 55watts at idle? As long as you're OK with the power-draw at idle, then I don't see any issue with it.

I will say that your load voltage is quite low for 5.2Ghz all-core; definitely low for a chip that should have mediocre/poor VIDs (SP63). 1.28v is what I need on my SP63 for 5.1Ghz all-core. 5.2Ghz takes somewhere around 1.35v, but my cooling quickly falls off during AVX load and I hit mid-high 90s. Once I get my custom loop running, I'll see. Your temps are great, so maybe that's why you're able to run lower voltages. What are you using to determine stability?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Mat_UK said:


> Hey everyone,
> 
> So I am struggling to work out which is 'better' - by which I mean safer for the CPU over the long run for daily use (mostly gaming or just surfing).
> 
> I can run my 10900k at 5.2 all core with 50 cache (SP63 chip) with llc4, llc5 or llc6 - all of which are stable...
> 
> 
> 
> All Core / CacheBIOS CPU VoltageLLCvCore @ IdlevCore @ LOAD5.2/501.47541.4561.2885.2/501.43551.4211.2965.2/501.4361.4211.314
> 
> 
> LLC4 gives me the coolest CB R20 under full load at 80c with the LLC6 settings hitting 85c (under water at constant 30c coolant temp).
> 
> I like LLC4 as the load vcore of 1.288 and the core temps are the lowest but is it a bad idea to run with 1.456 vcore at idle?
> 
> Also, in gaming the load is only partial (25% in AC Valhalla) and the vcore sits around 1.38 to 1.4 pulling approx 70 - 150 watts with temps 52c to 54c.
> 
> Does any of this look worrisome for daily use or should I stop worrying and just chill with LLC4 and let the vdroop do its thing?
> 
> (If the vcore looks too high, should I maybe drop the cache to 48 and see if I can trim the core voltage down a bit?)
> 
> Thanks !


I prefer LLC#4...
Did you enable in bios "voltage optimization" and "vmax stress" ?
Try it and tell us if voltage changed.


----------



## Mat_UK

acoustic said:


> I wouldn't worry much about the 1.45v idle. As long as it's not under load, the voltage won't really do any harm. Now if you had the chip constantly under full load at 1.45v, the power draw would be immense, and THAT would be what would damage the chip. Idling at 1.45v is likely around 55watts at idle? As long as you're OK with the power-draw at idle, then I don't see any issue with it.
> 
> I will say that your load voltage is quite low for 5.2Ghz all-core; definitely low for a chip that should have mediocre/poor VIDs (SP63). 1.28v is what I need on my SP63 for 5.1Ghz all-core. 5.2Ghz takes somewhere around 1.35v, but my cooling quickly falls off during AVX load and I hit mid-high 90s. Once I get my custom loop running, I'll see. Your temps are great, so maybe that's why you're able to run lower voltages. What are you using to determine stability?





acoustic said:


> I wouldn't worry much about the 1.45v idle. As long as it's not under load, the voltage won't really do any harm. Now if you had the chip constantly under full load at 1.45v, the power draw would be immense, and THAT would be what would damage the chip. Idling at 1.45v is likely around 55watts at idle? As long as you're OK with the power-draw at idle, then I don't see any issue with it.
> 
> I will say that your load voltage is quite low for 5.2Ghz all-core; definitely low for a chip that should have mediocre/poor VIDs (SP63). 1.28v is what I need on my SP63 for 5.1Ghz all-core. 5.2Ghz takes somewhere around 1.35v, but my cooling quickly falls off during AVX load and I hit mid-high 90s. Once I get my custom loop running, I'll see. Your temps are great, so maybe that's why you're able to run lower voltages. What are you using to determine stability?


Thanks! I think I'll stick with LLC4 and be happy 

Interestingly I did find that with higher LLC I needed a higher vcore under load to be stable - 1.288 is only stable at LLC4


Ok so for stability I run..

CPU - Cinebench R20, RealBench 2.43, AIDA64 stress test, Super Pi
GPU - Superposition 1.1, Heaven 4.0
CPU & GPU - 3d Mark (TimeSpy, Port Royal, Firestrike)
RAM - AIDA64 stress test, MemTest

... they all top out around 80c max cpu core with LLC4 @1.475 bios, 1.288 vcore 100% load. If I really want to load it up I run Heaven and Cinebench at the same time which hits 750watts draw from the PSU!


Yes, idle for the CPU is anywhere from 40 to 70 watts, but mostly mid 50s (good call!) around 37c with 30c coolant and approx 1.45 vcore.

FYI I'm running Asus Maximus Xii Formula, RXT3090 X Trio, DDR4 @ 3900 15-17-17-32/2 (4x8Gb) and for cooling, a dual loop cpu 480 rad, gpu 480 + 240 rads


----------



## Mat_UK

RobertoSampaio said:


> I prefer LLC#4...
> Did you enable in bios "voltage optimization" and "vmax stress" ?
> Try it and tell us if voltage changed.


I can't see those in the BIOS, can you tell me the Asus bios names for them and I'll check?

Thanks


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Mat_UK said:


> I can't see those in the BIOS, can you tell me the Asus bios names for them and I'll check?
> 
> Thanks


Here...


----------



## fray_bentos

Mat_UK said:


> Hey everyone,
> 
> So I am struggling to work out which is 'better' - by which I mean safer for the CPU over the long run for daily use (mostly gaming or just surfing).
> 
> I can run my 10900k at 5.2 all core with 50 cache (SP63 chip) with llc4, llc5 or llc6 - all of which are stable...
> 
> 
> 
> All Core / CacheBIOS CPU VoltageLLCvCore @ IdlevCore @ LOAD5.2/501.47541.4561.2885.2/501.43551.4211.2965.2/501.4361.4211.314
> 
> 
> LLC4 gives me the coolest CB R20 under full load at 80c with the LLC6 settings hitting 85c (under water at constant 30c coolant temp).
> 
> I like LLC4 as the load vcore of 1.288 and the core temps are the lowest but is it a bad idea to run with 1.456 vcore at idle?
> 
> Also, in gaming the load is only partial (25% in AC Valhalla) and the vcore sits around 1.38 to 1.4 pulling approx 70 - 150 watts with temps 52c to 54c.
> 
> Does any of this look worrisome for daily use or should I stop worrying and just chill with LLC4 and let the vdroop do its thing?
> 
> (If the vcore looks too high, should I maybe drop the cache to 48 and see if I can trim the core voltage down a bit?)
> 
> Thanks !


Your numbers look similar to my chip. Why compromise or risk it when you can try set as adaptive voltage instead?


----------



## Mat_UK

RobertoSampaio said:


> Here...


Ok thanks, I had them all set to disabled. Enabling them seemed to make no difference to the min/max vcore voltages.


----------



## Mat_UK

fray_bentos said:


> Your numbers look similar to my chip. Why compromise or risk it when you can try set as adaptive voltage instead?


Time and effort mostly! I will take a look at adaptive, that might be the way to go, do you have any useful settings I can start from?

Thanks


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Are you running "by core" or "sync all cores"?
If you are using "sync all cores" @ 52x adaptive voltage and vf#8 make no difference for you.
Adaptive and vf#8 are applied to frequencies above 53x.
The 52x voltage is controlled by vf#7.


----------



## fray_bentos

Mat_UK said:


> Time and effort mostly! I will take a look at adaptive, that might be the way to go, do you have any useful settings I can start from?
> 
> Thanks


For 52x all core adaptive, either 1.39 V set LLC5 (MSI, so maybe LLC3 or 4 Asus), or 1.43 V set with the more droopy LLC6 (MSI) seems good. The max I see in HWiNFO64 with those setting is 1.36 to 1.37 V (for brief instants at low loads), and 1.30 to 1.31 V sustained in gaming. The more droopy LLC6 setting seems best in terms of applying slightly lower voltages/lower power draw. However, I haven't tested long term stability and I expect that I might need still need to lift Vcore a notch or two more at some point in the future. 1.42 V set LLC6, seemed almost stable, until I got a level 0 cache error after several hours of load, following a couple of weeks of stability. With adaptive you may indeed need to back off on cache ratio. I'm currently on 45x cache and will work my way up once I am satisfied that I have found stability. I'm prioritising clock speed (happy with 52x all core), then voltage (power/temps), then cache ratio.


----------



## CZonin

Hey everyone. I'm about to upgrade from 3600 CL16 to 4266 CL17. I've been running 5.1 at 1.345v with SA at 1.22 and IO at 1.2 for awhile now. Will I likely need to increase core voltage, SA, and IO to be stable with the new RAM?


----------



## menko2

fray_bentos said:


> Your numbers look similar to my chip. Why compromise or risk it when you can try set as adaptive voltage instead?


Guys what i discovered doing some test is that in games:

5.2ghz core4.7ghz cache has less performance in games than 
5.0ghz core- 4.9ghz cache with the same voltage 1.35v 

Is it normal?


----------



## Imprezzion

menko2 said:


> Guys what i discovered doing some test is that in games:
> 
> 5.2ghz core4.7ghz cache has less performance in games than
> 5.0ghz core- 4.9ghz cache with the same voltage 1.35v
> 
> Is it normal?


How did you measure that. Repeatable tests or just gameplay. It shouldn't be normal no.


----------



## menko2

Imprezzion said:


> How did you measure that. Repeatable tests or just gameplay. It shouldn't be normal no.


I did the tests 3 times and used different games so they have different engines as well.

I set them at 720p and 1080p to sure.

I tested Horizon New Dawn (5fps diference), Shadow of the Tomb Raider (7fps difrence), 3d mark port royale and time spy get scores up by a little. Except fire strike that is the only one that have reduced a bit the score.

i only tested games as cinebench has no real usage for me.

I did the test because I saw a post saying cache speeds up games more than the core (weird). But I'm surprised with my results.

Strange no?


----------



## PhoenixMDA

How it looks with 5/4,7?
I dont have any difference in games between 5,1/4,7 or 5,3/4,9, because 95% no cpu limit.
In synthetik benchmark Shadow of the Tomb Raider 5,3/4,9 273FPS
and 5,1/4,7 is here, that is normal 24/7 with kaspersky on etc, both with 4666CL17.


----------



## fray_bentos

menko2 said:


> I did the tests 3 times and used different games so they have different engines as well.
> 
> I set them at 720p and 1080p to sure.
> 
> I tested Horizon New Dawn (5fps diference), Shadow of the Tomb Raider (7fps difrence), 3d mark port royale and time spy get scores up by a little. Except fire strike that is the only one that have reduced a bit the score.
> 
> i only tested games as cinebench has no real usage for me.
> 
> I did the test because I saw a post saying cache speeds up games more than the core (weird). But I'm surprised with my results.
> 
> Strange no?


Have you tried:
1. Test 1st setting.
2. Test 2nd setting.
3. Test 1st setting.
4. Test 2nd setting.

Does performance go repeatedly back and forth? It could have been a difference due to rebooting, or something else running in the backround if you didn't switch back and forth like above to double check.

If that is repeatable, then 5.2 GHz core 4.7 GHz cache may not be truly stable at that voltage. You could check that by adding 0.01 or 0.02 V to Vcore and seeing if performance increases.


----------



## Imprezzion

I did the same tests with Division 2, SoTR, Watch Dogs Legion and Time Spy with 5.3Ghz core by just adjusting cache from 43 all the way to 51. There was no scaling at all above 47 cache. That's why I wonder how you got these results.


----------



## Astral85

Is anyone running Sync all core mode? I'm running 51x sync all core + adaptive voltage and the motherboard/CPU is requesting up to 1.40v. This doesn't make sense to me, the internal VID for 51x is 1.343v. I've found the only way to decrease the 1.40v is with an offset on V/F curve #6 (5100) -75mv. This doesn't answer the question though as to why it's requesting so much voltage for 51x sync all core.


----------



## shamino1978

You need to read up on adaptive and ac dc loadline relations.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

shamino1978 said:


> You need to read up on adaptive and ac dc loadline relations.


Hi Shamino,
I didn't understand this too...

If V/F#6 (5100MHz) is 1343mv,
LLC#4, 
AC_LL= 0,5,
and DC_LL=1

So Vcore should be about 1300mv at idle no matter adaptive voltage selected, or I'm wrong?


----------



## Astral85

I cannot say I understand this (yet) but setting SVID to best case (which is AC/DC LL 0.01/0.01) stops the excessive voltage draw at sync all core, 51x, adaptive. Under AC/DC LL 0.01 it stays closer to the internal VID of 1.343v for 5100Mhz. However I had to increase LLC from 4 to 5 for stability. Vmin under LLC 4 was too low.


----------



## fray_bentos

Astral85 said:


> I cannot say I understand this (yet) but setting SVID to best case (which is AC/DC LL 0.01/0.01) stops the excessive voltage draw at sync all core, 51x, adaptive. Under AC/DC LL 0.01 it stays closer to the internal VID of 1.343v for 5100Mhz. However I had to increase LLC from 4 to 5 for stability. Vmin under LLC 4 was too low.


I note that MSI boards automatically set the equivalent of AC/DC LL 0.01/0.01 (called LiteLoad = mode 1 in their BIOS) whenever selecting adaptive voltage and specifying any manual voltage in combination with it. In addition to setting LiteLoad to mode 1, it greys out the option and makes it unchangable; there is a probably a reason for this as you have discovered (overvoltage).


----------



## menko2

fray_bentos said:


> Have you tried:
> 1. Test 1st setting.
> 2. Test 2nd setting.
> 3. Test 1st setting.
> 4. Test 2nd setting.
> 
> Does performance go repeatedly back and forth? It could have been a difference due to rebooting, or something else running in the backround if you didn't switch back and forth like above to double check.
> 
> If that is repeatable, then 5.2 GHz core 4.7 GHz cache may not be truly stable at that voltage. You could check that by adding 0.01 or 0.02 V to Vcore and seeing if performance increases.


1.


fray_bentos said:


> Have you tried:
> 1. Test 1st setting.
> 2. Test 2nd setting.
> 3. Test 1st setting.
> 4. Test 2nd setting.
> 
> Does performance go repeatedly back and forth? It could have been a difference due to rebooting, or something else running in the backround if you didn't switch back and forth like above to double check.
> 
> If that is repeatable, then 5.2 GHz core 4.7 GHz cache may not be truly stable at that voltage. You could check that by adding 0.01 or 0.02 V to Vcore and seeing if performance increases.


I did run the games benchs i at 720p and windows clean with programs closed (all possible).

1) 5.2ghz core, 4.7ghz cache:
tomb raider 36312. 232fps.
horizon 34227. 190fpz
port royal 14895
fire stryke 20522

2) 5.0ghz core, 4.9ghz cache.
tomb raider 37989. 243fps.
horizon. 35336. 197fps.
port royal 14897.
time spy 20559.


----------



## fray_bentos

menko2 said:


> 1.
> 
> 
> I did run the games benchs i at 720p and windows clean with programs closed (all possible).
> 
> 1) 5.2ghz core, 4.7ghz cache:
> tomb raider 36312. 232fps.
> horizon 34227. 190fpz
> port royal 14895
> fire stryke 20522
> 
> 2) 5.0ghz core, 4.9ghz cache.
> tomb raider 37989. 243fps.
> horizon. 35336. 197fps.
> port royal 14897.
> time spy 20559.


Yes, but what happens when you change back to 1) from 2)? Do you reproducibly get the same numbers flicking back and forth as the first time you tried 1)? e.g. a windows update could have been downloading in the background with 1). Also did you try increasing Vcore for the 1) settings by 0.01 to 0.02 V? It may not be fully stable, hence lower performance?


----------



## menko2

fray_bentos said:


> Yes, but what happens when you change back to 1) from 2)? Do you reproducibly get the same numbers flicking back and forth as the first time you tried 1)? e.g. a windows update could have been downloading in the background with 1). Also did you try increasing Vcore for the 1) settings by 0.01 to 0.02 V? It may not be fully stable, hence lower performance?


I have set 1.38v for both set ups. It's too much voltage for this settings in bios but since I was just testing it's ok for some time.

Results are steady as i repeat them a few times.

Windows update is disable and no programs in the background. 

It's 720p anyways. Difference is very little. 2k and 4k should be non existent. I might try 4k and see.


----------



## Astral85

@menko2 How have you set the voltage? Adaptive? Manual? Have you tried setting the Cache the same for both 1 and 2? There's no way 5.0 can be faster than 5.2 if all settings are the same...


----------



## menko2

Astral85 said:


> @menko2 How have you set the voltage? Adaptive? Manual? Have you tried setting the Cache the same for both 1 and 2? There's no way 5.0 can be faster than 5.2 if all settings are the same...


That's what I think too. But i saw one post of someone playing with the cache and got better results in games with higher cache than core.

The voltage is set to manual. 1.38v in both cases.
A) 5.2ghz core. 4.7ghz cache.
B) 5.0ghz core. 4.9ghz cache.

The results are steady. I might try upping the voltage and keep 4.9ghz cache but with 5.2ghz core and see...


----------



## Imprezzion

I will do some benching with this as well. Give me a few hours. I will test 5.2 core 4.6 cache, 5.2 core 4.9 cache, 5.0 core 4.9 cache, 5.3 core 4.7 cache and maybe some other combination if you have any suggestions. I also gotta figure out which games I'm going to bench. Don't have a lot of games installed that have a repeatable benchmark at the moment..


----------



## fray_bentos

Imprezzion said:


> I will do some benching with this as well. Give me a few hours. I will test 5.2 core 4.6 cache, 5.2 core 4.9 cache, 5.0 core 4.9 cache, 5.3 core 4.7 cache and maybe some other combination if you have any suggestions. I also gotta figure out which games I'm going to bench. Don't have a lot of games installed that have a repeatable benchmark at the moment..


I'll wait here with popcorn for the results. You could consider Shadow of the Tomb Raider demo as that makes good CPU leverage and the demo shouldn't munch as much drive space as the full game.


----------



## Astral85

I'll wait with the popcorn too.  AC Valhalla, RDR2, Watch Dogs Legions and Division 2 have in game benchmarks.


----------



## fray_bentos

Astral85 said:


> I'll wait with the popcorn too.  AC Valhalla, RDR2, Watch Dogs Legions and Division 2 have in game benchmarks.


I wouldn't bother with AC Valhalla; performance doesn't seem to scale beyond 4C/4T and it is almost always GPU bound. It is a world apart from AC: Odyssey and Origins.
Edit: It's 4C/4T! Assassin's Creed Valhalla PC Performance Review and Optimization Guide | CPU Performance - Did Ubisoft Fix Assassin's Creed's CPU issues? | Software


----------



## Imprezzion

I have legion, metro Exodus enhanced edition and division 2 installed. I can download the SoTR demo as well. Along with 3dmark.


----------



## menko2

I'm using shadow of the tomb raider, horizon zero dawn, Valhalla (i skip cause is very GPU bound), 3d mark.


----------



## Imprezzion

I have now done the first benchmarks with 5.2/4.6 and 5.2/4.9 with GTA V, SoTR, Metro Exodus Enhanced and Division 2. Haven't tried lower CPU speed yet as I wanna compare these results first. If there's no discernable difference now at the same core speed then lower core speed obviously won't be faster. Just finishing SoTR now and then I'll post preliminary results with numbers and screenshots. If performance is way up with 4.9 cache I'll run 5.0/4.9 as well, if there's no real difference I think there's no point in doing lower core speeds. Uploading screenshots now.

This is based on a 10900KF @ 5.2 all core, MSI Z490 Ace, 32GB G-Skill 2x16GB B-Die @ 4400 17-17-17-36-340-2T, Gigabyte GTX3080 Gaming OC @ +75 core +1200 memory. CPU and GPU are under water, CPU is delidded and direct die cooled. Never exceeded 64c in any benchmark. GPU never exceeded 57c. 

EDIT: There's absolutely zero difference in the benchmarks. All of them are within margin of error or the exact same. Only GTA V won marginally with what I would consider MAYBE outside run to run variance with ~2FPS average more but.. See below:

Division 2 @ 5.2/4.6









Division 2 @ 5.2/4.9









Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition (RTX Enabled) 5.2/4.6:









Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition (RTX Enabled) 5.2/4.9:









SoTR 5.2/4.6:









SoTR 5.2/4.9:









GTA V 5.2/4.6:









GTA V 5.2/4.9:


----------



## RobertoSampaio

One stranger thing that happens to me is, for the same core and ring frequency, if I rise CPU voltage 30mv I have about 3% better results in CPUz and Cinebench R23.
I'm running absolute minimum voltage to be stable all cores 51x, so I don't think 3% better results will make any difference.


----------



## fray_bentos

menko2 said:


> That's what I think too. But i saw one post of someone playing with the cache and got better results in games with higher cache than core.
> 
> The voltage is set to manual. 1.38v in both cases.
> A) 5.2ghz core. 4.7ghz cache.
> B) 5.0ghz core. 4.9ghz cache.
> 
> The results are steady. I might try upping the voltage and keep 4.9ghz cache but with 5.2ghz core and see...


OK, but you still didn't try increasing Vcore for A), though I appreciate that you are running out of headroom. The weaker performance in A) could be because you are slightly voltage starving that combination of clock and cache speeds, or it is hitting a silicon peformance wall.

RobertoSampaio notes precisely this type of behaviour in the post directly before this one:


RobertoSampaio said:


> One stranger thing that happens to me is, for the same core and ring frequency, if I rise CPU voltage 30mv I have about 3% better results in CPUz and Cinebench R23.
> I'm running absolute minimum voltage to be stable all cores 51x, so I don't think 3% better results will make any difference.


However, I don't think it is strange behaviour, it is as expected for a borderline un/stable overclock. Note that the 3% gain he reports on adding 30 mV (on top of a borderline stable "minimum voltage") is close to the equivalent of running at 5.2 GHz vs. 5.0 GHz clock speed (4% difference).

I wonder if Menko2 will avoid "voltage-starved" performance at 5.1 GHz and 4.7 / 4.8 GHz cache with the same 1.38 Vcore. You would this expect to beat the settings in B). However, being voltage starved still isn't guaranteed in this scenario either, it could still be borderline unstable depending on the silicon quality/voltage applied.


----------



## fray_bentos

CZonin said:


> Haven't revisited this thread in awhile but looking to see if I can give hitting 5.1 on my 10900k another try. My setup is a MSI MEG Z490i Unify with a Kraken X63. After my last attempt I ended with the following settings:
> 
> CPU Ratio = 51
> AVX = 0
> CPU Core Voltage = 1.345
> Ring Ratio = 47
> Core Voltage Mode = Override
> Intel C-State = Disabled
> LLC = 4
> SA = 1.22
> IO = 1.2
> It was getting close to stable but would ultimately hit an error or crash after awhile. Also with trying to keep a relatively quiet fan curve on the AIO, it was getting pretty hot during stress tests.
> 
> Are there any other MSI specific settings that I might be missing or just anything else in general that I should try outside of increasing core voltage to 1.35?


I know this is an older post, but I am on MSI and I am having better luck with high clocks on droopier LLC settings (MSI). Try this:
a very droopy LLC6, ring ratio to 45 (and work up from here after establishing stability), AVX = 0, 1.42 Vcore adaptive (the max Vcore I see EVER in HWiNFO is 1.355 V), C states enabled, Intel TVB Voltage optimisations enabled. You might even get 5.2 GHz as I have. Set PL1 and PL2 both to 250 W, drops clocks under extreme loads, but keeps clocks high during gaming. Keep SA and IO the same as you note here.


----------



## Imprezzion

Same here on a Z490 Ace. Up to 5.1 I can run flat LLC(3) but 5.2 and 5.3 all core wants LLC5. Even with the same reported voltage in hwinfo64 (VR VOut) it isn't stable on LLC3 while LLC5 is with higher base voltage. Combine it with Advanced setting for AC/DC at whatever value you need to get a good voltage response across varied loads and you should be fine.

For reference I run 5.2 all core 46 cache LLC5 AC/DC advanced "1" with advanced offset voltage at +120 for x51 and +150 for x52 rest auto. This results in 1.334v AVX all threads loaded at the lowest point and 1.354v at the highest with very light single core loads so it does have a bit of droop while under max 300w+ loads but remains stable. Temps while gaming at 23c ambients are mid 60's and a max load test (Prime95 Small FFT AVX FMA3) is high 80's at 355w.

The Ace has monitoring points on the board for a multi meter and I measured actual voltages as well and they are all about 0.009v lower then what's reported by VR VOut so 1.334v reported is about 1.325v measured and 1.354v reported is about 1.346v measured. Not sure how accurate my cheap DMM is tho. I'm happy that it can even do 3 digits after the dot <20v. DRAM is actually higher then reported. It reports 1.508v (set at 1.500v) but the DMM reads 1.519v.


----------



## CZonin

fray_bentos said:


> I know this is an older post, but I am on MSI and I am having better luck with high clocks on droopier LLC settings (MSI). Try this:
> a very droopy LLC6, ring ratio to 45 (and work up from here after establishing stability), AVX = 0, 1.42 Vcore adaptive (the max Vcore I see EVER in HWiNFO is 1.355 V), C states enabled, Intel TVB Voltage optimisations enabled. You might even get 5.2 GHz as I have. Set PL1 and PL2 both to 250 W, drops clocks under extreme loads, but keeps clocks high during gaming. Keep SA and IO the same as you note here.





Imprezzion said:


> Same here on a Z490 Ace. Up to 5.1 I can run flat LLC(3) but 5.2 and 5.3 all core wants LLC5. Even with the same reported voltage in hwinfo64 (VR VOut) it isn't stable on LLC3 while LLC5 is with higher base voltage. Combine it with Advanced setting for AC/DC at whatever value you need to get a good voltage response across varied loads and you should be fine.
> 
> For reference I run 5.2 all core 46 cache LLC5 AC/DC advanced "1" with advanced offset voltage at +120 for x51 and +150 for x52 rest auto. This results in 1.334v AVX all threads loaded at the lowest point and 1.354v at the highest with very light single core loads so it does have a bit of droop while under max 300w+ loads but remains stable. Temps while gaming at 23c ambients are mid 60's and a max load test (Prime95 Small FFT AVX FMA3) is high 80's at 355w.
> 
> The Ace has monitoring points on the board for a multi meter and I measured actual voltages as well and they are all about 0.009v lower then what's reported by VR VOut so 1.334v reported is about 1.325v measured and 1.354v reported is about 1.346v measured. Not sure how accurate my cheap DMM is tho. I'm happy that it can even do 3 digits after the dot <20v. DRAM is actually higher then reported. It reports 1.508v (set at 1.500v) but the DMM reads 1.519v.


Thanks for replies, I'm going to try that out later. I ended up being able to get 5.1 stable by just dropping my LLC to 3 but I'll still try out your suggestions if it can help with thermals.

I actually posted the other day but don't think anyone replied. I just upgraded to 4266 CL17 RAM from my 3600 CL16 and now my OC is unstable. What should I focus on to get it stable again with the new kit? I tried increasing Vcore to 1.35 and SA to 1.23 but ran into crashed while gaming. I've been slowly increasing SA, and about to test 1.25. Should I continue to just increase SA or will Vcore need to be increased further?


----------



## fray_bentos

CZonin said:


> Thanks for replies, I'm going to try that out later. I ended up being able to get 5.1 stable by just dropping my LLC to 3 but I'll still try out your suggestions if it can help with thermals.
> 
> I actually posted the other day but don't think anyone replied. I just upgraded to 4266 CL17 RAM from my 3600 CL16 and now my OC is unstable. What should I focus on to get it stable again with the new kit? I tried increasing Vcore to 1.35 and SA to 1.23 but ran into crashed while gaming. I've been slowly increasing SA, and about to test 1.25. Should I continue to just increase SA or will Vcore need to be increased further?


I've been slowly working up the thread from the very begginging learning things as I go (since I picked up a 10900KF); it has taken me a few weeks to get to page 200! Check your RAM temperatures, leave HWiNFO open during gaming. I suspect you are using a RAM voltage of 1.45 to 1.50 V, which could lead to RAM hitting 43 C or more. On B die this temperature = random crashes, especially with a 3090 pumping 330 W of hot air into the case. If that's the problem, then you'll need to add a fan directly on top of your RAM, or lower the voltage to something like 1.40 V along with the RAM frequency to ~4000 MHz until you get temps under 45 C / no crashing in games.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

This is a good choice for RAM Cooling...









14.8US $ 21% OFF|ALSEYE RAM Cooler PC Fan DDR Memory Cooler with Dual 60mm Fan PWM 1500 4000RPM Cooler for DDR2/3/4|memory cooler|ram coolerram memory cooler - AliExpress


Smarter Shopping, Better Living! Aliexpress.com




www.aliexpress.com


----------



## CZonin

fray_bentos said:


> I've been slowly working up the thread from the very begginging learning things as I go (since I picked up a 10900KF); it has taken me a few weeks to get to page 200! Check your RAM temperatures, leave HWiNFO open during gaming. I suspect you are using a RAM voltage of 1.45 to 1.50 V, which could lead to RAM hitting 43 C or more. On B die this temperature = random crashes, especially with a 3090 pumping 330 W of hot air into the case. If that's the problem, then you'll need to add a fan directly on top of your RAM, or lower the voltage to something like 1.40 V along with the RAM frequency to ~4000 MHz until you get temps under 45 C / no crashing in games.


Got it, I'll try that. My RAM temp shouldn't be effected by my GPU though since I'm using a sandwich style case. GPU is completely separated from everything else.


----------



## fray_bentos

CZonin said:


> Got it, I'll try that. My RAM temp shouldn't be effected by my GPU though since I'm using a sandwich style case. GPU is completely separated from everything else.


If you are talking about the tiny SFF Sliger SM580 case, then I would be very doubtful that all the heat from your 3090 is going immediately out of the case; you'll also get radiant and conductive heating in addition to hot circulating air. HWiNFO will certainly reveal whether RAM temps are to blame or not.


----------



## CZonin

fray_bentos said:


> If you are talking about the tiny SFF Sliger SM580 case, then I would be very doubtful that all the heat from your 3090 is going immediately out of the case; you'll also get radiant and conductive heating in addition to hot circulating air. HWiNFO will certainly reveal whether RAM temps are to blame or not.


There might be some heat spilling over but it shouldn't be much. Might try to mount one of these near the RAM but not sure if I can fit it or how it would mount. Really tight on space.


----------



## fray_bentos

CZonin said:


> There might be some heat spilling over but it shouldn't be much. Might try to mount one of these near the RAM but not sure if I can fit it or how it would mount. Really tight on space.


You could start by monitoring gaming RAM temps, then comparing RAM temps with the side panel(s) off, perhaps also with a conventional room fan pointing at it and seeing if that makes a difference. If it does then perhaps a fan/voltage lowering is needed. If there is no improvement, then there is something off with your timings.


----------



## CZonin

fray_bentos said:


> You could start by monitoring gaming RAM temps, then comparing RAM temps with the side panel(s) off, perhaps also with a conventional room fan pointing at it and seeing if that makes a difference. If it does then perhaps a fan/voltage lowering is needed. If there is no improvement, then there is something off with your timings.


That's a good idea on the fan to test lower temps. Side panels off won't make much of a difference since it's basically open air with them on.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Does somebody overclock base clock?

I'm trying to use 104MHz...

System seems to be faster.


----------



## Imprezzion

RobertoSampaio said:


> Does somebody overclock base clock?
> 
> I'm trying to use 104MHz...
> 
> System seems to be faster.


I have tried but my system becomes incredibly unstable even on as low as 102Mhz. Cannot get it to move from base.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Imprezzion said:


> I have tried but my system becomes incredibly unstable even on as low as 102Mhz. Cannot get it to move from base.


I'm getting errors in BFV...
It's not so easy to control voltage with "brake" frequencies...


----------



## GeneO

Well it does boost your CPU *and *DRAM frequency, so you have to restabilize both.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> Well it does boost your CPU *and *DRAM frequency, so you have to restabilize both.


I was using 41X for RAM => 4100MHz now I'm using 40X => 4160MHz

Ring was 47X, now 46x => 4784MHz

CPU was 56x4 - 55x6 - 54x8 - 53x10 - Full Load @[email protected],240v

Now 54x4 - 53x6 - 52x8 - 51x10 => 5616x4 - 5512x6 - 5408x8 - 5304x10 - Full Load @[email protected],30v

The problem is the CPU power at full load... It was 240W and now 265W


----------



## GeneO

Now your hitting the limit of my bottom of the barrel chip: 5.1GHz @ ~ 1.3v load. Even delidded I can't really do 5.2


----------



## Astral85

GeneO said:


> Now your hitting the limit of my bottom of the barrel chip: 5.1GHz @ ~ 1.3v load. Even delidded I can't really do 5.2


What SP is your chip GeneO? How are you setting the OC?


----------



## GeneO

Astral85 said:


> What SP is your chip GeneO? How are you setting the OC?


sp 63. Adaptive LLC 5 with AC//DC loadlines of of 0.26 / 0.26. IMC is weak too. can't do uncore higher than 47 and need a higher IO/SA than I have ever needed for a mild memory OC. Tests with P95 FFT 112/112 with noAVX and noAVX2, Realbench and About the worse predictions I have seen for a 10900k. Have delidded and still at 51 use OCTVB to drop a multiplier at 75c and another at 85c.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> sp 63. Adaptive LLC 5 with AC//DC loadlines of of 0.26 / 0.26. IMC is weak too. can't do uncore higher than 47 and need a higher IO/SA than I have ever needed for a mild memory OC. Tests with P95 FFT 112/112 with noAVX and noAVX2, Realbench and About the worse predictions I have seen for a 10900k. Have delidded and still at 51 use OCTVB to drop a multiplier at 75c and another at 85c.
> 
> View attachment 2514027


For LLC#5 try DC_LL = 0.80
I think your VID is not calibrated with DC_LL=0.26


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> For LLC#5 try DC_LL = 0.80
> I think your VID is not calibrated with DC_LL=0.26


DC LL has nothing to do with the core voltage or actual vid supplied to the vrm by the processor. That is my understanding. What good would increasing DC LLdo me? My overcclock is based on lowest vcore that is stable. My method is set llc and raise AC LL until I get a stable OC.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> DC LL has nothing to do with the core voltage or actual vid supplied to the vrm by the processor. That is my understanding. What good would increasing DC LLdo me? My overcclock is based on lowest vcore that is stable. My method is set llc and raise AC LL until I get a stable OC.


You are right, VCore will not change... but CPU power measurement, vmax stress, voltage optimization and internal algorithms use VID... 

Try to compare VID and Vcore at full load using 0.26 and do the same test using 0.80. 

You will see VID at full load will follow Vcore. Power will be lower (will be real) and all voltage algorithm will work as it shall work.


----------



## GeneO

From @shamino1978, after stating VID reported by software is only correct if DC LL = .01

" why don't we set DC LL to 0.01 and AC LL to whatever we need (since the actual vdroop compensation cpu requests for boils down to AC LL Value)?
Well you can but when AC and DC LL values differ, the current and power calculations done by the cpu gets skewed."

Which means the current and power calculations are only correct if AC LL = DC LL, which is why I have them set equal. I don't care if VID reported by software is incorrect, but I do care if current and power are.

Anyhow, it is one of the crappiest chips I have owned as far as OC headroom, as you can see from the prediction image I posted. I have tried everything, various LLC and VRM settings, at the dice always roll ~ 1.3v load 5.1 GHz all-core. 52 is unobtanium in power, current and temperature. I can push it to 5150 MHz with BCLK but I don't like the temps and currents there for 24x7.

So I think if you setup your AC/DC loadline as you suggest, which seems to be set the DC LL = LLC, you are skewing your current and power calculations


----------



## GeneO

I also interpret, though on less sure footing, Shamino's statement that the power and current calculated by the CPU are skewed if AC LL and DC LL differ to have some real implications. If the the current the cpu calculates isn't correct, the VID sent to the VRM may not be correct as it depends on the current.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> I also interpret, though on less sure footing, Shamino's statement that the power and current calculated by the CPU are skewed if AC LL and DC LL differ to have some real implications. If the the current the cpu calculates isn't correct, the VID sent to the VRM may not be correct as it depends on the current.











What does CPU Internal AC/DC Load Line really do?


Hello guys, I don't know if this is the right place to create this thread? If it isn't, please move it. I have just updated my rig to a 9900K and a Gigabyte Z390 UD. After leaving everything on default and running a stress test with Aida64 I quickly found out that the temps were reaching 100...




www.overclock.net





"DC Loadline does not affect operating voltages, only power measurements and VID, but DC Loadline is best set to the same value as VRM loadline for accurate VID and CPU Package Power reporting..."

So, what is the correct ?


----------



## GeneO

That is a quote from @Falkentyne if I remember correctly, who is an overclocker here. Who would you do you think, Shamino, and engineer that works for Asus or Falkentyne? I think Falkentyne was maybe a little loose with words. Maybe @shamino1978 can chime in.


----------



## Falkentyne

Huh? Am I in trouble again?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> That is a quote from @Falkentyne if I remember correctly, who is an overclocker here. Who would you do you think, Shamino, and engineer that works for Asus or Falkentyne? I think Falkentyne was maybe a little loose with words. Maybe @shamino1978 can chime in.





We'll be back.




"S/w vid readings may not always reflect the actual vid *requested from the controller*, in fact, unless DC Loadline is written to 0.01, it wont.
What it reflects is actually the voltage cpu anticipates to get, calculated from DC LL value. "

I think if you want to know the value requested, you need to set DC_LL=0.01. It is the raw value without any impedance.
The value requested will be sent to CPU, but VRM has an impedance (LLC) and the voltage will drop.
The CPU don't know the impedance of the VRM, so if you inform this impedance (DC_LL) the CPU will do the correct calculations.
If you have VID=VCore all the process became easy.
Another thing, If you have Vcore=1200mv and 190A you will have 228W. 
And you cant set a DC_LL value that read 300W.
You can use DC_LL to cheat CPU, but it's not an aleatory variable that you can set as you wish.

"So why dont we set DC LL to 0.01 and AC LL to whatever we need (since the actual vdroop compensation cpu requests for boils down to AC LL Value)?
Well you can but when *AC and DC LL* values differ, the current and power calculations done by the cpu gets skewed. "

I think Shamino wanted to say "LLC and DC_LL". 
We need to ask him....


----------



## GeneO

Falkentyne said:


> Huh? Am I in trouble again?


When aren't you? LOL.


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> I think Shamino wanted to say "LLC and DC_LL".
> We need to ask him....


I don't think so. He was pretty clear and explicit. He may be wrong though. I do see the logic behind this - in order to calculate correct power, the CPU needs to know the core voltage but can't do that without knowing the droop which is determined by the VRM (LLC) load line. So if the processor calculated the voltage based on Base voltage + (ACLL-DCLL)*current and you substitute VRM load line for DC it would work out to Vcore*current. I don't know that this is what it does or where it gets the current from for that matter.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> I don't think so. He was pretty clear and explicit.


Take a pic of your CPU V/F curves, let me see how bad are you chip... LOL


----------



## GeneO

So I thought I'd test this. I ran RB 2.64 5 GHz with ACLL = .26 and DCLL either .26 or .76 (I calculate LLC5 is about .76). These run at about 155A @ ~ 1.26v. 
So according to you I should see a drop in power of current*(.76-.26)*current/1000 (current*volts) = 12 Watts. I measured these successive iterations between .26 and .76, here are the last two, the others are about the same. The current and power are HWINFO64 taken from the Asus EC chip.

.26 156A 196W
.76 157A 197W

So what would have been expected for .76 would have been around 196-12 = 184W. Always the ,76 run was slightly higher in wattage, not lower.

So basically no difference in reported wattage.

Dang, guess I should look at power reported by the chip. the EC probably has all information to calculate it correctly.


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> Take a pic of your CPU V/F curves, let me see how bad are you chip... LOL


Pretty sad huh.


----------



## GeneO

OK, now I believe it. I always look at the EC power and current, which are apparently always correct regardless of AC/DC LL. I never look at package or IA cores power so did not notice a discrepancy. They are indeed about 12w higher with the .26 ACLL than the .76 mohm as predicted for this test.

Now I imagine that also impacts power throttling, which I never hit (I setup to throttle pretty much by temperature). So yeah, should set DCLL = VRM LL for correct CPU calculated power, though EC is always on the money for reports.

Now yet another way to find out what the mohm is for a given LLC - power comparison.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> OK, now I believe it. I always look at the EC power and current, which are apparently always correct regardless of AC/DC LL. I never look at package or IA cores power so did not notice a discrepancy. They are indeed about 12w higher with the .26 ACLL than the .76 mohm as predicted for this test.
> 
> Now I imagine that also impacts power throttling, which I never hit (I setup to throttle pretty much by temperature). So yeah, should set DCLL = VRM LL for correct CPU calculated power, though EC is always on the money for reports.
> 
> Now yet another way to find out what the mohm is for a given LLC - power comparison.


Nice !!!!! 
Now you have the MB power measurement matching to the CPU power measurement.
Are you running "sync all cores" or "by core" ?
Did you set VmaxStress on or off? And how about Voltage optimization?


----------



## GeneO

Vmax stress off, voltage optimization on, all cores. But it really doesn't matter. It needs 1.3v+ core under load for 51x. 50 and lower are another matter. I am working on them. 52 is not stable but for over 1.36v and I can only test that with no hyperthreading. Just a crappy chip.


----------



## Astral85

GeneO said:


> sp 63. Adaptive LLC 5 with AC//DC loadlines of of 0.26 / 0.26. IMC is weak too. can't do uncore higher than 47 and need a higher IO/SA than I have ever needed for a mild memory OC. Tests with P95 FFT 112/112 with noAVX and noAVX2, Realbench and About the worse predictions I have seen for a 10900k. Have delidded and still at 51 use OCTVB to drop a multiplier at 75c and another at 85c.
> 
> View attachment 2514027


Your predictions are better than my SP 63. I don't know if the predictions are accurate anyway. Try sync all cores (51), SVID - Best case, Adaptive voltage (all Auto), LLC5 and let me know the result. I have 5100Mhz stable in that config with 1.270-1.30v (Vmin around 1.24v).


----------



## GeneO

Astral85 said:


> Your predictions are better than my SP 63. I don't know if the predictions are accurate anyway. Try sync all cores (51), SVID - Best case, Adaptive voltage (all Auto), LLC5 and let me know the result. I have 5100Mhz stable in that config with 1.270-1.30v (Vmin around 1.24v).


I agree, they aren't in general. My 10700k performed better than predicted by quite a bit. This one worse than predicted. That is what I am running at sync all core, 51x, adaptive minimum vcore at load that is stable is 1.3v+


----------



## GeneO

Astral85 said:


> Your predictions are better than my SP 63. I don't know if the predictions are accurate anyway. Try sync all cores (51), SVID - Best case, Adaptive voltage (all Auto), LLC5 and let me know the result. I have 5100Mhz stable in that config with 1.270-1.30v (Vmin around 1.24v).


So under what type of load do you get that 1.24v vcore?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> I agree, they aren't in general. My 10700k performed better than predicted by quite a bit. This one worse than predicted. That is what I am running at sync all core, 51x, adaptive minimum vcore at load that is stable is 1.3v+


You can do the following test...
Reduce RING to 43x and test [email protected]@full_load.
After that you can go rising ring until stable. I think all will be fine until 46-47x

If I set ring to 48x I need Vcore=1300mv no matter the CPU frequency.

Another thing you can try is to start with LLC#4, AC_LL=0.5 and DC_LL=1.1 and make changes in V/F#6 (5100).
This ensures sufficient Vcore at idle and when CPU is @load AC_LL provides additional voltage.


----------



## GeneO

Already did that with LLC4. But I may be on the cusp of ring instability. I am at 47 and can't do 48, so I'll play around with that some, thanks. I did lower it to 46 at one point. The IMC/ring does seem a little weak on this.


----------



## cptclutch

I'm trying to determine whether or not I should direct die my 10900k. Currently building a pretty aggressive loop for it in order to hit 5.3. I've delidded a 6700k so I understand the process, but I've heard some horror stories about the newer soldered CPU's. 

I feel like if I'm building this loop to extract some extra performance out of it that I should take the risk and go ahead and run it direct die, I just want to make sure it's not extremely risky if I take it slow and use a heat gun. Do you have to be somewhat of an idiot to break it during the process? You basically just want to heat it up during the delid and then just be gentle when mounting the cooler, right?


----------



## acoustic

You need a direct-die mounting kit, but yeah, it's super simple. I had zero issues de-lidding my 10900K. I heated it up with a heat gun, threw it in the de-lid tool from RockItCool, and it was still pretty tight. Took it back out, hit it with some more heat, and it popped off no problem. I'm not sure how you could screw it up with a de-lid tool. Maybe if you decided to crank on it with zero heat?

Either way, my chip came out perfect. I used tape to seal off the die when I applied liquid metal, and that worked really well too. Overall, it's the best way to reduce temps. All the cooling capacity in the world doesn't matter if you can't transfer the heat fast enough to utilize it.


----------



## cptclutch

acoustic said:


> You need a direct-die mounting kit, but yeah, it's super simple. I had zero issues de-lidding my 10900K. I heated it up with a heat gun, threw it in the de-lid tool from RockItCool, and it was still pretty tight. Took it back out, hit it with some more heat, and it popped off no problem. I'm not sure how you could screw it up with a de-lid tool. Maybe if you decided to crank on it with zero heat?
> 
> Either way, my chip came out perfect. I used tape to seal off the die when I applied liquid metal, and that worked really well too. Overall, it's the best way to reduce temps. All the cooling capacity in the world doesn't matter if you can't transfer the heat fast enough to utilize it.


Thanks for the info. I'm going to go all in and order the direct die kit from RockItCool I think. With a dual 360mm push pull setup with a D5 running maxed out and a direct die setup I should be able to push it far more than I currently can with my Corsair 280mm AIO setup.


----------



## GeneO

acoustic said:


> You need a direct-die mounting kit, but yeah, it's super simple. I had zero issues de-lidding my 10900K. I heated it up with a heat gun, threw it in the de-lid tool from RockItCool, and it was still pretty tight. Took it back out, hit it with some more heat, and it popped off no problem. I'm not sure how you could screw it up with a de-lid tool. Maybe if you decided to crank on it with zero heat?
> 
> Either way, my chip came out perfect. I used tape to seal off the die when I applied liquid metal, and that worked really well too. Overall, it's the best way to reduce temps. All the cooling capacity in the world doesn't matter if you can't transfer the heat fast enough to utilize it.


I think it is relatively safe. The solder is somewhat soft snd a heat gun should help though I did mine without one. 11th gen is another story because of components on the pcb.

EDIT: I guess I should say I am relidded, not direct-die.


----------



## acoustic

cptclutch said:


> Thanks for the info. I'm going to go all in and order the direct die kit from RockItCool I think. With a dual 360mm push pull setup with a D5 running maxed out and a direct die setup I should be able to push it far more than I currently can with my Corsair 280mm AIO setup.


I'm currently Direct-Die on a EVGA 360 CLC and it works alright. The issue I have is the CLC coldplate was very convex and caused nearly zero contact on the die. After much lapping/sanding, it's better, but still not perfect. The cooling ability of the CLC is just not there either. I have a bunch of Heatkiller stuff coming in and will be building my first custom loop, and retaining the direct-die. I can run 5.2Ghz but I have a bad spike on Core4 due to the coldplate issues and it causes me to hit a Cache L0 fail. The cooler the chip, the less voltage required.


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> You can do the following test...
> Reduce RING to 43x and test [email protected]@full_load.
> After that you can go rising ring until stable. I think all will be fine until 46-47x
> 
> If I set ring to 48x I need Vcore=1300mv no matter the CPU frequency.
> 
> Another thing you can try is to start with LLC#4, AC_LL=0.5 and DC_LL=1.1 and make changes in V/F#6 (5100).
> This ensures sufficient Vcore at idle and when CPU is @load AC_LL provides additional voltage.


No banana.


----------



## cptclutch

GeneO said:


> I think it is relatively safe. The solder is somewhat soft snd a heat gun should help though I did mine without one. 11th gen is another story because of components on the pcb.
> 
> EDIT: I guess I should say I am relidded, not direct-die.


Ordered the full kit from RockIt. Excited to see how hard I can push this with two GTS 360mm rads with 12 P12's push/pull and a D5 all running fast. I'm at 5.2 now with 1.4v under load (z490-e strix board) with very high temps on a 280mm Corsair AIO push/pull. I'm hoping the dramatic improvement in thermals can let me hit 5.3/5.4 with aggressive voltage and low temps.


----------



## Astral85

GeneO said:


> So under what type of load do you get that 1.24v vcore?


This is the Vmin under very heavy load like Cinebench R23 and Asus RealBench. Run either of these and monitor with HWiNFO. Post the results.


----------



## GeneO

Astral85 said:


> This is the Vmin under very heavy load like Cinebench R23 and Asus RealBench. Run either of these and monitor with HWiNFO. Post the results.


Mine (1.305v ) is for Real Bench 2.56. So we are comparing apples to apples.


----------



## Astral85

GeneO said:


> Mine (1.305v ) is for Real Bench 2.56. So we are comparing apples to apples.


Doesn't sound right. You should be seeing a Vmin (Vdroop) under heavy load. What does the Vcore do in Cinebench R23? Can you post some pics of how your setup in the BIOS?


----------



## GeneO

I see a big vdroop. In order to be stable at LLC5 I have to jack VF6 offset to +70 mv. so my VF6 point is 1.429v. that's a 124mv droop, which is the right amount for LLC5 + TVB voltage optimization. It is a lottery and this is a real stinker.

EDIT: Maybe my criteria for stability is too high. It is ultimately 112/112 AVX (AVX2 disabled) without WHEA.


----------



## GeneO

Exploring this further as a weak IMC, I am able to reduce the core voltage by about 30mv at the cost of raising VCCsa and VCCio to 1.16v and 1.19v, 51/47 @ 1.279v core RB 2.34 stable for an hour run. I ran P95 112/112 AVX (no AVX2) for a half hour no WHEA. Still not great, but better. Changing Power phase control from extreme to Power Phase Response Ultra fast seems to have helped too.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> Exploring this further as a weak IMC, I am able to reduce the core voltage by about 30mv at the cost of raising VCCsa and VCCio to 1.16v and 1.19v, 51/47 @ 1.279v core RB 2.34 stable for an hour run. I ran P95 112/112 AVX (no AVX2) for a half hour no WHEA. Still not great, but better. Changing Power phase control from extreme to Power Phase Response Ultra fast seems to have helped too.


I would try to rise acll to 0.5 and reduce vf#6 offset.


----------



## GeneO

Already ahead of you. I adjusted ACLL for a VF6 offset of 0 while maintaining the same vcore under load. this turned out to be ACLL = 0.16. Also, I think I might be stable at 1.35v RB load 52x with VF8 offset of -0.1 with this ACLL. Only ran it a little bit on RB though. This chip is very touchy about Vccsa and Vccio. Maybe able to do a little bit better, but don't really know whether it is worth the effort and reduction in chip life.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

A higher acll allows a lower vf offset...
For me works fine to use acll = LLC (mohm) divided by 2.
For llc 4 I use 0.5.... For llc5, 0.4...


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> A higher acll allows a lower vf offset...
> For me works fine to use acll = LLC (mohm) divided by 2.
> For llc 4 I use 0.5.... For llc5, 0.4...


Like I said I adjusted it for 0 offset at 51x with stable minimum load voltage. there is reason for me to do otherwise.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Negative offset and lower vcore at idle.


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> Negative offset and lower vcore at idle.


Vcore at idle doesn't mean much to me. At idle all that matters to me is that a single core isn't pulling more than, say 15-20A. Negative offset? You will probably need one at some VF point. What is important is that, for a given frequency, it is stable across all loads given VID = VF +ACLL*Current behavior. I guess I try to pick a VF point that is an inflection point and has the worst behavior - zero VF offset with surrounding points requiring zero or less than zero offset. If you set the AACLL such that the offset is zero for that point, then that seems to work for the VF points below it (which don't really need adjusting), and then you can adjust the points above it. For me that is VF6. Setting the ACLL to 0.16 mohm and VF6 offset = 0 gives me stable VF6 and below (all zero offset), and I adjust VF7 offset to -0.1. I could just as easily do this procedure with LLC4 with a larger ACLL and potentially better guard band.


----------



## Astral85

Are you using Sync all cores @GeneO?

My setup:
Sync all cores 51x
Adaptive voltage - Auto, Auto
SVID - Best case (which is AC/DC LL 0.01/0.01)
LLC 5
Voltage Optimization - Enabled
VF curve - No change

I thought this was stable but apparently it's not, the Vdroop is massive and hits instability. Even going to LLC6 does not help. It appears the only way to stabilize is adding voltage to the VF Curve for 5.1 (VF #6). 

The problem going to a higher AC LL of 0.50 (with Sync all cores) like Roberto suggests is that it draws excessive voltage (1.450V). That is 116mv over the CPU internal VID for 5100 and not necessary. There must be a balance in the AC LL that is needed for stability and it appears you have already worked this out (0.16).


----------



## Imprezzion

For me on sync all cores 5.2 core 4.6 cache it's ACLL 0.10, LLC4 (slight droop) with -0.150 offset (v/f curve / advanced offset at x52) with the rest of the idle X8 up to x48 curve on Auto VID. It never runs x51 but I have it set to -0.120 which is what it needs if I sync all cores to x51. This results in a load voltage of 1.354v (VR VOut and verified with a multimeter on the readout points of the board). It's rock solid there. And no crashes in light loads or switching loads. AVX workloads go a bit higher to 1.376-1.380v but still well within spec and cooling. It's hot here now like, 33c, room temp around 25-26c with the A/C running, and it runs high 50's to low 60's in games and low 80's in extreme stress tests like Prime95 Small FFT AVX On.

RAM is at 4400 17-17-17-36-340-2T with tight secondaries at tWR 12, tCWL 16, tRRD_s & l 4, tFAW 16, tRTP 8, tWTR 7/2, tREFI 48500 and RTL/IO 66/66/6/6. ODT 80-40-40. VCCIO is 1.25v, VCCSA is 1.35v. It cannot go lower, the IMC needs this for 4400.

Only thing I really hate about this CPU is the cache. It will not in any way do anything over x46 without hammering the core voltage through the roof. For x47 it needs 1.390v and for x49 it needs 1.456v to even stand a chance and that is only stable under load, idle and switching loads crash it with that high of a cache.


----------



## cptclutch

Quick question. I'm working on going direct die with the rockitcool kit on my z490-e strix and a Optimus foundation block. I'm a bit worried about fitment and proper contact. Do I need to worry about it?


----------



## Falkentyne

GeneO said:


> Exploring this further as a weak IMC, I am able to reduce the core voltage by about 30mv at the cost of raising VCCsa and VCCio to 1.16v and 1.19v, 51/47 @ 1.279v core RB 2.34 stable for an hour run. I ran P95 112/112 AVX (no AVX2) for a half hour no WHEA. Still not great, but better. Changing Power phase control from extreme to Power Phase Response Ultra fast seems to have helped too.


Ultra fast should be the same or even possibly slightly worse than Extreme.

Extreme is the most aggressive setting. 
"Ultra fast" is only on a user defined setting set to the highest level. Extreme should set everything to the highest level for you.


----------



## OverClockMeMaybe

Overclocking my 63 score CPU. Help if possible. I just re applied thermal compound and moves my h100i v2 rad to the front as an intake rather than at the top as an exhaust. I'll include a link to my spreadsheet detailing the things I have tried. As well as pics of the f steps and what not. 

As you can see from my spreadsheet so farm my best cinebench r23 score has been on auto everything. I mostly use this beast for gaming and x265 encoding.

Spreadsheet, my 5.2 vid idle is at the bottom of the spreadsheet

Currently I am at 1.26 vcore bios, and cores are set (2x50)(6x49)(10x48)(10xA) , though I don't think I ever see 2 of them at 5.0ghz, not sure how that thing works. In the spreadsheet you can see my stable voltage at 4.9, might be better now that I redid the cooling.

Looking for some help and suggestions.


----------



## GeneO

Falkentyne said:


> Ultra fast should be the same or even possibly slightly worse than Extreme.
> 
> Extreme is the most aggressive setting.
> "Ultra fast" is only on a user defined setting set to the highest level. Extreme should set everything to the highest level for you.


I was wondering whether it was the same, hence "seems to have". I changed it while I was getting random WHEA so just some randomness. Thanks.


----------



## Falkentyne

GeneO said:


> I was wondering whether it was the same, hence "seems to have". I changed it while I was getting random WHEA so just some randomness. Thanks.


That stuff takes some major iron ration eating to test.
Let me know if you're able to determine if it actually makes a repeatable difference, even if it takes days to do so (assuming you still care about such a thing).
I would think the fastest way to test such a thing would be LinX residuals, but what do I know....


----------



## ViTosS

Well I keep getting these WHEA errors when I play Metro Exodus Enhanced, tried reducing cache to stock (from 47x to 43x), increasing vcore from 1.20 to 1.25v and no success... I guess this is the instability where i9 9900k, i9 10900k suffers and i9 11900k are immune?


----------



## robalm

ViTosS said:


> Well I keep getting these WHEA errors when I play Metro Exodus Enhanced, tried reducing cache to stock (from 47x to 43x), increasing vcore from 1.20 to 1.25v and no success... I guess this is the instability where i9 9900k, i9 10900k suffers and i9 11900k are immune?
> View attachment 2514398


Total stock settings?


----------



## Falkentyne

ViTosS said:


> Well I keep getting these WHEA errors when I play Metro Exodus Enhanced, tried reducing cache to stock (from 47x to 43x), increasing vcore from 1.20 to 1.25v and no success... I guess this is the instability where i9 9900k, i9 10900k suffers and i9 11900k are immune?
> View attachment 2514398


That's the good old parity error. Yep.
Either increase your loadline calibration (higher LLC actually helps reduce parity errors, but it can increase the chances of CPU Cache L0 errors if you reduce the vcore when you raise the LLC strength), reduce the ring ratio, or increase your cpu vcore. 
Apparently 'certain' RAM tertiary timings can affect this but that's @cstkl1 's thing. I don't know what does.


----------



## ViTosS

Falkentyne said:


> That's the good old parity error. Yep.
> Either increase your loadline calibration (higher LLC actually helps reduce parity errors, but it can increase the chances of CPU Cache L0 errors if you reduce the vcore when you raise the LLC strength), reduce the ring ratio, or increase your cpu vcore.
> Apparently 'certain' RAM tertiary timings can affect this but that's @cstkl1 's thing. I don't know what does.


I tried increasing voltage didn't fix, atm I use LLC6 with 1.20v in BIOS resulting in 1.14v-1.15v in full load, you think I should increase to LLC7? But I would like the same load voltage so I would have to reduce the vcore in BIOS a bit to have the same 1.14v at load, definitely reducing ring ratio and increasing CPU vcore didn't fix. I have a big stuttering when the error occur while in game but I can still play fine for a long time before the 2nd WHEA error. It doesn't crash the game or anything, just a stutter.


----------



## Falkentyne

ViTosS said:


> I tried increasing voltage didn't fix, atm I use LLC6 with 1.20v in BIOS resulting in 1.14v-1.15v in full load, you think I should increase to LLC7? But I would like the same load voltage so I would have to reduce the vcore in BIOS a bit to have the same 1.14v at load, definitely reducing ring ratio and increasing CPU vcore didn't fix. I have a big stuttering when the error occur while in game but I can still play fine for a long time before the 2nd WHEA error. It doesn't crash the game or anything, just a stutter.


No you don't decrease the voltage. Just increase the LLC and keep the voltage the same. And you probably didn't increase the vcore enough to remove the error. If you're at the edge, sometimes it requires a substantial increase. So it's better to just raise the LLC and keep the voltage constant.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to remove the parity errors, you have to pay the entrance fee. Or lower the overclock.


----------



## Astral85

ViTosS said:


> I tried increasing voltage didn't fix, atm I use LLC6 with 1.20v in BIOS resulting in 1.14v-1.15v in full load, you think I should increase to LLC7? But I would like the same load voltage so I would have to reduce the vcore in BIOS a bit to have the same 1.14v at load, definitely reducing ring ratio and increasing CPU vcore didn't fix. I have a big stuttering when the error occur while in game but I can still play fine for a long time before the 2nd WHEA error. It doesn't crash the game or anything, just a stutter.


That's very low voltage. Are you setting that as manual override? What is the CPU clock speed?


----------



## ViTosS

Falkentyne said:


> No you don't decrease the voltage. Just increase the LLC and keep the voltage the same. And you probably didn't increase the vcore enough to remove the error. If you're at the edge, sometimes it requires a substantial increase. So it's better to just raise the LLC and keep the voltage constant.
> 
> You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to remove the parity errors, you have to pay the entrance fee. Or lower the overclock.


But my CPU stable overclock for 5.0/5.0Ghz and 4.7Ghz cache is 1.17v, I increased it to 1.20 no success, and then increase to 1.25v and reduced cache at the same time to 43x, no success again, I mean it's almost 0.1v increase and still getting errors.


----------



## ViTosS

Astral85 said:


> That's very low voltage. Are you setting that as manual override? What is the CPU clock speed?


I have an i9 9900ks


----------



## Falkentyne

ViTosS said:


> I have an i9 9900ks


Try raising VCCSA or VCCIO (or both)
Or maybe you simply aren't as stable as you think.


----------



## ViTosS

Falkentyne said:


> Try raising VCCSA or VCCIO (or both)
> Or maybe you simply aren't as stable as you think.


Hmm I will try that, I mean the OC is stable through Prime95 112k (RAM/CPU), RealBench 2.56 and Aida64, also RAM OC stable through all the stress tests.


----------



## fray_bentos

OverClockMeMaybe said:


> Overclocking my 63 score CPU. Help if possible. I just re applied thermal compound and moves my h100i v2 rad to the front as an intake rather than at the top as an exhaust. I'll include a link to my spreadsheet detailing the things I have tried. As well as pics of the f steps and what not.
> 
> As you can see from my spreadsheet so farm my best cinebench r23 score has been on auto everything. I mostly use this beast for gaming and x265 encoding.
> 
> Spreadsheet, my 5.2 vid idle is at the bottom of the spreadsheet
> 
> Currently I am at 1.26 vcore bios, and cores are set (2x50)(6x49)(10x48)(10xA) , though I don't think I ever see 2 of them at 5.0ghz, not sure how that thing works. In the spreadsheet you can see my stable voltage at 4.9, might be better now that I redid the cooling.
> 
> Looking for some help and suggestions.


This is an underclock compared to stock. Stock should hit 49x10.


----------



## fray_bentos

ViTosS said:


> I have an i9 9900ks


This is the 10900K thread.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Hi,

Do you know if rog strix z490-g gaming BIOS has the octvb menu?


----------



## ViTosS

fray_bentos said:


> This is the 10900K thread.


Lol I know but the other thread is dead and 10900k has the same problem sometimes, so why not ask here for help


----------



## GeneO

ViTosS said:


> Lol I know but the other thread is dead and 10900k has the same problem sometimes, so why not ask here for help


It is more like a 10700k. 😉


----------



## Imprezzion

I'm still having a hard time getting advanced adaptive to work properly lol.

The difference between light and heavy threaded workloads voltage wise is way too big and no matter what I change in terms of LLC levels or AC/DC it will not get any closer together. On x52 sync all core with x46 cache I run AC/DC "1" and LLC4 with -0.150 adaptive curve at x52 and the rest of the curve "Auto". 

This gives me a BIOS voltage of 1.308v.
Windows idle 1.344v.
Prime95 Small FFT AVX On 20 threads 1.372v.
Prime95 Small FFT AVX On 5 threads 1.384v.
Prime95 Small FFT AVX Off 20 threads 1.344v.
Prime95 Small FFT AVX Off 5 threads *1.328v? (This one is weird, should be higher)*
Gaming anywhere from 1.356v in heavy games to *1.308v* in light stuff like RuneScape or just browsing which is way too low and unstable and causes random freezes, BSOD's and sometimes even random hard reboots. I need a minimum of 1.334v for 5.2 non-AVX to be stable.

When I set the same values through XTU, so Auto curve with -0.150 on x52 with the same AC/DC and LLC values and sync all cores x52 then it stays at 1.344-1.356v in any test. AVX doesn't overshoot 0.04v, light threaded loads don't drop like a brick, it just.. works. No crashes no hard reboots.. can even run higher cache freq stable. Problem is I want a BIOS level OC, not XTU / Windows.

Power limits are on "water cooled" in the BIOS a.k.a. 4096w and infinite time, CPU is direct die liquid metal cooled under water, worst-case Prime95 Small FFT AVX On 20 threads temps high 70's low 80's at 340-355w power draw. Only very short bursts to test cause I only wanna see how voltage acts, not fry the CPU.


----------



## Astral85

@Imprezzion What is the "curve" on your motherboard? Is it the CPU internal VID? Increasing AC LL will give the CPU more voltage. I don't know how AC LL values work on your board but on my Asus XIII I am currently running AC LL 0.08 for 51x sync all cores. I would try to leave your curve on auto, set adaptive voltage to auto, try LLC 5 and adjust the AC LL for voltage stability. Do you have Speedstep turned off? Your idle should drop under 1.000v with adaptive + Speedstep/Speedshift.


----------



## acoustic

I had issues getting 52x to work as well. As soon as I went down to 51x, where the VID table actually makes sense, it worked perfectly.


----------



## OverClockMeMaybe

fray_bentos said:


> This is an underclock compared to stock. Stock should hit 49x10.


Yeah 4.9 x10 at 1.265 is stable but hits 100c so it gets a lower score in Aida compared to everything on auto.


----------



## fray_bentos

OverClockMeMaybe said:


> Yeah 4.9 x10 at 1.265 is stable but hits 100c so it gets a lower score in Aida compared to everything on auto.


There is something seriously wrong with your cooler/mount if that's the case. What is you actual Vcore reported in HWiNFO64 under heavy load? I suspect you are talking about set BIOS voltage and have an aggressive LLC setting meaning your load voltage is much higher than 1.265 V. If not, and 1.265 V is your actual load voltage, then there is something not right on the mechanical/cooling side.


----------



## GeneO

Astral85 said:


> @Imprezzion What is the "curve" on your motherboard? Is it the CPU internal VID? Increasing AC LL will give the CPU more voltage. I don't know how AC LL values work on your board but on my Asus XIII I am currently running AC LL 0.08 for 51x sync all cores. I would try to leave your curve on auto, set adaptive voltage to auto, try LLC 5 and adjust the AC LL for voltage stability. Do you have Speedstep turned off? Your idle should drop under 1.000v with adaptive + Speedstep/Speedshift.


MSI is like Gigabyte and AC/DC loadline units are in 1/100 mohm. So MSI ACLL = 1 = .01 mohm = minimum you can have.

I take it @Imprezzion voltage is higher than the BIOS because it is reports socket sense and not die sense .

Intel provides a boost for AVX high loads because it needs more than non-avx loads. So I expect the results are explained by AVX boost increase and decrease on high loads due to the LLC. But that Non-AVX anomaly IDK. Do you know what mohm LLC4 loadline corresponds to on this board?

For XTU, are you sure it is not dropping into fixed voltage mode when you make changes? Sure you are in adaptive mode and have speedstep or spendthrift enabled? Never did trust XTU.

EDIT: just tried small FFT noavx with 20 threads vs 5 threads on mine and the 20 thread is at a lower voltage than the 5 thread as you'd expect.


----------



## Imprezzion

GeneO said:


> MSI is like Gigabyte and AC/DC loadline units are in 1/100 mohm. So MSI ACLL = 1 = .01 mohm = minimum you can have.
> 
> I take it @Imprezzion voltage is higher than the BIOS because it is reports socket sense and not die sense .
> 
> Intel provides a boost for AVX high loads because it needs more than non-avx loads. So I expect the results are explained by AVX boost increase and decrease on high loads due to the LLC. But that Non-AVX anomaly IDK. Do you know what mohm LLC4 loadline corresponds to on this board?
> 
> For XTU, are you sure it is not dropping into fixed voltage mode when you make changes? Sure you are in adaptive mode and have speedstep or spendthrift enabled? Never did trust XTU.
> 
> EDIT: just tried small FFT noavx with 20 threads vs 5 threads on mine and the 20 thread is at a lower voltage than the 5 thread as you'd expect.


XTU stays on V/F curve it just skips the AVX boost all together and doesn't add any AVX voltage. 

I have speed shift + speed step enabled. It runs at about 0.766v idle @ 800Mhz. 

The advanced offset option on MSI is indeed CPU internal VID curve which you can offset in the BIOS per multiplier (x8 x16 x25 asf.)

It's weird how the BIOS shows 1.308v but it normally shows 1.334v in windows (if I force 100% CPU idle) but it does drop to 1.308v under certain non AVX loads. The downside is that I know it will handle AVX at 1.344v. That is what I need for it to be 100% stable in any load when using Fixed voltage. There is no real way to make it run 1.344v under load on any adaptive mode using BIOS. It always goes all over the place with the AC/DC and AVX voltages. 

I mean, if I set it up so that 1.344v is the lowest observed voltage it will go as high as 1.408v under AVX loads (like BFV). If I set it so that 1.344v is the highest load observed voltage the lowest voltages observed are 1.272v ish in single core non AVX loads which is nowhere near stable. So I basically always have to give it way more voltage then it actually needs due to all the random added voltages. 

It's not that big of a deal as even 1.408v is fine for my cooling (barely).

I am now at 5.1/4.7 advanced offset -0.160, AC/DC 1, LLC4. It's better, but not great. I know from testing with fixed voltages I need 1.290v to be 100% stable in any load including AVX. I set it so that minimal non AVX voltage is 1.289v. the highest I've seen it go with a all core AVX load is 1.332v which is.. acceptable. And at least no random idle crashes now even on 47 cache..


----------



## GeneO

I believe MSI doesn't report die-sense core voltage, it reports socket sense which will be higher than the diew-sense voltage, and hence the reported vcore will be higher than the actual vcore. This difference of about 40 mv is about the right ballpark. It drops under load because of droop from the LLC by Vcore = BIOS set votlage - LLC*Current for non-avx load. AVX loads are a bit of a mystery to me. Not a simple boost I think.

There is this though. A light AVX load like 1344/1344 FFT will result in a larger voltage because of the AVX boost and lower current, than a heavy AVX load because of the larger current draw and hence a much larger Vdroop.

EDIT: Do you have TVB Voltage optimization enabled? That will drop the vcore more.


----------



## Imprezzion

I just wish there was a way to just have speed step + speed shift and adaptive voltages but with a load voltage that is always what I set it to be. 

This can be done with XTU but I don't want software to control it as it relies on the host OS and thus more software running, more overhead and more chance of it not applying properly or not working in VM's / remote desktops and such.

I mean, I could just run fixed voltage and idle at the full voltage but why would I want the extra temperature and power consumption when watching some YouTube or just listening to some music while doing something else or even when playing stuff like RuneScape or whatever.

I'll just stay on 5.1/4.7 for a while as it hasn't done anything weird this evening at least and voltages and temps seem to be kind of reasonable with a minimum reported of 1.289v (RuneScape + Chrome / YouTube) and a maximum of 1.322v (BFV Multiplayer with DXR + Ray Tracing Ultra so using AVX). 

It's a shame as I can get away with running 5.3 all core with 48 cache at 1.390v fixed voltage but there's no way I can do that with adaptive as it will overshoot to the moon to like 1.448v in some AVX loads and while I can cool 1.390v AVX doing the same on 1.448v is a whole nother problem.. setting it so that it loads AVX at 1.390-1.404v means the non-AVX voltage is as low as 1.356v which is nowhere near stable and causes loads of internal / L0 errors or even hard crashes.. it's almost like this specific CPU needs as much voltage for non AVX workloads as it needs for AVX. I did test this shortly with fixed voltages at 5.3 and for AVX I need 1.390v and for non AVX I need a minimum of 1.372v to be remotely stable. Same goes for 5.2. AVX is 1.344v, non AVX is 1.330v.

I do kinda wanna switch to a Z490/590 Apex only the price just isn't justifiable with how small the real world gains are over the Ace.


----------



## fray_bentos

Imprezzion said:


> XTU stays on V/F curve it just skips the AVX boost all together and doesn't add any AVX voltage.
> 
> I have speed shift + speed step enabled. It runs at about 0.766v idle @ 800Mhz.
> 
> The advanced offset option on MSI is indeed CPU internal VID curve which you can offset in the BIOS per multiplier (x8 x16 x25 asf.)
> 
> It's weird how the BIOS shows 1.308v but it normally shows 1.334v in windows (if I force 100% CPU idle) but it does drop to 1.308v under certain non AVX loads. The downside is that I know it will handle AVX at 1.344v. That is what I need for it to be 100% stable in any load when using Fixed voltage. There is no real way to make it run 1.344v under load on any adaptive mode using BIOS. It always goes all over the place with the AC/DC and AVX voltages.
> 
> I mean, if I set it up so that 1.344v is the lowest observed voltage it will go as high as 1.408v under AVX loads (like BFV). If I set it so that 1.344v is the highest load observed voltage the lowest voltages observed are 1.272v ish in single core non AVX loads which is nowhere near stable. So I basically always have to give it way more voltage then it actually needs due to all the random added voltages.
> 
> It's not that big of a deal as even 1.408v is fine for my cooling (barely).
> 
> I am now at 5.1/4.7 advanced offset -0.160, AC/DC 1, LLC4. It's better, but not great. I know from testing with fixed voltages I need 1.290v to be 100% stable in any load including AVX. I set it so that minimal non AVX voltage is 1.289v. the highest I've seen it go with a all core AVX load is 1.332v which is.. acceptable. And at least no random idle crashes now even on 47 cache..


Wouldn't using a more droopy LLC work for you in this case? AVX load = more current draw = more Vdroop, which should offset the AVX voltage boost behaviour that you aren't a fan of. I'm using LLC6 on MSI, full settings in signature drop-down.


----------



## Waspinator

On my Z590 Gaming Carbon I tried everything yesterday to get it to adjust frequency/voltage with load. I tried EIST, Speedstep, every voltage setting (adaptive, offset etc., advanced I don't know how to set, MSI should give better manual) and Windows power plans, it just doesn't work, always same frequency and voltage as set in BIOS. Same was on Z490 Tomahawk.

What is the advantage of LLC6 instead of LLC3 (I think Auto is also 3, that means straight curve, same idle and load voltage)? That would mean idle voltage is higher, but isn't that worse than if it would be same as load? I would actually like to have idle like on 2500K, 1600 MHz or even less and very low voltage like 0.8V.

About my 10900K, 5.0 GHz 1.25V and 5.1 GHz 1.35V LLC 3, that would be something average like SP63 or even below that? Both are not Prime Small stable with 0 AVX offset of course, but are ASUS RealBench and Cinebench. 5.1 GHz is Prime stable if I limit PL1 and PL2 to 230W, due to much higher voltage than on 5.0 GHz.

Here I found something funny, I have same thoughts about this CPU, it reminds me of Prescott, and I will probably go 13th gen or Zen 4, whichever better (though 5nm should be better than 10nm in any case):

__
https://www.reddit.com/r/intel/comments/j8riru/_/g8do09d


----------



## Imprezzion

fray_bentos said:


> Wouldn't using a more droopy LLC work for you in this case? AVX load = more current draw = more Vdroop, which should offset the AVX voltage boost behaviour that you aren't a fan of. I'm using LLC6 on MSI, full settings in signature drop-down.


This works to a certain degree. Games like Division 2 which are very CPU intensive but don't use AVX still droop much lower then expected meaning I need a higher base voltage which means that the situation reverses. High loads are fine but just browsing or playing light games sees a big overshoot.


----------



## OverClockMeMaybe

fray_bentos said:


> There is something seriously wrong with your cooler/mount if that's the case. What is you actual Vcore reported in HWiNFO64 under heavy load? I suspect you are talking about set BIOS voltage and have an aggressive LLC setting meaning your load voltage is much higher than 1.265 V. If not, and 1.265 V is your actual load voltage, then there is something not right on the mechanical/cooling side.


1.65 Bios 1.252/1.261 (Load/Idle) vcore on hwinfo LLC 6. 13664 aida score. This was before, I took my setup apart and re applied thermal compound very thinly and moved the rad to a front intake instead of a top exhaust. Here are the new numbers

1.65 Bios ??//1.261 (load/Idle)vcore on hwino LLC 6. 14812 aida score. So we can see the cooling adjustment did help but I still hit 100c and throttle.

I have a h100i v2 corsair 240mm cool so I guess it is just not good enough.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

OverClockMeMaybe said:


> 1.65 Bios 1.252/1.261 (Load/Idle) vcore on hwinfo LLC 6. 13664 aida score. This was before, I took my setup apart and re applied thermal compound very thinly and moved the rad to a front intake instead of a top exhaust. Here are the new numbers
> 
> 1.65 Bios ??//1.261 (load/Idle)vcore on hwino LLC 6. 14812 aida score. So we can see the cooling adjustment did help but I still hit 100c and throttle.
> 
> I have a h100i v2 corsair 240mm cool so I guess it is just not good enough.


Do you know the pump speed?
I have a 280mm iao and need to keep pump at 100% all the time.


----------



## fray_bentos

OverClockMeMaybe said:


> 1.65 Bios 1.252/1.261 (Load/Idle) vcore on hwinfo LLC 6. 13664 aida score. This was before, I took my setup apart and re applied thermal compound very thinly and moved the rad to a front intake instead of a top exhaust. Here are the new numbers
> 
> 1.65 Bios ??//1.261 (load/Idle)vcore on hwino LLC 6. 14812 aida score. So we can see the cooling adjustment did help but I still hit 100c and throttle.
> 
> I have a h100i v2 corsair 240mm cool so I guess it is just not good enough.


1.65 V BIOS set doesn't seem correct for the amount of droop you have. My chip with that setting on LLC6 (MSI) would try to give 1.45 V under heavy load, which is way too high and would thermal, current and power throttle. I think you must have that way too high, or made some other error. I also wonder if you are using too little thermal paste and/or you are not tightening down the cooler as tight as it will go. Any extra paste will just ooze out anyway if you are using enough torque on the screws, whereas too little will give poor thermal performance. What you are reporting is more like 10850K level. I also wonder if you are using an unrealistic over the top P95 load. What's stable in Realbench or AVX gaming?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Testing a new OCTVB configuration...
So far so good


----------



## Falkentyne

Imprezzion said:


> I'm still having a hard time getting advanced adaptive to work properly lol.
> 
> The difference between light and heavy threaded workloads voltage wise is way too big and no matter what I change in terms of LLC levels or AC/DC it will not get any closer together. On x52 sync all core with x46 cache I run AC/DC "1" and LLC4 with -0.150 adaptive curve at x52 and the rest of the curve "Auto".
> 
> This gives me a BIOS voltage of 1.308v.
> Windows idle 1.344v.
> Prime95 Small FFT AVX On 20 threads 1.372v.
> Prime95 Small FFT AVX On 5 threads 1.384v.
> Prime95 Small FFT AVX Off 20 threads 1.344v.
> Prime95 Small FFT AVX Off 5 threads *1.328v? (This one is weird, should be higher)*
> Gaming anywhere from 1.356v in heavy games to *1.308v* in light stuff like RuneScape or just browsing which is way too low and unstable and causes random freezes, BSOD's and sometimes even random hard reboots. I need a minimum of 1.334v for 5.2 non-AVX to be stable.
> 
> When I set the same values through XTU, so Auto curve with -0.150 on x52 with the same AC/DC and LLC values and sync all cores x52 then it stays at 1.344-1.356v in any test. AVX doesn't overshoot 0.04v, light threaded loads don't drop like a brick, it just.. works. No crashes no hard reboots.. can even run higher cache freq stable. Problem is I want a BIOS level OC, not XTU / Windows.
> 
> Power limits are on "water cooled" in the BIOS a.k.a. 4096w and infinite time, CPU is direct die liquid metal cooled under water, worst-case Prime95 Small FFT AVX On 20 threads temps high 70's low 80's at 340-355w power draw. Only very short bursts to test cause I only wanna see how voltage acts, not fry the CPU.


Are you using AC/DC 1 with XTU?
Does XTU directly access the VRM? (I never got an answer to this).
Can XTU set a 'true' static vcore, or does it just set a static "VID" if you select "static"?

if not, then XTU offsets VID directly, so -150mv would drop VID by 0.150mv
If you set it in BIOS, it offsets vcore instead of VID (afaik) unless you actually lower the V/F point by 150mv.
I honestly haven't messed with it anymore. Far too many numbers to keep track of now.


----------



## Imprezzion

Falkentyne said:


> Are you using AC/DC 1 with XTU?
> Does XTU directly access the VRM? (I never got an answer to this).
> Can XTU set a 'true' static vcore, or does it just set a static "VID" if you select "static"?
> 
> if not, then XTU offsets VID directly, so -150mv would drop VID by 0.150mv
> If you set it in BIOS, it offsets vcore instead of VID (afaik) unless you actually lower the V/F point by 150mv.
> I honestly haven't messed with it anymore. Far too many numbers to keep track of now.


I am not sure, i haven't played with XTU after I re-installed Windows on a new M.2 SSD. I will play with it a bit more. Give me a few hours to install and tweak it lol.

And no, I was using, I think, 20 AC/DC with XTU. I have BIOS back ups and screenshots of all my old settings so gotta dig those up.

EDIT: Well, I can't get XTU to reproduce what happened on my previous Windows install. It does actually apply a AVX voltage boost now.. Shame. I really could do without it..

EDIT2: CPU might have degraded as well. It doesn't seem stable at settings that otherwise were. I kinda expected this with 14nm++++ running ~1.40v 5.3 all core for extended periods of time. We'll see how it fares on fixed vcore. If that runs fine it isn't degradation but just bad settings.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

56x7 - 55x8 - 54x9 - 53x10 - Stable. 

Full Load 51x - 1.24v


----------



## PhoenixMDA

RobertoSampaio said:


> 56x7 - 55x8 - 54x9 - 53x10 - Stable.
> 
> Full Load 51x - 1.24v
> 
> 
> View attachment 2514834
> 
> 
> View attachment 2514838
> 
> 
> View attachment 2514839


How much power do you need for CPU by plaing BF5 in middle quality without FPS Cap?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

PhoenixMDA said:


> How much power do you need for CPU by plaing BF5 in middle quality without FPS Cap?


About 130W in High quality ~120FPS (DX12)
200W when loading map.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Ok i think that are arround 150W without graka Limit.


----------



## GeneO

Here is what I get from my lottery looser. 51x all-core. I ended up dropping the maximum ring multiplier down to 46x as 47x took a lot more SA voltage.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

What do you think about Geekbench ?


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> What do you think about Geekbench ?


Used it once.

Say this ACLL is really a mystery. So I decided to see if I could get a little more margin and Lower LLC from LLC5 to LLC4 and compensate by raising ACLL. Now if Vcore is a linear combination of +ACLL and -LLC x current, and I set ACLL so the Vcore is the same as the LLC5 on a specific test, you would expect vcore to be the same as the LL5 on other tests. That is not what I see. I set the ACLL on LLC4 so the core is the same and stable on small fft noavx. But vcore on Real bench is 10mv lower, 112/112 fft no-avx 10 mv higher, 1344/1344 AVX+AVX2 20mv higher, and 112/112 AVX (no AVX2) about 5mv lower. Kind of baffling. Means got to run all tests again too.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> Used it once.
> 
> Say this ACLL is really a mystery. So I decided to see if I could get a little more margin and Lower LLC from LLC5 to LLC4 and compensate by raising ACLL. Now if Vcore is a linear combination of +ACLL and -LLC x current, and I set ACLL so the Vcore is the same as the LLC5 on a specific test, you would expect vcore to be the same as the LL5 on other tests. That is not what I see. I set the ACLL on LLC4 so the core is the same and stable on small fft noavx. But vcore on Real bench is 10mv lower, 112/112 fft no-avx 10 mv higher, 1344/1344 AVX+AVX2 20mv higher, and 112/112 AVX (no AVX2) about 5mv lower. Kind of baffling. Means got to run all tests again too.


I know what you're saying... LOL

Initially I used LLC#6, after that LLC#5, and now LLC#4.
The best configuration for me was LLC#4 with AC_LL=0.5 and DC_LL=1.12.
Now I'm running 56x7 - 55x8 - 54x9 - 53x10 (+2Boosts OCTVB)
Every time I lowered LLC the system become stable with less VCore.
I tried LLC#3 but I had no patience to tune all again, and I have doubts if I do VCore lower than [email protected]


----------



## GeneO

I'm not so lucky. LLC4 needs same vcore as LLC5 to be stable for mine.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Full Load VCore=1.23v
I'll try to lower a bit more...










VCore= 1.22v


----------



## fray_bentos

Imprezzion said:


> This works to a certain degree. Games like Division 2 which are very CPU intensive but don't use AVX still droop much lower then expected meaning I need a higher base voltage which means that the situation reverses. High loads are fine but just browsing or playing light games sees a big overshoot.


Do you have TVB Voltage optimization disabled? You should have it enabled. For light loads you'll see low temps and TVB can work its magic and lower your Vcore accordingly. Without it, voltages will be way too high at low loads. Doing this in combination with a droopy LLC should work.

Edit: I note that GeneO edited their post #4419 to say the same thing; make sure that TVB voltage optimizations are enabled.


----------



## acoustic

fray_bentos said:


> Do you have TVB Voltage optimization disabled? You should have it enabled. For light loads you'll see low temps and TVB can work its magic and lower your Vcore accordingly. Without it, voltages will be way too high at low loads. Doing this in combination with a droopy LLC should work.
> 
> Edit: I note that GeneO edited their post #4419 to say the same thing; make sure that TVB voltage optimizations are enabled.


On the MSI boards, the TVB Voltage Optimizations are kind of weird and/or useless imo, especially if you're not running a per-core or Turbo Ratio OC. I run an All-Core like Imprezzion on the same mobo. I couldn't get stability with TVB Optimization enabled due to AVX loads having insane high load voltages, and then the low loads being functional, but still too high. If you run TVB Optimizations, the VID quickly gets out of hand as the temps rise, and because the voltage just wouldn't go where I want it (on both ends of the spectrum), would cause my temps to spike as well.

I think that feature works better or at least is more refined on the ASUS boards. I could not get it to work properly on my Z490 ACE 

I run TVB Optimization disabled and my voltages are perfect with 2/2 AC/DC_LL and LLC Mode5 (would have to double check). 5.1/4.8 all-core with Adaptive Offset voltage. 1.265v load voltage in Realbench. Everything stable, been running this for weeks now.


----------



## OverClockMeMaybe

I set my cores to this (4x50)(8x49)(10x48)(10xA) and received a lower aida score compared to this (2x50)(6x49)(10x48)(10xA), here is some info from my spreadsheet.

Cores, Ring, vcore(bios), vcore hwinfo (load/idle), vid idle, vid load, cpu temp (load/idle), LLC, aida score.

(2x50)(6x49)(10x48)(10xA)4.3 (Auto)1.271.181/1.2611.0981.175-1.18183/31LLC 415534

(4x50)(8x49)(10x48)(10xA)4.3 (Auto)1.2751.190/1.2251.1051.179-1.18386/31LLC 415353

So you can see with a touch more voltage I needed to keep it stable I scored less even though I added 2 more 50 cores and 2 more 49 cores. Though i think under load the cores ran at 48 the whole time. I still had some thermal headroom so *why did it do this?*

Maybe I need to understand this core by usage setting some more. Even though in the settings above I have 2x50 and 4x50, both set ups while idle ran all cores at 50.

Here is pic of the last run under load.


----------



## Imprezzion

acoustic said:


> On the MSI boards, the TVB Voltage Optimizations are kind of weird and/or useless imo, especially if you're not running a per-core or Turbo Ratio OC. I run an All-Core like Imprezzion on the same mobo. I couldn't get stability with TVB Optimization enabled due to AVX loads having insane high load voltages, and then the low loads being functional, but still too high. If you run TVB Optimizations, the VID quickly gets out of hand as the temps rise, and because the voltage just wouldn't go where I want it (on both ends of the spectrum), would cause my temps to spike as well.
> 
> I think that feature works better or at least is more refined on the ASUS boards. I could not get it to work properly on my Z490 ACE
> 
> I run TVB Optimization disabled and my voltages are perfect with 2/2 AC/DC_LL and LLC Mode5 (would have to double check). 5.1/4.8 all-core with Adaptive Offset voltage. 1.265v load voltage in Realbench. Everything stable, been running this for weeks now.


Basically that. TVB Voltage Optimization does not act like it should on this board lol. It makes it way more difficult to dail in a voltage.

I am now at 5.2/4.7 @ 1.334v no AVX 1.372v AVX load and this is stable so far. I do it need 1.372v for AVX but 1.334v is the minimum for non AVX Small FFT to not throw out threads so I'm basically stuck with 1.372v AVX.

It's LLC4 AC/DC 1 advanced adaptive offset x52 -0.145v the rest Auto. Idle works fine. I am thinking of setting up either TVB for 5.3 all core up to 75c core temps or using Per Core / Turbo Ratio to make it like 1-2 cores x54 3-6 cores x53 and 7-10 cores x52 if I can somehow make the voltages behave.

I know I can run x53 all core at 1.390v (no AVX) 1.424v (AVX) stable but it's getting up there temp wise. Low 80's in no AVX Prime95, AVX Small FFT is not runnable and way too dangerous for the chip with that much current and power draw so not testing that, AVX games like BFV run high 70's. Don't really like running that high for long periods at such high voltages.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

This is working fine for me....


----------



## fray_bentos

acoustic said:


> On the MSI boards, the TVB Voltage Optimizations are kind of weird and/or useless imo, especially if you're not running a per-core or Turbo Ratio OC. I run an All-Core like Imprezzion on the same mobo. I couldn't get stability with TVB Optimization enabled due to AVX loads having insane high load voltages, and then the low loads being functional, but still too high. If you run TVB Optimizations, the VID quickly gets out of hand as the temps rise, and because the voltage just wouldn't go where I want it (on both ends of the spectrum), would cause my temps to spike as well.
> 
> I think that feature works better or at least is more refined on the ASUS boards. I could not get it to work properly on my Z490 ACE
> 
> I run TVB Optimization disabled and my voltages are perfect with 2/2 AC/DC_LL and LLC Mode5 (would have to double check). 5.1/4.8 all-core with Adaptive Offset voltage. 1.265v load voltage in Realbench. Everything stable, been running this for weeks now.


Works fine for me, all core adaptive, but on a low-end MSI Z490-A PRO.


----------



## acoustic

Your chip is also pretty quality silicon judging by your required voltages. The variance in voltage that lower quality silicon chips can handle is lower, as far as I can tell from others reports. I need more than 1.23v just for 5.1.. lol


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I'll try, again, to get stable at 57x...


----------



## Imprezzion

Hmm so.. 5.3 all core 4.7 cache @ AC/DC "1" with LLC4 500Mhz switching freq and -0.120v x52 advanced adaptive offset will run stress tests just fine but it instantly freezes when stopping a stress test. So the good old high load to no load crashes..

Forcing LLC3 (less droop) and 800Mhz VRM switching frequency fixes it however load voltage is 0.020v higher under AVX loads and it gets significantly hotter to the point I can't run it anymore (95-96c core temps in Prime95 AVX Small FFT).

I am attempting to find a combination of LLC, AC/DC and VRM switching frequency at which the switching load crashes are gone but it does stay at a normal AVX voltage and temperature.. if only the AVX voltage offset could be turned off...

I mean, 1.390v is enough for this clock even for AVX but setting it so that AVX load voltage is 1.390v means non AVX runs at like 1.348-1.356v which is nowhere near enough and it crashes.. So I am basically forced to overshoot up to 1.424-1.436v for AVX just to have SSE be stable.. that's what I hate about this board.. I just want 1.390v load, under any circumstance AVX or not.


----------



## GeneO

A 2103 BIOS bug in OCTVB? When set disabled, I think it is supposed to set all points to 127 1 127. But instead it sets it sets all to 70 1 127, so it was actually enabled. I has to enable them and set them all to auto to disabled them.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I think if I had a cryo cooler, I could do 6GHz... LOL
This is with a 280 mm AIO...


----------



## Imprezzion

I've been running 5.3 / 4.7 today (1.387v non AVX - 1.424v AVX) and played several games at these settings like BF4, BF5, Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition and RuneScape to see how voltage and temps and stability would act.

Good news and bad news. Good news is it's stable. Bad news is it's hot.. very hot..
Even with a EK Phoenix 280 kit (EK Coolstream SE 280 rad, EK SPC pump, EK Supremacy block) and a Rockitcool direct-die mount with CLU on it it hit 75c max on some of the cores and package. I mean, the temps aren't strange considering the 245w AVX peak wattage and associated load but I am wondering if it's too high to run with degradation of combined voltage and temperature.

Here's my HWINFO64 with all relevant voltages and temperatures of CPU, RAM, GPU and main board MOSFETS and such.


----------



## GeneO

If you think you are in trouble at 75c max, I'm in deep dodo. LOL. I think below 80, at reasonable current even for some time, you are OK.


----------



## fray_bentos

Imprezzion said:


> I've been running 5.3 / 4.7 today (1.387v non AVX - 1.424v AVX) and played several games at these settings like BF4, BF5, Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition and RuneScape to see how voltage and temps and stability would act.
> 
> Good news and bad news. Good news is it's stable. Bad news is it's hot.. very hot..
> Even with a EK Phoenix 280 kit (EK Coolstream SE 280 rad, EK SPC pump, EK Supremacy block) and a Rockitcool direct-die mount with CLU on it it hit 75c max on some of the cores and package. I mean, the temps aren't strange considering the 245w AVX peak wattage and associated load but I am wondering if it's too high to run with degradation of combined voltage and temperature.
> 
> Here's my HWINFO64 with all relevant voltages and temperatures of CPU, RAM, GPU and main board MOSFETS and such.
> 
> View attachment 2515175


If you are worried about degradation under those conditions, you could always lower your powerlimit. I'm sure during gaming you'll only hit loads over 180 W during multithreaded loading / shader unpacking. Moreover, what are you trying to acheive and under what usage scenario? You're running an OC'd 10900KF, with fast RAM, and a 3080, but running 1080p 144 Hz / 75 Hz monitors. If it is gaming you are after, then your PC specs/performance are already massive overkill. Your bottleneck here in terms of gaming quality/experience are your monitors.


----------



## Imprezzion

fray_bentos said:


> If you are worried about degradation under those conditions, you could always lower your powerlimit. I'm sure during gaming you'll only hit loads over 180 W during multithreaded loading / shader unpacking. Moreover, what are you trying to acheive and under what usage scenario? You're running an OC'd 10900KF, with fast RAM, and a 3080, but running 1080p 144 Hz / 75 Hz monitors. If it is gaming you are after, then your PC specs/performance are already massive overkill. Your bottleneck here in terms of gaming quality/experience are your monitors.


Oh I forgot to update my sig rig. I got a VG279QM which is a 1080p 280Hz HDR monitor. The other 2 listed are my second and third monitor lol. I do it obviously for gaming and just for the fun of overclocking lol. But there's always a point at which pushing so high is not the best option lol. I just wanna be able to squeeze as much FPS and especially frame times as I can in Battlefield 4, 5 and 2042 when it releases and I play a lot of PUBG and single players like Metro and such in which I want all the eye candy and as much FPS as I can get.

But, I do wanna keep all power saving in place as I also work from this PC and watch YouTube / series on it and want normal working idle clocks hehe.

And yes, that 245w was during loading BFV and Division 2 which is very CPU intensive during loading but not *as* much during playing. Still division 2 and BFV have significant load during playing as well usually sitting around 160-200w @ 60-65c.


----------



## cptclutch

I just finished my first loop and I'm very impressed. Running my 10900KF at 5.2 1.4v under load previously on a 280mm corsair AIO push/pull was hitting 80-95c in OCCT stress, just booted it up and it's sitting sub 50c in the same test. Unreal. Direct die with liquid metal, two corsair XR7 360mm radiators and a D5 at max RPM is something else. Hoping this extra headroom gets me to 5.4.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Imprezzion said:


> Oh I forgot to update my sig rig. I got a VG279QM which is a 1080p 280Hz HDR monitor. The other 2 listed are my second and third monitor lol. I do it obviously for gaming and just for the fun of overclocking lol. But there's always a point at which pushing so high is not the best option lol. I just wanna be able to squeeze as much FPS and especially frame times as I can in Battlefield 4, 5 and 2042 when it releases and I play a lot of PUBG and single players like Metro and such in which I want all the eye candy and as much FPS as I can get.
> 
> But, I do wanna keep all power saving in place as I also work from this PC and watch YouTube / series on it and want normal working idle clocks hehe.
> 
> And yes, that 245w was during loading BFV and Division 2 which is very CPU intensive during loading but not *as* much during playing. Still division 2 and BFV have significant load during playing as well usually sitting around 160-200w @ 60-65c.


I think we "destroy" much more running CB and testing stability than playing games... LOL


----------



## Imprezzion

So, the general consensus is don't run unnecessary stress tests and 75c peak at 5.3 all core 1.424v is fine for gaming. 

I did for the hell of it run Prime95 Small with and without AVX just for a few minutes to see what power draw and temperatures would be like without limits. A lot. Lol. AVX Off it sits in the low 80c range @ 290-300w. AVX FMA3 on it sits in the low to mid 90's @ 345-360w. Highest it got on the hottest core was 96c. I was kinda surprised to see it stay below 99c throttling in AVX Small lol. Direct die mediocre water cooling + liquid metal does wonders for temperatures lol. Stuff like 3DMark CPU tests let's it just about touch 80c.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I'm really considering buying a cryo cooler. For me, 51x at full load is enough for playing. I like to try high frequencies at light loads. And for this I need the CPU below room temp. When I start the PC at morning and the water in the loop is about 20C I can do 57x, but, like now, that water is about 30C I can't go over 56x.


----------



## fray_bentos

RobertoSampaio said:


> I'm really considering buying a cryo cooler. For me, 51x at full load is enough for playing. I like to try high frequencies at light loads. And for this I need the CPU below room temp. When I start the PC at morning and the water in the loop is about 20C I can do 57x, but, like now, that water is about 30C I can't go over 56x.


I think Brazilian humidity may disagree with that. Also, but why? It won't make any difference to your user experience, other than if your motherboard fries from dripping condensation. Cryocoolers are also poor with sustained load, so you may lose performance under sustained loads (but gain a few nanoseconds opening Excel).


----------



## Imprezzion

Now let's see if my cache will actually do more then x47 without idle crashes.. It'll do x49 just fine as long as I keep it at Fixed voltages but as soon as I enable Adaptive and C-States and such x48 and x49 freezes when dropping into idle clocks from a high load at 5.1 or 5.2 but maybe the extra voltage on 5.3 will make it somehow work?

Also pleasantly surprised to see my MOSFET temps are this low. They do have a build-in fan on the Z490 Ace but it's running very low RPM at like 20% PWM up to 80c and the MOSFET sensors only read like 57c under sustained game loads even at 5.3.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

fray_bentos said:


> I think Brazilian humidity may disagree with that. Also, but why? It won't make any difference to your user experience, other than if your motherboard fries from dripping condensation. Cryocoolers are also poor with sustained load, so you may lose performance under sustained loads (but gain a few nanoseconds opening Excel).


The place I live is not so wet, but the low capacity to sustain loads could be a problem.


----------



## Imprezzion

What I have also seen from testing VID / stock Auto voltage at several multipliers is that at x52 or x53 it will go super high (like 1.520v VID / 1.552v load) meaning I need a large negative offset but at x51 it behaves so well I can just run Auto voltage and adjust it with AC/DC and LLC. To get my desired voltage I need 10 or 12 on AC/DC and LLC3 (flat response) with 800Khz switching frequency and it just does exactly what I want it to do, 1.284v load without AVX and 1.315v with AVX which is about what it needs to be stable.

Also, no idle crashes at this point with cache that would otherwise with a negative offset crash. So I assume this is a much better and more stable way of adjusting voltages? Just let the CPU / board handle it on Auto and adjust with AC/DC and LLC?

EDIT: Of course this doesn't behave. It was too good to be true.. CPU voltage is totally different on a cold boot compared to a hot reboot.. on hot reboot it's 1.272v BIOS on a cold boot 1.320v.. exact same settings.. why won't anything ever work the way I want it to..

EDIT 2: right. So. Voltages that were never stable in the past on 5.1 all core have now decided to run even Prime95 Small with AVX just fine without dropping threads all of a sudden...

What is a "good" or better load voltage (VCC sense) for 5.1 all core with and without AVX? Right now I'm testing on 5.1/4.7 all core AVX on @ 1.277v and off 1.253v. Seems to handle it just fine where as on older BIOS and such this wouldn't even pass boot let alone 10 minutes of small FFT AVX. This is so weird. I wonder how low of an offset I can go on VCC Sense voltage with LLC4 and AC/DC 1...

Silicon Lottery chips have 1.290v socket sense 1.190v die sense for 5.1 bin. Mine runs 1.260v socket sense ("VCore VCC Sense") and 1.223v die sense (ISL69xxx VR VOut) at the moment. Seems to be stable there even with AVX. I'm going to keep going lower until threads start to fail in Prime95..


----------



## cptclutch

So I'm in a bit of a strange place right now, but my 10900KF is running really cool even under crazy voltages (1.45v). Can I run something insane like this if my temps are literally sub 50c in an OCCT stress test? Feels insane but if my temps stay low I'm ok right? I just want to run this for 2-3 years and don't want to severely damage it, but I'm willing to run something more aggressive.


----------



## fray_bentos

cptclutch said:


> So I'm in a bit of a strange place right now, but my 10900KF is running really cool even under crazy voltages (1.45v). Can I run something insane like this if my temps are literally sub 50c in an OCCT stress test? Feels insane but if my temps stay low I'm ok right? I just want to run this for 2-3 years and don't want to severely damage it, but I'm willing to send it with something aggressive.


What clock speed and power draw is that at? And how much can you lower Vcore / power draw for the next 100 MHz step down?


----------



## Imprezzion

Sub 50 @ 1.45v. That basically means you're somehow dissipating over 340w of heat so efficiently that it barely goes 25c over ambient? There's no way a die as small as a 10900K die can ever transfer that much thermal energy over it's contact size unless sub-ambient cooling is used. 

Something else must not add up here.


----------



## cptclutch

Imprezzion said:


> Sub 50 @ 1.45v. That basically means you're somehow dissipating over 340w of heat so efficiently that it barely goes 25c over ambient? There's no way a die as small as a 10900K die can ever transfer that much thermal energy over it's contact size unless sub-ambient cooling is used.
> 
> Something else must not add up here.


Yeah it seems too good to be true. Its a pretty beefy cooling solution with the two 360mm 60mm thick radiators with all the P12 fans running 100%, D5 at 100%, direct die with LM, but not sure what the deal is. Trying to get 5.4 stable currently with HT off.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I'm not sure, but there is a bios parameter that modify temperature readings.


----------



## Imprezzion

Did you run with HT Off for the temperature test as well? That would explain a piece of it. Did you run OCCT with or without AVX. I really wanna know what Prime95 Small FFT with AVX does as that is basically worst-case possible.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Check if vrm temp is compatible, because we are talking about a very high wattage here.
And Check CPU PLL OC, it shall be about 1.05v


----------



## cptclutch

I had a few runs with HT on and similar temps. All the other temps are in line as well, including VRM. PLL termination voltage is 1.05.

Edit:Just tried small FFT in prime95 and looks like highest core was around 65c but then it crashed haha. Might have to call it and give up on 5.4, definitely not a thermal constraint at this point though.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Which MB are you using?
what is the impedance off LLC and DC_LL set?
Voltage and current at full load?
We are talking about die-sense voltage or VID?


----------



## cptclutch

I'm using a Z490-E Strix. Apparently its a software issue because different applications are giving different readouts. Using HWmonitor now and its showing much higher temps on the cores. OCCT is saying low 50's and HWmonitor is saying around 70. So that makes much more sense. Its currently at 1.44v at 5.3 under load in OCCT large.  LLC is set at 5 I believe.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I'd suggest you to tune the system using LLC#4 and DC-LL=1.1...
But if you prefer using LLC#5 set DC-LL= 0.8...
If your LLC impedance differs of dc-ll impedance you will have wrong power readings and some algorithms like voltage optimization and vmaxtress will not work properly.


----------



## cptclutch

RobertoSampaio said:


> I'd suggest you to tune the system using LLC#4 and DC-LL=1.1...
> But if you prefer using LLC#5 set DC-LL= 0.8...
> If your LLC impedance differs of dc-ll impedance you will have wrong power readings and some algorithms like voltage optimization and vmaxtress will not work properly.


Thanks for the advice I’ll try it out. Really appreciate the help you guys give here, going to need all the help I can get in this territory.


----------



## Imprezzion

65c Prime95 small FFT.. wow.. at 1.45v I'm smashing into thermal throttling at 99c straight away. Even with direct die liquid metal and a, admitted, rather mediocre waterloop. Oh well.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

cptclutch said:


> Thanks for the advice I’ll try it out. Really appreciate the help you guys give here, going to need all the help I can get in this territory.


Try LLC#4
Acll=0.5
DC_LL=1.1
And adjust vf#6, vf#7 and vf#8 to minimum stable voltage.


----------



## cptclutch

Imprezzion said:


> 65c Prime95 small FFT.. wow.. at 1.45v I'm smashing into thermal throttling at 99c straight away. Even with direct die liquid metal and a, admitted, rather mediocre waterloop. Oh well.


Does HT change temps drastically? I'm running prime95 small right now with 1.43v at 5.4ghz at temps are peaking around 67c. Trying to get it stable without HT.

Also how high can I push voltages if my temps are below 60c? I really want to get 5.4 out of it, but I'm worried about degradation at over 1.45v. I know its a combination of voltage and temperature that kills it over time, but if my temps are so good (especially during gaming which is my use case) will I be okay pushing it?

Finally what is recommended for VCCIO? I was running it at 1.3v with my previous 5.2ghz setup. Should I bump that up for 5.4v stability?


----------



## GeneO

cptclutch said:


> Does HT change temps drastically? I'm running prime95 small right now with 1.43v at 5.4ghz at temps are peaking around 67c. Trying to get it stable without HT.
> 
> Also how high can I push voltages if my temps are below 60c? I really want to get 5.4 out of it, but I'm worried about degradation at over 1.45v. I know its a combination of voltage and temperature that kills it over time, but if my temps are so good (especially during gaming which is my use case) will I be okay pushing it?
> 
> Finally what is recommended for VCCIO? I was running it at 1.3v with my previous 5.2ghz setup. Should I bump that up for 5.4v stability?


When you say 1.45v you are talking about the BIOS setting aren't you? What is your Vcore? That temperature seems unbelievably good for 1.45v under small fft load. What is your cooling? Post a screenshot of *HWINFO64 *under small fft load.

Yes, HT increases temperature dramatically.

If it is degradation you are concerned about, voltages don't matter as much as temperature and current. What current and temperature under load?

Vccio @ 1.3v seems quite high to me, but I am conservative. Is tat under load? I believe it can increase significantly above what you have it set to in the BIOS under load (I know that is true for Vccsa). I would think Vccsa might need bumped rather than Vccio.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

cptclutch said:


> Does HT change temps drastically? I'm running prime95 small right now with 1.43v at 5.4ghz at temps are peaking around 67c. Trying to get it stable without HT.
> 
> Also how high can I push voltages if my temps are below 60c? I really want to get 5.4 out of it, but I'm worried about degradation at over 1.45v. I know its a combination of voltage and temperature that kills it over time, but if my temps are so good (especially during gaming which is my use case) will I be okay pushing it?
> 
> Finally what is recommended for VCCIO? I was running it at 1.3v with my previous 5.2ghz setup. Should I bump that up for 5.4v stability?


Take a pic of bios vf curves...
I'd like to understand why your cpu is so cold...


----------



## fray_bentos

RobertoSampaio said:


> Take a pic of bios vf curves...
> I'd like to understand why your cpu is so cold...


It seems because 1) HT is disabled and 2) the voltages being reported are BIOS voltages and not actual load voltages as reported in HWiNFO64.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

fray_bentos said:


> It seems because 1) HT is disabled and 2) the voltages being reported are BIOS voltages and not actual load voltages as reported in HWiNFO64.


Yes, but I'm curious about the curve...
Anyway seems he has a good CPU!


----------



## cptclutch

I'm going off of the load voltage in HWinfo, not the bios voltage.


GeneO said:


> When you say 1.45v you are talking about the BIOS setting aren't you? What is your Vcore? That temperature seems unbelievably good for 1.45v under small fft load. What is your cooling? Post a screenshot of *HWINFO64 *under small fft load.
> 
> Yes, HT increases temperature dramatically.
> 
> If it is degradation you are concerned about, voltages don't matter as much as temperature and current. What current and temperature under load?
> 
> Vccio @ 1.3v seems quite high to me, but I am conservative. Is tat under load? I believe it can increase significantly above what you have it set to in the BIOS under load (I know that is true for Vccsa). I would think Vccsa might need bumped rather than Vccio.


VCCIO was at 1.3v in bios. And the 1.45 is under load right now in OCCT large with HT off. Temps around 50c-60c on the hottest cores. Still getting errors though. Not really sure what to do try to get stability. Can I run 1.5v if my temps stay this low with HT off? 

Also whats the best way of seeing how much current I'm pulling?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Take a pic of vf curves and hw-info under load...


----------



## cptclutch

This was taken while running OCCT large. Working on a 5.4/5.3 setup now as it seems like all core 5.4 is just not stable.


----------



## GeneO

Hmm, I don't see your current there, Do you have EC Support enabled in the Safety Tab of HWInfo64 settings? That should reveal the Current and a correct reading of the power. Or maybe it is scrolled off of the screen? I think you are getting by with such a large voltage because you have HT disabled (at that power and voltage, you would only be drawing about 120A). You won't get by with that high a voltage with HT enabled. It could also be your power is not correct because of what Roberto mentioned (from DCLL), but that would make your power read erroneously high. So I think you are drawing no more than 120A, which is safe and your temperatures are safe with this HT disabled.


----------



## cptclutch

Yeah just checked and EC support is enabled, I scrolled and didn't see anything there as well.

I'm also getting physical core errors in OCCT after about 10 minutes. Anything I should focus on? I feel like I must have something off that even with these voltages and temps I can't get 5.3 stable.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Very stranger...
VID= 1.27v and VCore = 1.42v.
The power control of the CPU shall be crazy... LOL
I need to see VF table.

Take a pic of this










And This....


----------



## acoustic

Yeah.. no way you're only pulling 167watts at 5.3Ghz all-core


----------



## GeneO

acoustic said:


> Yeah.. no way you're only pulling 167watts at 5.3Ghz all-core


HT disabled. Still...


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I'm testing a CPU temp limit of 65ºC.
I think I'll let this limit for some days and see...
BFV reduce the CPU clock sometimes, but its imperceptible (FPS)...
I think it could be a good strategy for CPU life....


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> I'm testing a CPU temp limit of 65ºC.
> I think I'll let this limit for some days and see...
> BFV reduce the CPU clock sometimes, but its imperceptible (FPS)...
> I think it could be a good strategy for CPU life....


In my experience, reducing the effective TJMax is he most reliable and stable way of throttling the CPU of any of the mechanisms ( others being OCTVB and power throttling). On my 10700k I used tit to throttle high AVX loads that would otherwise be unstable - power limit throttling couldn't do it. I have mine set to 90 now, but I am through testing on the 10900k and will set it much lower I think.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I have about 80C for a short period of time and CPU downclock from 53x to 47x keeping below 65C.
And I gave up 57x... It's impossible without a cryo cooler...


----------



## cptclutch

Sorry for being a bit of a novice with this stuff, only real experience is on the lower end of OCing.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I think Strix do not use die-sense, I don't know how hw-info read Vcore in this MB.
Now VID make any sense with AC_LL=0.01 and DC_LL=1.10.
Which LLC are you using in this pic above?


----------



## cptclutch

LLC4 currently.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Try using AC_LL= 0.5 and I think your system will be stable.


----------



## cptclutch

RobertoSampaio said:


> Try using AC_LL= 0.5 and I think your system will be stable.


Trying it now, thanks! Do you have any advice for VCCIO and SA? I'm never sure what direction to go with them. Running 4200mhz ram currently.

Is there something going on with the power delivery of my processor? I still don't understand why my temps are so low with such high voltages.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I think you have an excellent CPU... LOL
Try 
VCCSA = 1.25v
VCCIO = 1.20v


----------



## Imprezzion

It's not just temps. Wattage is way down as well compared to what it should be. For reference, with HT enabled in Prime95 Small FFT AVX On 5.3 all core 1.424v I pull well in excess of 360w peak / 345w continuous.

I did however find my CPU's sweet spot lol. 5.1 all core 4.7 cache is great. Only needs 1.260v BIOS which is VR VOut 1.242-1.250v to be stable even with AVX and stays very cool. AC/DC "1", LLC 4 (slight droop), Advanced Adaptive Offset (a.k.a. MSI's name for V/F Curve) with everything Auto except -0.040v @ x51 and above, TVB Voltage Optimization and Ratio Clipping disabled, all power saving like EIST, C-States and such enabled.

Now all I wanna do is make it so that it will use per-core turbo ratios to make it do 5.3 @ 1-4 cores and then 5.1 @ 5-10 cores or something similar. So far I got the frequency part working but when it goes to 5.3Ghz the voltage for some reason doesn't change and stays on 1.260v for 5.1 which is nowhere near enough. It should scale up to 1.390v @ 5.3 but it's not picking up the voltage table..


----------



## cptclutch

Well it seems like it takes a lot of voltage to hit these clocks but once its there its nice and cold somehow! Could my 50c temp under load explain why my power is so low? Also the ACLL seems to be working so far. Stable at 5.4 now after 30 min of OCCT.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

And you have a hard cooling solution...
So keep your eyes in temp and wattage.
Do you have a sensor for vrm temp?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Imprezzion said:


> It's not just temps. Wattage is way down as well compared to what it should be. For reference, with HT enabled in Prime95 Small FFT AVX On 5.3 all core 1.424v I pull well in excess of 360w peak / 345w continuous.
> 
> I did however find my CPU's sweet spot lol. 5.1 all core 4.7 cache is great. Only needs 1.260v BIOS which is VR VOut 1.242-1.250v to be stable even with AVX and stays very cool. AC/DC "1", LLC 4 (slight droop), Advanced Adaptive Offset (a.k.a. MSI's name for V/F Curve) with everything Auto except -0.040v @ x51 and above, TVB Voltage Optimization and Ratio Clipping disabled, all power saving like EIST, C-States and such enabled.
> 
> Now all I wanna do is make it so that it will use per-core turbo ratios to make it do 5.3 @ 1-4 cores and then 5.1 @ 5-10 cores or something similar. So far I got the frequency part working but when it goes to 5.3Ghz the voltage for some reason doesn't change and stays on 1.260v for 5.1 which is nowhere near enough. It should scale up to 1.390v @ 5.3 but it's not picking up the voltage table..


[email protected] 1.25v is excellent!
I think you can try 55x4- 54x6 - 53x8 - 52x 10 using +1 boost profile OCTVB...
Voltage optimization will limit frequency and keep VID below 1.500v.


----------



## acoustic

If his chip is anything like mine, the VID table is completely broken after 5.1. I only need 1.26v for 5.1/4.8, VCCIO/SA @ 1.17v, w/ 4133 17-17-17-32.

After 5.1 though, if I try to do per-core turbo ratio with 54x2, 53x6, 52x10, the VID breaks, shoots over 1.45v (even with TVB Voltage Optimization) and I overheat. I won't fail a bench, but I'll get Cache L0 errors as soon as Core4 touches 95c in Realbench.

Once I have this custom loop set up (Heatkiller IV direct-die) we'll see if I can finally grab 5.2.


----------



## cptclutch

So your advice has worked really well and I just ran OCCT large for 50 min and got one WHEA at that point. Is it possible that any instability I have after that kind of time to related to RAM temps? I had to remove my RAM fan for my custom loop, wondering if that might be my last issue. Going to rerun it without any side panels and see if I can make the hour without any errors.

Still though 5.4 all core! That was the reach goal for this project so I'm very happy about that. Now I just need to buy a more expensive motherboard so I can push my ram past 4200mhz haha. If I'm gaming and my temps are below 50c I can run 1.45v without severe degradation right?


----------



## GeneO

You havea good chip. If your whea is L0 cache, increasing Vccsa or lowering the cache multiplier may help.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

So I run stable 10 cores at 5.5ghz. How to use TVB to get higher clock when running games? Set to sync all core and enable tvb +2?


----------



## cptclutch

Opened the side panel and passed an hour of OCCT so seems like it was the RAM temp creeping up after 30 minutes.

Do we think there is something wrong with my chip in terms of power consumption and temps? Or do I just have an insane cooling setup that can apparently handle this chip at any voltage? I'm also using Mayhems new nano coolant which apparently has given some people some better temps? Maybe having everything running at 100% with that coolant and the direct die with LM is really working?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

cptclutch said:


> Opened the side panel and passed an hour of OCCT so seems like it was the RAM temp creeping up after 30 minutes.
> 
> Do we think there is something wrong with my chip in terms of power consumption and temps? Or do I just have an insane cooling setup that can apparently handle this chip at any voltage? I'm also using Mayhems new nano coolant which apparently has given some people some better temps? Maybe having everything running at 100% with that coolant and the direct die with LM is really working?


And what's your room temp?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I realized that if I set a max temp for 65ºC the CPU runs at 47x...
So if I lower 43x and 48x VF curve, maybe I can run 50x below 65C...


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> I realized that if I set a max temp for 65ºC the CPU runs at 48x...
> So if I lower 48x VF curve, maybe I can run 50x below 65C...


Under what stress test?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> Under what stress test?


Good question...
I'm starting with CPU-Z...
But I think the best test is something real like BFV!
But need to test with R23 too

EDITED: R23 kill the frequency to 46x... LOL


----------



## cptclutch

RobertoSampaio said:


> And what's your room temp?


23c room temp. Getting 15900 time spy scores now with peak CPU temps hitting about 65c for a second. Seems like the only way to get higher would be buying a better motherboard that can push my ram past 4300mhz.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

cptclutch said:


> 23c room temp. Getting 15900 time spy scores now with peak CPU temps hitting about 65c for a second. Seems like the only way to get higher would be buying a better motherboard that can push my ram past 4300mhz.


I'd recommend you a Maximus XII formula... So you can put VRM in the loop.
My VRM go over 70ºC with BFV... So I'll use a water cooler for it.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

cptclutch said:


> 23c room temp. Getting 15900 time spy scores now with peak CPU temps hitting about 65c for a second. Seems like the only way to get higher would be buying a better motherboard that can push my ram past 4300mhz.


Take a pic of your loop...


----------



## Cpfan1

It only took ~2 months of gaming for my imc to degrade at 1.39 io/sa


----------



## GeneO

Ouch, sorry to hear. That is pretty high though.


----------



## Imprezzion

acoustic said:


> If his chip is anything like mine, the VID table is completely broken after 5.1. I only need 1.26v for 5.1/4.8, VCCIO/SA @ 1.17v, w/ 4133 17-17-17-32.
> 
> After 5.1 though, if I try to do per-core turbo ratio with 54x2, 53x6, 52x10, the VID breaks, shoots over 1.45v (even with TVB Voltage Optimization) and I overheat. I won't fail a bench, but I'll get Cache L0 errors as soon as Core4 touches 95c in Realbench.
> 
> Once I have this custom loop set up (Heatkiller IV direct-die) we'll see if I can finally grab 5.2.


Yeah same problem. X51 is normal, x52 is about 1.464v, x53 and x54 is 1.552v. If I let the board handle the AC/DC and LLC on Auto it will let it run 1.61v on 5.4.

The MSI BIOS does not really have a good way if setting up TVB, all you can do is set CPU Ratio Mode to Turbo Offset and adjust how many cores get a certain offset and you can set Advanced Adaptive Voltage per multiplier but it doesn't show a actual curve, it doesn't have TVB temp limits, it doesn't show the actual VID values so you're just guessing your offsets...

Intel XTU software tho, supports all of this. I can set it with a curve, it shows the stock VID points, it can set a 75c max TVB temp with negative multiplier and they work, I tested it, so the board and BIOS technically supports it it's just not implemented in the GUI of the BIOS.. I really don't wanna run any software for my overclock but I just might have to do it..

And I did try this with x54 x2 but unfortunately it keeps giving L0 errors even on 1.464v so I doubt any of my cores can actually do 5.4. It just runs 5.1 on very low voltage and played 5 hours of BFV multiplayer grand ops with RTX enabled on 1.260v setpoint 1.242-1.250v load and it's stable. 5.2 required around 1.334v to do the same which is a laaaarge increase and 5.3 required as much as 1.411v.. all with the exact same cache (x47) and RAM (4400C17) and VCCIO/SA (1.3v IO 1.4v SA).


----------



## fray_bentos

Cpfan1 said:


> It only took ~2 months of gaming for my imc to degrade at 1.39 io/sa


Sorry to hear that, and thanks for posting this useful information; you might save a few CPUs.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Sorry but some guy with a 23 post history isn't exactly creditable. What about the regulars that are pushing 4600-4800MHz ram speeds with high IO and SA(even higher than 1.39v) in the Intel memory stability thread not having issues for more than two months?


----------



## fray_bentos

MrTOOSHORT said:


> Sorry but some guy with a 23 post history isn't exactly creditable. What about the regulars that are pushing 4600-4800MHz ram speeds with high IO and SA(even higher than 1.39v) in the Intel memory stability thread not having issues for more than two months?


Degradation is a bell curve. 1.39 V on IO is high though. Plus, on the other hand, some of the more extreme "regulars" are more concerned about boasting about performance than admitting failure/stability problems.


----------



## cptclutch

Shouldn’t we be concerned about our temps when talking about those voltages? Or is that just for Vcore? I’m running mine pretty high, but figure if my setup is running nice and cold it would be alright.


----------



## Globespy

That is a pretty PC, the die-cast McLaren F1 is an interesting personal touch 



cptclutch said:


> Shouldn’t we be concerned about our temps when talking about those voltages? Or is that just for Vcore? I’m running mine pretty high, but figure if my setup is running nice and cold it would be alright.
> View attachment 2515620
> View attachment 2515621


----------



## SuperMumrik

Cpfan1 said:


> It only took ~2 months of gaming for my imc to degrade at 1.39 io/sa


Bummer!
My 10900k are running 1.35io/1.54sa (4700cl17) and has done that since release, but I got decent cooling though


----------



## PhoenixMDA

I don´t have seen anyone who degrade his IMC, Gigabyte say´s 1,35V is absolut safe and many go arround 1,4V io without problem´s.
The most have not really stable ramOC and wonder why it´s later not stable or not every boot stable etc.
Sa at Intel spec max. 1,52V, io is only current boarder given from spec´s.
But it give more people killed her Board/CPU by using LM, that is much more dangerous, if you don´t do it careful.


----------



## Imprezzion

I ran 1.35v IO 1.45v SA fpr the entire duration of having my 2x8GB B-Die kit @ 4600C17 and now have a 2x16GB lot @ 4400C17 @ 1.30v IO 1.40v SA and no adverse effects yet. This kit just can't do 4500 or higher otherwise I would've run it.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I try to keep DRAM voltage VCCIO and VCCSA as low as possible.
Using:
_ Hynix - KHX3733C19D4/16GX - 18-23-23-42-CR2-tRFC490 - 4,[email protected],370mv - [email protected],240mv - [email protected],190mv_


----------



## acoustic

I do as well. I run 4133 17-17-17-32 @ 1.52v VDIMM and 1.17v for both IO/SA. Helps keep temps down.


----------



## mouacyk

Can usually get away with lower IO/SA for middle range overclocks. Could this be due to DPC topology vs Daisy-chain or T-top?
2x8GB 4000-16-16-16-36-1T 1.15v (1.475v DRAM)
2x8GB 4133-16-17-17-36-2T 1.20v (1.475v DRAM)
2x8GB 4266-17-18-18-38-2T 1.25v (1.475v DRAM)
2x16GB 3900-15-15-15-35-2T 1.15v (1.45v DRAM)


----------



## cptclutch

So even though I'm stable in OCCT large for one hour, I'm crashing instantly with small. Is there anything I can do to help fix that?


----------



## YaqY

cptclutch said:


> So even though I'm stable in OCCT large for one hour, I'm crashing instantly with small. Is there anything I can do to help fix that?


What test are you running in small data set? Are you running it with AVX2? If so this test pulls high current and can't be handled by most cooling solutions unless on direct die or delid. With Large data set, it is only stressful if you have tuned your memory including sub timings as cpu will pull more current/power after this and the test becomes harder to pass.


----------



## cptclutch

YaqY said:


> What test are you running in small data set? Are you running it with AVX2? If so this test pulls high current and can't be handled by most cooling solutions unless on direct die or delid. With Large data set, it is only stressful if you have tuned your memory including sub timings as cpu will pull more current/power after this and the test becomes harder to pass.


I'm running an aggressive direct die custom loop so temps aren't an issue. Just trying to keep my vcore below 1.45 as I'm a bit worried about degrading above that. My temps in pretty much any test max out at 55c. OCCT large is pretty easy to pass for me but even medium is getting errors after about 15 min. My RAM is b die running at 4300mhz CAS 16.


----------



## YaqY

cptclutch said:


> I'm running an aggressive direct die custom loop so temps aren't an issue. Just trying to keep my vcore below 1.45 as I'm a bit worried about degrading above that. My temps in pretty much any test max out at 55c. OCCT large is pretty easy to pass for me but even medium is getting errors after about 15 min. My RAM is b die running at 4300mhz CAS 16.


Is this all subtimings tuned, tfaw/trrdl/trrds etc, tuning these subs makes large a much harder test, setting main timings alone won't do much (i would recommend running large extreme mode). My daily overclock which also passes large extreme passes linx 10 rounds with matching residuals. Linx is a bit harder on ring clock though, it does not like 50x ring where large can pass this so i have it at 49x.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Finally, the VRM is water cooled with a Raijintek ORCUS 140 RBW!
Running at idle @ 33ºC. Before was 54ºC
Now I'll test BFV.
From 70ºC to 42ºC


----------



## fray_bentos

RobertoSampaio said:


> Finally, the VRM is water cooled with a Raijintek ORCUS 140 RBW!
> Running at idle @ 33ºC. Before was 54ºC
> Now I'll test BFV.
> From 70ºC to 42ºC
> 
> 
> View attachment 2515868
> 
> View attachment 2515870
> 
> View attachment 2515869


I didn't think VRM temps of 70-80 C was a problem. Won't this (slightly) reduce your CPU and GPU cooling ability since your coolant will now be warmer?


----------



## cptclutch

YaqY said:


> Is this all subtimings tuned, tfaw/trrdl/trrds etc, tuning these subs makes large a much harder test, setting main timings alone won't do much (i would recommend running large extreme mode). My daily overclock which also passes large extreme passes linx 10 rounds with matching residuals. Linx is a bit harder on ring clock though, it does not like 50x ring where large can pass this so i have it at 49x.


Yeah I've tuned my memory a bit. So basically I should just accept I can pass a large test and forget about the medium/small ones? Seems stable in games so far. 

Also is 1.44v load (not die sense) at low temps (always sub 50c) okay for degradation?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

fray_bentos said:


> I didn't think VRM temps of 70-80 C was a problem. Won't this (slightly) reduce your CPU and GPU cooling ability since your coolant will now be warmer?


There are 2 independent loops....


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Maximum VRM temp playing BFV and STAR WARS Battlefront II...
42ºC


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Hi...
Do you think I may have problems if I enable TPM and after that I update bios?


----------



## fray_bentos

RobertoSampaio said:


> Hi...
> Do you think I may have problems if I enable TPM and after that I update bios?


I doubt it, since updating a BIOS normally restores all settings to default.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

RobertoSampaio said:


> Hi...
> Do you think I may have problems if I enable TPM and after that I update bios?


Every time before you update a bios it´s better to load before bios default´s, that is the safe way.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

Im running 2x16gb 4600c16 at 1.615v with 1.45v IO/SA , cpu is at 1.515v llc6 and aint give a single F about degration.


----------



## Nizzen

Thanh Nguyen said:


> Im running 2x16gb 4600c16 at 1.615v with 1.45v IO/SA , cpu is at 1.515v llc6 and aint give a single F about degration.


Yeah, who have a cpu for more than one generation anyway 

Woops,I almost forgot my x299 system with 7980xe! Overclocked to 4700mhz all core since day 1. Still alive and kicking ass


----------



## acoustic

For the love of God, can someone test this for me? I'm pulling my hair out.

10900K w/ MSI Z490 ACE. 5.1Ghz @ 1.28v under load (1.315v BIOS - LLC Mode4) override voltage, fixed frequency. Everything runs great.. games for hours on end with no WHEA errors, Realbench 8hr stable, TM5 Anta777 3hr stable, CinebenchR23 3hr loop stable.

Enter ..

METRO ****ING EXODUS ENHANCED EDITION.

I either crash during the loading screen, or I pop CPU Internal Errors on HWINFO64. I'm logging 1-2 almost every loading screen. I noticed that when the game "initializes" during that loading screen -- when you can hold E to get in the game -- the wattage will spike to 175w+. The only way I've been able to get this to stop (tested 4-5 times going in and out), is by severely overvolting the chip to 1.37v under load. I bet if I did the loading screen enough I could probably get one to pop up there too.. ****er.

I've tried going to a tighter LLC (Mode3) .. no fix. Higher switching frequency for the VCore.. no fix. Turning on Dynamic clocks and Advanced Offset .. no fix. Adaptive voltage with Mode5 LLC for some good droop.. no fix.

Again, zero crashes in any other game. Everything rock stable. Metro Exodus: EE though? NOPE. I can't for the life of me figure this one out. There's no reason this one game needs 1.37v under load while Realbench requires 1.28v. I'm assuming the huge power spike is what's causing it, but how can I fix that? I thought upping the VRM Switching frequency might help, but it didn't. I tried 700KHz (my normal) and went to 800KHz. I know most VRMs are incredibly inefficient above 800K, so I didn't even bother trying 1000KHz.

Can anyone test and report if they see the same thing? I feel like I'm chasing ghosts here..


----------



## criskoe

acoustic said:


> For the love of God, can someone test this for me? I'm pulling my hair out.
> 
> 10900K w/ MSI Z490 ACE. 5.1Ghz @ 1.28v under load (1.315v BIOS - LLC Mode4) override voltage, fixed frequency. Everything runs great.. games for hours on end with no WHEA errors, Realbench 8hr stable, TM5 Anta777 3hr stable, CinebenchR23 3hr loop stable.
> 
> Enter ..
> 
> METRO ****ING EXODUS ENHANCED EDITION.
> 
> I either crash during the loading screen, or I pop CPU Internal Errors on HWINFO64. I'm logging 1-2 almost every loading screen. I noticed that when the game "initializes" during that loading screen -- when you can hold E to get in the game -- the wattage will spike to 175w+. The only way I've been able to get this to stop (tested 4-5 times going in and out), is by severely overvolting the chip to 1.37v under load. I bet if I did the loading screen enough I could probably get one to pop up there too.. ****er.
> 
> I've tried going to a tighter LLC (Mode3) .. no fix. Higher switching frequency for the VCore.. no fix. Turning on Dynamic clocks and Advanced Offset .. no fix. Adaptive voltage with Mode5 LLC for some good droop.. no fix.
> 
> Again, zero crashes in any other game. Everything rock stable. Metro Exodus: EE though? NOPE. I can't for the life of me figure this one out. There's no reason this one game needs 1.37v under load while Realbench requires 1.28v. I'm assuming the huge power spike is what's causing it, but how can I fix that? I thought upping the VRM Switching frequency might help, but it didn't. I tried 700KHz (my normal) and went to 800KHz. I know most VRMs are incredibly inefficient above 800K, so I didn't even bother trying 1000KHz.
> 
> Can anyone test and report if they see the same thing? I feel like I'm chasing ghosts here..


I saw this behavior on my old 9900KS I gave to my brother. It was a rock stable OC. No issues. Its survived 8 Hour Extended tests of P95 AVX, Cinebench, And Real Bench. As well as years of gaming problem free. But soon as my brother bought that game. He started complaining to me. LOL.. I dont own that game so im sorry I cant test it on my 10900k. But its exactly as you explained. Only way I was able to get it to stop on his pc was to up vcore voltage ALOT! But no more Wheas and no more crashing. Hes happy now... LOL. 

Im sure this isnt the answer you were hoping for but thats all i got for ya.


----------



## ViTosS

acoustic said:


> For the love of God, can someone test this for me? I'm pulling my hair out.
> 
> 10900K w/ MSI Z490 ACE. 5.1Ghz @ 1.28v under load (1.315v BIOS - LLC Mode4) override voltage, fixed frequency. Everything runs great.. games for hours on end with no WHEA errors, Realbench 8hr stable, TM5 Anta777 3hr stable, CinebenchR23 3hr loop stable.
> 
> Enter ..
> 
> METRO ****ING EXODUS ENHANCED EDITION.
> 
> I either crash during the loading screen, or I pop CPU Internal Errors on HWINFO64. I'm logging 1-2 almost every loading screen. I noticed that when the game "initializes" during that loading screen -- when you can hold E to get in the game -- the wattage will spike to 175w+. The only way I've been able to get this to stop (tested 4-5 times going in and out), is by severely overvolting the chip to 1.37v under load. I bet if I did the loading screen enough I could probably get one to pop up there too.. ****er.
> 
> I've tried going to a tighter LLC (Mode3) .. no fix. Higher switching frequency for the VCore.. no fix. Turning on Dynamic clocks and Advanced Offset .. no fix. Adaptive voltage with Mode5 LLC for some good droop.. no fix.
> 
> Again, zero crashes in any other game. Everything rock stable. Metro Exodus: EE though? NOPE. I can't for the life of me figure this one out. There's no reason this one game needs 1.37v under load while Realbench requires 1.28v. I'm assuming the huge power spike is what's causing it, but how can I fix that? I thought upping the VRM Switching frequency might help, but it didn't. I tried 700KHz (my normal) and went to 800KHz. I know most VRMs are incredibly inefficient above 800K, so I didn't even bother trying 1000KHz.
> 
> Can anyone test and report if they see the same thing? I feel like I'm chasing ghosts here..


I have the exact same problem, 9900ks here, I was in some part of the game where when it finishes the loading I get WHEA error and a huge stuttering, the game doesn't crash but I see the WHEA error there, same as you have, also I increased voltage in BIOS from 1.20 to 1.25v, no success, and then to 1.30v finally fixed it, it's weird because at 1.20v is rock solid at every stress test/game, I had something like this in COD Cold War, but in Metro is way more common... I guess this is the parity error the 9th and 10th suffers and there is no fix at it only increasing A LOT voltage.


----------



## fray_bentos

acoustic said:


> For the love of God, can someone test this for me? I'm pulling my hair out.
> 
> 10900K w/ MSI Z490 ACE. 5.1Ghz @ 1.28v under load (1.315v BIOS - LLC Mode4) override voltage, fixed frequency. Everything runs great.. games for hours on end with no WHEA errors, Realbench 8hr stable, TM5 Anta777 3hr stable, CinebenchR23 3hr loop stable.
> 
> Enter ..
> 
> METRO ****ING EXODUS ENHANCED EDITION.
> 
> I either crash during the loading screen, or I pop CPU Internal Errors on HWINFO64. I'm logging 1-2 almost every loading screen. I noticed that when the game "initializes" during that loading screen -- when you can hold E to get in the game -- the wattage will spike to 175w+. The only way I've been able to get this to stop (tested 4-5 times going in and out), is by severely overvolting the chip to 1.37v under load. I bet if I did the loading screen enough I could probably get one to pop up there too.. ****er.
> 
> I've tried going to a tighter LLC (Mode3) .. no fix. Higher switching frequency for the VCore.. no fix. Turning on Dynamic clocks and Advanced Offset .. no fix. Adaptive voltage with Mode5 LLC for some good droop.. no fix.
> 
> Again, zero crashes in any other game. Everything rock stable. Metro Exodus: EE though? NOPE. I can't for the life of me figure this one out. There's no reason this one game needs 1.37v under load while Realbench requires 1.28v. I'm assuming the huge power spike is what's causing it, but how can I fix that? I thought upping the VRM Switching frequency might help, but it didn't. I tried 700KHz (my normal) and went to 800KHz. I know most VRMs are incredibly inefficient above 800K, so I didn't even bother trying 1000KHz.
> 
> Can anyone test and report if they see the same thing? I feel like I'm chasing ghosts here..


Have you tried/passed the Horizon Zero Dawn "compiling shaders" test yet? I suspect that is even tougher than Exodus loading screens.


----------



## Imprezzion

I played through the entire Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition main campaign and Two Colonels DLC so far on the exact same combination of hardware. Z490 Ace and a 10900KF. I was using it to test OC's as well so I did it on 3 different combinations of clocks and voltages and no issues at all so far. 5.1/4.6 @ 1.286v -0.050v advanced adaptive + LLC4 + AC/DC Advanced "1" is fine, 5.2/4.7 @ 1.366v -0.140 advanced adaptive + LLC3 + AC/DC Advanced "12" is fine too. 5.3/4.8 @ 1.424v -0.120v advanced adaptive + LLC4 + AC/DC Advanced "10" is also fine although a bit hot for my liking.

Going to start Sam's DLC today.


----------



## cstkl1

acoustic said:


> For the love of God, can someone test this for me? I'm pulling my hair out.
> 
> 10900K w/ MSI Z490 ACE. 5.1Ghz @ 1.28v under load (1.315v BIOS - LLC Mode4) override voltage, fixed frequency. Everything runs great.. games for hours on end with no WHEA errors, Realbench 8hr stable, TM5 Anta777 3hr stable, CinebenchR23 3hr loop stable.
> 
> Enter ..
> 
> METRO ****ING EXODUS ENHANCED EDITION.
> 
> I either crash during the loading screen, or I pop CPU Internal Errors on HWINFO64. I'm logging 1-2 almost every loading screen. I noticed that when the game "initializes" during that loading screen -- when you can hold E to get in the game -- the wattage will spike to 175w+. The only way I've been able to get this to stop (tested 4-5 times going in and out), is by severely overvolting the chip to 1.37v under load. I bet if I did the loading screen enough I could probably get one to pop up there too.. ****er.
> 
> I've tried going to a tighter LLC (Mode3) .. no fix. Higher switching frequency for the VCore.. no fix. Turning on Dynamic clocks and Advanced Offset .. no fix. Adaptive voltage with Mode5 LLC for some good droop.. no fix.
> 
> Again, zero crashes in any other game. Everything rock stable. Metro Exodus: EE though? NOPE. I can't for the life of me figure this one out. There's no reason this one game needs 1.37v under load while Realbench requires 1.28v. I'm assuming the huge power spike is what's causing it, but how can I fix that? I thought upping the VRM Switching frequency might help, but it didn't. I tried 700KHz (my normal) and went to 800KHz. I know most VRMs are incredibly inefficient above 800K, so I didn't even bother trying 1000KHz.
> 
> Can anyone test and report if they see the same thing? I feel like I'm chasing ghosts here..





Imprezzion said:


> I played through the entire Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition main campaign and Two Colonels DLC so far on the exact same combination of hardware. Z490 Ace and a 10900KF. I was using it to test OC's as well so I did it on 3 different combinations of clocks and voltages and no issues at all so far. 5.1/4.6 @ 1.286v -0.050v advanced adaptive + LLC4 + AC/DC Advanced "1" is fine, 5.2/4.7 @ 1.366v -0.140 advanced adaptive + LLC3 + AC/DC Advanced "12" is fine too. 5.3/4.8 @ 1.424v -0.120v advanced adaptive + LLC4 + AC/DC Advanced "10" is also fine although a bit hot for my liking.
> 
> Going to start Sam's DLC today.


whats both of your rams running and at and whats your gpu.

rebar on or off.

rams - secondary and third timings pairing....


----------



## Imprezzion

ReBAR off, HAGS off, 466.xx driver. RAM 4400 straight 17's. See screenshot for timings and voltages in hwinfo64.


----------



## acoustic

cstkl1 said:


> whats both of your rams running and at and whats your gpu.
> 
> rebar on or off.
> 
> rams - secondary and third timings pairing....


10900K Direct-Die w/ Heatkiller IV block
3080TI STRIX w/ EK block+backplate - latest NV drivers 471.22

I'm running 4133, but I've gone down to XMP (3200 15-15-15-35 @ 1.35v) and it doesn't change anything. I've ran the GPU stock, and with MSI Afterburner off. No changes, still get CPU Internal Error and random crashes during the loading screens. I've bumped up VCCIO/VCCSA voltages to 1.25v just to rule those out, and again, no change.

I thought maybe it was the Parity error that CML is known for, but that's the thing .. it's not a parity error. Those show up differently and log as different WHEA errors than what I'm seeing. This WHEA is 99% of the time related to vCore as far as I know, but again.. every single other program and/or stress-test is hours and hours stable, and Realbench is a much harder CPU workload than Metro Exodus. I also thought "hey, maybe my RAM sticks are overheating playing Metro" but this happens even on a completely fresh cold boot where my ambient temp is 16-17c.. the case is an ice box at the time.

ReBar enabled. That's one thing I haven't tried, I can do that right now, just woke up.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

You can try to rise AC_LL and keep voltage as before...


----------



## cstkl1

acoustic said:


> 10900K Direct-Die w/ Heatkiller IV block
> 3080TI STRIX w/ EK block+backplate - latest NV drivers 471.22
> 
> I'm running 4133, but I've gone down to XMP (3200 15-15-15-35 @ 1.35v) and it doesn't change anything. I've ran the GPU stock, and with MSI Afterburner off. No changes, still get CPU Internal Error and random crashes during the loading screens. I've bumped up VCCIO/VCCSA voltages to 1.25v just to rule those out, and again, no change.
> 
> I thought maybe it was the Parity error that CML is known for, but that's the thing .. it's not a parity error. Those show up differently and log as different WHEA errors than what I'm seeing. This WHEA is 99% of the time related to vCore as far as I know, but again.. every single other program and/or stress-test is hours and hours stable, and Realbench is a much harder CPU workload than Metro Exodus. I also thought "hey, maybe my RAM sticks are overheating playing Metro" but this happens even on a completely fresh cold boot where my ambient temp is 16-17c.. the case is an ice box at the time.
> 
> ReBar enabled. That's one thing I haven't tried, I can do that right now, just woke up.


ok ram not the problem ..

theres been cases where stock 10900k causes it and a rma solved it...

i find normally the official box ones are better than the avengers version


----------



## acoustic

cstkl1 said:


> ok ram not the problem ..
> 
> theres been cases where stock 10900k causes it and a rma solved it...
> 
> i find normally the official box ones are better than the avengers version


Gotcha. Yeah, this is an official "fancy box" 10900K, not an Avengers. What's strange is that I never had a single crash with the original Metro Exodus, it's only been with the Enhanced Edition that I've noticed this. I don't have the original installed to test.

I'm pretty close to just uninstalling this ****ing game. It's absolutely ridiculous that the game is smashing the chip at 180watts during a loading screen. It's a huge transient spike that I'm assuming the chip and VRM can't respond to in time..

Tested with Rebar disabled - still errors/crashes. I actually got in and out 2-3 times before it did it.. lol


----------



## criskoe

acoustic said:


> Gotcha. Yeah, this is an official "fancy box" 10900K, not an Avengers. What's strange is that I never had a single crash with the original Metro Exodus, it's only been with the Enhanced Edition that I've noticed this. I don't have the original installed to test.
> 
> I'm pretty close to just uninstalling this ****ing game. It's absolutely ridiculous that the game is smashing the chip at 180watts during a loading screen. It's a huge transient spike that I'm assuming the chip and VRM can't respond to in time..


Yup. My brother said the original also ran fine. Its that enhanced edition. Unfortunately only way I was able to get it to stop for my brother was to JUICE the vcore. LOL. I spent a whole night trying to figure it out. Cause its at the loading screen, its very easy to replicate so I was able to try everything. I gave up in the wee hours of the night and just juiced the chip and walked away. LOL... He said everything has been great since. Ive given my brother a decent cooling set up so im not worried. But I told him to let me know when hes completely done with the game so I can re lower the voltage after...

Jack the vcore. Beat the game. Uninstall the game. Reduce vcore.


----------



## Imprezzion

Mine's a pretty early production KF. Also direct die.
I can sort of replicate your problem at 5.3/4.8. It will pass most if not all stress tests fine on 1.390v yet random errors like this in gaming. Bumping to 1.42v solved it. CPU does not like 5.3 all core. At 1.42v I also run into temp issues. About 72-76c across the cores in gaming with AVX games (like BF5), 92-96c in stress tests (AVX on) and mid 80's AVX off which is too high for my liking. Poor EK Coolstream SE rad.. 

I wonder if upgrading my rad will help. 

It's a Phoenix kit but the pump is in the rad so I should be able to re-use the block (which is basically a Supremacy non-EVO) and just use a Nemesis GTS 420 with new tubing eliminating the QDC's as well and a cheap res+pump like a EK XRES 140 Revo + D5. Would that help or is the block too much of a bottleneck at that point.


----------



## acoustic

criskoe said:


> Yup. My brother said the original also ran fine. Its that enhanced edition. Unfortunately only way I was able to get it to stop for my brother was to JUICE the chip. LOL. I spent a good night trying to figure it out. Cause its at the loading screen, its very easy to replicate so I was able to try everything. Ive given my brother a decent cooling set up so I gave up in the wee ours of the night and just juiced the chip and walked away. LOL... He said everything has been great since. I told him to let me know when hes completely done with the game. Then Im gunna re lower the voltage..


Yep. That's completely ridiculous! I hate knowing that my system is for some reason unstable .. even though I know it's just this silly game.

@Imprezzion yeah, this is only happening in Metro Exodus: EE. I cannot replicate any crashing or WHEA logging in any single application. I'd run P95 Small FFT just to really prove that this thing is rock solid stable at 5.1/4.8 @ 1.28v, but I'd rather not shove so much current through the chip due to this trash game.

Ah well .. I was hoping someone knew a fix other than throwing more voltage at it. I was hoping it was maybe a setting I missed 

Thanks everyone for the replies!!

EDIT: Just for ****s and giggles I put the chip and RAM completely stock .. and it does not error. The chip also seems to hit spikes of 1.492v and is running around that golden 1.37v number I mentioned earlier.

Trash. I'll just never play this game again LOL .. not even that good.. I've tried so many times to get into it, but Metro 2033 and Metro: LL were both so much better imo.


----------



## fray_bentos

acoustic said:


> Yep. That's completely ridiculous! I hate knowing that my system is for some reason unstable .. even though I know it's just this silly game.
> 
> @Imprezzion yeah, this is only happening in Metro Exodus: EE. I cannot replicate any crashing or WHEA logging in any single application. I'd run P95 Small FFT just to really prove that this thing is rock solid stable at 5.1/4.8 @ 1.28v, but I'd rather not shove so much current through the chip due to this trash game.
> 
> Ah well .. I was hoping someone knew a fix other than throwing more voltage at it. I was hoping it was maybe a setting I missed
> 
> Thanks everyone for the replies!!
> 
> EDIT: Just for ****s and giggles I put the chip and RAM completely stock .. and it does not error. The chip also seems to hit spikes of 1.492v and is running around that golden 1.37v number I mentioned earlier.
> 
> Trash. I'll just never play this game again LOL .. not even that good.. I've tried so many times to get into it, but Metro 2033 and Metro: LL were both so much better imo.


It is indeed a rubbish and over-rated game. I tried it on gamepass; playing it feels more like a walking-through-mud and getting-stuck-on-in-game-objects simulator. I just didn't find it fun to play. I note Jimquisition (Jim Sterling) said similar things in his review.


----------



## Imprezzion

Well yeah, it's visuals aren't even that spectacular really even with ray tracing. Very low poly and low res textures compared to other games. But. I like the story element of it and played all Metro games so had to do this for the story as well you know.

There aren't many good story driven FPS single players with many big names not even including a single player anymore.. cough.. Battlefield.. and no war stories are NOT a single player campaign replacement. At least Cold War had a good campaign..

I did run P95 Small for a bit on 5.1/4.7 1.290v and it's fine. Temps are well in check, high 70's peaked at 82c. And it seems stable. Only ran for like 20 minutes tho as I also don't like the insane power draw. I saw a constant load around 320-330w.


----------



## acoustic

Imprezzion said:


> Well yeah, it's visuals aren't even that spectacular really even with ray tracing. Very low poly and low res textures compared to other games. But. I like the story element of it and played all Metro games so had to do this for the story as well you know.
> 
> There aren't many good story driven FPS single players with many big names not even including a single player anymore.. cough.. Battlefield.. and no war stories are NOT a single player campaign replacement. At least Cold War had a good campaign..
> 
> I did run P95 Small for a bit on 5.1/4.7 1.290v and it's fine. Temps are well in check, high 70's peaked at 82c. And it seems stable. Only ran for like 20 minutes tho as I also don't like the insane power draw. I saw a constant load around 320-330w.


I wouldn't run Small FFT much at all either. 336watts for me. I'm done toying with my entire system to cater to one stupid game. Everything else is stable and has given me zero issues for quite some time now. Metro put me down a rabbit hole for the past 24hrs..


----------



## Imprezzion

acoustic said:


> I wouldn't run Small FFT much at all either. 336watts for me. I'm done toying with my entire system to cater to one stupid game. Everything else is stable and has given me zero issues for quite some time now. Metro put me down a rabbit hole for the past 24hrs..


I'm still switching between 5.1 and 5.2 as I am wondering to myself if the increase in voltage and temps is worth that 100Mhz. I need to go from 1.290 to 1.370 basically to make it 100% stable on 5.2 as that's kinda where the wall is. This makes my game temps go from 58-61c to 66-70c. And as the CPU rad is the intake it also makes my GPU outtake rad about 2-3c hotter plus the RAM.. All for 100Mhz..


----------



## acoustic

Nope. I stopped caring about 5.2, especially since I game at 3840x1600. I'm GPU limited 99.9% of the time anyway.

It's all about cranking the GPU now  this STRIX is an animal.


----------



## Imprezzion

acoustic said:


> Nope. I stopped caring about 5.2, especially since I game at 3840x1600. I'm GPU limited 99.9% of the time anyway.
> 
> It's all about cranking the GPU now  this STRIX is an animal.


I game at 1080p 280Hz. But yeah. My GPU is at it's end because obviously power limits. 2x8pin means 345-355w effective power. In most games like Metro it cannot go above 1930-1950Mhz @ 0.962-0.981v.


----------



## acoustic

Imprezzion said:


> I game at 1080p 280Hz. But yeah. My GPU is at it's end because obviously power limits. 2x8pin means 345-355w effective power. In most games like Metro it cannot go above 1930-1950Mhz @ 0.962-0.981v.


Well now I just had a hard lock up in Rome2: Total War that, upon reboot, seems to have logged a WHEA.

What the ****. I don't understand how settings that can pass stress-tests overnight now all of a sudden are going crazy. I'm about to just re-flash the BIOS to the mobo .. something just doesn't make sense here.

Something is wrong. I bumped voltage from 1.315v in BIOS to 1.33v in BIOS .. now R2TW, just sitting on the campaign map, gave me a CPU Cache L0 error. Game didn't crash, but HWINFO logged it.

This 10900K has never done this before. I've played R2TW for hours on hours on hours at 5.1/4.8 @ 1.315v BIOS, and now all of a sudden it's hitting me with all types of different ****. There's no way I degraded the chip, either. I've never ran higher than 1.36v load through it, and temps have always been great. The temps are actually better than ever since I just put it under a Heatkiller IV block and a full custom loop to replace my EVGA 360 AIO.

I'm so confused now.


----------



## Imprezzion

acoustic said:


> Well now I just had a hard lock up in Rome2: Total War that, upon reboot, seems to have logged a WHEA.
> 
> What the ****. I don't understand how settings that can pass stress-tests overnight now all of a sudden are going crazy. I'm about to just re-flash the BIOS to the mobo .. something just doesn't make sense here.
> 
> Something is wrong. I bumped voltage from 1.315v in BIOS to 1.33v in BIOS .. now R2TW, just sitting on the campaign map, gave me a CPU Cache L0 error. Game didn't crash, but HWINFO logged it.
> 
> This 10900K has never done this before. I've played R2TW for hours on hours on hours at 5.1/4.8 @ 1.315v BIOS, and now all of a sudden it's hitting me with all types of different ****. There's no way I degraded the chip, either. I've never ran higher than 1.36v load through it, and temps have always been great. The temps are actually better than ever since I just put it under a Heatkiller IV block and a full custom loop to replace my EVGA 360 AIO.
> 
> I'm so confused now.


The only thing that very rarely happens to me is a hard lock when going from a high load to no load. I had it in World of Tanks for example after a battle when saving the demo and loading the menu. As soon as loading was done it hard froze. It has to do with C-States / EIST. I saw the cores and cache drop from 5.1/4.7 to like 1.2/1.2 and that goes wrong sometimes.

Easy to reproduce by using P95 Small no AVX and starting and stopping the test quickly in a row. As soon as I press stop test it will hard lock 5-10% of the time.

I know it's related to AC/DC and EIST / SpeedShift. If I raise AC/DC it's fine but voltage regulation is worse and it overshoots to the moon in light loads and disabling C-States + SpeedShift (leave EIST enabled) it's fine as well. Doesn't really bother me. Reboot with a 970 Evo takes mere seconds and it never happens under load so.. bit done troubleshooting this..


----------



## cstkl1

acoustic said:


> 10900K Direct-Die w/ Heatkiller IV block
> 3080TI STRIX w/ EK block+backplate - latest NV drivers 471.22
> 
> I'm running 4133, but I've gone down to XMP (3200 15-15-15-35 @ 1.35v) and it doesn't change anything. I've ran the GPU stock, and with MSI Afterburner off. No changes, still get CPU Internal Error and random crashes during the loading screens. I've bumped up VCCIO/VCCSA voltages to 1.25v just to rule those out, and again, no change.
> 
> I thought maybe it was the Parity error that CML is known for, but that's the thing .. it's not a parity error. Those show up differently and log as different WHEA errors than what I'm seeing. This WHEA is 99% of the time related to vCore as far as I know, but again.. every single other program and/or stress-test is hours and hours stable, and Realbench is a much harder CPU workload than Metro Exodus. I also thought "hey, maybe my RAM sticks are overheating playing Metro" but this happens even on a completely fresh cold boot where my ambient temp is 16-17c.. the case is an ice box at the time.
> 
> ReBar enabled. That's one thing I haven't tried, I can do that right now, just woke up.


tested the game.
latest driver

it caches alot of ram.. 20gb worth @1440p max

so if ure 16gb+pagefile
trt disable cstate


----------



## acoustic

cstkl1 said:


> tested the game.
> latest driver
> 
> it caches alot of ram.. 20gb worth @1440p max
> 
> so if ure 16gb+pagefile
> trt disable cstate


I'm running 32gb (16x2)

I don't know what's going on but nothing is stable anymore unless the chip is stock. I have to go to work, but I'll test more when I get home. Leaving Rome2 running on campaign map (mem at xmp) while I'm gone to test my current settings. I dropped my cache from 4.8 to 4.6 and threw more voltage to see what happens.. so we'll see..

Temps aren't a problem for me but I just can't wrap my head around this. I've never had issues at 5.1/4.8, now all of a sudden it's not stable in games, but it'll take every stress test no problem .. just doesn't make sense.


----------



## ViTosS

3 games that gave me the Internal CPU error: Horizon Zero Dawn compiling shaders (like the guy said before), COD CW MP and Metro Exodus Enhanced, it seems to be related to DX12 games...


----------



## newls1

metro exodus enhanced IS BRUTAL!! Game will really find a systems weakness fast


----------



## criskoe

acoustic said:


> Well now I just had a hard lock up in Rome2: Total War that, upon reboot, seems to have logged a WHEA.
> 
> What the ****. I don't understand how settings that can pass stress-tests overnight now all of a sudden are going crazy. I'm about to just re-flash the BIOS to the mobo .. something just doesn't make sense here.
> 
> Something is wrong. I bumped voltage from 1.315v in BIOS to 1.33v in BIOS .. now R2TW, just sitting on the campaign map, gave me a CPU Cache L0 error. Game didn't crash, but HWINFO logged it.
> 
> This 10900K has never done this before. I've played R2TW for hours on hours on hours at 5.1/4.8 @ 1.315v BIOS, and now all of a sudden it's hitting me with all types of different ****. There's no way I degraded the chip, either. I've never ran higher than 1.36v load through it, and temps have always been great. The temps are actually better than ever since I just put it under a Heatkiller IV block and a full custom loop to replace my EVGA 360 AIO.
> 
> I'm so confused now.


How long ago did you delid the cpu?


----------



## acoustic

criskoe said:


> How long ago did you delid the cpu?


Months ago. I thought maybe the mount was too tight, but since it works at stock settings, I don't think that's the case.


----------



## acoustic

Double post


----------



## cstkl1

acoustic said:


> I'm running 32gb (16x2)
> 
> I don't know what's going on but nothing is stable anymore unless the chip is stock. I have to go to work, but I'll test more when I get home. Leaving Rome2 running on campaign map (mem at xmp) while I'm gone to test my current settings. I dropped my cache from 4.8 to 4.6 and threw more voltage to see what happens.. so we'll see..
> 
> Temps aren't a problem for me but I just can't wrap my head around this. I've never had issues at 5.1/4.8, now all of a sudden it's not stable in games, but it'll take every stress test no problem .. just doesn't make sense.


thats y i love 11900k. zero crashes. zero whea

51|46-4800c17


----------



## cstkl1

acoustic said:


> I'm running 32gb (16x2)
> 
> I don't know what's going on but nothing is stable anymore unless the chip is stock. I have to go to work, but I'll test more when I get home. Leaving Rome2 running on campaign map (mem at xmp) while I'm gone to test my current settings. I dropped my cache from 4.8 to 4.6 and threw more voltage to see what happens.. so we'll see..
> 
> Temps aren't a problem for me but I just can't wrap my head around this. I've never had issues at 5.1/4.8, now all of a sudden it's not stable in games, but it'll take every stress test no problem .. just doesn't make sense.





ViTosS said:


> 3 games that gave me the Internal CPU error: Horizon Zero Dawn compiling shaders (like the guy said before), COD CW MP and Metro Exodus Enhanced, it seems to be related to DX12 games...





newls1 said:


> metro exodus enhanced IS BRUTAL!! Game will really find a systems weakness fast


its not brutal

u can easily check ure cpu/system stability by playinh ghostrunner RTX enabled level climb. leave hwinfo on and watch the whea counter

for 10900k i managed to solve it via third timings pairing with twcl and changing dram switching frequency
+
bclk amplitude

was running 52|50 - 2x16gb 4533c16

i only say 99% perfect as the 1% will crash without triggering whea.

for zen cpu u get L0 which seems to be related to nvme and cstate.


----------



## Falkentyne

cstkl1 said:


> ok ram not the problem ..
> 
> theres been cases where stock 10900k causes it and a rma solved it...
> 
> i find normally the official box ones are better than the avengers version


It's sort of funny how everyone bashed the RKL chips and their Gear2 latency and stuff and now all the Skylake chips are crashing with Internal Parity Errors. Can't say I didn't predict this...


----------



## morph.

Falkentyne said:


> It's sort of funny how everyone bashed the RKL chips and their Gear2 latency and stuff and now all the Skylake chips are crashing with Internal Parity Errors. Can't say I didn't predict this...


I said that I think in the memory oc thread and people were not happy lol









*Official* Intel DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread


Hmmm interesting... :LOL: This is very nice, but unfortunately lots of performance is lost by the looser tertiary timings ending up slower than say 4500 With Tight Tertiaries like trdrd_sg 6, trdrd_dr 5/6, trdwrs 10-11




www.overclock.net





I gave up as a lot of those people took it very personally or thought I was trying to defend my 11900k purchase lol...


----------



## YaqY

morph. said:


> I said that I think in the memory oc thread and people were not happy lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Official* Intel DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread
> 
> 
> Hmmm interesting... :LOL: This is very nice, but unfortunately lots of performance is lost by the looser tertiary timings ending up slower than say 4500 With Tight Tertiaries like trdrd_sg 6, trdrd_dr 5/6, trdwrs 10-11
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave up as a lot of those people took it very personally or thought I was trying to defend my 11900k purchase lol...


I mean you were complaining about warzone crashing on you, I do not crash in that game and know several people who have no issues too. Seems like you just don’t know how to configure a stable cpu and ram setup : ) .


----------



## morph.

YaqY said:


> I mean you were complaining about warzone crashing on you, I do not crash in that game and know several people who have no issues too. Seems like you just don’t know how to configure a stable cpu and ram setup : ) .


I did say even at stock + xmp. WZ is one of the known affected games with the issue the intermittency can vary.  which completely debunks your dumb passive-aggressive dig at my knowledge of overclocking. With my 11900k overclocked all the way to 5.4ghz and with ram tuned and tightened for Gear 1 I have had no gaming stability issues whatsoever. I mustn't know how to configure a stable cpu/ram setup.


----------



## YaqY

morph. said:


> I did say even at stock + xmp. WZ is one of the known affected games with the issue the intermittency can vary.  which completely debunks your dumb passive-aggressive dig at my knowledge of overclocking. With my 11900k overclocked all the way to 5.4ghz and with ram tuned and tightened for Gear 1 I have had no gaming stability issues whatsoever. I mustn't know how to configure a stable cpu/ram setup.


Guess you should have rma'd that chip then if it is failing stock, because many of us are unaffected in that game pushing high overclocks. It has only ever crashed on me with unstable gpu (dev error 6068) or unstable memory which was my own fault.


----------



## acoustic

Falkentyne said:


> It's sort of funny how everyone bashed the RKL chips and their Gear2 latency and stuff and now all the Skylake chips are crashing with Internal Parity Errors. Can't say I didn't predict this...





cstkl1 said:


> its not brutal
> 
> u can easily check ure cpu/system stability by playinh ghostrunner RTX enabled level climb. leave hwinfo on and watch the whea counter
> 
> for 10900k i managed to solve it via third timings pairing with twcl and changing dram switching frequency
> +
> bclk amplitude
> 
> was running 52|50 - 2x16gb 4533c16
> 
> i only say 99% perfect as the 1% will crash without triggering whea.
> 
> for zen cpu u get L0 which seems to be related to nvme and cstate.


Bclk amplitude.. what did you set it to?

Got home and had 1 Cache L0 error after the game sat on the campaign map for 8-9hrs. I alt-tabbed back into the game and it sprung another one in the two minutes of me sitting there looking at it .. lol.

I'm also not getting Parity errors though. It's either Cache L0 or CPU Internal Error. Don't the Parity WHEA errors show up as "Internal Parity Error" or something like that in HWINFO? I don't think I've seen an actual Parity error on this chip, but at this rate, maybe I will tomorrow...

Unbelievable. I'm not sure what's going on. I might just run it stock and go for Alderlake. I was hoping to keep this 10900K for a bit but something just isn't right. I might try flashing back a couple BIOS as I never had these issues with older ones..


----------



## GeneO

What is your Vccsa? Have you changed it? Ring multiplier still the same?


----------



## YaqY

acoustic said:


> Bclk amplitude.. what did you set it to?
> 
> Got home and had 1 Cache L0 error after the game sat on the campaign map for 8-9hrs. I alt-tabbed back into the game and it sprung another one in the two minutes of me sitting there looking at it .. lol.
> 
> I'm also not getting Parity errors though. It's either Cache L0 or CPU Internal Error. Don't the Parity WHEA errors show up as "Internal Parity Error" or something like that in HWINFO? I don't think I've seen an actual Parity error on this chip, but at this rate, maybe I will tomorrow...
> 
> Unbelievable. I'm not sure what's going on. I might just run it stock and go for Alderlake. I was hoping to keep this 10900K for a bit but something just isn't right. I might try flashing back a couple BIOS as I never had these issues with older ones..


Have you tried disabling hyperthreading? See how this changes the behaviour.


----------



## cstkl1

acoustic said:


> Bclk amplitude.. what did you set it to?
> 
> Got home and had 1 Cache L0 error after the game sat on the campaign map for 8-9hrs. I alt-tabbed back into the game and it sprung another one in the two minutes of me sitting there looking at it .. lol.
> 
> I'm also not getting Parity errors though. It's either Cache L0 or CPU Internal Error. Don't the Parity WHEA errors show up as "Internal Parity Error" or something like that in HWINFO? I don't think I've seen an actual Parity error on this chip, but at this rate, maybe I will tomorrow...
> 
> Unbelievable. I'm not sure what's going on. I might just run it stock and go for Alderlake. I was hoping to keep this 10900K for a bit but something just isn't right. I might try flashing back a couple BIOS as I never had these issues with older ones..


1000 m12e btw with switching 300.. this board has superb vrm etc control to somewhat reduce the problem. but boards like m12f couldnt.. 
oddly enough i could run 50|50

alderlake has fivr mind you + 2x imc. so thats another ordeal itself.

dude even if u solve it to a point that no errors., that doesnt mean crashes are avoided

@Falkentyne made me realize this flaw.

@satinghostrider can tell ya his ordeal.

i was having all this issue on 10th gen with cod/ghostrunner etc and interesting enough eventhough vermintide 2 doesnt trigger the counter.. after the switch to 11900k.. ZERO crash even with mods etc. used to blame the mods..

alot of ppl dont really game in forums those who do dont have hwinfo open to see the whea counter (youtubers and such) so ppl have been blaming the game devs for years.

theres few ppl i know had the error even on stock cpu.

thats y when rebar was introduced.. i knew it. its just gonna pile on whatever existing problems 10th gen is facing. that being said 11th gen also now not advisable. since all the good cpu seems to have been early batch. current ones are terrible.


----------



## fray_bentos

YaqY said:


> I mean you were complaining about warzone crashing on you, I do not crash in that game and know several people who have no issues too. Seems like you just don’t know how to configure a stable cpu and ram setup : ) .


Indeed, I remember that thread. A screenshot was posted showing B-die RAM temps hiting 50 C (due to 1.486 Vdimm); that was the problem, not the 10850K CPU.


----------



## YaqY

fray_bentos said:


> Indeed, I remember that thread. A screenshot was posted showing B-die RAM temps hiting 50 C (due to 1.486 Vdimm); that was the problem, not the 10850K CPU.


I have seen many complaints about 10th gen having stability issues especially with the parity errors and do recognise this is an issue, however warzone does not seem to be heavily affected by it. Some people fail to test stability properly, especially in a game like that where an air cooled gpu will dump warm heat on the ram. If the issue does persist with stock settings including ram (Xmp is an overclock) then there is an issue with the system. Apparently mine craft is a big culprit of the parity errors but I haven’t played the game so don’t know. Can easily limit the game to use the core only and not the threads so issues like that don’t occur using something like processlasso.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

On M12A i have no problems/whea if i use manuell VCore with enough llc like 5/6 and my ramoc is really stable.
But that is with sync all core and that is really rockstable.

If tvb is used or sync by core usage it's much more difficult to get this really 100% stable and the possibilty of "random" whea's is given.
Its also need's much more VCore.It's 
enough to activate the option to get trouble.


----------



## Waspinator

fray_bentos said:


> Indeed, I remember that thread. A screenshot was posted showing B-die RAM temps hiting 50 C (due to 1.486 Vdimm); that was the problem, not the 10850K CPU.


I'm stable at 60°C and 1.52V. And that's stress test, in real world it's 40-45°C. If I'm stable 8-12h Karhu, RAM is the last thing I would say is a cause for crashes/BSODs.
I myself got a BSOD in Chrome 2 days ago, really weird. I doubt I will ever see it again.
There was talk about C-States. I think they're fine on stock Intel (not the board) settings, but on 5 GHz 1.25V OC I got one BSOD in idle and one just as I clicked to restart Windows. I just disabled them and also Speed Shift. EIST if I remember correctly cannot be disabled once you set multiplier.

Anyway, if this system will cause me problems, I will just have to upgrade to something more stable. Not much choice except Alder Lake for a year if you don't want an old system. But otherwise I'm not in a hurry to change the system, I spent 6 months playing with DDR4 after all. It was such a crazy time in my life, 800 BSODs all together as I searched for lowest voltages on several kits on 30 different frequencies and primary timings to compare them. Really crazy, next time I will just buy something really good in the first place. First biggest decision is capacity, now I'm on 32GB just as I wanted to have the system for 5 years. So if I will have to change it sooner I will be really unhappy.
For playing games I will just buy a PS5 as I can't deal with this **** anymore. 10 hours at work and at most 2 hours for playing, that must be turn on and play and nothing more.


----------



## fray_bentos

Waspinator said:


> I'm stable at 60°C and 1.52V. And that's stress test, in real world it's 40-45°C. If I'm stable 8-12h Karhu, RAM is the last thing I would say is a cause for crashes/BSODs.
> I myself got a BSOD in Chrome 2 days ago, really weird. I doubt I will ever see it again.
> There was talk about C-States. I think they're fine on stock Intel (not the board) settings, but on 5 GHz 1.25V OC I got one BSOD in idle and one just as I clicked to restart Windows. I just disabled them and also Speed Shift. EIST if I remember correctly cannot be disabled once you set multiplier.


Yes, it's not the temperature alone that is the problem. It's borderline unstable RAM OC + temperature that is the issue. The more stable your OC, the less-temperature sensitive it is, congrats on attaining it. Sometimes simply dropping 100 or 133 MHz on RAM frequency is enough to drop into the (effectively) temperature-stable zone.


----------



## Imprezzion

My RAM will do something loose like 4200C17 at any temperature but if I go to 4200C15 or 4500C17 it needs to be under 46c as anything over that will instantly error in TM5 lol.

At least I don't have any issues with L0 or internal errors on Warzone or any other game for that matter.


----------



## morph.

fray_bentos said:


> Indeed, I remember that thread. A screenshot was posted showing B-die RAM temps hiting 50 C (due to 1.486 Vdimm); that was the problem, not the 10850K CPU.


Correct that was my overclocked settings in my posts I also mentioned doing it at STOCK + XMP with issues. Gave up trying to explain to people.


----------



## cstkl1

this thread becoming like ryzen owners. 
when one guy faces a issue that been proven to be flaw and seeks to remedy..

ppl who dont have it.. instead of helping is trying to steer the answer to user error. 

the fastest way to see paririty. play ghostrunner with RT dx12.. level climb. the game not even cpu intensive.


----------



## cstkl1

morph. said:


> Correct that was my overclocked settings in my posts I also mentioned doing it at STOCK + XMP with issues. Gave up trying to explain to people.
> 
> View attachment 2516729


yeah. i have seen 10900k that has paririty at stock cpu with xmp that passes all ramtest.


----------



## morph.

cstkl1 said:


> this thread becoming like ryzen owners.
> when one guy faces a issue that been proven to be flaw and seeks to remedy..
> 
> ppl who dont have it.. instead of helping is trying to steer the answer to user error.
> 
> the fastest way to see paririty. play ghostrunner with RT dx12.. level climb. the game not even cpu intensive.


I really tried but hey it was too hard... My 10850k's SP was 79 as well so it wasn't a total dud chip. However, I guess it seems to affect some people more than others. It ran totally stable on stress tests just cracked the ****s in certain games.


----------



## cstkl1

morph. said:


> I really tried but hey it was too hard... My 10850k's SP was 79 as well so it wasn't a total dud chip. However, I guess it seems to affect some people more than others. It ran totally stable on stress tests just cracked the ****s in certain games.


yeah been there dude

ure current 11900k .. reminds us of 2600k right.. when **** just works.


----------



## YaqY

morph. said:


> Correct that was my overclocked settings in my posts I also mentioned doing it at STOCK + XMP with issues. Gave up trying to explain to people.
> 
> View attachment 2516729


If you are getting errors stock it’s means to rma. Seems that your cpu must be defective but I do not deny that parity errors occur and have occurred for people on stock systems in some games. Rocketlake was a step to stability and seems to be a prelude to alderlake but for a lot of 10900k owners it isn’t a worthy upgrade if their systems are stable.


----------



## Imprezzion

cstkl1 said:


> ppl who dont have it.. instead of helping is trying to steer the answer to user error.


That is totally not what I meant. I had plenty of issues with this chip, just not these specific issues.

All I tried to make clear, as I have the same board as someone who asked about it, a MSI Z490 Ace, is that it is possible to remedy the problem somewhat or I am just super lucky that my 10900KF does not seem to have the L0 / Internal errors. 

I did have them. A lot. But I found the problem and fixed it in my specific scenario.

Problem was very difficult to pinpoint but what it boils down to is this. Cache frequency at 48/49 is stress test stable. However, with EIST, SpeedShift and C-States enabled it is only stable under a continuous load like a stress test. As soon as it gets a shifting load, even from full to idle or a game loading and compiling shaders and then going to normal running of the game was enough to make it crash or give a L0/Parity error. 

If I run either 48/49 cache with Fixed CPU voltage and multi it's fine, or run with all power saving enabled and run 46/47 cache with (much) faster VRM frequency (800 minimum). VCore (and thus VCache) itself has no effect on this. I can run 49 cache as low as 1.279v and be fine with full load but instantly error under switching loads. Pushing 1.480v did not improve anything.

What DID weirdly enough help fix this problem almost completely is using Intel XTU from Windows and leaving the BIOS completely on defaults CPU wise. Maybe tweak AC/DC and LLC but NO OC settings for the CPU changed. RAM was set up in BIOS.

If I did the exact same OC through XTU with 49 cache it was totally fine. No errors at all. But, I don't want software to run my CPU OC plus XTU can't apply on boot without using some App link profile which barely works. I wrote a VBS script that auto applies it on boot hooking into explorer.exe (or any other .exe that starts on boot) and it works.. most of the time.


----------



## Waspinator

First time I hear about defective CPUs. I get it that manufacturing errors happen, but that's what final inspection is for. It was always unimaginable to me how such small things can be without failures, but it was believed since the first days that if you have a hardware failure, CPU is the last suspect. Only Duron 1600 with pencil mod died on me, but non-modified CPU none.
And 14nm is supposed to be a mature process and thus 10th and 11th gen shouldn't be problematic. But it's also true modern CPUs are overclocked to the brim already stock. In the old days you had 1.8 GHz CPU capable of 3 GHz on stock cooler.


----------



## fray_bentos

YaqY said:


> If you are getting errors stock it’s means to rma. Seems that your cpu must be defective but I do not deny that parity errors occur and have occurred for people on stock systems in some games. Rocketlake was a step to stability and seems to be a prelude to alderlake but for a lot of 10900k owners it isn’t a worthy upgrade if their systems are stable.


Indeed, XMP isn't stock. If I recall correctly, it was also high-end RAM with high default voltages, high clocks and tight timings on a 10850K. Nothing is guaranteed.


----------



## Waspinator

XMP in old days was considered stock. My DDR3 G.Skill kit had XMP 1.65V, but was stable 1.4V.
But now G.Skill making 4000 16-16-16 1.40V kits that aren't even stable 1.39V, it's not really stock, it should have 1.45V XMP. Sure it works XMP new, but who knows if it will work in 5-10 years.


----------



## acoustic

Man this thread has gone off the rails about complete bullshit.


----------



## acoustic

GeneO said:


> What is your Vccsa? Have you changed it? Ring multiplier still the same?


This last test was with Cache at 46. VCCSA/IO both at 1.2v with ram at XMP (3200CL15 @ 1.35v). I normally run this RAM at 133strap / 4266 at CL17 / VCCSA/IO at 1.22v.



YaqY said:


> Have you tried disabling hyperthreading? See how this changes the behaviour.


I have not tried that. I can, but it's also not something I'd be willing to do for 24/7 usage. I'd imagine it would bring down my required voltage and that would make things stable again.. I bet it would work


----------



## YaqY

acoustic said:


> This last test was with Cache at 46. VCCSA/IO both at 1.2v with ram at XMP (3200CL15 @ 1.35v). I normally run this RAM at 133strap / 4266 at CL17 / VCCSA/IO at 1.22v.
> 
> 
> 
> I have not tried that. I can, but it's also not something I'd be willing to do for 24/7 usage. I'd imagine it would bring down my required voltage and that would make things stable again.. I bet it would work


You can’t get parity errors with hyperthreading disabled test with process lasso and see what happens. Assign the cores only not threads to the process.


----------



## acoustic

YaqY said:


> You can’t get parity errors with hyperthreading disabled test with process lasso and see what happens. Assign the cores only not threads to the process.


I did this through that Process Lasso .. been playing Rome2 for the past 20-30min and zero errors. Same settings as what I ran yesterday that had 1 Cache L0 error over 8 hours. Going to try Metro Exodus real quick..

Metro Exodus also does not error. Sick..

I'm very curious how I didn't have this issue, but after going custom loop and adding a 3080TI (from a 3080), now my entire PC is unstable.

Bumped voltage up to 1.365-1.37v under load; looks like spikes up to 1.55v for some reason. Running Turbo Ratio Offset +2.. hyperthreading, everything enabled .. no errors so far in either Metro or Rome2.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

So it looks at me by playing Huntshowdown, the GPU Watt is *1,25(shunt mod), i habe correct this.
It's really not the fastest setup i can do but the sweetspot beetween power-wattage-temp and rookstable.


----------



## acoustic

With the way I'm seeing these errors, I don't believe anyone is stable under 1.4v at 5.1Ghz or higher all-core without parity errors or some type of WHEA event logging at some point. Metro Exodus: EE seems really good at causing them. I've cleared up Rome2 (after 20-30min of play, maybe it happens eventually..) but Metro is still happening, just much less. I'm not seeing crashes anymore, so we're closer to stability.. but still logging an error here and there. What I'm seeing is absolutely insane and has completely ruined my opinion on CML. I refuse to pay $499 for 2 less cores, especially at this stage, so I may just run the chip stock until AlderLake or whatever replaces X299. I'm done with these consumer platforms and this nonsense.

I've slowly continued to increase vCore every time I error in Metro. I'm now at 1.418v in-game, we'll see how this goes. Lol


----------



## acoustic

OK, so I think I've finally got it, at least for Metro and Rome2. I don't have Horizon, so I can't test that, but I do have COD:CW. I can test that eventually, but probably not today. Quick recap ..

Direct-Die 10900K with an MSI Z490 ACE 5.1/4.8 @ 1.28v, fixed all-core with no C-States -- ran for months at these settings. Runs all stress-tests overnight stable. Decided to try Metro Exodus: EE, even though I didn't get into the non-Enhanced, to test out my first custom loop + 3080TI STRIX (upgraded from 3080FTW3) - getting CTDs during loading screen, but random. Couple hard lock ups in-game, but overall system stability seems iffy. OK, maybe GPU OC is no good for the heavy load. Set GPU to stock, still happens. Figured that, hey, maybe it's Metro, and after double-checking overnight stress tests, decided it's the game.

Launched Rome2: Total War, a game I have 300+ hours in; played for an hour, and got a very hard lock-up that required a power cycle. Strange. Went back into the game with HWINFO64 running in the background, and what do you know! CPU Cache L0 errors galore, just sitting on the campaign map. Metro Exodus was racking up tons of Cache L0 and CPU Internal Errors as well. OK, so system isn't stable now. I had never seen any WHEA's prior (and I had tested a while back while gaming with HWINFO running), so figured that the loop was warming up my RAM sticks (because they're intake) and set the RAM to XMP to test. Nope, still errors.

That put me down this rabbit hole, and I've tried everything you can think of:

-Different LLC
-Instead of Override voltage, I tried adaptive voltage
-Offset voltage
-Turned off All-Core, and went to Dynamic Ratio
-Turbo Ratio Offset
-****ed with the AC/DC LL with Advanced Offset
-Probably more I can't think of

The only thing that fixed it, was either running the chip stock, or as YaqY suggested, turning off Hyperthreading. I tested the Hyperthreading solution by using that ProcessLasso app. I ran Rome2 and Metro both at settings that previously caused errors, and both were fine. I did 10+ loops of entering the menu and loading the game in Metro, and 20-30min of sitting on the campaign map of Rome2. No errors with the HT threads turned off through the ProcessLasso app.

Well, running with HT off is unacceptable to me. I didn't buy a 10c/20thread chip to just run 10cores. If I wanted to turn off HT, I'd have bought a 10980XE and ran that with HT off, or just kept my damn 9900K and never bothered with this at all.

I decided to test much higher voltages, pushing the 1.4v range. At 1.4v, Rome2 seems stable, but Metro did give me one CPU Internal Error after about the 8 or 9 loading screen. I bumped it up one more step to 1.418v under load (in Metro), and after 20+ loading screen loops, it seems to be gone.

That means that this chip requires *.200mv* more voltage to solve Parity errors that 8hr stress-tests could not find, and I don't even know if this is the golden setting that clears them for me. Thankfully with direct-die and a custom loop, the additional wattage really isn't a problem, but my ****ing god, what a piece of **** this architecture is. Attached is HWINFO64 with the current settings; you can see my min-max voltages during Metro and the 20+ loop cycle I did, as well as about 15-20min of running around in-game.

Current settings: 

Turbo Ratio Offset +2, AC/DC LL Mode 8/8, LLC Mode4, 800Khz switching, C-States enabled, Speed Step disabled, Advanced Offset voltage with a very large "+" offset on pretty much every single ratio. Is there room to tweak the voltages down a bit? I have no ****ing clue, but guess what .. I don't care anymore.

**** this chip. Let it burn. I'm replacing this entire platform as soon as possible. I just refuse to spend $500 on RKL this late in the game, especially with AlderLake hopefully around the corner. I'm just hoping Intel doesn't take 10 years to give us the X299 successor..


----------



## fray_bentos

acoustic said:


> OK, so I think I've finally got it, at least for Metro and Rome2. I don't have Horizon, so I can't test that, but I do have COD:CW. I can test that eventually, but probably not today. Quick recap ..
> 
> Direct-Die 10900K with an MSI Z490 ACE 5.1/4.8 @ 1.28v, fixed all-core with no C-States -- ran for months at these settings. Runs all stress-tests overnight stable. Decided to try Metro Exodus: EE, even though I didn't get into the non-Enhanced, to test out my first custom loop + 3080TI STRIX (upgraded from 3080FTW3) - getting CTDs during loading screen, but random. Couple hard lock ups in-game, but overall system stability seems iffy. OK, maybe GPU OC is no good for the heavy load. Set GPU to stock, still happens. Figured that, hey, maybe it's Metro, and after double-checking overnight stress tests, decided it's the game.
> 
> Launched Rome2: Total War, a game I have 300+ hours in; played for an hour, and got a very hard lock-up that required a power cycle. Strange. Went back into the game with HWINFO64 running in the background, and what do you know! CPU Cache L0 errors galore, just sitting on the campaign map. Metro Exodus was racking up tons of Cache L0 and CPU Internal Errors as well. OK, so system isn't stable now. I had never seen any WHEA's prior (and I had tested a while back while gaming with HWINFO running), so figured that the loop was warming up my RAM sticks (because they're intake) and set the RAM to XMP to test. Nope, still errors.
> 
> That put me down this rabbit hole, and I've tried everything you can think of:
> 
> -Different LLC
> -Instead of Override voltage, I tried adaptive voltage
> -Offset voltage
> -Turned off All-Core, and went to Dynamic Ratio
> -Turbo Ratio Offset
> -****ed with the AC/DC LL with Advanced Offset
> -Probably more I can't think of
> 
> The only thing that fixed it, was either running the chip stock, or as YaqY suggested, turning off Hyperthreading. I tested the Hyperthreading solution by using that ProcessLasso app. I ran Rome2 and Metro both at settings that previously caused errors, and both were fine. I did 10+ loops of entering the menu and loading the game in Metro, and 20-30min of sitting on the campaign map of Rome2. No errors with the HT threads turned off through the ProcessLasso app.
> 
> Well, running with HT off is unacceptable to me. I didn't buy a 10c/20thread chip to just run 10cores. If I wanted to turn off HT, I'd have bought a 10980XE and ran that with HT off, or just kept my damn 9900K and never bothered with this at all.
> 
> I decided to test much higher voltages, pushing the 1.4v range. At 1.4v, Rome2 seems stable, but Metro did give me one CPU Internal Error after about the 8 or 9 loading screen. I bumped it up one more step to 1.418v under load (in Metro), and after 20+ loading screen loops, it seems to be gone.
> 
> That means that this chip requires *.200mv* to solve Parity errors that 8hr stress-tests cannot find, and I don't even know if this is the golden setting that clears them for me. Thankfully with direct-die and a custom loop, the additional wattage really isn't a problem, but my **ing god, what a piece of ** this architecture is. Attached is HWINFO64 with the current settings; you can see my min-max voltages.
> 
> I'm currently running Turbo Ratio Offset +2, AC/DC LL Mode 8/8, LLC Mode4, 800Khz switching, C-States enabled, Speed Step disabled, Advanced Offset voltage with a very large + offset on pretty much every single ratio. Is there room to tweak the voltages down a bit? I have no ****ing clue, but guess what .. I don't care anymore.
> 
> **** this chip. Let it burn. I'm replacing this entire platform as soon as possible. I just refuse to spend $500 on RKL this late in the game, especially with AlderLake hopefully around the corner. I'm just hoping Intel doesn't take 10 years to give us the X299 successor..


Is this at 46x cache? Have you tried 45x cache? My 10600K was not truly stable over 45x cache...


----------



## acoustic

fray_bentos said:


> Is this at 46x cache? Have you tried 45x cache? My 10600K was not truly stable over 45x cache...


I am back to 48x cache with the 1.418v that I'm currently running. I did try 46x cache at the lower voltages but it made no difference. I did not try 45x, though.

I'll try 45x real quick with some Metro loading screens and .. maybe 1.34v, just to see. I doubt it'll change anything, though.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

> 'm currently running Turbo Ratio Offset +2, AC/DC LL Mode 8/8, LLC Mode4, *800Khz *switching, C-States enabled, Speed Step disabled, Advanced Offset voltage with a very large + offset on pretty much every single ratio. Is there room to tweak the voltages down a bit? I have no ****ing clue, but guess what .. I don't care anymore.


On M12A is with 700khz on cpu not possible to do with ramoc tm5 anta777 extrem stable, i think you do to much worse settings.I have the most on auto and only LLC5 on Apex set, allcore and fixed VCore not more and that is stable. Often a lot doesn't help much.
300khz/Auto is the best for memoc on m12A, CPU i have vrm also auto how much vcore you need is a question of chip quality and here is one whea at me but at 5,4ghz.









the only crashes i had was benching 5,5ghz, but there also no whea,99% network warning^^


----------



## YaqY

acoustic said:


> OK, so I think I've finally got it, at least for Metro and Rome2. I don't have Horizon, so I can't test that, but I do have COD:CW. I can test that eventually, but probably not today. Quick recap ..
> 
> Direct-Die 10900K with an MSI Z490 ACE 5.1/4.8 @ 1.28v, fixed all-core with no C-States -- ran for months at these settings. Runs all stress-tests overnight stable. Decided to try Metro Exodus: EE, even though I didn't get into the non-Enhanced, to test out my first custom loop + 3080TI STRIX (upgraded from 3080FTW3) - getting CTDs during loading screen, but random. Couple hard lock ups in-game, but overall system stability seems iffy. OK, maybe GPU OC is no good for the heavy load. Set GPU to stock, still happens. Figured that, hey, maybe it's Metro, and after double-checking overnight stress tests, decided it's the game.
> 
> Launched Rome2: Total War, a game I have 300+ hours in; played for an hour, and got a very hard lock-up that required a power cycle. Strange. Went back into the game with HWINFO64 running in the background, and what do you know! CPU Cache L0 errors galore, just sitting on the campaign map. Metro Exodus was racking up tons of Cache L0 and CPU Internal Errors as well. OK, so system isn't stable now. I had never seen any WHEA's prior (and I had tested a while back while gaming with HWINFO running), so figured that the loop was warming up my RAM sticks (because they're intake) and set the RAM to XMP to test. Nope, still errors.
> 
> That put me down this rabbit hole, and I've tried everything you can think of:
> 
> -Different LLC
> -Instead of Override voltage, I tried adaptive voltage
> -Offset voltage
> -Turned off All-Core, and went to Dynamic Ratio
> -Turbo Ratio Offset
> -****ed with the AC/DC LL with Advanced Offset
> -Probably more I can't think of
> 
> The only thing that fixed it, was either running the chip stock, or as YaqY suggested, turning off Hyperthreading. I tested the Hyperthreading solution by using that ProcessLasso app. I ran Rome2 and Metro both at settings that previously caused errors, and both were fine. I did 10+ loops of entering the menu and loading the game in Metro, and 20-30min of sitting on the campaign map of Rome2. No errors with the HT threads turned off through the ProcessLasso app.
> 
> Well, running with HT off is unacceptable to me. I didn't buy a 10c/20thread chip to just run 10cores. If I wanted to turn off HT, I'd have bought a 10980XE and ran that with HT off, or just kept my damn 9900K and never bothered with this at all.
> 
> I decided to test much higher voltages, pushing the 1.4v range. At 1.4v, Rome2 seems stable, but Metro did give me one CPU Internal Error after about the 8 or 9 loading screen. I bumped it up one more step to 1.418v under load (in Metro), and after 20+ loading screen loops, it seems to be gone.
> 
> That means that this chip requires *.200mv* more voltage to solve Parity errors that 8hr stress-tests could not find, and I don't even know if this is the golden setting that clears them for me. Thankfully with direct-die and a custom loop, the additional wattage really isn't a problem, but my **ing god, what a piece of ** this architecture is. Attached is HWINFO64 with the current settings; you can see my min-max voltages during Metro and the 20+ loop cycle I did, as well as about 15-20min of running around in-game.
> 
> Current settings:
> 
> Turbo Ratio Offset +2, AC/DC LL Mode 8/8, LLC Mode4, 800Khz switching, C-States enabled, Speed Step disabled, Advanced Offset voltage with a very large "+" offset on pretty much every single ratio. Is there room to tweak the voltages down a bit? I have no ****ing clue, but guess what .. I don't care anymore.
> 
> **** this chip. Let it burn. I'm replacing this entire platform as soon as possible. I just refuse to spend $500 on RKL this late in the game, especially with AlderLake hopefully around the corner. I'm just hoping Intel doesn't take 10 years to give us the X299 successor..


Hyperthreading off runs better in certain games, process lasso makes it easy to have profiles for certain games  . Bench your game FPS and frametimes with hyperthreading on and off and compare results. On a 10 core it is actually better in certain games.


----------



## acoustic

45x cache no good at lower voltages. CPU Internal Error


----------



## acoustic

PhoenixMDA said:


> On M12A is with 700khz on cpu not possible to do with ramoc tm5 anta777 extrem stable, i think you do to much worse settings.I have the most on auto and only LLC5 on Apex set, allcore and fixed VCore not more and that is stable. Often a lot doesn't help much.
> 300khz/Auto is the best for memoc on m12A, how much vcore you need is a question of chip quality and here is one whea at me but at 5,4ghz.
> View attachment 2516747
> 
> 
> the only crashes i had was benching 5,5ghz, but there also no whea,99% network warning^^
> View attachment 2516748


Benching does not cause WHEAs for me. I can run P95 and Realbench, TM5 Anta777 Extreme, CinebenchR20 and R23 3hr loops and it's all stable at 1.28v load. Play Metro Exodus EE or Rome2, and I get WHEA errors or hard locks. I can bench and stress-test overnight with anything you throw at it.. those are fine.



YaqY said:


> Hyperthreading off runs better in certain games, process lasso makes it easy to have profiles for certain games  . Bench your game FPS and frametimes with hyperthreading on and off and compare results. On a 10 core it is actually better in certain games.


Too much work to be honest with you, and at 3840x1600 I probably barely benefit from OCing the CPU. It's just my own epeen taking a hit.

I will say that Metro Exodus was a stutter-fest with HT off. It was really weird.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

If i set on the apex your settings i dont will be stable, perhaps you get the errors between idle/ load that you cant test with stress tools.
That´s the reason why i dont use tvb etc. offset voltage´s, curve and so on.
Think about that


----------



## acoustic

PhoenixMDA said:


> If i set on the apex your settings i dont will be stable, perhaps you get the errors between idle/ load that you cant test with stress tools.
> That´s the reason why i dont use tvb etc. offset voltage´s, curve and so on.


Please remember that this all started with my original settings of 5.1/4.8 with a fixed all-core, override voltage, and C-States/EIST disabled. It ran 5.1 all the time at 1.3v idle, 1.28v load.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

acoustic said:


> 1.3v idle, 1.28v load


A little bit less to be stable, VDroop better arround min.100mV!!!
And at 5,1ghz most time it´s better 4,7ghz Cache.Higher Cache need´s often more vcore as necceary for frequency.

For the 8700k was the intel spec 100mv droop, a 10900k need´s more, if you have a good VRM you can also drive arround 100mV.


----------



## fray_bentos

acoustic said:


> Benching does not cause WHEAs for me. I can run P95 and Realbench, TM5 Anta777 Extreme, CinebenchR20 and R23 3hr loops and it's all stable at 1.28v load. Play Metro Exodus EE or Rome2, and I get WHEA errors or hard locks. I can bench and stress-test overnight with anything you throw at it.. those are fine.
> 
> 
> 
> Too much work to be honest with you, and at 3840x1600 I probably barely benefit from OCing the CPU. It's just my own epeen taking a hit.
> 
> I will say that Metro Exodus was a stutter-fest with HT off. It was really weird.


Your HWiNFO shot shows your GPU pulling up to 447 W! Are you sure your PSU can deliver that power to the GPU and CPU? Are they on separate rails? What happens if you put a power limit on your GPU to something more reasonable such as 250 W? Could rule out a failing PSU and would explain why this has started happening with (updated) GPU-demanding games.


----------



## acoustic

PhoenixMDA said:


> Perhap´s it´s better you
> 
> A little bit less to be stable, VDroop better arround min.100mV!!!


I have tried different LLCs. I don't even run a very high one; it's actually 1.31v idle, I was mistaken, and 1.28v load with Realbench on Mode4, which is equivalent to around Mode5 on ASUS boards I believe.



fray_bentos said:


> Your HWiNFO show shows your GPU pulling up to 412 W! Are you sure your PSU can deliver that power to the GPU and CPU? Are they on separate rails? What happens if you put a power limit on your GPU to something more reasonable such as 250 W? Could rule out a failing PSU and would explain why this has started happening with (updated) GPU-demanding games.


412?! That's it?? Haha. Well, the GPU prior to this 3080TI was a 3080FTW3 on a 450watt BIOS. I promise it's not the PSU. It's a single-rail EVGA G3 1000watt, a Super Flower Leadex re-brand, before EVGA changed up to that ****ty manufacturer. Rome2 is the other game that's been giving me the issue, and that one is certainly not as demanding GPU-wise.

Thank you for the idea though.


----------



## fray_bentos

acoustic said:


> I have tried different LLCs. I don't even run a very high one; it's actually 1.31v idle, I was mistaken, and 1.28v load with Realbench on Mode4, which is equivalent to around Mode5 on ASUS boards I believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 412?! That's it?? Haha. Well, the GPU prior to this 3080TI was a 3080FTW3 on a 450watt BIOS. I promise it's not the PSU. It's a single-rail EVGA G3 1000watt, a Super Flower Leadex re-brand, before EVGA changed up to that ****ty manufacturer. Rome2 is the other game that's been giving me the issue, and that one is certainly not as demanding GPU-wise.
> 
> Thank you for the idea though.


Why not try? Afterall, before you were saying the only thing changed was the GPU, and the 3080Ti might pull higher transient spikes. Don't assume. Test.
412 W was a typo, I'd already corrected to an even more ridiculous 447 W.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Take a look this is LLC5 M12A with *fixed* voltage arround 100mV, with 30mv droop it´s not possible to get this stable on m12A.
Perhaps it´s better to load bios default´s and test the stability out of the box is that ok, your settings are bad.
But that must be do every user at own to do a stable oc, good luck.


----------



## SoldierRBT

Apex legends is another game that would show whea errors randomly. 5.2GHz / 4.8GHz 4600C17 DR passes every test including 2 hours of OCCT Large AVX2 Extreme at 1.31v LLC5 but shows whea errors in Apex legends. +10mv more vcore solve this. Probably 1.31v vcore + higher PLL termination could also help but haven't tried.


----------



## acoustic

fray_bentos said:


> Why not try? Afterall, before you were saying the only thing changed was the GPU, and the 3080Ti might pull higher transient spikes. Don't assume. Test.
> 412 W was a typo, I'd already corrected to an even more ridiculous 447 W.


Sure, I'll try it real quick, but I've already stopped the WHEAs by cranking the voltage up on the chip. In that screenshot where you seen 447watts, is when I actually had zero errors and it was stable.



PhoenixMDA said:


> Take a look this is LLC5 M12A with fixed voltage arround 100mV, with 30mv droop it´s not possible to get this stable with that voltage on m12A.
> Perhaps it´s better to load bios default´s and test the stability out of the box is that ok, your settings are bad.
> But that must be do every user at own to do a stable oc, good luck.
> View attachment 2516754


Benching stable and game stable are not the same anymore, it seems. Back in the day if you could do P95 or Realbench, then everything was great. That does not seem to be the case anymore.

With a fixed voltage, I can run Cinebench all day, P95 Small FFT for an hour (even at 340watt draw), Realbench 8hrs, TM5 Anta777 .. it's not benching or stress-tests that I'm seeing these issues with. It's real-world usage in games.

This seems to all circle back to the architectural errors with Comet Lake, and the reason they made the changes they did with Rocket Lake. I should not be stable in Realbench for 8hrs, but then a loading screen in Metro Exodus causes me to crash/WHEA. If I turn off HT, it works fine at those same settings. I was never a believer in this parity error stuff, or at least had never experienced it myself, but these issues are beyond just a "bad overclock".. if that's the case, why does 1.42v vCore fix the WHEA errors in Metro Exodus, but I get ZERO ERRORS at 1.29v in every single benchmark or stress-test you can think of? It's not as simple as a bad setup. I've been overclocking since my very first rig, I'm not new to this .. lol. I had to learn some new stuff when I got this chip (adaptive settings, what the **** an "OCTVB" was, etc) but even a fixed setting doesn't correct this issue.

I thought people were just unstable or didn't know what they were doing, but dealing with this has made it very clear there is just something wrong with CML. Maybe it doesn't affect everyone (maybe quality silicon helps cover this issue?), but this Parity error **** is pretty well known and discussed. It's deeper than my dumbass using the wrong settings in the BIOS lol



SoldierRBT said:


> Apex legends is another game that would show whea errors randomly. 5.2GHz / 4.8GHz 4600C17 DR passes every test including 2 hours of OCCT Large AVX2 Extreme at 1.31v LLC5 but shows whea errors in Apex legends. +10mv more vcore solve this. Probably 1.31v vcore + higher PLL termination could also help but haven't tried.


I could understand +10mv more.. but I need +130mv more LOL. If you have Metro Exodus: EE, and some spare time, throw HWINFO64 on in the background, and load into the game. Do that, I dunno, 10 times? and see if you get any WHEA errors. I load in, exit to main menu, and then hit continue to load back in. I had to go to 1.42v to clear them, meanwhile every stress test is good at 1.29v overnight.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

SoldierRBT said:


> Apex legends is another game that would show whea errors randomly. 5.2GHz / 4.8GHz 4600C17 DR passes every test including 2 hours of OCCT Large AVX2 Extreme at 1.31v LLC5 but shows whea errors in Apex legends. +10mv more vcore solve this. Probably 1.31v vcore + higher PLL termination could also help but haven't tried.


But you get your system stable without whea


----------



## fray_bentos

Someth


acoustic said:


> Sure, I'll try it real quick, but I've already stopped the WHEAs by cranking the voltage up on the chip. In that screenshot where you seen 447watts, is when I actually had zero errors and it was stable.
> 
> 
> 
> Benching stable and game stable are not the same anymore, it seems. Back in the day if you could do P95 or Realbench, then everything was great. That does not seem to be the case anymore.
> 
> With a fixed voltage, I can run Cinebench all day, P95 Small FFT for an hour (even at 340watt draw), Realbench 8hrs, TM5 Anta777 .. it's not benching or stress-tests that I'm seeing these issues with. It's real-world usage in games.
> 
> This seems to all circle back to the architectural errors with Comet Lake, and the reason they made the changes they did with Rocket Lake. I should not be stable in Realbench for 8hrs, but then a loading screen in Metro Exodus causes me to crash/WHEA. If I turn off HT, it works fine at those same settings. I was never a believer in this parity error stuff, or at least had never experienced it myself, but these issues are beyond just a "bad overclock".. if that's the case, why does 1.42v vCore fix the WHEA errors in Metro Exodus, but I get ZERO ERRORS at 1.29v in every single benchmark or stress-test you can think of? It's not as simple as a bad setup. I've been overclocking since my very first rig, I'm not new to this .. lol. I had to learn some new stuff when I got this chip (adaptive settings, what the **** an "OCTVB" was, etc) but even a fixed setting doesn't correct this issue.
> 
> I thought people were just unstable or didn't know what they were doing, but dealing with this has made it very clear there is just something wrong with CML. Maybe it doesn't affect everyone (maybe quality silicon helps cover this issue?), but this Parity error **** is pretty well known and discussed. It's deeper than my dumbass using the wrong settings in the BIOS lol
> 
> 
> 
> I could understand +10mv more.. but I need +130mv more LOL. If you have Metro Exodus: EE, and some spare time, throw HWINFO64 on in the background, and load into the game. Do that, I dunno, 10 times? and see if you get any WHEA errors. I load in, exit to main menu, and then hit continue to load back in. I had to go to 1.42v to clear them, meanwhile every stress test is good at 1.29v overnight.


There is nothing "wrong" if there isn't a problem at stock settings. You expected a better overclocking experience than you got; an overclocking experience that isn't guaranteed.


----------



## acoustic

fray_bentos said:


> Someth
> 
> 
> There is nothing "wrong" if there isn't a problem at stock settings. You expected a better overclocking experience than you got; an overclocking experience that isn't guaranteed.


Really? You don't see anything wrong with random WHEA events that don't appear at 1.29v in stress-tests that pull 250watts+, or P95 Small FFT that pulls over 330watts, but appear in the loading screens of games .. and then to clear those WHEA events, you have to jump the voltage up to 1.42v..

Uhhh .. okay. This isn't a pissing match about CML sucking. There is absolutely no reason the chip should be acting this way outside of a design flaw.. which they apparently fixed with RKL..

What I've experienced the last ~3 days, hours of troubleshooting 8million different ways to try and correct this to get the chip to act normal .. there's no excuse or reasoning for it. I think quality silicon might help cover up the issues, and it would seem I did not win the silicon lottery, but 5.1Ghz all-core requiring 1.42v in games, but 1.29v for stress-tests.. I'd say that's completely backwards, but if you want to see that differently, then that's up to you man.

@PhoenixMDA btw, dropped to Mode6 for LLC .. unfortunately still needs 1.42v for the WHEA to not occur in Metro, but I was able to tweak the AC/DC LL a little bit and it seems to have helped with the spikes in voltage. Nice


----------



## Nizzen

SoldierRBT said:


> Apex legends is another game that would show whea errors randomly. 5.2GHz / 4.8GHz 4600C17 DR passes every test including 2 hours of OCCT Large AVX2 Extreme at 1.31v LLC5 but shows whea errors in Apex legends. +10mv more vcore solve this. Probably 1.31v vcore + higher PLL termination could also help but haven't tried.


Problem with pure cpu tests is that you don't stress the whole pc at once. Cpu, cache, memory, pci-e, sata/nvme etc...

That's why I'm always playing Battlefield V multiplayer as a stresstest after a quick "stability test" like rendering etc...

Does the WHEA errors crash the Apex game? Never played that game.


----------



## acoustic

Nizzen said:


> Problem with pure cpu tests is that you don't stress the whole pc at once. Cpu, cache, memory, pci-e, sata/nvme etc...
> 
> That's why I'm always playing Battlefield V multiplayer as a stresstest after a quick "stability test" like rendering etc...
> 
> Does the WHEA errors crash the Apex game? Never played that game.


It's free on Steam if you'd like to try it. I might DL it to see how it acts as well.. but that will be late tonight maybe.


----------



## fray_bentos

acoustic said:


> Really? You don't see anything wrong with random WHEA events that don't appear at 1.29v in stress-tests that pull 250watts+, or P95 Small FFT that pulls over 330watts, but appear in the loading screens of games .. and then to clear those WHEA events, you have to jump the voltage up to 1.42v..
> 
> Uhhh .. okay. This isn't a pissing match about CML sucking. There is absolutely no reason the chip should be acting this way outside of a design flaw.. which they apparently fixed with RKL..
> 
> What I've experienced the last ~3 days, hours of troubleshooting 8million different ways to try and correct this to get the chip to act normal .. there's no excuse or reasoning for it. I think quality silicon might help cover up the issues, and it would seem I did not win the silicon lottery, but 5.1Ghz all-core requiring 1.42v in games, but 1.29v for stress-tests.. I'd say that's completely backwards, but if you want to see that differently, then that's up to you man.
> 
> @PhoenixMDA btw, dropped to Mode6 for LLC .. unfortunately still needs 1.42v for the WHEA to not occur in Metro, but I was able to tweak the AC/DC LL a little bit and it seems to have helped with the spikes in voltage. Nice


No, I don't see anything wrong. Your expectations are out of step with reality. Those stress tests aren't reflective of my daily usage, they often pound too hard (degradation risk) and even after all of that they still don't find errors, just as you have found. Its for those reasons that I don't stress test anything beyond checking for basic stability, e.g. memtest86 4 passes, a few cinebench runs, perhaps an hour of OCCT. For long-term stability, I play games, run quantum calculations, video encode according to my daily usage (and leave HWiNFO64 running in the background at all times). If I get a WHEA, I'll lower cache ratio, increase Vcore, or lower core ratio... and so on. I haven't had a crash or WHEA error for the last 40 out of the 60 so days that I have owned this CPU, maybe I might in the future, but I'm not letting that stress me out. I had a lot of WHEA errors in the first 20 days as I was exploring settings and the limits of my CPU.

And... did you try a 250 W power limit on your GPU yet? Or have you still not ruled that out?


----------



## SoldierRBT

Nizzen said:


> Problem with pure cpu tests is that you don't stress the whole pc at once. Cpu, cache, memory, pci-e, sata/nvme etc...
> 
> That's why I'm always playing Battlefield V multiplayer as a stresstest after a quick "stability test" like rendering etc...
> 
> Does the WHEA errors crash the Apex game? Never played that game.


My daily OC for every game including Battlefield V was 1.30v LLC5 but had to increase it to 1.31v to pass OCCT AVX2 Extreme then to 1.32v to avoid whea errors in Apex legends. Haven’t experienced any crashes. Just one whea error after a few hours of apex legends. 

I think the issue is related to how games are optimized to load cores. BFV is well optimized and load cores evenly. Other games that show randoms whea errors are usually the ones that load 2 or 4 cores to 100%.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

@acoustic
Dont compare with my system, my chip is one of the best from hwl, the same by ram and my cooling system has an max. delta arround 3° with the RTX3080.
And i know exact what i must do for good setting .So dont compare, that doesnt mean that your chip is not good.
The most impact has the vrm and cpu temp´s, without ht you need less vcore and less vdroop, the worst case are fast short jump´s between like idle and heavy load.
That are thing not tested by stresstest, there every time you have like full load.

P.s.
If you dont want to understand this, its waisted time to explain.So life with your whea.


----------



## acoustic

fray_bentos said:


> No, I don't see anything wrong. Your expectations are out of step with reality. Those stress tests aren't reflective of my daily usage, they often pound too hard (degradation risk) and even after all of that they still don't find errors, just as you have found. Its for those reasons that I don't stress test anything beyond checking for basic stability, e.g. memtest86 4 passes, a few cinebench runs, perhaps an hour of OCCT. For long-term stability, I play games, run quantum calculations, video encode according to my daily usage (and leave HWiNFO64 running in the background at all times). I haven't had a crash or WHEA error for the last 40 out of the 60 so days that I have owned this CPU, maybe I might in the future. I had a lot in the first 20 days as I was exploring settings and the limits of my CPU. If I get a WHEA, I'll lower cache ratio, increase Vcore, or lower core ratio... and so on.
> 
> And... did you try a 250 W power limit on your GPU yet? Or have you still not ruled that out?


Apparently there's a few applications that really cause the WHEA's to pop. If you don't run any of them, then I suppose you would think all was fine, like I did. I found out with Metro Exodus and Rome2: Total War. There are plenty of games I play that haven't sprung an error and still don't even at 1.29v, such as Hell Let Loose which I've played a ton of. I understand what you're saying, that my chip is basically bad silicon, and I think it is. 1.42v for 5.1Ghz? That's ridiculously high from what I've seen from many, lol, but that leads me to believe that many people claiming they are running 5.1-5.2-5.3 @ 1.3 or even 1.4v really aren't stable; they just aren't monitoring WHEAs while gaming because they passed stress-tests overnight. I would have to have a miraculously horrid piece of silicon to be that far off the median.

What I'm getting at, is that the way CML is built with the 10cores + ringbus (which is why HT off resolves Parity issues) .. some applications exploit this weakness more than others. Very large transient loads seem to expose it quite easily, which is something I've noticed with Metro Exodus. Rome2 Total War.. I'm really not sure why it's sensitive considering it's an older game and also doesn't draw much wattage, but those two applications are the two that put me down this whole troubleshooting rabbit hole.

I had to leave so no, could not test the 250W limit, but it's pretty much a moot point. I'll try to do it when I get home, maybe, but regardless, raising vCore to absurd levels fixed the WHEAs .. limiting the GPU, I do not see how that would make lower vCore somehow work.


----------



## fray_bentos

acoustic said:


> Apparently there's a few applications that really cause the WHEA's to pop. If you don't run any of them, then I suppose you would think all was fine, like I did. I found out with Metro Exodus and Rome2: Total War. There are plenty of games I play that haven't sprung an error and still don't even at 1.29v, such as Hell Let Loose which I've played a ton of. I understand what you're saying, that my chip is basically bad silicon, and I think it is. 1.42v for 5.1Ghz? That's ridiculously high from what I've seen from many, lol, but that leads me to believe that many people claiming they are running 5.1-5.2-5.3 @ 1.3 or even 1.4v really aren't stable; they just aren't monitoring WHEAs while gaming because they passed stress-tests overnight. I would have to have a miraculously horrid piece of silicon to be that far off the median.
> 
> What I'm getting at, is that the way CML is built with the 10cores + ringbus (which is why HT off resolves Parity issues) .. some applications exploit this weakness more than others. Very large transient loads seem to expose it quite easily, which is something I've noticed with Metro Exodus. Rome2 Total War.. I'm really not sure why it's sensitive considering it's an older game and also doesn't draw much wattage, but those two applications are the two that put me down this whole troubleshooting rabbit hole.
> 
> I had to leave so no, could not test the 250W limit, but it's pretty much a moot point. I'll try to do it when I get home, maybe, but regardless, raising vCore to absurd levels fixed the WHEAs .. limiting the GPU, I do not see how that would make lower vCore somehow work.


Unstable power delivery could possibly be overcome by increasing Vcore (minimums smoothed out). Just worth checking. I know from experience how my 10600K Vcore crept up over time as I explored more games. Shadow of the Tomb Raider was one that resulted in voltage going up quite a lot.


----------



## robalm

Why run hwinfo? Just open event viewer to see all WHEA errors.


----------



## Imprezzion

So, what does it mean that my 10900KF on the same board, a MSI Z490 Ace, can do 5.1/4.7 stress test stable @ 1.270v and only needs 1.290v to get rid of any and all errors in Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition (with Ray tracing on of course). I have played Metro, Warzone, Cold War, and Ghost runner (do not have Horizon ZD) on 1.290v and it's fine. No errors at all. 15+ hours into Metro now with all the DLC's and such and zero issues..


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I'm not sure, but I think all these errors could be solved with a correct adjust of AC_LL, DC_LL, LLC and the ring and DRAM frequency. 
If you are having errors after that, It's because you are over the limit of the silicon of your CPU.

I know I'm telling the obvious, but I know a lot of people try to run the system at the edge without tuning AC_LL, DC_LL and LLC.

The 1º thing is start tuning with DC_LL (mohm) = LLC (mhom), after that it is a patience game...

I'm running 56x7 - 55x8 - 54x9 - 53x10, Full load 51x/47x @ 1247mv - [email protected], VCCIO=1200mv, VCCSA=1250mv, LLC#4, AC_LL=0.5, DC_LL=1.12 and no errors at all.


----------



## ViTosS

I can get rid of the errors in Metro Exodus Enhanced by increasing voltage from 1.20 to 1.30v in BIOS, but take note that the errors aren't that frequently sometimes, I was getting one always at the end of a loading screen in some region, it was great so I could test all the variables, increasing voltage, reducing OC here and there and nothing was able to fix it until I increased the voltage a lot (CPU vcore), in HZD compiling shaders CAN happen sometimes but not everytime (with 1.20v), COD CW in like 4h of MP gameplay I could get maybe 1 or 2 errors, all of them are ONLY fixed by increasing CPU voltage. And same story as @acoustic , CPU and RAM OC stable in all of the stress tests you can think of.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

ViTosS said:


> I can get rid of the errors in Metro Exodus Enhanced by increasing voltage from 1.20 to 1.30v in BIOS, but take note that the errors aren't that frequently sometimes, I was getting one always at the end of a loading screen in some region, it was great so I could test all the variables, increasing voltage, reducing OC here and there and nothing was able to fix it until I increased the voltage a lot (CPU vcore), in HZD compiling shaders CAN happen sometimes but not everytime (with 1.20v), COD CW in like 4h of MP gameplay I could get maybe 1 or 2 errors, all of them are ONLY fixed by increasing CPU voltage. And same story as @acoustic , CPU and RAM OC stable in all of the stress tests you can think of.


Did you try to rise AC_LL instead CPU voltage itself?


----------



## ViTosS

RobertoSampaio said:


> Did you try to rise AC_LL instead CPU voltage itself?


No, I don't touch AC/DC after it's set to 0.01 like someone said or leave it at auto with SVID in Best Case Scenario (which results to the same 0.01).


----------



## Salve1412

Imprezzion said:


> So, what does it mean that my 10900KF on the same board, a MSI Z490 Ace, can do 5.1/4.7 stress test stable @ 1.270v and only needs 1.290v to get rid of any and all errors in Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition (with Ray tracing on of course). I have played Metro, Warzone, Cold War, and Ghost runner (do not have Horizon ZD) on 1.290v and it's fine. No errors at all. 15+ hours into Metro now with all the DLC's and such and zero issues..


So you don't get any CPU Internal Error (Parity) while playing Ghostrunner, the full game (not the Demo version) with DX12 and Ray Tracing enabled? In my case especially the third level causes a lot of them to pop up after a few minutes. I still haven't try to beef up the Vcore (since I don't have issues elsewhere, in stress tests or games I play), but I guess that could be helpful.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

If you use DC_LL= 0.01 all CPU power algorithm will not work properly, no matter the LLC you use...

And if you do not compensate the impedance of LLC with AC_LL it becomes impossible to have the system stable in light to heavy to light load.

In fact, I think the 10900k is one of the bests CPU... It works with AC_LL and DC_LL set to zero (0.01)... And this is amazing... LOL...

I don't know from where this belief of "best scenario (0.01) came from... I think people used to set fixed voltage for so long time that bring this to nowadays...

It's impossible to be stable with frequency scaling and AC/DC_LL =0.01, without a lot of voltage for load changing compensation.

Using DC_LL= 0.01 is the first mistake.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

8auer youtube video  🙄^^


----------



## acoustic

[


RobertoSampaio said:


> If you use DC_LL= 0.01 all CPU power algorithm will not work properly, no matter the LLC you use...
> 
> And if you do not compensate the impedance of LLC with AC_LL it become impossible to have the system stable in light to heavy to light load.
> 
> In fact I think the 10900k is one of the bests CPU... It works with AC_LL and DC_LL set to zero (0.01)... And this is amazing... LOL...
> 
> I don't know from where this believe of "best scenario (0.01) came from... I think people used to set fixed voltage for so long time that bring this to now a days...
> 
> It's impossible to be stable with frequency scaling and AC/DC_LL =0.01, without a lot of voltage for load changing compensation.
> 
> Using DC_LL= 0.01 is the first mistake.


So how do you find the proper DC_LL? Do you have a guide or something on how to properly tune DC and AC LL?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

If your MB has die sense it is easy...
If not, it's a problem...

Basically you need to decide witch LLC you will use.

In Asus MB I recommend LLC#4 (DC_LL=1.1) or LLC#5 (DC_LL=0.8).

So, How did I find these values?

When the impedance of the LLC matches with the DC_LL impedance you will have "VID= vcore" under heavy load, as well the CPU power measurement will match with the MB IA cores power measurement.
You can use cbr23 for this test.

So, with the LLC defined, if your VID is higher than your vcore at load you need to rise DC_LL until they match.

If your VID is lower than vcore at load you need to lower DC_LL until they match.

Once VID matches vcore at load, the CPU power measurement will match MB power measurement.

After that it's time so tune AC_LL...

I think a good point to start is to set AC_LL value = (DC_LL in mohms)/2.


----------



## sixty9sublime

Hey all, so I'm thinking of picking up a 10850k for $330 from Bestbuy as they actually agreed to price match Microcenter's sale. Sure sounds like a steal? 

I'm moving on from an above average 10600k but with a weak IMC. Needs around 1.38/1.30 SA/IO for 4400 C16 which is a little too high in my mind for daily use. Should I expect the IMC to be less voltage hungry compared to an i5?


----------



## ViTosS

RobertoSampaio said:


> If you use DC_LL= 0.01 all CPU power algorithm will not work properly, no matter the LLC you use...
> 
> And if you do not compensate the impedance of LLC with AC_LL it become impossible to have the system stable in light to heavy to light load.
> 
> In fact I think the 10900k is one of the bests CPU... It works with AC_LL and DC_LL set to zero (0.01)... And this is amazing... LOL...
> 
> I don't know from where this believe of "best scenario (0.01) came from... I think people used to set fixed voltage for so long time that bring this to now a days...
> 
> It's impossible to be stable with frequency scaling and AC/DC_LL =0.01, without a lot of voltage for load changing compensation.
> 
> Using DC_LL= 0.01 is the first mistake.


Well to be honest csktl1 told me one time ago that setting SVID to Best Case Scenario is the same of manually setting AC and DC to 0.01, also he showed me how to check through HWiNFO64 the AC DC that was being set, and I found the same 0.01, I guess everybody here uses like that, in my case I actually use CPU SVID Support to Disabled and manual voltage mode. I doubt it that messing with AC DC will fix my problem...


----------



## RobertoSampaio

This is true, best scenario => AC/DC=0.01

If you use a fixed voltage, the more important thing is LLC, but if you use the v/f curve or adaptive voltage, AC/DC is the key for stability.

I'm not sure, but I think even using fixed voltage a wrong DC_LL could mess up the power calculation and CPU power algorithms, I need to check it...

Any way, if you have a 10 generation CPU, with a lot of technologies for frequency and voltage scaling, I can't understand why not use them and set a fixed frequency and voltage.

If you understand how AC_LL, DC_LL, LLC, OCTVB, voltage optimization, vmax stress, vrm switching frequency, etc... Works I'm sure you will use all of them...

How do you think I can make all 10 cores run at 5,6GHz, 7 of them at same time? 

I don't have a golden CPU and use a simple 280mm AIO...

My CPU scales from 800MHz to 5,6GHz, go to 250w of power at 5,1GHz, return to idle, park some cores, run light loads... Vcore scale from 500mv to 1500mv all the time without any error...

The best thing I did was spend a lot of time to find out how AC/DC and all these stuff work...

Now I'm thinking to buy a cryo cooler to try to go over 5,6GHz....

And let's do a test:
Who is getting errors with these games, tell us your AC/DC loadline... I bet the DC_LL is not tuned to the LLC selected...


----------



## Imprezzion

I don't really get errors but still, sharing is caring.
I run V/F Curve (advanced adaptive offset in MSI BIOS). 

LLC4 (slight droop) with AC/DC Advanced mode "10" whatever that is in mOhm.


----------



## acoustic

@fray_bentos Limited GPU to 200w - still crashes at 5.1/4.8 1.29v


----------



## acoustic

RobertoSampaio said:


> This is true, best scenario => AC/DC=0.01
> 
> If you use a fixed voltage, the more important thing is LLC, but if you use the v/f curve or adaptive voltage, AC/DC is the key for stability.
> 
> I'm not sure, but I think even using fixed voltage a wrong DC_LL could mess up the power calculation and CPU power algorithms, I need to check it...
> 
> Any way, if you have a 10 generation CPU, with a lot of technologies for frequency and voltage scaling, I can't understand why not use them and set a fixed frequency and voltage.
> 
> If you understand how AC_LL, DC_LL, LLC, OCTVB, voltage optimization, vmax stress, vrm switching frequency, etc... Works I'm sure you will use all of them...
> 
> How do you think I can make all 10 cores run at 5,6GHz, 7 of them at same time?
> 
> I don't have a golden CPU and use a simple 280mm AIO...
> 
> My CPU scales from 800MHz to 5,6GHz, go to 250w of power at 5,1GHz, return to idle, park some cores, run light loads... Vcore scale from 500mv to 1500mv all the time without any error...
> 
> The best thing I did was spend a lot of time to find out how AC/DC and all these stuff work...
> 
> Now I'm thinking to buy a cryo cooler to try to go over 5,6GHz....
> 
> And let's do a test:
> Who is getting errors with these games, tell us your AC/DC loadline... I bet the DC_LL is not tuned to the LLC selected...


Ok, so I set AC_LL to 1 (lowest setting/0.01) and worked on DC LL. I'm using Mode6 LLC which is very droopy. I matched my VID with VR VOUT with DC_LL set to 40, but I can't tell what that is in mOhms.

I am now going to set the AC_LL back to 8 (again no idea what this is in mOhms) and try reducing my offset voltage from +0.050mv to +0.030mv. Currently I'm leaving VRM switching to auto (500khz), but if this doesn't work then i'll see if that helps too.

I'm running Turbo Ratio Offset +2, Offset Voltage +0.050mv, LLC Mode6, AC_LL 8, DC_LL 40, TVB Voltage Optimization enabled, EIST disabled, Speed Shift ernabled.

I will say it's pretty interesting that my VID matches my VR VOUT now. I don't think I've ever seen that with this chip. The VID table completely breaks with DC_LL set to 1 if I go above 5.1 (5.2 for example, goes to 1.52v for the VID), but I wonder if this fixes that.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Be care, not use an aggressive LLC with a aggressive AC_LL at same time. It could produce high vcore at high load... 
I prefer using light LLC setting and compensate vdrop with AC_LL...


----------



## acoustic

RobertoSampaio said:


> Be care, not use an aggressive LLC with a aggressive AC_LL at same time. It could produce high vcore at high load...
> I prefer using light LLC setting and compensate vdrop with AC_LL...


Sorry, I'm on an MSI board (which is why I'm going off VR VOUT with Die Sense). Mode6 is actually the 3rd lowest LLC setting. Mode1 is the most aggressive. Mode6 is very droopy. Mode8 is the most droopy. I'm getting 1.285v in CinebenchR23 which should be stable. I'll try Metro Exodus now. I was getting large spikes up to 1.55v, but now the spikes haven't gone above 1.44v, which is much, much better.


----------



## fray_bentos

sixty9sublime said:


> Hey all, so I'm thinking of picking up a 10850k for $330 from Bestbuy as they actually agreed to price match Microcenter's sale. Sure sounds like a steal?
> 
> I'm moving on from an above average 10600k but with a weak IMC. Needs around 1.38/1.30 SA/IO for 4400 C16 which is a little too high in my mind for daily use. Should I expect the IMC to be less voltage hungry compared to an i5?


I went from 3900 MHz 14-15-15 on a 10600K to 4200 MHz 16-16-16 on a 10900KF. SA and IO at 1.20 V and Vdimm at 1.45 V in both cases. My 10600K was average/below, but my 10900KF seems above average in terms of CPU clocks/required voltages. Lottery I guess...



acoustic said:


> @fray_bentos Limited GPU to 200w - still crashes at 5.1/4.8 1.29v


Sorry to hear that wasn't a simple solution. Lower clocks/cache, and/or more Vcore it must be.


----------



## acoustic

sixty9sublime said:


> Hey all, so I'm thinking of picking up a 10850k for $330 from Bestbuy as they actually agreed to price match Microcenter's sale. Sure sounds like a steal?
> 
> I'm moving on from an above average 10600k but with a weak IMC. Needs around 1.38/1.30 SA/IO for 4400 C16 which is a little too high in my mind for daily use. Should I expect the IMC to be less voltage hungry compared to an i5?


10850K are bad 10900Ks. I'd grab a 10900KF, they should be roughly the same price. I believe Microcenter had them for $350 or $375 at one point. Christ, at this rate my 10900K should have been a 10850K.



fray_bentos said:


> Sorry to hear that wasn't a simple solution. Lower clocks/cache, and/or more Vcore it must be.


I would have loved for it to be as simple as a new PSU.


----------



## acoustic

@RobertoSampaio You are definitely 100% right, tuning the DC_LL is a really good idea.

While this didn't reduce the vCore I need for Metro (still needs to be 1.42v to avoid WHEA errors), this greatly removed the transient spikes I was seeing. I'm running my Offset voltage at Auto, with DC_LL at 110 (I believe 1 = 0.01mOhm, so 110 should be 1.1mOhm) and using AC_LL to tune my voltage. Currently using 80 (should be .8mOhm) AC_LL. My max voltage spike is 1.44v, and load voltage in Cinebench is 1.3v. Metro cruises at 1.43v.

I will tweak this farther to tighten it a bit, but this really helps with those huge transient voltage spikes you normally see when running .01mOhm on your AC/DC Loadlines. Really nice stuff Robert, thanks for helping!


----------



## Imprezzion

I wonder if it's worth it for pure gaming to switch to a 11900K on Z490 Ace. It does support PCI-E 4.0 fully luckily. Most reviews have the 11900K way above the 10900K even with 2 less cores.. 

I have delid tool and liquid metal in stock so I can just yeet the heat spreader and be done with it I guess?


----------



## acoustic

Imprezzion said:


> I wonder if it's worth it for pure gaming to switch to a 11900K on Z490 Ace. It does support PCI-E 4.0 fully luckily. Most reviews have the 11900K way above the 10900K even with 2 less cores..
> 
> I have delid tool and liquid metal in stock so I can just yeet the heat spreader and be done with it I guess?


I've considered it, but also heard horror stories of RKL in Z490 boards. Memory OC no where near what the CML chip was doing, etc. I'd just sit tight until the new platforms come out.

If I could find an 11900K for $350, I'd do it just for ****s and giggles. $499 is too much though.


----------



## fray_bentos

Imprezzion said:


> I wonder if it's worth it for pure gaming to switch to a 11900K on Z490 Ace. It does support PCI-E 4.0 fully luckily. Most reviews have the 11900K way above the 10900K even with 2 less cores..
> 
> I have delid tool and liquid metal in stock so I can just yeet the heat spreader and be done with it I guess?


Most of the mainstream reviews compare both CPUs on what people in this forum would call "lame" memory speeds and timings. The picture changes when you put 10900K memory performance in the picture vs the gimped 11900K.

Indeed, I was umming and arring on waiting for a 11900K to go on sale after 12th gen launches. Then I read this from the perspective of someone who would overclock the CPU and the RAM, then I saw an eBay deal on a 10900KF for £310 vs. £500 for a 11900K, the rest is history.





PCBuilding


KingFaris10's Site




kingfaris.co.uk


----------



## acoustic

I will say that the picture has definitely shifted now that people have figured out RKL and what it likes. It's definitely a much faster chip, even with 2 less cores. For gaming and both systems tuned, it's easily 10-15% faster than a 10900K. Plenty of people running 4400Mhz+ on Gear1 mode, so nothing gimped about their memory.

I just think RKL needs a Z590 board. I don't really know anyone having good memory OC results on Z490, but hey .. I haven't spent much time following it.


----------



## fray_bentos

acoustic said:


> Plenty of people running 4400Mhz+ on Gear1 mode, so nothing gimped about their memory.


Are they? The "best" ones I saw were with ridonculous SA and IO voltages, like 1.5 V... I mean you could do that on a 10900K if you really wanted _eeek_


----------



## acoustic

fray_bentos said:


> Are they? The "best" ones I saw were with ridonculous SA and IO voltages, like 1.5 V... I mean you could do that on a 10900K if you really wanted _eeek_


Haha, the 11900K thread has a good going there of people tuning their chips. @cstkl1 made a solid guide that has helped a lot of people get their mem down to Gear1 and tighten things up again. We all know Intel loves that mem bandwidth..


----------



## Imprezzion

I run 1.35 SA 1.25 IO on 2x16 DR B-Die @ 4400C17 (1.50v DRAM) on the 10900KF and Z490 Ace combo.

I would do it however this CPU is direct die and it has such good contact now (only 1-3c between the cores) that I really don't wanna remove it and put it back later risking a lot of temperature and possible damage.. if I find a 11900K under €400 somehow I will try it out just for the fun of it and sell either of them later.

I don't really need 4400C17 per se, that is above the efficiency point of this kit, it does best at 4133/4200 C15 which is maybe easier to run in Gear 1.


----------



## fray_bentos

acoustic said:


> Haha, the 11900K thread has a good going there of people tuning their chips. @cstkl1 made a solid guide that has helped a lot of people get their mem down to Gear1 and tighten things up again. We all know Intel loves that mem bandwidth..


Yes, but gaming loves latency.


----------



## Imprezzion

Yeah nevermind I just looked up the pricing of the 11900K(F) and the cheapest possible one is €549 for a KF.. how about no.. none on the used market either (duh).

I'd rather buy a 5900X then lol.


----------



## acoustic

I backed the chip to +1 turbo ratio offset, and it still needs the same voltage as what +2 was asking for.

I'm going to try re-seating the chip this week, I think. Something just isn't right. Maybe I tightened the Heatkiller block down too much and damaged the chip? I made sure not to overtighten. I went hand-tight on the mounting cap and then used the supplied allen key to go just a tad bit more snug. Nothing crazy, went in a star pattern.

This thing just isn't acting right. I have the cache down to 4.4Ghz .. this was literally 4.8 all day long with zero crashes.. ever. Now when I put it to 4.8, now that the vcore is dialed in at a ridiculous 1.4v for 5Ghz, I'll eventually get a hard lock-up somewhere around 20-30 loops of loading screens in Metro.

Go down to 4.4 Cache, leave everything else the same, and it stops.


----------



## fray_bentos

acoustic said:


> I backed the chip to +1 turbo ratio offset, and it still needs the same voltage as what +2 was asking for.
> 
> I'm going to try re-seating the chip this week, I think. Something just isn't right. Maybe I tightened the Heatkiller block down too much and damaged the chip? I made sure not to overtighten. I went hand-tight on the mounting cap and then used the supplied allen key to go just a tad bit more snug. Nothing crazy, went in a star pattern.
> 
> This thing just isn't acting right. I have the cache down to 4.4Ghz .. this was literally 4.8 all day long with zero crashes.. ever. Now when I put it to 4.8, now that the vcore is dialed in at a ridiculous 1.4v for 5Ghz, I'll eventually get a hard lock-up somewhere around 20-30 loops of loading screens in Metro.
> 
> Go down to 4.4 Cache, leave everything else the same, and it stops.


+2 turbo ratio is tricky though, that's asking some cores to run at 5.4 or even 5.5 GHz. For sure my CPU isn't stable at any reasonable voltage if I ask 5.4 GHz or 5.5 GHz from certain cores, and certainly not at my current Vcore setting. Earlier you were saying something along the lines of not even stable at 5.1 GHz "all core", but +2 turbo ratio isn't an all core OC. Just to double-check, have you tried a straight, true 51x or 52x OC? You'll lose the rare 5.3+ GHz boosts when opening Excel shaving nanoseconds off the loading time, but that's pointless and just a marketting gimmick for Intel to say upto "5.3 GHz", when really it hits 4.9 GHz all core under any sort of serious demand at stock (even "just" gaming). Personally, I don't see the point in setting up an OC for light loads that just leads to increased instability, and/or pushing voltages up higher than needed. The time when I want the performance/lowest possible voltage/temperatures is when all cores are loaded, which happens in most games, or when video encoding, running calculations and so on. Setting a simple all-core OC also makes it a lot easier to pin down a truly stable OC.

Also, your cache experience mirrors my own with a 10600K, I had to drop to 45x cache to get true stability. I could run many things at 48x cache, but not everything, and eventually I would get a level 0 cache error after a couple of hours of certain games (e.g SoTR). Not sure how long this 10900KF will last on 49x cache, I expect I might hit a load in the future that might not like it.


----------



## acoustic

I've messed with a variety of different settings and didn't document all of them in the thread as I was trying to get some stability.

I'm tired of messing with this. 5.1Ghz all-core, 4.8Ghz cache, 1.44v BIOS and that gives me 1.42v load. If it dies, it dies.

What happened that made 1.3v no longer work? I don't know. Maybe I damaged the chip when I mounted the block (which wasn't very tight, I just tried loosening and it didn't help), but meh. I've wasted far too much time of the little bit I have to enjoy my PC, and I'm just over this entire waste of time.

I think there are 10850Ks that do better than this chip.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I can run 57x 6 cores if room temp is under 20C...
56x7 cores if room temp is about 30C...
But no matter what I do I can't go over 47x cache...
So I think the better strategy is to be stable with 43x and after that try to find the cache limit.

By the way, I played with metro for hours today. The loading has a stupid power consumption. The CPU drop to 51x... After that the game run at 53x sometimes 54x.


----------



## acoustic

RobertoSampaio said:


> I can run 57x 6 cores if room temp is under 20C...
> 56x7 cores if room temp is about 30C...
> But no matter what I do I can't go over 47x cache...
> So I think the better strategy is to be stable with 43x and after that try to find the cache limit.
> 
> By the way, I played with metro for hours today. The loading has a stupid power consumption. The CPU drop to 51x... After that the game run at 53x sometimes 54x.


Yes the loading screen in Metro is ridiculous.. I don't get it. At the current settings that are stable, I hit 210watts during the loading screen when the big spike hits.

I went down to 44x cache and it still needed 1.4v for 5Ghz and 1.425v for 5.1Ghz .. this is for Metro stable. My chip is basically a 10850K, or it was damaged when I put the block on. Don't know, but I'm enjoying some Rome2 Total War. **** wasting days on this garbage.


----------



## Falkentyne

acoustic said:


> Apparently there's a few applications that really cause the WHEA's to pop. If you don't run any of them, then I suppose you would think all was fine, like I did. I found out with Metro Exodus and Rome2: Total War. There are plenty of games I play that haven't sprung an error and still don't even at 1.29v, such as Hell Let Loose which I've played a ton of. I understand what you're saying, that my chip is basically bad silicon, and I think it is. 1.42v for 5.1Ghz? That's ridiculously high from what I've seen from many, lol, but that leads me to believe that many people claiming they are running 5.1-5.2-5.3 @ 1.3 or even 1.4v really aren't stable; they just aren't monitoring WHEAs while gaming because they passed stress-tests overnight. I would have to have a miraculously horrid piece of silicon to be that far off the median.
> 
> What I'm getting at, is that the way CML is built with the 10cores + ringbus (which is why HT off resolves Parity issues) .. some applications exploit this weakness more than others. Very large transient loads seem to expose it quite easily, which is something I've noticed with Metro Exodus. Rome2 Total War.. I'm really not sure why it's sensitive considering it's an older game and also doesn't draw much wattage, but those two applications are the two that put me down this whole troubleshooting rabbit hole.
> 
> I had to leave so no, could not test the 250W limit, but it's pretty much a moot point. I'll try to do it when I get home, maybe, but regardless, raising vCore to absurd levels fixed the WHEAs .. limiting the GPU, I do not see how that would make lower vCore somehow work.


At the vcore that gives you an Internal Parity Error in ME:EE, what happens if you REDUCE vcore even more? 
Do you get a Translation Lookaside Buffer error (if you don't BSOD first)? You may need to go quite a bit lower on the vcore to see.


----------



## acoustic

Falkentyne said:


> At the vcore that gives you an Internal Parity Error in ME:EE, what happens if you REDUCE vcore even more?
> Do you get a Translation Lookaside Buffer error (if you don't BSOD first)? You may need to go quite a bit lower on the vcore to see.


I'll try it in a few. I get CPU Internal Error (that's what HWINFO logs) at even 1.40v. I can try going down to 1.25v or something and see. What are we looking for with the Translation error?


----------



## Falkentyne

In old pre May 2019 Apex Legends, back when it crashed everyone's system, random crashes, exception errors, usually filled with Internal Parity Errors, spawned faster than ants. And if you went too low on the vcore, you would get a CPU TLB error in Hwinfo64.

The may 2019 patch made Apex perform more like any other game and increased stability.


----------



## acoustic

Falkentyne said:


> In old pre May 2019 Apex Legends, back when it crashed everyone's system, random crashes, exception errors, usually filled with Internal Parity Errors, spawned faster than ants. And if you went too low on the vcore, you would get a CPU TLB error in Hwinfo64.
> 
> The may 2019 patch made Apex perform more like any other game and increased stability.


I set 1.25v BIOS (1.23v windows) and BSOD for Clock_Watchdog_Timeout before I could even launch Metro .. lol. I'll give it another shot at 1.27v BIOS, but if that doesn't work.. going back to gaming.


----------



## Falkentyne

acoustic said:


> I set 1.25v BIOS (1.23v windows) and BSOD for Clock_Watchdog_Timeout before I could even launch Metro .. lol. I'll give it another shot at 1.27v BIOS, but if that doesn't work.. going back to gaming.


No need. Just curious. Apex was really unstable back then. Much like Minecraft is now (Minecraft problem with Internal Errors can be avoided by letting it run on 6-8 threads max).


----------



## acoustic

Falkentyne said:


> No need. Just curious. Apex was really unstable back then. Much like Minecraft is now (Minecraft problem with Internal Errors can be avoided by letting it run on 6-8 threads max).


I can stop the errors in Metro by disabling the HT threads through ProcessLasso.

1.27v caused another "CPU Internal Error" and then hard-locked. Back to 1.44v BIOS I go


----------



## ViTosS

acoustic said:


> I can stop the errors in Metro by disabling the HT threads through ProcessLasso.
> 
> 1.27v caused another "CPU Internal Error" and then hard-locked. Back to 1.44v BIOS I go


I don't think there is something wrong with your CPU, plenty sure everyone here if tried a couple loading screens in Metro in determined save would have WHEA too, I only got 1 WHEA in a loading screen and I played the two DLC's till the end and only 1 loading screen of a determined area made the error at the very end, I also got some during the gameplay.


----------



## Imprezzion

acoustic said:


> I can stop the errors in Metro by disabling the HT threads through ProcessLasso.
> 
> 1.27v caused another "CPU Internal Error" and then hard-locked. Back to 1.44v BIOS I go


Here, this is my chip loading into Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition Sam's Story DLC from the desktop.
197w peak but no errors. 5.1/4.7 all-core @ 1.290v with all power saving, EIST, C-States, SpeedShift and Balanced power profile in Windows.










Just to be complete: Here's my RAM settings. tRDWR is pretty loose but it has to be. It needs way way more voltage on the RAM to run anywhere near 12's and that isn't worth it for me. It's all full manual including the RTL/IO. PPD = 0. MRC Fastboot disabled.









BIOS main settings that matter:









































Try and copy my BIOS settings. Just to see what happens. Just adjust the x51 advanced offset to whatever your CPU wants.


----------



## fray_bentos

RobertoSampaio said:


> By the way, I played with metro for hours today. The loading has a stupid power consumption. The CPU drop to 51x... After that the game run at 53x sometimes 54x.





acoustic said:


> Yes the loading screen in Metro is ridiculous.. I don't get it. At the current settings that are stable, I hit 210watts during the loading screen when the big spike hits.
> 
> I went down to 44x cache and it still needed 1.4v for 5Ghz and 1.425v for 5.1Ghz .. this is for Metro stable. My chip is basically a 10850K, or it was damaged when I put the block on. Don't know, but I'm enjoying some Rome2 Total War. **** wasting days on this garbage.


@acoustic , have you considered putting on a power limit cap that is a bit above the load you get during gameplay and seeing if that can mean you get away with lower Vcore? e.g. 180 W long and short, which might stop errors during the loading screens/transitions. That way you can enjoy full clock speeds (at potentially lower voltage) during gameplay, but slightly longer loading screens (without errors).


----------



## RobertoSampaio

fray_bentos said:


> @acoustic , have you considered putting on a power limit cap that is a bit above the load you get during gameplay and seeing if that can mean you get away with lower Vcore? e.g. 180 W long and short, which might stop errors during the loading screens/transitions. That way you can enjoy full clock speeds (at potentially lower voltage) during gameplay, but slightly longer loading screens (without errors).


I'm testing a temp limit of 65C...

I think it works better than power limit because the CPU hits about 80C for few seconds and then drop frequency.

All games is running at 54x... 53x... And under very heavy load 52x... 51x... Sometimes 49x or 48x, but just for a moment.


----------



## Imprezzion

How can I stress test for turbo ratio's in a good way? Prime95 with affinity set to amount of turbo cores doesn't seem to works it still just runs the x10 core limit. I have it set up now as 1-2 cores x53 3-6 cores x52 and 7-10 cores x51 but it always runs x51 in stress. In normal desktop usage I see it going to x52 and x53 regularly but I can't see what voltage it's giving it as I can't stress it. I have to adjust the Advanced Offsets for x52 and x53 but for that I need to know the voltage..

It goes as high as 1.524v according to HWINFO64 VR VOut / VCC Sense... Which is.. waaaay too high. But yeah, x52 or x53 both have a VID of 1.520 for some reason even tho x51 is 1.330...


----------



## fray_bentos

Imprezzion said:


> How can I stress test for turbo ratio's in a good way? Prime95 with affinity set to amount of turbo cores doesn't seem to works it still just runs the x10 core limit. I have it set up now as 1-2 cores x53 3-6 cores x52 and 7-10 cores x51 but it always runs x51 in stress. In normal desktop usage I see it going to x52 and x53 regularly but I can't see what voltage it's giving it as I can't stress it. I have to adjust the Advanced Offsets for x52 and x53 but for that I need to know the voltage..
> 
> It goes as high as 1.524v according to HWINFO64 VR VOut / VCC Sense... Which is.. waaaay too high. But yeah, x52 or x53 both have a VID of 1.520 for some reason even tho x51 is 1.330...


The latest vesion of OCCT allows you to lock stress tests to certain numbers of cores, certain cores, physical only, cycling of cores etc, it is very flexible and powerful. You can set it in advanced settings under the cog icon.

Also to monitor voltage, open the sensors tab in HWiNFO64 and double click on Vcore or Vout, and the same for core frequencies and you'll get tracked graphs where you can relate frequency to the voltage being applied.



RobertoSampaio said:


> I'm testing a temp limit of 65C...
> 
> I think it works better than power limit because the CPU hits about 80C for few seconds and then drop frequency.
> 
> All games is running at 54x... 53x... And under very heavy load 52x... 51x... Sometimes 49x or 48x, but just for a moment.


My MSI board has a mininmum overtemperature limit of 90 C (which I have set), so that may be the same on other MSI boards. Also TVB offsetting is not supported in BIOS. I had a play in XTU but couldn't gain any benefit over my current settings; 53x on 3 or more cores at any temperature gave WHEA errors (also, I'm not willing to lift Vcore to support higher frequencies for transient light loads). I also don't like XTU as it overides BIOS settings and makes it difficult to nail down an OC as what is set in XTU doesn't precisely match "equivalent" BIOS settings.


----------



## Imprezzion

Only problem with MSI BIOS is the fact you cannot properly adjust the curve. It's all text based Advanced Offset but no real control over the actual V/F Curve.

I got the stress test down now, it was clocking to turbo clocks only HWINFO64 wasn't showing the boost clocks. CPU-Z is tho so it's fine now. Still behaves pretty weirdly but I am getting the hang of it.

EDIT1: And ofcourse, now the idle and switching load crashes are back again when running turbo ratio in stead of all core.. sigh..

EDIT2: @acoustic this is 5.2/4.7 loading the same Metro sequence. 210w as well this time. No errors at all. Voltage is a slight bit too high, it loads at 1.363v but it only needs 1.344v so I have to drop the offset slightly lower. I'm at -0.150v now but I think it should be -0.170v. Temperatures are 3-5c higher on 5.2 but perfectly managable.


----------



## acoustic

I mean, one or two times I might get lucky with no errors. Do that **** 20-30 times of loading in, going to main menu, hitting continue, getting back in, and back to main menu. I found some settings that I thought were stable were not; they'd crash or WHEA eventually.

I have no idea if maybe it's the part I'm in too. I'm early in the game when Anna falls into that nuclear shelter thing, and you have to go save her, when the Aurora is damaged. Just before you jump down into the hole, is where I'm loading in. 

I actually put the chip back to stock (with cache @ 48) with auto voltage. At 3840x1600 160Hz, I don't see any differences yet, but at least I'm not slamming 1.44v into the chip while idling or 1.42v constant during games. You know it's bad when even Cinebench is drawing over 300watts lol.


----------



## Imprezzion

acoustic said:


> I mean, one or two times I might get lucky with no errors. Do that **** 20-30 times of loading in, going to main menu, hitting continue, getting back in, and back to main menu. I found some settings that I thought were stable were not; they'd crash or WHEA eventually.
> 
> I have no idea if maybe it's the part I'm in too. I'm early in the game when Anna falls into that nuclear shelter thing, and you have to go save her, when the Aurora is damaged. Just before you jump down into the hole, is where I'm loading in.
> 
> I actually put the chip back to stock (with cache @ 48) with auto voltage. At 3840x1600 160Hz, I don't see any differences yet, but at least I'm not slamming 1.44v into the chip while idling or 1.42v constant during games. You know it's bad when even Cinebench is drawing over 300watts lol.


I mean, I played the entire main campaign and the Two Colonels DLC over several weeks and never did it give me even one single error. I cannot load the normal campaign now as that will reset my progress in the DLC's but it should not make a difference really. 

Here, i've loaded and unloaded the game to main menu (in the DLC) 15 times in a row, no errors in HWINFO64 and none in Event Viewer. (Core Clock only shows Core #0 in HWINFO64 and it's idle now). Uptime 2h30m and still no errors playing loading and unloading Metro the entire time after every checkpoint.










Event Viewer does show a few errors but those are unrelated to this. It's just my OneDrive being a B and giving a error and 4 crashes / kernel power events due to it locking up because I was playing with the Turbo Core OC and it froze a few times. As you can see, no WHEA or Internals.


----------



## acoustic

Don't know what to tell you man. Congrats on having great silicon. I've tried everything but 5.1 requires 1.42v to stop WHEAs in Metro. I don't have any further explanations or **** to go over .. I've literally tried every variation of every setting you can think of. I must have a trashcan for a chip.

All I've learned is that I'm never bothering with a stress-test ever again. Complete waste of time if I can be stable at 1.29v in every stress-test but then Metro throws 9 million WHEA errors in a loading screen.


----------



## Waspinator

You finally got my interest as this is going on from page 228. Downloading Metro EE now.
My CPU is stable RealBench 5.0 GHz 1.25V, 15min and 99°C. 5.1 GHz 1.35V reaches 100°C in 2min anyway, so hard to tell if stable, 1.34V is not, but I just can't run 1.40V on air. Prime95 non-AVX 5.1 GHz 1.30V, AVX 4.9 GHz 1.25V. I should probably be happy if it's stable on 5.0 GHz.


----------



## acoustic

Good luck. Those are some high temps .. what are you using for cooling?


----------



## Intrud3r

Just for *** and giggles I'm downloading Metro EE now too just to check ... curious that I am ...

Not having any problems whatsoever atm, but just curious what Metro does on my system with my current settings.

Current settings:
AC/DC = 1/1
LLC = medium
no added offset.

vcore under load at 5.1 / 4.3 = 1.210 - 1.220V


----------



## acoustic

Sweet. Hope no one has any issues .. but Metro: EE murdered me and my chip in a bloody fashion.

When I get back from this trip, I'll upload the save so you guys can do a real 1:1 to what I was testing. I have to leave in 20min and will be traveling for a few days, but when I get back.. that would be interesting.

I have to tear the loop down to do some finishing touches, and when I do that, I'm going to take the Heatkiller block off and clean the chip so I can see if maybe I damaged the Substrate .. but I'd imagine if I damaged the Substrate, I would not have the phenomenal temps that I do.

Ah well. I'm just trying to point at everything except the one thing I can't control -- my 10900K is atrocious silicon and should have been a 10850K.


----------



## Imprezzion

acoustic said:


> Sweet. Hope no one has any issues .. but Metro: EE murdered me and my chip in a bloody fashion.
> 
> When I get back from this trip, I'll upload the save so you guys can do a real 1:1 to what I was testing. I have to leave in 20min and will be traveling for a few days, but when I get back.. that would be interesting.
> 
> I have to tear the loop down to do some finishing touches, and when I do that, I'm going to take the Heatkiller block off and clean the chip so I can see if maybe I damaged the Substrate .. but I'd imagine if I damaged the Substrate, I would not have the phenomenal temps that I do.
> 
> Ah well. I'm just trying to point at everything except the one thing I can't control -- my 10900K is atrocious silicon and should have been a 10850K.


If you're pulling the loop apart anyway, simple way to test that isn't it. Just buy a tray 10900KF and test it with the lid still on. If better, delid and enjoy. If worse or same issues, send back or sell secondhand and then we know for sure it wasn't the chips fault right.

@Intrud3r man that's some nice voltage. A full 0.06v under mine for 5.1 and mine is considered well above average according to Silicon Lottery's binning database lol. Why the low cache speed tho. With your RAM at the speeds and timings it's at you could gain a quite significant reduction in RAM latency even going to x46 or x47 for the cache.


----------



## Intrud3r

Had it running at 4.6 before, but noticed some hickups during gaming ... tiny stutters just after loading a map in bf5 .... after I upped my voltage they went away, or what I've done after that, was just lower voltage again and set it to 4.3 .... I don't notice a difference during gaming between 4.3 and 4.6 so why would I bother .... I like my lower cpu temps tho .... so there you have it.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I found a very nice videos about OC... 
There is a lot of great information...


----------



## Waspinator

acoustic said:


> Good luck. Those are some high temps .. what are you using for cooling?


Standard, Noctua NH-D15. 5.0 GHz shouldn't be a problem, games aren't as demanding as RealBench. And if not stable I can always go up a few 0.01V.
4.9 GHz probably isn't worth it as stock boosts to 5.1-5.3 GHz, am I right? 5 GHz fixed all core is better for both min and max FPS, I already tested that.
I think 5.1 GHz 1.28V is above average, mine needs 1.35V. Though with higher temperature you probably need higher voltage, so hard to compare.


----------



## fray_bentos

acoustic said:


> Don't know what to tell you man. Congrats on having great silicon. I've tried everything but 5.1 requires 1.42v to stop WHEAs in Metro. I don't have any further explanations or **** to go over .. I've literally tried every variation of every setting you can think of. I must have a trashcan for a chip.
> 
> All I've learned is that I'm never bothering with a stress-test ever again. Complete waste of time if I can be stable at 1.29v in every stress-test but then Metro throws 9 million WHEA errors in a loading screen.


Did you try the CPU power limit?


----------



## acoustic

fray_bentos said:


> Did you try the CPU power limit?


I'm working for the next 3 days and not home, so I can't. I can try that later. It's an interesting idea.. most games don't pull over 100watts, so I could limit to 120watt to stem the huge spikes.

It's definitely an outside-the-box idea. I like it.


----------



## Waspinator

I don't think 120W will do much for 10900K, that will be in power limit all the time and throttle down to around 4.3 GHz. I have it set at 230W.


----------



## fray_bentos

acoustic said:


> I'm working for the next 3 days and not home, so I can't. I can try that later. It's an interesting idea.. most games don't pull over 100watts, so I could limit to 120watt to stem the huge spikes.
> 
> It's definitely an outside-the-box idea. I like it.


I had suggested 180 W earlier, mine just maxed at 175 W over a couple of hours of gaming (likely when loading) and in-game often <100-120 W, as you say.


----------



## Nizzen

Waspinator said:


> I don't think 120W will do much for 10900K, that will be in power limit all the time and throttle down to around 4.3 GHz. I have it set at 230W.


120w will do much in many games  
Try to run "max" tweaked memory (sub 35ns 72GB/s+ read) with [email protected] 120w in games. The performance is pretty good 

Try and see for yourself


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Nizzen said:


> 120w will do much in many games
> Try to run "max" tweaked memory (sub 35ns 72GB/s+ read) with [email protected] 120w in games. The performance is pretty good
> 
> Try and see for yourself


For 72k read he need arround 4666-4700mhz.Over 4600mhz gsat and really allstable and not only one gsat run, is for the most a problem.^^
My Limit is also 4666mhz for really stable, imc dont really want stable more.

But the read is not so important.
Copy and latency is it.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

How I know if I can do better with my RAM?
This is my config:


----------



## Imprezzion

RobertoSampaio said:


> How I know if I can do better with my RAM?
> This is my config:
> 
> View attachment 2517015


What kind of IC's are these? Timings don't look like B-Die at least.

If primary timings cannot be lowered then your only option is RTL/IO improvements as the secondary and tertiary is decent enough but RTL/IO is super loose. This timing and frequency should have something in the neighborhood of 67/67/7/7.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Imprezzion said:


> What kind of IC's are these? Timings don't look like B-Die at least.
> 
> If primary timings cannot be lowered then your only option is RTL/IO improvements as the secondary and tertiary is decent enough but RTL/IO is super loose. This timing and frequency should have something in the neighborhood of 67/67/7/7.


*DDR4:*_ 32GB Kingston - Hynix - KHX3733C19D4/16GX - 18-23-23-42-CR2-tRFC490 - 4,[email protected],370mv - [email protected],245mv - [email protected],200mv

Do you think I could do better?








_


----------



## PhoenixMDA

@RobertoSampaio
Go under memory training options do roundtrip training enable, lose your timings and test to got higher Frequency, also test CL19-23....
PPD to 0 help´s for latency i set also txp to 4, don´t do tFAW lower as tCWL.
For higher frequency test different tCWL(15-18) with different tRDRD_SG(6-8) with lose sub´s.

If anything not boot look ever to the postcode before 55 come´s...2C,31,3F,3E,3A, 69 and so on.
As expemple if you get 69 it can helps to set the last both cmd training options from the last 3 training option to set enable(Postcode 4E,4F).
If he boot in some attempt a working RTL fix it, if it don´t boot you must find at yourself working RTL.

If you get 2C lower the VDimm, Vref or ODT Park.

If you get 31 change sub´s or voltage´s and so on it give´s different way´s to solve a problem, at 3E you can change CL or raise up the VRef or change sub´s to get a working cmd training.

You don´t must use B-Die, you can also reach good result with other ram,
but B-Die can drive the fastest timing´s.


----------



## YaqY

PhoenixMDA said:


> @RobertoSampaio
> Go under memory training options do roundtrip training enable, lose your timings and test to got higher Frequency, also test CL19-23....
> PPD to 0 help´s for latency i set also txp to 4, don´t do tFAW lower as tCWL.
> For higher frequency test different tCWL(15-18) with different tRDRD_SG(6-8) with lose sub´s.
> 
> If anything not boot look ever to the postcode before 55 come´s...2C,31,3F,3E,3A, 69 and so on.
> As expemple if you get 69 it can helps to set the last both cmd training options from the last 3 training option to set enable(Postcode 4E,4F).
> If he boot in some attempt a working RTL fix it, if it don´t boot you must find at yourself working RTL.
> 
> If you get 2C lower the VDimm, Vref or ODT Park.
> 
> If you get 31 change sub´s or voltage´s and so on it give´s different way´s to solve a problem, at 3E you can change CL or raise up the VRef or change sub´s to get a working cmd training.
> 
> You don´t must use B-Die, you can also reach good result with other ram,
> but B-Die can drive the fastest timing´s.


This is good information, i think for TCWL the Apex and i assume other Asus boards are very picky. With fullcheck enabled the wrong TCWL will usually go to 3F then 55 for me, I need TCWL 13 to train 4500+ (TCL 16) consistently but cannot stabilise this with GSAT, quality of the memory is not good.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Its difficult to find a working "window" and dont forget other Kit of ram other settings.

Dont only look to much to other settings, its a baseline ok but not more, i cant drive with my kit the same as with my old kit, in this case subs need to be harder, it can also be to lose some.

And you are right how good the ram is very important.

P.S.
With tCWL 13 is difficult to drive strong sub´s.


----------



## Waspinator

I didn't find any errors in Metro EE, up to where you knife those monsters during sequence, look at my HWiNFO screens. Strange that 5.1 GHz 1.35V has same wattage and temperature as 5.0 GHz 1.25V, then I will run this for the time being. It needs 170W so I don't think I will limit that.
Anything else I can test for stability?


----------



## Intrud3r

I got me a single Internal parity error at the voltage I mentioned earlier with Metro EE. Added 20mv to my offset and played the game till about the same sequence of rat monsters you are knifing ... No errors after adding those 20 mv. Cinebench R23 load runs now between 1.225 - 1.235V at 5.1 / 4.3.

Just for **** and giggles I enabled C-states again (till C3, not higher) and enabled turbo boost 3.0 again ... set 2 cores to 5.3 and 5 cores to 5.2 ... 5.2 runs at 1.330 - 1.340V with a +20mv offset (has been tested with occt small sse and large avx2 extreme) and I set my 5.3 offset to +60mv (tested 5.3 ht = off and needs about 1.370V)

Max VR VOUT after running some crap (cpu-z bench / cinebench / idle + watching vids for about 2 hours) = 1.414V

(using intel XTU atm btw)

AC/DC = 1/1
LLC = medium
VCCIO and VCCSA are set manually (1.300 / 1.350)
Rest is all auto in bios atm (except mem overclock)


----------



## robalm

I would like to try out the metro EE load and see what happens after about 100 loads or over night 
This works fine, but the problem i need help with is the message you get when the game crash or force exit *"Previous Launch was unsuccessful"*
I need to press "yes or no" thats the problem i need help with.

start MetroExodus.exe
TIMEOUT 30
taskkill /f /im MetroExodus.exe
start "bat" "D:\Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition\bat.cmd"


----------



## acoustic

Hahaha a bat file!! I love how creative this is getting.

When I get home, I'll upload my save lol


----------



## Astral85

So I just started playing Ghostrunner and this game is spewing out CPU internal errors with my overclock that is normally stable in every other game! What are your guys experience with Ghostrunner? I'm getting a lot of Fatal Error crashes as well.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Astral85 said:


> So I just started playing Ghostrunner and I'm getting CPU internal errors with my overclock that is stable in every other game. What are your guys experience with Ghostrunner? I'm getting a lot of Fatal Error crashes as well.


I have tested Ghostrunner the Steamversion with RTX no WHEA or any Problem´s.
Test GSat and perhap´s without TVB only fixed VCore LLC5 Sync Allcore and not to high Cache.Here was one people who can´t get GSat stable Apex XIII with CML.

Ghostrunner use very less cpu, it´s like nothing, if you get there whea your system is not really stable.
On Apex XII tvb don´t work well out of the box.There is enough to activate it from a stable setting, to be unstable.

That´s the reason why i use sync allcore and fixed voltage´s.

P.S.
RobertoSampaio has tested much with tvb/vf , he has adjust AC/DC, LLC for get a stable system.


----------



## Imprezzion

Ghostrunner is working fine for me. I did just break my OC tho.. was trying some higher RAM frequencies and now it's stuck in a boot loop without the recovery screen. It just POST, hang on code 55, turn off, POST, 55, and so on. Shame. CMOS CLR it is.. luckily I have my profiles saved lol.

This poor IMC really does not like anything over 4400. It just falls flat on it's face and regardless of IO / SA voltages it barely even boots to BIOS at 4500+MHz..

EDIT: Ok I got it to boot to Windows at 4533Mhz 17-17-17-39-370-2T with 1.55v DRAM, 1.40v SA and 1.35v IO. Let's stress it.


----------



## Astral85

@PhoenixMDA 

I'm running sync all core x51 + Adaptive voltage on Auto. LLC 5, AC/DC LL 0.09/0.80. I will either need to keep increasing AC LL or add voltage to the VF curve. 

Why GSat? Will Ghostrunner expose unstable RAM? What about GPU OC? Is this game sensitive to GPU OC with RTX on?


----------



## Astral85

What about Fatal Error crash did you guys ever get those in Ghostrunner?


----------



## PhoenixMDA

I have on Apex XII fixed VCore for 5,1/4,7/4600CL17-17 with LLC5 that´s works fine.AC/DC and vrm frequency i have on auto.
I dont use adaptive voltage TVB/VF curce and so on.
GSat because one people cant get stable on Apex XIII, perhaps it better to test to be shure that this is no problem.

No crashes/whea at all.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Astral85 said:


> @PhoenixMDA
> 
> I'm running sync all core x51 + Adaptive voltage on Auto. LLC 5, AC/DC LL 0.09/0.80. I will either need to keep increasing AC LL or add voltage to the VF curve.
> 
> Why GSat? Will Ghostrunner expose unstable RAM? What about GPU OC? Is this game sensitive to GPU OC with RTX on?


I would try LLC#5 with DC_LL=0.8 and AC_LL=0.4 before changing V/F#6 curve...
AC_LL=0.09 is not enough to compensate LLC#5 impedance...
In fact, if you use a higher AC_LL you can even try a V/F#6 negative offset.


----------



## fray_bentos

Astral85 said:


> @PhoenixMDA
> 
> I'm running sync all core x51 + Adaptive voltage on Auto. LLC 5, AC/DC LL 0.09/0.80. I will either need to keep increasing AC LL or add voltage to the VF curve.
> 
> Why GSat? Will Ghostrunner expose unstable RAM? What about GPU OC? Is this game sensitive to GPU OC with RTX on?


What's your cache? As @PhoenixMDA noted you may need to lower it. Try x44 or x45 cache and see what happens.


----------



## GeneO

Astral85 said:


> @PhoenixMDA
> 
> I'm running sync all core x51 + Adaptive voltage on Auto. LLC 5, AC/DC LL 0.09/0.80. I will either need to keep increasing AC LL or add voltage to the VF curve.
> 
> Why GSat? Will Ghostrunner expose unstable RAM? What about GPU OC? Is this game sensitive to GPU OC with RTX on?


What is your SP?I know you probably said it somewhere. 

I am running sync all core 51 adaptive LLC5 and my chip needs 0.16/.80 to be stable. So incrase your ACLL until you are stable.


----------



## SoldierRBT

I’ve been playing Metro Exodus 10900K 5.2GHz/4.8GHz 1.32v LLC5 4600C17 haven’t got any whea errors.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Wrong replied^^


----------



## GeneO

PhoenixMDA said:


> @GeneO
> My chip has only SP83, but scale up to 5,4Ghz like SP99 or higher.
> 5,1/4,7ghz i need only 1,23V Bios LLC5, that is much lower as the most chip´s can do.


I was replying to @Astral85


----------



## PhoenixMDA

sry^^ don´t see it


----------



## fray_bentos

PhoenixMDA said:


> @fray_bentos
> I drive 5,1/4,7 1,23V or 5,2/4,8 or 5,3/4,9 and 5,4/5ghz on cache is possible, my Chip is very good so don´t compare the voltage.
> I had before 2 avg chip´s SP63, on was 5,2Ghz/4,8 allcore limit arround 1,25V load VCore and
> the other 5,2Ghz 1,28V-1,29V and only if you have really good custom wakü, with such a chip it´s better to drive 5,1ghz.
> 
> @GeneO
> My chip has only SP83, but scale up to 5,4Ghz like SP99 or higher.
> 5,1/4,7ghz i need only 1,23V Bios LLC5, that is much lower as the most chip´s can do.


I was also replying to @Astral85.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

RobertoSampaio said:


> I would try LLC#5 with DC_LL=0.8 and AC_LL=0.4 before changing V/F#6 curve...
> AC_LL=0.09 is not enough to compensate LLC#5 impedance...
> In fact, if you use a higher AC_LL you can even try a V/F#6 negative offset.



I was also replying to @Astral85. LOLOLOL


----------



## GeneO

No, you are replying to yourself.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

I have get the alert for post quotes, so i have answer.
I dont read all.^^
You will get it stable if you set the right values for your Chip and that without whea.
.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

By the way, I use VCCSA=1240mv and VCCIO=1190mv..
Something weird happened when I decide to rise 5mv VCCSA and 10mv VCCIO...
A lot of WHEA erros.
But why? Any guess?

EDITED: 
Loaded back BIOS 2103... 
I think 2201 could be the problem...


----------



## GeneO

No, but I do know there is both low and high stability limits for them on this chip.
I tried 2201 when it was first leaked back in early May. I lost stability.

What microcode? Was it 2201 that went to CA (I had a moded BIOS for CA before it was included in the released BIOS)?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I don't know about microcode, but Bios 2103 is really stable...
I'm going to test a more aggressive OCTVB...


----------



## Salve1412

PhoenixMDA said:


> I have tested Ghostrunner the Steamversion with RTX no WHEA or any Problem´s.


So did you buy the game in the end? I remember that back then you had tested the demo only, which doesn't cause any issue compared to the full game (at least for me).


----------



## Salve1412

Astral85 said:


> What about Fatal Error crash did you guys ever get those in Ghostrunner?


Yes, it's either that or (more frequently) WHEA Parity Errors.


----------



## Liquid4rt

Practically speaking, how much faster is a 10900k clocked to its average limit compared to a 9900k clocked to 5.1 in terms of gaming performance.


----------



## Astral85

@GeneO Yes SP 63 10900K

OK so I set AC/DC LL 0.15/0.80, LLC5. This is plenty of voltage for 5.1 (1.350-1.4V). I left cache clock on auto (4.3). No more L0 errors in Ghostrunner but I got one or two WHEA errors. I think they were WHEA but I cleared HWiNFO and now can't remember. VCCSA - 1.25V, VCCIO 1.3V. What could be the issue now?


----------



## Imprezzion

Liquid4rt said:


> Practically speaking, how much faster is a 10900k clocked to its average limit compared to a 9900k clocked to 5.1 in terms of gaming performance.


Depends on the resolution and GPU used but not much. I went from a 9900KS @ 5.1 to a 10900KF @ 5.2 because one of my mates needed a new rig (he was on a stock clocked 6700K on H310 board with a 3070..) and I sold him the 9900KS set.

Very little difference real-world wise except for RAM doing much higher clocks with DR 16GB sticks.


----------



## Astral85

Are there certain levels in Ghostrunner that are more inclined to produce L0/WHEA errors? I just finished "A Look Inside" and didn't get any errors on that level.


----------



## Salve1412

Astral85 said:


> Are there certain levels in Ghostrunner that are more inclined to produce L0/WHEA errors? I just finished "A Look Inside" and didn't get any errors on that level.


Try to play the third level. However, the errors I get are not L0, they are named CPU Internal Errors in HWInfo (Internal Parity Error in Event Viewer).


----------



## Astral85

Salve1412 said:


> Try to play the third level. However, the errors I get are not L0, they are named CPU Internal Errors in HWInfo (Internal Parity Error in Event Viewer).


Mine are Internal Parity Error as well. Is this core voltage or something else?


----------



## PhoenixMDA

One people has at the beginning the next at Level 3, one has problems with metro exodus, the next with minecraft, tarkov and so on.
Its waisted time for me to test any more for other people, on my stable whea free system.These people who has problems with whea or crashes must fixed it at their own pc.


----------



## fray_bentos

PhoenixMDA said:


> One people has at the beginning the next at Level 3, one has problems with metro exodus, the next with minecraft, tarkov and so on.
> Its waisted time for me to test any more for other people, on my stable whea free system.These people who has problems with whea or crashes must fixed it at their own pc.


Nobody asked you to test for other people...


----------



## Imprezzion

Now that's weird... I tried dropping the offset a little lower with different AC/DC to get the voltage overshoot under control a bit better but when I went from -0.160 to -0.180 the PC just turned off mid load. No errors, no event viewer messages, no BSOD, just randomly powered off and rebooted into BIOS. Never had that happen before lol..

Set it back to -0.160, it's fine again. 

What I'm trying to do is get low load voltages to be more in line with full load voltage. It runs 1.344v fully loaded which is what it needs but low load like lighter games go as high as 1.386v which is kinda unnecessary but I can't seem to get it under control any better then that or it'll act up like what I said before, or if I do use AC/DC and LLC levels to clean it up it'll be fine under low and medium loads but full load will droop way too low to like 1.310v..


----------



## PhoenixMDA

fray_bentos said:


> Nobody asked you to test for other people...


Message was for Salve1412, not for the others.


----------



## acoustic

PhoenixMDA said:


> One people has at the beginning the next at Level 3, one has problems with metro exodus, the next with minecraft, tarkov and so on.
> Its waisted time for me to test any more for other people, on my stable whea free system.These people who has problems with whea or crashes must fixed it at their own pc.


The Metro Exodus crashing was not just me. Many people have came through this thread the past 10+ pages and shared similar experiences. Your post comes off extremely dick-ish. No one personally asked you to test ****. If you don't want to, then don't. I came here looking for some answers or if anyone had experienced similar, as I had tested everything and the results to fix it didn't make much sense.

It's not some isolated incident of bad overclocks. The Internal Parity Errors are well documented and an issue with 9 and 10 series chips. Certain applications seem more prone to expose the issues than others .. Metro Exodus: EE seems to be one of the new ones to do this.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Some people have problem´s, but other have no problem´s, it´s a little bit like by amd.
So it is.


----------



## Imprezzion

The point I'm seeing is that many people have different problems. Probably all related but the good old times of just yeeting a bunch of vCore at a CPU, setting the multi, and be done with it is gone with how complicated both AMD and Intel made overclocking with all these voltage regulations and boost algorithms.

Like, even something as "modern" as a Sandy Bridge was just yeet voltage, test, if stable be done with it. The most you'd ever do was maybe set LLC and VRM frequency but that was about it.


----------



## acoustic

Imprezzion said:


> The point I'm seeing is that many people have different problems. Probably all related but the good old times of just yeeting a bunch of vCore at a CPU, setting the multi, and be done with it is gone with how complicated both AMD and Intel made overclocking with all these voltage regulations and boost algorithms.
> 
> Like, even something as "modern" as a Sandy Bridge was just yeet voltage, test, if stable be done with it. The most you'd ever do was maybe set LLC and VRM frequency but that was about it.


I think the ways of what we thought proved stability (P95, Realbench, Cinebench, etc) are much different now as well. The biggest takeaway I've had from all of this with my 10900K, is that there's no point in stress-testing overnight Realbench or some other stress-test. If it's stable in games, and maybe an hour loop of Cinebench, then it's good to go. The days of P95 and/or stress-tests being the pinnacle of stability are gone, it would seem.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I think if you are running all stock, no xmp, with all power limits and even that you have errors, that is a problem.
If you are running any kind of overclock and have errors, the problem is the overclock not stable...
And one problem is added to this, we have drivers issues...
Last week I update audio drives and start to having video problems...
Last bios update I had stability problems...
Last afterburner beta bring me problems too...
Last days I tried to rise vccsa and vccio just 10mv and had problems...
I realized Adaptive voltage and V/F#8 curve don't work like I supposed they work... They have influence to each other..
It's so many variables that the 1 thing we do is blame the CPU or the MB...
But one thing I'm sure, I'm very happy I have an Asus Maximus MB and a 10900kf.


----------



## Salve1412

PhoenixMDA said:


> Message was for Salve1412, not for the others.


I was just curious to know if you had tested the full game. One cannot say he doesn't have any problem with a game if one didn't actually tested it, and in my opinion the demo is not the same as the full version (for example I've just finished again the demo with 0 WHEA, then run the full game immediately after and got 2 Parity Errors at the beginning of the first level).
But of course, I absolutely didn't mean to ask you indirectly to test anything for me or others wasting your time, it was just a question out of curiosity.



Astral85 said:


> Mine are Internal Parity Error as well. Is this core voltage or something else?


Beefing core voltage helped reduce a bit the phaenomen but I still get occasional errors or crashes. I have Cache at x48 though, maybe I'll try to reduce it.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Trying to play games @ 53x...










A bit more...











Trying more aggressive...


----------



## fray_bentos

RobertoSampaio said:


> Trying to play games @ 53x...
> 
> View attachment 2517211
> 
> 
> A bit more...
> 
> 
> View attachment 2517209
> 
> 
> Trying more aggressive...
> 
> View attachment 2517208
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2517215


I mean yeah, sure, you set some big numbers in some boxes somewhere, again. However, your HWiNFO log shows that you might as well have set 55x2, 54x9, 53x10 because that's the max that could have possibly been hit based on what is shown. Also, none of the cores have hit 100% load, so is that really stable? Probably pseudo-stable, since you've set temp/power etc limits so that the unstable combinations of frequency/core load are never hit. Your average core frequency is 5.2 GHz, except on one core, it's 5.0 GHz, so that means you experienced, on average, slightly worse performance than simply setting x52 on all cores. With that, comes the risk that your overclock is so complicated that it becomes difficult to determine why it is unstable when you finally hit a combination of temperature and load that makes you WHEA/BSOD/reboot/crash. I don't really get the point. Do you enjoy/notice Excel opening one nanosecond faster, sometimes? Is that the point? I suspect these are the reasons that no-one really engages with these TVB posts of yours (though, I just bit). Can you get x53 all core stable, if so, wouldn't that be better than this overclock that doesn't hold x53 on all cores for any length of time?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I know I can do 52X all cores easily, but my fun is to get high frequencies at light load and stabilize the OC...
My core 0 is the worst, It always run low as others... Core 9 and 6 are the bests.
Gaming the average frequency is 52x. I took the pic just after closed planetside2.
Full load is 51x, and light loads I can do 56x all cores.
The system is pretty stable.
This next pic is running full load:


----------



## fray_bentos

RobertoSampaio said:


> I know I can do 52X all cores easily, but my fun is to get high frequencies at light load and stabilize the OC...
> My core 0 is the worst, It always run low as others... Core 9 and 6 are the bests.
> Gaiming the average frequency is 52x. I took the pic just after closed planetside2.
> Full load is 51x, and light loads I can do 56x all cores.
> The sistem is pretty stable.
> This next pic is running full load:
> 
> View attachment 2517234


OK, if you are having fun I guess. I mean my current setup seems to hold 52x sustained and so does yours. As you say, getting the 52x was easy, it was for me (good luck with silicon and a lot easier than my long battle to get x49 stable on my former 10600K). I still don't get why you just wouldn't plump for the easy, and more performant all-core 52x option.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Probably you are right, but the difference of running 50x, 51x or 52x in practice is not so high. We are talking about 5 or 10 fps in the best scenario, and with a game that really needs CPU...
By other hand, my fun is not to play games, but play with the OC... So when I did 51x, I tried 52x... after that 53x... but the power and temp were the problem...
I have an AIO (280mm) and live in a hot place (26C now, in the winter...LOL)...
So I did 54x3... after that 55x3... 55x4... 56x4... 56x5... 56x6...56x7....
I'm trying 57x now, but I put in my mind a limit of 1500mv for the VID (using VMaxStress) and this is my voltage limit.
The only way I can stabilize 57x is lowering temp below room temp... So I'm thinking about a cryo cooler, but this kind of technology has a big problem nowadays: You need to run the software after windows start… so it is useless for me...


----------



## PhoenixMDA

The differences are not much take the new FF benchmark.

UV 5,1/4,7/4600CL17-17 with rtx 3080








OC 5,4/5/4700CL16-17


----------



## RobertoSampaio

With an 11900k or 10900k and an 3080 overclock is just for fun, not for performance... LOL

I'm downloading FF benchmark and will test... But my 3080 is "undervolted"... Let's see the difference...


----------



## PhoenixMDA

I need the CPU Performance for games like starcraft 2 there i have down to 25fps in funmap, that is really much for this game^^.
The 3080 is top and but also needed in higher resolution .Its enough to play with really good fps and frametime.

The FF Benchmark goes most on CPU.


----------



## Imprezzion

Oof. Division 1 (and 2 to a lesser degree) put a LOT of load on the CPU during loading lol. On 5.2/4.7 1.380v I saw 244w peak and core temps went as high as 76c there.. Ok, it is reasonably hot in here, 26-27c cause I didn't have my A/C running, but still. That is a bit much for my taste. Or is 76c peak 60-63c constant load good enough to keep running.


----------



## Falkentyne

You guys are making me want to install my 10900k and M12E again just to check Metro Exodus EE for parity errors (and I don't have ghostrunner and i have no money for ghostrunner), but that's going to be wildly annoying.


----------



## acoustic

Falkentyne said:


> You guys are making me want to install my 10900k and M12E again just to check Metro Exodus EE for parity errors (and I don't have ghostrunner and i have no money for ghostrunner), but that's going to be wildly annoying.


You had a pretty good binned 10900K too, didn't you?

I would love to see what you discovered with it. You are the one who taught me about all this Parity error crap and the issue with 9 and 10 series chips.


----------



## Falkentyne

acoustic said:


> You had a pretty good binned 10900K too, didn't you?
> 
> I would love to see what you discovered with it. You are the one who taught me about all this Parity error crap and the issue with 9 and 10 series chips.


It's decent. Not the greatest chip but above average. It can do 5.2/4.8 ratios in realbench 2.56 without L0 errors at something like 1.340v bios set + LLC6. 5.3 in that test gets too hot (requires at least 1.435v-1.440v set) to avoid L0 errors and that gets to 100C on Arctic LFII 360 AIO. I gave up the Minecraft parity battle long ago with a RKL (or running on 6 threads only on CML).


----------



## acoustic

Falkentyne said:


> It's decent. Not the greatest chip but above average. It can do 5.2/4.8 ratios in realbench 2.56 without L0 errors at something like 1.340v bios set + LLC6. 5.3 in that test gets too hot (requires at least 1.435v-1.440v set) to avoid L0 errors and that gets to 100C on Arctic LFII 360 AIO. I gave up the Minecraft parity battle long ago with a RKL (or running on 6 threads only on CML).


That's pretty good! I believe I need 1.36v under load for Realbench at 5.2/4.8. Lord knows it needs 1.42v for 5.1 in Metro Exodus, so Realbench means squat 

Intel says AlderLake will be compatible with Raptorlake. I just need their X299 successor to come out at the same time as the Z690 chipsets. I'm dropping this 10900K like it's ****ing hot and going for the big boy.

I've also given up the fight with this 10900K. I put it back to stock, auto voltage, with cache manually set to x48. Auto voltage in Metro gives me 1.32v and zero parity errors or anything else. Luckily, at 3840x1600, I'm not CPU limited in much, even with a 3080Ti.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I found a good way to test "low to high to low" load stability...
Run CPU-Z stress test starting with 2 threads for a few seconds and stop, increase to 4 threads for a few seconds and stop, go to 6 threads... until 20 threads.
Repeat the test 5 times...
If the system is not stable, it will freeze.
I rose V/F#8 2 mv and the problem is gone...
Next I'll test again BIOS 2201 with this method.


----------



## Imprezzion

RobertoSampaio said:


> I found a good way to test "low to high to low" load stability...
> Run CPU-Z stress test starting with 2 threads for a few seconds and stop, increase to 4 threads for a few seconds and stop, go to 6 threads... until 20 threads.
> Repeat the test 5 times...
> If the system is not stable, it will freeze.
> I rose V/F#8 2 mv and the problem is gone...
> Next I'll test again BIOS 2201 with this method.
> 
> View attachment 2517268


Haha that's basically what I do with Prime95. Just start and stop Small FFT test with different thread counts and AVX on and off mixed. Usually it only takes like 4-5 cycles to freeze / crash when I'm not stable under shifting loads.

I mean, I am stable now under any game (Metro and ghostrunner included) and shifting loads as well but I'm a little sketched by the temps. As I said before it hit 71-76c across the cores in some games's loading screens like Division (1) and Battlefield 5 especially. Mostly because the fans don't react fast enough to clear the spike and secondly because it draws 244-260w at those points... Max temp in Prime95 Small FFT, even with AVX, is 88-91c @335-340w, so it should never "really" overheat but still. Is this acceptable?
Normal in-game temps are low to mid 60's.


----------



## fray_bentos

Imprezzion said:


> Haha that's basically what I do with Prime95. Just start and stop Small FFT test with different thread counts and AVX on and off mixed. Usually it only takes like 4-5 cycles to freeze / crash when I'm not stable under shifting loads.
> 
> I mean, I am stable now under any game (Metro and ghostrunner included) and shifting loads as well but I'm a little sketched by the temps. As I said before it hit 71-76c across the cores in some games's loading screens like Division (1) and Battlefield 5 especially. Mostly because the fans don't react fast enough to clear the spike and secondly because it draws 244-260w at those points... Max temp in Prime95 Small FFT, even with AVX, is 88-91c @335-340w, so it should never "really" overheat but still. Is this acceptable?
> Normal in-game temps are low to mid 60's.


I'm happy if I stay under 80 C for short loads (loading spikes), and similarly 60s C in game... and I thought I was conservative... Also if on AIO/water, your fan speed ramping up instantly as soon as temps are encountered won't make an impact as it takes time to heat the coolant in the loop (there is a lot of heat capacity in the loop and radiators). Most of the heat on modern CPUs is limited by heat getting off the die due to the power density (hence why AMD runs hotter despite consuming less power than Intel). That's also why der8auer found little benefit of disabling cores in a 10900K with the aim of keeping temps down and maxing out overclock frequency: 



Indeed, due to the heat capacity of the system, and heat coming off the die being the limiting aspect, I set a response delay of 10 seconds before my radiator fans ramp up to avoid annoying fan noise for short spikes when using the PC for day-to-day work, firing up a browser, opening several programs at once etc (using "Fan Control" - github).


----------



## Astral85

So my understanding is Internal Parity errors are a "bug" in the Skylake/Comet Lake architecture that _certain_ applications/games can expose. I believe the bug scales with higher core/thread count (more predominant on the 10900K). Shouldn't we therefore dismiss these apps/games that expose a "bug" as tests of true stability? If I understand correctly even piling on a heap of Vcore will not prevent these errors in the games that expose this bug.


----------



## Imprezzion

fray_bentos said:


> I'm happy if I stay under 80 C for short loads (loading spikes), and similarly 60s C in game... and I thought I was conservative... Also if on AIO/water, your fan speed ramping up instantly as soon as temps are encountered won't make an impact as it takes time to heat the coolant in the loop (there is a lot of heat capacity in the loop and radiators). Most of the heat on modern CPUs is limited by heat getting off the die due to the power density (hence why AMD runs hotter despite consuming less power than Intel). That's also why der8auer found little benefit of disabling cores in a 10900K with the aim of keeping temps down and maxing out overclock frequency:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, due to the heat capacity of the system, and heat coming off the die being the limiting aspect, I set a response delay of 10 seconds before my radiator fans ramp up to avoid annoying fan noise for short spikes when using the PC for day-to-day work, firing up a browser, opening several programs at once etc (using "Fan Control" - github).


Yeah I have ramp up time set to 3000ms for the fans so they ramp pretty slowly. Idle = 25% PWM (700-720RPM) and it ramps up from 45c to 80c to 65% PWM (1180-1200RPM) but realistically even with 76c short bursts the highest RPM I see while gaming is around 950-980. They are push-pull high static pressure fans on the rad so plenty of airflow. Above 85c they go to 100% so usually when running Prime95 (short test to verify AVX voltages) it bursts up to 91-93c, then drops to 88c ish when the fans ramp up. Without AVX this is 87c burst 81-82c once the fans ramp up.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Imprezzion said:


> Haha that's basically what I do with Prime95. Just start and stop Small FFT test with different thread counts and AVX on and off mixed. Usually it only takes like 4-5 cycles to freeze / crash when I'm not stable under shifting loads.
> 
> I mean, I am stable now under any game (Metro and ghostrunner included) and shifting loads as well but I'm a little sketched by the temps. As I said before it hit 71-76c across the cores in some games's loading screens like Division (1) and Battlefield 5 especially. Mostly because the fans don't react fast enough to clear the spike and secondly because it draws 244-260w at those points... Max temp in Prime95 Small FFT, even with AVX, is 88-91c @335-340w, so it should never "really" overheat but still. Is this acceptable?
> Normal in-game temps are low to mid 60's.


The max. current at 9900k was 191A, by 10900k it musst be arround 240A, Apex set it at 245A, so be careful.
The short high load you have in much new game´s i think perhap´s from decompress file´s.


----------



## Imprezzion

256A in the MSI Ace BIOS but yes. I see the point.


----------



## Falkentyne

Astral85 said:


> So my understanding is Internal Parity errors are a "bug" in the Skylake/Comet Lake architecture that _certain_ applications/games can expose. I believe the bug scales with higher core/thread count (more predominant on the 10900K). Shouldn't we therefore dismiss these apps/games that expose a "bug" as tests of true stability? If I understand correctly even piling on a heap of Vcore will not prevent these errors in the games that expose this bug.


Piling on enough vcore (sometimes combined with reducing cache ratio at the exact same time) will stop the Internal Parity Error.
Another thing that definitely helps sometimes is using LLC8 / Ultra Extreme / Mode 1 LLC (which no one wants to do). But this comes at the cost of having a much larger chance of CPU L0 errors, or clock watchdog timeouts.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I'm testing some temps limits...

"Maximum CPU core temperature=75C"
"Package temperature threshold=65C"

And I started to have cache errors...

I realized when CPU clock is limited by temperature, maximum cache frequency need to be reduced to be stable...

If I do not set any temp limit, I can run [email protected]

Applying temp limits, I need to reduce maximum cache frequency to 46x.

By the way, Maximus XII BIOS 2201 is really worse than 2103. I gave up last bios...

EDITED: I'm going to try 2201 one more time... LOL. I'll adjust all again and see If I get stable.


----------



## unclewebb

RobertoSampaio said:


> maximum cache frequency need to be reduced


This is the purpose of the Ring Down Bin feature. When Ring Down Bin is enabled, the CPU cache is always kept 300 MHz below the CPU core speed. If the core slows down, the cache will automatically slow down too. Leaving Ring Down Bin enabled can solve a lot of stability issues. 

When Ring Down Bin is not enabled, the core and cache can end up running at the same speed. You will need a huge amount of extra voltage to get this stable. 

The Intel CPU package temperature includes data from all of the individual cores. If one of the cores hits 75°C then the reported package temperature should be at least 75°C. If the core temperature is ever reported higher than the package temperature, that is a problem with the monitoring software.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

unclewebb said:


> This is the purpose of the Ring Down Bin feature. When Ring Down Bin is enabled, the CPU cache is always kept 300 MHz below the CPU core speed. If the core slows down, the cache will automatically slow down too. Leaving Ring Down Bin enabled can solve a lot of stability issues.
> 
> When Ring Down Bin is not enabled, the core and cache can end up running at the same speed. You will need a huge amount of extra voltage to get this stable.
> 
> The Intel CPU package temperature includes data from all of the individual cores. If one of the cores hits 75°C then the reported package temperature should be at least 75°C. If the core temperature is ever reported higher than the package temperature, that is a problem with the monitoring software.


Ring Down Bin is enabled, keeping the 300MHz delta... I think I'm playing at the edge of stability, that's why I'm having errors. 
I'm testing 2201 again with adaptive plus 5mv, and so far so good...


----------



## Falkentyne

RobertoSampaio said:


> I'm testing some temps limits...
> 
> "Maximum CPU core temperature=75C"
> "Package temperature threshold=65C"
> 
> And I started to have cache errors...
> 
> I realized when CPU clock is limited by temperature, maximum cache frequency need to be reduced to be stable...
> 
> If I do not set any temp limit, I can run [email protected]
> 
> Applying temp limits, I need to reduce maximum cache frequency to 46x.
> 
> By the way, Maximus XII BIOS 2201 is really worse than 2103. I gave up last bios...
> 
> EDITED: I'm going to try 2201 one more time... LOL. I'll adjust all again and see If I get stable.


Setting temperature limits causes throttling. Throttling causes transient voltage events if at sustained load, which can generate errors if you are already skirting at borderline stability.
You can instantly BSOD your computer by using Throttlestop or TurboVcore to change the CPU clock ratio back and forth while Prime95 is running as the transients from the PLL stopping and restarting will be extremely violent (far more violent than LLC8 loadline).


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Falkentyne said:


> Setting temperature limits causes throttling. Throttling causes transient voltage events if at sustained load, which can generate errors if you are already skirting at borderline stability.
> You can instantly BSOD your computer by using Throttlestop or TurboVcore to change the CPU clock ratio back and forth while Prime95 is running as the transients from the PLL stopping and restarting will be extremely violent (far more violent than LLC8 loadline).


It's exactly that, you are right at the point... The throttling at borderline.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I'm back to BIOS 2103...
No way to get stable with 2201.

But there is a weird thing happening:

I saved my bios config as a CMO file and loaded it.
The system is unstable...

But if I set the same configuration manually, the system is stable.

We really could trust this CMO files?
What is the problem with the CMO file?

EDITED: One thing I realized was that fan curves are not correct saved into CMO...


----------



## GeneO

I presume you cleared cmos after flashing 2103.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> I presume you cleared cmos after flashing 2103.


Before (I dont like to flash overclocked) and after flashing.

EDITED:
Any way, I think a flashing BIOS procedure should erase all data, independent of an action of clearing cmos.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

The temp limit instability is caused by "Maximum CPU core temperature" not by "Package temperature threshold".

I did some tests and the conclusion is if the temp limit down throttle all cores together there is no problem... But if the down throttle occurs in individual cores, I have bsod, freeze or errors.


----------



## Astral85

Falkentyne said:


> Piling on enough vcore (sometimes combined with reducing cache ratio at the exact same time) will stop the Internal Parity Error.
> Another thing that definitely helps sometimes is using LLC8 / Ultra Extreme / Mode 1 LLC (which no one wants to do). But this comes at the cost of having a much larger chance of CPU L0 errors, or clock watchdog timeouts.


If the game/s that expose these parity errors aren't crashing but logging WHEA errors should we be concerned about that? Can we ignore the errors or should we try to overcome them? Are parity errors damaging to the CPU or OS?


----------



## acoustic

Astral85 said:


> If the game/s that expose these parity errors aren't crashing but logging WHEA errors should we be concerned about that? Can we ignore the errors or should we try to overcome them? Are parity errors damaging to the CPU or OS?


I felt that any WHEA error logging was unacceptable, which is why I was essentially forced to put my 10900K back to stock turbo boost with cache set manually to x48. I'm running Auto voltage which gives me 1.32v under load. In order to run 5Ghz all-core or 5.1, I had to push 1.4v+.

My reasoning behind the "No WHEA error is allowable" is because I don't want to be on a wild goose chase when I change a different component down the line, or maybe push my RAM OC, and suddenly I get a crash and have no idea what exactly caused it. I like being confident in my systems stability.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Do you think I could have instabilities after update chipset drivers?


----------



## Intrud3r

Just my 2 cents, but temp throttleling causing instability / chipset driver update causing instability ... maybe you are asking too much of your cpu ? 56x7 etc? doubt that is stable, but that's just my humble opinion ...


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Impressive, no?
Now I'm trying 57x6, but I think it will be not possible...


----------



## Intrud3r

Honestly ... not really, as I highly doubt it is stable at 56x7 etc .... but don't mind me .... be happy with your own settings if it runs what you want .... I'll keep my 10900KF at 5.1 and be happy ...


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Any way I'm testing different chipsets trying to identify if it could affect stability.
My preferred game is the OC...
Ops, I like to play planetside2, too... LOL.
And I think 51x all cores is the best configuration, no doubt about.


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> The temp limit instability is caused by "Maximum CPU core temperature" not by "Package temperature threshold".
> 
> I did some tests and the conclusion is if the temp limit down throttle all cores together there is no problem... But if the down throttle occurs in individual cores, I have bsod, freeze or errors.


You have higher frequencies on those fewer cores right? If so they are not stable.

Also, fewer cores run at lower temperature. If you have TVB voltage optimizations enabled you may hit lower voltages.


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> Do you think I could have instabilities after update chipset drivers?


No.


----------



## Imprezzion

Technically it's possible but the odds are very small lol.

I dropped down from 5.2/4.7 @ 1.380v (above the voltage wall for my chip) to a more reasonable 5.1/4.7 @ 1.270v and so far it's been solid all day. 

I did it mostly for temps. At 5.2 even direct die + water it would hit 76c during game loading / Shafer building which I don't like.

Now it runs the same loads at 63c.. 110mv less makes a huge difference. 

Only thing I'm not so sure of is whether the cache at 47 is still stable at 1.270v. Gotta test that some more. It did pass the "load Metro Exodus 10 times without WHEA" test hehe.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I think you can run 50/47 at 1.20v...
Test and tell us...


----------



## PhoenixMDA

For 24/7 is 5 or 5,1ghz a good choice with ramoc you have good performance with low wattage, in almost all cases you have the same FPS.
As example i need prime 12k nonavx 5,1Ghz 190W, 5,2Ghz 230W , 5,3Ghz arround 245W 5,4Ghz arround 270W.

If you have games like BF5 you have much lower temp/watt.


----------



## Imprezzion

RobertoSampaio said:


> I think you can run 50/47 at 1.20v...
> Test and tell us...


1.22v. 1.21v runs full load but only on static voltage. Idle / shifting load crashes at 1.21 or less and cache can't do 47. 46 maybe. I ran 45.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Imprezzion said:


> 1.22v. 1.21v runs full load but only on static voltage. Idle / shifting load crashes at 1.21 or less and


I can run 47x cache at 1.19v full load, but can't run 48x idle...


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> No.


Hi @GeneO,

I can't explain why, but running chipset version 10.1.18716.8265 I don't have WHEA.
Running 10.1.18807.8279 I have errors at idle...
I'll do more tests to be sure, but I think the new chipset doesn't like my OCing.... LOL


----------



## schoolofmonkey

I updated to the latest BIOS on my XII Hero .
I reentered my previous 5.1Ghz/4.5Ghz cache OC settings, ran fine for a few days then got a WHEA Parity error, which I wasn't getting on the previous BIOS.
I'm pretty sure I was playing Founders' Fortune, I saw it when I opened HWinfo, it was from 2 day prior.

So I thought I'd give Asus AI overclock a whirl, but I did set the cache to back to 4.5Ghz, been running perfectly until yesterday, where I woke up and saw another parity error, that happen at 8:40pm, I was playing Founders' Fortune until 11pm, went to bed without noticing until this morning.

Now I was able to get parity errors with Minecraft (well known) and Valheim in the past, so I don't know if it's something to do with changes to Unity that are causing them with new Indie games.

I did set my cache back to Auto letting AI do its thing to see if it happens again.
I'm well aware of the higher voltages with using AI overclock, it does hit 1.45v when you get a 2 core 5.4Ghz spike on low loads, temps are perfectly fine around 80c with extreme loads, but it is mainly a gaming/light use PC.

I can stress test the snot out of the machine with the 5.1Ghz OC and it'll pass perfectly fine using all the key stress tests..


----------



## RobertoSampaio

You may not believe it...
But it's stable again... LOL

_BIOS 2103
56x7 - 55x8 - 54x9 - 53x10 
+2Boost OCTVB profile 
VMaxStress=enabled
VoltageOptimization=enabled
[email protected] - [email protected] 
LLC#[email protected] - [email protected]
[email protected]~47x - Full Load: [email protected],243mv 
[email protected],533mv 
Package temperature threshold=65C _

Now trying to understand how this "Package temperature threshold" works, because it allows temps over 65 for few seconds, and after that it reduces frequency to 48x~50x.

Running chipset version 10.1.18716.8265 I don't have errors.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

RobertoSampaio said:


> Running chipset version 10.1.18716.8265 I don't have errors.


I've just installed the same driver after reading your post, will see how it goes.


----------



## GeneO

The chipset drivers aren't really "drivers" - there is no code associated with them. They basically describe the Intel hardware to the OS. It is hard to imagine even actual drivers influencing hardware stability. I am not saying it isn't possible, but I am very skeptical.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> The chipset drivers aren't really "drivers" - there is no code associated with them. They basically describe the Intel hardware to the OS. It is hard to imagine even actual drivers influencing hardware stability. I am not saying it isn't possible, but I am very skeptical.


I understand you, and are skeptical too... But the only thing I did was return the old chipset.
Next thing I'll try is run bios 2201 again and test stability... 
And I don't trust Asus CMO files anymore.


----------



## fray_bentos

RobertoSampaio said:


> You may not believe it...
> But it's stable again... LOL


Sure it is... Come back in a few weeks once you've had it stable with no crashes or WHEAs and you've left the settings the same the whole time. Oh, and along with that, maybe some evidence showing that you are really hitting clocks of X GHz on n number of cores, Y GHz on n' number of cores etc. In short, you certainly aren't "stable", unless you are calling stability as "12 hours with no setting change/errors, whilst simultaneously not hitting the clocks specified in bios".


----------



## robalm

Man you guys have some insane chips.
I have tested 3 i9 10900k/f, non of them pass realbench 5ghz @1.25v load (WHEA or bsod).
Sp 63, 74 and 88.


----------



## acoustic

robalm said:


> Man you guys have some insane chips.
> I have tested 3 i9 10900k/f, non of them pass realbench 5ghz @1.25v load (WHEA or bsod).
> Sp 63, 74 and 88.


Don't believe everything you see.


----------



## robalm

acoustic said:


> Don't believe everything you see.


Maybe thats why i see all this talk about WHEA in games.


----------



## Intrud3r

My system is running 24/7 ... only reboot for updates and stuff like that .... 10900KF running at ~1.235V (cinebench load) at 5.1 / 4.3. LLC = medium and have a vf-offset of +50mv now.

No issues whatsoever ... I already know I've got a somewhat above average chip but happy with 5.1.

Sadly no SP rating as I'm using my gigglebyte auros master.


----------



## Spin Cykle

robalm said:


> Man you guys have some insane chips.
> I have tested 3 i9 10900k/f, non of them pass realbench 5ghz @1.25v load (WHEA or bsod).
> Sp 63, 74 and 88.


Tell me about it. I’ve tested 4 and my best was RB stable st 52 core 48 cache @1.35v on my Dark Kingpin. Two couldn’t even pass RB at 52/48 at all… 51/47 was the max under 1.4v. And the last chip was 20-30mv worse than the middle two chips. I clearly have terrible luck. And firmly believe 10th gen chips earlier in the production cycle are much, much better. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Imprezzion

I have tested / binned 4 of them, 3 KF's and one KA. The chips other then mine are all from builds I've done for friends and colleagues do obviously I tested the OC's on all of them hehe.

The KA is by far the best, on a Z490 Strix-E it reads as SP94 and it does 5.3 all core / 4.9 cache @ 1.390v delidded + re-lidded with CLU + NH-D15 Chromax Black. Also runs 2x16GB Patriot Viper 4400C19 on XMP timings with 1.20v IO 1.25v SA which is nice for 4400.

The other 3 KF's.. no SP's as they didn't go on a ASUS board, but 2 are absolutely horrible and cannot do 5.1 all core at any acceptable voltage, my own is somewhat decent. Should be around SP80 ish. 5.3 @ 1.42v 5.1 @ 1.27v but cache and IMC are terrible. Cache cannot do 48 at any voltage under 1.40 and IMC cuts out at 4400 with 1.25v IO 1.35v SA, 4500 cannot run regardless of voltages.


----------



## robalm

What vcore (in load) do you guys need in realbech?
I need about 1.26v (load) @5GHZ.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

robalm said:


> What vcore (in load) do you guys need in realbech?
> I need about 1.26v (load) @5GHZ.


Full load 
1.19v @ 5GHz.
1.25v @ 5.1GHz
1.30v @ 5.2GHz


----------



## Intrud3r

Mine needs around 1.235V as I mentioned earlier @ 5.1 / 4.3


----------



## robalm

Wow thats great.
But i think you guys read your vcore from die sense?
My motherboard don't have that option.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

29°room 32°H2O


----------



## Imprezzion

robalm said:


> Wow thats great.
> But i think you guys read your vcore from die sense?
> My motherboard don't have that option.


Yeah, VCC Sense for the "CPU VCore" and VR VOut sensor from the controller for die sense on the MSI. It also has DMM readout points and those values match pretty well with VR VOut.

If I mention a voltage here it's always VR VOut. VCC Sense is always slightly higher then VR VOut (1.270v VR VOut is ~1.282v VCC Sense)


----------



## GeneO

Spin Cykle said:


> I clearly have terrible luck. And firmly believe 10th gen chips earlier in the production cycle are much, much better.


quoted for truth


----------



## GeneO

robalm said:


> What vcore (in load) do you guys need in realbech?
> I need about 1.26v (load) @5GHZ.


!.288v @ 51/46
1.245v @ 50/46

both with Vccsa of 1.2v 

A later KF chip.


----------



## fray_bentos

robalm said:


> What vcore (in load) do you guys need in realbech?
> I need about 1.26v (load) @5GHZ.


1.312 V (VCC Sense) @ 52/49 (HT enabled)
1.316 V (VCC Sense) @ 53/49 (HT disabled)

My entry-level Z490 doesn't report VRout, but based on @Imprezzion's numbers, above you should be able to shave ~0.01 V off those to get VRout equivalent voltages so ~1.30 V.

I don't have profiles with optimised/known stable voltages for any lower clock speeds. Looking at the numbers above, it does look like I struck lucky with my used KF from eBay (original purchase from Amazon UK Feb 2021). I bought it from someone who said they bought it "as an experiment" as they were normally a Mac user (I presume they couldn't buy a GPU for a reasonable price and instead sold off the entire PC in parts over multiple listings). Being a Mac user, I also believed their statement that they hadn't attempted any sort of overclocking before I did; if they had, they might not have sold it!


----------



## GeneO

Yeah, I need in excess of 1.36v Vcore at load for 5.2 GHz. Even with HT disabled, too much.


----------



## Nizzen

GeneO said:


> Do you hav
> 
> quoted for truth


That's the truth for me too. My best 10900k samples was very early. 2x SP 63 was actuallly VERY good. 5.4Ghz CB 20 @ ~1.32v Load, and the best SP87 from one of the first batches did 5.6ghz CB 20 with 1.42v load.

Bought one KA and one KF a few months ago. Worst chips in the world LOL.


----------



## Imprezzion

Can the batch number tell what the production date is? My KF is this:


----------



## PhoenixMDA

You have the same week,
i was unlucky with 2 Chip´s and have bought this one from hwl, was tested with aoi cb20 5,[email protected],296V Hero XII without whea,
was easier as select at own.It´s one of the chip´s scale good with temp, at 18°H2O is delided CB20 5,[email protected],208V possible in a lucky run.
SoldierRBT has a nearly a same one, but better IMC.
But i gives better chips









Ever i have bought late a chip i was unlucky.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Testing BIOS 2201 again with the old drivers.




















EDITED:
Its is impossible to use the same configuration of 2103 in 2201...


----------



## fray_bentos

Imprezzion said:


> Can the batch number tell what the production date is? My KF is this:


Just checked mine: X048L199
Purchase date end Feb 2021, but on the Intel Warranty Checker it says expiration: April 14, 2024.
I guess Intel give a shelf-life/shipping grace period on the 3-year warranty.
Both your KF and Phoenix's say: November 27, 2023

Hence, mine's a relatively new chip, and a good one.


----------



## Intrud3r

Mine for comparison, have no idea from when it is, you guyz can figure that out


----------



## fray_bentos

Intrud3r said:


> Mine for comparison, have no idea from when it is, you guyz can figure that out
> 
> View attachment 2517739


https://supporttickets.intel.com/warrantyinfo


----------



## Intrud3r

My timing is perfect as always -->


----------



## fray_bentos

Intrud3r said:


> My timing is perfect as always -->
> 
> View attachment 2517744


It worked though: 10th Jan 2024, site not down for another few hours.


----------



## Intrud3r

Ah you meant that .... but I was curious when mine was made ... for comparison. I don't need to know what Intel shows me for warrenty as I can always knock on the door of my local reseller for warrenty.


----------



## fray_bentos

Intrud3r said:


> Ah you meant that .... but I was curious when mine was made ... for comparison. I don't need to know what Intel shows me for warrenty as I can always knock on the door of my local reseller for warrenty.


The warranty is 3 years + ~2 months after manufacture, so count back from there, so looks like end of 2020 for you. Your local retailer will provide 3 years warranty? Unlikely.


----------



## robalm

A question regarding IA Domain Loadline AC / DC.
Auto SVID gives me 0.900 / 0.900 mOhm (hwinfo).
Typical scenario SVID gives me 0.600 / 0.600 mOhm.

Typical scenario with all the rest settings stock in bios is a little low, can I change only AC / DC 0.600 / 0.600 mOhm to say 0.700 / 0.700 mOhm without making any other changes in bios?
I want to run stock, as 5ghz requires too much vcore.
So I was wondering if I could just tinker with AC / DC to bring down stock vcore.
Since I do not want to run manual vcore, and adaptive I have not managed to put as I lack die sense montior on my motherboard.


----------



## fray_bentos

robalm said:


> A question regarding IA Domain Loadline AC / DC.
> Auto SVID gives me 0.900 / 0.900 mOhm (hwinfo).
> Typical scenario SVID gives me 0.600 / 0.600 mOhm.
> 
> Typical scenario with all the rest settings stock in bios is a little low, can I change only AC / DC 0.600 / 0.600 mOhm to say 0.700 / 0.700 mOhm without making any other changes in bios?
> I want to run stock, as 5ghz requires too much vcore.
> So I was wondering if I could just tinker with AC / DC to bring down stock vcore.
> Since I do not want to run manual vcore, and adaptive I have not managed to put as I lack die sense montior on my motherboard.


As soon as you tinker with it, it is no longer "stock"; in principle changing AC / DC is little different from specifying a manual adaptive Vcore or LLC setting. It reminds me a bit of people in the deep south of the US who allow things to be inserted in the "wrong" hole, yet believe that they arbitrarily retain their "purity" because the "correct" hole wasn't used. Abitrary. Indeed, one can even question the meaning of "stock" these days when the default settings on different motherboards set different voltages.

If too much voltage is being set, then reduce the Vcore using offsetting, or try and go for a less aggressive LLC and see if stable. You can change AC / DC if you like, though this may be more complicated than the basic adjustment of Vcore and/or LLC. I also don't have die sense on my motherboard. VCC Sense over-reports voltages; just subtract ~0.01 V in your head from what you see reported = rough die sense voltage. You can easily see if things are pushed too far from the temperatures and power reports you see. You can also specify your preferred power limits in your bios for extra safety.


----------



## Imprezzion

Lovely analogy haha.. 

But yeah, stock to me means CMOS reset and don't touch anything except maybe boot order or whatever. And I'm well aware that is totally different per manufacturer or even board model with multicore enhancement being on by default sometimes and such so I agree with you there as well, what is "stock" when everyone does it differently.

Btw, I got a CPU score in Time Spy of 15737 on 5.1/4.7 with 4400C17 RAM. Max core temps 65-68c across all 10. Does that sound about right score wise?


----------



## fray_bentos

Imprezzion said:


> Lovely analogy haha..
> 
> But yeah, stock to me means CMOS reset and don't touch anything except maybe boot order or whatever. And I'm well aware that is totally different per manufacturer or even board model with multicore enhancement being on by default sometimes and such so I agree with you there as well, what is "stock" when everyone does it differently.
> 
> Btw, I got a CPU score in Time Spy of 15737 on 5.1/4.7 with 4400C17 RAM. Max core temps 65-68c across all 10. Does that sound about right score wise?


I think LLC settings differ from manufacturer to manufacturer too.

In TimeSpy I get a CPU score of 15665 @ 52/49 with 4200 CL16 RAM, so I'd say that looks good. Though I am powerlimited at 250 W (which I set in BIOS).


----------



## robalm

Thanks guys.
Ye by stock i mean: 
xmp 1 
Multicore enhancement - Disable (enforce all limits)


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Stock for Intel = a conservative config (hot and over volt) to ensure it will run in any poor MB.

Stock for MB vendor = a conservative config (hot and over volt) to ensure it will run in any poor CPU.

XPM = a conservative config (hot and over volt) to ensure it will run in any poor MB and CPU.


----------



## Astral85

Is anyone familiar with AIDA 64 system stability test? How long should it be run for? Does it show errors depending on what's being tested or simply BSOD?


----------



## fray_bentos

Astral85 said:


> Is anyone familiar with AIDA 64 system stability test? How long should it be run for? Does it show errors depending on what's being tested or simply BSOD?


AFAIK, it's very poor at detecting instability, except in the most unstable configurations. Gaming seems to be best stability test these days.


----------



## Thanh Nguyen

robalm said:


> What vcore (in load) do you guys need in realbech?
> I need about 1.26v (load) @5GHZ.


1.15v llc6 in bios and 1.08v load for 5/4.6 I believe. Sp104.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I realized there is a relationship between V/F#8 and Adaptive voltage I can't explain yet...

I used to think If the voltage of V/F#8 was higher than adaptive, the VID for the maximum frequency would use V/F#8...
As well, If adaptive voltage was higher than V/F#8 the VID would use Adaptive for the maximum frequency...

I was wrong!
I'll try to explain...

Simplifying, setting (adaptive = V/F#8+offset), VID will use that number you set, as both are the same (forget for now temp, voltage optimization, AC_LL, DC_LL, etc... I did not touch they, so we could consider them as a variable that not change in the test).

But if I reduce V/F#8 or adaptive, keeping the other, the resulting VID decreases. 
There is an interaction between than.

Has anyone noticed this?


----------



## Astral85

So I got a Fatal Error crash in Ghost Runner with NO WHEA errors and the GPU non overclocked. What does that mean?


----------



## cstkl1

rog..


----------



## cstkl1

Astral85 said:


> So I got a Fatal Error crash in Ghost Runner with NO WHEA errors and the GPU non overclocked. What does that mean?


thats what i meant for months..even if u solve the l0.. u can get game crashes that wont trigger whea.

btw disable dx12 and RT on that game if ure on 10900k..


----------



## GeneO

Astral85 said:


> So I got a Fatal Error crash in Ghost Runner with NO WHEA errors and the GPU non overclocked. What does that mean?


WHEA are corrected errors. Eventually you will hit one that can't be corrected. Or it is some other instability. What are the details of the error (what did it say on the monitor or in the event log)?


----------



## Salve1412

Astral85 said:


> So I got a Fatal Error crash in Ghost Runner with NO WHEA errors and the GPU non overclocked. What does that mean?


It happens to me too in my overclocked system: it's either fatal errors or (more frequently in my case) Parity Errors.

By the way, the solution Falkentyne suggested for Minecraft (setting affinity from Task Manager with less threads assigned to the related .exe) seems to work for Ghostrunner too. If I allocate no more than 3 physical cores (for a total of 6 threads) to the process named "Ghostrunner-Win64-Shipping.exe" (not the main executable, the other one basically), I don't get fatal errors or parity errors anymore with DX12 RT Enabled, at least in the infamous third level. As soon as I increase the number of threads/cores errors begin to reappear. What is interesting is that the number of physical cores must not exceed 3 (assuming that I'm correct in identifying them with the even CPUs, 0 2, etc. in Task Manager, the odd ones being the correspondent logical cores): if for example I assign 6 physical cores to the process, resulting again in 6 threads assigned to the process, the game has still issues, even though they occur less frequently.

Of course a simpler solution is to disable RT, as cstkl1 suggested.


----------



## robalm

Thanh Nguyen said:


> 1.15v llc6 in bios and 1.08v load for 5/4.6 I believe. Sp104.


Thats crazy, do you have a screenshot?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Here is a very good explanation of VRM power phase control and frequency...


----------



## Astral85

Hi Guys, Just wanted to share a couple of pics of my build with my new Vector Strix RTX 3080 that I've had a couple of weeks now.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Has anyone played with this BIOS parameter?

"Synch ACDC Loadline with VRM Loadline"

I think the description is inverted.
I think, in fact, it syncs the VRM Loadline with ACDC loadline...

EDITED.:

I found out how it works. The description is correct, but AC/DC_LL shall be in auto.


----------



## GeneO

@Astral85 

Fantastic looking rig! And congrats on the card.


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> Has anyone played with this BIOS parameter?
> 
> "Synch ACDC Loadline with VRM Loadline"
> 
> I think the description is inverted.
> I think, in fact, it syncs the VRM Loadline with ACDC loadline...
> 
> EDITED.:
> 
> I found out how it works. The description is correct, but AC/DC_LL shall be in auto.


What would be useful is to sync DCLL to VRM Lloadline.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> What would be useful is to sync DCLL to VRM Lloadline.


Yes! 

And this is a good way to find out the LLC impedance in MB that doesn't have Die-Sense to tune VID=VCore.

Set AC/DC load line in AUTO and "Synch AC/DC Loadline with VRM Loadline" = enable" 

After that you go to HW-Info and look to AC/DC...


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> Yes!
> 
> And this is a good way to find out the LLC impedance in MB that doesn't have Die-Sense to tune VID=VCore.
> 
> Set AC/DC load line in AUTO and "Synch AC/DC Loadline with VRM Loadline" = enable"
> 
> After that you go to HW-Info and look to AC/DC...


True. But, if I understand it correctly. that would run some pretty high ACLL for anything but LLC6 wouldn't it?

What I did to estimate it (custom HWINFO value) was to take the running average of (AVG VID across cores - Vcore)/(CPU Current) with ACLL=.01, then fine tune it so that reported CPU Power = reported Power from EC. I got best fits of LLC5 = 0.79 mohm and LLC4 = 1.11 mohm


----------



## robalm

RobertoSampaio said:


> Yes!
> 
> And this is a good way to find out the LLC impedance in MB that doesn't have Die-Sense to tune VID=VCore.
> 
> Set AC/DC load line in AUTO and "Synch AC/DC Loadline with VRM Loadline" = enable"
> 
> After that you go to HW-Info and look to AC/DC...


I asked you this in PM before but you say i should not enable it.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

robalm said:


> I asked you this in PM before but you say i should not enable it.


I was trying to understand how it works... the problem is that it set AC and DC with the same value of LLC... And it's not the best way to tune AC_LL.

Even DC_LL need some adjust to make VID=VCore under load.

This option when enabled set AC_LL=DC_LL=LLC (all in milliohm), and theoretically you must have VID=VCore and no droop... 
It is a little different in real world, but a good start point.

Besides that, droop is good when you're tuning high frequencies and light loads.

I kept it disabled.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> True. But, if I understand it correctly. that would run some pretty high ACLL for anything but LLC6 wouldn't it?
> 
> What I did to estimate it (custom HWINFO value) was to take the running average of (AVG VID across cores - Vcore)/(CPU Current) with ACLL=.01, then fine tune it so that reported CPU Power = reported Power from EC. I got best fits of LLC5 = 0.79 mohm and LLC4 = 1.11 mohm


These were "exactly" the numbers I found...
LLC#4 = 1.12
LLC#5 = 0.8


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> These were "exactly" the numbers I found...
> LLC#4 = 1.12
> LLC#5 = 0.8


The difference is 2mv or 0.4W at 200A. LOL.


----------



## GeneO

robalm said:


> I asked you this in PM before but you say i should not enable it.


It can lead to very high voltages if you are not careful. You would have to adjust your VF curve voltage points quite a bit downwards from their default to compensate.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> It can lead to very high voltages if you are not careful. You would have to adjust your VF curve voltage points quite a bit downwards from their default to compensate.


I don't know if all MB vendor have "VMax Stress" option, but I think in stock it should be enabled as default.

This option allows me to get 56x...

I set adaptive ~1540mv and let this knob cut the voltage and frequency to safe values.

If VMax Stress feel that VID will > 1500mv it reduces the frequency... So 56x only runs in determinate conditions of load and temp.

Another trick I found was set (AC_LL) = ~(DC_LL / 2)
So I use DC_LL = 1,12 and AC_LL = 0.5


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> Another trick I found was set (AC_LL) = ~(DC_LL / 2)
> So I use DC_LL = 1,12 and AC_LL = 0.5


I think what you mean to say is you set your ACLL = LLC/2, that is what counts.
This may work for you, but I think that is specific to your chip and what your VF curve is or is adjusted to. I run LLC5 so my DCLL is 0.8 and my ACLL is .16, and my VF curve has minimal adjustments. If I set ACLL = .4, I would have to adust a lot of my VF points down (I already have negative points as is). It is pretty much just a matter of preference, since once you get it adjusted for minimum required for stability, you'll be sending the same VIDs to the VRM.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> I think what you mean to say is you set your ACLL = LLC/2, that is what counts.
> This may work for you, but I think that is specific to your chip and what your VF curve is or is adjusted to. I run LLC5 so my DCLL is 0.8 and my ACLL is .16, and my VF curve has minimal adjustments. If I set ACLL = .4, I would have to adust a lot of my VF points down (I already have negative points as is). It is pretty much just a matter of preference, since once you get it adjusted for minimum required for stability, you'll be sending the same VIDs to the VRM.


You are right, it's not a rule, and depends of a lot of other things.

If I use LLC5 I need less AC_LL or need to decrease voltage in VF points... But can't hit 56x...


----------



## Imprezzion

MSI BIOS does not have vmax stress unfortunately.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Imprezzion said:


> MSI BIOS does not have vmax stress unfortunately.


VMax Stress make magic... LOL
You can set 1600mv and 6GHz and CPU will hit maximum possible frequency keeping below 1500mv.















MCE explanations and others


MCE IÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢m seeing quite a lot of misunderstanding the workings of MCE so IÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢m partly writing this to address it. It is not the taboo that it has been made up to become. There are 3 options for it, namely Auto, enabled and disabled. Enabled merely maxes out...



rog.asus.com


----------



## Astral85

cstkl1 said:


> thats what i meant for months..even if u solve the l0.. u can get game crashes that wont trigger whea.
> 
> btw disable dx12 and RT on that game if ure on 10900k..


Is it something in DX12 or RT that trigger these crashes?


----------



## Astral85

GeneO said:


> WHEA are corrected errors. Eventually you will hit one that can't be corrected. Or it is some other instability. What are the details of the error (what did it say on the monitor or in the event log)?


Hi Geneo, the fatal error is generated by the game, it's not a Windows error.


----------



## Astral85

Salve1412 said:


> It happens to me too in my overclocked system: it's either fatal errors or (more frequently in my case) Parity Errors.
> 
> By the way, the solution Falkentyne suggested for Minecraft (setting affinity from Task Manager with less threads assigned to the related .exe) seems to work for Ghostrunner too. If I allocate no more than 3 physical cores (for a total of 6 threads) to the process named "Ghostrunner-Win64-Shipping.exe" (not the main executable, the other one basically), I don't get fatal errors or parity errors anymore with DX12 RT Enabled, at least in the infamous third level. As soon as I increase the number of threads/cores errors begin to reappear. What is interesting is that the number of physical cores must not exceed 3 (assuming that I'm correct in identifying them with the even CPUs, 0 2, etc. in Task Manager, the odd ones being the correspondent logical cores): if for example I assign 6 physical cores to the process, resulting again in 6 threads assigned to the process, the game has still issues, even though they occur less frequently.
> 
> Of course a simpler solution is to disable RT, as cstkl1 suggested.


Can you show me what that should look like in Task Manager? I disabled a bunch of cores/threads on the game .exe and dropped almost 30 fps...


----------



## fray_bentos

Astral85 said:


> Hi Geneo, the fatal error is generated by the game, it's not a Windows error.


Yes, the error was not corrected by windows (otherwise there would be a WHEA report catching/correcting the error), the error then passes onto the game and crashes it.



Astral85 said:


> Can you show me what that should look like in Task Manager? I disabled a bunch of cores/threads on the game .exe and dropped almost 30 fps...


Set affinity: Task manager, details tab, right click on game.exe, set affinity, tick/untick as prefered (odd numbers should be logical i.e. hyperthreaded "cores", and even ones should be the physical ones).


----------



## Astral85

fray_bentos said:


> Yes, the error was not corrected by windows (otherwise there would be a WHEA report catching/correcting the error), the error then passes onto the game and crashes it.
> 
> 
> 
> Set affinity: Task manager, details tab, right click on game.exe, set affinity, tick/untick as prefered (odd numbers should be logical i.e. hyperthreaded "cores", and even ones should be the physical ones).


Is CPU 0-9 the physical cores and CPU 10-19 the Hyperthreads?


----------



## Salve1412

fray_bentos said:


> Set affinity: Task manager, details tab, right click on game.exe, set affinity, tick/untick as prefered (odd numbers should be logical i.e. hyperthreaded "cores", and even ones should be the physical ones).


Precisely.



Astral85 said:


> Can you show me what that should look like in Task Manager? I disabled a bunch of cores/threads on the game .exe and dropped almost 30 fps...


Weird, I don't drop fps even with only 6 threads assigned (5.3MHz Core clock Cache 4800MHz). I get <60 fps in the fifth level, but that is regardless of the number of cores allocated to the game. However I can PM you a video on how I set affinity in Task Manager.



Astral85 said:


> Is CPU 0-9 the physical cores and CPU 10-19 the Hyperthreads?


Even cores should be the physical ones, odd cores the logical.


----------



## Astral85

Salve1412 said:


> Precisely.
> 
> 
> Weird, I don't drop fps even with only 6 threads assigned (5.3MHz Core clock Cache 4800MHz). I get <60 fps in the fifth level, but that is regardless of the number of cores allocated to the game. However I can PM you a video on how I set affinity in Task Manager.
> 
> 
> Even cores should be the physical ones, odd cores the logical.


I'm playing at 3440x1440 100 fps... Maybe I disabled too many physical cores. I won't say no to a video...

So is it the hyperthreading that causes the WHEA errors in Ghostrunner in DX12?


----------



## Astral85

Does anyone know what settings affect the L2 cache bandwidth? When I run BIOS defaults I get around 1K gb/s L2 cache speed in AIDA. With my manual settings I drop down to around 700 gb/s L2 cache and I cannot figure what causes this.


----------



## fray_bentos

Astral85 said:


> Is CPU 0-9 the physical cores and CPU 10-19 the Hyperthreads?


As stated, even numbers should be physical (0, 2, 4, 6 etc), odd should be hyperthreads (1, 3, 5, 7 etc).
"(odd numbers should be logical i.e. hyperthreaded "cores", and even ones should be the physical ones)."

Edit: I now see @Salve1412 already responded.


----------



## fray_bentos

Astral85 said:


> Is CPU 0-9 the physical cores and CPU 10-19 the Hyperthreads?





Astral85 said:


> Can you show me what that should look like in Task Manager? I disabled a bunch of cores/threads on the game .exe and dropped almost 30 fps...





Salve1412 said:


> Weird, I don't drop fps even with only 6 threads assigned (5.3MHz Core clock Cache 4800MHz). I get <60 fps in the fifth level, but that is regardless of the number of cores allocated to the game. However I can PM you a video on how I set affinity in Task Manager.
> 
> Even cores should be the physical ones, odd cores the logical.





Astral85 said:


> Maybe I disabled too many physical cores.


If cores "CPU 10" to "CPU 19" were disabled then, yes, this will have disabled physical cores and caused a large performance impact.


----------



## cstkl1

Astral85 said:


> Is it something in DX12 or RT that trigger these crashes?


it happens in warzone but that will be full on bsod

ghostrunner subtle. cpu not even heavy loaded


----------



## PhoenixMDA

But that is no problem of Cometlake,it´s a problem in your configuration of HW/Bios or Settings.
It give´s enough people without any problems and that with oc.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

robalm said:


> Thats crazy, do you have a screenshot?


He has an SP104, that is like best Case Chip better as my one, such a chip scale also awesome in higher frequency,
my scaling end´s at 5,4ghz, 5,5ghz need´s more voltage as the step´s before.
SP100+ chip´s are that what everyone want to have and nobody found^^.
It give´s enough people me also who would pay for a SP100+ Chip but nobody sell such chip´s,
they are so rare like moon rooks on earth.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

PhoenixMDA said:


> SP104 is like best Case Chip better as my one, such a chip scale also awesome in higher frequency,
> my scaling end´s at 5,4ghz, 5,5ghz need´s more voltage as the step´s before.
> View attachment 2518222


I'd like to have a SP104... LOL
My SP 86 can run full load [email protected] or [email protected] 
Higher frequencies, at full load, CPU goes over 90C...
And it is able to scale, at light loads, [email protected] 
With a SP104 and a cryo cooler I think I could hit 6GHz....


----------



## PhoenixMDA

@RobertoSampaio
Cooling is so important to be stable, i can hold up to 5,4Ghz, but at 5,5ghz it tilt´s higher temps need more voltage...my chip is for that not good enough.
But at low temp´s it´s not bad at 5,[email protected],288V CB23 is possible, but 5,6Ghz allcore my chip don´t like, for an SP83 i can be more than glad.










You need a chip like that, the only one SP126 KF ...🙌


----------



## RobertoSampaio

PhoenixMDA said:


> @RobertoSampaio
> Cooling is so important to be stable, i can hold up to 5,4Ghz, but at 5,5ghz it tilt´s higher temps need more voltage...my chip is for that not good enough.
> But at low temp´s it´s not bad at 5,[email protected],288V CB23 is possible, but 5,6Ghz allcore my chip don´t like, for an SP83 i can be more than glad.
> View attachment 2518229
> 
> 
> 
> You need a chip like that, the only one SP126 KF ...🙌
> View attachment 2518230
> 
> View attachment 2518231



May I see a pic of your BIOS V/F table?
This is mime SP86...


----------



## PhoenixMDA

RobertoSampaio said:


> May I see a pic of your BIOS V/F table?
> This is mime SP86...
> 
> View attachment 2518234


My chip is really good, but also directdie with techn cooler 2xddc and 2x mora3 420.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

PhoenixMDA said:


> My chip is really good, but also directdie with techn cooler 2xddc and 2x mora3 420.
> View attachment 2518235


My problem is room temp...
Here where I live almost time I have 28C to 30C... So the water is always around 36~38C
These last days I have room temp about 23C, so water is about 30C...
I'm thinking about o cryo cooler, but I dont know if it is the best solution...
A custom loop and direct die could be better....


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Custom loop is the best option, if you want to see high frequency with low load is cyro better.
An Custom Loop means Mora 3 420 a DDC3.25 or DDC3.2 for good flow and directdie with a good cooler, like Optimus, TechN or Heatkiller.
At directdie you must be careful, the HK IV is difficult to have a good contact, the techN need´s other springs.

I can also do with 30° roomtemp 5,3-5,4ghz.But then i need for 5,4Ghz 1,27-1,28V load voltage.

P.S.
Take a look at the 5,1ghz VF point.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

PhoenixMDA said:


> Custom loop is the best option, if you want to see high frequency with low load is cyro better.
> An Custom Loop means Mora 3 420 a DDC3.25 or DDC3.2 for good flow and directdie with a good cooler, like Optimus, TechN or Heatkiller.
> At directdie you must be careful, the HK IV is difficult to have a good contact, the techN need´s other springs.
> 
> I can also do with 30° roomtemp 5,3-5,4ghz.But then i need for 5,4Ghz 1,27-1,28V load voltage.
> 
> P.S.
> Take a look at the 5,1ghz VF point.


I saw... Impressive !!!!


----------



## PhoenixMDA

That is a SP97 from snakeyes from HWL Forum, the chip is not so good as my one.
I think the 5,1ghz point with 1,259V shows the real quality in my case.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

PhoenixMDA said:


> That is a SP97 from snakeyes from HWL Forum, the chip is not so good as my one.
> I think the 5,1ghz point with 1,259V shows the real quality of my chip.
> View attachment 2518240


No doubt about this...
The 1º thing I saw was this 51X....
Mine have a good 52x (1328mv), but I can't handle the temp at 52x... So I rose VF#7 to 1400mv for the interpolation of 53x, 54x and 55x...
The 56x uses VF#8... and its not so bad... only 1428mv that I rose to 1520mv for the 56x


----------



## PhoenixMDA

A custom wakü is a good thing for a long time, my mora 2pro was 10 year´s on my side.
And if you can cooling good your system you have also stability in hot summer.Or you do nice screens like this one.

5,[email protected],137V load voltage 1h PrimeNonAVX run that was undelided with WLP and 16°H2O (delide bring´s over 10°).
with 3 whea but no crash😅


----------



## RobertoSampaio

See this...
We are lucky... LOL


----------



## PhoenixMDA

I think that is no bad chip.
Nik from HWL has selected some chip´s and one SP50 was like his SP99, under LN2 he has done arround 6.9Ghz with the SP50^^.


----------



## safedisk

*ROG MAXIMUS XII Series Beta Bios 2301 UPDATE*

1. Improve system performance
2. Some bug fixes

ROG MAXIMUS XII HERO BETA BIOS 2301

ROG MAXIMUS XII APEX BETA BIOS 2301

ROG MAXIMUS XII FORMULA BETA BIOS 2301

ROG MAXIMUS XII EXTREME BETA BIOS 2301


----------



## bluebaron

unclewebb said:


> This is the purpose of the Ring Down Bin feature. When Ring Down Bin is enabled, the CPU cache is always kept 300 MHz below the CPU core speed. If the core slows down, the cache will automatically slow down too. Leaving Ring Down Bin enabled can solve a lot of stability issues.
> 
> When Ring Down Bin is not enabled, the core and cache can end up running at the same speed. You will need a huge amount of extra voltage to get this stable.
> 
> The Intel CPU package temperature includes data from all of the individual cores. If one of the cores hits 75°C then the reported package temperature should be at least 75°C. If the core temperature is ever reported higher than the package temperature, that is a problem with the monitoring software.


Just out of curiosity: is it okay to have Ring Down Bin disabled when running fixed frequency on all cores and fixed uncore (assuming you keep at least 300 MHz between cores and uncore)? For example I've got 5.0 all core/4.7 uncore and 5.2 all core/4.9 uncore running stable on my 10900K with Ring Down Bin disabled, and I was under the impression that the 300 MHz gap between the cores and uncore would stay at all times since I've got everything running in fixed mode, but I wasn't sure. Should I enable Ring Down Bin just to be safe?


----------



## Imprezzion

In fixed mode it doesn't do anything. It's more for overclocking in dynamic mode and EIST, SpeedShift and SpeedStep left enabled.


----------



## bluebaron

Imprezzion said:


> In fixed mode it doesn't do anything. It's more for overclocking in dynamic mode and EIST, SpeedShift and SpeedStep left enabled.


Got it. Thanks for the clarification


----------



## Astral85

safedisk said:


> *ROG MAXIMUS XII Series Beta Bios 2301 UPDATE*
> 
> 1. Improve system performance
> 2. Some bug fixes
> 
> ROG MAXIMUS XII HERO BETA BIOS 2301
> 
> ROG MAXIMUS XII APEX BETA BIOS 2301
> 
> ROG MAXIMUS XII FORMULA BETA BIOS 2301
> 
> ROG MAXIMUS XII EXTREME BETA BIOS 2301


Anything for XIII? Not saying there is anything wrong, just wondering.


----------



## arrow0309

Imprezzion said:


> Yup that one. If you select a mount option (custom waterblock) it gives you washers to space the backplate from the motherboard to give it more mounting pressure / space for when there's no IHS but I didn't need them with the EK Supremacy mount.
> ... Cut ...


Hi, I'm quoting you again as I've only managed to have mine delidded and direct die installed yesterday and I may have some issues.
So I tried to install the frame like default using the square thin socket washer underneath the frame and there was no proper contact.
So I removed the 4 EK Velocity mount plastic washers from the top of the motherboard and placed them on the back (between the big rubber and the retention backplate.
And this way there was enough contact Imho (even with the four thumb nuts easily tighten and with little to zero tightening force).

But I do have this issues:

My 4200 ram oc bios profile won't work anymore, every time is giving me failed memory overclock, at 4400 cl 17 it works though with all the rest of the timings in Auto (not 100% stable as it then crashed while playing Hunt Showdown but maybe it wasn't tested enough since I don't use the 4400 ram freq).
The cpu temp (core max, package max) goes up to 88°C in Cinebench R20 (xmp ram, 5.2 fixed, 1.38v vcore) and also I'm noticing a 9° between the cores.
Even considering that yesterday evening was so hot as I was having 30C tamb, I still suspect something needs to be checked, adjusted (like removing the square socket washer to gain a little more pressure to the cpu pins and or something like I don't know, the old Supremacy Precise Mount for Ivy in order to get more tightening force on the Velocity block) but I'd like to hear your advice first.
Cheers


----------



## robalm

PhoenixMDA said:


> He has an SP104, that is like best Case Chip better as my one, such a chip scale also awesome in higher frequency,
> my scaling end´s at 5,4ghz, 5,5ghz need´s more voltage as the step´s before.
> SP100+ chip´s are that what everyone want to have and nobody found^^.
> It give´s enough people me also who would pay for a SP100+ Chip but nobody sell such chip´s,
> they are so rare like moon rooks on earth.
> View attachment 2518222


Good stuff.
My SP74 and SP88 failed in asus realbech at 1.25v load voltage 5ghz.
The SP88 needed 1.26v and the SP74 the same.
So for me at 5ghz the same vcore was needed.

The olny changes i notice on the chips was the stock vcore.
My first SP63 was running very high stock vcore.
My SP74 less vcore and my SP88 even less.
SP63 was 10c hotter then the Sp88.


----------



## Imprezzion

arrow0309 said:


> Hi, I'm quoting you again as I've only managed to have mine delidded and direct die installed yesterday and I may have some issues.
> So I tried to install the frame like default using the square thin socket washer underneath the frame and there was no proper contact.
> So I removed the 4 EK Velocity mount plastic washers from the top of the motherboard and placed them on the back (between the big rubber and the retention backplate.
> And this way there was enough contact Imho (even with the four thumb nuts easily tighten and with little to zero tightening force).
> 
> But I do have this issues:
> 
> My 4200 ram oc bios profile won't work anymore, every time is giving me failed memory overclock, at 4400 cl 17 it works though with all the rest of the timings in Auto (not 100% stable as it then crashed while playing Hunt Showdown but maybe it wasn't tested enough since I don't use the 4400 ram freq).
> The cpu temp (core max, package max) goes up to 88°C in Cinebench R20 (xmp ram, 5.2 fixed, 1.38v vcore) and also I'm noticing a 9° between the cores.
> Even considering that yesterday evening was so hot as I was having 30C tamb, I still suspect something needs to be checked, adjusted (like removing the square socket washer to gain a little more pressure to the cpu pins and or something like I don't know, the old Supremacy Precise Mount for Ivy in order to get more tightening force on the Velocity block) but I'd like to hear your advice first.
> Cheers


9c delta is quite a lot for direct die and the temps sound kinda high for 1.38v. What paste did you use?

Also. I don't really know in what way the Velocity mount is different from the Supremacy (S1151) mount my block uses. The RAM not working properly could also indicate a bad mount / pin contact in the socket.


----------



## arrow0309

Imprezzion said:


> 9c delta is quite a lot for direct die and the temps sound kinda high for 1.38v. What paste did you use?
> 
> Also. I don't really know in what way the Velocity mount is different from the Supremacy (S1151) mount my block uses. The RAM not working properly could also indicate a bad mount / pin contact in the socket.


They don't differ (Supremacy /Velocity) 
TG Conductonaut used 
Also I tried to follow this installation video (could be wrong given that was done for the 9900k?) 






I will check everything back again this evening when I get back home.


----------



## Imprezzion

arrow0309 said:


> They don't differ (Supremacy /Velocity)
> TG Conductonaut used
> Also I tried to follow this installation video (could be wrong given that was done for the 9900k?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will check everything back again this evening when I get back home.


Same video I used. It's fine. I used a different "paste", Coollaboratory Liquid Ultra which I strongly prefer over Conductonaut. And my block is mirror lapped to 3000 grit. Stock springs, stock thumb nuts.

My core delta's are usually around 2-4c max.
At those same frequencies and voltages I get around 74-76c in CB20 and 89-92c in Prime95 AVX Small (worst case load possible well over 340w).

Now at 5.1/4.7 1.270v I get 71c CB20, low 60's in games and 86-89c in Prime95 Small around 330-335w.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

robalm said:


> Good stuff.
> My SP74 and SP88 failed in asus realbech at 1.25v load voltage 5ghz.
> The SP88 needed 1.26v and the SP74 the same.
> So for me at 5ghz the same vcore was needed.
> 
> The olny changes i notice on the chips was the stock vcore.
> My first SP63 was running very high stock vcore.
> My SP74 less vcore and my SP88 even less.
> SP63 was 10c hotter then the Sp88.


Your forget one thing you have a other board.
The measurement of the vcore is die sense, if your board use socket sense you have higher shown value by same vcore.
Difference was 90-100mV or so.
The second thing is, is the vrm very strong and you drive a good LLC(100mV+ dropp) it´s possible to drive lower vcore stable.
It´s also easier to be stable with more power consumption.

I think your SP88 will be on a Apex/Hero under 1,15V load with wakü.
So don´t think that your chip is bad.


----------



## safedisk

Astral85 said:


> Anything for XIII? Not saying there is anything wrong, just wondering.


Hey i already uploaded 









Overclocking 11700k/11900k results, bins and discussion


Tried N:1=1? Normal 1T is N:1=3. Normal 1T may be possible. N:1=1 seems very very hard. Still normal 1t is better than normal 2t ^^




www.overclock.net


----------



## RobertoSampaio

safedisk said:


> *ROG MAXIMUS XII Series Beta Bios 2301 UPDATE*
> 
> 1. Improve system performance
> 2. Some bug fixes
> 
> ROG MAXIMUS XII HERO BETA BIOS 2301
> 
> ROG MAXIMUS XII APEX BETA BIOS 2301
> 
> ROG MAXIMUS XII FORMULA BETA BIOS 2301
> 
> ROG MAXIMUS XII EXTREME BETA BIOS 2301


Going to install Maximus Formula XII 2301 now...


----------



## RobertoSampaio

safedisk said:


> *ROG MAXIMUS XII Series Beta Bios 2301 UPDATE*
> 
> 1. Improve system performance
> 2. Some bug fixes
> 
> ROG MAXIMUS XII HERO BETA BIOS 2301
> 
> ROG MAXIMUS XII APEX BETA BIOS 2301
> 
> ROG MAXIMUS XII FORMULA BETA BIOS 2301
> 
> ROG MAXIMUS XII EXTREME BETA BIOS 2301


Hi @safedisk ,

I installed 2301 and so far so good...
Last 2201 I had some problems to stabilize my OC like I had tuned the 2103.
Let me ask you one thing... Do you have any new "working tool" for changing some bios parameter on the fly?

EDITED: 
In 2301 BIOS PTT is enabled by default !


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> Hi @safedisk ,
> 
> I installed 2301 and so far so good...
> Last 2201 I had some problems to stabilize my OC like I had tuned the 2103.
> Let me ask you one thing... Do you have any new "working tool" for changing some bios parameter on the fly?
> 
> EDITED:
> In 2301 BIOS PTT is enabled by default !


I wonder why...


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I'll give up to run 56x with these new BIOS...
With 2103 it runs fine, but 2201 and 2301 it's impossible...
The good news is I need only 1460mv to run 55x light loads...
I will tune all again for 55x.
And buy a cryo cooler... LOL


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Never change a running System, i guess that is more for rkl.
I dont test it, my system runs fine.


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> I'll give up to run 56x with these new BIOS...
> With 2103 it runs fine, but 2201 and 2301 it's impossible...
> The good news is I need only 1460mv to run 55x light loads...
> I will tune all again for 55x.
> And buy a cryo cooler... LOL


Seems like beyond 2103, the z490 BIOS may be better for 11th gen, but worse for 10th gen.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

I stay on 1003 and that works good with fixe vcore and allcore, tvb and so on was in my case no good with this bios.


----------



## cstkl1

PhoenixMDA said:


> I stay on 1003 and that works good with fixe vcore and allcore, tvb and so on was in my case no good with this bios.


same here for life with 1003

2x16gb 4266 [email protected] running superb with almost no airflow on it.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

My [email protected],48V 1,31/1,315V io/sa with Slope's works fine.
In my case the best between voltage's/performance and there is also the random stability in every case given.
Over 33° room temp no problem and also reboot stability with gsat works with and without completely de-energized Power supply.

The random stability is the most difficult with higher ram clock.Only in few hw combination's it's really 100% stable.


----------



## kill_a_wat

Anyone bought a new 10900K/KF recently...seems current batches don't oc too good?


----------



## fray_bentos

kill_a_wat said:


> Anyone bought a new 10900K/KF recently...seems current batches don't oc too good?


Not so convinced. Mine's a Feb 2021. Sample number of 1 though...


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Do you know how the WHEA is reported to windows? Who does this interface? Is the chipset?

EDITED:

I'm asking because I can't explain why, but running chipset version 10.1.18716.8265 I don't have WHEA.

Running 10.1.18807.8279 I have errors at idle even with a vf#8 offset of 102mv

I think the new chipset doesn't like my OCing....

I just suspected about this before, but make no sense... Is it possible?

Now I'm running
Adaptive = 1538mv and VF#8 = 1520mv (1428+offset 92) and zero errors. 
All cores are hitting 56x

So the problem is not the BIOS...


----------



## Imprezzion

Would a Gigabyte Z490 Master be an actual upgrade over my MSI Z490 Ace? Don't get me wrong, I love my Ace, but I've been having some weird issues with the PC just shutting off for no reason and it kinda has to be the board as everything else like PSU, GPU, LED controllers and full wiring, fans + controllers + wiring, PCI-E cables and such have all been replaced. Also fully reinstalled windows on a clean new 970 Evo M.2 and problem stays so I kinda wanna try a different board and found a Z490 Master on Amazon for €244 new..


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Imprezzion said:


> Would a Gigabyte Z490 Master be an actual upgrade over my MSI Z490 Ace? Don't get me wrong, I love my Ace, but I've been having some weird issues with the PC just shutting off for no reason and it kinda has to be the board as everything else like PSU, GPU, LED controllers and full wiring, fans + controllers + wiring, PCI-E cables and such have all been replaced. Also fully reinstalled windows on a clean new 970 Evo M.2 and problem stays so I kinda wanna try a different board and found a Z490 Master on Amazon for €244 new..


I'm not an ASUS fanboy, but I really like Maximus series...
Did you consider a Z490 from ASUS?

EDITED:

I'm back with 56x and BIOS 2301  LOL


----------



## Imprezzion

RobertoSampaio said:


> I'm not an ASUS fanboy, but I really like Maximus series...
> Did you consider a Z490 from ASUS?


Of course I did. If they didn't cost €439. The only ASUS that is sort of decent and has a good price is the Z490-E but all the Maxi's are ridiculously overpriced. The Master at €244 seems like a good deal but I despise Gigabyte BIOS (and fan / RGB control for that matter).


----------



## fray_bentos

Imprezzion said:


> Would a Gigabyte Z490 Master be an actual upgrade over my MSI Z490 Ace? Don't get me wrong, I love my Ace, but I've been having some weird issues with the PC just shutting off for no reason and it kinda has to be the board as everything else like PSU, GPU, LED controllers and full wiring, fans + controllers + wiring, PCI-E cables and such have all been replaced. Also fully reinstalled windows on a clean new 970 Evo M.2 and problem stays so I kinda wanna try a different board and found a Z490 Master on Amazon for €244 new..


Given that you have ruled out the PSU, randomly shutting off sounds like a RAM OC issue to me. Do you still get that happening with RAM at XMP settings? If not, then that rules out the mobo, and you could likely step back up to 4200 or 4266 on memory instead.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Imprezzion said:


> Would a Gigabyte Z490 Master be an actual upgrade over my MSI Z490 Ace? Don't get me wrong, I love my Ace, but I've been having some weird issues with the PC just shutting off for no reason and it kinda has to be the board as everything else like PSU, GPU, LED controllers and full wiring, fans + controllers + wiring, PCI-E cables and such have all been replaced. Also fully reinstalled windows on a clean new 970 Evo M.2 and problem stays so I kinda wanna try a different board and found a Z490 Master on Amazon for €244 new..


That is more a downgrade as an upgrade.The unfiy/ace is one of the best boards after Apex XII and z490 kingpin.


----------



## Imprezzion

fray_bentos said:


> Given that you have ruled out the PSU, randomly shutting off sounds like a RAM OC issue to me. Do you still get that happening with RAM at XMP settings? If not, then that rules out the mobo, and you could likely step back up to 4200 or 4266 on memory instead.


I could try that.. Yeah it's mostly when installing stuff like games or transferring large amounts of data from or to my M.2 drives. And it's totally random. It can be fine for 3-4 days and then suddenly when I wanna install BF1 it just turns off. No errors in event viewer except "previous shutdown was not clean" and it turns off the PSU like it triggers a OCP or short protection. I hear the relay clicking.


----------



## fray_bentos

Imprezzion said:


> I could try that.. Yeah it's mostly when installing stuff like games or transferring large amounts of data from or to my M.2 drives. And it's totally random. It can be fine for 3-4 days and then suddenly when I wanna install BF1 it just turns off. No errors in event viewer except "previous shutdown was not clean" and it turns off the PSU like it triggers a OCP or short protection. I hear the relay clicking.


The relay on my PSU clicks when I have had unstable RAM OCs during "turn off" crashes (experienced that on 4790K and 10600K), though the more common memory OC crash in my experience was a freeze, audio loop for 2 seconds, then PSU relay click and turn off. Alternatively do you have an NVMe drive, and could it be overheating during transfers (though I would expect a freeze rather than a turn off for that)?


----------



## GeneO

Misbehaved software could also result in such crashes. For a while, if I would run a benchmark, in particular cinebench, at elevated priority it would crash hard like that - instant shutdown to a black screen with a relay click and with no trace. Turns out it was the Intel XTU software. Didn't even need to be running, I had to uninstall it. I expect it had a driver that was misbehaving. Anyhow, good luck.


----------



## Imprezzion

I thought it was software so that's why did a full clean install of windows. The crash / power off happens the instant the specific load happens, there's no temp in the M.2 at that point plus they are both (I got 2) heatsinked and even under sustained load they don't go above 75c.

It's probably RAM or too high cache speed for the low vcore I run on 5.1. 

I got a CPU Internal Error in HWINFO for the first time in ages while loading GTA V to check out the new DLC and do some races with a bunch of buddies so I dropped my cache to x46 and raised vcore back to 1.270v. I had it on 1.260v and that ran fine for quite a while but..


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Do you have VT-d enabled in your system?
I read in Asus forum it is necessary for Windows 11...


----------



## GeneO

VT-d is not necessary for WIndows 11. All that is necessary, basically, is TPM 2.0, an 8th gen or later Intel processor and graphics that supports DX12. 8th gen and later chipsets have TPM 2.0 built into the Intel CSME ( formerly known as Management Engine) firmware . You just need to enable PTT in the BIOS. TPM does not affect performance.
VT-d can noticibly reduce performance so keep it disabled.

Edit: Oh yeah and you need to enable secure boot in BIOS for Windows 11.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> VT-d is not necessary for WIndows 11. All that is necessary, basically, is TPM 2.0, an 8th gen or later Intel processor and graphics that supports DX12. 8th gen and later chipsets have TPM 2.0 built into the Intel CSME ( formerly known as Management Engine) firmware . You just need to enable PTT in the BIOS. TPM does not affect performance.
> VT-d can noticibly reduce performance so keep it disabled.
> 
> Edit: Oh yeah and you need to enable secure boot in BIOS for Windows 11.


Finally, I found out what is causing instabilities...
It was this F**** VT-d.
Running VT-d I need at least +10mv for stabilizes my overclock.


----------



## fray_bentos

RobertoSampaio said:


> Finally, I found out what is causing instabilities...
> It was this F**** VT-d.
> Running VT-d I need at least +10mv for stabilizes my overclock.


How do you know what stable is? You change your settings every few days.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

fray_bentos said:


> How do you know what stable is? You change your settings every few days.


LOL.... Its a good question !!!!

But I run this "stable" configuration for over 2 months without any errors, so I consider it stable.

I'm always changing something to try to learn about new bios config, etc... And have a BIOS and a Macrium bck with drivers that are stable...

Every time I make changes and start to get errors, I roll back to that macrium bck and load that stable BIOS setting...

But I made a mistake saving VT-d over the stable saved BIOS settings, and every time I reload it, VT-d was enabled.

The major problem was I tried to change every thing trying to solve the instability... Drivers from older BCKs, chipsets, Audio drivers, AHCI, but didn't realize about VT-d.

Yesterday I restore a Macrium BCK and a BIOS setting from April, and found out VT-d disable.

Now I'm running Adaptive 1533 for 24hs without WHEA ,so far...

With VT-d enabled and adaptive 1533 I have WHEA in few minutes...

Now I'll run some days with these configurations, keeping the PC on all the time... and after that, start to update drivers one by one...


----------



## rickmig

Hi all!
I'm a newcomer with a 10900K chip. I'm used to overclock the old X58 platform (with Xeon) and recently upgraded. I thought this new system would be easier, XMP, default settings and good to go! Well it's not LOL!

I've been reading all this forum and try to get acquainted with this platform.

So my gear:
10900K - SP63
NOX cooler 360
ASUS Z590 ROG Gaming
Gskill 3600 1.35v
RTX 3070
PSU Corsair 850W
M.2 , SSd , HDD etc.

Just plugged in stock settings and temperatures were to high for me , 80's 😱. Check Vcore and is about 1.34v under load. Too much. I'm used in the X58 to use offset voltage so I can get low volts under idle and when pushing they'll go up as they should. So I start searching for a similar thing. Well there's a offset setting in bios and got it to - 0.150 and run everything good. I got me around 1.2 or 1.21v under load and temps around 75 when stress testing (cinebench R23 and Realbench) and 60 while playing, say Warzone... all this @ stock settings 4.9Ghz load and 5.3, 5.1 etc ... 28°C ambient.
Now there's another setting, adaptive but I don't seem to understand it... and also VID voltage for CPU , I that's the voltage the CPU for a pre determined frequency but I got my values @1.4...1.5 max sometimes! In HWinfo

Can someone enlighten me??
I got lot of answers just by reading a lot from you guys in forum as you are really helpful 😁

Regards, RicK


----------



## rickmig

Another topic regarding WHEAs, has you all getting in Ghostrunner and Metro Exodus EE, Ictried them also and just got in Gjostrunner. None in Metro. Giving a bump e Vcore and I think it solved it.VCCIO and VCCSA were both 1.3 and 1.4 in auto, I think its too much so I put them @ 1.0v and 1.1v. Think it's ok since I not used to this settings. I used what i've been reading in the forum.
RicK


----------



## fray_bentos

RobertoSampaio said:


> LOL.... Its a good question !!!!
> 
> But I run this "stable" configuration for over 2 months without any errors, so I consider it stable.
> 
> I'm always changing something to try to learn about new bios config, etc... And have a BIOS and a Macrium bck with drivers that are stable...
> 
> Every time I make changes and start to get errors, I roll back to that macrium bck and load that stable BIOS setting...
> 
> But I made a mistake saving VT-d over the stable saved BIOS settings, and every time I reload it, VT-d was enabled.
> 
> The major problem was I tried to change every thing trying to solve the instability... Drivers from older BCKs, chipsets, Audio drivers, AHCI, but didn't realize about VT-d.
> 
> Yesterday I restore a Macrium BCK and a BIOS setting from April, and found out VT-d disable.
> 
> Now I'm running Adaptive 1533 for 24hs without WHEA ,so far...
> 
> With VT-d enabled and adaptive 1533 I have WHEA in few minutes...
> 
> Now I'll run some days with these configurations, keeping the PC on all the time... and after that, start to update drivers one by one...


Interesting, I've always just instinctively turned of virtualisation stuff since my 4790K days. I knew it affected temperatures back then, but didn't expect it would have a substantial role in stability/require higher voltages still, but that does indeed seem to be the case.


----------



## Astral85

@safedisk BIOS 1007 seems to be giving me much worse SP evaluation. I can't run sync all core 52x because it says I need over 1.5V and with Vmax Stress enabled it won't allow any more than 1.5V. If I disable Vmax stress it goes to 52x but idles at 80W pulling over 1.5V constantly. What is wrong??


----------



## fray_bentos

Astral85 said:


> @safedisk BIOS 1007 seems to be giving me much worse SP evaluation. I can't run sync all core 52x because it says I need over 1.5V and with Vmax Stress enabled it won't allow any more than 1.5V. If I disable Vmax stress it goes to 52x but idles at 80W pulling over 1.5V constantly. What is wrong??


Your SP reading and indicated voltages are indicative only. Whatever is suggested by the BIOS should make no difference to the voltage/frequency combinations that you previously had working, unless there are other major changes to the BIOS/microcode that affect this. However, what you see suggests that the VID table interpretation by the motherboard has all been boosted up. If voltage provided is overshooting what you had before, then that suggests your settings don't override the VID table (e.g. manual voltage would), but instead are based on an offset from the VID table (e.g. offset mode or auto mode). In theory, and assuming that your chip really doesn't need loads more volts to be stable, it should be possible to change your offset values, or specify manual voltages to something that gets your back to the voltage/frequency combinations that worked in the previous version. Also, has your LLC setting changed between BIOS versions?


----------



## Astral85

fray_bentos said:


> Your SP reading and indicated voltages are indicative only. Whatever is suggested by the BIOS should make no difference to the voltage/frequency combinations that you previously had working, unless there are other major changes to the BIOS/microcode that affect this. However, what you see suggests that the VID table interpretation by the motherboard has all been boosted up. If voltage provided is overshooting what you had before, then that suggests your settings don't override the VID table (e.g. manual voltage would), but instead are based on an offset from the VID table (e.g. offset mode or auto mode). In theory, and assuming that your chip really doesn't need loads more volts to be stable, it should be possible to change your offset values, or specify manual voltages to something that gets your back to the voltage/frequency combinations that worked in the previous version. Also, has your LLC setting changed between BIOS versions?


I cannot figure what to do or what is wrong... I have set sync all cores - 52x, Adaptive voltage - Auto but only get 51x in Windows (as per HWiNFO).


----------



## Imprezzion

So, GTA V is a perfectly fine stress test haha. I never had any issues with gaming, not even Metro, but GTA V consistently gives a "CPU Internal Error" when loading online. +0.010v fixed that. Then it stuttered pretty bad and sometimes crash to desktop with a L0 cache error. Fixed that by dropping to x46 cache as x47 for my voltage on this chip was quite optimistic.

Also, as a added benefit, I no longer seem to have the random shut downs when handling large files / unpacking on my M.2's. I moved 17GB of music files and unpacked a 40GB 7Z archive from 1 M.2 to another and also installed BF 1 to one of them and it didn't fail or shut down which normally it would've 100% done by now.


----------



## fray_bentos

Astral85 said:


> I cannot figure what to do or what is wrong... I have set sync all cores - 52x, Adaptive voltage - Auto but only get 51x in Windows (as per HWiNFO).


The problem is right there "auto". Auto on the old bios applies different voltages to auto on the current bios. Use "adaptive" plus either "offset" OR specify V/F points to bring your voltages back to the same numbers that you had before. That should get you part of the way there. Once you have that done, then worry about sorting out the clocks (it may be the high VID table is limiting clock speed to protect your CPU from even higher voltages being requested).



Imprezzion said:


> So, GTA V is a perfectly fine stress test haha. I never had any issues with gaming, not even Metro, but GTA V consistently gives a "CPU Internal Error" when loading online. +0.010v fixed that. Then it stuttered pretty bad and sometimes crash to desktop with a L0 cache error. Fixed that by dropping to x46 cache as x47 for my voltage on this chip was quite optimistic.
> 
> Also, as a added benefit, I no longer seem to have the random shut downs when handling large files / unpacking on my M.2's. I moved 17GB of music files and unpacked a 40GB 7Z archive from 1 M.2 to another and also installed BF 1 to one of them and it didn't fail or shut down which normally it would've 100% done by now.


Happy to hear your fix, and that gaming yet again proves to be stability test beyond stress testing.


----------



## Astral85

fray_bentos said:


> The problem is right there "auto". Auto on the old bios applies different voltages to auto on the current bios. Use "adaptive" plus either "offset" OR specify V/F points to bring your voltages back to the same numbers that you had before. That should get you part of the way there. Once you have that done, then worry about sorting out the clocks (it may be the high VID table is limiting clock speed to protect your CPU from even higher voltages being requested).


Well I haven't really tried pushing this chip to 5.2 all core so I'm trying to figure this out, 5.1 was much easier.

What I meant by Adaptive = auto is there are two value boxes for adaptive right... I leave these on auto... Or sometimes set it to 1.5V...

The issue seems to be Vmax stress, if it is enabled it drops me down to 51x. Even with an negative offset on the V/F curve. I don't understand that.

So right now I have:

52x sync all core
SVID - Auto
LLC 6
-130mv on V/F #7 (52x)
Adaptive = 1.5V
Vmax stress - disabled

Problem is I'm hitting 90C+ in CB R23 very quickly and I don't like that... So I enabled max CPU core temp = 90C and regulate frequency below threshold = enabled. But now as soon as one core hits 90C it drops all cores back to 5.1 or even lower to 5.0...


----------



## fray_bentos

Astral85 said:


> Well I haven't really tried pushing this chip to 5.2 all core so I'm trying to figure this out, 5.1 was much easier.
> 
> What I meant by Adaptive = auto is there are two value boxes for adaptive right... I leave these on auto... Or sometimes set it to 1.5V...
> 
> The issue seems to be Vmax stress, if it is enabled it drops me down to 51x. Even with an negative offset on the V/F curve. I don't understand that.
> 
> So right now I have:
> 
> 52x sync all core
> SVID - Auto
> LLC 6
> -130mv on V/F #7 (52x)
> Adaptive = 1.5V
> Vmax stress - disabled
> 
> Problem is I'm hitting 90C+ in CB R23 very quickly and I don't like that... So I enabled max CPU core temp = 90C and regulate frequency below threshold = enabled. But now as soon as one core hits 90C it drops all cores back to 5.1 or even lower to 5.0...


OK, so now I see you are indeed using offset at 52x. I'm sure I read here that the max VID that can be requested is 1.52 V. After Intel TVB and other optimisations it may be that line that is being crossed. Secondly, I also thought Vmax stress is there to protect your CPU from high voltages. If your temperatures are higher, then it likely means that your CPU is getting higher voltages than before. Hence why you have needed to put the 90 C limit in place.

If I were you, I'd throw that OC out of the window and start again and try with lower set adaptive voltage OR full offset mode. It seems like you are bumping CPU protection and your own 90 C limit. The fact it worked on the older BIOS version may have been a bug with the voltages not going as high as set; setting 1.5 V adaptive does seem very high... Perhaps that is now fixed and you will be able to get away with lower set voltages that avoid bumping into the various protection modes. 

Also I see that you are on a Z590 board; newer BIOS revisions might boost voltages due to Rocket Lake's thirst for voltages. Understandably, Z590 bios revisions seem to be orientated more towards Rocket Lake stability than being aimed at Comet Lake optimisations.

Just throwing ideas out there...


----------



## Astral85

@fray_bentos

Just to clarify, I was not doing 52x sync all core on the previous BIOS. I just thought the predictions looked higher on the new BIOS but maybe they were like that all along.

My understanding of Vmax stress is it prevents the CPU from requesting anything higher than 1.5V. Indeed with it disabled I saw the CPU requesting 1.6V+!! My understanding of Adaptive voltage is that you cannot override the VID of the CPU with the additional turbo option. For example my VID for 52x is 1.498V. If put 1.4V in adaptive voltage it will still request 1.5V... I don't actually know what Adaptive does in this case other than adapt the voltage to load with Speedshift...

It seems the only way to control the voltage is with the V/F curve offsets but my results don't make sense. VID for 5.2 is 1.498V. I put a -130mv offset which should result in 1.368V. In HWiNFO I get 1.400V instead. If you enable the package temperature threshold option (90C) along with "regulate frequency above threshold" this appears to put strong limiters in place once even one core hits 90C. Eventually it clocked all the way down to 4.9.

I need to keep the CPU under 90C. Will work this out eventually hopefully without breaking my CPU.

BTW voltage predictions change (usually lower) with higher LLC levels.


----------



## fray_bentos

Astral85 said:


> @fray_bentos
> 
> Just to clarify, I was not doing 52x sync all core on the previous BIOS. I just thought the predictions looked higher on the new BIOS but maybe they were like that all along.
> 
> My understanding of Vmax stress is it prevents the CPU from requesting anything higher than 1.5V. Indeed with it disabled I saw the CPU requesting 1.6V+!! My understanding of Adaptive voltage is that you cannot override the VID of the CPU with the additional turbo option. For example my VID for 52x is 1.498V. If put 1.4V in adaptive voltage it will still request 1.5V... I don't actually know what Adaptive does in this case other than adapt the voltage to load with Speedshift...
> 
> It seems the only way to control the voltage is with the V/F curve offsets but my results don't make sense. VID for 5.2 is 1.498V. I put a -130mv offset which should result in 1.368V. In HWiNFO I get 1.400V instead. If you enable the package temperature threshold option (90C) along with "regulate frequency above threshold" this appears to put strong limiters in place once even one core hits 90C. Eventually it clocked all the way down to 4.9.
> 
> I need to keep the CPU under 90C. Will work this out eventually hopefully without breaking my CPU.
> 
> BTW voltage predictions change (usually lower) with higher LLC levels.


"which should result in 1.368V. In HWiNFO I get 1.400V instead". Could this be due to "Intel voltage optimizations", which adds voltage as the temperature increases? I wouldn't recommend disabling it though.


----------



## Astral85

fray_bentos said:


> "which should result in 1.368V. In HWiNFO I get 1.400V instead". Could this be due to "Intel voltage optimizations", which adds voltage as the temperature increases? I wouldn't recommend disabling it though.


Possibly, it's currently on auto. I see you have 1.425V adaptive set. Is that lower than your CPU's internal VID? I thought that you could not override the VID with adaptive mode. How does your overtemp protection work? I better get some sleep.


----------



## acoustic

Turning on TVB Voltage Optimizations can cause more trouble than with it off, I've noticed. It's worth trying, but as of right now I have it disabled. As long as I stay under 52x multiplier, I can leave it off. If I go to 52x, my VID shoots up to 1.5v+, and TVB will help reel it back in to reality around 1.38v, which is easier to tune with a +/- voltage offset. Using 52x or higher without TVB means that my other ratio voltages are far too low as I have to run a massive negative voltage offset.

I'm currently testing 5.1Ghz all-core with Cache on AUTO (sets to 43x on it's own). AC LL 0.50mohm, DC LL 1.1mohm, LLC Mode5, and a straight Voltage Offset of 0.070mv. It's working fine in everything. Metro Exodus still gives me WHEA errors, but I played hours of Rome2 Total War yesterday with zero problems.

I was running the chip stock for a few days and I just can't mentally deal with the fact I'm running something stock.. lol.


----------



## fray_bentos

Astral85 said:


> Possibly, it's currently on auto. I see you have 1.425V adaptive set. Is that lower than your CPU's internal VID? I thought that you could not override the VID with adaptive mode. How does your overtemp protection work? I better get some sleep.


Hopefully, good morning and not good night: I don't think it is lower than my internal VID since when I increase Vcore setting, my "get voltage" increases, but I am not sure as this is not output in an easy to read way on an MSI board (as it is on ASUS). I always thought that offsets can override the VID, but perhaps I am wrong about that in the downwards direction. If so, then I see your problem of not being able to reduce VID. I don't use offsets or advanced per frequency offsets with this chip as I haven't needed to use it. Just a simple set adaptive Vcore and droopy LLC. Perhaps advanced offset / per point settings is what cannot be lowered below the default VID table, and perhaps behaviour is different across different motherboard manufacturers...

For me, the voltage optimisations work well, but I do have an above average chip. Similarly, I rarely, if ever hit my 90 C thermal protection limit; that's there for peace of mind/AIO failure. My 250 W power limit is hit first and stops 90 C being attained. I also do not run Prime 95 stress tests. Also MSI LLC6 is a lot droopier than Asus LLC6 since the LLC scale goes in the opposite direction (LLC8 is most droopy on MSI), which might help lower my Vcore more (though not VID, my max observed VID is about 1.39-1.40 V, but droop means that Vcore never goes above 1.36 V). You could consider a droopier LLC to drop Vcore if you cannot lower VID.

Perhaps someone else can advise on the topic of lowering VID below the default table and what does and does not work...


----------



## acoustic

As we've all learned .. maybe an hour of Cinebench, but otherwise, just test with gaming and monitor event viewer/HWINFO64. There seems to be a few games with good workloads for stability, like Metro Exodus, Ghostrunner, COD:CW, etc. I've found Rome2 Total War to be a very good test for Cache instability, for whatever reason.


----------



## lolhaxz

Once you start seeing WHEA's then crank more voltage and go beyond 70C it will become exponentially harder to keep stable - IMO it's a bit of a waste of time trying to get high clocks stable (ie, 5.4-5.5) at temperatures like 80-90C.. the definition of pushing crap up hill.

Temperature is extremely important.

Take the following for example:










The moment I go beyond about 75C for any extended period of time it's WHEA central.

SP80 - Direct Die
5.4GHz all-core turbo, 0x AVX, 5.0GHz cache.
Offset Mode (+0.05mv to stop +200mv overvolt) and LLC7.
Best case scenario SVID (or effectively 0.01 AC/DC)

5.3GHz is stable at 1.296-1.3v Prime95 80K, so another 40-50mv for another 100MHz 

80K FFT seems to be a slaughterhouse on 10900K, maximum power, lowest voltage (sag) and highest current.

Highest voltage I see when it's bouncing around under light load at the desktop is 1.4v... gaming (AVX light load, ie Forza Horizon 4) is about 1.376v and regular games that don't use AVX .. about 1.35v


----------



## acoustic

Stable in P95 doesn't mean much anymore. I'm stable all day long in every stress-test and benchmark on the planet at 5.1/4.8 @ 1.28v, but I'll crash over and over in Rome2:TW and Metro Exodus.

I'm also Direct-Die on a full custom loop with a Heatkiller IV block. I lost the silicon lottery, but a lot of people's OCs that they claim are stable really aren't.

@fray_bentos I'm trying that CPU power limit thing that you did, just for ****s and giggles with 5.2Ghz again. 5.2/4.3, with a 280watt long/short limit. Cinebench will hit it quite easily, but I'm curious if it'll work in games. I had to travel for work for a bit and actually forgot to try the power limit with Metro Exodus, to see if it would correct the WHEAs during the loading screens. I'll see what I can test before I leave for work this afternoon.


----------



## lolhaxz

acoustic said:


> Stable in P95 doesn't mean much anymore. I'm stable all day long in every stress-test and benchmark on the planet at 5.1/4.8 @ 1.28v, but I'll crash over and over in Rome2:TW and Metro Exodus.
> 
> I'm also Direct-Die on a full custom loop with a Heatkiller IV block. I lost the silicon lottery, but a lot of people's OCs that they claim are stable really aren't.


I guarantee you, the reason for that is transients loads generated by the video card, especially if it's a hungry beast like a 3090.. Prime95 + a game is a good test... try it it will probably insta-fail WHEA.

However, in saying that, 80K Prime95 is a really good starting point.. if you can't pass at least 30 minutes of that you are most definitely not stable.


----------



## acoustic

It's not the GPU causing CPU Internal Errors and Cache L0 errors. I've tested that with a huge negative power limit that cut my 3080TI to roughly 225watts. Doesn't change a thing. All of that was a 8-10page monstrosity of discussion that ultimately circles back to Comet Lake and the issues with Parity errors. Some applications exploit the issue a lot worse than others, it seems.

Regardless, I don't want to drag this thread back into that discussion. It's a dead, bloody horse.. lol. My point is that stress-tests are not applicable these days. Cinebench is a good quick and dirty for an idea if settings work, but ultimately games, especially those utilizing AVX instructions, are much better system stability tests. My experience with this 10900K and chasing ghosts for weeks is a good example of why lol


----------



## fray_bentos

lolhaxz said:


> I guarantee you, the reason for that is transients loads generated by the video card, especially if it's a hungry beast like a 3090.. Prime95 + a game is a good test... try it it will probably insta-fail WHEA.
> 
> However, in saying that, 80K Prime95 is a really good starting point.. if you can't pass at least 30 minutes of that you are most definitely not stable.


Why bother when a game will be a better and more realistic stability test, while also avoiding the risk of degradation?


----------



## Nizzen

acoustic said:


> Stable in P95 doesn't mean much anymore. I'm stable all day long in every stress-test and benchmark on the planet at 5.1/4.8 @ 1.28v, but I'll crash over and over in Rome2:TW and Metro Exodus.
> 
> I'm also Direct-Die on a full custom loop with a Heatkiller IV block. I lost the silicon lottery, but a lot of people's OCs that they claim are stable really aren't.
> 
> @fray_bentos I'm trying that CPU power limit thing that you did, just for ****s and giggles with 5.2Ghz again. 5.2/4.3, with a 280watt long/short limit. Cinebench will hit it quite easily, but I'm curious if it'll work in games. I had to travel for work for a bit and actually forgot to try the power limit with Metro Exodus, to see if it would correct the WHEAs during the loading screens. I'll see what I can test before I leave for work this afternoon.


There is no stable, only degree of stable in given enviroment 
If it's stable in the programs I use, it's stable enough for me. I don't care if my gamingpc isn't stable in 4 weeks prime 95 avx 512.....

If you care about 100% stable, then you are on the wrong forums  Run 100% stock settings on a enteprise motherboard and ecc ram, if stability is nr 1 priority


----------



## lolhaxz

fray_bentos said:


> Why bother when a game will be a better and more realistic stability test, while also avoiding the risk of degradation?


Sure, it will, but not as quickly.... (often) Game loading screen + video card going 100w to 400w to 100w etc as it goes from 0-200fps etc while loading is the cause.

Rather find out in 2 minutes than several days, but anyway, the new crowd certainly likes to follow your theory, Realbench is a good compromise.... But I guess, whatever works best for your intended scenario I guess.



acoustic said:


> All of that was a 8-10page monstrosity of discussion that ultimately circles back to Comet Lake and the issues with Parity errors. Some applications exploit the issue a lot worse than others, it seems.


There is zero mystery, core/cache clock too high and voltage (however momentary) too low... it's pretty simple.

If you are not worried about stability, ignore the WHEA errors... fingers in ears, don't worry about it... you can often get by "fine" with a handful of WHEA errors a day..


----------



## acoustic

lolhaxz said:


> There is zero mystery, core/cache clock too high and voltage (however momentary) too low... it's pretty simple.
> 
> If you are not worried about stability, ignore the WHEA errors... fingers in ears, don't worry about it... you can often get by "fine" with a handful of WHEA errors a day..


Explain how I can run P95 SmallFFT for an hour at 5.1/4.8 1.28v, but Metro Exodus results in WHEA errors? Answer is because it's not that simple. I'm not OK with WHEA events which is what led me down the rabbit hole. I ran 5.1/4.8 for months on end (1.28v fixed voltage and all-core, no C states) with no issues, until I ran into an application that exposed my OC. I had run Realbench overnight, TM5 for hours, Cinebench 3hr loops, etc. Nothing EVER showed errors, until I was getting CTDs in Metro Exodus and noticed piles of WHEA errors logged from playing that game.

Yes, raising CPU voltage fixes the Parity errors, but it takes obscene voltage to resolve them. I had to go from 1.28v load (again, stress-test stable for hours on end) to 1.44v load to 100% clear out WHEA errors in Metro Exodus. That's with the GPU power limited to 225watt, so it wasn't jumping much at all - besides the point that the GPU would not cause CPU Internal Errors or Cache L0 errors, but I digress.

So once again, things are not as they used to be. Stress tests can give you a rough idea of if something might be stable, sure .. but it is not a de-facto stability check as they used to be. There were days when if you could pass P95 you were 100% stable - but not anymore.


----------



## SoldierRBT

acoustic said:


> Explain how I can run P95 SmallFFT for an hour at 5.1/4.8 1.28v, but Metro Exodus results in WHEA errors? Answer is because it's not that simple. I'm not OK with WHEA events which is what led me down the rabbit hole. I ran 5.1/4.8 for months on end (1.28v fixed voltage and all-core, no C states) with no issues, until I ran into an application that exposed my OC. I had run Realbench overnight, TM5 for hours, Cinebench 3hr loops, etc. Nothing EVER showed errors, until I was getting CTDs in Metro Exodus and noticed piles of WHEA errors logged from playing that game.
> 
> Yes, raising CPU voltage fixes the Parity errors, but it takes obscene voltage to resolve them. I had to go from 1.28v load (again, stress-test stable for hours on end) to 1.44v load to 100% clear out WHEA errors in Metro Exodus. That's with the GPU power limited to 225watt, so it wasn't jumping much at all - besides the point that the GPU would not cause CPU Internal Errors or Cache L0 errors, but I digress.
> 
> So once again, things are not as they used to be. Stress tests can give you a rough idea of if something might be stable, sure .. but it is not a de-facto stability check as they used to be. There were days when if you could pass P95 you were 100% stable - but not anymore.


Could you try running OCCT Extreme AVX2 Large of 1 hour? Also make sure your RAM OC is GSAT stable.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

acoustic said:


> Explain how I can run P95 SmallFFT for an hour at 5.1/4.8 1.28v, but Metro Exodus results in WHEA errors? Answer is because it's not that simple. I'm not OK with WHEA events which is what led me down the rabbit hole. I ran 5.1/4.8 for months on end (1.28v fixed voltage and all-core, no C states) with no issues, until I ran into an application that exposed my OC. I had run Realbench overnight, TM5 for hours, Cinebench 3hr loops, etc. Nothing EVER showed errors, until I was getting CTDs in Metro Exodus and noticed piles of WHEA errors logged from playing that game.
> 
> Yes, raising CPU voltage fixes the Parity errors, but it takes obscene voltage to resolve them. I had to go from 1.28v load (again, stress-test stable for hours on end) to 1.44v load to 100% clear out WHEA errors in Metro Exodus. That's with the GPU power limited to 225watt, so it wasn't jumping much at all - besides the point that the GPU would not cause CPU Internal Errors or Cache L0 errors, but I digress.
> 
> So once again, things are not as they used to be. Stress tests can give you a rough idea of if something might be stable, sure .. but it is not a de-facto stability check as they used to be. There were days when if you could pass P95 you were 100% stable - but not anymore.


The stress test helps you find the full load minimum voltage for a specific frequency...

These WHEA errors appear when CPU change load quickly.

One way to solve these problems is to rise idle voltage, use an LLC less aggressive and an AC_LL more aggressive, compensating the high impedance of the LLC. A high CPU VRM switching frequency and an aggressive power phase control can help...


----------



## acoustic

SoldierRBT said:


> Could you try running OCCT Extreme AVX2 Large of 1 hour? Also make sure your RAM OC is GSAT stable.


I'm past the point of pumping crazy wattage through the chip to prove what I found, no offense. I spent nearly two full weeks, hours each day, trying every single setting in the book - this was with RAM stock, RAM @ XMP, etc. I did the testing and found the issues - I'm simply just sharing the info/experiences. Stress-tests are not indicative of system stability anymore. I suppose it makes sense with the advancing technology, more complex instruction sets, varying loads, etc. I'm not entirely sure why, since I ran 5.1/4.8Ghz with a fixed frequency, no C-States, and Override voltage (1.3v idle, 1.28v load), that I had issues, except that the stress-tests simply did not find the instability that Metro Exodus and Rome2: Total War found.



RobertoSampaio said:


> The stress test helps you find the full load minimum voltage for a specific frequency...
> 
> These WHEA errors appear when CPU change load quickly.
> 
> One way to solve these problems is to rise idle voltage, use an LLC less aggressive and an AC_LL more aggressive, compensating the high impedance of the LLC. A high CPU VRM switching frequency and an aggressive power phase control can help...


Sure, I already explained that Cinebench is good for testing individual core loads. You can isolate each core/thread if you wanted to in order to test a Turbo Ratio Offset OC - that's cool! However, it does not do a good job of finding the lowest voltage for that specific setting as I've already explained with the Metro Exodus example. Requiring a jump from 1.28v to 1.44v in order to clear all WHEA errors means the stress-tests are not finding the instability. I agree, the transient load/voltage is very heavy and probably part of the problem, but we already went through this many pages ago - I tried every AC/DC_LL combination you can think of with a low LLC, high LLC, etc. I've tried 700Khz switching, 800Khz, etc. I spent hours on hours on this. None of that fixes the WHEAs from Metro Exodus.

Currently I run 0.5mOhm AC_LL and 1.1mOhm DC_LL with LLC Mode5, which is fairly droopy. Works great.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

acoustic said:


> I'm past the point of pumping crazy wattage through the chip to prove what I found, no offense. I spent nearly two full weeks, hours each day, trying every single setting in the book - this was with RAM stock, RAM @ XMP, etc. I did the testing and found the issues - I'm simply just sharing the info/experiences. Stress-tests are not indicative of system stability anymore. I suppose it makes sense with the advancing technology, more complex instruction sets, varying loads, etc. I'm not entirely sure why, since I ran 5.1/4.8Ghz with a fixed frequency, no C-States, and Override voltage (1.3v idle, 1.28v load), that I had issues, except that the stress-tests simply did not find the instability that Metro Exodus and Rome2: Total War found.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, I already explained that Cinebench is good for testing individual core loads. You can isolate each core/thread if you wanted to in order to test a Turbo Ratio Offset OC - that's cool! However, it does not do a good job of finding the lowest voltage for that specific setting as I've already explained with the Metro Exodus example. Requiring a jump from 1.28v to 1.44v in order to clear all WHEA errors means the stress-tests are not finding the instability. I agree, the transient load/voltage is very heavy and probably part of the problem, but we already went through this many pages ago - I tried every AC/DC_LL combination you can think of with a low LLC, high LLC, etc. I've tried 700Khz switching, 800Khz, etc. I spent hours on hours on this. None of that fixes the WHEAs from Metro Exodus.
> 
> Currently I run 0.5mOhm AC_LL and 1.1mOhm DC_LL with LLC Mode5, which is fairly droopy. Works great.


I think you had told us, but I can't remember your configuration...
Are you running "sync all cores" ? Fixed voltage? Right? 
I'm not sure, but AC/DC_LL make any difference in fixed voltage? 
I read some place that using fixed voltage AC/DC_LL are ignored in CPU internal algorithm...


----------



## acoustic

RobertoSampaio said:


> I think you had told us, but I can't remember your configuration...
> Are you running "sync all cores" ? Fixed voltage? Right?
> I'm not sure, but AC/DC_LL make any difference in fixed voltage?
> I read some place that using fixed voltage AC/DC_LL are ignored in CPU internal algorithm...


Yes, if using fixed voltage you lose ability to run AC/DC_LL. They revert to 0.01mOhm. On the MSI boards, AC/DC_LL settings cannot be changed if you use a fixed voltage 

All that testing was done with offset voltages. I tested with fixed/override and also with dynamic/adaptive, as well as advanced offset, normal offset, etc.

Either way, I've given up on all that lol. Waiting for AlderLake to jump off this platform.


----------



## Salve1412

SoldierRBT said:


> Could you try running OCCT Extreme AVX2 Large of 1 hour? Also make sure your RAM OC is GSAT stable.


About GSAT, I can literally pass 8 hours of it, then, if I start Ghostrunner immediately after completing the test, Parity Errors or game crashes occur no matter what. Same for 1 hour OCCT Large Extreme AVX2 Variable 20 threads.


----------



## Astral85

I think I have damaged my motherboard's VRM, it's making a constant electrical chirping noise while the CPU is idle now.


----------



## GeneO

Bummer, though the Hero VRM, at least the XII series, run pretty cool. I think it would be hard to damage them unless there was a manufacturing defect. You sure it is from the VRM? It is often hard to localize. Anyhow, whatever it is hope it is rectifiable (pun intended)


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I had a problem like this when I changed my PC from one electrical outlet to the other.

I didn't realize the new outlet had a **** stabilizer ... 

When my PC needed power, the stabilizer wouldn't support it and the PSU coil whine.


----------



## Astral85

I don't know if it's related to the recent attempts to clock the CPU at 5.2 or maybe the coils have just started to whine anyway. It's pretty bad coil whine, is this grounds to RMA?


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Salve1412 said:


> About GSAT, I can literally pass 8 hours of it, then, if I start Ghostrunner immediately after completing the test, Parity Errors or game crashes occur no matter what. Same for 1 hour OCCT Large Extreme AVX2 Variable 20 threads.


Gsat needs only arround 100W that is also not enough to find the needed IO/SA.occt need ca. 50% watt more.
Its only to check is the cpu/mem communikation ok at MHz x by temp's x, at full load like 80k prime i need more io/sa.

If you are Gaming and the graka works with 300-500w by the most people the traces of board and the dimm temp is also higher.
The cpu is also higher as normal tested by the point of many ram Transfer.
To can do GSAT,occt, memtest dont say about random stability or the temp range.

It's like you say to do this tests dont say that its stable as gaming.


----------



## fray_bentos

Astral85 said:


> I don't know if it's related to the recent attempts to clock the CPU at 5.2 or maybe the coils have just started to whine anyway. It's pretty bad coil whine, is this grounds to RMA?


Have you changed your VRM switching frequency, particularly to a higher frequency? If so lower it. Increasing it might also work to change the noise, but put more strain on the VRM.

Also is your CPU clock dropping back to 800 MHz when idle or pinned at high frequency? If not dropping down (e.g. balanced power plan in Windows, plus c states and speedstep enabled), then it could also be that. Going the other way and disabling c states, down clocking can also work, but that may be less desirable than the whine.


----------



## Astral85

fray_bentos said:


> Have you changed your VRM switching frequency, particularly to a higher frequency? If so lower it. Increasing it might also work to change the noise, but put more strain on the VRM.
> 
> Also is your CPU clock dropping back to 800 MBz when idle or pinned at high frequency? If not dropping down (e.g. balanced power plan in Windows, plus c states and speedstep enabled), then it could also be that.


I had been running the VRM switching frequency at 800 MHz on one profile for a while. I have now flashed back and forth between two BIOS's on default settings and the coil whine persists. I did not have this coil whine until this week, the noise is very obvious. It does not coil whine in the BIOS, only once it reaches Windows. The noise lessens when the CPU has full load and is loudest while idling. C-States is enabled, balanced power plan and the CPU is downclocking to 800MHz/0.684V while idling....


----------



## Astral85

There is a thread here about coil whine on the XIII Hero: Fix to coilwhine on Maximus Hero XIII - Page 6

I just think it's odd that I suddenly have it now.


----------



## Astral85

This about sums up what I'm experiencing:

__
https://www.reddit.com/r/ASUS/comments/oqlk8e


----------



## fray_bentos

Astral85 said:


> This about sums up what I'm experiencing:
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/ASUS/comments/oqlk8e


Sometimes swapping which usb ports peripherals are plugged into can make a difference too. I feel your pain, I can't stand coil whine especially when working.


----------



## Astral85

fray_bentos said:


> Sometimes swapping which usb ports peripherals are plugged into can make a difference too. I feel your pain, I can't stand coil whine especially when working.


The thing is I've had this board a few months now and never had any coil whine from it. It seems coincidental it's started since trying to push the CPU to 5.2. Could pushing the VRM too hard have caused a coil to loosen? On the other hand perhaps it has nothing to do with that and has just decided to start doing now.


----------



## Astral85

Disabling C-States appears to make the coil whine disappear completely but I have never had to do this in the three months I've owned this XIII Hero because I've never heard coil whine like this from it.


----------



## fray_bentos

Astral85 said:


> Disabling C-States appears to make the coil whine disappear completely but I have never had to do this in the three months I've owned this XIII Hero because I've never heard coil whine like this from it.


Disabling C states isn't ideal. Did you try chaning the VRM switching frequency? I'm sure that would have an effect. I briefly had coil whine on my mobo when moving my mouse at idle, it randomly went away... Basically, lots of things can change the resonant frequency of electrical components over time, and it may drift to another frequency, rather than being related to specific setting change. It's really complicated to pin on a single thing.


----------



## Salve1412

PhoenixMDA said:


> It's like you say to do this tests dont say that its stable as gaming.


Since Gsat and OCCT Large were brought into play, I wanted to share my personal experience regarding them. Yes, I agree, passing those tests doesn't imply stability in gaming. However, about the causes of instability with Comet Lake in certain games (e.g. Ghostrunner) I have a different opinion from yours.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

It gives different reasons, what it is in your case i dont know.

The most people want to much and do to high oc.Other things are tvb and clock by core usage, vrm, switching voltage's and so on.
So like other people i don't have whea's in this games and basically, so is not a nuisance for me.

If it is at Intel stock specs with ddr4 2933, then i would say hardware damage.Then send it in warranty.


----------



## Salve1412

PhoenixMDA said:


> It gives different reasons, what it is in your case i dont know.
> 
> The most people want to much and do to high oc.Other things are tvb and clock by core usage, vrm, switching voltage's and so on.
> So like other people i don't have whea's in this games and basically, so is not a nuisance for me.
> 
> If it is at Intel stock specs with ddr4 2933, then i would say hardware damage.Then send it in warranty.


But you never answered me directly when I asked you if you tested Ghostrunner the full game. Initially you said you didn't want to buy the game because it was boring, then you dismissed the matter complaining that it was waisted time for you to test stuff for other people etc. Note that I absolutely don't want you to test stuff for me or force you to buy the game, I just asked a question and didn't receive a positive answer.
So are you telling me now that you can play Ghostrunner DX12 RT Enabled (the full game, not the demo) with zero WHEA/crashes on your system? Good to know, at least I have a positive and reliable comparison term, and I can keep trying to fix my stuff without being afraid of chasing a chimera. But that was not clear from your previous statements.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

I have test 1h the game as demo with Rtx on and i dont pay money to see that it is the same at full version.it's the same game/engine.
Also in every other game metro etc and other cases, there some of the people have problems.

And 99% of the people who have problems have it with oc and not @stock


----------



## Intrud3r

PhoenixMDA said:


> And 99% of the people who have problems have it with oc and not @stock


Seems quite logical to me, that in such situations the overclock is just not stable.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Intrud3r said:


> Seems quite logical to me, that in such situations the overclock is just not stable.


Yes...It's not so that it give's basically whea by all people, it's only few cases and over 90% with oc.

I anyone has whea's also at stock with intel specs and in temp range, i would say warranty/change the hardware, it's damage.


----------



## Salve1412

PhoenixMDA said:


> I have test 1h the game as demo with Rtx on and i dont pay money to see that it is the same at full version.it's the same game/engine.
> Also in every other game metro etc and other cases, there some of the people have problems.
> 
> And 99% of the people who have problems have it with oc and not @stock


I already told you that the demo isn't the same, it doesn't have any problem compared to the full version, but it's pretty obvious that this doesn't matter to you so no point in continuing the conversation.
But when you list the games you don't have any issue with, I wouldn't include Ghostrunner, because you didn't test it.



Intrud3r said:


> Seems quite logical to me, that in such situations the overclock is just not stable.


Lots of people had reported issues e.g. with Apex and Minecraft on completely stock settings, with Skylake-based CPUs.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Lol, it's like i said its your problem dont do like other people have your problems^^, that is for me to stupid.

good luck with your 


> Intel Core i9-10900K SP88 @5.2GHz All Core (5400MHz with OCTVB negative ratios), 4800MHz Cache
> *RAM*: 2x16GB G.Skill Trident Z Royal Gold F4-4000C17D-32GTRGB @4533MHz 16-17-17-36 2T 1.53V


----------



## acoustic

Salve1412 said:


> I already told you that the demo isn't the same, it doesn't have any problem compared to the full version, but it's pretty obvious that this doesn't matter to you so no point in continuing the conversation.
> But when you list the games you don't have any issue with, I wouldn't include Ghostrunner, because you didn't test it.
> 
> 
> Lots of people had reported issues e.g. with Apex and Minecraft on completely stock settings, with Skylake-based CPUs.


Don't bother. The dude is the defender of Comet Lake. The platform can do no wrong, and he's just a god of OCing while the rest of us peasants struggle with this chip that is just far too difficult for us.

It's fun to act like you're better than everyone while simultaneously not testing your OC in the same way that people are finding instability. Clown show.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

You are like a little child^^
If you are unhappy buy an other AMD or Intel, but your frustration is only your problem not my.
In over 25years oc it give´s ever people like you, in other forum´s it give´s for such people the ignor list a really good thing^^


----------



## acoustic

PhoenixMDA said:


> You are like a little child^^
> If you are unhappy buy an other AMD or Intel, but your frustration is only your problem not my.
> In over 25years oc it give´s ever people like you, in other forum´s it give´s for such people the ignor list a really good thing^^


20 years of OCing and never had a platform act the way Comet Lake does. Plenty of real research and data by people far smarter than both of us underlying the issues with Parity errors and how there's an issue with Ringbus, which is why they abandoned it .. but yeah, sure! It's just people who don't know how to OC. Please put me on ignore I couldn't care less lol


----------



## Salve1412

PhoenixMDA said:


> Lol, it's like i said its your problem dont do like other people have your problems^^, that is for me to stupid.
> 
> good luck with your


I don't know if you were mocking me with that "good luck" and that quote of part of my signature in the end, but whatever...of course the problem with the game is mine and I'll deal with it, and I'm not taking it out on you out of frustration (thinking that would suggest kind of a persecution complex on your side, as when you said you didn't want any more to test stuff for others, when nobody asked you that). But it's not my problem only: I believe one of the benefits of the community is that by sharing experiences it can be gained reciprocal knowledge, especially on issues that are not isolated like this one. But when one guy, among other things one the most experienced and knowledgeable around here, says that he doesn't care because it's not his problem but mine, babbling on about something being stupid (I honestly didn't understand what you were alluding to in this last message), having refused to take even remotely into consideration that my opinion can be right (demo≠full game), or to admit at least, if he doesn't want to prove me wrong with facts (=playing the full game), that he can't make an a priori statement on something he didn't experienced, and all of this concluded by words said with a condescending tone, he automatically loses all credibility.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

To answer anymore is waisted time for me
Not my problem, but my time.

P.s.
I help people but only to those who also listen.


----------



## acoustic

Hard to say someone is one of the most experienced or knowledgeable when they purposely don't test the applications that are most likely to expose instability, or even have an interest in doing so. Catching attitudes with people who are genuinely trying to narrow down exactly what is causing the instability was my favorite part.

The rabbit hole I went down trying to tackle the WHEA errors from Metro Exodus taught me a ton about this platform. Unfortunately, the end result, the only thing that makes sense, is that the platform is broken in some way, lol .. but it was educating none-the-less. People claim a ton of BS around here. The fact that certain games are exposing WHEAs that P95 SmallFFT, OCCT AVX2, and a ton of hard hitting stress-tests can't, means that it's much harder to gauge who has actual stability these days.

I suppose we are at a point where stability is stability as long as it works for your applications. I miss the days when all you had to do was run P95 overnight and that was the de-facto. If you could pass 2-3 stress-tests long-term, you were 100% stable -- that's just not the case anymore. That's the largest takeaway from all the time I've spent over the past couple weeks dealing with my 10900K.


----------



## Imprezzion

Astral85 said:


> I think I have damaged my motherboard's VRM, it's making a constant electrical chirping noise while the CPU is idle now.


Honestly? My Ace has been doing that for months and months. It is still working just fine lol and I just live with it with c-states enabled.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

50hs running and no errors...


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Sometimes I have "RADAR_PRE_LEAK_64" when I close Doom Eternal...
Any guess?


----------



## cstkl1

RobertoSampaio said:


> Do you know how the WHEA is reported to windows? Who does this interface? Is the chipset?
> 
> EDITED:
> 
> I'm asking because I can't explain why, but running chipset version 10.1.18716.8265 I don't have WHEA.
> 
> Running 10.1.18807.8279 I have errors at idle even with a vf#8 offset of 102mv
> 
> I think the new chipset doesn't like my OCing....
> 
> I just suspected about this before, but make no sense... Is it possible?
> 
> Now I'm running
> Adaptive = 1538mv and VF#8 = 1520mv (1428+offset 92) and zero errors.
> All cores are hitting 56x
> 
> So the problem is not the BIOS...


interesting find.. chipset driver?


----------



## cstkl1

rickmig said:


> Another topic regarding WHEAs, has you all getting in Ghostrunner and Metro Exodus EE, Ictried them also and just got in Gjostrunner. None in Metro. Giving a bump e Vcore and I think it solved it.VCCIO and VCCSA were both 1.3 and 1.4 in auto, I think its too much so I put them @ 1.0v and 1.1v. Think it's ok since I not used to this settings. I used what i've been reading in the forum.
> RicK


stock cpu no issue.

but then again i have seen stock out of the box with jdec 2133 L0ing on some batches.


----------



## cstkl1

Nizzen said:


> There is no stable, only degree of stable in given enviroment
> If it's stable in the programs I use, it's stable enough for me. I don't care if my gamingpc isn't stable in 4 weeks prime 95 avx 512.....
> 
> If you care about 100% stable, then you are on the wrong forums  Run 100% stock settings on a enteprise motherboard and ecc ram, if stability is nr 1 priority


yeah . karhu really good for gaming/work/use stable ram. 
tm5 finds all the voltage issues which wont occur like 99%


----------



## RobertoSampaio

cstkl1 said:


> interesting find.. chipset driver?


I need more voltage with new chipset... 
I can't explain why...


----------



## cstkl1

RobertoSampaio said:


> I need more voltage with new chipset...
> I can't explain why...


hmm cant be..

will test later. running 4266c16 DR bdie 51|48 @LL6 1.274v ( v/f)

switching 300 on dram
all _dd = 4

this what stopped all L0
whats crazy is is i can bench 51|51 now.

but i still do get random crashes in warzone/ghostrunner/vermintide 2 once in a blue moon that i cannot explain and wont trigger whea


----------



## RobertoSampaio

When I play games I use Asus "gamefirst VI" to automatic change the power plan to hi performance... and when I close the game, gamefirst load back the power plain I was using before...
I don't know why, but in some games are not triggering gamefirst anymore.
Do you know any other program that manage power plain that allows me select the "game.exe" and to do this service?


----------



## cstkl1

RobertoSampaio said:


> When I play games I use Asus "gamefirst VI" to automatic change the power plan to hi performance... and when I close the game, gamefirst load back the power plain I was using before...
> I don't know why, but in some games are not triggering gamefirst anymore.
> Do you know any other program that manage power plain that allows me select the "game.exe" and to do this service?


btw really commendable u been chasing this

i use ghost spectre on the 10900k rig. cstate etc all disable. the power plan has no effect


----------



## ViTosS

Well I also had to downgrade my overclock to fix the WHEAs in Metro Exodus (9900ks user not 10900k, but I have the same problem), actually I just kept the same voltage for 5.0Ghz but reduced CPU clock to 48x and then it's fixed, went back and forth in loading screens a ton of times and no WHEA this time.


----------



## kill_a_wat

In case anyone is thinking about buying ghostrunner its on sale at Epic store - I think 50% off


----------



## RobertoSampaio

One of the bests programs I ever found...
Very nice to test individual cores and play games.









Bitsum. Real-time CPU Optimization and Automation


Real-Time CPU Optimization and Automation. Keep your PC responsive during high CPU loads and automate process settings with rules. Apps run YOUR WAY!




bitsum.com















Process Lasso Documentation


Process Lasso User Manual




bitsum.com


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I'm testing Metro Exodus with some Process Lasso CPU limits...
My first impression is that it could solve some problems with WHEA errors.
I don't have errors running Metro, but If I limit CPU to 80% the loading is smoother.


----------



## robalm

RobertoSampaio said:


> I'm testing Metro Exodus with some Process Lasso CPU limits...
> My first impression is that it could solve some problems with WHEA errors.
> I don't have errors running Metro, but If I limit CPU to 80% the loading is smoother.


Metro Exodus is nothing, can easy pass without WHEA.
Run Need for speed heat (loading) to find WHEA.
Temp and power is insane, i get 75c on stock settings!


----------



## RobertoSampaio

robalm said:


> Metro Exodus is nothing, can easy pass without WHEA.
> Run Need for speed heat (loading) to find WHEA.
> Temp and power is insane, i get 75c on stock settings!


STAR WARS Battlefront II has an insane loading too...


----------



## robalm

Man need for speed heat, right at the start max power on cpu and max power on gpu and 4000+ fps.
Just like the amazon game...


----------



## robalm

Just for fun, what is your max cpu temp when loading need for speed?


----------



## kill_a_wat

Did some stability testing today and so far so good. I'll do play some Ghostrunner, Metro and COD Black Ops and see how it goes.


----------



## Nizzen

RobertoSampaio said:


> STAR WARS Battlefront II has an insane loading too...


*frostbite games 
I see 100% load on 18 cores when loading BF V maps


----------



## Robertomcat

Hello, good morning.

I have set a fixed voltage value of 1.375 from the BIOS To run all cores at 5.2 and the ring at 4.8, I have also set an LLC 6, but then from HWInfo I see that the Vcore decreases to 1.365 when the PC is at full load.

Previously I was using a MSI motherboard where this Vcore value did not decrease and the PC was stable and I have been running since a long time a voltage of 1.375 without any problem with all the previous configuration.

The current motherboard is an Asus Z490-E Gaming
Thanks.


----------



## Astral85

kill_a_wat said:


> Did some stability testing today and so far so good. I'll do play some Ghostrunner, Metro and COD Black Ops and see how it goes.
> 
> View attachment 2519258


Wow what's your CPU SP? I can barely get my 10900K to do 5.2


----------



## Imprezzion

So, buddy of mine with one of those other 10900KF's I spoke of before got a O11 XL and a CM ML360 which I put everything in last night and updated the MSI Ace's BIOS. That CPU is really weird..

It's stock VID's are absolutely horrible and it needs 1.35v for 5.1/4.5 all core which is doable on the ML360 but as it isn't delidded temps go well into the 90's in stress.. however, the IMC is a bit of a beast. He runs the same RAM I have, Trident-Z Neo 3600C16 B-Die 2x16GB and I have it set up on 4400 16-17-17-35-320-2N at 1.52v DRAM and only 1.25v SA 1.15v IO and it's perfectly stable with the CPU on stock all Auto with TVB enabled and cache on 45. It even booted and trained 4800C18 with minimal SA/IO increase just fine. I can only dream of booting above 4600 on mine even tho my cores are much much better. (1.270 5.1/4.6 vs 1.350 on his).

Shame his cores cannot do like 52 or something. Would've been nice as he mostly plays MechWarrior 5 which with RTX enabled (he has 3070 Strix) is quite CPU intensive lol. Stock with the per core boost performs better then all core 5Ghz in general so..


----------



## kill_a_wat

My CPU SP is only 63. It is from an 'old' batch though bought it about 10+ months ago. I had a SP75 before this one and it was not bad but no way near as good as this one. 

For cooling, I run custom nickle heatsink and Heatkiller IV to a Mora 420 with Noctua 4x200mm fans. TIM is conductonaut


----------



## Astral85

kill_a_wat said:


> My CPU SP is only 63. It is from an 'old' batch though bought it about 10+ months ago. I had a SP75 before this one and it was not bad but no way near as good as this one.
> 
> For cooling, I run custom nickle heatsink and Heatkiller IV to a Mora 420 with Noctua 4x200mm fans. TIM is conductonaut


So you have an SP 63 running 5.3 @ 1.3V? What are your BIOS predictions? My predictions say I need over 1.5V+ for 5.3 on my SP 63.  Are you using conductonaut on the CPU IHS or are you direct die?


----------



## kill_a_wat

Astral85 said:


> So you have an SP 63 running 5.3 @ 1.3V? What are your BIOS predictions? My predictions say I need over 1.5V+ for 5.3 on my SP 63.  Are you using conductonaut on the CPU IHS or are you direct die?


Not sure what my BIOS predictions are off the top of my head - probably same as most other SP63s. With my current settings under heavy load it runs 1.29v. I use conductonaut on the custom heatsink (cant remember the brand atm) - not direct die


----------



## acoustic

Don't be disappointed when it WHEAs all over the place in Ghostrunner or Metro.


----------



## Imprezzion

Seeing as how mine's estimated at SP8x and needs 1.42v to not error on 5.3 in those games I really doubt a SP63 will do 1.29v lol. Ether it ain't stable or the SP numbers / prediction is way off. That is SP1xx territory lol.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

kill_a_wat said:


> Did some stability testing today and so far so good. I'll do play some Ghostrunner, Metro and COD Black Ops and see how it goes.
> 
> View attachment 2519258


You have a discrepancy of 36W from CPU power (298W) to MB power (262W).

Are you using fixed voltage or VF curve / adaptive?

Which LLC, AC_LL and DC_LL are you using?

Is it possible to post a pic of you VF table?

I think you have a better chip than a SP63 !


----------



## kill_a_wat

Ive been playing Metro started a new game and now just got past off the train part no WHEAs yet. I also played 2 Multiplayer games of Black Ops and all good atm (too many tryhards and SBMM sucks). I'll keep playing and see how it goes. My friend has another SP63 and that was completely (bad oc) different


----------



## kill_a_wat

acoustic said:


> Don't be disappointed when it WHEAs all over the place in Ghostrunner or Metro.


Playing the games now to see. I suppose if it WHEAs I may run 5.2. 



RobertoSampaio said:


> You have a discrepancy of 36W from CPU power (298W) to MB power (262W).
> 
> Are you using fixed voltage or VF curve / adaptive?
> 
> Which LLC, AC_LL and DC_LL are you using?
> 
> Is it possible to post a pic of you VF table?
> 
> I think you have a better chip than a SP63 !


Im using fixed voltage, LLC7, not sure about AC_LL and DC_LL. Maybe I will try and post a pic of my VF table. 



acoustic said:


> Don't be disappointed when it WHEAs all over the place in Ghostrunner or Metro.


Haha it would suck but so far no issues. I'm happy running 5.2Ghz if I need to but 5.3 seems so much nicer


----------



## robalm

kill_a_wat said:


> Ive been playing Metro started a new game and now just got past off the train part no WHEAs yet. I also played 2 Multiplayer games of Black Ops and all good atm (too many tryhards and SBMM sucks). I'll keep playing and see how it goes. My friend has another SP63 and that was completely (bad oc) different


Loop need for speed heat a few times, it's mutch harder.
I got WHEA first loop at 5ghz 1.29v (about 1.2~1.22v load).


----------



## RobertoSampaio

For sure, intel does not test CPU one by one... 
So I think they take a sample and test, and based on it "program" the VF curve on CPU production batch.
So the chance of you have an excellent SP63 is high.


----------



## Intrud3r

I've used a couple of games to check for whea's, and so far from my testing the best ones to use are:

Need for speed Heat --> starting up the game and loading into your game seems enough, repeat if needed
Star Wars Battlefront II --> starting up the game is hard, play a full game of galactic assault of whatever it's called, or any round probably.
Battlefield 5 --> starting up and loading a map is hard, playing a round sometimes helps to check
Anno 1800 --> I use that for checking memory, after tm5 and gsat.
Metro Exodus --> starting up and loading a game a couple of times, maybe play about 20-30 min.
GTA V --> just playing the game

These have helped me to check for errors. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## kill_a_wat

Intrud3r said:


> I've used a couple of games to check for whea's, and so far from my testing the best ones to use are:
> 
> Need for speed Heat --> starting up the game and loading into your game seems enough, repeat if needed
> Star Wars Battlefront II --> starting up the game is hard, play a full game of galactic assault of whatever it's called, or any round probably.
> Battlefield 5 --> starting up and loading a map is hard, playing a round sometimes helps to check
> Anno 1800 --> I use that for checking memory, after tm5 and gsat.
> Metro Exodus --> starting up and loading a game a couple of times, maybe play about 20-30 min.
> GTA V --> just playing the game
> 
> These have helped me to check for errors. Just my 2 cents.


Thanks mate, I'll try these out. I'm enjoying Metro atm.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I'm thinking about the CPU power calculation and the MB power calculation and how LLC, DC_LL and AC_LL interact with these measurements...

I have no experience with 10900k using fixed voltage.
As from beginning I used vf curve, adaptive and CPU "by core".

I know when we set a fixed voltage VRM uses the voltage set in MB and the VID generated by CPU is ignored, as like AC_LL and DC_LL have no effect on this case...

Vcore will be the voltage set minus LLC drop.

Vcore = (voltage set) - (LLC * current)

I know CPU do not have a die sense for reading Vcore, so CPU still uses VID for power calculation and for all others algorithms, like power limit, etc.

So how could the CPU runs the power algorithms if we make a "by pass" in VID?

Setting a fixed voltage will be impossible that CPU power calculation matches MB power calculation...

Or I'm wrong?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Today the room temp is 18C... so the water is about 30C. My CPU is running like a charm !!!

Today I think I can run some cores at 57x... LOL


----------



## acoustic

Looking at your effective clocks, none of your cores are going above 5.1Ghz .. I noticed this from the last pic you posted.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

acoustic said:


> Looking at your effective clocks, none of your cores are going above 5.1Ghz . I noticed this from the last pic you posted.


Yes, because I'm using OCTVB... 
So, at full load, I have 51x...
And the effective clock depends on the load in the determined period of time. 






Effective clock vs instant (discrete) clock


It has become a common practice for several years to report instant (discrete) clock values for CPUs. This method is based on knowledge of the actual bus clock (BCLK) and sampling of core ratios at specific time points. The resulting clock is then a simple result of ratio * BCLK. Such approach...




www.hwinfo.com


----------



## Nizzen

RobertoSampaio said:


> Today the room temp is 18C... so the water is about 30C. My CPU is running like a charm !!!
> 
> Today I think I can run some cores at 57x... LOL
> 
> 
> View attachment 2519286


What about benchmark Tombraider game benchmark in 1080p or something like that, to see if the performance realy is there 

Screenshot of Hwinfo doesn't show us the performance


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Nizzen said:


> What about benchmark Tombraider game benchmark in 1080p or something like that, to see if the performance realy is there
> 
> Screenshot of Hwinfo doesn't show us the performance


I'll try...
I use 2560x1080 with a RTX3080 undervolted to 875mv.
But let me clarify... 
My "OC stile" is not breaking benchmarks scores or to have the highest FPS in a game...
My fun is achieving high single-core boost clocks while maintaining stability and a decent all-core overclock.


----------



## acoustic

RobertoSampaio said:


> Yes, because I'm using OCTVB...
> So, at full load, I have 51x...
> And the effective clock depends on the load in the determined period of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Effective clock vs instant (discrete) clock
> 
> 
> It has become a common practice for several years to report instant (discrete) clock values for CPUs. This method is based on knowledge of the actual bus clock (BCLK) and sampling of core ratios at specific time points. The resulting clock is then a simple result of ratio * BCLK. Such approach...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.hwinfo.com


From your link:

"The Effective frequency does not represent a particular real clock, but the average clock value where sleeping states do not contribute to clock.
So for example when a core is running: 800 MHz, 0 (sleep), 0 (sleep), 0 (sleep)
the average value (effective clock) is: (800 + 0 + 0 + 0) / 4 = 200 MHz"

If that's the case, then your effective clock on any of your cores should reflect above 5100Mhz at one point or another. The fact that all of them read 5100Mhz as their maximum that HWINFO64 polled at any point, would indicate that they never breached 5100Mhz. I understand that the Core Ratio is reading 56x at one point in time, and you can see that from your maximum ratio that was logged, but that means you should see higher than 5100Mhz from at least one core. There's no indication you actually hit 5.6Ghz on any cores besides Core Ratio and Core Clock, which we know has been somewhat unreliable since the introduction of C-States and OCTVB.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding how it works, but even when I run a Turbo Ratio Offset, I can see one core hit 5300Mhz Effective Clock at some point, and I can see some of the cores only hit 4900Mhz as they only clock up under full load.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

What I understand is effective clock depends on the load...
I just reset WH-info and run a few seconds at HP power plan...
Just with background loads...


----------



## acoustic

RobertoSampaio said:


> What I understand is effective clock depends on the load...
> I just reset WH-info and run a few seconds at HP power plan...
> Just with background loads...
> 
> View attachment 2519310


Effective Clock is an average of polling intervals, from what I've read. It's essentially, as far as I understand, a more accurate way to determine what your speeds your cores are actually running as the introduction of C-States, power plans, OCTVB, etc means that what the CPU reports as the Core Clock or Ratio, is not always what clock speed the cores are actually running.

I'm not saying you're lying about anything, but I am curious because looking at your effective clocks, your chip never exceeded 5100Mhz on any cores at all. If you run a TVB OC, even at stock where one core goes to 5300Mhz, you should see that one core hit 5300Mhz effective clock. I'm genuinely curious. The link you provided only made it more strange, as it highlights just how inaccurate Core Clock and Core Ratio are, and pretty much makes me believe Effective Clock is the only one that matters.


----------



## RobertoSampaio




----------



## acoustic

RobertoSampaio said:


> View attachment 2519311


That's CPU Core that's it's reading, not effective clock. What was the maximum effective clock reached on any of the cores/threads? What's the 5300 and 4700 indicating?

From your link, the CPU Core and CPU Ratio are not reliable forms of clock speed indication.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

VSync=off


----------



## RobertoSampaio

acoustic said:


> That's CPU Core that's it's reading, not effective clock. What was the maximum effective clock reached on any of the cores/threads? What's the 5300 and 4700 indicating?
> 
> From your link, the CPU Core and CPU Ratio are not reliable forms of clock speed indication.


Core and ring


----------



## acoustic

RobertoSampaio said:


> Core and ring


Ah, 4700 is ring. Okay. What are the screenshots meant to show?


----------



## Salve1412

acoustic said:


> Effective Clock is an average of polling intervals, from what I've read. It's essentially, as far as I understand, a more accurate way to determine what your speeds your cores are actually running as the introduction of C-States, power plans, OCTVB, etc means that what the CPU reports as the Core Clock or Ratio, is not always what clock speed the cores are actually running.
> 
> I'm not saying you're lying about anything, but I am curious because looking at your effective clocks, your chip never exceeded 5100Mhz on any cores at all. If you run a TVB OC, even at stock where one core goes to 5300Mhz, you should see that one core hit 5300Mhz effective clock. I'm genuinely curious. The link you provided only made it more strange, as it highlights just how inaccurate Core Clock and Core Ratio are, and pretty much makes me believe Effective Clock is the only one that matters.


Yes, looking at Roberto screenshots I was curious about the same thing, shouldn't Effective Clock readings reflect By Core Usage ratios if the corresponding frequencies are effectively touched? I don't know the technical aspects of this, though.

Edit: read the definition on HWInfo website, now it is clearer. After about 33 hours of normal usage (browsing, watching videos, no gaming, mostly idle) maximum value I have for one core is 5380MHz. This is with "By Core Usage" 8-Core Ratio x54, 10-Core x53.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

acoustic said:


> Ah, 4700 is ring. Okay. What are the screenshots meant to show?


@Nizzen asked me this test...


----------



## acoustic

RobertoSampaio said:


> @Nizzen ask me this test...


Ah, I see.


----------



## Intrud3r

This is my system running lots of background crap, and running cpu-z bench 2x.

I'm running 5.2 all core HT=on atm, with TVB @ 70C -1. Uncore / cache is running at 4.6

AC/DC = 1/1
LLC = low (on a gigabyte board)
overall offset = + 0.030 (so for every ratio, could prolly get away with per ratio, but I don't care about lower ratio's getting a boost of 0.030V)

Core 4 and 5 are my fav cores, see core 4 has run at least 5.2 for the bench. (even tho turbo boost 3.0 is disabled atm)

Curious what we will see what you @RobertoSampaio get when you run cpu-z bench.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

This is my OCTVB table, I have -2x for all frequencies:





































This is when CPU-Z is running:


----------



## Salve1412

RobertoSampaio said:


> This is my OCTVB table, I have -2x for all frequencies:
> 
> View attachment 2519317
> 
> 
> View attachment 2519318
> 
> View attachment 2519320
> 
> 
> View attachment 2519319


But aren't those single thread scores a bit too low? I get 653 / 654 (By Core Usage, x54 8-Core ratio x53 10-Core, Cache 4800MHz). Even if TVB reduces the ratio from x56 to x54 due to temperature increasing, wouldn't it still be too low? Does my higher RAM overclock play a role? Maybe something running in background?

Screenshot with scores. Effective Clock showing that a core reached 5400MHz during CPU-Z single thread benchmark.


----------



## Intrud3r

Those single core scores from CPU-Z are from his 5.1 speed .... if I run my system at 5.1 all core I get 618 single core cpu-z

In my humble opinion, none of his cores are ever reaching over 5.1 Ghz ... so woop woop for 5.6 ratio if none of the cores ever hit it.
(this is with my understanding of how effective clocks and ratio clocks work.)

(last week I ran 5.3 HT=off and I got ~644 single core cpu-z bench)


----------



## Salve1412

Intrud3r said:


> Those single core scores from CPU-Z are from his 5.1 speed .... if I run my system at 5.1 all core I get 618 single core cpu-z


Isn't it strange, since he has a much higher ratio set for single core workloads?


----------



## Intrud3r

Not being stable results in lower scores in my knowledge ...
You can test it easily for yourself ... just lower Vcore with 0.010 mv each time and run cpu-z bench in between ... or cinebench .... you get lower scores ... then you get whea's ... then bsod's ....

If i'm not mistaken 

@ ratio remark --> I think because his system wants to run at 5.6, but his tvb settings don't let it and cap it because too much powerdraw / voltage / amps / temp / whatever ... it never reaches a value above 5.1

still a bit weird that it doesn't at least hit 5.150 for example ... I donnow about that.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I can't do over 51x single core with this config...

The stressed core goes to 51x and the others stay free following the table.










The stressed core is Core 0...









Take a look...


----------



## Intrud3r

I think that if you @RobertoSampaio would do just a regular all core overclock of 5.1 on all 10 cores you would get higher scores then you get now .... just saying ... 5.2 which should be attainable should give you like ~630-ish imho ....


----------



## Nizzen

RobertoSampaio said:


> VSync=off
> 
> View attachment 2519312


193 "media" average fps is BAD!
Are you running 2666mhz memory?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

@Intrud3r 

All depends on what kind of user you are... 

Some people like just play games with high FPS...
Others like to achieve high benchmarks scores...
Some, like me, like to hit high frequencies at low loads. 

My fun is achieving high single-core boost clocks at low loads while maintaining stability and a decent all-core overclock. 

By the way, take a look on this below... 

I do not use a power management for high scores...


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Nizzen said:


> 193 "media" average fps is BAD!
> Are you running 2666mhz memory?


My memory is not so good, it's true... 
Which value is good?
Take a pic of your score....
I think I can't do much better than 193...


----------



## acoustic

RobertoSampaio said:


> My fun is achieving high single-core boost clocks at low loads while maintaining stability and a decent all-core overclock.
> 
> By the way, take a look on this below...
> 
> I do not use a power management for high scores...


Your scores seem like you're only running 5.1Ghz, and all the pics you've posted also show you have zero cores going above 5.1Ghz. I don't think the settings are applying as you want. The Core Ratio and Core Clock are not accurate - your Effective Clock is never, at any point, reaching above 5.1Ghz. The minimum reading zero is because it would appear you have residency enabled and allowing cores to "sleep".


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I'll learn more about effective clock to try to understand...
But If I reset WH-info and take a pic just after running a stress test, I have the effective clock you are looking for...


----------



## acoustic

I think you have your TVB profile or something else too restrictive, and it's stopping the chip from ever utilizing those higher core speeds (at low loads). Even with just application loading/Window processes, you only hit ~5.3Ghz, still far off from 5.6Ghz.

Effective Clock is what you want to watch when playing with TVB and seeing if your clocks going up with the load as you want them to. Core Ratio and Core Clock are essentially useless when using TVB, or even monitoring core clocks with C-States enabled. Very good example of this, is that in some of your screenshots, you are idling and/or cores are in residency, yet Core Ratio is still reading "56x" .. but the Effective Clock (the speed the cores are actually running) are reading 0, or ~200Mhz, which are idle speeds.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I know I have a restrictive OCTVB profile. This is the only way I can reach high frequencies.
For sure, it's not the best configuration for gaming or benchmarks...

I have no doubt that CPU is hitting 56x. It was not easy to do this... Try to make all your cores hit 55x, and you will see...
And I don't have a magic stuff that can make all software read 56x with CPU running 51x.
So, I know I can't put load at 53x because of the thermal conditions, but I'm having a lot of fun doing all 10 cores hit 56x, even if just running excel ...LOL

I have a distinct overclock profile. The only thing that matter for me is to make all cores hit high frequencies and be stable (without WHEA).

I could delid my CPU and make it burn with 360W and make 18,500 CBR23 points... but It's not funny for me...
I even set a "package temperature threshold" of 65C... LOL.

We are talking about different things...

About effective clock:

"The Effective frequency does not represent a particular real clock, but the average clock value where sleeping states do not contribute to clock.
So for example when a core is running: 800 MHz, 0 (sleep), 0 (sleep), 0 (sleep)
the average value (effective clock) is: (800 + 0 + 0 + 0) / 4 = 200 MHz "

"The Effective clock value is the average clock measured internally by the CPU across the polling interval set in HWiNFO. So if for example this is set to 1000 ms, the Current Effective Clock value reflects the average of all clock states during the last 1000 ms. Reducing the polling interval in HWiNFO will allow showing the clock with a finer granularity."

"The Average column calculated for any value in the sensors screen is another average of all Current values read by HWiNFO. The averaging interval can be configured in HWiNFO sensor settings."

"The maximum effective clock reached depends on several factors (power, current, silicon FITness limits, temperature). So when either of those limits are hit, the clock will be reduced and this might fluctuate so frequently that it's not captured..."

I'll kid with you 
I would like to make a game and propose a challenge...
Who can boot with this configuration?


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> u have a discrepancy of 36W from CPU power (298W) to MB power (262W).





RobertoSampaio said:


> @Intrud3r
> 
> All depends on what kind of user you are...
> 
> Some people like just play games with high FPS...
> Others like to achieve high benchmarks scores...
> Some, like me, like to hit high frequencies at low loads.
> 
> My fun is achieving high single-core boost clocks at low loads while maintaining stability and a decent all-core overclock.


That's fine but what cpu-z your posting I can do (and a little better) on my crappy chip @ 51x all-core. Have something to post showing high frequencies at low loads? You can do frequency plots over time on HWINFO64 or something, IDK.


----------



## acoustic

You say your chip is certainly hitting 5600Mhz, but there is nothing indicating that it is. Effective Clock never, at any point, shows you reaching the 5600Mhz number. It does read core speed accurately as you seen when you opened HWINFO and it showed one core at roughly 5300Mhz, since the load was so extremely light. You think the chip is running at 5600Mhz because Core Ratio and Core Clock are reading that, but the TVB profile and C-States are changing what the chip demands, hence the Effective Clock being much lower. There's no way Effective Clock won't pick up the frequency hitting 5600Mhz if you're running the default 1000ms polling rate.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> That's fine but what cpu-z your posting I can do (and a little better) on my crappy chip @ 51x all-core. Have something to post showing high frequencies at low loads? You can do frequency plots over time on HWINFO64 or something, IDK.


----------



## fray_bentos

*double post. Deleted.


----------



## fray_bentos

Salve1412 said:


> But aren't those single thread scores a bit too low? I get 653 / 654 (By Core Usage, x54 8-Core ratio x53 10-Core, Cache 4800MHz). Even if TVB reduces the ratio from x56 to x54 due to temperature increasing, wouldn't it still be too low? Does my higher RAM overclock play a role? Maybe something running in background?
> 
> Screenshot with scores. Effective Clock showing that a core reached 5400MHz during CPU-Z single thread benchmark.
> 
> View attachment 2519322





Intrud3r said:


> Those single core scores from CPU-Z are from his 5.1 speed .... if I run my system at 5.1 all core I get 618 single core cpu-z
> 
> In my humble opinion, none of his cores are ever reaching over 5.1 Ghz ... so woop woop for 5.6 ratio if none of the cores ever hit it.
> (this is with my understanding of how effective clocks and ratio clocks work.)
> 
> (last week I ran 5.3 HT=off and I got ~644 single core cpu-z bench)


Consistent with these scores, I get 640 53x single thread in CPU-Z (HT disabled, but irrelevant for single thread load), 4.9 GHz cache, 4200 MHz Cl16 RAM.



RobertoSampaio said:


> I know I have a restrictive OCTVB profile. This is the only way I can reach high frequencies.


I don't think you are hitting those high frequencies, it's an illusion. If I run single thread bench in CPU-Z at 53x my core temperature doesn't even hit 40 C, so your OCTVB profile won't even be kicking in. Your single thread CPU-Z score is consistent with 5.1 GHz, and your effective clock speed is 5.1 GHz. Since your OCTVB profile core ratio step-down shouldn't even be triggering, you should be getting the higher clocks, and hence a higher CPU-Z single thread score.


----------



## GeneO

I don't think the core clocks in HWINO64 are meaningless. They show you what your processor is doing while not idling in some C-state, which is what I want most of the time. It will still reflect frequency reductions based on the V/F curve and loasd and any throttling mechanisms as they occur.


----------



## fray_bentos

RobertoSampaio said:


> I'll kid with you
> I would like to make a game and propose a challenge...
> Who can boot with this configuration?


Is the game called, "bring your PC as close as possible to the brink of instability for no tangible performance benefit", or does it have a shorter, catchier name than that?


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> View attachment 2519348
> 
> 
> View attachment 2519349


Would be interesting to include the voltage and power curves along with those OCTool frewuency plots


----------



## GeneO

fray_bentos said:


> Is the game called, "bring your PC as close as possible to the brink of instability for no tangible performance benefit", or does it have a shorter, catchier name than that?


IMO, no different than running all-core on some benchmark like CB23, P95 or RB  - rarely are going to hit those kind of powers and temps in normal use.
But for me, with my chip I can't do that nor would I - I like it simple - all core, TVB voltage optimizations, and changing the effective Tjunction lower to throttle at high temps.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> Would be interesting to include the voltage and power curves along with those OCTool frewuency plots


The problem with this chart is I can't control Y axis.


----------



## fray_bentos

GeneO said:


> IMO, no different than running all-core on some benchmark like CB23, P95 or RB  - rarely are going to hit those kind of powers and temps in normal use.


I've hit CB levels of power and temps for several minutes of sustained load compiling shaders in Horizon Zero Dawn, that's another overclock destroyer. Also during video encoding and quantum chemical calculations, all of which I do from time to time. This is why I have left a 250 W power limit in place.


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> The problem with this chart is I can't control Y axis.
> 
> View attachment 2519356


Hmm, voltage reporting has no corresponding spike like I would expected with a light load with high frequencies and adaptive voltage.


----------



## GeneO

fray_bentos said:


> I've hit CB levels of power and temps for several minutes of sustained load compiling shaders in Horizon Zero Dawn, that's another overclock destroyer. Also during video encoding and quantum chemical calculations, all of which I do from time to time. This is why I have left a 250 W power limit in place.


Most people don't though and if they do for a living have dual Xeons


----------



## PhoenixMDA

RobertoSampaio said:


> My memory is not so good, it's true...
> Which value is good?
> Take a pic of your score....
> I think I can't do much better than 193...


Under 200FPS is like [email protected]
SoT [email protected] with 5,1ghz 4600cl17 arround 265fps, with much lower ramoc most people are arround 240-250.
[email protected],2/4,8/4x8gb 4400CL17-17 do there arround 240fps.
It's good for a smooth frametime over 200fps in CPU min fps with 5,1ghz and much more important no stutter in games, if you have also a good nvme.

With higher cpu clk and ram clk he can show you up to 290fps.


----------



## ViTosS

Can someone record a video like this? I'm interested in seeing the 3080 scaling with an i9 10900k, I showed the settings in the video:


----------



## ViTosS

Also I ran this, but it was TOTALLY GPU bound in 1440p all maxed, was only able to push 2145Mhz in this scenario with 1.075Mhz, but in the game it's changing between 2115-2145Mhz


----------



## Nizzen

ViTosS said:


> Also I ran this, but it was TOTALLY GPU bound in 1440p all maxed, was only able to push 2145Mhz in this scenario with 1.075Mhz, but in the game it's changing between 2115-2145Mhz
> View attachment 2519390


Look at "cpu game" You got 219fps average 
5950x does 290-310fps if it's "max" tweaked with 3800c14 memory
Highest I got 11900k was about 260fps


----------



## ViTosS

Nizzen said:


> Look at "cpu game" You got 219fps average
> 5950x does 290-310fps if it's "max" tweaked with 3800c14 memory
> Highest I got 11900k was about 260fps


Oh nice, I will run it at 1080p Lowest at 5.4Ghz to see now


----------



## fray_bentos

ViTosS said:


> Can someone record a video like this? I'm interested in seeing the 3080 scaling with an i9 10900k, I showed the settings in the video:


There won't be any tangible difference; even when GPU load around its lowest, your frame rate is still over 200 FPS. The lowest GPU load is around 90% so the max possible gain would be 10%. Around those sort of frame rates memory performance starts becoming a potential bottleneck/determinant of performance.


----------



## Nizzen

fray_bentos said:


> There won't be any tangible difference; even when GPU load around its lowest, your frame rate is still over 200 FPS. The lowest GPU load is around 90% so the max possible gain would be 10%. Around those sort of frame rates memory performance starts becoming a potential bottleneck/determinant of performance.


Latency/memoryperformance IS the bottleneck in Warzone


----------



## ViTosS

5.4Ghz/4.7Ghz + [email protected]16-16-36 RAM


----------



## ViTosS

fray_bentos said:


> There won't be any tangible difference; even when GPU load around its lowest, your frame rate is still over 200 FPS. The lowest GPU load is around 90% so the max possible gain would be 10%. Around those sort of frame rates memory performance starts becoming a potential bottleneck/determinant of performance.


Yeah I know that, that's why I'm waiting Alderlake 16/32 to upgrade 

Also I have a stable profile here for RAM [email protected] but I doubt it will change that much, there was some parts of the video where I was GPU bound... Even at 1080p LOW lol


----------



## fray_bentos

ViTosS said:


> Yeah I know that, that's why I'm waiting Alderlake 16/32 to upgrade
> 
> Also I have a stable profile here for RAM [email protected] but I doubt it will change that much, there was some parts of the video where I was GPU bound... Even at 1080p LOW lol


Alderlake many also not be a worthwhile upgrade for you. It is not worth upgrading your platform unless CPU/memory bottlenecking means that you are not hitting your desired minimum frame rate target (for me, 120 FPS). The only exception to this is if you can sell your old platform for almost the same price as it costs for an upgraded one (e.g golden sample high-end CPU and upgrading to a better performing mid-range of a newer generation). I'll likely be sticking with my 10900KF for a few years yet, even though I will be tempted by newer generations.

Also, Alderlake 16C/32T doesn't exist. It's 8 large cores and 8 small cores. Only the large cores have hyperthreading, so it is 16C/24T (or more accurately 8C+8c/24T). We also don't know whether the small cores will give any gaming performance boost e.g. compared to a straight 8 large core Alderlake variant with no small cores.


----------



## Imprezzion

Is there any way to set TVB parameters in BIOS in stead of software in MSI Ace? Like, modded BIOS or whatever?

I can set per # of cores ratio's and voltage curve in BIOS but not TVB stuff like temperatures, negative frequency offsets, vmaxstress, ASF. And I really dislike using XTU as it still has issues for me not applying on boot (there's not even an option to set that except for per-app profiles with a VBS / commandline script to apply that on boot).

I mean, 5.1 all core is great and nice and cool and such but I don't mind it "boosting" to 5.3 when it can temp and power wise. Especially with a lesser core load.

EDIT: I reset my BIOS after saving the profile I have and went to play with Turbo Offsets. I can run +2 offset so x55 1-2 cores x54 3 cores x52 4-7 cores x51 8-10 cores. I needed +0.050v adaptive offset otherwise it will Cache L0 error when it boosts to 5.5Ghz single core. Problem is, load voltages all-core are fine, around 1.34v for all-core Cinebench R23 load with some cores doing x52 even during the bench. Problem is the x54 and x55 multi for single core loads. Those go as high as 1.522v VCC Sense (1.539v VR VOut) which is... a bit high?? . Not sure how happy a 10900KF is with 1.539v going through the core at single threaded loads.. I mean, it aint hot, the worst o've seen is this so far doing CB R23 single and multi core benches, but still look at that voltage lol. (Core Clock = monitoring Core #0 only).

This is all Auto settings! I'm letting the BIOS / TVB decide everything for this test. LLC, AC/DC, everything is Auto controlled except for a +0.050 offset to combat the L0 errors.


----------



## Intrud3r

Only way I can get my single core score this high is by disabling c-states (and using speedshift and EIST). 5.2 vr vout during the bench = ~1.330V, 5.1 = ~1.240V atm.


----------



## Imprezzion

Intrud3r said:


> Only way I can get my single core score this high is by disabling c-states (and using speedshift and EIST). 5.2 vr vout during the bench = ~1.330V, 5.1 = ~1.240V atm.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2519402


On 5.5 I hit a single core of 651 but it wasn't boosting all the way due to core affinity. It sat more at 5.4 then 5.5. It almost seems like single threaded stuff like CPU-Z and Cinebench due to how core affinity works in Windows do not actually run on 1 single core / thread but get smeared out and thus don't actually use the single core boost.

Same with Prime95 even with 1 or 2 threads and affinity forced to core #0 and/or #1 it still doesn't boost to the full single core settings. But. It randomly will do it with background windows processes as I see 5.5Ghz quite regularly just sitting semi idle. Just never does it under any significant load, even single threaded.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Imprezzion said:


> Is there any way to set TVB parameters in BIOS in stead of software in MSI Ace? Like, modded BIOS or whatever?
> 
> I can set per # of cores ratio's and voltage curve in BIOS but not TVB stuff like temperatures, negative frequency offsets, vmaxstress, ASF. And I really dislike using XTU as it still has issues for me not applying on boot (there's not even an option to set that except for per-app profiles with a VBS / commandline script to apply that on boot).
> 
> I mean, 5.1 all core is great and nice and cool and such but I don't mind it "boosting" to 5.3 when it can temp and power wise. Especially with a lesser core load.
> 
> EDIT: I reset my BIOS after saving the profile I have and went to play with Turbo Offsets. I can run +2 offset so x55 1-2 cores x54 3 cores x52 4-7 cores x51 8-10 cores. I needed +0.050v adaptive offset otherwise it will Cache L0 error when it boosts to 5.5Ghz single core. Problem is, load voltages all-core are fine, around 1.34v for all-core Cinebench R23 load with some cores doing x52 even during the bench. Problem is the x54 and x55 multi for single core loads. Those go as high as 1.522v VCC Sense (1.539v VR VOut) which is... a bit high?? . Not sure how happy a 10900KF is with 1.539v going through the core at single threaded loads.. I mean, it aint hot, the worst o've seen is this so far doing CB R23 single and multi core benches, but still look at that voltage lol. (Core Clock = monitoring Core #0 only).
> 
> This is all Auto settings! I'm letting the BIOS / TVB decide everything for this test. LLC, AC/DC, everything is Auto controlled except for a +0.050 offset to combat the L0 errors.
> 
> View attachment 2519401


I think 1540mv is ok...

Intel set 1600mv as stock for some CPUs


----------



## Imprezzion

RobertoSampaio said:


> I think 1540mv is ok...
> 
> Intel set 1600mv as stock for some CPUs
> 
> 
> View attachment 2519406


1.603v for single core 5.3 boost? No wonder these chips can get super hot even on stock lol.

I got it dialed in at x55 1-2 x54 3-4 and x53 5-10 with OCTVB @ -2 >80c. In CB23 it just about touches the 80c mark but doesn't really underclock yet. Effective drops from 5301 to 5277 something but it doesn't drop all the way to 5100. Prime95 obviously does tho. Shame CB23 single thread will only ever see 5402 effective and never 5500 even tho it is set that way.

Here, CPU-Z with above frequency settings. It did briefly hit 5.5 in the single core CPU-Z test. Mostly sat at 5.4 tho in CB23.










EDIT2: She gets up there temp wise when loading Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition, The Division 1, Battlefield 1 and Horizon Zero Dawn. I did a quick test launching those 4 games from desktop to in-game to monitor temps and clocks per core and it seems to work pretty well lol. "Core Clock" = Core #9 Clock which is why it's missing in the clockspeed screenshot. It and Core #8 are supposed to be the "Prime" cores but they don't do the 5.5Ghz single-core boost. Other cores do that weirdly enough..


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Did effective clock register 5500?


----------



## Imprezzion

RobertoSampaio said:


> Does effective clock registered 5500?


Yes it did but for some reason it keeps dropping down to these average values even tho HWINFO is set to "maximum" and "current" and not average.

It doesn't hit it very often tho. Basically only when just booting windows and when opening stuff like Office or something single threaded. It never hits it when gaming or loading something.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Imprezzion said:


> Yes it did but for some reason it keeps dropping down to these average values even tho HWINFO is set to "maximum" and "current" and not average.
> 
> It doesn't hit it very often tho. Basically only when just booting windows and when opening stuff like Office or something single threaded. It never hits it when gaming or loading something.


I tried to explain this way:

"The Effective frequency does not represent a particular real clock, but the average clock value where sleeping states do not contribute to clock.
So for example when a core is running: 800 MHz, 0 (sleep), 0 (sleep), 0 (sleep)
the average value (effective clock) is: (800 + 0 + 0 + 0) / 4 = 200 MHz "

"The Effective clock value is the average clock measured internally by the CPU across the polling interval set in HWiNFO. So if for example this is set to 1000 ms, the Current Effective Clock value reflects the average of all clock states during the last 1000 ms. Reducing the polling interval in HWiNFO will allow showing the clock with a finer granularity."

"The maximum effective clock reached depends on several factors (power, current, silicon FITness limits, temperature). So when either of those limits are hit, the clock will be reduced and this might fluctuate so frequently that it's not captured..." 

But....

"I don't think you are hitting those high frequencies, it's an illusion."

"You say your chip is certainly hitting 5600Mhz, but there is nothing indicating that it is. Effective Clock never, at any point, shows you reaching the 5600Mhz number."


Maybe you could explain better than I.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Imprezzion said:


> Yes it did but for some reason it keeps dropping down to these average values even tho HWINFO is set to "maximum" and "current" and not average.
> 
> It doesn't hit it very often tho. Basically only when just booting windows and when opening stuff like Office or something single threaded. It never hits it when gaming or loading something.


Anyway, If you have VMaxStress knob in your BIOS, I think you can boot at 56x...


----------



## Imprezzion

EDIT: MSI has no options to enable VMaxStress. Not even through XTU. Real shortcoming there.

Well, if that is true which corresponds with how HWINFO64 explains the sensor it's true what you say. However, after reconfiguring some stuff in my layout for HWINFO64 I got them to read and log the actual max values and not just averages. And it works.

They don't quite hit a flat 5.5Ghz for me but the "prime" core hit 5.412 max and the others all hovered between 5.299 and 5.345 during a "single thread" CB23 run. So, even tho the clock speed claims to have hit 5.5Ghz almost constantly the effective clock is more like 5.42Ghz at that core. Under CB23 multi thread it does run an almost perfect 5300 on all 20 threads. But it hits my 80c OCTVB -2 point and drops to 5150 ish during the run now and then.

Will upload the screenshots from my PC once the single thread CB23 run finishes. Takes a while hehe.


----------



## Imprezzion

RobertoSampaio said:


> Anyway, If you have VMaxStress knob in your BIOS, I think you can boot at 56x...


CB23 Single Thread: Effective max on C1T1 was 5412.7 @ ~1.514v. Max temp for that core 71c.


















CB23 multi thread with OCTVB disabled to not let it throttle @ 80c thus 5.3 all-core @ ~1.411v


























86c package and hottest core @ 325w load. It does claim to have hit 5.4 or even 5.5 on some cores but as you can see after resetting max/min in HWINFO64 before running the multi thread test it never exceeded 5300.1 on any thread / core.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Imprezzion said:


> EDIT: MSI has no options to enable VMaxStress. Not even through XTU. Real shortcoming there.
> 
> Well, if that is true which corresponds with how HWINFO64 explains the sensor it's true what you say. However, after reconfiguring some stuff in my layout for HWINFO64 I got them to read and log the actual max values and not just averages. And it works.
> 
> They don't quite hit a flat 5.5Ghz for me but the "prime" core hit 5.412 max and the others all hovered between 5.299 and 5.345 during a "single thread" CB23 run. So, even tho the clock speed claims to have hit 5.5Ghz almost constantly the effective clock is more like 5.42Ghz at that core. Under CB23 multi thread it does run an almost perfect 5300 on all 20 threads. But it hits my 80c OCTVB -2 point and drops to 5150 ish during the run now and then.
> 
> Will upload the screenshots from my PC once the single thread CB23 run finishes. Takes a while hehe.


It is easier if you selec only 2 cores, like you did...
If you set more cores to the same high frequency, OCTVB become more complicate...
Anyway, If you reset HW-Info and immediately run a single core load Its possible to register.
I have 7 cores set to 56x, so for me its impossible to register more than 5400 because they keep sharing the load...

Try to set 55x3.... or 55x4....


----------



## acoustic

Imprezzion said:


> EDIT: MSI has no options to enable VMaxStress. Not even through XTU. Real shortcoming there.
> 
> Well, if that is true which corresponds with how HWINFO64 explains the sensor it's true what you say. However, after reconfiguring some stuff in my layout for HWINFO64 I got them to read and log the actual max values and not just averages. And it works.
> 
> They don't quite hit a flat 5.5Ghz for me but the "prime" core hit 5.412 max and the others all hovered between 5.299 and 5.345 during a "single thread" CB23 run. So, even tho the clock speed claims to have hit 5.5Ghz almost constantly the effective clock is more like 5.42Ghz at that core. Under CB23 multi thread it does run an almost perfect 5300 on all 20 threads. But it hits my 80c OCTVB -2 point and drops to 5150 ish during the run now and then.
> 
> Will upload the screenshots from my PC once the single thread CB23 run finishes. Takes a while hehe.


The explanation of the sensor isn't saying that it's not capable of reading maximum correctly. If you have your polling rate slower than the default, then yes, HWINFO might miss the clock actually reaching it's maximum since it fluctuates so fast. I'd argue that if the chip is only hitting that speed for less than 1000ms, it's a useless setting anyway.

If you're seeing Effective Clock actually reach what you have the chip set to, then you're good to go. What voltage is it logging when you hit that ~5.4Ghz number?

The sensor does not say it's incapable of reading the actual maximum, it's just a warning that if the clock fluctuates too fast for the polling rate, it won't be able to see it. You can negate that by setting your polling rate to 100ms, or even lower .. but that cost processing power (which is why it's default to 1000ms).

I'm glad you figured it out because he's still not hitting anywhere near 5600Mhz on his chip. If he doesn't want to listen, then that's on him.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

acoustic said:


> The explanation of the sensor isn't saying that it's not capable of reading maximum correctly. If you have your polling rate slower than the default, then yes, HWINFO might miss the clock actually reaching it's maximum since it fluctuates so fast. I'd argue that if the chip is only hitting that speed for less than 1000ms, it's a useless setting anyway.
> 
> If you're seeing Effective Clock actually reach what you have the chip set to, then you're good to go. What voltage is it logging when you hit that ~5.4Ghz number?
> 
> The sensor does not say it's incapable of reading the actual maximum, it's just a warning that if the clock fluctuates too fast for the polling rate, it won't be able to see it. You can negate that by setting your polling rate to 100ms, or even lower .. but that cost processing power (which is why it's default to 1000ms).
> 
> I'm glad you figured it out because he's still not hitting anywhere near 5600Mhz on his chip. If he doesn't want to listen, then that's on him.


@acoustic

I have no problem if you don't believe me.

I can't get my system to work like yours, and that's not a problem for me.

But I won't say you're wrong or not telling the truth.

Like I said, we just have a different style of OCing, and It's useless for me to lie about all of this.

If I can learn with you I'll apreciate and be grateful.

I'm glad the Imprezzion hit 55x and will be happy if I can help.


----------



## acoustic

RobertoSampaio said:


> @acoustic
> 
> I have no problem if you don't believe me.
> 
> I can't get my system to work like yours, and that's not a problem for me.
> 
> But I won't say you're wrong or not telling the truth.
> 
> Like I said, we just have a different style of OCing, and It's useless for me to lie about all of this.
> 
> If I can learn with you I'll apreciate and be grateful.
> 
> I'm glad the Imprezzion hit 55x and will be happy if I can help.


I'm not saying you're lying. I think you have settings inputted that are not being used in ANY scenario because of how restrictive they are. 56x7 is great but you have the TVB profile and/or other restrictions so tight that there is zero opportunity for the chip to hit that. It's like setting the 1200mv voltage point on your 3080 to +500Mhz and then claiming you are running it's stable at that setting.. but never actually running that setting ever due to other restrictions (power, temp, etc).

You implied that I didn't understand how the HWINFO sensor works. I understand quite well, and the reason I pointed out your effective clocks is because I was trying to let you know that your clocks aren't hitting what you think they are.

You said you want high frequency at low load, and then everything you've posted for screenshots shows that your clocks are not reaching what you're claiming, nor what you have set (due to the TVB stipulations) You said, in response to me, that your clocks are hitting 5600Mhz and you "know it", but there's zero sensor data showing that ..

Your argument is basically that the Effective Clock reading in HWINFO is not accurate, but it is .. everyone else running Turbo Ratio OC or OCTVB is getting readings that show their one or two cores going above what their 10 core load setting is.

And just so you know, I only commented on it because you've been super helpful and share good stuff, so figured I'd point something out that looked weird. I have zero interest in being right, couldn't give a **** less about that. I was just trying to help.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I really think I can learn with you.

Once again..
I'm not saying hw-info is not accurate. I'm saying I have 7 cores selects for boost, and the time they hit 56x is very short and temp limited...

You are just looking "effective clock" and I know you know how it works...
What you are expecting is impossible to me to show you.
I can show you some cores at 5200... 5300... No more...


You could try...
Boot 55x4 - 54x6 - 53x8 - 52x10 and try to register effective clock of 5500...

For me It's impossible for thermal and power reasons.

If your system have the capability for this you could try...

Effective clock is like AC effective voltage... You have the peak, but rms is lower.

EDITED:
You can say my system isn't stable but you can't say the cores aren't hitting 56x.. LOL


----------



## fray_bentos

RobertoSampaio said:


> I really think I can learn with you.
> 
> Once again..
> I'm not saying hw-info is not accurate. I'm saying I have 7 cores selects for boost, and the time they hit 56x is very short and temp limited...
> 
> You are just looking "effective clock" and I know you know how it works...
> What you are expecting is impossible to me to show you.
> I can show you some cores at 5200... 5300... No more...
> 
> 
> You could try...
> Boot 55x4 - 54x6 - 53x8 - 52x10 and try to register effective clock of 5500...
> 
> For me It's impossible for thermal and power reasons.
> 
> If your system have the capability for this you could try...
> 
> Effective clock is like AC effective voltage... You have the peak, but rms is lower.
> 
> EDITED:
> You can say my system isn't stable but you can't say the cores aren't hitting 56x.. LOL


The way I am seeing it, the cores are running at 56, but only when idle, or almost idle. Within milliseconds of load hitting them they are dropping down to 51x. This is why your effective clock is showing 51x, and your single thread CPU Z benchmark score is consistent with what you would get with 51x. If those cores were doing any useful work above 51x, then it would be reflected in your effective clock and single threaded benchmark scores. Basically you have settings that show high numbers with zero real life benefit, and very likely pseudo-stable.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

fray_bentos said:


> The way I am seekng it, the cores are running at 56, but only when idle, or almost idle. Within milliseconds of load hitting them they are dropping down to 51x. This is why your effective clock is showing 51x, and your single thread CPU Z benchmark score is consistent with what you would get with 51x. If those cores were doing any useful work above 51x, then it would be reflected in your effective clock and single threaded benchmark scores. Basically you have setting that show high numbers with zero real life benefit, and very likely pseudo-stable.


You're probably right...

If I run "sync all cores" 51x, the system should be more stable and responsive. There is no doubt about it.

Just out of curiosity, do you have an Asus MB? I'm asking this because I don't know if other vendors have the necessary configuration available to do what I'm doing.

But the question here is, "Am I hitting 56x on all cores or not?"
After that, we could discuss stability

By the way, see... Over 50hs running and no errors...










EDITED:
Please...
I'm not fighting or getting into a fight.
I think this kind of discussion is good. I respect everyone here.


----------



## fray_bentos

RobertoSampaio said:


> You're probably right...
> 
> If I run "sync all cores" 51x, the system should be more stable and responsive. There is no doubt about it.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, do you have an Asus MB? I'm asking this because I don't know if other vendors have the necessary configuration available to do what I'm doing.
> 
> But the question here is, "Am I hitting 56x on all cores or not?"
> After that, we could discuss stability
> 
> By the way, see... Over 50hs running and no errors...
> 
> View attachment 2519459
> 
> 
> EDITED:
> Please...
> I'm not fighting or getting into a fight.
> I think this kind of discussion is good. I respect everyone here.


I'm on MSI. I still don't know why you don't go for 52x all core if your chip can do it. It will be faster than your current settings. Obviously your choice.


----------



## acoustic

RobertoSampaio said:


> EDITED:
> Please...
> I'm not fighting or getting into a fight.
> I think this kind of discussion is good. I respect everyone here.


Not fighting at all, but I do want you to understand what I'm trying to get across.

Using your settings of 55x4 / 54x6 / 53x8 / 52x10 .. here's Cinebench R23 Single-Core, where you can see my one core hit ~5.45Ghz. I don't know of anything else I can use to cause specific thread load. The chip is weird in that it will bounce apps around even though they're single-thread demanded, but still, this was the one main core that punched CBR23 for the large majority. I'm wondering if it's due to Speed-Step, and disabling Speed-Step and enabling EIST will allow that to function correctly.

Ignore the voltage. Just slammed a large number to make sure it wouldn't crash..


----------



## Nizzen

I like 5600 all core better 
Not the best effecy with bloated windows...


----------



## acoustic

Nizzen said:


> I like 5600 all core better
> Not the best effecy with bloated windows...


I'm pretty sure the die on my chip would explode LOL


----------



## RobertoSampaio

acoustic said:


> Not fighting at all, but I do want you to understand what I'm trying to get across.
> 
> Using your settings of 55x4 / 54x6 / 53x8 / 52x10 .. here's Cinebench R23 Single-Core, where you can see my one core hit ~5.45Ghz. I don't know of anything else I can use to cause specific thread load. The chip is weird in that it will bounce apps around even though they're single-thread demanded, but still, this was the one main core that punched CBR23 for the large majority. I'm wondering if it's due to Speed-Step, and disabling Speed-Step and enabling EIST will allow that to function correctly.
> 
> Ignore the voltage. Just slammed a large number to make sure it wouldn't crash..


I'll play with this temps and try a better single core.
With this config with load I'll have 51x single core.


----------



## Nizzen

Direct die is 😎

~25c water


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Nizzen said:


> I like 5600 all core better
> Not the best effecy with bloated windows...
> View attachment 2519466


At least 350W... LOL


----------



## Nizzen

RobertoSampaio said:


> At least 350W... LOL


My 7980xe @ 4700 all core says 🤣


----------



## acoustic

Nizzen said:


> Direct die is 😎
> 
> ~25c water
> View attachment 2519469


What block for the chip? I'm running direct-die with a Heatkiller IV. I see similar numbers, but your chip is just really, really ****ing good. I need more than that 1.33v for 5.2Ghz..


----------



## Nizzen

acoustic said:


> What block for the chip? I'm running direct-die with a Heatkiller IV. I see similar numbers, but your chip is just really, really ****ing good. I need more than that 1.33v for 5.2Ghz..


Supercool computer direct in socket, direct die block


----------



## acoustic

Nizzen said:


> Supercool computer direct in socket, direct die block


Pics!


----------



## Nizzen

acoustic said:


> Pics!


My friends from Thailand is who I got them from:






Blocks is crazy good


----------



## Imprezzion

acoustic said:


> The explanation of the sensor isn't saying that it's not capable of reading maximum correctly. If you have your polling rate slower than the default, then yes, HWINFO might miss the clock actually reaching it's maximum since it fluctuates so fast. I'd argue that if the chip is only hitting that speed for less than 1000ms, it's a useless setting anyway.
> 
> If you're seeing Effective Clock actually reach what you have the chip set to, then you're good to go. What voltage is it logging when you hit that ~5.4Ghz number?
> 
> The sensor does not say it's incapable of reading the actual maximum, it's just a warning that if the clock fluctuates too fast for the polling rate, it won't be able to see it. You can negate that by setting your polling rate to 100ms, or even lower .. but that cost processing power (which is why it's default to 1000ms).
> 
> I'm glad you figured it out because he's still not hitting anywhere near 5600Mhz on his chip. If he doesn't want to listen, then that's on him.


About 1.490-1.496v at 5400 and 5500 single core (VCC Sense) and 1.472-1.478 VR VOut.

I've been playing around with AC/DC modes (auto is mode_9) and LLC but every time I manually set a LLC and AC/DC, MSI actually calls it "CPU Lite Load", it massively increases voltages no matter what I set to well over 1.60v so.. I have to use all Auto with TVB Voltage Optimization enabled. Then it behaves normally again. I mean, it's very high but it's stable and OCTVB @ 80c -3 multiplier for the 55 and 54 and -2 for the 53 multi protects it and drops down to 1.303v @ 51 just fine which is exactly what I set in the VF Curve.

Only weird thing now is that CB23 and Prime95 load 53 at 1.411v which is what I set in the VF Curve but games like Division 1 overshoot like mad to like 1.450v and all the way to 1.495v or is that because it keeps using 54 and 55 during gameplay? Polling rate is 1000ms so maybe I just can't see the 54/55 ratio while playing. I dunno.

Temps are fine, even at 1.490v during gameplay it runs high 40's low 50's and 70's during loading but doesn't hit OCTVB 80c downclock and runs effective clock 5300-5350 the whole time. When using CB23 single thread it hits 5417 like I showed on the screenshot and while loading older single threaded stuff I saw it get to 5470-5480 briefly also just like it should with a max recorded VCC Sense (and VID) of 1.520v. Which, coincidentally is the max VID Intel allows on the 10xxx chips.

EDIT: K so, I figured out the voltage overshoot. CB23 with x55 2 cores x54 4 cores x53 10 cores loads at 1.404-1.411v. When I set all cores to x53 it loads the same 1.490v. With the same VF Curve. Weird.. it has something to do with the x54 and x55 OC. Problem is, I'm already at -0.175v. If I wanna run x53 all core then I need -0.255 which makes other things unstable and instacrashes even tho measured load voltage is fine. Super weird..


----------



## Scrdvr

Nizzen said:


> Direct die is 😎
> 
> ~25c water
> View attachment 2519469


Can you do 5.5g FPU with this one? 360AIO


----------



## Nizzen

Scrdvr said:


> Can you do 5.5g FPU with this one? 360AIO



This cpu is for gaming only. If it's stable in gaming for me, it's stable enough 
Maybe it can, or maybe it can't.


----------



## Imprezzion

My god I really cannot get this thing to behave lol.. Mode_2 lite load with LLC4 (slight droop) is by far the best behaving setup voltage wise but.. man it does not wanna behave at all with TVB lol.. Imma keep going. I will figure this out. Some day. Lol. Now it has magically decided not to drop the voltage in idle.. clocks go to 800 but voltage stays even tho I changed nothing at all on the power settings nor the core voltage.. it's all Auto. Only AC/DC Lite Load and LLC (and 800KHz VRM freq) was selected..


----------



## Scrdvr

Nizzen said:


> This cpu is for gaming only. If it's stable in gaming for me, it's stable enough
> Maybe it can, or maybe it can't.


hi man what is the sp of your chip?


----------



## Nizzen

Scrdvr said:


> hi man what is the sp of your chip?


SP 87, one of the first batches that came to EU.
Early batches was very good. I had 2x sp 63, and they was very good too. Like 1.3v for 5.4ghz. Delidded ofc


----------



## Imprezzion

Well. As far as I can see it now with how OCTVB and this MSI board BIOS behaves I'm stuck at either 5.1 all core and leave it there or run the OCTVB setup with 55x2 54x4 and 53x10 but accept that it runs way more voltage then it actually needs because it just will not regulate any better without random crashes.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Imprezzion said:


> Well. As far as I can see it now with how OCTVB and this MSI board BIOS behaves I'm stuck at either 5.1 all core and leave it there or run the OCTVB setup with 55x2 54x4 and 53x10 but accept that it runs way more voltage then it actually needs because it just will not regulate any better without random crashes.


Keep trying... 

Find the minimum voltage for full load all cores ... and after that, find the minimum voltage for next frequency step, until 55x.

For 53x and 54x you need to interpolate the voltage from 52x to 55x (vf8 and adaptive)...

If you need more voltage for 53x, rise 52x...
If you need more voltage for 54x rise adaptive or vf#8 (55x).

There is an interaction with adaptive and vf8... 

Start with adaptive = vf8 + offset

When you find the minimum voltage for 55x (remember, keep adaptive = vf8+ offset), start to lower vf8...


----------



## Imprezzion

I am doing that but the biggest problem is my board and how it handles / reads the VID's on Auto / TVB. It basically means I need to use such large negative VF points on x51, x52 and vf8 that it gets rather unhappy especially when I throw manual cache frequency in the mix..

What also doesn't help is Auto LLC being literally no LLC so when CB23 Multi runs 1.411 which is what it needs for 5.3 all core to be stable a game load runs like 1.490-1.512 as the load isn't nearly as high so it doesn't droop and overshoots my target voltage to the moon and beyond..

Manually setting lite load and LLC makes the droop much better but it is then incredibly unstable at the same VR VOut..

This whole principle works perfectly fine on x51 and x52 all core but x53 is impossible to regulate.

It's frustrating cause I know, and have ran months without issues in the winter, on x53 all core + x48 cache fixed voltage LLC4 1.411v but getting it to run that with single core boost and EIST, C-States, Speed Shift and proper 800Mhz @0.700v idle clocks is almost impossible unless I let it run 1.452v or higher.

EDIT: Would switching to a Maximus Hero.(Z490) make it any more fun to play with this? I mean, I do this for the same reason as you Roberto. Just for the fun of tweaking and overclocking. If I wanna game or whatever I just load my x51 profile and be done with it but.. the thrill of and learning how to push it further is fun enough for me and I can keep myself busy for days haha.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I'm not a Asus fanboy, but if you want to play with all this OCTVB stuffs, voltage optimization, vmaxstress, "by core" frequencies, AC_LL, DC_LL, vf points, VRM full phase with high frequencies, and let behind the brutal force of sync all cores and fixed voltage... Close your eyes and buy an ASUS ROG MAXIMUS XII...

Certify your choice has die sense voltage sensor and be happy!

I choose Maximus XII formula because I wanted a water cooled VRM....

Asus is a class above.

EDITED:
With a ROG MAXIMUS XII you will do things people will not believe... LOLOLOLO


----------



## Imprezzion

RobertoSampaio said:


> I'm not a Asus fanboy, but if you want to play with all this OCTVB stuffs, "by core" frequencies, AC_LL, DC_LL, vf points, VRM full phase with high frequencies, and let behind the brutal force of sync all cores and fixed voltage... Close your eyes and buy an ASUS ROG MAXIMUS XII...
> 
> Certify your choice has die sense voltage sensor and be happy!
> 
> I choose Maximus XII formula because I wanted a water cooled VRM....
> 
> Asus is a class above.


Only reason I mentioned a Hero is because I can get a ex build showcase, so barely ever used, XII Hero for €250 which is.. very good lol. I want a Apex but come on they are way too overpriced even for a hobby guy like me lol.


----------



## bscool

@Imprezzion Unless the bios has gotten better when I had a z490 Hero I could only get 4266c16-17-17 stable with 2x16 b die. I have a z590 Hero and it will do 4400c16-17-17 with a 10th gen CPU and 2x16. I it was a "used" board from Amazon and looked like new other than a beat up box. Saved $150+ off new.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Imprezzion said:


> Only reason I mentioned a Hero is because I can get a ex build showcase, so barely ever used, XII Hero for €250 which is.. very good lol. I want a Apex but come on they are way too overpriced even for a hobby guy like me lol.


I'm not sure, but hero I think has not die sense...


----------



## RobertoSampaio

@Imprezzion 
Read this from @Falkentyne 






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...



rog.asus.com


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I'm trying to get a better single core...
I think 1350 is a number for 51x...
What do you think?


----------



## Imprezzion

RobertoSampaio said:


> I'm trying to get a better single core...
> I think 1350 is a number for 51x...
> What do you think?
> 
> View attachment 2519482
> 
> View attachment 2519483


Scaling is about right with my 1442 @ 5.412Ghz single core so. 

I got it to at least run x53 all core now with all power saving left enabled. LLC5 (pretty droopy) with Lite Load mode_1 and VF Curve all stock except -0.060 on the x53 point. This gives me 1.411v CB23 / Prime95 Small and raises to 1.432v ish when gaming. 1.472v if idle at full clockspeed. A lot better then the 1.496v I saw in games and 1.512v idle it was before. Temps are fine, high 70's in CB23 high 80's in Prime95 with a peak of 92c with AVX FMA3 enabled pulling well over 370w if I don't use OCTVB @ 80c -2 multi. And, it's actually looking like it's stable. Can only run x46 cache. Any higher will freeze in idle / coming off a high load. 

Now I can save this profile and see if I can tweak it not as all core but as turbo ratio and get 5.5 X2 and 5.4 x4 to run with this.


----------



## lolhaxz

5.4 / 5.0


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Imprezzion said:


> Scaling is about right with my 1442 @ 5.412Ghz single core so.
> 
> I got it to at least run x53 all core now with all power saving left enabled. LLC5 (pretty droopy) with Lite Load mode_1 and VF Curve all stock except -0.060 on the x53 point. This gives me 1.411v CB23 / Prime95 Small and raises to 1.432v ish when gaming. 1.472v if idle at full clockspeed. A lot better then the 1.496v I saw in games and 1.512v idle it was before. Temps are fine, high 70's in CB23 high 80's in Prime95 with a peak of 92c with AVX FMA3 enabled pulling well over 370w if I don't use OCTVB @ 80c -2 multi. And, it's actually looking like it's stable. Can only run x46 cache. Any higher will freeze in idle / coming off a high load.
> 
> Now I can save this profile and see if I can tweak it not as all core but as turbo ratio and get 5.5 X2 and 5.4 x4 to run with this.


I have a core temperature threshold of 70C (the pic is 65, but I changed) for safe... LOL
EDITED:
Asus has 2 different core temp limits:
Maximum CPU Core temp: It is instantaneous. If any core hit that temp, the clock is reduced for that core. 
Package temp threshold: It's an average of core temps. All cores frequencies are reduced.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

acoustic said:


> Not fighting at all, but I do want you to understand what I'm trying to get across.
> 
> Using your settings of 55x4 / 54x6 / 53x8 / 52x10 .. here's Cinebench R23 Single-Core, where you can see my one core hit ~5.45Ghz. I don't know of anything else I can use to cause specific thread load. The chip is weird in that it will bounce apps around even though they're single-thread demanded, but still, this was the one main core that punched CBR23 for the large majority. I'm wondering if it's due to Speed-Step, and disabling Speed-Step and enabling EIST will allow that to function correctly.
> 
> Ignore the voltage. Just slammed a large number to make sure it wouldn't crash..


@acoustic 

I got about 5400 effective clock


----------



## Imprezzion

RobertoSampaio said:


> @acoustic
> 
> I got about 5400 effective clock
> 
> View attachment 2519506


I'm now at 5424.1Mhz max effective on CB23 Single Core set up as 55x2 54x4 53x10. Reported frequency was bouncing between 5400 and 5500 the whole time. Load voltage around 1.486-1.488v. Score was 1441 so matches yours perfectly. Don't mind my perfect paint3D skills..










All core is 5300.1 effective on all threads and runs around 1.423v. Bit higher then it needs to be but if I drop the VF point it also drops the x54/55 point and that can't go lower so I'm kinda stuck here. Still x46 cache only. Higher is still not stable in idle / switching loads even tho as high as x49 is perfectly fine as long as it's under load.

Score was 17404, forgot to take a screenshot.. Temps 79-82c across the cores, temp limit set to 85c. It did not downclock to 5.1. It does do so in Prime95 Small tho.


----------



## Intrud3r

Just curious, as I can't stop playing with settings ...

Are these scores on par for 5.3 ?

Load voltage during the single core bench = 1.390V - 1.400V

Running 5.3 TVB @ 70C -2 HT = on


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Imprezzion said:


> I'm now at 5424.1Mhz max effective on CB23 Single Core set up as 55x2 54x4 53x10. Reported frequency was bouncing between 5400 and 5500 the whole time. Load voltage around 1.486-1.488v. Score was 1441 so matches yours perfectly. Don't mind my perfect paint3D skills..
> 
> View attachment 2519526
> 
> 
> All core is 5300.1 effective on all threads and runs around 1.423v. Bit higher then it needs to be but if I drop the VF point it also drops the x54/55 point and that can't go lower so I'm kinda stuck here. Still x46 cache only. Higher is still not stable in idle / switching loads even tho as high as x49 is perfectly fine as long as it's under load.
> 
> Score was 17404, forgot to take a screenshot.. Temps 79-82c across the cores, temp limit set to 85c. It did not downclock to 5.1. It does do so in Prime95 Small tho.


I dont know why, but when I run a single core test the load keep changing from one core to other, and no one goes to 100% all the time. I think its because a have to much cores boost selected (7 cores).


----------



## Imprezzion

RobertoSampaio said:


> I dont know why, but when I run a single core test the load keep changing from one core to other, and no one goes to 100% all the time. I think its because a have to much cores boost selected (7 cores).


That and it has to do with SpeedShift. Disable that in the BIOS and try again.


----------



## acoustic

If you disable Speed Shift, then the Windows scheduler dictates and it'll still do the same thing. I tested this yesterday trying to make it stop as well.

Speed Shift enabled should turn on Autonomous mode automatically in Windows, which allows the CPU to control which thread handles what. If you're only using EIST (Speed Step) then Windows controls it.

I would disable EIST, and enable Speed Shift. I tried disabling both EIST and Speed Shift, but I was getting massive instability even at idle. I went up to 1.57v and it would still hard lock.

It's a very common thing with the LGA20xx chips to only run Speed Shift.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

@Intrud3r
Your score is full ok, i have nearly the same as you, that is at 0% CPU load idle(best case).


----------



## RobertoSampaio

acoustic said:


> If you disable Speed Shift, then the Windows scheduler dictates and it'll still do the same thing. I tested this yesterday trying to make it stop as well.
> 
> Speed Shift enabled should turn on Autonomous mode automatically in Windows, which allows the CPU to control which thread handles what. If you're only using EIST (Speed Step) then Windows controls it.
> 
> I would disable EIST, and enable Speed Shift. I tried disabling both EIST and Speed Shift, but I was getting massive instability even at idle. I went up to 1.57v and it would still hard lock.
> 
> It's a very common thing with the LGA20xx chips to only run Speed Shift.


My settings are:

Speed Step=Enable
Speed Shift = AUTO

I never try to change them.

My understanding is that when windows is running and Speed Step is enable, windows controls the core loads.
When windows is not loaded, CPU controls the core loads through Speed Shift.
Is it right?

What do you think?
Is this the best configuration?


----------



## acoustic

If Speed Step and Speed Shift are both enabled, then I'm not completely sure. There's apparently some cases where Windows will go Autonomous Mode (CPU controls load) if both are enabled, but also cases where it doesn't.

If Speed Step is enabled, and Speed Shift disabled, Windows will control core loads.

If Speed Step is disabled, and Speed Shift enabled, the CPU will control core loads all the time. I prefer the CPU being in control (since it knows best cores better than Windows Scheduler will) so I disable Speed Step, and leave Speed Shift enabled.

Truthfully, I can't tell you which one is the best. There was a lot of talk about this in this thread early on in the 10900K release, and there's been lots of discussion about it on the LGA20xx chips, where they have lots of cores and the Windows Scheduler wouldn't handle them correctly - thus, disable Speed Step, enable Speed Shift, and it would fix some of their issues.

I don't have a definitive answer, unfortunately.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I always make a mess with this speed stuff... lol

Maybe it is the opposite I said before...
Windows controls cores by speedshift and power plans...

Every time I try to understand this I became confused... That's why I never changed this bios setting...

When I'm home I'll test it.

EDITED:
I remember I did some power plan adjusts for C3 power states...
Windows Power plan uses SpeedShift to control performance...


----------



## acoustic

The most stable I've been able to get the Single Core workloads, is by disabling C-States, running Fixed Mode (which disables EIST/Turbo) and disabling Speedstep. The chip still downclocks according to HWINFO Effective Clock, and my idle wattage is only ~20w higher this way. However, running CBR23 Single Thread, the only core getting hit is Core 3 T1. At the beginning, the clocks do bounce around a bit between different cores, but after about 25-30seconds, all cores are reading idle clocks while Core 3 T1 is sitting at 5200Mhz.

Very interesting. I'm running High Performance power plan in WIndows with Minimum Processor State @ 100%, with all C-states disabled, EIST disabled, Speedstep disabled, and the chip is still able to manipulate the clock speeds.


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> My settings are:
> 
> Speed Step=Enable
> Speed Shift = AUTO
> 
> I never try to change them.
> 
> My understanding is that when windows is running and Speed Step is enable, windows controls the core loads.
> When windows is not loaded, CPU controls the core loads through Speed Shift.
> Is it right?
> 
> What do you think?
> Is this the best configuration?


speedshift trumps speedstep. I have both enabled. There are configuration parameters for speesdhift that you can set in Windows (in Windows they call speedshift autonomous mode) - these are hidden power plan settings. Windows sends these parameters to the processor. You can also disable autonomous mode in Windows, then speedstep kicks in if you have it enabled. If you don't have speed step enabled and you disable autonomous mode, I have witnessed bad behavior (but maybe this is fixed).

The good thing about autonomous/speedshift is the processor can respond to changing loads. The good thing about speedstep is that Windows has the "bigger picture" for making decisions about load, but it is slower to respond to changes.

I use autonomous (both enabled).


----------



## acoustic

Yes, it would appear that Speed Shift being enabled should automatically make Windows turn on Autonomous Mode, and that will make Speed Step (EIST) useless.

@Imprezzion New BIOS out for our Z490 ACE - says 07/01 release date, but I think they meant 08/01 .. lol. Nothing performance wise in the changes, but maybe we get something nice in there!


----------



## GeneO

BTW, you can unhide these hidden power configuration parameters so that they show up in Windows power plan along with other hidden power plan settings (like the maximum frequency which I use to create power plans for running at lower frequency like 4800 MHz for testing). I can post a reg file that enables them if you are interested.

Here is Microsoft documentation on some of these:









PerfAutonomousMode


PerfAutonomousMode controls whether autonomous mode is enabled on systems that implement version 2 of the CPPC interface, and determines whether desired performance requests should be provided to the platform.



docs.microsoft.com


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> BTW, you can unhide these hidden power configuration parameters so that they show up in Windows power plan along with other hidden power plan settings (like the maximum frequency which I use to create power plans for running at lower frequency like 4800 MHz for testing). I can post a reg file that enables them if you are interested.
> 
> Here is Microsoft documentation on some of these:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PerfAutonomousMode
> 
> 
> PerfAutonomousMode controls whether autonomous mode is enabled on systems that implement version 2 of the CPPC interface, and determines whether desired performance requests should be provided to the platform.
> 
> 
> 
> docs.microsoft.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2519562


I want to test it !!!!


----------



## acoustic

GeneO said:


> BTW, you can unhide these hidden power configuration parameters so that they show up in Windows power plan along with other hidden power plan settings (like the maximum frequency which I use to create power plans for running at lower frequency like 4800 MHz for testing). I can post a reg file that enables them if you are interested.
> 
> Here is Microsoft documentation on some of these:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PerfAutonomousMode
> 
> 
> PerfAutonomousMode controls whether autonomous mode is enabled on systems that implement version 2 of the CPPC interface, and determines whether desired performance requests should be provided to the platform.
> 
> 
> 
> docs.microsoft.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2519562


Please do. I'd like to see what mode I'm currently running in, anyway.


----------



## GeneO

OK. Standard disclaimer. Messing with the registry can mess up your computer  Also, if you change any of these parameters, make sure you record their initial value so you can go back. Sometimes, major Windows update will hide them again and you will have to reapply them. These and more power settings fall under one registry key. You can find more there. They are unhid by setting the Attributes DWORD to 2, as you can see in the registry files. let me know if you have any problem downloading.









1.4 KB file on MEGA







mega.nz





BTW, if you want to set the Maximum processor frequency so it runs at say, 4900 MHz, you seen to set it to something like 4925 (since the freequency can fluctuate slightly above 4900 Mhz from bclock fluctuations).


----------



## Imprezzion

acoustic said:


> Yes, it would appear that Speed Shift being enabled should automatically make Windows turn on Autonomous Mode, and that will make Speed Step (EIST) useless.
> 
> @Imprezzion New BIOS out for our Z490 ACE - says 07/01 release date, but I think they meant 08/01 .. lol. Nothing performance wise in the changes, but maybe we get something nice in there!


Interesting! Maybe it magically fixes some stuff on the background who knows.

Meanwhile with Speed Shift and C-States enabled on the .170 BIOS it will not run any x1, x2 or x4 OC above the 5300 all core. It works fine under load, I could even play some Division with 55x2 54x3 53x10 but as soon as I leave it idle for a while with just chrome + YouTube and discord and a few monitoring tools it freezes with no logged errors within minutes.

It's fine on all core x53 without turbo but with power saving tho..


----------



## acoustic

Imprezzion said:


> Interesting! Maybe it magically fixes some stuff on the background who knows.
> 
> Meanwhile with Speed Shift and C-States enabled on the .170 BIOS it will not run any x1, x2 or x4 OC above the 5300 all core. It works fine under load, I could even play some Division with 55x2 54x3 53x10 but as soon as I leave it idle for a while with just chrome + YouTube and discord and a few monitoring tools it freezes with no logged errors within minutes.
> 
> It's fine on all core x53 without turbo but with power saving tho..


DO NOT FLASH THAT BIOS.

I did, and at first it gave me 00 (CPU) and now after CMOS reset, -- POST CODE. Basically looks like the board is bricked. Did it the normal way USB drive in the BIOS Flash port, at stock settings.. 

Wow. Guess I'm buying a rocket lake lol


----------



## GeneO

acoustic said:


> DO NOT FLASH THAT BIOS.
> 
> I did, and at first it gave me 00 (CPU) and now after CMOS reset, -- POST CODE. Basically looks like the board is bricked. Did it the normal way USB drive in the BIOS Flash port, at stock settings..
> 
> Wow. Guess I'm buying a rocket lake lol


As a last resort, try removing the CMOS battery for a minute. There are some things clear-cmos apparently does not clear. This got me out of a boot-loop once - I couldn't get to BIOS screen- I was in the process of RMAing the board so it saved me that.

If you are looking for an excuse to upgrade though, you never read this


----------



## acoustic

GeneO said:


> As a last resort, try removing the CMOS battery for a minute. There are some things clear-cmos apparently does not clear. This got me out of a boot-loop once - I couldn't get to BIOS screen- I was in the process of RMAing the board so it saved me that.
> 
> If you are looking for an excuse to upgrade though, you never read this


Nope.. was holding out for Alderlake .. this is very disappointing.

Going to try flashing the old .170 Bios thru the BIOS Flash switch but I'm fairly certain she's dead. She just gives me dashes for a post code LOL..


----------



## GeneO

Well fingers crossed


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Imprezzion said:


> Interesting! Maybe it magically fixes some stuff on the background who knows.
> 
> Meanwhile with Speed Shift and C-States enabled on the .170 BIOS it will not run any x1, x2 or x4 OC above the 5300 all core. It works fine under load, I could even play some Division with 55x2 54x3 53x10 but as soon as I leave it idle for a while with just chrome + YouTube and discord and a few monitoring tools it freezes with no logged errors within minutes.
> 
> It's fine on all core x53 without turbo but with power saving tho..


I know what you're talking about... lol

I had a lot of these freezes tuning 56x...

My stress test for this is let YouTube running 24HS... Lol


----------



## acoustic

Reflashing old BIOS worked. I think the BIOS listed on MSI Website is not compatible or corrupted. Trying to flash it again just to see..

If MSI really screwed it up so bad, I swear..

EDIT: Redownloaded the BIOS, flashed it again, and it worked this time. No clue what the hell that was all about.


----------



## Imprezzion

Q


acoustic said:


> Reflashing old BIOS worked. I think the BIOS listed on MSI Website is not compatible or corrupted. Trying to flash it again just to see..
> 
> If MSI really screwed it up so bad, I swear..
> 
> EDIT: Redownloaded the BIOS, flashed it again, and it worked this time. No clue what the hell that was all about.


Well that makes me think twice about trying it even tho the board has flashback of course. I just secretly hope it makes the idle crashes go away or at least improves it..

I really do not look forward to doing all the fan speeds and memory timings manually again lol..


----------



## acoustic

Yeah I've gotten so used to it that I have my timings memorized now lol


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> OK. Standard disclaimer. Messing with the registry can mess up your computer  Also, if you change any of these parameters, make sure you record their initial value so you can go back. Sometimes, major Windows update will hide them again and you will have to reapply them. These and more power settings fall under one registry key. You can find more there. They are unhid by setting the Attributes DWORD to 2, as you can see in the registry files. let me know if you have any problem downloading.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.4 KB file on MEGA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mega.nz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, if you want to set the Maximum processor frequency so it runs at say, 4900 MHz, you seen to set it to something like 4925 (since the freequency can fluctuate slightly above 4900 Mhz from bclock fluctuations).


I think Quick CPU have all these knobs to change these parameters...
Have you ever tested this software?


----------



## GeneO

No, it doesn't have nearly all of them (and I can easily add additional windows tuning parameters) and no I don't plan to test it I can see it provides me nothing I don't already have.


----------



## Astral85

Been on sync all core for last 1-2 months. Decided to go back to Per core, TVB. +2boost and..... Ghostrunner no WHEA's.


----------



## Astral85

Nizzen said:


> SP 87, one of the first batches that came to EU.
> Early batches was very good. I had 2x sp 63, and they was very good too. Like 1.3v for 5.4ghz. Delidded ofc


Will reducing the thermals on these chips actually change the voltage predictions?


----------



## Astral85

Imprezzion said:


> Well. As far as I can see it now with how OCTVB and this MSI board BIOS behaves I'm stuck at either 5.1 all core and leave it there or run the OCTVB setup with 55x2 54x4 and 53x10 but accept that it runs way more voltage then it actually needs because it just will not regulate any better without random crashes.


With the OCTVB try putting some negative offsets on the VF Curve to find a voltage your happy with.


----------



## Imprezzion

Astral85 said:


> With the OCTVB try putting some negative offsets on the VF Curve to find a voltage your happy with.





Astral85 said:


> Been on sync all core for last 1-2 months. Decided to go back to Per core, TVB. +2boost and..... Ghostrunner no WHEA's.
> 
> View attachment 2519645


Nice! Only thing I see is for a custom loop the temps are.. very high. 78c cores at 202w load with 1.375v? It's not delidded / direct die i'd assume.

And 1.375v load according to HWINFO64 is quite a lot for just 5.2 max boost. Even if it has a bad SP.

I can't use more offset because when using OCTVB and I want it to not idle crash the whole time or overshoot to 1.63v I need to use Auto Lite Load (AC/DC) and Auto LLC and enable TVB Voltage Optimization. This means it selects a very droopy LLC (level 8 or maybe even none at all) so dropping offset lower into the - will make it crash when shader compilation starts or a render or whatever. It's just that playing a light game like World of Tanks which barely loads 10% on all threads and runs at like 80w at most let's it not droop enough so it goes sky high to like 1.496v even tho full load AVX stress is more like 1.411v. 

My specific board and BIOS and CPU just don't behave with Auto vCore and V/F Curve enabled when using manual LLC and Lite Load values...


----------



## Astral85

Imprezzion said:


> Nice! Only thing I see is for a custom loop the temps are.. very high. 78c cores at 202w load with 1.375v? It's not delidded / direct die i'd assume.
> 
> And 1.375v load according to HWINFO64 is quite a lot for just 5.2 max boost. Even if it has a bad SP.
> 
> I can't use more offset because when using OCTVB and I want it to not idle crash the whole time or overshoot to 1.63v I need to use Auto Lite Load (AC/DC) and Auto LLC and enable TVB Voltage Optimization. This means it selects a very droopy LLC (level 8 or maybe even none at all) so dropping offset lower into the - will make it crash when shader compilation starts or a render or whatever. It's just that playing a light game like World of Tanks which barely loads 10% on all threads and runs at like 80w at most let's it not droop enough so it goes sky high to like 1.496v even tho full load AVX stress is more like 1.411v.
> 
> My specific board and BIOS and CPU just don't behave with Auto vCore and V/F Curve enabled when using manual LLC and Lite Load values...


My chip seems to get hot with anything over 1.3V... However I just remembered I accidentally left one of my rads fans running at just 800 RPM when I took that shot of Ghostrunner. My CPU is stock Intel solder, no delid or direct die. I recently re-pasted and only had Hydronaut left, usually use Kryonaut.

This OCTVB profile is only loosely set up, I don't think I need that much voltage and am yet to put negative offsets on the VF Curve. I did not mean more voltage offset I meant a negative voltage offset... You want to put negative offsets on VF 6 and VF 7 (5.1 and 5.2) and then test for stability. It sounds like you should set the LLC manually. I use Asus LLC 4. LLC 8 is the level with least droop. I suggest you select something similar to my LLC 4. What AC/DC values does Auto lite mode give you? You can find the AC/DC values in HWiNFO. I suggest starting with AC 0.50 DC 1.10.

Are you using adaptive voltage mode? I use adaptive voltage and leave the additional turbo on Auto but since your seeing 1.63V and if you don't have a Vmax stress option I think you should set the additional turbo value to 1.500V. Vmax stress caps the voltage limit at 1.5V. Let me know how that works for you.


----------



## Imprezzion

Astral85 said:


> My chip seems to get hot with anything over 1.3V... However I just remembered I accidentally left one of my rads fans running at just 800 RPM when I took that shot of Ghostrunner. My CPU is stock Intel solder, no delid or direct die. I recently re-pasted and only had Hydronaut left, usually use Kryonaut.
> 
> This OCTVB profile is only loosely set up, I don't think I need that much voltage and am yet to put negative offsets on the VF Curve. I did not mean more voltage offset I meant a negative voltage offset... You want to put negative offsets on VF 6 and VF 7 (5.1 and 5.2) and then test for stability. It sounds like you should set the LLC manually. I use Asus LLC 4. LLC 8 is the level with least droop. I suggest you select something similar to my LLC 4. What AC/DC values does Auto lite mode give you? You can find the AC/DC values in HWiNFO. I suggest starting with AC 0.50 DC 1.10.
> 
> Are you using adaptive voltage mode? I use adaptive voltage and leave the additional turbo on Auto but since your seeing 1.63V and if you don't have a Vmax stress option I think you should set the additional turbo value to 1.500V. Vmax stress caps the voltage limit at 1.5V. Let me know how that works for you.


No VMaxStress on MSI unfortunately.
LLC8 is most droop LLC1 is least on MSI. Usually I run 3 (flat response) or 4 (slight droop) on manual OC's. Usually I use Advanced Offset (which is BIOS VF Curve editor) or Auto (which is Adaptive) and do VF Curve in Windows with Intel XTU.

Auto Lite Load gives me "mode_9" which is 0.90 for both AC and DC. Combine this with manual LLC4 and it works fine for x51 and x52 multi but as soon as you set x53 voltage goes way past 1.63v suddenly. And I need to use -0.435 in VF to counter this but this pulls the whole curve out of any sort of alignment and it starts to crash randomly in idle.

What I did do now, just as a test, is leave everything in BIOS on Auto including Lite Load and LLC and just set Turbo Ratio +2 and nothing else. So 55x2, 53x3, 52x5 and 51x10 with all Auto voltages. This works... Surprisingly well I must say. It boosts nicely up to 5300+ effective clock in CB23 single thread, It sees 5500 on the desktop nicely, voltages are relatively well behaved at 1.334v for 5.1 and up to 1.472v for full single core 5500 boost which is perfectly in line with what I'd expect. I set a -0.050v Adaptive Offset to drop the all core x51 load voltage to ~1.272v which is what it needs in fixed mode and it runs perfectly fine for the past 3 hours..

EDIT: I have an idea... What if it doesn't behave at x53 and above.. and I don't need it to.. what if I just set the bclk to 104.0 and just use x51 curve for that and x52 for single core...

EDIT2: Cool idea, doesn't work. If I set 104x51 it still just uses the x52/x53/VF8 points and ignored x51. So it's not based on multiplier but actual CPU core clock. Weirdly enough it is behaving much better at 104x51 and doesn't idle crash at values it normally would've already at 100x53...

EDIT3: Cool idea, kinda does work. Turbo ratio now no longer works, I can set 55x2 but it never goes above the 10 core ratio. But.. I can just run 4780 cache now without idle crashes and it runs perfectly fine at 1.406v load with 5304 core. This needs more experimentation.. bclk might be the way to save this..


----------



## acoustic

Running the new BIOS .. I'm back to 4.8Ghz on the Cache, everything is working great.

5.2 / 4.8
All-Core/Fixed Ratio
C-States disabled
Speed Step enabled
VCORE set to AUTO and Voltage set to AUTO
TVB Optimizations enabled
LLC Mode 4
AC_LL : 1
DC_LL : 23

I've been running 5.2Ghz @ 1.34v load Cinebench / 1.37v games, and it's been fine. Metro Exodus still gives me CPU Internal Errors, but won't crash, and Rome2: Total War is completely error free, as well as COD: Cold War. I've had this weird thing happening lately that seems to be related to DC Loadline - the temp sensors in HWINFO will for some reason read 0, or even -64c for the PCIE and MOS, and randomly the VR VOUT will record 40v or higher for split seconds. Obviously it's not actually giving that voltage (CPU Wattage is normal) but the sensors trip out. Originally, I thought it was tied to C-States, but I decided to tweak the DC_LL to match VID/VR VOUT voltage, and it's doing it again. Very strange. If I set DC_LL to 1 (default), it doesn't do it. This is on HWINFO64 latest beta.

This MSI board has some gremlins, I swear .. lol.

Cinebench R23 gave me 17164 on Multi-Core score. Not bad!

Interesting - went back to DC_LL set to 1, and CBR23 gave me 17603. That's too much extra score to be within margin of error..


----------



## Imprezzion

acoustic said:


> Running the new BIOS .. I'm back to 4.8Ghz on the Cache, everything is working great.
> 
> 5.2 / 4.8
> All-Core/Fixed Ratio
> C-States disabled
> Speed Step enabled
> VCORE set to AUTO and Voltage set to AUTO
> TVB Optimizations enabled
> LLC Mode 4
> AC_LL : 1
> DC_LL : 23
> 
> I've been running 5.2Ghz @ 1.34v load Cinebench / 1.37v games, and it's been fine. Metro Exodus still gives me CPU Internal Errors, but won't crash, and Rome2: Total War is completely error free, as well as COD: Cold War. I've had this weird thing happening lately that seems to be related to DC Loadline - the temp sensors in HWINFO will for some reason read 0, or even -64c for the PCIE and MOS, and randomly the VR VOUT will record 40v or higher for split seconds. Obviously it's not actually giving that voltage (CPU Wattage is normal) but the sensors trip out. Originally, I thought it was tied to C-States, but I decided to tweak the DC_LL to match VID/VR VOUT voltage, and it's doing it again. Very strange. If I set DC_LL to 1 (default), it doesn't do it. This is on HWINFO64 latest beta.
> 
> This MSI board has some gremlins, I swear .. lol.
> 
> Cinebench R23 gave me 17164 on Multi-Core score. Not bad!
> 
> Interesting - went back to DC_LL set to 1, and CBR23 gave me 17603. That's too much extra score to be within margin of error..


That is more in line with my scores. 178xx is normal for me at 5.3Ghz all core.

I must admit that I probably fixed everything now with my idle crashes. All I did was run 104.10 BCLK with x49 core multi and x46 cache multi for 4788Mhz cache and left vCore on Auto (Adaptive). LLC and Lite Load is Auto as well.
RAM had to be underclocked ever so slightly as it runs 4372Mhz now not 4400 but it passed 2 hours of TM5 just now during dinner so. It's still fine at this cache and BCLK.

It gives 1.312v full load and 1.344v at very light loads which is slightly more then it needs, around 1.290v should be enough, but this is totally fine for me. Not even going to bother with a negative offset with the chance of ruining everything again lol.

There is one massive glaring issue tho. Turbo no longer works with a BCLK OC on this board. It does not boost past what is set as 10 core multi. So no 54x2 53x4 52x6 51x10 like I initially intended to run it. But, this is a nice OC to use as a fallback as it's very cool, low power, stable and easy to run.

CB23 on these clocks is 17164 @ 74c max core at 261.5w.
At x53 it's more like 178xx but with 88c cores and 332w.. not worth it at all..










Well, this gives me a nice reason to go and tweak my RAM a bit now that it runs totally different dividers lol.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Nice.... LOL


----------



## Imprezzion

RobertoSampaio said:


> Nice.... LOL


I mean. That's why I always read tier lists on Reddit and watch reviews from Gamers Nexus / TechPowerUp and such who specifically name these things and call the real phase numbers.

By the way, 53x2 52x5 51x10 x46 cache on adaptive + offset -0.020 with Auto LLC and Lite Load "seems" to work so far.. hasn't crashed or frozen for the past 20 minutes idle.. and that is saying something for this chip / board lol. 5.1 CB23 @ 1.303v, single core x53 @ 1.406v, loading games it switches between x51 and x52 a lot and sits around 1.344-1.352v which is totally fine.

I have no clue what the "Auto" numbers for Lite Load are nor what LLC the board decided to use on Auto but if it works and is cool and stable frankly I don't care anymore with how much of a fight it has been to get anything other then fixed mode to run properly.. and I still can't go over 46 cache multi without idle freezes unless I use BCLK and stay at 46 multi.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Imprezzion said:


> I mean. That's why I always read tier lists on Reddit and watch reviews from Gamers Nexus / TechPowerUp and such who specifically name these things and call the real phase numbers.
> 
> By the way, 53x2 52x5 51x10 x46 cache on adaptive + offset -0.020 with Auto LLC and Lite Load "seems" to work so far.. hasn't crashed or frozen for the past 20 minutes idle.. and that is saying something for this chip / board lol. 5.1 CB23 @ 1.303v, single core x53 @ 1.406v, loading games it switches between x51 and x52 a lot and sits around 1.344-1.352v which is totally fine.
> 
> I have no clue what the "Auto" numbers for Lite Load are nor what LLC the board decided to use on Auto but if it works and is cool and stable frankly I don't care anymore with how much of a fight it has been to get anything other then fixed mode to run properly.. and I still can't go over 46 cache multi without idle freezes unless I use BCLK and stay at 46 multi.


I have 1.247v @51x full load CBR23.
Gaming I have 1.300v - 1.380v and frequencies stay around 51x to 53x... sometimes 54x and rarely 55x. 56x just idle.
Single core I got 5.335 effective clock. I dont know why I have the highest effective clock always in Core0... This is the worst core in my CPU.


----------



## Intrud3r

I get around 1.235 - 1.245V during Cinebench R23. At least with my current settings. (Could prolly go a bit lower till 1.210-1.220V, but don't really care about it at that voltage as temps are only reaching 70's, even without the tvb frequency clipping at 5.1 all core at those voltages)


----------



## Imprezzion

I'm going to keep playing with BCLK for a bit during the summer holiday I guess. At least I have a profile saved in the BIOS now with 100BCLK with 53x2 52x6 51x10 x46 cache that survives the "idle a few hours with YouTube on" test without freezing so at least no idle crashes now.. 

I wish I could run CB23 that low on voltage on x51.. 1.272v is the absolute minimum but if it ever drops below that with a too weak LLC or whatever it crashes lol so I'll just keep it at 1.303v that way I know it's good and the voltages for x52 and x53 are fine as well with this offset. Both about 0.020 above what it needs minimum at fixed clocks and voltages.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Imprezzion said:


> I'm going to keep playing with BCLK for a bit during the summer holiday I guess. At least I have a profile saved in the BIOS now with 100BCLK with 53x2 52x6 51x10 x46 cache that survives the "idle a few hours with YouTube on" test without freezing so at least no idle crashes now..
> 
> I wish I could run CB23 that low on voltage on x51.. 1.272v is the absolute minimum but if it ever drops below that with a too weak LLC or whatever it crashes lol so I'll just keep it at 1.303v that way I know it's good and the voltages for x52 and x53 are fine as well with this offset. Both about 0.020 above what it needs minimum at fixed clocks and voltages.


If idle voltages are ok and you want to lower 51x @ full load, there are 2 solutions...
Lower vf6 (a negative offset - the easier way) or lower AC_LL...
The impact of AC_LL on idle voltages is very small.
But I know what you are talking, sometimes we have too much work for so few mv... Lol


----------



## fray_bentos

Ghostrunner, the full game is free to play for a couple of days on Steam. I am going to give it a shot for some WHEA fun. Anyone care to join me?


----------



## acoustic

fray_bentos said:


> Ghostrunner, the full game is free to play for a couple of days on Steam. I am going to give it a shot for some WHEA fun. Anyone care to join me?


I do enjoy disappointing myself, so yes. Lol


----------



## GeneO

fray_bentos said:


> Ghostrunner, the full game is free to play for a couple of days on Steam. I am going to give it a shot for some WHEA fun. Anyone care to join me?


I bought it for $15 a little back. Also Metro Exodus for $10. I am now running 53-4, 51-6, 51-10 and haven't got a WHEA on ghostrunner yet. I have gotten one WHEA on metro when resuming. Maybe I haven't gotten far enough in the game..

So I have setup the above and some TVB to go along with it. I have been running a test that does prime 95 single, thread, looping over running it on individual cores. Haven;t been throttled yet, an I am running 53 and 52 VF8 and VF8 and VF7 at -0.1v relative to what I need for 51-all core. With this test , on the core that is running the thread, I am getting an effective clock of around 5250 - so around a mix of 52 and 53. Photoshop benches better - it doesn't make much use of threads.

So have any of you tried this? Run prime95 with 10 threads instead of 20. You may be surprised. Prime95 is so efficient it runs better 1 thread per core. You will draw more current and power and it will heat up a lot more. And if you haven't tried the latest (as far as I know), prime95 30.6.4 - it is brutal.


----------



## acoustic

I'll pass on P95. I like my chips not degraded LOL


----------



## GeneO

Well crash on ME. No issues on ghostrunner though. Bumped up VF8 and VF7 10 mv.


----------



## fray_bentos

What conditions bring on the errors in Ghostrunner? So far I recall 3rd level, DirectX12, RTX on. Edit: started kill run #1 (not the campaign), went into the menu to enable RTX and invert Y-axis; parity error still in the menus a few seconds later, followed by a fatal error game crash. Hahah. That's my 53x HT off profile confirmed as pseudo-stable. Nonetheless, I am going to keep this profile until I hit something that gives errors that I actually want to play/compute. So far with these 53x (HT off) and 52x (HT on) profiles, I have completed GTA V, Shadow Warrior 2013, Call of Juarez: Gunslinger, Call of Duty: Infinite, Project Cars 2 (on-going), AC:Odyssey (on-going, will it ever end) with no WHEAs... will try my 52x HT on profile later; I expect the same outcome.


----------



## Imprezzion

fray_bentos said:


> What conditions bring on the errors in Ghostrunner, so far I recall 3rd level, RTX on. Edit: started kill run #1, went into the menu to enable RTX and invert Y-axis; parity error still in the menus a few seconds later, followed by a fatal error. Hahah. That's my 53x HT off profile confirmed as pseudo-stable. Nonetheless, I am going to keep this profile until I hit something that gives errors that I actually want to play/compute. So far with these 53x (HT off) and 52x (HT on) profiles, I have completed GTA V, Shadow Warrior 2013, Call of Juarez: Gunslinger, Call of Duty: Infinite, Project Cars 2 (on-going), AC:Odyssey (on-going, will it ever end) with no WHEAs... will try my 52x HT on profile later; I expect the same outcome.


Kinda sorta off topic but I am still very surprised you can do all of this on a "C" grade board for which the VRM is literally reviewed as "not terrible" but is only 6 phase and normally nowhere near enough for a 109xx with a proper overclock and higher then stock power limits. That is, if you still use the Z490-A Pro from your signature. I still think the board is holding your chip back somewhat.

I played a few hours of Ghostrunner again last night and the 53x2 52x6 51x10 with x46 cache and 4400C17 memory profile I had set up is fine WHEA wise. No errors at all. The reason I leave the voltage where it is even tho its 0.030v too high for the given clocks is because this is on all Auto LLC, VRM and Lite Load regulation and just Auto Adaptive voltages. This gives me the least issues with the idle crashes with C-States and EIST + SpeedShift. I don't wanna go to adaptive + offset or even advanced adaptive (VF Curve) because that will introduce a lot more variables for weird crashes again and the Auto regulation is almost spot on for all 3 frequencies on)y ever being a max of 0.030 over what it needs. Max core temps I saw during Ghostrunner and Division 2 were 60-61c across the board so I'm happy to keep this profile in the BIOS as a "safe fallback" option.

Now it's time to play with some BCLK..

Does anyone know of a way to make Turbo Ratio's for # of cores work with BCLK adjustment? As soon as my BCLK is not 100.0 the Turbo Ratio's stop working and it only ever runs the x10 core ratio..


----------



## fray_bentos

Imprezzion said:


> Kinda sorta off topic but I am still very surprised you can do all of this on a "C" grade board for which the VRM is literally reviewed as "not terrible" but is only 6 phase and normally nowhere near enough for a 109xx with a proper overclock and higher then stock power limits. That is, if you still use the Z490-A Pro from your signature. I still think the board is holding your chip back somewhat.
> 
> I played a few hours of Ghostrunner again last night and the 53x2 52x6 51x10 with x46 cache and 4400C17 memory profile I had set up is fine WHEA wise. No errors at all. The reason I leave the voltage where it is even tho its 0.030v too high for the given clocks is because this is on all Auto LLC, VRM and Lite Load regulation and just Auto Adaptive voltages. This gives me the least issues with the idle crashes with C-States and EIST + SpeedShift. I don't wanna go to adaptive + offset or even advanced adaptive (VF Curve) because that will introduce a lot more variables for weird crashes again and the Auto regulation is almost spot on for all 3 frequencies on)y ever being a max of 0.030 over what it needs. Max core temps I saw during Ghostrunner and Division 2 were 60-61c across the board so I'm happy to keep this profile in the BIOS as a "safe fallback" option.
> 
> Now it's time to play with some BCLK..
> 
> Does anyone know of a way to make Turbo Ratio's for # of cores work with BCLK adjustment? As soon as my BCLK is not 100.0 the Turbo Ratio's stop working and it only ever runs the x10 core ratio..


I've always believed that high-end motherboards are mostly marketing, especially in an age where the motherboard can cost as much as, if not more than the high-end CPU. The main determinant of performance is the quality of the CPU / RAM chips themselves, paired with the ability of the user to source information and tweak accordingly. As long as it is "enough", it is enough. The Asrock z490 boards are a different story. I originally bought this board for a 10600K, but got a deal on a 10900KF. I was slightly worried that I might need to upgrade the board/PSU, but no. My VRM never gets over 60 C. I have a 250 W power limit in place and if I hit that limit, it's usually only for seconds at time and not sustained. I'm yet to see a comparison where someone moved the same RAM / CPU between differently priced boards to see if the high-end really does stretch performance. I strongly suspect not, and if it does it might be by <5%.


----------



## Imprezzion

fray_bentos said:


> I've always believed that high-end motherboards are mostly marketing, especially in an age where the motherboard can cost as much as, if not more than the high-end CPU. The main determinant of performance is the quality of the CPU / RAM chips themselves, paired with the ability of the user to source information and tweak accordingly. As long as it is "enough", it is enough. The Asrock z490 boards are a different story. I originally bought this board for a 10600K, but got a deal on a 10900KF. I was slightly worried that I might need to upgrade the board/PSU, but no. My VRM never gets over 60 C. I have a 250 W power limit in place and if I hit that limit, it's usually only for seconds at time.


The 250w power limit is a good idea lol. I mean, I have no limits in place and 360w is not rare while stressing. 320-330w even in something as simple as Cinebench R23 is possible when pushing 5.4 all core.

I just saw a smoking deal here locally.. a Maxi XII Formula for €220.. It has a few scrapes on the heatsinks but is complete a d fully functional and I don't really care all that much about a few scratches and scrapes.. should I do it?


----------



## fray_bentos

Imprezzion said:


> The 250w power limit is a good idea lol. I mean, I have no limits in place and 360w is not rare while stressing. 320-330w even in something as simple as Cinebench R23 is possible when pushing 5.4 all core.
> 
> I just saw a smoking deal here locally.. a Maxi XII Formula for €220.. It has a few scrapes on the heatsinks but is complete a d fully functional and I don't really care all that much about a few scratches and scrapes.. should I do it?


I mean it's your cash, but what benefit would you get out of it? Your OC looks solid as is, you'd risk regression of performance as much as uplift and any change is likely to be minor.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Imprezzion said:


> The 250w power limit is a good idea lol. I mean, I have no limits in place and 360w is not rare while stressing. 320-330w even in something as simple as Cinebench R23 is possible when pushing 5.4 all core.
> 
> I just saw a smoking deal here locally.. a Maxi XII Formula for €220.. It has a few scrapes on the heatsinks but is complete a d fully functional and I don't really care all that much about a few scratches and scrapes.. should I do it?


I'm suspicious to say... Lol
But I love the M12F...
And the last 2301 bios is great.
My last Asus MB I bought in 2012 and it still running my i7 3770k @ 4,4GHz.
I would buy and after that decide which is better and would sell the other...


----------



## Imprezzion

5 minutes is plenty for a temperature / power draw test, not going any further.

P95 30.6 Small FFT AVX FMA3 enabled.
104.10 BCLK, 50 CPU multi (all core) for 5.205GHz.
Cache x45 multi for 4.687GHz.
RAM 4303Mhz 16-16-16-36-370-2T 1.50v.
Advanced Offset (a.k.a. VF Curve) in BIOS with x51 -0.040, x52 -0.180, x53/VF#8 -0.100, rest Auto.
High offsets but that's because the board doesn't know what VID to use with 104.1 BCLK as it has no BCLK aware adaptive voltage so it just uses 1.520VID for everything over 5Ghz.
LLC4 (slight droop) with Lite Load Mode_1, 800KHz VRM frequency.
EIST, SpeedShift / SpeedStep and C-States left enabled.

I can cool the 340w it uses pretty well but I don't wanna risk degrading the CPU testing any longer. We all know this load isn't realistic. And yes, the rad fans are pretty loud at this point at over 1500RPM on 4 140mm's..


----------



## kill_a_wat

Crazy I never run AVX P95.


----------



## cstkl1

GeneO said:


> Well crash on ME. No issues on ghostrunner though. Bumped up VF8 and VF7 10 mv.


ghostrunner level climb dx12 RT 

any crashes in this game is cpu.


----------



## Imprezzion

kill_a_wat said:


> Crazy I never run AVX P95.


Normally neither do I except for a few seconds to verify AVX offset voltage and temps under AVX but I let it run for 5 minutes this time as in some other topic someone pretty much asked for it so..

Temps don't rise any further then the peak temps it reaches after like 10 seconds because after that the pump and rad fans spin up and thus negate the temp rise by cooling more. I can technically cool, if I max the pump and rad fans, around 360w @ 1.452v without hitting 95c throttling point at any time.

I'm still tweaking AVX vs Non-AVX voltages. I know it needs about 1.344-1.356v to do Cinebench R23 and RealBench 2.56 (which both use AVX) without WHEA errors or the occasional CLOCK_WATCHDOG_TIMEOUT BSOD. Setting this as a load voltage for AVX means non-AVX tasks run at around 1.303-1.310v which is not enough. It needs 1.320v minimum to not crash a Prime95 Blend Non-AVX test. So, I need to pump more then necessary AVX voltage in it as this board, among other things, does not allow you to set a AVX voltage offset.. which is kind of a shame..

On the other hand, it just passed well over 3 hours of TM5 on several different RAM frequencies and timings without a single hickup and that is basically 3 hours of 100% 20 thread non-AVX load at 1.332v and that's fine.. 60c hottest core.


----------



## ViTosS

I'm going to grab an i9 10900k, also is that true the Z490 Apex motherboard is better than the Z590 for 10900k? I found someone selling and I probably won't upgrade to Alderlake.


----------



## acoustic

I've heard people have issues with Z490 + RKL and Z590 + CML. I would go with the Z490 APEX over the Z590 if you're using a 10900K.


----------



## fray_bentos

I did a bit of playing with Ghostrunner, full game, Steam thanks to the free play days (ends 39 hours from the time of this post).
Settings: DirectX 12, RTX on, using killrun #1.

1. Using the two profiles in my signature (53x HT off, 52x HT on) gave parity errors within a minute or two of play, if they were going to appear, meaning that I could quickly scan lots of settings.
2. Reducing the CPU clock of both profiles by 200 MHz gave stability with the same voltage settings, cache could be left at 49x.
3. Reducing cache from 49x to 39x gave no stability benefit at the CPU clocks in my signature, nor with those CPU clock speeds -100 MHz.

Good to know for the future, either turn RTX off, or reduce my CPU clocks by 200 MHz. Motherboard manufacturers could just add a "Ghostrunner offset" in future BIOS updates, just like AVX offset 😆

To the Ghostrunner devs, many thanks for the free-trial stability test. The game is a hybrid of Mirror's Edge (liked), Superhot (didn't like), and Shadow Warrior (2013, liked). I'm not a fan of these rinse-and-repeat-until-perfect games, but the tight checkpointing of the main game made it more forgiving and enjoyable than the Killrun mode (and Superhot).


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Imprezzion said:


> View attachment 2519744
> 
> 
> 5 minutes is plenty for a temperature / power draw test, not going any further.
> 
> P95 30.6 Small FFT AVX FMA3 enabled.
> 104.10 BCLK, 50 CPU multi (all core) for 5.205GHz.
> Cache x45 multi for 4.687GHz.
> RAM 4303Mhz 16-16-16-36-370-2T 1.50v.
> Advanced Offset (a.k.a. VF Curve) in BIOS with x51 -0.040, x52 -0.180, x53/VF#8 -0.100, rest Auto.
> High offsets but that's because the board doesn't know what VID to use with 104.1 BCLK as it has no BCLK aware adaptive voltage so it just uses 1.520VID for everything over 5Ghz.
> LLC4 (slight droop) with Lite Load Mode_1, 800KHz VRM frequency.
> EIST, SpeedShift / SpeedStep and C-States left enabled.
> 
> I can cool the 340w it uses pretty well but I don't wanna risk degrading the CPU testing any longer. We all know this load isn't realistic. And yes, the rad fans are pretty loud at this point at over 1500RPM on 4 140mm's..


340W is huge !!!
Are you sure DC_LL is correct?


----------



## Imprezzion

RobertoSampaio said:


> 340W is huge !!!
> Are you sure DC_LL is correct?


No, not at all because it's on Auto (Mode_1) so I don;t even know the values the board gives it (probably 0.10 for both AC and DC).

Oh and I tried Ghostrunner.. 1 error in 15 minutes of playing even on 1.380v 5.2GHz (BCLK 104.1x50 cache 4792Mhz, RAM 4303 16-17-17-35-300-2T) which will even survive Prime95 AVX at 1.349v and can pass a full 3 hour TestMem5 Anta777 Extreme test at 1.344v with no errors on either RAM, cores or cache... Like what is this game lol. Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition with RTX and such are fine but this game...

Back to 5.1 I guess? Let me test and see if 5.1 / 4.8 is stable.

I must say, I totally don't like the gameplay style of the game, the instadeath mechanics are not my style but yeah.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Imprezzion said:


> No, not at all because it's on Auto (Mode_1) so I don;t even know the values the board gives it (probably 0.10 for both AC and DC).
> 
> Oh and I tried Ghostrunner.. 1 error in 15 minutes of playing even on 1.380v 5.2GHz (BCLK 104.1x50 cache 4792Mhz, RAM 4303 16-17-17-35-300-2T) which will even survive Prime95 AVX at 1.349v and can pass a full 3 hour TestMem5 Anta777 Extreme test at 1.344v with no errors on either RAM, cores or cache... Like what is this game lol. Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition with RTX and such are fine but this game...
> 
> Back to 5.1 I guess? Let me test and see if 5.1 / 4.8 is stable.
> 
> I must say, I totally don't like the gameplay style of the game, the instadeath mechanics are not my style but yeah.


You can check AC_LL and DC_LL using hwinfo 32.


----------



## Imprezzion

RobertoSampaio said:


> You can check AC_LL and DC_LL using hwinfo 32.


Cannot find any sensor actually showing those lol. Are they supposed to be a motherboard or a CPU sensor?

By the way, second level of Ghostrunner with DX12 and RTX on and DLSS off completed, don't look at how bad my time is or amount of deaths, I suck at this game, but no errors on 5.1. / 4.7.

I think, also with summer temps and power consumption and everything in mind, I should just stay on 5.1 and maybe just set up a Turbo like just replace the stock x49 with x51 all core and just leave the rest as is single core boost and voltages and such. The Auto Adaptive voltage the board gives it on 5.1 is just fine. 1.320v as you can see, the screenshot is just Auto Adaptive with manual LLC4 and everything else on Auto. It's a bit mroe then it needs for stress tests which it can pass 1.272v no AVX 1.296v AVX but still.. This'll do lol. This is still with BCLK on 104.1 as well. If I decide to go back to Turbo frequencies i'll have to go 100.0 again as the board will not use xx core Turbo if BCLK is not Auto 100.0.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Imprezzion said:


> Cannot find any sensor actually showing those lol. Are they supposed to be a motherboard or a CPU sensor?
> 
> By the way, second level of Ghostrunner with DX12 and RTX on and DLSS off completed, don't look at how bad my time is or amount of deaths, I suck at this game, but no errors on 5.1. / 4.7.
> 
> I think, also with summer temps and power consumption and everything in mind, I should just stay on 5.1 and maybe just set up a Turbo like just replace the stock x49 with x51 all core and just leave the rest as is single core boost and voltages and such. The Auto Adaptive voltage the board gives it on 5.1 is just fine. 1.320v as you can see, the screenshot is just Auto Adaptive with manual LLC4 and everything else on Auto. It's a bit mroe then it needs for stress tests which it can pass 1.272v no AVX 1.296v AVX but still.. This'll do lol. This is still with BCLK on 104.1 as well. If I decide to go back to Turbo frequencies i'll have to go 100.0 again as the board will not use xx core Turbo if BCLK is not Auto 100.0.
> 
> View attachment 2519801



Here...


----------



## GeneO

Not a sensor. I asked if they could be made sensors and the answer was no - too many already. Not surprising.


----------



## Astral85

It seems like I have WHEA again in Ghostrunner since tweaking my RAM timings further... I tested my RAM OC to be stable, CPU is running stock voltages and cache clock is default. So WHEA in Ghostrunner at this point just = weird??


----------



## Astral85

fray_bentos said:


> What conditions bring on the errors in Ghostrunner? So far I recall 3rd level, DirectX12, RTX on. Edit: started kill run #1 (not the campaign), went into the menu to enable RTX and invert Y-axis; parity error still in the menus a few seconds later, followed by a fatal error game crash. Hahah. That's my 53x HT off profile confirmed as pseudo-stable. Nonetheless, I am going to keep this profile until I hit something that gives errors that I actually want to play/compute. So far with these 53x (HT off) and 52x (HT on) profiles, I have completed GTA V, Shadow Warrior 2013, Call of Juarez: Gunslinger, Call of Duty: Infinite, Project Cars 2 (on-going), AC:Odyssey (on-going, will it ever end) with no WHEAs... will try my 52x HT on profile later; I expect the same outcome.


Ghostrunner is just weird... My CPU and RAM overclocks are stable tested but give WHEA in Ghostrunner.


----------



## Astral85

cstkl1 said:


> ghostrunner level climb dx12 RT
> 
> any crashes in this game is cpu.


What about unexplained/random WHEA when CPU and RAM are tested stable?


----------



## cstkl1

Astral85 said:


> What about unexplained/random WHEA when CPU and RAM are tested stable?


thats the problem...

i even seen this at totally stock cpu with just plain xmp 3600 on some 10900k bins...

but i find on m12E problem is less...


----------



## Astral85

cstkl1 said:


> thats the problem...
> 
> i even seen this at totally stock cpu with just plain xmp 3600 on some 10900k bins...
> 
> but i find on m12E problem is less...


Is it picking on the low binned 10900K's?


----------



## Astral85

Has anyone used Intel Vtune Profiler? 









Intel® VTune™ Profiler


Get a comprehensive overview of Intel® VTune™ Profiler for performance analysis. Understand workflows and tuning methodologies to profile serial and multithreaded applications with Intel® VTune™ Profiler for execution on a variety of hardware platforms (CPU, GPU, and FPGA).




software.intel.com


----------



## Imprezzion

Have not had any errors the rest of the night. Played for over an hour on x51 all core, x46 cache, 4300C16 memory with no errors but it did take 1.303v (Non-AVX) 1.320v (AVX) to do it whereas it can pass any other test including stress tests like LinX, Prime95 and RealBench on 1.272(Non-AVX)-1.290v(AVX).

I realize now that 5.1 is the sweetspot for this chip so I will be going back to a Turbo Ratio OC 54x2, 53x2, 52x5, 51x10 and see if it's still stable and if I can control the voltages for all 4 points without the cache or RAM going unstable.


----------



## Astral85

Imprezzion said:


> Have not had any errors the rest of the night. Played for over an hour on x51 all core, x46 cache, 4300C16 memory with no errors but it did take 1.303v (Non-AVX) 1.320v (AVX) to do it whereas it can pass any other test including stress tests like LinX, Prime95 and RealBench on 1.272(Non-AVX)-1.290v(AVX).
> 
> I realize now that 5.1 is the sweetspot for this chip so I will be going back to a Turbo Ratio OC 54x2, 53x2, 52x5, 51x10 and see if it's still stable and if I can control the voltages for all 4 points without the cache or RAM going unstable.


What level Ghostrunner?


----------



## Imprezzion

Astral85 said:


> What level Ghostrunner?


I played the campaign up to the 4th level (after you get out of cyber void) and some 20 minutes of kill run #1 to get better at the game lol.


----------



## Astral85

Imprezzion said:


> I played the campaign up to the 4th level (after you get out of cyber void) and some 20 minutes of kill run #1 to get better at the game lol.


I'll have to check what level I'm currently getting WHEA on.


----------



## cstkl1

Astral85 said:


> Is it picking on the low binned 10900K's?


no.

seen it happen on high bin

maybe the better build boards with better vrms are better in handling this.

again just assuming here. 
@Falkentyne been chasing this for YEARS


----------



## Astral85

Level Jacked Up... Just played again, no WHEA. Only difference - no GPU OC... Also make sure your in full screen, sometimes it changes to windows mode when you alt tab out to check HWiNFO.


----------



## Astral85

cstkl1 said:


> no.
> 
> seen it happen on high bin
> 
> maybe the better build boards with better vrms are better in handling this.
> 
> again just assuming here.
> @Falkentyne been chasing this for YEARS


Do the WHEA happen in DX11 or with RTX off? I wonder if it's something to do with DX12 or RTX? I notice my CPU temps drop a lot with RTX off, like it's working less...


----------



## Astral85

RTX took a big dive in "Breathe In". Had to turn it off... Very smooth without it.


----------



## fray_bentos

Astral85 said:


> Do the WHEA happen in DX11 or with RTX off? I wonder if it's something to do with DX12 or RTX? I notice my CPU temps drop a lot with RTX off, like it's working less...


The parity errors only happen with RTX on, which requires directX 12.


----------



## cstkl1

Astral85 said:


> Do the WHEA happen in DX11 or with RTX off? I wonder if it's something to do with DX12 or RTX? I notice my CPU temps drop a lot with RTX off, like it's working less...


rtx on dx12 its cpu paririty error. u will laugh cause cpu usage is like SUPER low


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Using OCTVB more aggressive:


----------



## GeneO

cstkl1 said:


> rtx on dx12 its cpu paririty error. u will laugh cause cpu usage is like SUPER low


Yeah. ha ha


----------



## Astral85

cstkl1 said:


> rtx on dx12 its cpu paririty error. u will laugh cause cpu usage is like SUPER low


Low CPU usage but I notice my CPU core temps spiking much higher with RTX on vs off so it must be working the CPU harder somehow...


----------



## Astral85

RobertoSampaio said:


> Using OCTVB more aggressive:
> 
> View attachment 2519956
> 
> 
> View attachment 2519962


What core ratio doe that give under heavy load/temps? 5.2? Have you tried setting the OCTVB Temp A, Temp B in the BIOS?


----------



## fray_bentos

Astral85 said:


> Low CPU usage but I notice my CPU core temps spiking much higher with RTX on vs off so it must be working the CPU harder somehow...


DLSS works your CPU harder than off, I would expect that to have more of an effect than just RTX. Also RTX on = more GPU heat = worse cooling for CPU (depending on your cooling setup).


----------



## Astral85

fray_bentos said:


> DLSS works your CPU harder than off, I would expect that to have more of an effect than just RTX. Also RTX on = more GPU heat = worse cooling for CPU (depending on your cooling setup).


I see -0.2 GHz for Ghostrunner in your specs. Do you think core overclocks are related to the WHEA?


----------



## fray_bentos

Astral85 said:


> I see -0.2 GHz for Ghostrunner in your specs. Do you think core overclocks are related to the WHEA?


See here; Overclocking 10900k results, bins and discussion

Either lowering clocks or upping voltage works. I don't want to pump my voltage any higher.


----------



## Astral85

fray_bentos said:


> See here; Overclocking 10900k results, bins and discussion
> 
> Either lowering clocks or upping voltage works. I don't want to pump my voltage any higher.


Nice tests thanks. Looks like I will need to set up Ghostrunner BIOS profile. Or @Shamino has some nice software tools which can change this stuff on the fly within Windows... Need to try some more but the tools aren't always working correctly with XIII Hero.


----------



## Imprezzion

Astral85 said:


> I see -0.2 GHz for Ghostrunner in your specs. Do you think core overclocks are related to the WHEA?


They 100% are, I have WHEA on 5.2 within minutes but on 5.1 (with a bit less vcore as well) it's totally fine with the same cache and ram frequency.



Astral85 said:


> Nice tests thanks. Looks like I will need to set up Ghostrunner BIOS profile. Or @Shamino has some nice software tools which can change this stuff on the fly within Windows... Need to try some more but the tools aren't always working correctly with XIII Hero.


Yeah that exists. Use Intel XTU combined with your BIOS OC with a per-app profile for Ghostrunner. Works great. I've been using something similar for months now as the MSI BIOS does not let you specify in OCTVB at what temperature you want it to drop core ratio or even how many - bins so I use XTU for that with a per-app profile that links to.. yes.. itself (perftune.exe) so when I start XTU on boot it applies that profile instantly and then I close it again with a batch script. This makes it all fully automatic and when using a VBS script with PowerShell in stead of just yeeting this CMD script in your startup folder and setting it to run as administrator you can even make it run silent with no console window or output opening.

@Echo off
START "" "*whatever directory your XTU is\perftune.exe"
TIMEOUT /t 12 /nobreak > nul
Taskkill /F /IM "perftune.exe"

Or however complicated you wanna make it. My boot script is like 30 lines by now cause it does way way more then just this but this is the general idea.


----------



## Astral85

I haven't even tried XTU so I better take a look...


----------



## fray_bentos

Astral85 said:


> Nice tests thanks. Looks like I will need to set up Ghostrunner BIOS profile. Or @Shamino has some nice software tools which can change this stuff on the fly within Windows... Need to try some more but the tools aren't always working correctly with XIII Hero.


You can change CPU ratio using XTU or Throttlestop on the fly.


----------



## Astral85

GeneO said:


> BTW, you can unhide these hidden power configuration parameters so that they show up in Windows power plan along with other hidden power plan settings (like the maximum frequency which I use to create power plans for running at lower frequency like 4800 MHz for testing). I can post a reg file that enables them if you are interested.
> 
> Here is Microsoft documentation on some of these:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PerfAutonomousMode
> 
> 
> PerfAutonomousMode controls whether autonomous mode is enabled on systems that implement version 2 of the CPPC interface, and determines whether desired performance requests should be provided to the platform.
> 
> 
> 
> docs.microsoft.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2519562


Interested to enable these...


----------



## Imprezzion

Ok I am really frustrated now.. PC just magically randomly turned itself off again.. all I did was start Division 1.. as soon as the game started to launch PC just turned off and rebooted..

I tested this OC with hours and hours of different tests the last 2 days, no errors in any of them including Ghostrunner, Prime95 with and without AVX, CB23, TestMem5 a full 3 hour run, yesterday played World of Tanks and Ghostrunner all day, zero issues.. now I start Division 1 and it does this again..

I am really convinced it HAS to be a hardware issue at this point.. I still suspect a faulty M.2 drive or a short / overload somewhere in a LED or FAN controller as they are all heavily loaded with many many fans and RGB strips... but yeah how do I prove that when it's almost impossible to reproduce this reliably..


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Astral85 said:


> What core ratio doe that give under heavy load/temps? 5.2? Have you tried setting the OCTVB Temp A, Temp B in the BIOS?


All these values was set in bios.

They give me full load 52X if temp 60C to 70C.
If temp is higher than 70C I have 51x full load.












EDITED:

If temp < 60C I have 53x all cores


----------



## fray_bentos

Imprezzion said:


> Ok I am really frustrated now.. PC just magically randomly turned itself off again.. all I did was start Division 1.. as soon as the game started to launch PC just turned off and rebooted..
> 
> I tested this OC with hours and hours of different tests the last 2 days, no errors in any of them including Ghostrunner, Prime95 with and without AVX, CB23, TestMem5 a full 3 hour run, yesterday played World of Tanks and Ghostrunner all day, zero issues.. now I start Division 1 and it does this again..
> 
> I am really convinced it HAS to be a hardware issue at this point.. I still suspect a faulty M.2 drive or a short / overload somewhere in a LED or FAN controller as they are all heavily loaded with many many fans and RGB strips... but yeah how do I prove that when it's almost impossible to reproduce this reliably..


Nah, sounds like RAM overclock to me. Back down 100 MHz (or 133 MHz depending on strap), and see if you get any restarts. Defo turn off the RGB barf haha.


----------



## Imprezzion

fray_bentos said:


> Nah, sounds like RAM overclock to me. Back down 100 MHz (or 133 MHz depending on strap), and see if you get any restarts. Defo turn off the RGB barf haha.


I was on 4303Mhz 16-17-17-35-300-2T @ 1.524v on the 4133 (133 strap) divider (BCLK 104.1 OC) so I can drop it down to the 4000 (100 strap) divider which would be 4164Mhz.. quite a drop but yeah..

With 100Mhz BCLK I used to run 4400C17 but on 133 divider. 4400 can be run with both dividers. It also had the issues there.

I will load my low voltage RAM OC profile (4200C17 with 100 divider @ 1.42v) that I know for sure is stable as I ran that for 8 months without any crashes to eliminate temp issues and such as well..


----------



## fray_bentos

Imprezzion said:


> I was on 4303Mhz 16-17-17-35-300-2T @ 1.524v on the 4133 (133 strap) divider (BCLK 104.1 OC) so I can drop it down to the 4000 (100 strap) divider which would be 4164Mhz.. quite a drop but yeah..
> 
> With 100Mhz BCLK I used to run 4400C17 but on 133 divider. 4400 can be run with both dividers. It also had the issues there.
> 
> I will load my low voltage RAM OC profile (4200C17 with 100 divider @ 1.42v) that I know for sure is stable as I ran that for 8 months without any crashes to eliminate temp issues and such as well..


Having BCLK not at 100.0 can also cause issues. I've never had any luck getting higher than 100.5 stable on BCLK, even when downclocking the scaling of cache, CPU and RAM. It just causes random s**t.


----------



## GeneO

Imprezzion said:


> Ok I am really frustrated now.. PC just magically randomly turned itself off again.. all I did was start Division 1.. as soon as the game started to launch PC just turned off and rebooted..
> 
> I tested this OC with hours and hours of different tests the last 2 days, no errors in any of them including Ghostrunner, Prime95 with and without AVX, CB23, TestMem5 a full 3 hour run, yesterday played World of Tanks and Ghostrunner all day, zero issues.. now I start Division 1 and it does this again..
> 
> I am really convinced it HAS to be a hardware issue at this point.. I still suspect a faulty M.2 drive or a short / overload somewhere in a LED or FAN controller as they are all heavily loaded with many many fans and RGB strips... but yeah how do I prove that when it's almost impossible to reproduce this reliably..


Speaking of XTU, I would run tests on CINEBENCH in realtime orr high priority. All of a sudden, when I did this, my PC would instant off with just the sound of a click of the relay. I thought it was hardware or RAM, but couldn't fix it. I finally figured out it was XTU causing the issue - I had recently installed it. Even if I did not have XTU running - just installed. There is something off with XTU drivers and high priorities. I no longer have it on my system.


----------



## Intrud3r

GeneO said:


> my PC would instant off with just the sound of a click of the relay.


I had the same thing, when I set a manual loadline (medium / high on my gigabyte board) and tried to "scan voltage curve" thingy in Intel XTU. Pressed the button, maybe 1 second and it was click and poef, instant off.

Not trying to scan the vf curve with a manual vcore loadline / have not tried higher priority benches (totally forgot about that, just ran all of mine with this 10900KF at normal prio) Intel XTU works just fine imho.


----------



## Imprezzion

Hmm. I do run XTU together with a boot script to load the profile at boot cause I use XTU's OCTVB to set the temperature and -clock for OCTVB as the BIOS does not have those options..

Let me remove XTU completely as I don't really need it. It was more a protective thing for the chip but I can just set temp limit to like 85c in BIOS and that's fine as well..

Ok so, Only reason for using BCLK OC is because x47 or higher cache multi causes idle / switching load freezes but 4700 cache with BCLK and x45 multi is fine. Tested up to 110+ BCLK and 4860 cache at x44/x45 multi and it's totally fine then.

I turned BCLK off, went back to Turbo Ratio OC with Auto Adaptive voltage with no offset, just everything Auto including LLC, Lite Load and TVB Voltage Optimizations.

RAM set to a conservative 4200 17-17-17-36-320-2T @ 1.420v DRAM 1.35v SA 1.25v IO. Scores in CB23 are amazing lol. Much higher then expected at 54x2, 53x4, 52x6 and 51x10. I expected around ~16400 multicore and ~1380 single core but got this in stead lol.

















Effective didn't quite reach 5400Mhz completely but my best core (thread #13) is at least consistently above 5300. It runs 1.303-1.311v all-core up to 1.483v for 54x2.

EDIT: Removed XTU and ran a few benches, seems fine, but idle + chrome + YouTube took a mere 10 minutes to freeze again.. removed x54 from turbo and went 53x4 52x6 51x10 now..

EDIT2: 54x2 is not the problem. Cache at 4.6 is good under load but with idle and c-states it drops voltage too quickly and cache downclock doesn't seem to keep up. Dropped to 45 cache and it's been fine on chrome YouTube for hours... I hate this chip and it's rather disappointing cache..


----------



## unclewebb

fray_bentos said:


> ThrottleStop


I am surprised that more people are not using ThrottleStop. 

ThrottleStop (9.3.1 Beta) Download

It closely follows the Intel recommended monitoring method and reports what the CPU multiplier is doing. This is especially important when using TVB, V-Max Stress or when using different multipliers for different work loads. No other monitoring app tracks the CPU multiplier as accurately. 

When the CPU is set to 54x4, 53x10; ThrottleStop shows the full 54.00 multiplier for the majority of this Cinebench single thread test.










When I switch to 54x2, 53x10; ThrottleStop shows a multiplier value of 53.79 for the core that is loaded. 










What does 53.79 mean?

53.79 = (54.00 X 0.79) + (53.00 X 0.21)

This monitoring method is extremely precise. You know the 54 multiplier is being used 79% of the time and the 53 multiplier is being used 21% of the time. This continuously varies as Windows wakes up additional cores to process the background tasks. No more guessing what multiplier your CPU is using. Having the C states enabled or disabled does not change the accuracy of this data. 

When a CPU is partially loaded, the HWiNFO Core Clock data does not accurately show what speed the CPU is running at. A light 2 thread load is enough to show this problem.










The ThrottleStop multiplier data confirms that the CPU is bouncing between the 52 and 53 multiplier while HWiNFO is showing both cores are using the 50 multiplier. 

The HWiNFO Effective Clock data is much better but the CPU core needs to be loaded 100% for the Effective Clock data to be meaningful. This is not always possible, especially when the load is bouncing around between cores. The ThrottleStop multiplier data does not have this limitation.

At 54x2, with the CPU throttling a little, my Cinebench score was similar to the above score. 










At 54x4, it was easy to see that the CPU was running at full speed. The slight increase in the reported CPU multiplier compared to 54x2 showed up in my Cinebench score. 










The multiplier data is so accurate that you can use it to predict performance changes.

1429 X ( 54.00 / 53.76 ) = 1435.3

CPU tuning is a lot easier and a lot faster when you know exactly what speed your CPU is running at. In the above example, there was no need to run the full Cinebench test at 54x2. The ThrottleStop data told me immediately that at this setting, my computer was not maintaining the full 54.00 multiplier during this test.

No need to reboot when testing. With ThrottleStop I can make changes to the Turbo Groups on the fly even while a benchmark is in progress. Feedback is immediate.


----------



## Imprezzion

I'm curious now if my chip can hold 54x4 at a reasonable voltage. It gives it about 1.480v on Auto (VCC Sense, VR VOut 1.456v). That _might_ be enough? I'll test it tomorrow or something. And yeah, effective clock in HWINFO basically only shows the correct clocks when I fully load all threads at 5101.3 or something but never really shows the 54 or 53 even if multiplier data says it is running that.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

unclewebb said:


> I am surprised that more people are not using ThrottleStop.
> 
> ThrottleStop (9.3.1 Beta) Download
> 
> It closely follows the Intel recommended monitoring method and reports what the CPU multiplier is doing. This is especially important when using TVB, V-Max Stress or when using different multipliers for different work loads. No other monitoring app tracks the CPU multiplier as accurately.
> 
> When the CPU is set to 54x4, 53x10; ThrottleStop shows the full 54.00 multiplier for the majority of this Cinebench single thread test.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I switch to 54x2, 53x10; ThrottleStop shows a multiplier value of 53.79 for the core that is loaded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does 53.79 mean?
> 
> 53.79 = (54.00 X 0.79) + (53.00 X 0.21)
> 
> This monitoring method is extremely precise. You know the 54 multiplier is being used 79% of the time and the 53 multiplier is being used 21% of the time. This continuously varies as Windows wakes up additional cores to process the background tasks. No more guessing what multiplier your CPU is using. Having the C states enabled or disabled does not change the accuracy of this data.
> 
> When a CPU is partially loaded, the HWiNFO Core Clock data does not accurately show what speed the CPU is running at. A light 2 thread load is enough to show this problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ThrottleStop multiplier data confirms that the CPU is bouncing between the 52 and 53 multiplier while HWiNFO is showing both cores are using the 50 multiplier.
> 
> The HWiNFO Effective Clock data is much better but the CPU core needs to be loaded 100% for the Effective Clock data to be meaningful. This is not always possible, especially when the load is bouncing around between cores. The ThrottleStop multiplier data does not have this limitation.
> 
> At 54x2, with the CPU throttling a little, my Cinebench score was similar to the above score.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 54x4, it was easy to see that the CPU was running at full speed. The slight increase in the reported CPU multiplier compared to 54x2 showed up in my Cinebench score.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The multiplier data is so accurate that you can use it to predict performance changes.
> 
> 1429 X ( 54.00 / 53.76 ) = 1435.3
> 
> CPU tuning is a lot easier and a lot faster when you know exactly what speed your CPU is running at. In the above example, there was no need to run the full Cinebench test at 54x2. The ThrottleStop data told me immediately that at this setting, my computer was not maintaining the full 54.00 multiplier during this test.
> 
> No need to reboot when testing. With ThrottleStop I can make changes to the Turbo Groups on the fly even while a benchmark is in progress. Feedback is immediate.


Every time I try to run it, my system freezes...


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Hi @shamino1978 

Do you know if this VLarch works with Maximus XII z490 and 10900k?


----------



## Intrud3r

Funny ... throttlestop actually has a VMaxstress option I could enable ... don't know if it works or not ... but it's there. And it's not in my bios to be found anywhere.


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> Hi @shamino1978
> 
> Do you know if this VLarch works with Maximus XII z490 and 10900k?
> 
> View attachment 2520102


Have you tried it? It does not.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> Have you tried it? It does not.


I don't know how it supposed to work... That's why I asked.
When I tried, Sometimes I have some reading, but I don't know if it's real.


----------



## shamino1978

RobertoSampaio said:


> Hi @shamino1978
> 
> Do you know if this VLarch works with Maximus XII z490 and 10900k?
> 
> View attachment 2520102


no it does not work


----------



## Astral85

Astral85 said:


> Does anyone know what settings affect the L2 cache bandwidth? When I run BIOS defaults I get around 1K gb/s L2 cache speed in AIDA. With my manual settings I drop down to around 700 gb/s L2 cache and I cannot figure what causes this.


I thought someone answered this but I searched back through the thread and can't find it. When I run stock BIOS settings I get 1K Gb/s L2 in AIDA. When I start setting overclocks L2 drops down 700 GB/s.


----------



## Imprezzion

Astral85 said:


> I thought someone answered this but I searched back through the thread and can't find it. When I run stock BIOS settings I get 1K Gb/s L2 in AIDA. When I start setting overclocks L2 drops down 700 GB/s.


I was going to test it for you but my AIDA decided to only show 0mb/s at any value all of a sudden... 
What's the default cache, memory and FCLK frequencies before and after OC? 

I am now on 54x4 53x6 52x8 51x10 let's see how this does. Effective Clock is around 5370 now in CB23 single @ 1.454-1.471v with 5101 at 1.303-1.311 at full multicore load. Seems reasonable to me if it's actually stable lol..


----------



## Astral85

Imprezzion said:


> I was going to test it for you but my AIDA decided to only show 0mb/s at any value all of a sudden...
> What's the default cache, memory and FCLK frequencies before and after OC?
> 
> I am now on 54x4 53x6 52x8 51x10 let's see how this does. Effective Clock is around 5370 now in CB23 single @ 1.454-1.471v with 5101 at 1.303-1.311 at full multicore load. Seems reasonable to me if it's actually stable lol..


Have you got a full version AIDA? 10900K default cache is 4.3... The drop in L2 bandwidth doesn't seem related to the CPU cache clock. BCLK is stock 100 before and after. Not sure if the RAM affects L2 bandwidth. Maybe XMP boosts the L2 bandwidth? I set that to manual when doing my RAM.

I'm currently using per core OCTVB +2boost as well for 5.1 all core load. It works well. I get a bit of 5.2 here and there in gaming loads. Only problem I have is iCUE won't let the cores enter C-states with this setup which results too much idle power consumption....


----------



## Imprezzion

Astral85 said:


> Have you got a full version AIDA? 10900K default cache is 4.3... The drop in L2 bandwidth doesn't seem related to the CPU cache clock. BCLK is stock 100 before and after. Not sure if the RAM affects L2 bandwidth. Maybe XMP boosts the L2 bandwidth? I set that to manual when doing my RAM.
> 
> I'm currently using per core OCTVB +2boost as well for 5.1 all core load. It works well. I get a bit of 5.2 here and there in gaming loads. Only problem I have is iCUE won't let the cores enter C-states with this setup which results too much idle power consumption....


Yeah I have full version 6.33.5700 Extreme.

I had that same issue with iCUE but I stepped away from all Corsair stuff and replaced my fans with Alpenfohn Wing Boost 3 fans and a long time ago my cooler from a H110i GTX to a EK Phoenix 280 so. I only use MSI Mystic Sync / Dragon Center for the LED now with some Cooler Master LED controllers which sync with MSI. This also is a set and forget software. It doesn't have to run in the background or even on boot. It just saves the last config straight from the BIOS / POST so no overhead or background tasks.

I have been running 54x4, 53x6, 52x8, 51x20 with 45 cache and 4200 17-17-17-36-300-2T RAM for most of the day playing some world of tanks and watching some car stuff on YouTube and it seems perfectly fine running this. Does give it a LOT of voltage when it boosts to 54. Peek according to HWINFO64 of VCC Sense 1.500v and VR VOut 1.488v. Seems kinda excessive so I might have to tweak the VF Curve a little for that. Not hot tho. Max 65c core and package.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

About effective clocks…

Better now !!!


----------



## Intrud3r

Definitely looking more in line with your settings, looking way better then the former screenshots.

With my current settings (see signature) I get like 1440-ish in single core CBR23 (this is after a standard reboot, so all programs that startup with windows on my system were running like gog launcher / plex media server / msi afterburner + riva tuner / hwinfo / rainmeter / nvidia inspector multi display saver)


----------



## fray_bentos

Intrud3r said:


> Definitely looking more in line with your settings, looking way better then the former screenshots.
> 
> With my current settings (see signature) I get like 1440-ish in single core CBR23 (this is after a standard reboot, so all programs that startup with windows on my system were running like gog launcher / plex media server / msi afterburner + riva tuner / hwinfo / rainmeter / nvidia inspector multi display saver)


For reference, I get a score of 1446 53x all core (HT off) in single thread CB23, 1.32 V load.


----------



## Intrud3r

hmm ... thnx for the comparison .... let me try 5.3 instead of 5.4x6 and see what i get. HT=on btw.

Highest I got with my bloated windows was 1434 5.3 HT = off ... back to my former setting.


----------



## Imprezzion

I got 1442 with 54x2 53x4 52x10 with HT enabled and all power saving and also just like you full fat windows boot with all bloat. Only closed discord lol. Effective clocks 5327.9 on 1 core and 5345.4 on another and the rest all max 5200.2


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Hi guys, what do you think about disabling virtual memory? 
Make any difference with 32GB of RAM.


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> Hi guys, what do you think about disabling virtual memory?
> Make any difference with 32GB of RAM.


If you disable it completely, you won't be able to record a Windows kernel memory dump in case of a crash. Otherwise, if you hae 32GB and you never hit it, it makes no difference.

I set mine to a minimum so I can take a crash dump. I believe if the kernel memory size is not adequate, Windows will increase it, for a wekk or something like that, it if you have a variable size. I have mine set to 650-2048 MB. I think 640 MB is minimal needed for crash dump.









How to determine the appropriate page file size for 64-bit versions of Windows - Windows Client


Learn how to determine the appropriate page file size for 64-bit versions of Windows.



docs.microsoft.com






EDIT: I also don't have crash dumps set to automatic - I have them set for Kernel memory dump:


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> If you disable it completely, you won't be able to record a Windows kernel memory dump in case of a crash. Otherwise, if you hae 32GB and you never hit it, it makes no difference.
> 
> I set mine to a minimum so I can take a crash dump. I believe if the kernel memory size is not adequate, Windows will increase it, for a wekk or something like that, it if you have a variable size. I have mine set to 650-2048 MB. I think 640 MB is minimal needed for crash dump.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How to determine the appropriate page file size for 64-bit versions of Windows - Windows Client
> 
> 
> Learn how to determine the appropriate page file size for 64-bit versions of Windows.
> 
> 
> 
> docs.microsoft.com


I never used the dump for anything... 
I'll try to disable it...


----------



## GeneO

You never crash? LOL. Yeah, it is not useful information for crashes due to overclocking. But I have used them to determine the source of other crashes - mostly nvidia driver.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> You never crash? LOL. Yeah, it is not useful information for crashes due to overclocking. But I have used them to determine the source of other crashes - mostly nvidia driver.


So you are running Win 11...
Did you have any driver or other issue ?


----------



## GeneO

No driver issue, but there is plenty of interface bugs and design issues.

I don't know what the point of 11 is really. Only significant changes are the UI (which is worse in many aspects, but better in a few like settings), and being able set DNS over HTTPS system wide. Direct Storage for games isn't there yet and now they are saying that will be available in Windows 10 as well. 

It's a case of 10 steps forward, 11 steps back IMO 

We'll see.


----------



## ViTosS

Do you guys think I can get a decent RAM OC, at least the same I have now, in a 10900k and MSI MEG Unify Z490? [email protected]? Also is the Unify better than the Maximus Hero XII Z490 for CPU/RAM OC?


----------



## Imprezzion

ViTosS said:


> Do you guys think I can get a decent RAM OC, at least the same I have now, in a 10900k and MSI MEG Unify Z490? [email protected]? Also is the Unify better than the Maximus Hero XII Z490 for CPU/RAM OC?


Easily. The Ace / Unify is a great board, if not one of the best 4 DIMM slot boards, for memory OC. 4200C16 is easily done and I have gotten as high as 4600C18 on the Ace to work just fine. It has an insane amount of fine tuning options for the RAM, skew control, ODT, RTL/IO, asf. I daily drive 4400 straight 17's with ease and very low IO and SA voltages.

I wouldn't say it's better then a Hero per se as the Hero has many CPU related features like VMaxStress and better configurable lite load / AC/DC control, VF Curve and such but the Unify (or Ace for that matter) is much much cheaper, at least here. I would compare it more to a Strix-E and that should be a ez win for MSI there. 

Only thing to watch out for on this board, it will not handle high cache (46 or up) with power saving, c-states and EIST / Speed Shift enabled at all. Somethings fishy with how it handles the down clocking of the cache and the adaptive voltages and it often freezes under idle at high cache frequencies.

What it also struggles with is the lack of VMAXSTRESS so if you clock any bin over x52, be it all core or Turbo Ratio, it will often just max out the VID's causing it to always run 1.50v on Auto and it needs large offsets in the VF Curve to correct this.

I now run a BCLK OC as well, 106.15x49 for 5200 all core, to kinda work around the cache clock issues as now the cache multi is not above 45 so it doesn't flip out in idle nearly as much, and Auto Adaptive is 1.500v basically so I need to run a Advanced Offset (VF Curve) at x52 of -0.160v to get my actual target voltage (1.334v).


----------



## Nikado7

Finally got your alls invite to this party....444 days later.. which consequently is the exact time it will take me to read all these posts. I managed to direct die this PITA, not exactly an 8600k pop and wipe type delid but I managed. Somehow the ICE 6th gen direct die frame still worked on it. Anyways looking forward to tinker and join this 10900k club. Definitely an absolute beast 🥰


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Below, you see 1hs playing PlanetSide2.
I think I need a custom loop... LOL


----------



## Astral85

RobertoSampaio said:


> Below, you see 1hs playing PlanetSide2.
> I think I need a custom loop... LOL
> 
> View attachment 2520311


Temps look OK to me.... Running at 5.2?


----------



## fray_bentos

ViTosS said:


> Do you guys think I can get a decent RAM OC, at least the same I have now, in a 10900k and MSI MEG Unify Z490? [email protected]? Also is the Unify better than the Maximus Hero XII Z490 for CPU/RAM OC?


Yes, I run near the same on my lowly Z490 A Pro. see signature.


----------



## fray_bentos

Imprezzion said:


> Easily. The Ace / Unify is a great board, if not one of the best 4 DIMM slot boards, for memory OC. 4200C16 is easily done and I have gotten as high as 4600C18 on the Ace to work just fine. It has an insane amount of fine tuning options for the RAM, skew control, ODT, RTL/IO, asf. I daily drive 4400 straight 17's with ease and very low IO and SA voltages.
> 
> I wouldn't say it's better then a Hero per se as the Hero has many CPU related features like VMaxStress and better configurable lite load / AC/DC control, VF Curve and such but the Unify (or Ace for that matter) is much much cheaper, at least here. I would compare it more to a Strix-E and that should be a ez win for MSI there.
> 
> Only thing to watch out for on this board, it will not handle high cache (46 or up) with power saving, c-states and EIST / Speed Shift enabled at all. Somethings fishy with how it handles the down clocking of the cache and the adaptive voltages and it often freezes under idle at high cache frequencies.
> 
> What it also struggles with is the lack of VMAXSTRESS so if you clock any bin over x52, be it all core or Turbo Ratio, it will often just max out the VID's causing it to always run 1.50v on Auto and it needs large offsets in the VF Curve to correct this.
> 
> I now run a BCLK OC as well, 106.15x49 for 5200 all core, to kinda work around the cache clock issues as now the cache multi is not above 45 so it doesn't flip out in idle nearly as much, and Auto Adaptive is 1.500v basically so I need to run a Advanced Offset (VF Curve) at x52 of -0.160v to get my actual target voltage (1.334v).


I'm sure your cache issues are specific to your CPU. My 10600K wouldn't go over 45 cache fully adaptive. There is a reason why stock 10900K cache is set at 43, likely because some can't do 44 or 45 stable.


----------



## fray_bentos

RobertoSampaio said:


> Below, you see 1hs playing PlanetSide2.
> I think I need a custom loop... LOL
> 
> View attachment 2520311


Um, no. Temps are fine.


----------



## Imprezzion

fray_bentos said:


> I'm sure your cache issues are specific to your CPU. My 10600K wouldn't go over 45 cache fully adaptive. There is a reason why stock 10900K cache is set at 43, likely because some can't do 44 or 45 stable.


That's what I thought as well. And then I used my chip in a buddy his Z490 Strix-E just as a test and lo and behold, cache was fine at x48 with power savings enabled. 

So, then I tested my chip on my board with fixed clocks and voltages and not dynamic and again, totally fine at x48.

It's also not related to cache _clocks_ but rather the multiplier used. Right now I'm running 106.45 BCLK x44 cache for 4684Mhz cache and it's totally fine with all power savings. No freezes, nothing in 12+ hours. When I let it run 100x46, so multi above 45 but less clocks, it will freeze within 5 minutes of cold boot. So, what my testing tells me is that for some reason this board absolutely hate any cache multi above 45 with certain power savings / Adaptive voltage left enabled. Disabling C-States and going from speed shift to speed step (EIST) also made it go away but that kinda defeats the whole purpose of running power savings. Might as well go fixed ratio at that point.

So yeah, now at 106.45x49 = 5216Mhz AVX0 for the CPU (all-core, no turbo ratios). x44 = 4684Mhz cache, x41.33 = 4400 17-17-17-36-340-2N RAM.

Mode_1 Lite Load, LLC4, 500KHz VRM freq, Advanced Offset all Auto except -0.160 for x52, 1.25v IO 1.35v SA 1.50v DRAM, AVX load 1.356v, Non-AVX load 1.330v. Due to the slight droop at LLC4 it has the tendency to "overshoot" a little sometimes to 1.380-1.390v ish when the load is super light but yeah. This runs much cooler under load then LLC3 or 2 so.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

fray_bentos said:


> Um, no. Temps are fine.


That's after 30 minutes playing BVF...
The water temperature rises from 30°C to 38°C.
Room temp is 24C.
I thought water temp could be lower with a custom loop.
For those who have a custom loop, what's the water temps after 30 min playing?


----------



## Imprezzion

RobertoSampaio said:


> That's after 30 minutes playing BVF...
> The water temperature rises from 30°C to 38°C.
> Room temp is 24C.
> I thought water temp could be lower with a custom loop.
> For those who have a custom loop, what's the water temps after 30 min playing?
> 
> View attachment 2520351


About the same, 8-9c temp rise. It is only a single 280 slimline rad (coolstream se 280) with QDC's so flow wise more comparable with a AIO even tho it's a proper rad and Supremacy block. My CPU is delidded and direct-die liquid metal tho with a mirror polished block. 

It's weird your effective clocks never even show a "maximum" equal to your x10 multi clocks. Do they show your x10 clock when running CB23 or something?
Ok, mine don't always do either with just gaming, but this screenshot (4h25m uptime) included 1h30m of TestMem5 memory stresstest as I'm testing some new timings and that is 100% load CPU so shows full effective clocks as well. Temps fairly low as TM5 is not AVX. Also Division 1, Horizon Zero Dawn and some World of Tanks.


106.45 BCLK
Only all-core x49 multi, no per-core turbo = 5216Mhz.
Cache x44 multi = 4684Mhz.
EIST, SpeedShift, SpeedStep, C-States, Dynamic Mode, Windows Balanced power plan.
Lite Load mode_1.
LLC4.
Advanced Offset Voltage (VF Curve) all Auto with only x52 -0.160v.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I realized the only way to get high effective clocks is testing memory.
If I use OCCT mem test I have all effective clock at 53x...
Effective clock depends on the load...


----------



## Nikado7

Been kinda fun playing with this. Finally figured out all my issues with frequency dropping being related to VRM needing to be at 140%. So I did a little 26.6 small fft 5 min run. Have to play with it more later. I'm happy thus far


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Nikado7 said:


> Been kinda fun playing with this. Finally figured out all my issues with frequency dropping being related to VRM needing to be at 140%. So I did a little 26.6 small fft 5 min run. Have to play with it more later. I'm happy thus far
> 
> View attachment 2520384


Which LLC# are you using?
How about DC_LL and AC_LL ?

I think you need to adjust DC_LL to match LLC.


----------



## Nikado7

RobertoSampaio said:


> Which LLC# are you using?
> How about DC_LL and AC_LL ?


6, the others still on auto. Was just playing with a static vcore looking at loaded voltage for now.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Nikado7 said:


> 6, the others still on auto. Was just playing with a static vcore looking at loaded voltage for now.


VCore=1.25 @52x !
You have a good chip.
When you have some time, post a pic of the BIOS VF curve and CPU SP number....


----------



## Nikado7

RobertoSampaio said:


> VCore=1.25 @52x !
> You have a good chip.
> When you have some time, post a pic of the BIOS VF curve and CPU SP number....


The voltage can probably go lower, I didn't play with it that much at all, was just copying falkentynes stuff. SP82.


----------



## GeneO

Anybody interested in a powershell script that will run prime95 in a loop over the cores? It will loop over each core for a specified number of seconds and run either 1 or 2 threads per core with primer95. Here is what you can configure:


Code:


p95zip_path=p95v305b2.win64.zip ;location of zip for first time install
AVX=0                 ; AVX 0=disabled, 1=enabled
AVX2=0                 ; AVX2 "  "
AVX512=0            ; AVX512 " "
FMA3=1                 ; FMA3  " "
MinFFT=1344             ; MIN FFT LENGTH
MaxFFT=1344              ; MAX FFT LENGTH
TortureMem=0             ; memory to use (0=in-place)
TortureTime=3             ; minutes per FFT length pass
cycle_time=60           ; seconds per core
cooldown_time=5          ; idle seconds between cores to cool down
loops=3                  ; number of loops over selected cores
Hyperthreading=False          ; True 2 threads per core, False 1 thread per core
FirstCore=0            ; first core in loop. Must be less than or equal to #cores
LastCore=9             ;last core in loop.  if  >= number of cores-1 , gets set to number of cores -1. If < number of cores, loops up to that core
ForceOneLogicalCore=False    ; If False the single thread will run across both logical processors on a core.
                ; if True, it forces running prime95 only on the first logical processor(via affinity) on the core; prime95 will spit out an error because
                ; it will try set affinity to run the thread across both logical processors, though the error doesn't affect the running and it will run
                ; on the first logical processor just fine.
                ; Applies only when HyperTheading=False.


With the above configuration, I can get effective frequencies of 5250 / 2 per thread on the active core for a 53/4 52/6 51/10 configuration. Got a few more tests to make sure everything is working correctly (heavily modified someone else's script).

EDIT: Done checking. I include a p95 zip that gets extracted to a sub-directory the first time you use it. Needed to check that worked properly.


----------



## Astral85

I figured out that Intel VMX/Hyper V when enabled causes the decrease in L2 Cache bandwidth in AIDA CPU/Memory test. Anyone have any idea why that could be? Will this decreased bandwidth show up in applications other than AIDA?


----------



## GeneO

Good catch. I will look at this tomorrow.


----------



## Astral85

RobertoSampaio said:


> That's after 30 minutes playing BVF...
> The water temperature rises from 30°C to 38°C.
> Room temp is 24C.
> I thought water temp could be lower with a custom loop.
> For those who have a custom loop, what's the water temps after 30 min playing?
> 
> View attachment 2520351


An AIO is close to the same thing as custom cooling, it's a radiator with water in it right? I think you will see a lower water temp with more radiators however. For example in a 24C room my water will max at around 35-36C and that is with 300W or more heat from the GPU in there as well. More radiator/more fans = cooler water. You will see a slight decrease in CPU core temps, I think 3-4C maybe 5C max. The problem with 10900K is it is a very hot chip and the only way to significantly reduce the core temps I believe is with direct die delid...


----------



## Nikado7

Astral85 said:


> An AIO is close to the same thing as custom cooling, it's a radiator with water in it right? I think you will see a lower water temp with more radiators however. For example in a 24C room my water will max at around 35-36C and that is with 300W or more heat from the GPU in there as well. More radiator/more fans = cooler water. You will see a slight decrease in CPU core temps, I think 3-4C maybe 5C max. The problem with 10900K is it is a very hot chip and the only way to significantly reduce the core temps I believe is with direct die delid...


I wish I had done a before and after. I don't like to mess around so I got the chip, instantly got rid of the IHS and went straight to direct die. Even at 1.32ish loaded volts with 26.6 small 5.3ghz I was around 70c. So sure it generates 300 watts at those settings but with 10 cores thats to be expected and it really does seem to run very cool. I mean 5ghz all core you're looking at 50c max. I never had something run so cool in all my 8th/9th gen days even with direct die.


----------



## Astral85

GeneO said:


> Good catch. I will look at this tomorrow.


I'd be interested to know if this occurs on Z490...


----------



## Imprezzion

I did record it. Stock chip with full IHS and Prolimatech PK-3 paste on a not lapped waterblock 5.1 @ 1.290v (fixed) 91c core temps in Prime95 28.9 small no AVX.

Flattened and mirror lapped (started at 400 grit to flatten it and went all the way up to 3000 + 5500 copper polish after) the block, upgraded the radiator fans for much better static pressure ones, Rockitcool direct die kit + plate + EK springs, Coollaboratory Liquid Ultra TIM. Same 5.1 @ 1.290v (fixed) 74c. 

So yeah, a delid + direct die can save as much as 10-12c if your sample is particularly bad like mine stock, but it isn't as much as it did on 4770/6700/7700K anymore.

Add some supporting mods like lapped block (as the die is extremely flat you do not want any curve in the block surface), better fans, stronger mounting springs or washers (included with the Rockitcool kit for EK) and it can be upwards of 15c.


----------



## Nikado7

It's insane to me to think 300w are being transfered through something the size of trident gum.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Nikado7 said:


> It's insane to me to think 300w are being transfered through something the size of trident gum.


Insane is thinking of a 1,3v rail with 250A running into a trident gum... LOL


----------



## Imprezzion

RobertoSampaio said:


> Insane is thinking of a 1,3v rail with 250A running into a trident gum... LOL


Well. Yeah, that. I TIG weld 2.5" stainless exhaust flanges with less amps then that lol... I can not understand how the inside of the CPU does not turn into the surface of the sun in an instant.


----------



## fray_bentos

Imprezzion said:


> Well. Yeah, that. I TIG weld 2.5" stainless exhaust flanges with less amps then that lol... I can not understand how the inside of the CPU does not turn into the surface of the sun in an instant.


P = IV


----------



## Nikado7

I did notice when running 26.6 small it would hit 85 for a second as the water pump spooled up. It's like Jesus it only takes that long for it to saturate the block? 

I do think I'll just do a set vcore. Under p95 it was at 1.234v at 5.2 and 1.31 at idle using llc6. 0.01mohms on both. That's a little too nice to get greedy for 5.3 which seems to need over 1.3 under load.


----------



## fray_bentos

Nikado7 said:


> I did notice when running 26.6 small it would hit 85 for a second as the water pump spooled up. It's like Jesus it only takes that long for it to saturate the block?
> 
> I do think I'll just do a set vcore. Under p95 it was at 1.234v at 5.2 and 1.31 at idle using llc6. 0.01mohms on both. That's a little too nice to get greedy for 5.3 which seems to need over 1.3 under load.


It's not about block saturation. Peak temperatures in modern CPUs arise from the high power density, thermal transfer through the silicon itself is often the rate determing step. This, combined with the soldered IHS (on non-delidded chips) is why delidding doesn't have as much as an impact in lowering temperatures as it did just a few years ago. Getting heat through the IHS (if present) and block/heat sink is not limiting on short time durations. As architechture sizes get smaller the power density situation will be further amplified.


----------



## acoustic

Imprezzion said:


> Well. Yeah, that. I TIG weld 2.5" stainless exhaust flanges with less amps then that lol... I can not understand how the inside of the CPU does not turn into the surface of the sun in an instant.


Yeah it's pretty insane. Even at 250watts it's crazy to imagine that's not enough wattage/current to cause degradation..


----------



## GeneO

Astral85 said:


> I'd be interested to know if this occurs on Z490...


I don't really see it. It fluctuates maybe more. Sometimes about the dame, sometimes lower. This is just toggling VMX with power setting ultimate performance.

VT-D is a real performance killer though.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I was thinking...

The CPU do not produce movement or other kind of work... Just heat when processing bits...

So if I reduce the voltage, keeping it stable for a specific frequency, and the power is reduced, so is it right to think that with less power (and heat) the processing power is reduced too?


----------



## Nikado7

RobertoSampaio said:


> I was thinking...
> 
> The CPU do not produce movement or other kind of work... Just heat when processing bits...
> 
> So if I reduce the voltage, keeping it stable for a specific frequency, and the power is reduced, so is it right to think that with less power (and heat) the processing power is reduced too?


You can see this in the wattage in hwinfo. Put your cpu at idk 4.5ghz everything static 1.3v and run R23.....then put it at 1.2v and run R23....the scores will be the same (should be) but the wattage is different, hence the entireeeeeee reason people undervolt things like laptops. Its unneccessary voltage. So no, reducing power/volts/heat in that instance wouldn't reduce processoing power because its still getting the power required to maintain the frequency/load you put on it. Again, more reason why undervolting is such a big thing on laptops. They throttle when they experience that extra heat, but won't if you can undervolt and keep them from getting hot, you in theory gain performance by reducing voltage in that instance since its not throttling.


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> I was thinking...
> 
> The CPU do not produce movement or other kind of work... Just heat when processing bits...
> 
> So if I reduce the voltage, keeping it stable for a specific frequency, and the power is reduced, so is it right to think that with less power (and heat) the processing power is reduced too?


No. And you are doing work switching those transistors on and off.
When you lower the voltage you weaken the signals and switching until they are in error.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> No. And you are doing work switching those transistors on and off.
> When you lower the voltage you weaken the signals and switching until they are in error.


You are right !
Reducing voltage, we have a better energetic efficiency.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

So has anyone got adaptive voltage to work reliably for 24/7 use.
I've notice no matter what I do it'll spike to 1.41v on idle, this is at 5.1Ghz all core, 1.35v set with a -0.005 offset.
LLC 4 (ROG z490 Hero).
Using manual voltage of 1.35v give me way better vdroop and the voltages don't go over 1.35v, I'm just not sure if it's better to leave it set to manual because I rarely shut my machine off or sleep it.


----------



## GeneO

Yes, I have it working on my Z490 Hero 24x7, 5.1 GHz.
The voltage for adaptive that you set only applies for > 5.3 GHz. Beelow 5.3 GHz, adaptive voltage is determined by ACLL (AC Lood Line), The LLC level, and the V/F curve offsets. You can raise or lower VF6 offset for 5.1 GHz voltage for example. Don't set an global adaptive offset voltage in the adaptive setting, but adjust the voltage offsets in the V/F curve settings and/or the ACLL and LLC.


----------



## GeneO

Here is what I do. Pick an LLC, say LLC5. Leave your V/F curve points with 0 offsets (auto). LLC5 has 0.8mohm loadline. Set your DCLL = 0.8 mohm (so that the CPU can correctly estimate power, see below), then adjust your ACLL until your stable at 5.1 GHz all cores. Be very careful because adjusting ACLL too high can lead to very high core voltages. Start out at something .15 (LLC5) and raise it until you are stable or lower it until you are unstable. For higher LLC you need lower ACLL and for lower LLC you need larder ACLL.

For LLC4 you want DCLL ~ 1.1
For LLC5 you want DCLL ~ .8
For LLC6 you want DCLL ~ 0.52

The reason is these should match the mohm of LLC you have set, which are the above values, in order for the CPU to make an accurate estimate of the power, which matters for power limit calculations and throttling.

The behavior of the settings is approximately (ignoring TVB voltage optimizations:

Voltage requested of the VRM by the CPU = V/F curve voltage + ACLL*Current
Voltage applied by VRM (vcore) = Requested voltage - LLC*Current (LLC in mohm)
VID reported = V/F Curve voltage + ACLL*Current - DCLL*Current

The reported VID is the voltage used to estimate the power = VID*Current by the CPU. This is only correct for VID = Vcore which implies DCLL = LLC (mohm). In other words, since the CPU is not aware of the LLC being applied to the voltage, you have to tell it what LLC is via DCLL, so it can calculate power.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

@GeneO
Thanks for that, I'll play around with it later today, have a new cooling setup coming, so I'll install it first then start tweaking. 

My CPU has a SP of 85, so it's not too bad, it's just the temps holding it back a bit.


----------



## GeneO

One other thing. In the Advanced -> CPU section of the BIOS, you can tell the board to use maximum turbo in the BIOS. This is useful because the voltage that is displayed in the BIOS is approximately vcore under load. Useful to get in the right ballpark and to make sure you don't boot with a high voltage (to large ACLL can give you a crazy voltage). You can also limit the voltage in the BIOS, VMax stress? Forget the name - it is under the TVB settings.


----------



## Imprezzion

Currently, on the MSI Ace, I'm on AC/DC mode_1 whatever that is in mOhm, LLC4, and I dropped down to 5.1 as well as 5.2 and 5.3 runs fine but tales so much more voltage and heat it ain't worth it for 24/7. It is done with BCLK 106.45x48 because with 100 BCLK the cache won't do 4600 but with BCLK 106.45 it can do 4684Mhz just fine.

With adaptive and VF Curve x51 -0.040 this results in a vCore of ~1.289v and a VR VOut of ~1.288v so close enough for me to say AC/DC and LLC and such are pretty well adjusted.

RAM @ 4400C17-17-17-36-340-2T 1.50v DRAM, 1.35v SA and 1.25v IO.

Even with my fans on the rad on basically idle RPM and the pump on 70% (it whines a little above that) max temps while gaming in like 6 different games are around 60-64c. CB23 with a little more RPM runs around 70-72c still pump at 70%. Even Prime 95 Small FFT with AVX stays under 85c and no AVX under 80c.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> One other thing. In the Advanced -> CPU section of the BIOS, you can tell the board to use maximum turbo in the BIOS. This is useful because the voltage that is displayed in the BIOS is approximately vcore under load. Useful to get in the right ballpark and to make sure you don't boot with a high voltage (to large ACLL can give you a crazy voltage). You can also limit the voltage in the BIOS, VMax stress? Forget the name - it is under the TVB settings.


I didn't understand this: 
"One other thing. In the Advanced -> CPU section of the BIOS, you can tell the board to use maximum turbo in the BIOS. "

Could you explain to me?
Maybe I don't have this option in BIOS.


----------



## Astral85

Imprezzion said:


> Currently, on the MSI Ace, I'm on AC/DC mode_1 whatever that is in mOhm, LLC4, and I dropped down to 5.1 as well as 5.2 and 5.3 runs fine but tales so much more voltage and heat it ain't worth it for 24/7. It is done with BCLK 106.45x48 because with 100 BCLK the cache won't do 4600 but with BCLK 106.45 it can do 4684Mhz just fine.
> 
> With adaptive and VF Curve x51 -0.040 this results in a vCore of ~1.289v and a VR VOut of ~1.288v so close enough for me to say AC/DC and LLC and such are pretty well adjusted.
> 
> RAM @ 4400C17-17-17-36-340-2T 1.50v DRAM, 1.35v SA and 1.25v IO.
> 
> Even with my fans on the rad on basically idle RPM and the pump on 70% (it whines a little above that) max temps while gaming in like 6 different games are around 60-64c. CB23 with a little more RPM runs around 70-72c still pump at 70%. Even Prime 95 Small FFT with AVX stays under 85c and no AVX under 80c.
> 
> View attachment 2520641


I haven't seen many people here pushing BCLK, are there some tricks to it? What about PCIE frequency? Is overclocking PCIE worth the risk?


----------



## fray_bentos

schoolofmonkey said:


> So has anyone got adaptive voltage to work reliably for 24/7 use.
> I've notice no matter what I do it'll spike to 1.41v on idle, this is at 5.1Ghz all core, 1.35v set with a -0.005 offset.
> LLC 4 (ROG z490 Hero).
> Using manual voltage of 1.35v give me way better vdroop and the voltages don't go over 1.35v, I'm just not sure if it's better to leave it set to manual because I rarely shut my machine off or sleep it.


Yes, working fine for me from day 1.


----------



## Imprezzion

Astral85 said:


> I haven't seen many people here pushing BCLK, are there some tricks to it? What about PCIE frequency? Is overclocking PCIE worth the risk?


It's a fully separate clock gen so no issues there. BCLK only affects CPU, Cache and RAM. You can go as high as you want. Up to like 115 there's also no additional voltages needed from my testing.

I run 106.45 specifically as that aligns the RAM at exactly 4400 using the 4133 divider and the CPU at 5110.


----------



## Astral85

Imprezzion said:


> It's a fully separate clock gen so no issues there. BCLK only affects CPU, Cache and RAM. You can go as high as you want. Up to like 115 there's also no additional voltages needed from my testing.
> 
> I run 106.45 specifically as that aligns the RAM at exactly 4400 using the 4133 divider and the CPU at 5110.


So you don't need any other settings to stabilize BCLK OC? Do you just increase the BCLK and that's it? I know there are a heap of BCLK related settings in Tweakers Paradise. I've never gone there...


----------



## Imprezzion

Astral85 said:


> So you don't need any other settings to stabilize BCLK OC? Do you just increase the BCLK and that's it? I know there are a heap of BCLK related settings in Tweakers Paradise. I've never gone there...


Those are only useful if you wanna go real high. I have had to do absolutely no tweaks to get to 110 or 115.55 even. Only thing to worry about is manual FCLK. If forced to 1000 it does go up with BCLK and might get unstable even tho I had no issues at 106.45 yet. Benchmark scores like CB23 are also measurably and repeatably higher then same CPU frequency @ 100 BCLK.


----------



## Salve1412

RobertoSampaio said:


> I didn't understand this:
> "One other thing. In the Advanced -> CPU section of the BIOS, you can tell the board to use maximum turbo in the BIOS. "
> 
> Could you explain to me?
> Maybe I don't have this option in BIOS.


I think Gene is referring to ASUS option "Boot Performance Mode" in Advanced/CPU Configuration/CPU - Power Management Control, if I'm not mistaken. If you set it to Turbo Performance CPU will enter BIOS at maximum Turbo frequency (so if you use By Core Usage it should be the 10-Core associated frequency) instead of base frequency: this way one can check how much voltage is supplied, as he was suggesting. As far as I know this is standard for Gigabyte BIOS (at least it was on Z390).


----------



## Imprezzion

Played 3 hours of Horizon Zero Dawn + rebuilding shader cache for it which takes a LOT of CPU horsepower. About 25-26c ambient here, it's pretty warm today. Usually my 850 EVO case temp sensor is pretty much always ambient as it is directly behind the bottom front intake fan so I always use that sensor for ambient / case intake temps.

1.286v VCC, 1.279v VR VOut. Seems great. Delta T between the cores is only max 4c as well so the mount and paste and lapping was darn near perfect.

This is by far the most efficient this CPU can run. If I do this with 5.2 it'll be 40w more and 72-75c and if I do this with 5.3 it gets close to 300w and it's 79-83c. Totally not efficient for just 100 or 200Mhz. Actually, 22w idle now with Chrome + 30+ tabs of YouTube and other stuff is really really good imo.

Also, keep in mind these temps are done with 70% waterpump speed and near idle radiator fanspeeds. As you can see in the graph it idles at ~625 RPM and only spun up to 815 RPM max. Case fans same story.

GPU is undervolted as well to 1950 @ 0.925v which is also it's most effective clock / voltage. It stays under 320w, runs about 100-120Mhz _above_ stock boost, and also very low fanspeed needed to cool it. I only have to remount it to get the hotspot Delta T a bit lower.


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> I didn't understand this:
> "One other thing. In the Advanced -> CPU section of the BIOS, you can tell the board to use maximum turbo in the BIOS. "
> 
> Could you explain to me?
> Maybe I don't have this option in BIOS.


advanced -> cpu config -> cpu power management - > boot performance mode = turbo performance 

puts a turbo load on cpu at boot


----------



## Nikado7

I'm about as close to where i wanna be as I can get. Just a little more tweaking. Windows acts a little weird with 49 uncore. 17419 R23 though. [email protected] uncore. Mehhh


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Right so the Artic Freezer II 360mm is worse than the ROG 360mm LC,
So with all the hoo haa around these AIO's I'd thought I'd try one, 2 seconds into Cinebench with the exact same overclock settings that yielded me 81cm the Artic freeze set the temps straight to 100c.

Hmm, don't believe the hype it seems.

I've check the mount and thermal paste spread, plenty of pressure, spread out a tiny pea size over the whole heatsink.


----------



## GeneO

Well that sucks. I don't think the Arctic Freezer should perform so poorly. Could be a bad egg.

I did find with my EK-AIO 360 that pea sized dot didn't work too well - not very consistent. I got much better and consistent temps spreading the TIM across the CPU.

I think the mounting system on some of these AIO are not so great.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

GeneO said:


> Well that sucks. I don't think the Arctic Freezer should perform so poorly. Could be a bad egg.
> 
> I did find with my EK-AIO 360 that pea sized dot didn't work too well - not very consistent. I got much better and consistent temps spreading the TIM across the CPU.
> 
> I think the mounting system on some of these AIO are not so great.


I tried both methods now, both lead to100c.
What I've done now is swapped out the stock fans for some 2000rpm Corsair Mag levs, kept the temps at 90c, which is identical to the ROG LC using the same fans.
Now this was all done with the 0-11 Dynamic's side panels off.

The way Gamers Nexus and a few other reviews talked about this AIO it was the bee's knees.
Once you switch to using the motherboard AIO connector for the pump and the fan connector for the fans you can't see the pump speed, so I'm guessing any info on "speed" is all from the fans.
1700RPM Artic stock, 2500RPM Corsair, but worse results than the thinner RAD ROG LC, Blender hits 100c...


----------



## GeneO

schoolofmonkey said:


> I tried both methods now, both lead to100c.
> What I've done now is swapped out the stock fans for some 2000rpm Corsair Mag levs, kept the temps at 90c, which is identical to the ROG LC using the same fans.
> Now this was all done with the 0-11 Dynamic's side panels off.
> 
> The way Gamers Nexus and a few other reviews talked about this AIO it was the bee's knees.
> Once you switch to using the motherboard AIO connector for the pump and the fan connector for the fans you can't see the pump speed, so I'm guessing any info on "speed" is all from the fans.
> 1700RPM Artic stock, 2500RPM Corsair, but worse results than the thinner RAD ROG LC, Blender hits 100c...


What OC are you running and what stress test?

I use the AIO MB connector for the pump and I can see its speed in both BIOS and AISuite fan control.


----------



## CallMeODZ

schoolofmonkey said:


> I tried both methods now, both lead to100c.
> What I've done now is swapped out the stock fans for some 2000rpm Corsair Mag levs, kept the temps at 90c, which is identical to the ROG LC using the same fans.
> Now this was all done with the 0-11 Dynamic's side panels off.
> 
> The way Gamers Nexus and a few other reviews talked about this AIO it was the bee's knees.
> Once you switch to using the motherboard AIO connector for the pump and the fan connector for the fans you can't see the pump speed, so I'm guessing any info on "speed" is all from the fans.
> 1700RPM Artic stock, 2500RPM Corsair, but worse results than the thinner RAD ROG LC, Blender hits 100c...


sounds like you have a dud. 

the pwm connector does the vrm fan, pump & 3 attached fans & readout will be the fan speeds assuming higher than 1k rmp
if you just plug the header in without connecting the 3 fans it will read vrm fan speed


so if you are running a fan curve it will slow pump/vrm 
the workaround is to use a 3 way splitter for the 3 fans and curve them and aio/pump header to max pump


----------



## schoolofmonkey

CallMeODZ said:


> sounds like you have a dud.
> 
> the pwm connector does the vrm fan, pump & 3 attached fans & readout will be the fan speeds assuming higher than 1k rmp
> if you just plug the header in without connecting the 3 fans it will read vrm fan speed
> 
> 
> so if you are running a fan curve it will slow pump/vrm
> the workaround is to use a 3 way splitter for the 3 fans and curve them and aio/pump header to max pump


I can see the speed on the fan when it's connected to main cable, so if I separate the fans and the pump, then run them independently, you get no pump speed reading, plug a fan back into the pump splitter, you'll get a speed reading.
Fan connected to splitter









No connected to splitter.









Seems like Gamers Nexus had the same issue with the newer revisions (Mines Rev 4).









GeneO said:


> What OC are you running and what stress test?
> 
> I use the AIO MB connector for the pump and I can see its speed in both BIOS and AISuite fan control.


The one I was talking to you about yesterday, 5.1Ghz 1.35v, usually with the ROG LC 360mm I'd max out at 90c with blender, other stress tests would be about 85c
Artic is seeing 90+, Blender 100c.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I keep pump at max speed...


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Spread:


----------



## Imprezzion

I dunno about all this hype. Tbh, I still haven't found an AIO that will actually beat the years and years old Corsair H110i GTX (the revision before the rebrand to H115i). I have 2 here, they are within 2-3c of my Phoenix 280 EK kit and outperform the likes of a CM ML360R, H150i (first rev / gen) and a BeQuiet 360 with ease. 

The only modern AIO's that I have either used myself or installed in a friend's rig that kinda keep up are the Fractal Design Celsius+ S36, The new RGB one, and the Kraken X73 non-RGB which is probably the best AIO on the market temp wise right now ignoring the Arctic ones and their hideous VRM fan plastic mess.

I miss the days of the Swiftech H320..


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Imprezzion said:


> I dunno about all this hype. Tbh, I still haven't found an AIO that will actually beat the years and years old Corsair H110i GTX (the revision before the rebrand to H115i). I have 2 here, they are within 2-3c of my Phoenix 280 EK kit and outperform the likes of a CM ML360R, H150i (first rev / gen) and a BeQuiet 360 with ease.
> 
> The only modern AIO's that I have either used myself or installed in a friend's rig that kinda keep up are the Fractal Design Celsius+ S36, The new RGB one, and the Kraken X73 non-RGB which is probably the best AIO on the market temp wise right now ignoring the Arctic ones and their hideous VRM fan plastic mess.
> 
> I miss the days of the Swiftech H320..


Same overclock, same Cinebench 23 run, same Corsair fans, same thermal paste (Noctua N1).

Artic Freezer II 360:









ROG LC 360 Temp.


----------



## GeneO

schoolofmonkey said:


> Spread:
> View attachment 2520781
> View attachment 2520782





schoolofmonkey said:


> Spread:
> View attachment 2520781
> View attachment 2520782


That looks good. I get 90c peak on blender, 87c on Cinebench 23 on my ek-aio at 70% pump @ 51x 1.3v core. Supposed to be about the same performance as the Arctic, so I think I agree you may have a dud.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

GeneO said:


> That looks good. I get 90c peak on blender, 87c on Cinebench 23 on my ek-aio at 70% pump @ 51x 1.3v core. Supposed to be about the same performance as the Arctic, so I think I agree you may have a dud.


I've submitted a RMA now.
If this Strix LC 360 keeps it cooler than the Freezer II it can't be right, it's not even on par with any of the reviews, 100c at 100% fan (2500rpm) isn't normal.


----------



## CallMeODZ

yeah i think something is off with it
how did you have it installed - exhaust at top of case? or front mount? 

when i had mine at the front i noticed a lot of air in the tubes when i flipped the orientation to have the vrm fan blow over the m2 heat sink the gurgles stopped


----------



## Nizzen

Imprezzion said:


> I dunno about all this hype. Tbh, I still haven't found an AIO that will actually beat the years and years old Corsair H110i GTX (the revision before the rebrand to H115i). I have 2 here, they are within 2-3c of my Phoenix 280 EK kit and outperform the likes of a CM ML360R, H150i (first rev / gen) and a BeQuiet 360 with ease.
> 
> The only modern AIO's that I have either used myself or installed in a friend's rig that kinda keep up are the Fractal Design Celsius+ S36, The new RGB one, and the Kraken X73 non-RGB which is probably the best AIO on the market temp wise right now ignoring the Arctic ones and their hideous VRM fan plastic mess.
> 
> I miss the days of the Swiftech H320..


The hype of Arctic Freezer is all about price/performance. It's pretty much unbeatable, atleast here in Norway.

Example: AF 2 360 is half the price of ASUS ROG Strix LC 360.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

CallMeODZ said:


> yeah i think something is off with it
> how did you have it installed - exhaust at top of case? or front mount?
> 
> when i had mine at the front i noticed a lot of air in the tubes when i flipped the orientation to have the vrm fan blow over the m2 heat sink the gurgles stopped


Should of asked what way I didn't have it mounted.
Top exhaust
Side intake and exhaust
Outside the case
Outside the case the the air con blowing on it, (yes in winter)

All with the same results.

Strix slapped up the top as exhaust, 87c max with the side glass on.
I have my EVGA RTX 3090 XC3 Hybrid's AIO side mounted as exhaust too.


Edit:
Just for my own sanity I tried it on my sons delidded 7700k, 100c under Cinebench 23.

@GeneO 
I was playing with the Adaptive OC settings you sent me, I've dialed it in nicely with LLC 5, your settings were pretty much on the money.
DCLL 0.8
ACLL 0.15

Any lower on the ACLL you can't pass Cinebench.


----------



## Imprezzion

I have been looking for a new "AIO" for quite a while. It doesn't have to be full AIO, semi like the EK Phoenix or Swiftech kits is fine, just not full custom cause I switch hardware and cases far too often and I want a bolt-in easily swappable cooling solution and can't be bothered with full custom. The EK Phoenix kit I have now is absolutely perfect for this but it's going on 5 years old now and the pump is not getting happier every day plus the rad is kinda sad looking at the moment with the amount of dents in the fins and such from a hard test bench life lol.

Problem is, even if you don't even look at price, there is no AIO or kit like the Swiftech H320x kits or whatever that can beat a Phoenix. 

If any of you know of a AIO or Semi AIO that can at least proven match the Phoenix kits or beat them I'd like to know.. and no, price doesn't matter. I just want the ease of swapping stuff and not having a res and compression fittings.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Is there a way to lower the PCH temperature?
In my mounting case, I have it below my RXT 3080...


----------



## robalm

schoolofmonkey said:


> Should of asked what way I didn't have it mounted.
> Top exhaust
> Side intake and exhaust
> Outside the case
> Outside the case the the air con blowing on it, (yes in winter)
> 
> All with the same results.
> 
> Strix slapped up the top as exhaust, 87c max with the side glass on.
> I have my EVGA RTX 3090 XC3 Hybrid's AIO side mounted as exhaust too.
> 
> 
> Edit:
> Just for my own sanity I tried it on my sons delidded 7700k, 100c under Cinebench 23.
> 
> @GeneO
> I was playing with the Adaptive OC settings you sent me, I've dialed it in nicely with LLC 5, your settings were pretty much on the money.
> DCLL 0.8
> ACLL 0.15
> 
> Any lower on the ACLL you can't pass Cinebench.


I have given up on Adaptive vcore.
Some test (stresstest) bump vcore to high some to low and a few perfect vcore xD


----------



## Imprezzion

robalm said:


> I have given up on Adaptive vcore.
> Some test (stresstest) bump vcore to high some to low and a few perfect vcore xD


I know dat feel. On adaptive the most difference is AVX0 vs no AVX especially on boards where AVX voltage offset cannot be tuned like the MSI I have. It can be as much as 0.05v. Too low is ez fix, run a flatter LLC, too high, change AC/DC or more offset. 

I got it to the point now where it'll run 1.272v at it's very lowest (Prime95 Small FFT without AVX) to 1.315v at it's highest (RealBench AVX on very low load to not droop with LLC). Usually gaming, both AVX and without, usually sit between 1.288-1.303v which is fine with me. I had it set lower so that gaming was 1.272v but it dropped as low as 1.256v under really heavy load which crashed twice so yeah..


----------



## GeneO

Imprezzion said:


> I know dat feel. On adaptive the most difference is AVX0 vs no AVX especially on boards where AVX voltage offset cannot be tuned like the MSI I have. It can be as much as 0.05v. Too low is ez fix, run a flatter LLC, too high, change AC/DC or more offset.
> 
> I got it to the point now where it'll run 1.272v at it's very lowest (Prime95 Small FFT without AVX) to 1.315v at it's highest (RealBench AVX on very low load to not droop with LLC). Usually gaming, both AVX and without, usually sit between 1.288-1.303v which is fine with me. I had it set lower so that gaming was 1.272v but it dropped as low as 1.256v under really heavy load which crashed twice so yeah..


That's at 53x? That is pretty good. What kind of temps are you getting?


----------



## acoustic

It's sad that I know @Imprezzion settings so well, that I know those are his voltages for 5.1Ghz. LOL


----------



## ViTosS

RobertoSampaio said:


> Is there a way to lower the PCH temperature?
> In my mounting case, I have it below my RXT 3080...


If you use vertical GPU adapter you can reduce, specially if you can install fans below the GPU like in the Lian Li O11 Dynamic. Like I use here


----------



## ViTosS

Well I bought an 10900kf and MSI Unify, I hope I can keep the same RAM OC that I use in the 9900ks and Apex now, also sold my 3080 and got an 3080 Ti lol


----------



## GeneO

acoustic said:


> It's sad that I know @Imprezzion settings so well, that I know those are his voltages for 5.1Ghz. LOL


LOL. About the same as me then.


----------



## GeneO

ViTosS said:


> Well I bought an 10900kf and MSI Unify, I hope I can keep the same RAM OC that I use in the 9900ks and Apex now, also sold my 3080 and got an 3080 Ti lol


 Hope it is a good one! If not, worth delidding.


----------



## Imprezzion

Yeah it's 51 not 53. Come on it's 27c here I'm not running 53 now on 1.420v haha.


----------



## ViTosS

GeneO said:


> Hope it is a good one! If not, worth delidding.


We will see, I think most of these last batches are SP63, but as long as I can get 5.0/4.7Ghz with reasonable temps I'm happy 😀


----------



## RobertoSampaio

When playing, what is your PCH temperatures? 
Mine hit 60C...


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> When playing, what is your PCH temperatures?
> Mine hit 60C...


That's not terribly bad. Don't know hwat mine is, I haven't monitored it.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

@GeneO 
So seems stable with the adaptive settings mentioned before. (Adaptive, LLC5, DCLL 0.8, ACLL 0.15)
1.288v on heavy loads, hit it with all the major stress tests, it's not Prime95 AVX Small fft stable, but the amount of voltage needed for that is stupid.
I know if I run into any AVX issues just to tweak the voltage a little, but so far it's fine, I manly use my machine for gaming, the most stress I put on it is the occasional Blender Render, but now with the 3090 I put most of the load on that.


----------



## GeneO




----------



## Imprezzion

RobertoSampaio said:


> When playing, what is your PCH temperatures?
> Mine hit 60C...


On the MSI Ace max 58c @ 27c ambient.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Finally, I got nice effective clocks !


----------



## Astral85

RobertoSampaio said:


> Finally, I got nice effective clocks !
> 
> View attachment 2521045


How so?


----------



## Imprezzion

Well, all cores well above 53xx and some hitting 54xx effective is very nice as under anything but full 100% load it will always give an average including c-states and speed step idle clocks and having this high is very good. Means they are hitting 55 and 56 quite often. At all core 51 I'm happy if I see effective clocks in the 49xx range unless running something like Cinebench or Prime, then it'll show 5101.3 but..


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Astral85 said:


> How so?


I think using C-states, HT, speedShift and all these stuff, is not easy to load just an individual core for HW-info reading...
So I use process lasso to select cores, one by one, e run the aida memory latency test.



















Does anyone know if there is any stress test that we can select the core and the amount of load for testing them individually?


----------



## GeneO

Well I posted a couple of pages back if there was interest in a powershell script that can loop over cores with a configured amount of time on each core, set their affinity, and provide the prime-95 load of your choice (FFT sixes , AVX or no AVX). In the test you can also specify the starting and ending core to run on, so you can select them the same to run on a single core. You can also run a single thread or two threads on the core. I can get high effective clocks on a single core with it.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

GeneO said:


> Anybody interested in a powershell script that will run prime95 in a loop over the cores? It will loop over each core for a specified number of seconds and run either 1 or 2 threads per core with primer95. Here is what you can configure:
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> p95zip_path=p95v305b2.win64.zip ;location of zip for first time install
> AVX=0                 ; AVX 0=disabled, 1=enabled
> AVX2=0                 ; AVX2 "  "
> AVX512=0            ; AVX512 " "
> FMA3=1                 ; FMA3  " "
> MinFFT=1344             ; MIN FFT LENGTH
> MaxFFT=1344              ; MAX FFT LENGTH
> TortureMem=0             ; memory to use (0=in-place)
> TortureTime=3             ; minutes per FFT length pass
> cycle_time=60           ; seconds per core
> cooldown_time=5          ; idle seconds between cores to cool down
> loops=3                  ; number of loops over selected cores
> Hyperthreading=False          ; True 2 threads per core, False 1 thread per core
> FirstCore=0            ; first core in loop. Must be less than or equal to #cores
> LastCore=9             ;last core in loop.  if  >= number of cores-1 , gets set to number of cores -1. If < number of cores, loops up to that core
> ForceOneLogicalCore=False    ; If False the single thread will run across both logical processors on a core.
> ; if True, it forces running prime95 only on the first logical processor(via affinity) on the core; prime95 will spit out an error because
> ; it will try set affinity to run the thread across both logical processors, though the error doesn't affect the running and it will run
> ; on the first logical processor just fine.
> ; Applies only when HyperTheading=False.
> 
> 
> With the above configuration, I can get effective frequencies of 5250 / 2 per thread on the active core for a 53/4 52/6 51/10 configuration. Got a few more tests to make sure everything is working correctly (heavily modified someone else's script).
> 
> EDIT: Done checking. I include a p95 zip that gets extracted to a sub-directory the first time you use it. Needed to check that worked properly.


I found it....
I'll try to understand and use it...


----------



## Intrud3r

OCCT can swap cores.


----------



## GeneO

Well here you go then. unzip the folder and edit the config file. The config file has the parameters for running and is configured to unpack the included prime95.zip into a p95 subfoolder. 

To run it, configure the config.txt to your liking and right click on p95_core_cycle.ps1 and choose "Run with powershell"
If you kill the script while it is running, you will probably need to manually exit the running prime 95 instance.

This was based on a script by jasonpoly. I fixed some bugs, re-factrored the scripts, and added the software to read from a configuration file (instead of editing the script and local.txt and prime.txt) and generate the local.txt and primte.txt and script options fro, config.txt. Also added more configurable parameters and modified the hyperthreading (smt withing the script) to apply to our needs more (for example there was no options to run 2 threads/core when hyperthreading was enabled.









9.7 MB file on MEGA







mega.nz





Here is what the (updated) config.txt looks like:



Code:


# configuration file for this script
# AVX and FM3 vaues are 0=disabled, 1=enabled

p95zip_path=p95v305b2.win64.zip ;location of zip for first time install
AVX=0   
AVX2=0
AVX512=0
FMA3=1
MinFFT=1344
MaxFFT=1344
TortureMem=0             ; memory to use (0=in-place)
TortureTime=3            ; minutes per FFT length pass
cycle_time=300           ; seconds to run per core
cooldown_time=15         ; idle seconds between cores to cool down
loops=2                  ; number of loops to do over the selected cores
TwoThreadsPerCore=False ; True 2 threads per core, False 1 thread per core
FirstCore=0              ; first core in loop. Must be less than or equal to actual number of cores or it gets set to actual number of cores -1
LastCore=32              ; last core in loop. if  >= actual number of cores, gets set to actual number cores - 1. If < actual number of cores, loops up to that core
ForceOneLogicalProcessor=True   ; If False the single thread will run across both logical processors on a core.
                                ; if True, it forces running prime95 only on the first logical processor(via affinity) on the core; prime95 will spit out an error because
                                ; it will try set affinity to run the thread across both logical processors, though the error doesn't affect the running and it will run
                                ; on the first logical processor just fine.
                                ; Applies only when TwoThreadsPerCore=False.


----------



## GeneO

Intrud3r said:


> OCCT can swap cores.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2521131


Or you could use that^ . LOL.
The script was to sharpen my powershell scripting skills.


----------



## Intrud3r

Just an assumption, but with that script of yours you can still use the custom feature in prime? If so, or even with editing the script itself, prime does have more ways to put different loads on the cpu then occt as far as my knowledge of both programs go .... so always good to have multiple options to test


----------



## GeneO

Intrud3r said:


> Just an assumption, but with that script of yours you can still use the custom feature in prime? If so, or even with editing the script itself, prime does have more ways to put different loads on the cpu then occt as far as my knowledge of both programs go .... so always good to have multiple options to test


Yes, it has all the Custom Torture test settings.

And you can, for instance, set canned small FFT with no AVX by setting MinFFT=22, MaxFFT=85, TortureMem=0, AVX=0, AVX2=0, TortureTime=6.


----------



## D-Dow

I have a dilemma at this very moment (before I go fishin with some buds tonight). My MSI z390 Godlike just got fried last week on the DIMMs. I wasn't 95-100% certain that it was the motherboard until today, as my last part I awaited coming in, a new ACE mobo for my 9700k, which I missed the delivery cause I wasn't home to sign USPS. This is a very cheap solution to my non-overclockable computer now that the mobo is burnt on the memory (but still boots into windows etc). So in my possession are a 10900k (not binned or delidded), a z490 MSI Godlike, a "like new" Amazon-purchased z490 Unify mobo, a 420 Arctic Freeze II, a 360 Arctic Freeze II, an Enthoo Pro 2 Case, a 1000w Seasonic Titanium PSU.

Of course, I plan on sending some of the above back. If I wait on the used ACE z390 mobo (pretty much knowing that my 9700k binned and delidded capable of 5.2 is still overclockable), then I'll save $1000 sending back the 10900k and z490 mobo. If I go ahead and build a new rig then I'll have to sell an uncertain chip (but I believe it's fine and wouldn't be misleading the buyer offering him money back if it's not), and be out $1000.

So my question is IS the 10900k Really all that better than the 9700k (delidded, binned capable of 5.3 but running at 5.2...when I have a working mobo). The ACE (with 12 power phases) is all I could get to replace my Godlike (18 phases). Is the Unify (like new but with no instructions/accessories from Amazon Warehouse but it Looks fine to my eye purchased for $200) barely a step down from the z490 Godlike? I see here on the forums it's good for OCing. Obviously my z390 Godlike died.

Would you take the ACE z390, the cheap route? or would you think that upping to the stock 10900k is really all that worth it to replace a high-end 9700k?


----------



## Imprezzion

Totally depends on use case and what GPU you use, of you game at what resolution / refresh rate. On 1080p 240Hz or above with a 3070 or more, yes it will net a measurable improvement. On 4K60 or a lesser GPU it will not. And is that slight improvement worth the investment for you personally. Then again, the 10900K with a liquid freezer, even not delidded, should do 5-5.1 all core just fine on either of the boards.


----------



## acoustic

I'd send it back and buy AlderLake when it comes out. No point in buying a 10900K and Z490 right now.


----------



## GeneO

D-Dow said:


> So my question is IS the 10900k Really all that better than the 9700k (delidded, binned capable of 5.3 but running at 5.2...when I have a working mobo). The ACE (with 12 power phases) is all I could get to replace my Godlike (18 phases). Is the Unify (like new but with no instructions/accessories from Amazon Warehouse but it Looks fine to my eye purchased for $200) barely a step down from the z490 Godlike? I see here on the forums it's good for OCing. Obviously my z390 Godlike died.
> 
> Would you take the ACE z390, the cheap route? or would you think that upping to the stock 10900k is really all that worth it to replace a high-end 9700k?


No guarantee you get > 5.0 or 5.1 on the 10900k, especially if it is recently purchased. It will be better than your 9700k, but worth it? IDK, I don't think so. I sorta agree, Alder Lake is right around the corner... And I'll bet there will be some better coolers.


----------



## D-Dow

Imprezzion said:


> On 1080p 240Hz or above with a 3070 or more, yes it will net a measurable improvement.


I have a 3080ti, 1440p 240

ok, ya'll've convinced me, I'll wait to install the used z390 ACE on Monday, hit previous overclocks with it to make sure, and hopefully not have to install windows again, keep it and send everything back except the case and 360 freeze II because I think that pushing air out of the case from the top will give me lower CPU temps than pulling cool air in from the front with the 420 Arctic freeze II. I haven't even opened any of my shipments cause I don't want to f over the sellers. The only one I opened was the z490 Unify mobo cause I wanted to See what "like new" means from Amazon Warehouse and it appears unused.


----------



## fray_bentos

D-Dow said:


> I have a 3080ti, 1440p 240
> 
> ok, ya'll've convinced me, I'll wait to install the used z390 ACE on Monday, hit previous overclocks with it to make sure, and hopefully not have to install windows again, keep it and send everything back except the case and 360 freeze II because I think that pushing air out of the case from the top will give me lower CPU temps than pulling cool air in from the front with the 420 Arctic freeze II. I haven't even opened any of my shipments cause I don't want to f over the sellers. The only one I opened was the z490 Unify mobo cause I wanted to See what "like new" means from Amazon Warehouse and it appears unused.


I agree with the others that your $1000 will be best put towards a 12, 13, 14 Gen Intel or AMD 6000... I'd only upgrade if you aren't hitting your min target framerate and the reason for not hitting it is definitely CPU bottleneck; that point might be years away... Radiators almost always have lower temps pulling fresh air into the case. In a gaming scenario, your CPU will be generating no more than 100 W sustained, which will be spread over the massive area of the radiator. While the 3080 Ti will be dumping almost 350 W into the case (which would then be pulled through your CPU radiator if you have it configured as exhaust).


----------



## Intrud3r

fray_bentos said:


> your CPU will be generating no more than 100 W sustained, which will be spread over the massive area of the radiator. While the 3080 Ti will be dumping almost 350 W into the case


Exactly the reason why I put my 360 rad in front as intake .... don't wanna suck that 300W+ heat into my rad.


----------



## Intrud3r

RobertoSampaio said:


> When playing, what is your PCH temperatures?
> Mine hit 60C...


The following screenshot is after a couple of hours gaming on my rig .... my 2080Ti is hurting me with temps (air cooled 2080TI, last time I ever buy a high end gpu without watercooling  )

GPU max temps after this run was 83.7C


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Intrud3r said:


> The following screenshot is after a couple of hours gaming on my rig .... my 2080Ti is hurting me with temps (air cooled 2080TI, last time I ever buy a high end gpu without watercooling  )
> 
> GPU max temps after this run was 83.7C
> 
> View attachment 2521253


I put my 280mm CPU radiator on top as an exhaust... It was a mistake...

I'll have a lot of work to change the fan position...

It will be a suck to do this.


----------



## Intrud3r

I felt like the same when I replaced my nzxt x73 kraken for my liquid freez 360 push - pull .... must say .... only took about 2 hours (and that is including everything from shutdown till startup with new cooler).

Was all done before I knew it, went way faster then I expected.

was actually good in my situation cause I could reroute some fan cables again, looking at the fact I wanted all 6 on the rad the be connected to my mobo. 3 extra fans are 2 top exhaust and 1 rear out on my corsair commander pro (running now at about 1150 rpm at all times, all 3, don't really hear them ... don't wanna have icue running in the background to have the rpm change with temps.)


----------



## schoolofmonkey

I have a Strix LC 360mm (artic back for RMA), and the RTX 3090 XC3 Ultra Hybrid, I first run the 360mm as side intake and the GPU's 240mm as top exhaust in the O-11 Dynamic.
I tried putting the 360mm as top exhaust and the 240mm as side exhaust, but temps were at least 7c-10c warmer, so I put it back the way it was.
I do have 3x 120mm bottom intake fans as well.

Thought I'd try a different layout when I had it all apart testing that Artic Freezer II, at least I know the optimal layout.


----------



## Imprezzion

My GPU EVGA Hybrid is top outtake and my EK Phoenix 280 is front intake. Back fan is also intake for fresh air for the GPU rad. Temps are by far the best now. GPU doesn't go over 60c and CPU doesn't either on 5.1. Internal case temps are nice and low as well. I can use my SATA 850 Evo temp sensor as kind of a ambient sensor and in prolonged gaming sessions internal temps are only like 4-5c above ambient at max.


----------



## RamiCristian

My SP 50 how bad it is.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

RamiCristian said:


> My SP 50 how bad it is.


Post the V/F table.


----------



## GeneO

RamiCristian said:


> My SP 50 how bad it is.


Don't you have an 11900k?


----------



## RamiCristian

Is this normal ?


----------



## Imprezzion

RamiCristian said:


> Is this normal ?


Kind of yes. It's a known "problem" but I think it's more by design then a bug. Most likely part of power saving, it also seems to disable the temp sensors.

Do you mind testing something to prove my theory?
Disable all power saving like EIST, Speed Shift, C-States, SpeedStep and set windows to high performance. Does it still show 0's then?


----------



## RamiCristian

RobertoSampaio said:


> Post the V/F table.


This is my V/F table.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

RamiCristian said:


> This is my V/F table.


I think if you have a good cooler solution, you will be able to run full load @51x... If not, 50x...
For very light loads, maybe 55x.


----------



## Sergey_Lev

_Overclocking statistics Intel Core i9 - 10900K OEM, SP-93, no delidded


















_


----------



## GeneO

RamiCristian said:


> Is this normal ?


Just so you know, you might not have realized, this is a 10900k forum. You have an 11900k. There is a separate thread for 11900k that you might get better 11900k help from other owners:









Overclocking 11700k/11900k results, bins and discussion


That's really high fps. Is it under normal cooling? Can you guide me to where I can see the result? I don't think 11900K can beat it ^^ I asked my friend to test Shadow Tombraider with his 5900X (all core 4.7Ghz) + 3800 CL14 + 3090 Supreme. Not even close to 315 fps...




www.overclock.net


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Sergey_Lev said:


> _Overclocking statistics Intel Core i9 - 10900K OEM, SP-93, no delidded
> View attachment 2521354
> View attachment 2521355
> View attachment 2521356
> _


Nice chip !!!!


VID=1,38v
Vcore = 1,26v
A=249A

And the power is ?????
For the MB ~310W
For the CPU ~340W
I bet the MB is the correct.
I think its not possible to adjust DC_LL to "sync" VID=Vcore using fixed voltage.


----------



## GeneO

Sergey_Lev said:


> _Overclocking statistics Intel Core i9 - 10900K OEM, SP-93, no delidded
> View attachment 2521354
> View attachment 2521355
> View attachment 2521356
> _


 Great chip!


----------



## Intrud3r

just for me to lean how those voltage numbers work in comparison to that sp-rating ... are the voltages shown in such screenshots spot on, or could you run it for example 0.100mv lower then values shown?


----------



## GeneO

They aren't spot on. Sometimes lower, a lower SP chip can be perform much better than a higher one sometimes. It all does give you a good ball-park usually.
I had a low binned 10700k that did much better than the SP and V/F would have indicated, and a 10900k that did worse.


----------



## ViTosS

Guys I'm doing some quick tests on the 10900kf and the MSI MEG Unify, I was able to pass 10 min CR23 at 1.17v full load voltage (1.15v gave WHEAs), but I'm wondering what is that VIN7 sensor showing 1.53v related to? Also should I look to voltage in VROUT or VCORE?


----------



## fray_bentos

ViTosS said:


> Guys I'm doing some quick tests on the 10900kf and the MSI MEG Unify, I was able to pass 10 min CR23 at 1.17v full load voltage (1.15v gave WHEAs), but I'm wondering what is that VIN7 sensor showing 1.53v related to?


I see the same on my MSI board. I had assumed it was just a rogue/meaningless reading, but if anyone else knows otherwise please let us know.


----------



## fray_bentos

RobertoSampaio said:


> Nice chip !!!!
> 
> 
> VID=1,38v
> Vcore = 1,26v
> A=249A
> 
> And the power is ?????
> For the MB ~310W
> For the CPU ~340W
> I bet the MB is the correct.
> I think its not possible to adjust DC_LL to "sync" VID=Vcore using fixed voltage.


P = VI would give 314 W.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

fray_bentos said:


> P = VI would give 314 W.


Yes, but the CPU "think" it is 340W...
I never tested if changing DC_LL with fixed voltage is possible to correct this deviation.


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> Yes, but the CPU "think" it is 340W...
> I never tested if changing DC_LL with fixed voltage is possible to correct this deviation.


Bzzzzt. The correct answer is the "CPU Core power" which is 320W. This is from trhe EC chip and is the correct power (regardless of the LLC or DCLL). The EC chip has all of the information available to it to calculate the power correctly (The processor IA values do not).

EDIT: I thought the displayed 320W was the average - it is the maximum. So the "current" value of ~ 314W of "CPU Core Power" is the correct "current" value. And I also misread your reply - we are all in agreement


----------



## Imprezzion

10h uptime, no idle crashes, no weirdness, stable as a rock. I played some games like Division 1, Horizon Zero Dawn and World of Tanks (Frontline gamemode) and watched some YouTube (<3 working from home lol).

Yes, it gets kinda hot especially while loading Division or compiling shaders in Horizon Zero Dawn but it's still runnable like this. I obviously cannot run Prime95 Small FFT w/ AVX as that will top out at like, 94-96c per core, but when are you ever going to reach that. CB23 or RealBench 2.56 (both AVX enabled benches) run low 80's so it should be perfectly fine here. It hit a max of 262w while compiling shaders.


108.65 BCLK.
x49 multiplier all-core no per-core turbo.
cache x43.
LLC4 (slight droop).
AC/DC Lite Load "Mode_4" which should be 40mOhm I guess? VR VOut matches VCC Sense VCore perfectly with only 0.003v difference so it should be spot on.
Advanced Offset (BIOS controlled VF Curve) @ all Auto except the x52 point which is -0.160.
800KHz VRM frequency.
Current and power limits all maxed.
RAM @ 4200 15-17-17-34-300-2T.
CPU Pump 70% PWM to eliminate the whine it has above that.
CPU and case fan speed custom curve, only spins up from idle above 70c and only very slightly as you can see in the RPM. I try to stay under 1000RPM.
GPU undervolted to 0.925v @ 1950 core / +1200 memory so it maxes at 320w and doesn't power throttle and always has effective clocks exactly at the setpoint.

I will run this when it isn't as hot outside like now. It's about 20-22c here now which is fine ambient wise. If it gets above 24c I will drop to the 5.1 @ 1.3v profile not because the cooling can't handle it but to not heat up the room / overpower the aircon as much lol.

I am still super happy with my 3 year old EK Phoenix kit and i'm very surprised it can handle this kind of an overclock with barely any fanspeed and the pump not even on 100%. It's only a gen 1 Supremacy block with a single 280 Coolstream SE and a EK SPC pump. That isn't all that amazing in the world of custom watercooling lol. It is delidded and direct-die with a mirror lapped block and Coollaboratory Liquid Ultra. I absolutely hate Conductonaut as it dries out and doesn't spread while CLU spreads easily and I have a 2500K which has 5 year old CLU on it that is still as good as it was when I aplied it lol.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Imprezzion said:


> View attachment 2521494
> 
> 
> 10h uptime, no idle crashes, no weirdness, stable as a rock. I played some games like Division 1, Horizon Zero Dawn and World of Tanks (Frontline gamemode) and watched some YouTube (<3 working from home lol).
> 
> Yes, it gets kinda hot especially while loading Division or compiling shaders in Horizon Zero Dawn but it's still runnable like this. I obviously cannot run Prime95 Small FFT w/ AVX as that will top out at like, 94-96c per core, but when are you ever going to reach that. CB23 or RealBench 2.56 (both AVX enabled benches) run low 80's so it should be perfectly fine here. It hit a max of 262w while compiling shaders.
> 
> 
> 108.65 BCLK.
> x49 multiplier all-core no per-core turbo.
> cache x43.
> LLC4 (slight droop).
> AC/DC Lite Load "Mode_4" which should be 40mOhm I guess? VR VOut matches VCC Sense VCore perfectly with only 0.003v difference so it should be spot on.
> Advanced Offset (BIOS controlled VF Curve) @ all Auto except the x52 point which is -0.160.
> 800KHz VRM frequency.
> Current and power limits all maxed.
> RAM @ 4200 15-17-17-34-300-2T.
> CPU Pump 70% PWM to eliminate the whine it has above that.
> CPU and case fan speed custom curve, only spins up from idle above 70c and only very slightly as you can see in the RPM. I try to stay under 1000RPM.
> GPU undervolted to 0.925v @ 1950 core / +1200 memory so it maxes at 320w and doesn't power throttle and always has effective clocks exactly at the setpoint.
> 
> I will run this when it isn't as hot outside like now. It's about 20-22c here now which is fine ambient wise. If it gets above 24c I will drop to the 5.1 @ 1.3v profile not because the cooling can't handle it but to not heat up the room / overpower the aircon as much lol.
> 
> I am still super happy with my 3 year old EK Phoenix kit and i'm very surprised it can handle this kind of an overclock with barely any fanspeed and the pump not even on 100%. It's only a gen 1 Supremacy block with a single 280 Coolstream SE and a EK SPC pump. That isn't all that amazing in the world of custom watercooling lol. It is delidded and direct-die with a mirror lapped block and Coollaboratory Liquid Ultra. I absolutely hate Conductonaut as it dries out and doesn't spread while CLU spreads easily and I have a 2500K which has 5 year old CLU on it that is still as good as it was when I aplied it lol.


Wow...

108.65 cklc is impressive !

I was thinking to use bclk OC to do a better use of V/F curves.
VF#1,2,3,4,5 are useless... 
With a high bclk, VF#5 could be used for 108*48=5.1GHz


----------



## Imprezzion

RobertoSampaio said:


> Wow...
> 
> 108.65 cklc is impressive !
> 
> I was thinking to use bclk OC to do a better use of V/F curves.
> VF#1,2,3,4,5 are useless...
> With a high bclk, VF#5 could be used for 108*48=5.1GHz


It'll go much higher on BCLK. I did a few tests at 111 and that's also just fine. The only reason I use BCLK is weirdness with cache. At 100 BCLK it idle freezes at anything over 4500 but with BCLK OC and a lower multiplier it works fine up to 4700 for some reason. And, it's fun hehe. I use this specific BCLK as this aligns with 4200 memory speed lol. CB23 Multi Core did 17667 score which is very nice.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Imprezzion said:


> It'll go much higher on BCLK. I did a few tests at 111 and that's also just fine. The only reason I use BCLK is weirdness with cache. At 100 BCLK it idle freezes at anything over 4500 but with BCLK OC and a lower multiplier it works fine up to 4700 for some reason. And, it's fun hehe. I use this specific BCLK as this aligns with 4200 memory speed lol. CB23 Multi Core did 17667 score which is very nice.


And do you see any other significant advantage ocing bclk?
In theory all the system is overclocked...
I mean, the same CPU @ 5100, cache @ 4700 and ram @4100 will run better if I use higher bclk with lower multiplier?


----------



## Imprezzion

BCLK only does RAM, Cache and CPU, the rest like SATA, M.2, DMI and PCI-E has a separate clock gen which I left at 100.

And no, not really. CB23 score is the same between BCLK + x49 and normal x53, memory bandwidth is exactly the same, latency is obviously lower as o can run higher cache freq. Voltage requirements for CPU core clocks and RAM are exactly the same no matter how high the BCLK is.

The only other actual benefit is being able to run a certain RAM frequency at 100:100 or 100:133 which it otherwise wouldn't have been able and that CAN help stabilize it. Like 4533 is normally a 100:133 divider speed but I can run it more stable at less voltage at 100:100 4200 divider with 108 BCLK. Still needs a ton of IO and SA and scales horribly but k. I daily 4200C15. Best scaling latency + bandwidth. Either that or 4400C16 but that is not something my RAM can easily do.


----------



## ViTosS

Brand new 10900k and mobo stable through 8h Realbench 2.56 and guess what? WHEA right at the first Metro Exodus loading screen ;D


----------



## GeneO

ViTosS said:


> Brand new 10900k and mobo stable through 8h Realbench 2.56 and guess what? WHEA right at the first Metro Exodus loading screen ;D


It will do that. Even at stock clocks. It only happens loading levels and all you can do is lower clock and/or cache.


----------



## acoustic

GeneO said:


> It will do that. Even at stock clocks. It only happens loading levels and all you can do is lower clock and/or cache.


Eh it doesn't do that on every chip at stock. I tested that thoroughly. You can raise voltage to correct the WHEAs, but don't be surprised if it's a lot more voltage.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Have you ever tried C10 power state?
It's magic... It turns off some cores completely...


----------



## GeneO

acoustic said:


> Eh it doesn't do that on every chip at stock. I tested that thoroughly. You can raise voltage to correct the WHEAs, but don't be surprised if it's a lot more voltage.


Yes, I meant to say "some" even at stock.


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> Have you ever tried C10 power state?
> It's magic... It turns off some cores completely...


Sure, but It is not magic, it unloads the core's state (registers, Last Level Cache to slower memory and turns off all of the clocks and voltages it can. This comes at the expense of taking a relatively long time to restore all of that so it costs you in latency. I let mine go to C6 max.


----------



## GeneO




----------



## Intrud3r

Some strange stuff happens playing with c-states on my system ...

When I enable all c-states in bios, I get max up to C7 (shown in hwinfo and throttlestop)
When I enable c-states till C6, I get C7 states and Package C2 states but nothing else.

Weird things on my gigglebyte board.


----------



## GeneO

I think you won't see the lower package c-states because all the cores are not running so throttlestop can't detect it 

I always got bad behavior when I tried to explicitly set package C-state to anything but Auto.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

All cores were turned off at some time...


----------



## Intrud3r

You mean that all cores show 0.0% on your minimum graph?

I can show you that with an unstable overclock too .... even with c-states disabled ...


----------



## lolhaxz

weeeeee


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Hi,
Do you know what kind of error is this?


*A corrected hardware error has occurred.

Component: PCI Express Root Port Error Source: Advanced Error Reporting (PCI Express)
Primary Bus device:Function: 0x0:0x1C:0x4
Secondary Bus device:Function: 0x0: 0x0: 0x0
Primary Device Name: *PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_06BC&SUBSYS_86941043&REV_F0

Could be Memory latency parameters ?


----------



## Intrud3r

Maybe nice for somebody ... I use it atm with a tablet that otherwise was gathering dust.





__





Pitikapp Remote Dashboard


Pitikapp Remote Dashboard




www.pitikapp.com





Works nice with hwinfo, only thing I tested so far.


----------



## Imprezzion

RobertoSampaio said:


> Hi,
> Do you know what kind of error is this?
> 
> 
> *A corrected hardware error has occurred.
> 
> Component: PCI Express Root Port Error Source: Advanced Error Reporting (PCI Express)
> Primary Bus device:Function: 0x0:0x1C:0x4
> Secondary Bus device:Function: 0x0: 0x0: 0x0
> Primary Device Name: *PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_06BC&SUBSYS_86941043&REV_F0
> 
> Could be Memory latency parameters ?


The hardware ID tells me it has something to do with Intel Management Engine. Update the ME firmware and the ME drivers? Might help.

I went back to turbo OC again as running high BCLK is fun and stable and all but I wanted my per-core turbo back which doesn't work on my board with any BCLK that isn't 100.00 and I was getting some internal parity errors in Battlefield 1/5 with that high a BCLK so I went back to x45 cache to not have idle crashes and turbo ratio OC again. 

I'm running 55x2, 54x3, 53x5, 51x10 which is basically turbo +2. AC/DC Lite Load Auto (mode_9) and LLC Auto as well (level 4). TVB Optimization off. All energy savings enabled. Voltage is adaptive + offset with -0.030 for the whole curve which aligns pretty well with what it needs per turbo clock. 

It runs ~1.303-1.311v for all core which is enough to sustain any game (including Metro, Ghostrunner and BF1/5 as well as any AVX load. It goes as high as 1.505v for 55x2. That does sound a bit high for 14nm++ but then again, stock CPU's can hit this as well with just MCE + Enhanced Turbo so. How bad can it be. 

I played some BF1, Division 1 and World of Tanks Frontlines and watched some random YouTube stuff and it hasn't thrown a parity error yet and temps have been great. Max core was at 67c, lowest 62c. Seems totally fine with me.

I tried if I can let more then 2 cores run 55, nope. Only my 2 prime cores can actually do that at this voltage. I can let it do 54x6 but that lets temps rise by like 10c so not really worth it.


----------



## Astral85

I'm currently running some settings another member here suggested to try which included the CPU on manual Vcore with C-States disabled. I've tried putting the CPU back to adaptive mode + C-States enabled but have an issue in which the CPU is idling any lower than 1.146V. On average it's idling at 1.263V. I can't think what setting might cause this but I'm wondering would CPU current when set to 140% (max) prevent the CPU from dropping down to 0.800V idle?


----------



## Salve1412

Astral85 said:


> I'm currently running some settings another member here suggested to try which included the CPU on manual Vcore with C-States disabled. I've tried putting the CPU back to adaptive mode + C-States enabled but have an issue in which the CPU is idling any lower than 1.146V. On average it's idling at 1.263V. I can't think what setting might cause this but I'm wondering would CPU current when set to 140% (max) prevent the CPU from dropping down to 0.800V idle?


So CPU isn't dropping to 800MHz anymore, for example in HWInfo readings, right? Which Power Plan are you using? If you are on "Balanced" check if "Minimum processor state" is set to 100% instead of the standard 5%. Sometimes when I've messed around in BIOS with Power Management and Voltage settings this value has silently changed in Windows causing CPU to stop going below base frequency of 3700MHz in idle.


----------



## Astral85

Salve1412 said:


> So CPU isn't dropping to 800MHz anymore for example in HWInfo, right? Which Power Plan are you using?


Definitely on balanced power plan. It has to be one of these, just haven't figured out which:

CPU Load-line Calibration [Auto] - LLC6
Synch ACDC Loadline with VRM Loadline [Disabled]
CPU Current Capability [Auto] - 140%
CPU Current Reporting [Auto]
CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
VRM Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe] - Extreme
CPU Power Phase Control [Auto] - Extreme
CPU Power Thermal Control [125] - 100
CPU VRM Thermal Control [Auto] - Enabled
DRAM Current Capability [100%] - 130%
DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto] - Manual + 500KHz

Maximum CPU Core Temperature [Auto] - 100
Package Temperature Threshold [85] - 100
Regulate Frequency by above Threshold [Enabled]
CPU Core/Cache Current Limit Max. [Auto] - 255.75
Long Duration Package Power Limit [250] - 4095
Package Power Time Window [Auto] - 448
Short Duration Package Power Limit [250] - 4095
IA AC Load Line [Auto] - auto or 0.01
IA DC Load Line [Auto] - auto or 0.01
TVB Voltage Optimizations [Enabled] - Disabled
V-Max Stress [Enabled] - DIsabled
Overclocking TVB [Enabled] - Disabled

Ring Down Bin [Auto] - Disabled
Min. CPU Cache Ratio [Auto] - 46
Max CPU Cache Ratio [Auto] - 46
BCLK Aware Adaptive Voltage [Enabled]

Intel(R) Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0 [Enabled] - Disabled
VT-d [Enabled] - Disabled


----------



## Astral85

@Salve1412 The CPU frequency is dropping but it's higher on average and the CPU voltage won't drop below 1.146V while idle.


----------



## Intrud3r

Disable speedshift ... that's what causes vr vout on my system to stick to 1.1something ... if I disable speedshift, and have eist enabled it drops down again to 0.760V


----------



## Salve1412

Astral85 said:


> Definitely on balanced power plan. It has to be one of these, just haven't figured out which:
> 
> CPU Load-line Calibration [Auto] - LLC6
> Synch ACDC Loadline with VRM Loadline [Disabled]
> CPU Current Capability [Auto] - 140%
> CPU Current Reporting [Auto]
> CPU VRM Switching Frequency [Auto]
> VRM Spread Spectrum [Disabled]
> CPU Power Duty Control [T.Probe] - Extreme
> CPU Power Phase Control [Auto] - Extreme
> CPU Power Thermal Control [125] - 100
> CPU VRM Thermal Control [Auto] - Enabled
> DRAM Current Capability [100%] - 130%
> DRAM Switching Frequency [Auto] - Manual + 500KHz
> 
> Maximum CPU Core Temperature [Auto] - 100
> Package Temperature Threshold [85] - 100
> Regulate Frequency by above Threshold [Enabled]
> CPU Core/Cache Current Limit Max. [Auto] - 255.75
> Long Duration Package Power Limit [250] - 4095
> Package Power Time Window [Auto] - 448
> Short Duration Package Power Limit [250] - 4095
> IA AC Load Line [Auto] - auto or 0.01
> IA DC Load Line [Auto] - auto or 0.01
> TVB Voltage Optimizations [Enabled] - Disabled
> V-Max Stress [Enabled] - DIsabled
> Overclocking TVB [Enabled] - Disabled
> 
> Ring Down Bin [Auto] - Disabled
> Min. CPU Cache Ratio [Auto] - 46
> Max CPU Cache Ratio [Auto] - 46
> BCLK Aware Adaptive Voltage [Enabled]
> 
> Intel(R) Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0 [Enabled] - Disabled
> VT-d [Enabled] - Disabled


Wait, you always had Ring Down Bin Disabled and Cache Min/Max set to 46? Even before you made the adjustments? 'Cause that could explain why voltage doesn't drop to 0.7-0.8V (4600MHz minimum Cache requiring higher voltage).


----------



## Astral85

Salve1412 said:


> Wait, you always had Ring Down Bin Disabled and Cache Min/Max set to 46? Even before you made the adjustments? 'Cause that could explain why voltage doesn't drop to 0.7-0.8V (4600MHz minimum Cache requiring higher voltage).


No I didn't... That sounds like the problem. I will change that and test again. Thanks.


----------



## Astral85

Intrud3r said:


> Disable speedshift ... that's what causes vr vout on my system to stick to 1.1something ... if I disable speedshift, and have eist enabled it drops down again to 0.760V


I've always had Speedshift enabled so I don't think it's that. Unsure why it would do that on your system...


----------



## Imprezzion

Salve1412 said:


> So CPU isn't dropping to 800MHz anymore, for example in HWInfo readings, right? Which Power Plan are you using? If you are on "Balanced" check if "Minimum processor state" is set to 100% instead of the standard 5%. Sometimes when I've messed around in BIOS with Power Management and Voltage settings this value has silently changed in Windows causing CPU to stop going below base frequency of 3700MHz in idle.


This. That happens to me sometimes as well lol.
I still cannot wrap my head around why MSI doesn't implement cache min/max values in the BIOS but only a max value and also no proper ring down bin setting. It's basically always enabled on dynamic mode and you can only set a max value not a min.


----------



## Astral85

Imprezzion said:


> This. That happens to me sometimes as well lol.
> I still cannot wrap my head around why MSI doesn't implement cache min/max values in the BIOS but only a max value and also no proper ring down bin setting. It's basically always enabled on dynamic mode and you can only set a max value not a min.


There must be some kind of ring down at least?


----------



## Imprezzion

Astral85 said:


> There must be some kind of ring down at least?


Yeah, but you cannot set it manually. When CPU is set to Dynamic mode it always uses ring down. But you cannot disable it or tune the frequency. Only the "max" bin, not the "min" bin and you also cannot disable ring down at all unless you run the entire CPU on fixed mode clocks.

On Z390 it doesn't have ring down at all. Any CPU OC, even on Dynamic, with any manual setting for cache clocks results in cache always at max clocks with a Z390 Ace + 9900KS which I had before this setup. It only uses ring down with Auto cache so you can never OC cache on Z390.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Imprezzion said:


> The hardware ID tells me it has something to do with Intel Management Engine. Update the ME firmware and the ME drivers? Might help.
> 
> I went back to turbo OC again as running high BCLK is fun and stable and all but I wanted my per-core turbo back which doesn't work on my board with any BCLK that isn't 100.00 and I was getting some internal parity errors in Battlefield 1/5 with that high a BCLK so I went back to x45 cache to not have idle crashes and turbo ratio OC again.
> 
> I'm running 55x2, 54x3, 53x5, 51x10 which is basically turbo +2. AC/DC Lite Load Auto (mode_9) and LLC Auto as well (level 4). TVB Optimization off. All energy savings enabled. Voltage is adaptive + offset with -0.030 for the whole curve which aligns pretty well with what it needs per turbo clock.
> 
> It runs ~1.303-1.311v for all core which is enough to sustain any game (including Metro, Ghostrunner and BF1/5 as well as any AVX load. It goes as high as 1.505v for 55x2. That does sound a bit high for 14nm++ but then again, stock CPU's can hit this as well with just MCE + Enhanced Turbo so. How bad can it be.
> 
> I played some BF1, Division 1 and World of Tanks Frontlines and watched some random YouTube stuff and it hasn't thrown a parity error yet and temps have been great. Max core was at 67c, lowest 62c. Seems totally fine with me.
> 
> I tried if I can let more then 2 cores run 55, nope. Only my 2 prime cores can actually do that at this voltage. I can let it do 54x6 but that lets temps rise by like 10c so not really worth it.


I updated AHCI, Chipset and MEI drivers from here:





__





We'll be back.






rog.asus.com





So far is working fine...

I always make a mess with ME firmware and ME drivers...
How I check the firmware?
Are MEI drivers and ME drivers the same thing?


----------



## Imprezzion

RobertoSampaio said:


> I updated AHCI, Chipset and MEI drivers from here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We'll be back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rog.asus.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So far is working fine...
> 
> I always make a mess with ME firmware and ME drivers...
> How I check the firmware?
> Are MEI drivers and ME drivers the same thing?


MEI is the interface included with the drivers so basically yes. ME is usually updated through BIOS updates or separate firmware updates through BIOS.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

So I have 2 days off in my job...

These days will be hot... My room temp is about 30C... so I will try again 57x2 - 56x4 - 55x6 - 54x8 - 53x10
[email protected]


----------



## Intrud3r

Just sharing experience here ... was running 5.1 all core HT=on for a while (LLC=high, offset = +0.020V resulting in about 1.270V CBR20 load voltage if i'm not mistaken), decided to play with HT=off again.

Started with 5.2 HT=off
Lowered vcore offset to 0.
Lowered LLC to medium, did a quick test with occt bench. Ran no problems. Did a couple more, no issues.
Lowered LLC to low, bla bla same thing as above.
Lowered LLC to standard, resulting in CBR20 load voltage of about 1.215V, ran no problems. Did a bla bla same thing.

Was like, ok ... LLC = standard and i'm still running. Let's fire up Forza Horizon 4. Ran flawlessly.
Ok ...

Went to bed, woke up to a running pc no issues apart from the fact that my keyboard was disconnected. No power to it at all.
Mouse was still working ok, so .... reboot and up LLC to low.

LLC = low, booted to windows nicely. After about 2 minutes idling, my keyboard disconnected. No error message, just no power instantly.
Mouse was still working so rebooted and upped LLC to medium.

This was still in the morning. Worked all day on the same comp and when I was done working I was like ... ok. LLC = medium works. No disconnects. But what the F....

Now the thing .... unstable OC --> ok ... I get that ...

Rebooted, upped VCCIO and VCCSA both with 0.020V and lowered my LLC to low again. I'm still running without any issues for about 3 hours now (about 5 now). Put some load on it, let it idle a bit .... Maybe i'm speaking too early, but it seems upping vccio and vccsa solved my usb disconnect problem.

Just as a fyi ... if somebody encounters the same situation ... try it.

(I'll edit this post if after a night of sleep the usb disconnects happen again).

EDIT:
No disconnects in the morning, Seems to run fine.


----------



## GeneO

Astral85 said:


> I've always had Speedshift enabled so I don't think it's that. Unsure why it would do that on your system...


Gigabyte boards have that issue. Glad you got it sorted.


----------



## GeneO

Imprezzion said:


> Yeah, but you cannot set it manually. When CPU is set to Dynamic mode it always uses ring down. But you cannot disable it or tune the frequency. Only the "max" bin, not the "min" bin and you also cannot disable ring down at all unless you run the entire CPU on fixed mode clocks.
> 
> On Z390 it doesn't have ring down at all. Any CPU OC, even on Dynamic, with any manual setting for cache clocks results in cache always at max clocks with a Z390 Ace + 9900KS which I had before this setup. It only uses ring down with Auto cache so you can never OC cache on Z390.


You can set the max and min on the Asus boards and they both work in adaptive mode.


----------



## ckristofe81

hello I'm new in oc I currently have an i9 10900k and formula XII gskill trident Z 4000 C17 can you help me a oc my i9 a 5.2ghz I'm cooled under custom water and I'm stock for the moment here are some photo thanks in advance


----------



## fray_bentos

ckristofe81 said:


> hello I'm new in oc I currently have an i9 10900k and formula XII gskill trident Z 4000 C17 can you help me a oc my i9 a 5.2ghz I'm cooled under custom water and I'm stock for the moment here are some photo thanks in advance
> View attachment 2522254
> View attachment 2522255
> View attachment 2522256
> View attachment 2522257


With a stock frequency/voltage curve such as you show, you are unlikely to attain 5.2 GHz all core (1.499 V is predicted to be needed for that according to your shots). 5.1 GHz should be attainable though.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

ckristofe81 said:


> hello I'm new in oc I currently have an i9 10900k and formula XII gskill trident Z 4000 C17 can you help me a oc my i9 a 5.2ghz I'm cooled under custom water and I'm stock for the moment here are some photo thanks in advance
> View attachment 2522254
> View attachment 2522255
> View attachment 2522256
> View attachment 2522257


With fixed voltage and all cores synced I agree @fray_bentos ... 51X could be the maximum...

Usyng "by core" I think you can set 54x4 - 53x6 - 52x8 - 51x10 using +1Bosst OCTVB, that will result 55x4 - 54x6 - 53x8 - 52x10

Try this if you want:


Enable C-states
DC_LL = 1.1
AC_LL = 0.5
LLC = 4
Adaptive = 1.528
By core = 54x4 - 53x6 - 52x8 - 51x10
VMaxStress = Enable
Voltage Optimization = Enable
Overclicking TVB = +1Bosst Profile

I have a Maximus XII Formula with a 10900KF...
If you want to see my configs:









Dropbox - File Deleted


Dropbox is a free service that lets you bring your photos, docs, and videos anywhere and share them easily. Never email yourself a file again!




www.dropbox.com


----------



## ckristofe81

my test was stock
I try this and I come back to you


----------



## rickmig

Hi! 
@ckristofe81 hi, I have the same V/F curve as you do (SP 63). 
It will be dificult to use it @5.2 all core, not because it's no possible, but it will be hot and not worth it in real life. 
I think the best for "us" is to use 5.0 or 5.1 all core. You have to try yourself. 

My settings for 5.0:
Using "by core" 53x3 - 52x5 - 50x8 - 50x10 should do.
I am using default AC_LL=0.6 and DC_LL=0.6 for now to balance the Vcore and VID. and LLC # 4.
Now for if you leave Vcore @auto it will be maybe 1.34v @ load running Cinebench R23 for ex. which is TOO MUCH. 
Now there are 2 options to lower it simple way: 1) use adaptive+offset -0.120v or use best case scenario for SVID. (AC_LL= 0.01 DC_LL=0.01) maybe you have to offset this by (+) or (-) 0.020v or something, you should try it. In my case i'll leave offset 0 and it works. This gives a voltage around 1.24v/1.25v under load which I know works for 50x. Temps @80ies ambient @28ºC Cinebench.

My Vocre @ full load with no erros in HWinfo:
@49X = 1.21v~
@50X = 1.25v~
@51X = 1.29v~
@52X = too hot i don't care. (PS: 49X is perfectly good to game and overhaul experience , can't see a diference)
Less voltage will not crash my system but maybe some errors appear in same games or benchies.
Hope to get some info from you so we can compare our equal SP 63's.

Now for something more special you have the @RobertoSampaio way  which is to get the most out of it. I'll thank him for the good help he gave me to get my system to 50X and 51X with TVB and all the goodies.
As he said in previous post that's something to try for sure. From time to time that's what i do also when I want to "play" with the system, which is a bit more time consuming.

Regards,
RicK


----------



## arrow0309

Guys what's a decent manual vcore for the 5.4 ht off?
Like max safe one?
Tried that today and got as far as 1.460v vcc sense (1.43 vrout under load) to get rid of the bsods in Blender benchmark but eventually got another one on the third test.

Cpu package max 88C


----------



## Imprezzion

1.33v VR VOut is not exactly high lol. Up to 1.40 should be "fine" even tho no one really knows as we do not have these CPU's long enough to know what degradation looks like and at which voltage that happens. I'm more worried about the temps. 88c package is.. very high without HT. 

I'm running 55x2, 54x3, 53x5, 51x10 now and it can boost as high as 1.595v VR VOut even tho those are spikes. Sustained 5.5 load is more around 1.496v. Sustained all core 5.1 is 1.303v ish. 10+h uptime, gaming in several games (Horizon Zero Dawn, World of Tanks, Division 1 and 2, Battlefield 1), idle on youtube, a blender render, no issues at all with temps either.


----------



## arrow0309

Imprezzion said:


> 1.33v VR VOut is not exactly high lol. Up to 1.40 should be "fine" even tho no one really knows as we do not have these CPU's long enough to know what degradation looks like and at which voltage that happens. I'm more worried about the temps. 88c package is.. very high without HT.
> 
> I'm running 55x2, 54x3, 53x5, 51x10 now and it can boost as high as 1.595v VR VOut even tho those are spikes. Sustained 5.5 load is more around 1.496v. Sustained all core 5.1 is 1.303v ish. 10+h uptime, gaming in several games (Horizon Zero Dawn, World of Tanks, Division 1 and 2, Battlefield 1), idle on youtube, a blender render, no issues at all with temps either.
> 
> View attachment 2522307


It was a typo lol, 1.43v vrout, corrected.
And thank you, so lets say a 1.45v vrout "could" be OK?


----------



## GeneO

Degradation is from electromigration which depends on current and temperature, not voltage directly (unless of course unless you go really high, but that will likely immediately kill the processor, not degrade it slowly). So if you do not run at high temperature + high current a lot you should be OK. 
Note that it is the current per core that will degrade. So if you are running 200A all core, you'll get the same degradation on a single core running at 20A, if you catch my meaning.


----------



## Imprezzion

Yup, I mean, I should offset my highest VF point a bit as 1.595v spikes is a tad much even for 55x2. It can do it at 1.496v just fine. Then again, enabling the boards auto OC, yes I tried it just to see what it would do, it also set 1.627v... lel.


----------



## msmeenge

Been playing around with my 10900K yesterday. Had it running previously at 5.0GHz 1.265v bios / 1.28v @load windows. (LLC Turbo)
Cinebench temps around ~75c after the 30 min Cinebench R32 test with pump/fans at max from my H115i.

It seems my 10900K @ 5.1ghz needs 1.295v bios / 1.32v @load windows (LLC Turbo). Temps after Cine R32 test around 80C.
Im guessing my CPU needs around 1.35-1.36v for 5.2GHz @ load windows. Not sure if i want that voltages for 24/7.
Temps get very high at these voltages imo since i got pump already at 2750rpm / fans 2400 rpm for specifically this test.
Gaming temps are fine though around 60C (1950rpm pump/1k RPM fans).

@Imprezzion how are your temps during tests like this since u run 1.36v too for 5.3ghz? I see you running a 280mm rad, so your temps shouldn't be far from mine i guess?

And one question to everyone here; would you prefer a higher idle voltage in windows & slight drop in voltage at load OR lower voltage at idle and slightly higher voltage at load?


----------



## Imprezzion

msmeenge said:


> Been playing around with my 10900K yesterday. Had it running previously at 5.0GHz 1.265v bios / 1.28v @load windows. (LLC Turbo)
> Cinebench temps around ~75c after the 30 min Cinebench R32 test with pump/fans at max from my H115i.
> 
> It seems my 10900K @ 5.1ghz needs 1.295v bios / 1.32v @load windows (LLC Turbo). Temps after Cine R32 test around 80C.
> Im guessing my CPU needs around 1.35-1.36v for 5.2GHz @ load windows. Not sure if i want that voltages for 24/7.
> Temps get very high at these voltages imo since i got pump already at 2750rpm / fans 2400 rpm for specifically this test.
> Gaming temps are fine though around 60C (1950rpm pump/1k RPM fans).
> 
> @Imprezzion how are your temps during tests like this since u run 1.36v too for 5.3ghz? I see you running a 280mm rad, so your temps shouldn't be far from mine i guess?
> 
> And one question to everyone here; would you prefer a higher idle voltage in windows & slight drop in voltage at load OR lower voltage at idle and slightly higher voltage at load?


H115i / H110 GTX is actually the only AIO that I have out of 8 different ones that can kinda match my EK 280 in terms of temps so you should be good there. Keep in mind, I'm delidded direct die with liquid metal and a mirror polished block.

5.3 @ 1.390v in CB23 is about 80-82c (100% 1750RPM fan and pump), games 73-75c (900 RPM fans and 70% pump).

What would be a good idea for you is to run the CPU with OCTVB. You can just run 5.3 with max TVB temp of like, 70-75c and let it downclock to 5.1 when it goes over with -2 bin.


----------



## ViTosS

Imprezzion said:


> H115i / H110 GTX is actually the only AIO that I have out of 8 different ones that can kinda match my EK 280 in terms of temps so you should be good there. Keep in mind, I'm delidded direct die with liquid metal and a mirror polished block.
> 
> 5.3 @ 1.390v in CB23 is about 80-82c (100% 1750RPM fan and pump), games 73-75c (900 RPM fans and 70% pump).
> 
> What would be a good idea for you is to run the CPU with OCTVB. You can just run 5.3 with max TVB temp of like, 70-75c and let it downclock to 5.1 when it goes over with -2 bin.


Wow 1.390v 80c that is pretty good, if I throw 1.390v here and run CB23 for sure it will hit 100c instantly, how much of temp decrease did you get after delidding and going direct die?


----------



## Imprezzion

ViTosS said:


> Wow 1.390v 80c that is pretty good, if I throw 1.390v here and run CB23 for sure it will hit 100c instantly, how much of temp decrease did you get after delidding and going direct die?


About 15c compared to only lapped IHS.

I used a Rockitcool direct die kit + mounting plate + EK springs.


----------



## ViTosS

Imprezzion said:


> About 15c compared to only lapped IHS.
> 
> I used a Rockitcool direct die kit + mounting plate + EK springs.


Nice, I'm serioulsy thinking in do that with one of those Rock It Cool kits, my only concert is about the mounting with an AIO, direct die I need to be careful when tightening the screws on the block or I can break the die apart lol


----------



## msmeenge

Imprezzion said:


> H115i / H110 GTX is actually the only AIO that I have out of 8 different ones that can kinda match my EK 280 in terms of temps so you should be good there. Keep in mind, I'm delidded direct die with liquid metal and a mirror polished block.
> 
> 5.3 @ 1.390v in CB23 is about 80-82c (100% 1750RPM fan and pump), games 73-75c (900 RPM fans and 70% pump).
> 
> What would be a good idea for you is to run the CPU with OCTVB. You can just run 5.3 with max TVB temp of like, 70-75c and let it downclock to 5.1 when it goes over with -2 bin.


Sounds good. What a coïncidence haha, im replacing my H150i today with a H115i so i have 3x front intake, 1 rear outtake and H115i outtake top.
It's arriving in a hour or so hehe.

I get your suggestion about TVB but i'd rather manually oc. Currently my 10900k does 5.1ghz 1.32v and temps of all the cores are 75-83c after the 30 min test of cine R23.
I'll try tonight to get 5.2GHz stable around 1.35v in Cine R23 (if it will be stable there) and settle there if temps <85C.

Gaming temps are mostly pretty good on my side though. 5.1 is 57-63C in gaming top mounted.


----------



## GeneO

msmeenge said:


> Been playing around with my 10900K yesterday. Had it running previously at 5.0GHz 1.265v bios / 1.28v @load windows. (LLC Turbo)
> Cinebench temps around ~75c after the 30 min Cinebench R32 test with pump/fans at max from my H115i.
> 
> It seems my 10900K @ 5.1ghz needs 1.295v bios / 1.32v @load windows (LLC Turbo). Temps after Cine R32 test around 80C.
> Im guessing my CPU needs around 1.35-1.36v for 5.2GHz @ load windows. Not sure if i want that voltages for 24/7.
> Temps get very high at these voltages imo since i got pump already at 2750rpm / fans 2400 rpm for specifically this test.
> Gaming temps are fine though around 60C (1950rpm pump/1k RPM fans).
> 
> @Imprezzion how are your temps during tests like this since u run 1.36v too for 5.3ghz? I see you running a 280mm rad, so your temps shouldn't be far from mine i guess?
> 
> And one question to everyone here; would you prefer a higher idle voltage in windows & slight drop in voltage at load OR lower voltage at idle and slightly higher voltage at load?


Running CB23 @ ~ 1.3v (die sense) 5.1GHz I get average core about 71-72 and peak of about 79 with pump 100% and fans 100% on EK-AIO 360 (with Phanteks T30 fans). I am delided/relided. Front pull intake on aio and 1 NF-A14 exhaust rear, one NF-A14 top intake for RAM.

Prefer load voltage to be just what is required with a smallish vdroop.


----------



## Imprezzion

GeneO said:


> Running CB23 @ ~ 1.3v (die sense) 5.1GHz I get average core about 71-72 and peak of about 79 with pump 100% and fans 100% on EK-AIO 360 (with Phanteks T30 fans). I am delided/relided. Front pull intake on aio and 1 NF-A14 exhaust rear, one NF-A14 top intake for RAM.
> 
> Prefer load voltage to be just what is required with a smallish vdroop.


My voltages were VCC Sense btw, die sense 5.3 is ~1.354v which is close to that 1.36v we spoke of. I use Alpenfohn Wing Boost 3 ARGB fans, amazing static pressure so they don't need much RPM to push air through the rad and the rad is front intake so always fresh ambient temp intake air.


----------



## GeneO

Imprezzion said:


> My voltages were VCC Sense btw, die sense 5.3 is ~1.354v which is close to that 1.36v we spoke of. I use Alpenfohn Wing Boost 3 ARGB fans, amazing static pressure so they don't need much RPM to push air through the rad and the rad is front intake so always fresh ambient temp intake air.


Same for these T30.


----------



## ViTosS

I use all ML120 Pro, are these T30 better than them for radiator purpose?


----------



## acoustic

ViTosS said:


> I use all ML120 Pro, are these T30 better than them for radiator purpose?


The ML120 Pro get destroyed. It's not even comparable. I replaced all of my ML120 Pro with Noctua A12x25 and it was a massive difference in noise - the T30 is the new Phanteks fan that is apparently as good or better than the A12x25.


----------



## aDyerSituation

Just so I understand this correctly, my vcore reading in HWINFO is 1.38(same as bios) at llc6. Drops to 1.36/7 under load. This is what I should be looking at right?

After reading some 60 pages of this thread, I have a terrible chip. That is what I need for 5.1. SP63

Confused, feel like my llc6 isn't acting the same as others


----------



## Betroz

acoustic said:


> the T30 is the new Phanteks fan that is apparently as good or better than the A12x25.


The Phanteks fan is better by ~3C over the Noctua.


----------



## GeneO

ViTosS said:


> I use all ML120 Pro, are these T30 better than them for radiator purpose?


I have never used an ML120, but here is one review. with comparisons And there is a thread on the T30 in the air cooling forum.









Phanteks T30-120 Fan Review - One Fan to Rule Them All?


Phanteks' take on the ultimate PC fan is finally out! The T30-120 is a 30-mm thick fan that has a feature set to make many others blush, including the use of LCP blades and frames, Sunon's magnetic levitation bearing, three operating modes for different use cases, and fantastic performance...




www.techpowerup.com


----------



## ViTosS

ML120 is a bit loud at over 50%, 40% is pretty silence but the performance at this RPM is garbage...


----------



## ViTosS

acoustic said:


> The ML120 Pro get destroyed. It's not even comparable. I replaced all of my ML120 Pro with Noctua A12x25 and it was a massive difference in noise - the T30 is the new Phanteks fan that is apparently as good or better than the A12x25.


But the ML120 Pro RGB or single LED? Because the RGB version is a lot worse than the ML120 Pro single LED or no LED at all


----------



## acoustic

ViTosS said:


> But the ML120 Pro RGB or single LED? Because the RGB version is a lot worse than the ML120 Pro single LED or no LED at all


I had ML120 Pro without LED.


----------



## Imprezzion

I used to use Cooler Master MF140 ARGB's because cheap and looks good but man performance was terrible. They have next to no static pressure so even in push pull I had to run a lot of RPM to get any sort of cooling.

I switched to the Alpenfohn Wing Boost 3 after reading some reviews and it's a world of difference. Sound profile is much better and looks amazing as well, totally different RGB style with the rings, and performance is so good I get the same temps with these at 900RPM as the MF140's did at full blast 1600RPM. Only 1 major downside. They are freakin' expensive and I spend like €280 on fans alone lol.










I let it run a CB23 run at forced 1.390v Die Sense (VR VOut) and it did exactly the temps I said lol. High 70's low 80's at average 1.387v VR VOut during load. I'm sure that in a 30 minute run temps would rise slightly but my loop water temp only ever rises like 3-4c so can't be much lol.


----------



## ViTosS

Imprezzion said:


> I used to use Cooler Master MF140 ARGB's because cheap and looks good but man performance was terrible. They have next to no static pressure so even in push pull I had to run a lot of RPM to get any sort of cooling.
> 
> I switched to the Alpenfohn Wing Boost 3 after reading some reviews and it's a world of difference. Sound profile is much better and looks amazing as well, totally different RGB style with the rings, and performance is so good I get the same temps with these at 900RPM as the MF140's did at full blast 1600RPM. Only 1 major downside. They are freakin' expensive and I spend like €280 on fans alone lol.
> 
> View attachment 2522557
> 
> 
> I let it run a CB23 run at forced 1.390v Die Sense (VR VOut) and it did exactly the temps I said lol. High 70's low 80's at average 1.387v VR VOut during load. I'm sure that in a 30 minute run temps would rise slightly but my loop water temp only ever rises like 3-4c so can't be much lol.


You have 7c difference between coldest and hottest core, I thought delid and specially direct die could fix that...


----------



## Betroz

Is there a bug in BIOS 2103 for Apex XII in regards to the power limits?
I have set 250W limit for both Long and Short duration power limit in BIOS, yet when I try Prime95 with AVX it blasts over 300W right away and a BSOD follows. With the old 0901 BIOS this did not happen. With that BIOS the CPU clocks dropped while running Prime95 AVX as intended to uphold the 250W limits.


----------



## Imprezzion

ViTosS said:


> You have 7c difference between coldest and hottest core, I thought delid and specially direct die could fix that...


It was 13c before I mirror lapped the block as well lol. For some reason it didn't really help on this chip. On my 7700K and 9900K it was 2-3c at best, but on this one after like 4 remounts and re-lapping the block twice it's still 7c. I even used different LM pastes. Coollaboratory Liquid Ultra and Conductonaut. Out of those 2 Liquid Ultra easily wins btw and that is what it has now. 

But yeah, when I let it run a game or a synthetic test long enough it'll eventually equalize to 3-4c but not initially.

I still hate the fact I cannot manually disable the AVX offset voltage (that +0.040 ish it gets with AVX loads) as now it runs 1.390v in AVX just because it has to be set up so that Non-AVX loads get 1.344v. It doesn't need 1.390 for AVX at all, 1.356v is plenty, but it can't do Non-AVX at 1.313v so I can't drop that low.. 

Playing BF1 which is a AVX enabled game it always sits around 1.386-1.390v and 68-71c which is so unnecessary lol.


----------



## Betroz

Betroz said:


> Is there a bug in BIOS 2103 for Apex XII in regards to the power limits?
> I have set 250W limit for both Long and Short duration power limit in BIOS, yet when I try Prime95 with AVX it blasts over 300W right away and a BSOD follows. With the old 0901 BIOS this did not happen. With that BIOS the CPU clocks dropped while running Prime95 AVX as intended to uphold the 250W limits.


I upgraded to the newest 2301 BIOS and same issue there. The BIOS does not uphold the power limits while using a static OC.

Nobody here have this issue or can try it out on their Apex board?


----------



## Imprezzion

Don't have the board. And I won't be visiting here as often anymore as the site has really gone to hell. Now it even constantly asks me for a captcha? Yeah no thanks can't be bothered.


----------



## Nizzen

Imprezzion said:


> Don't have the board. And I won't be visiting here as often anymore as the site has really gone to hell. Now it even constantly asks me for a captcha? Yeah no thanks can't be bothered.


No problem on this site for me. Must be on your side the problem is


----------



## GeneO

Betroz said:


> I upgraded to the newest 2301 BIOS and same issue there. The BIOS does not uphold the power limits while using a static OC.
> 
> Nobody here have this issue or can try it out on their Apex board?


I have mostly only run adaptive mode. Does PL1 and PL2 even work in manual voltage mode? They work in adaptive by lowering the frequency to reduce the power when PL1 or PL2 are hit. How does it reduce power in maual mode if it can't reduce the frequency and voltage?


----------



## Betroz

GeneO said:


> How does it reduce power in maual mode if it can't reduce the frequency and voltage?


Well with 0901 BIOS and in manual mode, it redused the clocks down til the powerlimit was met, but no reduction in voltage. With 2301 BIOS it just goes full tilt. C-states, EIST, speedstep are all off.

@Nizzen have you tried this? Set a 250W limit for both Long and Short duration, and load up Prime95 AVX.


----------



## GeneO

I guess what is manual or fixed overclocking is not well defined. Seems strange to change the behavior in BIOS update on a board.

Been my experience in the past that Asus took a strict definition and frequency and voltages did not decrease and c-states were ignored (why I always used adaptive) while Gigabyte, for instance, would lower voltages and c-states worked.


----------



## Nizzen

Betroz said:


> Well with 0901 BIOS and in manual mode, it redused the clocks down til the powerlimit was met, but no reduction in voltage. With 2301 BIOS it just goes full tilt. C-states, EIST, speedstep are all off.
> 
> @Nizzen have you tried this? Set a 250W limit for both Long and Short duration, and load up Prime95 AVX.


I don't play prime95 ever. Will never do either


----------



## Betroz

GeneO said:


> I guess what is manual or fixed overclocking is not well defined. Seems strange to change the behavior in BIOS update on a board.


I loaded stock CPU settings, but with custom power limits - now it works. So it only happens in full manual mode with c-states, EIST, Speedstep settings OFF.



Nizzen said:


> I don't play prime95 ever. Will never do either


I ONLY tried it for testing purposes...I didn't want you to run it for hours either. Only to see if the same problem happens to you aswell


----------



## Nizzen

Betroz said:


> I loaded stock CPU settings, but with custom power limits - now it works. So it only happens in full manual mode with c-states, EIST, Speedstep settings OFF.
> 
> 
> 
> I ONLY tried it for testing purposes...I didn't want you to run it for hours either. Only to see if the same problem happens to you aswell


Same problem in cb23 and cb20?
Matbe try llc8 just in case


----------



## GeneO

Does it work with EIST or speedshift enabled? IIRC for any frequency reduction you needed one of them enabled along with C1E.

EDIT: I set my voltage to manual and left c-states, EIST and speedshift enabled and I see my multipliers drop at idle. So I would think it should work with EIST or speedshift and C1E. Thisis Hero with 2103.


----------



## Betroz

Nizzen said:


> Same problem in cb23 and cb20?


No, but Prime95 draw ALOT more juice. Even if I just tested for 5-6 sec to ONLY see if the power limits I set works with the new BIOS.


----------



## Betroz

GeneO said:


> Does it work with EIST or speedshift enabled? IIRC for any frequency reduction you needed one of them enabled along with C1E.
> 
> EDIT: I set my voltage to manual and left c-states, EIST and speedshift enabled and I see my multipliers drop at idle. So I would think it should work with EIST or speedshift and C1E. Thisis Hero with 2103.


I wanted to run a manual OC again with ALL power savings off. The last time I did this I had the old 0901 BIOS. You know, for better latency in games. But I guess I have no choice now.


----------



## cstkl1

RobertoSampaio said:


> Hi,
> Do you know what kind of error is this?
> 
> 
> *A corrected hardware error has occurred.
> 
> Component: PCI Express Root Port Error Source: Advanced Error Reporting (PCI Express)
> Primary Bus device:Function: 0x0:0x1C:0x4
> Secondary Bus device:Function: 0x0: 0x0: 0x0
> Primary Device Name: *PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_06BC&SUBSYS_86941043&REV_F0
> 
> Could be Memory latency parameters ?


i get that on 11900k if i use bclk amplitude/skews

also sometimes with rebar for 10900k


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Betroz said:


> Is there a bug in BIOS 2103 for Apex XII in regards to the power limits?
> I have set 250W limit for both Long and Short duration power limit in BIOS, yet when I try Prime95 with AVX it blasts over 300W right away and a BSOD follows. With the old 0901 BIOS this did not happen. With that BIOS the CPU clocks dropped while running Prime95 AVX as intended to uphold the 250W limits.


There are 2 power measurements...
Cpu power and MB power.
I don't know when we set a power limit if it uses CPU or MB power. I never did this test... 
Anyway, these 2 power will not match in some conditions, like when using adaptive voltage and DC_LL is not tuned to make VID= vcore under load.
One test you could do is to check if VID= Vcore under load, and check CPU power and MB power and check if PL use MB or CPU power...


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> There are 2 power measurements...
> Cpu power and MB power.
> I don't know when we set a power limit if it uses CPU or MB power. I never did this test...
> Anyway, these 2 power will not match in some conditions, like when using adaptive voltage and DC_LL is not tuned to make VID= vcore under load.
> One test you could do is to check if VID= Vcore under load, and check CPU power and MB power and check if PL use MB or CPU power...


It is the CPU that throttles on PL1 and PL2, so it has to use CPU power = Current*( V0 - DCLL*Curremt + ACLL*Current) for throttling. For manual voltage ACLL=0 (is ignored). Question is is DCLL ignored? -I thought the CPU doesn't even send an SVID for manual but I could be wrong? if the actrual power is 300W, the CPU power would need to be underestimated by at least 50w to not trigger the 250W PL2. This would mean the DCLL would have to exceed the LLC by something on the order of 50W / 200A = 250 mohm, which I doubt.

EDIT: oops an error in the calculation. should be 50W/ (200A)^2 = 1.25 mohm. Still though at LLC5 that would mean DCLL would have to be larger than 2 mohm.

The issue is probably that the frequency is not lowering with these settings so the processor can't throttle.


----------



## Betroz

RobertoSampaio said:


> There are 2 power measurements...
> Cpu power and MB power.
> I don't know when we set a power limit if it uses CPU or MB power. I never did this test...
> Anyway, these 2 power will not match in some conditions, like when using adaptive voltage and DC_LL is not tuned to make VID= vcore under load.
> One test you could do is to check if VID= Vcore under load, and check CPU power and MB power and check if PL use MB or CPU power...


As I said, it only happens while in full manual mode with c-states, EIST, Speedstep settings OFF.


----------



## fray_bentos

aDyerSituation said:


> Confused, feel like my llc6 isn't acting the same as others


Just checking that you are aware the LLC scales go opposite directions on MSI and Asus. On MSI LLC8 is the most droopy, while on Asus LLC1 is the most droopy. Hence LLC6 on MSI is much more droopy than on Asus.


----------



## aDyerSituation

I am aware thank you though.


----------



## newls1

Havent posted in here in a long time, but just wanted to ask a simple question. I had to replace my 10900k that OC'd 100% stable to 5.250GHz @ 1.395v(load 1.365v) This cpu is no longer living as i had it out of motherboard as I was doing a full cleanup, flush my loops, repaste everything, and in the meantime my bassett hound took cpu and chewed it up in her bed.... long story short, i went to MC and bought a 10850k (they didnt have any 10900k/kf's) and that was a DUD OC'er, as it needed 1.456v for 5.20ghz (on 51x multi with OC'd baseclock, 52x multi wouldnt get stable no matter what) long story short, i returned cpu to MC and bought a 10900KF on newegg.... How are these cpu's with getting lucky? Think my chances are higher at getting back my 5.250GHz @ 1.395v with this CPU like my prior 10900k did?


----------



## Imprezzion

newls1 said:


> Havent posted in here in a long time, but just wanted to ask a simple question. I had to replace my 10900k that OC'd 100% stable to 5.250GHz @ 1.395v(load 1.365v) This cpu is no longer living as i had it out of motherboard as I was doing a full cleanup, flush my loops, repaste everything, and in the meantime my bassett hound took cpu and chewed it up in her bed.... long story short, i went to MC and bought a 10850k and that was a DUD OC'er, as it needed 1.456v for 5.20ghz (on 51x multi with OC'd baseclock, 52x multi wouldnt get stable no matter what) long story short, i returned cpu to MC and bought a 10900KF.... How are these cpu's with getting lucky? Think my chances are higher at getting back my 5.250GHz @ 1.395v with this CPU like my prior 10900k did?


Not really. Early KF's are strong but later production dates aren't nearly as good.

Mine's a very early one and does 5.2 @ 1.334 and 5.3 @ 1.420.


----------



## newls1

well, i can still hope! wont be here till next week... What is considered max voltage for safe operation on comet lake? She is highend watercooled...... If I have to set 1.4v and lets say after vdroop i get 1.36ish under full stabilty check 100% load is that ok?


----------



## fray_bentos

newls1 said:


> well, i can still hope! wont be here till next week... What is considered max voltage for safe operation on comet lake? She is highend watercooled...... If I have to set 1.4v and lets say after vdroop i get 1.36ish under full stabilty check 100% load is that ok?


Those voltages and cooling combination are probably OK, but I am not sure chasing 52x is worth it. For example, my 10900KF will hit 52x using the voltages in my signature, and I have been running it that way for a few months now. However, after playing through a few games I have now got to Far Cry 5, which makes Vcore run higher than in other titles I have played so far. The "HT on" settings in my signature give:

52x, 1.43 Vcore (droopy MSI LLC6) set giving 1.36 V in game, 120 W, 75 C average (87 C peak)
vs.
51x, 1.36 Vcore (droopy MSI LLC6) set giving 1.28 V in game, 65-110 W, 55 C average (73 C peak).

Is that extra voltage, power, and heat worth it for just 100 MHz? I didn't notice any difference in gameplay at 51x vs 52x. It worked fine at 52x, but I didn't realise how much more efficient things could be by shaving off 100 MHz until now. My 52x settings hit my 250 W power limit in Cinebench R23 resulting in downclocking under such heavy load, while the 51x settings cruise by at 237 W max load. Whoopsie.


----------



## Betroz

fray_bentos said:


> Is all that extra voltage, power, and heat worth it for just 100 MHz? I didn't notice any difference in gameplay at 51x vs 52x. I am now considering seeing how much more efficient I can get it at 51x, as I may be able to lower Vcore even more... It worked fine at 52x, but I didn't realise how much more efficient things could be by shaving off 100 MHz until now. My 52x settings hit my 250 W power limit in Cinebench R23 resulting in downclocking under such heavy load, while the 51x settings cruise by at 220 W max load. Whoopsie.


You could argue that it is not worth overclocking a 10900K at all. Of course we want to remove the 125W Intel limit and set like 250W. But according to many, the biggest performance gains comes from overclocking og tweaking the RAM.

My 10900K sample tops out at 5.1 Ghz all-core using a 360mm AIO cooler, and the temps are fine for gaming. But if I were to use apps like Blender or Adobe Premiere on a daily basis, I would run the CPU at stock 4.9 Ghz, maybe even with Intel power limits in place.


----------



## Mitos

My 10900KF sample tops out at 5.2 Ghz(under load VR VOUT- 1.306V) all-core using a 240mm AIO cooler Kraken X52.
It was produced this year Batch V102F061

[video=youtube;3oTg1zjh2tI]




[email protected] 10 min. CB23[/QUOTE]


----------



## Imprezzion

Mitos said:


> My 10900KF sample tops out at 5.2 Ghz(under load VR VOUT- 1.306V) all-core using a 240mm AIO cooler Kraken X52.
> It was produced this year Batch V102F061
> 
> [video=youtube;3oTg1zjh2tI]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [email protected] 10 min. CB23


[/QUOTE]

That is pretty darn good for a recent production date one!

I got myself a crash in Battlefield 1 yesterday which I honestly didn't expect as it ran stable for a very long time lol. It was a 0xc0000005 access violation one according to event viewer. No BSOD, just c2d. What is the most likely culprit here. CPU, cache or RAM OC?


----------



## Betroz

Mitos said:


> My 10900KF sample tops out at 5.2 Ghz(under load VR VOUT- 1.306V) all-core using a 240mm AIO cooler Kraken X52.
> It was produced this year Batch V102F061


2600+ rpm on the fans... is noisy.


----------



## Mitos

This is the speed of the AIO pump. The Kraken is connected in this way


----------



## msmeenge

Yo guys, i've got some issues getting 5.1GHz stable in gaming. I can run Cinebench, 3Dmark, SOTTR whatever i want at 1.32v @load.
But i keep getting lock ups in >Apex Legends< (my main game). Instantly "crash" to desktop no error. Pretty sure it is CPU related because i had RAM running at XMP and GPU stock.
No issues with CPU at stock. Any idea's? Settings:

5.1GHz (Cinebench 30 min avx test stable)
48x ring (also tested stock)
1.3v bios LLC Turbo (1.31 idle/1.32 load in Windows)
16GB 3600CL16 @ 4266Mhz 18-18-18-38-380-2T 1.45Vdimm / 1.25 SA / 1.25 VCCIO (also tested XMP, 4266CL18 is memtest86 stable)

Though prime95 crashes the system and Realbench BSOD's too, even up to 1.35Vcore @ load. 
CPU Temps are 75-80C tops at 1.32v and ~85C at 1.35v.


----------



## GraphicsWhore

msmeenge said:


> Yo guys, i've got some issues getting 5.1GHz stable in gaming. I can run Cinebench, 3Dmark, SOTTR whatever i want at 1.32v @load.
> But i keep getting lock ups in >Apex Legends< (my main game). Instantly "crash" to desktop no error. Pretty sure it is CPU related because i had RAM running at XMP and GPU stock.
> No issues with CPU at stock. Any idea's? Settings:
> 
> 5.1GHz (Cinebench 30 min avx test stable)
> 48x ring (also tested stock)
> 1.3v bios LLC Turbo (1.31 idle/1.32 load in Windows)
> 16GB 3600CL16 @ 4266Mhz 18-18-18-38-380-2T 1.45Vdimm / 1.25 SA / 1.25 VCCIO (also tested XMP, 4266CL18 is memtest86 stable)
> 
> Though prime95 crashes the system and Realbench BSOD's too, even up to 1.35Vcore @ load.
> CPU Temps are 75-80C tops at 1.32v and ~85C at 1.35v.


only apex legends or all games?


----------



## Imprezzion

msmeenge said:


> Yo guys, i've got some issues getting 5.1GHz stable in gaming. I can run Cinebench, 3Dmark, SOTTR whatever i want at 1.32v @load.
> But i keep getting lock ups in >Apex Legends< (my main game). Instantly "crash" to desktop no error. Pretty sure it is CPU related because i had RAM running at XMP and GPU stock.
> No issues with CPU at stock. Any idea's? Settings:
> 
> 5.1GHz (Cinebench 30 min avx test stable)
> 48x ring (also tested stock)
> 1.3v bios LLC Turbo (1.31 idle/1.32 load in Windows)
> 16GB 3600CL16 @ 4266Mhz 18-18-18-38-380-2T 1.45Vdimm / 1.25 SA / 1.25 VCCIO (also tested XMP, 4266CL18 is memtest86 stable)
> 
> Though prime95 crashes the system and Realbench BSOD's too, even up to 1.35Vcore @ load.
> CPU Temps are 75-80C tops at 1.32v and ~85C at 1.35v.


Drop the ring/cache to 45 and test again.


----------



## Betroz

msmeenge said:


> No issues with CPU at stock. Any idea's?


Yes. Test one thing at a time. If you overlock CPU cores, ring and RAM at the same time it is very hard to know what fails.


----------



## msmeenge

Imprezzion said:


> Drop the ring/cache to 45 and test again.


Have tested this too at auto (43x). Same result. Everything runs perfect except gaming.
@Betroz Yeah i know, I've been testing step by step. Starting off with CPU while XMP stock, ring stock, volts stock except of vcore/llc.


----------



## msmeenge

GraphicsWhore said:


> only apex legends or all games?


Well that's the thing, it's only in Apex. I've tried Warzone and it seems that works without any issus.
I have a feeling Apex is sensitive to some sort of OC on a CPU because it runs flawlessly at stock CPU.


----------



## fray_bentos

msmeenge said:


> Well that's the thing, it's only in Apex. I've tried Warzone and it seems that works without any issus.
> I have a feeling Apex is sensitive to some sort of OC on a CPU because it runs flawlessly at stock CPU.


Have you checked for WHEA errors in event viewer that might be occuring during gaming? You could also leave HWiNFO open and monitoring for WHEAs and see if an error is logged near the time of the crash.

Edit: what @Imprezzion says, I missed this!


msmeenge said:


> Though prime95 crashes the system and Realbench BSOD's too, even up to 1.35Vcore @ load.


----------



## Imprezzion

I mean, you posted it yourself, RealBench and Prime BSOD. You can never expect it to be even remotely stable then.


----------



## msmeenge

Imprezzion said:


> I mean, you posted it yourself, RealBench and Prime BSOD. You can never expect it to be even remotely stable then.


Unfortunately i found the problem. My GPU (RTX 3080Ti SUPRIM X) is dead. The left PCI-E 8 pin connector is burned/melted inside the connector.
It caused the system reboots... Time to RMA this thing....


----------



## fray_bentos

msmeenge said:


> Unfortunately i found the problem. My GPU (RTX 3080Ti SUPRIM X) is dead. The left PCI-E 8 pin connector is burned/melted inside the connector.
> It caused the system reboots... Time to RMA this thing....


Oh no! How much power was it pulling under load?


----------



## cstkl1

msmeenge said:


> Have tested this too at auto (43x). Same result. Everything runs perfect except gaming.
> @Betroz Yeah i know, I've been testing step by step. Starting off with CPU while XMP stock, ring stock, volts stock except of vcore/llc.


prime95 custom fft112 min/max fft in place, all avx disabled. post ss with hwinfo


----------



## cstkl1

msmeenge said:


> Unfortunately i found the problem. My GPU (RTX 3080Ti SUPRIM X) is dead. The left PCI-E 8 pin connector is burned/melted inside the connector.
> It caused the system reboots... Time to RMA this thing....


oh. rip


----------



## WebsterRKL

5600Mhz CL20 (tightened from CL21) 5.2Ghz CPU is possible on air. Oh my Goodness! 🤣

Next attempt is 5333Mhz CL19 CPU 5.3Ghz. 5333Mhz CL19? Aaaaah! 🤪

Thank you Shamino! You the best!


----------



## Imprezzion

WebsterRKL said:


> 5600Mhz CL20 (tightened from CL21) 5.2Ghz CPU is possible on air. Oh my Goodness! 🤣
> 
> Next attempt is 5333Mhz CL19 CPU 5.3Ghz. 5333Mhz CL19? Aaaaah! 🤪
> 
> Thank you Shamino! You the best!
> 
> View attachment 2523510


On a bloody i5?! Wow.


----------



## msmeenge

fray_bentos said:


> Oh no! How much power was it pulling under load?


Well i had it undervolted at 1920 @ .875mv was pulling around 225-285W during gaming. At stock it consumed 400W at gaming.


----------



## fray_bentos

WebsterRKL said:


> 5600Mhz CL20 (tightened from CL21) 5.2Ghz CPU is possible on air. Oh my Goodness! 🤣
> 
> Next attempt is 5333Mhz CL19 CPU 5.3Ghz. 5333Mhz CL19? Aaaaah! 🤪
> 
> Thank you Shamino! You the best!
> 
> View attachment 2523510


I think you posted this to the wrong thread. This is the 10900K thread.

Intel RAM thread is here:








*Official* Intel DDR4 24/7 Memory Stability Thread


exactly the very same thing happens to me :)) it's kind of frustrating passing GSAT overnight, then second day errors within 200 seconds =)) did you solve it in the end? yep, two posts after that one. my 10850K was just really crappy and needed >1.3v for 5.0. I think I figured it out...




www.overclock.net





Or Rocket Lake thread here:








Overclocking 11700k/11900k results, bins and discussion


SP is random, even in the same batch. Want better chance? Buy 100x 11900k and take the best ;) Probably easier to pay you a healthy premium so you're gonna sell one of your SP9x.... :p




www.overclock.net


----------



## Astral85

It seems like 46 ring is causing RealBench to crash with 5.1 adaptive for me. Will increasing Vcore help or have I hit a wall? Can VCCSA/IO contribute to stability here?


----------



## Betroz

Astral85 said:


> It seems like 46 ring is causing RealBench to crash with 5.1 adaptive for me. Will increasing Vcore help or have I hit a wall?


Yes try to increase vcore. Not all chips will do 48 ring or higher. Some stop at 46-47 range.


----------



## Imprezzion

Betroz said:


> Yes try to increase vcore. Not all chips will do 48 ring or higher. Some stop at 46-47 range.


46 is my max and it isn't fully 100% stable at 5.1 with 1.272v, it is with 5.2 and 1.344v. 47 or above is impossible with any vCore. One of my mates has a 10900KF, horrible chip core wise, needs like 1.290 to do 5Ghz all core, but his cache does 48 on stock Turbo CPU volts.... It ain't fair hehe.

If you want to try it, try going with BCLK OC. I got great results for cache OC using BCLK and can get quite a bit higher frequency only downside is on my board with BCLK OC you lose turbo 3.0 and per-core turbo. Only all-core works with BCLK.


----------



## newls1

newls1 said:


> well, i can still hope! wont be here till next week... What is considered max voltage for safe operation on comet lake? She is highend watercooled...... If I have to set 1.4v and lets say after vdroop i get 1.36ish under full stabilty check 100% load is that ok?


Wanted to update with my results so far with my 10900KF that just came in.. So far im very satisfied with the results, and seems even better then my prior 10900K. Im at 5.253GHz @ 1.364v 47x cache and 4030MHz DDR @ CL15/15/15/32 @ 1.49v ... CPU Vcore wise, this is .030 lower then my prior 10900k. This CPU is MILES BETTER then the 10850k that i got from MC. Still stability testing and im crossing all my fingers and toes but so far using my normal quick tests that the 10850k failed on @ 5.1ghz, this CPU is passing with no WHEA errors and AIDA64 stability tests good. Passes Memtest pro tests so far, etc... Going to further test with hours of testing and what not, but so far, good CPU!


----------



## ViTosS

My best run so far (this benchmark is really inconsistency for me, I had to run like 5 times, with results varying between 243-248fps, CPU 5.0/4.7Ghz and 4200CL16 RAM tight subtimings), I'm thinking going direct die soon, I want to use 5.2Ghz/4.9Ghz daily, do you guys think it is reachable with an Lian Li Galahad 360mm? My 10900kf not the best sample of all, it can do 5.0/4.7Ghz at 1.22v load, but maybe with the 15-20c drop from direct die I can use 5.2Ghz...


----------



## fray_bentos

ViTosS said:


> My best run so far (this benchmark is really inconsistency for me, I had to run like 5 times, with results varying between 243-248fps


So, 245.5 ± 2.5 fps = ±1% variation; that's not inconsistent. Even 243 vs. 252 = 247.5 ± 4.5 fps is only ±1.8% variation.


----------



## ViTosS

fray_bentos said:


> So, 245.5 ± 2.5 fps = ±1% variation; that's not inconsistent. Even 243 vs. 252 = 247.5 ± 4.5 fps is only ±1.8% variation.


I think it is because only happens in this game, all the other benchmarks are solid, varying only 1fps below or above at the final result.


----------



## ViTosS

I was able to OC my cache from 47x to 49x stable at the same voltage, 50x gave BSOD, not that bad right? Latency dropped by 0.3ns in Aida64


----------



## GeneO

ViTosS said:


> I was able to OC my cache from 47x to 49x stable at the same voltage, 50x gave BSOD, not that bad right? Latency dropped by 0.3ns in Aida64


That's real good. I can't go over 46.


----------



## ViTosS




----------



## cstkl1

WebsterRKL said:


> 5600Mhz CL20 (tightened from CL21) 5.2Ghz CPU is possible on air. Oh my Goodness! 🤣
> 
> Next attempt is 5333Mhz CL19 CPU 5.3Ghz. 5333Mhz CL19? Aaaaah! 🤪
> 
> Thank you Shamino! You the best!
> 
> View attachment 2523510


i find theres cache issues for high gear 2


ViTosS said:


> I was able to OC my cache from 47x to 49x stable at the same voltage, 50x gave BSOD, not that bad right? Latency dropped by 0.3ns in Aida64


if math is correct even benching 50|50 not a problem without any increase to vcore

there is a software to check the v/f of the cache. asus bios does it also .
theres certain caches where cpu and cache are the same

but breaking the -3 would result requiring ringdown disabled which is a pain for octvb.


----------



## ViTosS

cstkl1 said:


> i find theres cache issues for high gear 2
> 
> if math is correct even benching 50|50 not a problem without any increase to vcore
> 
> there is a software to check the v/f of the cache. asus bios does it also .
> theres certain caches where cpu and cache are the same
> 
> but breaking the -3 would result requiring ringdown disabled which is a pain for octvb.
> 
> View attachment 2524233


Wow that's an hell of a chip you got there, 5.2/5.0 at just 1.23v load voltage, running Prime95 112k and over 90 celsius and still stable


----------



## fray_bentos

ViTosS said:


> View attachment 2524231


Ooooh, that's the same RAM kit as I am using and the same frequency and primaries. However, I didn't tweak my secondaries/tertiaries as you have and you are getting significantly better throughput that I am as a result. What is your RAM voltage, SA and IO? Are you using 1.48v 1.20/1.25v IO/SA as in your signature? I might steal your settings! Though I'll add that I'm not very keen on going over 1.45 Vdimm. I presume with latency at 36.2 ns in AIDA you have PPD=0 already?


----------



## ViTosS

fray_bentos said:


> Ooooh, that's the same RAM kit as I am using and the same frequency and primaries. However, I didn't tweak my secondaries/tertiaries as you have and you are getting significantly better throughput that I am as a result. What is your RAM voltage, SA and IO? Are you using 1.48v 1.20/1.25v IO/SA as in your signature? I might steal your settings! Though I'll add that I'm not very keen on going over 1.45 Vdimm. I presume with latency at 36.2 ns in AIDA you have PPD=0 already?


Yes the same voltages from signature, I can get 1.45v stable but can't let the sticks go over 48c, with 1.48v it can go to 54c without problem, so I kept 1.48v, and yes I have PPD = 0. I think I can use 4400CL16 too, but the voltage and heat is too much for air cooling...


----------



## rickmig

ckristofe81 said:


> hello I'm new in oc I currently have an i9 10900k and formula XII gskill trident Z 4000 C17 can you help me a oc my i9 a 5.2ghz I'm cooled under custom water and I'm stock for the moment here are some photo thanks in advance
> View attachment 2522254
> View attachment 2522255
> View attachment 2522256
> View attachment 2522257


@ckristofe81 any progress in your settings/overclock?
Regards.


----------



## OC-NightHawk

I cannot seem to get my CPU to run stable over 5.1GHz all cores. If I increase the voltage my CPU thermal throttles during the 10 minute Cinebench R23 test. So I think at least with the cooler I have and the case the system is in that is pretty much the ceiling. However I beat my highest Cinebench R20 run by a little bit more after increasing my cache ratio to 44.









my 10900k's settings are


----------



## OC-NightHawk

I inched my settings up a bit more to try and get a little more for a daily speed. I gained a little bit more with the cache at 45 and the reference clock at 102.


----------



## OC-NightHawk

I tried increasing my reference clock to 103 and the processor locked up. I backed it back to 102 and increased the processor cache ratio to 46. I'm still at 1.335V and I edged out my score to 6625. I'm fairly certain that I have the core ratio, reference clock as far as they will go at my current voltage. I would need a better cooler to get more head room for voltage so I think I might be down to simply seeing how much further I can get the cache before it fails stability tests.


----------



## OC-NightHawk

So far so good. I got the processor cache ratio up to 47 and beat my high score.


----------



## newls1

my 10850K refused to operate on the 52multi with nothing less then 1.455v, but if I used 51x multi and 102.3bclk for 5.21GHz that chip was good @ 1.395v... Can your cooling try that? I hated that chip, so I finally got another 10900K"F" this time and world of difference... 1.36 @ 5.25GHz all core


----------



## OC-NightHawk

newls1 said:


> my 10850K refused to operate on the 52multi with nothing less then 1.455v, but if I used 51x multi and 102.3bclk for 5.21GHz that chip was good @ 1.395v... Can your cooling try that? I hated that chip, so I finally got another 10900K"F" this time and world of difference... 1.36 @ 5.25GHz all core


I can give it a shot. Next time I reboot I want to save my bios settings to my usb stick and screen shot my settings so I don't have to worry about losing them if I overwrite the profiles in the ROM.

My cache was able to handle 48 and I was able to squeak out 102.1 on the reference clock. That makes on 10 cores my clock speed 5207MHz, on 9 cores 5309MHz and 8 cores or less 5411.3. Although I have only being testing multicore so I need to go back and check to see if the processor is stable at 5.4GHz. Somehow I doubt it, but I know it is stable at 5.3GHz all cores so worst case I make the ratio 52 for 9 or less cores. The memory is the fastest I have been able to get it too at 3812MHz.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I still prefer using "by core"...


----------



## Astral85

It seems like I still do not understand how to set Adaptive voltage and get the voltage I want. I've been running manual Vcore for the past few weeks. Today I tried setting Adaptive = 1.350V/additional turbo = 0.001V. So total additional turbo = 1.349V. I have LLC set to 6 and manually set AC LL to 0.18.DC LL I left on auto which is 0.28. Max Vcore in Windows is 1.40V. I don't understand why I'm getting additional voltage over 1.349V.


----------



## GeneO

Adaptive voltages for multipliers 53 or less are determined by the voltages in the V/F curve, not by the adaptive additional voltage or offset. The additional adaptive voltage only comes into play for multipliers > 53.

For instance, if you are running 52 all-core, the voltage will be something like Vcore (Volts) = Voltage(VF7) + ACLL(in ohm)*Current (in Amps) -LLC(in ohm)*Current(in Amps). Though there is some other factor in ACLL that I have not been able to pin down.

LLC6 is about .00056 ohm compared to the .00018 ohm ACLL you set

You can individually adjust each voltage in the V/F curve downward or upward with the VF\/F curve voltage offsets.

Does that make sense for your settings?


----------



## Astral85

GeneO said:


> Adaptive voltages for multipliers 53 or less are determined by the voltages in the V/F curve, not by the adaptive additional voltage or offset. The additional adaptive voltage only comes into play for multipliers > 53.
> 
> For instance, if you are running 52 all-core, the voltage will be something like Vcore (Volts) = Voltage(VF7) + ACLL(in ohm)*Current (in Amps) -LLC(in ohm)*Current(in Amps). Though there is some other factor in ACLL that I have not been able to pin down.
> 
> LLC6 is about .00056 ohm compared to the .00018 ohm ACLL you set
> 
> You can individually adjust each voltage in the V/F curve downward or upward with the VF\/F curve voltage offsets.
> 
> Does that make sense for your settings?


Well I thought I read in one of the Asus guides that the V/F curve could be overridden with the additional turbo offset in adaptive voltage but that clearly isn't happening. If I'm to use the V/F curve to adjust the voltage for the 5.1Ghz point how do I set the adaptive voltage? I think the relationship between AC LL and LLC also affects the voltage, especially in sync all core mode...

Edit: If it is using the V/F curve it should not be the 1.40V that I'm seeing because the V/F for 5.1 is 1.345V. I suspect it is the AC LL/LLC values setting the voltage...


----------



## GeneO

Astral85 said:


> Well I thought I read in one of the Asus guides that the V/F curve could be overridden with the additional turbo offset in adaptive voltage but that clearly isn't happening. If I'm to use the V/F curve to adjust the voltage for the 5.1Ghz point how do I set the adaptive voltage? I think the relationship between AC LL and LLC also affects the voltage, especially in sync all core mode...
> 
> Edit: If it is using the V/F curve it should not be the 1.40V that I'm seeing because the V/F for 5.1 is 1.345V. I suspect it is the AC LL/LLC values setting the voltage...


The guide was wrong or you misread. To adjust the voltage for 5.1GHz you use adjust the VF6 point offset.

Yes ACLL adds voltage like I posted in the formula + x*Current*ACLL (mohm)/1000, where x is some factor > 1. Also there is a boost in voltage for AVX loads.

Say your current was 150 A and x = 1 and ignore AVX boost. LLC6 is about .56 mohm and you have no v/f offset.

Vcore = 1.4v + (.18/1000)*150 - (.56/1000)*150 = 1.343v

That ignores a boost for AVX load and a reduction based on temperature if TVB voltage optimization is enabled.


The way to overclock with adaptive is, for each V/F point, fix the multiplier for to that V/F point, then adjust the voltage offset for that point at load until you get the minimum vcore that is stable.

EDIT (yet another edit): You should set your DCLL = LLC value, not auto. So for LLC6, around .56. The reason why is a bit complicated, but the CPU's power estimate won't be correct unless you do (it will be overestimated), and that matters when the CPU is determining whether the power threshold is met. Auto sets it to The lowest value of .01, the power is overestimated by the CPU, which will erroneously trigger throttling too early due to PL1 and PL2 power limits.


----------



## Astral85

@GeneO 

What should the adaptive voltage and additional turbo offsets be set to?


----------



## GeneO

If you are not overclocking beyond 5,3 GHz, the additional turbo voltage can be set to anything as it is ignored. If you are talking about the global adaptive offset - that applies equally to all V/F points, however, if you set a negative offset, I believe the offset will not allow you to drop below the V/F voltage at any point - you need to use the V/F point offset to get lower.

Previous CPU the V/F curve was always there, but not exposed and you couldn't change the points - it was "burned-in". All you had for control in adaptive mode was the additional Turbo voltage that only applied for multipliers above the maximum boat voltage, and the offset, which applied to the whole V/F curve but would not lower it below the burned-in V/F points. With 10th gen, you can also change each V/F point with an offset.


----------



## Astral85

GeneO said:


> If you are not overclocking beyond 5,3 GHz, the additional turbo voltage can be set to anything as it is ignored. If you are talking about the global adaptive offset - that applies equally to all V/F points, however, if you set a negative offset, I believe the offset will not allow you to drop below the V/F voltage at any point - you need to use the V/F point offset to get lower.
> 
> Previous CPU the V/F curve was always there, but not exposed and you couldn't change the points - it was "burned-in". All you had for control in adaptive mode was the additional Turbo voltage that only applied for multipliers above the maximum boat voltage, and the offset, which applied to the whole V/F curve but would not lower it below the burned-in V/F points. With 10th gen, you can also change each V/F point with an offset.


What do you mean the global adaptive offset applies equally to all V/F points? What would you set the global adaptive value to 5.1 sync all cores?


----------



## ckristofe81

rickmig said:


> @ckristofe81 any progress in your settings/overclock?
> Regards.


continuation with the discussions in mp with Roberto I followed c is advice


----------



## rickmig

@ckristofe81 Nice you did well!

Tell me, I cannot see in the pic you sent, what is the Vcore in your Cinebench run? And what settings you used in the BIOS?
You are runnig 51X all core I presume, with 53X and +2 Boost right?
Regards.


----------



## ckristofe81

vcore 1.528 adaptatif
54x4 53x6 52x8 51x10 boost +1


----------



## rickmig

ckristofe81 said:


> vcore 1.528 adaptatif
> 54x4 53x6 52x8 51x10 boost +1


@ckristofe81

So you're using the V/F curve right? It doesn't get the voltage too high for your use??
In my case I have use the ACLL = 0.4~ and DCLL= 1.12~ and LLC #2 to get the desired Vcore under load = 1.29v for 51X and the same values for VID, but when playing it gets to 1.34v Vcore which is too high for what it needs...
I tried to minimize the high voltage with LLC=4 which got better, because the voltage drop is bigger and i use offset to ajust my needs.

- I don't have a problem with the high volts, but knowing I don't need it, it get my fans much slower and overhaul the system quieter!
Regards.


----------



## GeneO

Astral85 said:


> What do you mean the global adaptive offset applies equally to all V/F points? What would you set the global adaptive value to 5.1 sync all cores?


I mean this offset. Auto = 0. I do not use it. I use the v/f curve offsets and ACLL.


----------



## Imprezzion

I strapped my old H110i GTX to my CPU temporary as I'm harvesting the Supremacy EVO block off the Phoenix kit for my custom loop.

That old beast has a LOT of cooling power for a AIO. Direct die with the shorter AMD mounting standoffs and a self made backplate it manages to stay right under 90c on CB23 at 5.3 1.424v. At 5.1 1.270v it manages to stay under 70c even. It is slapped together with Coollaboratory Liquid Ultra.

I am now in the process of waiting for my rads (HWLabs Nemesis GTX 420 and GTX 240) and Mayhems X1 premix to arrive and then I can plan the loop out. It's hard to find a good spot for the pump res tho to make the in and outlet for it line up properly without needing 90's. I try to minimize the 90's as much as possible but I HAVE to use a 90 for the GPU block intake. There's no other way. And probably as well for the res intake. I might be able to get away with a 45 there but I doubt it..


----------



## safedisk

*ROG MAXIMUS XII Series 2402 BETA BIOS*

1. Microcode Update
2. Bug Fix

ROG MAXIMUS XII HERO BETA BIOS 2402

ROG MAXIMUS XII APEX BETA BIOS 2402

ROG MAXIMUS XII FORMULA BETA BIOS 2402

ROG MAXIMUS XII EXTREME BETA BIOS 2402


----------



## GeneO

^ Microcode update must be for 11th gen. For 10990k and 10700k it is still E2.
Testing 2402 moddded with microcde EC now on my 51x all-core.


----------



## Betroz

GeneO said:


> ^ Microcode update must be for 11th gen. For 10990k and 10700k it is still E2.
> Testing 2402 moddded with microcde EC now on my 51x all-core.


So no point in upgrading for people on 2301 BIOS and 10900K then.


----------



## GeneO

I didn't say that.  Also nebulous "bug fixes". I went from 2103/EC to this. At one point in the past 2301/EC was unstable for me (required more core), but I have since then changed my OC, but so far 2402 is looking good for me. No issues.

EDIT: This ones a keeper


----------



## Imprezzion

I built this.










Front panel still needs some cutting to fit but it clears the fans. Only the locking plastic thing on the top doesn't but that can be fixed.

It's pressure testing now with the EK tester. I had one big leak, the CPU block OUT fitting backed out when I was putting on the hose..... Fixed that testing again now.

Oh and I flipped the hoses top right of the pic like it goes behind the other one now.

Only had to use 2 90's and 1 45 to make it work. 

Order is pump-res -> GPU -> top rad -> CPU -> front rad -> pump-res. Also have a Y splitter with a drain hooked up to the OUT on the pump for EZ draining if I ever have to.


----------



## newls1

why is the above post in this thread? There is a watercooling section on this forum.... Nice PC though!


----------



## Imprezzion

newls1 said:


> why is the above post in this thread? There is a watercooling section on this forum.... Nice PC though!


Cause I did it to keep my hothead 10900KF cool hehe.

Did have a few issues so far. A2 post code, my cheap-o moddyi extensions for the 3080 do not play nice. The included Bykski ones seem to work so far. Now to see if I have space enough to somehow shove 2 SATA SSD's in the PSU Bay. Front rad is too thick to use the drive sleds so..


----------



## GeneO

Imprezzion said:


> Cause I did it to keep my hothead 10900KF cool hehe.
> 
> Did have a few issues so far. A2 post code, my cheap-o moddyi extensions for the 3080 do not play nice. The included Bykski ones seem to work so far. Now to see if I have space enough to somehow shove 2 SATA SSD's in the PSU Bay. Front rad is too thick to use the drive sleds so..


I take it the Rockit Cool sticker is for direct-die.  No space on the backside to place the SSD?


----------



## Imprezzion

GeneO said:


> I take it the Rockit Cool sticker is for direct-die.  No space on the backside to place the SSD?


Yeah direct die 10th gen kit + retention plate. Running Coollaboratory Liquid Ultra. 

I got it running now, at stock 4.9 1.223v (had to clr cmos so lost my profiles....) in Cinebench R23 52-53c with hardly any delta between the cores. 199w power.

Running a GPU test now, Cyberpunk 2077 cranked to the max @ 2115Mhz core +1400 memory and so far it's sitting around 41c core 50c hotspot 64c VRAM.

I am going to probably open a new topic as the pump res was secondhand and the pump won't quiet down even after vigorous shaking and bleeding. Might be a bad pump lol.


----------



## Betroz

Imprezzion said:


> (had to clr cmos so lost my profiles....)


Next time, save the BIOS profile to a USB stick first


----------



## Imprezzion

Oof, still hot tho when you really start to YEET the voltage lol.

Even with a Nemesis GTX 420 + 240 + Supremacy EVO and direct die liquid metal there is a point not even that will save you lol.

Looping CB23 Multi core for 10m gave me mid 80's at 1.45v.


----------



## GeneO

You lost


RobertoSampaio said:


> I'm back to BIOS 2103...
> No way to get stable with 2201.
> 
> But there is a weird thing happening:
> 
> I saved my bios config as a CMO file and loaded it.
> The system is unstable...
> 
> But if I set the same configuration manually, the system is stable.
> 
> We really could trust this CMO files?
> What is the problem with the CMO file?
> 
> EDITED: One thing I realized was that fan curves are not correct saved into CMO...


I think I may have run across this issue running 2103. I found at one point (more than likely there was a .CMO restore beforehand) that I was no longer stable with my original configuration and needed an additional 0.1 mohm ACLL to be stable - that is significant. I spent quite some time trying to figure it out but gave up lest I degrade my system. Fast forward to 2402. Flashed and entered my original configuration by hand and it is stable! I am pretty confident the BIOS update didn't make that much of a difference, so ...


----------



## Betroz

Imprezzion said:


> Looping CB23 Multi core for 10m gave me mid 80's at 1.45v.


Is that 100 MHz extra really worth it...?


----------



## Imprezzion

Betroz said:


> Is that 100 MHz extra really worth it...?


I mean, no, but it's more like "I know it can do it, just have to find a way how to".

It's totally fine in gaming like 70-75c max but still.

If I wanna be efficient I'll just run turbo per-core at 55x2 54x3 53x5 51x10 which is at full load ~1.310v at Auto everything voltage related.

All Auto voltages, LLC and lite load / AC/DC is much more stable at per-core boost then manually setting it and 5.1 all core Auto is like 0.020 over what the CPU needs as absolute minimum so I'm pretty happy there. Even if it sees 1.560v at 55x2 lol.

But first I gotta fix my RAM OC.. had some weird crashes and as I wiped CMOS and didn't back up my profiles I just did it from my own memory and that wasn't right. TM5 spit errors within 4 minutes so... Off to a long night of mem testing..


----------



## Astral85

GeneO said:


> I mean this offset. Auto = 0. I do not use it. I use the v/f curve offsets and ACLL.
> 
> 
> View attachment 2524716


OK I left Adaptive Mode on Auto/Auto. At AC LL 0.04/LLC 6 I get around 1.296V Vmin during Asus RealBench. At this point would I use the V/F offset to lower the voltage or try to go lower on AC LL?


----------



## Astral85

safedisk said:


> View attachment 2524855
> 
> 
> *ROG MAXIMUS XII Series 2402 BETA BIOS*
> 
> 1. Microcode Update
> 2. Bug Fix
> 
> ROG MAXIMUS XII HERO BETA BIOS 2402
> 
> ROG MAXIMUS XII APEX BETA BIOS 2402
> 
> ROG MAXIMUS XII FORMULA BETA BIOS 2402
> 
> ROG MAXIMUS XII EXTREME BETA BIOS 2402


Is there anything for Z590 or is 1007 stable?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I'm going to try 57X again... LOL

Starting with [email protected]






































I promise myself If I can make it I'll upgrade to 12900K...


----------



## Imprezzion

I wanted to find something a bit easier to run rather than just brute forcing 5.3 all core with voltage at 1.44v (VR VOut). Even my new custom loop cannot cool that much voltage with AVX like Cinebench R23. Still goes deep into the 80's almost touching 90's.

I figured I'd try some BCLK OC again as the last time I played with this it responded very good to it.

And OMG. What a difference. 105x50 = 5250 all core 4620 cache (44 multi) and this aligns perfectly with 4200 memory (4000 multi). I started at the same vCore I needed for 5.3 to pass 30 minutes Cinebench R23 and 30 minutes Prime95 Small FFT without AVX. 1.42v. I went ALL the way down to 1.332v and it STILL passes. How can it be possible to do 5250 with BCLK at less vCore then 5200 with normal multi needs. Hell, 5200 doesn't even boot half the time at 1.332v. It would just BSOD loading Windows. And yet 5250 at 1.332v passes 30 minutes of CB23 and Prime95 and with very good scores in CB as well lol. 17400. Temps low 70's in CB low 80's in Prime95 even at 323w.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

There is a knob in Asus bios that makes CPU follow vf curve using multiplier or using the frequency itself.
Do you know how your cpu is handing this bclk oc? Using frequency or multiplier?


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> There is a knob in Asus bios that makes CPU follow vf curve using multiplier or using the frequency itself.
> Do you know how your cpu is handing this bclk oc? Using frequency or multiplier?


You mean adaptive BCLK. I was curious whether MSI boards have the analog. Otherwise, they probably use the V/F voltage for the multiplier, which would be VF5 (50x) voltage this case.

I tried something similar (103 MHz @ 50x for 5150), but I could not get stability at a lower voltage and I didn't like the temperature at 5150 (delided not direct-die).


----------



## Imprezzion

GeneO said:


> You mean adaptive BCLK. I was curious whether MSI boards have the analog. Otherwise, they probably use the V/F voltage for the multiplier, which would be VF5 (50x) voltage this case.
> 
> I tried something similar (103 MHz @ 50x for 5150), but I could not get stability at a lower voltage and I didn't like the temperature at 5150 (delided not direct-die).


MSI follows frequency not multi. 50x105 5250 means I need to use the x52 v/f point. (-0.170 for 1.332v load).


----------



## GeneO

Imprezzion said:


> MSI follows frequency not multi. 50x105 5250 means I need to use the x52 v/f point. (-0.170 for 1.332v load).


Well that is good, That is the sensible choice if you are not given the option


----------



## Imprezzion

I still don't know why my board behaves so weird on Auto voltages and LLC/Lite Load. It's almost as if any point above x51 is broken in my v/f curve / VID table.

If I run x51 it's fine on Auto and detects 1.344v in the BIOS on all Auto. This is totally reasonable even tho it does handle it at 1.290v so I usually just run -0.050 and call it a day. It Auto defaults to mode_1 lite load, LLC 5. 

Now, if I set 5.2 or above either all-core or by per-core turbo X10 point and leave everything on Auto, it'll default to mode_9 lite load and LLC4 and give like 1.624v in the BIOS. Yes, 1.624... this means setting offsets for anything higher then 5.1 is almost impossible as I have to do like -0.280v or whatever and it's not like such a high offset makes it stable..

If I manually force mode_1 and LLC4 to get the lowest possible boot voltage it's still 1.448v for 5.2 and like 1.560v for 5.3 which is outside of the 1.520v VID range so I don't know how this is happening...

I already have flashed many different release and beta BIOS, cmos clr's, reseated the chip and so forth but it always behaves like this..

Now my mate has a Unify (almost the same board) with a 10900KF and his chip behaves totally normal. 1.290 for 5.1 1.356 for 5.2 1.480 for 5.3, those are totally acceptable numbers... It's so weird. It never goes >1.60v when setting a high multi..


----------



## Ketku-

Hello guys! *I have some questions here about Overclock @ Processor.*
I am new here, maybe i write bad english but try understand it.  i put picture my Gaming Computer.

I9-10900K SP63
Asus ROG Maximus XII Apex (2103 BIOS)
Asus ROG Strix LC OC 3080ti
G.Skill TridentZ Royal CL17-18-18-38 4400mhz 32GB
Corsair RM1000x
Full EK Custom Loop Vector/Velocity blocks
360x45mm + 360x60mm radiators
9x EK Vardar 120mm
1x Noctua Industrial 3000pwm









So questions are:
#1: What is best and safe 24/7 LoadLineCalibration for 5.1Ghz?
#2: What are safe Vccio/Vccsa volts 24/7 use?
#3: What is safe Vcore 24/7 use?
#4: Can i get better results @ 5.1Ghz with LLC / other settings?

Memorys are overclocked and they are 100% stable. 4400mhz 16-17-16-36

Running atm 5.1Ghz / AVX 0 / 47cache / llc8 / 1.25vcore / 1.56v dram / 1.35vccio / 1.36vccsa
Prime95/Realbench 2.56 stable, CPU Package 84-86c during stress.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Ketku- said:


> Hello guys! *I have some questions here about Overclock @ Processor.*
> I am new here, maybe i write bad english but try understand it.  i put picture my Gaming Computer.
> 
> I9-10900K SP63
> Asus ROG Maximus XII Apex (2103 BIOS)
> Asus ROG Strix LC OC 3080ti
> G.Skill TridentZ Royal CL17-18-18-38 4400mhz 32GB
> Corsair RM1000x
> Full EK Custom Loop Vector/Velocity blocks
> 360x45mm + 360x60mm radiators
> 9x EK Vardar 120mm
> 1x Noctua Industrial 3000pwm
> 
> View attachment 2525170
> 
> 
> So questions are:
> #1: What is best and safe 24/7 LoadLineCalibration for 5.1Ghz?
> #2: What are safe Vccio/Vccsa volts 24/7 use?
> #3: What is safe Vcore 24/7 use?
> #4: Can i get better results @ 5.1Ghz with LLC / other settings?
> 
> Memorys are overclocked and they are 100% stable. 4400mhz 16-17-16-36
> 
> Running atm 5.1Ghz / AVX 0 / 47cache / llc8 / 1.25vcore / 1.56v dram / 1.35vccio / 1.36vccsa
> Prime95/Realbench 2.56 stable, CPU Package 84-86c during stress.




#1: What is best and safe 24/7 
LoadLineCalibration for 5.1Ghz?
Any LLC<6 is OK... 7 and 8 you need to know what are you doing. 

#2: What are safe Vccio/Vccsa volts 24/7 use?
I think < 1.35v is ok... 

#3: What is safe Vcore 24/7 use?
Vcore at idle <1.50v. Under full load the problem will be temperature and power. Stay below 80C and 250w.

#4: Can i get better results @ 5.1Ghz with LLC / other settings?
I use LLC#4

The more important questions you didn't ask: how to tune AC_LL and DC_LL?
And "by core" or sync all cores? 

I think with this MB and SP63 you can run 55x4 - 54x6 - 53x8 - 52x10 using +1 boost profile OCTVB.


----------



## Ketku-

RobertoSampaio said:


> #1: What is best and safe 24/7
> LoadLineCalibration for 5.1Ghz?
> Any LLC<6 is OK... 7 and 8 you need to know what are you doing.
> 
> #2: What are safe Vccio/Vccsa volts 24/7 use?
> I think < 1.35v is ok...
> 
> #3: What is safe Vcore 24/7 use?
> Vcore at idle <1.50v. Under full load the problem will be temperature and power. Stay below 80C and 250w.
> 
> #4: Can i get better results @ 5.1Ghz with LLC / other settings?
> I use LLC#4
> 
> The more important questions you didn't ask: how to tune AC_LL and DC_LL?
> And "by core" or sync all cores?
> I


Thank you for answer, but what you mean "AC_LL and DC_LL really dont know that. My oc is sync all core


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Ketku- said:


> Thank you for answer, but what you mean "AC_LL and DC_LL really dont know that. My oc is sync all core


Sorry for saying that, I know a lot o people use sync all cores, but for me make no sense to synchronize 10 cores... I use to do that with my i7 3770k.... LOL.


----------



## fray_bentos

Imprezzion said:


> I still don't know why my board behaves so weird on Auto voltages and LLC/Lite Load. It's almost as if any point above x51 is broken in my v/f curve / VID table.
> 
> If I run x51 it's fine on Auto and detects 1.344v in the BIOS on all Auto. This is totally reasonable even tho it does handle it at 1.290v so I usually just run -0.050 and call it a day. It Auto defaults to mode_1 lite load, LLC 5.
> 
> Now, if I set 5.2 or above either all-core or by per-core turbo X10 point and leave everything on Auto, it'll default to mode_9 lite load and LLC4 and give like 1.624v in the BIOS. Yes, 1.624... this means setting offsets for anything higher then 5.1 is almost impossible as I have to do like -0.280v or whatever and it's not like such a high offset makes it stable..
> 
> If I manually force mode_1 and LLC4 to get the lowest possible boot voltage it's still 1.448v for 5.2 and like 1.560v for 5.3 which is outside of the 1.520v VID range so I don't know how this is happening...
> 
> I already have flashed many different release and beta BIOS, cmos clr's, reseated the chip and so forth but it always behaves like this..
> 
> Now my mate has a Unify (almost the same board) with a 10900KF and his chip behaves totally normal. 1.290 for 5.1 1.356 for 5.2 1.480 for 5.3, those are totally acceptable numbers... It's so weird. It never goes >1.60v when setting a high multi..


In addition to your VF table, I suspect that you have intel voltage optimisations disabled. That yeets voltage. I suspect your friend does not. What happens when you reset to defaults and try 53x multi?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I wrote this some time ago...
Could help...



First, all we know about high voltages had changed with 10º intel generation...

Intel CPU has a V/F table inside the chip and the last 2 lines are the voltage for 5200MHz and 5300MHz (stock).
The last line, V/F#8 is always the voltage attributed for the higher clock. In stock is 5300MHz.
If you overclock the CPU it will be the voltage of the frequency you decided to use.

The high frequency I use is 56x (5600MHz). So, V/F#7 is the voltage for 52x and, in my case, V/F#8 is for 56x.
There is no V/F point for 55x, 54x and 53x in my case.
These voltages will be the interpolation from 52x to 56X... From V/F#7 to V/F#8.

Lets say:
56x- VF#[email protected],428+95mv = 1523mv
55x - (1523+1452)/2 = 1487mv
54x - (VF#7+VF#8)/2 = 1452mv
53x - (1452+1381)/2 = 1416mv
52x - VF#[email protected],328+53mv = 1381mv
(this voltages above is temp dependents)

I'm using ASUS "VoltageOptimization=Enable", so these voltages above are used if CPU_Temp=100ºC.
Voltage will drop 1,55mv for each Celsius below 100ºC (1,55mv/-1ºC).

If CPU temp is 40ºC, V/F#8 = {1523 - [(100-60)*1,55]}= 1461mv

Is these high voltages?
I don't think so, once some CPUs come from intel with higher voltages, as we can see:












This last one use 1.603V for the higher frequency.

You need to take care with the current (Amperes) and the temp (Watts).
Stay below 200A, 250W (for a short time) and 90ºC (for a long time) and all will be fine.

So when voltage will be the problem? It will be at full load!

Doesn't matter the frequency. If you have 200A and Vcore=1.25v you will have 250W.
If you have a golden chip that is capable to do full load 5,5GHz @ 1,25v you will be fine.
If your chip can do full load 5,1GHz @ 1,25v it's OK too.

Any 280mm cooling solution can hold 250W for a sort time and 150W for a long time... So you will be fine below 90ºC

So why we start talking about AC/DC loadline and VRM loadline?
For all this works we need to trust the VID, Vcore and power.

The first thing is to tune AC/DC loadline and VRM loadline making VID=Vcore at idle or at full load.
(Vdroop will exists and it's very important for stability)

Once voltages are tuned, it is time to decide the frequency of full load and try to find the minimum voltage for this frequency.

I know I need VID=1316mv (VF#[email protected],328-12mv) for [email protected] load => Vocre=1250mv

After that you can try higher frequencies for light loads and try to find the voltages for these frequencies.

For the higher frequencies I spent 6 months trying to find "the perfect voltages" for 53x, 54x and 55x... LOL

Last weeks I'm changing 1mv up, 1mv down and test.
The good news is that for these higher frequencies the test is to watch YouTube or just let the PC turned on when you go sleep.


----------



## Imprezzion

fray_bentos said:


> In addition to your VF table, I suspect that you have intel voltage optimisations disabled. That yeets voltage. I suspect your friend does not. What happens when you reset to defaults and try 53x multi?


You sir, are correct. I do have TVB optimizations disabled becuase I don't want voltage to change depending on temperatures. He doesn't, he's just running full stock all Auto with x50 all core and that's it. We just tried to set x53 and boot to BIOS and it was totally fine voltage wise but that's because his BIOS is completely stock optimized defaults


----------



## acoustic

Imprezzion said:


> I still don't know why my board behaves so weird on Auto voltages and LLC/Lite Load. It's almost as if any point above x51 is broken in my v/f curve / VID table.
> 
> If I run x51 it's fine on Auto and detects 1.344v in the BIOS on all Auto. This is totally reasonable even tho it does handle it at 1.290v so I usually just run -0.050 and call it a day. It Auto defaults to mode_1 lite load, LLC 5.
> 
> Now, if I set 5.2 or above either all-core or by per-core turbo X10 point and leave everything on Auto, it'll default to mode_9 lite load and LLC4 and give like 1.624v in the BIOS. Yes, 1.624... this means setting offsets for anything higher then 5.1 is almost impossible as I have to do like -0.280v or whatever and it's not like such a high offset makes it stable..
> 
> If I manually force mode_1 and LLC4 to get the lowest possible boot voltage it's still 1.448v for 5.2 and like 1.560v for 5.3 which is outside of the 1.520v VID range so I don't know how this is happening...
> 
> I already have flashed many different release and beta BIOS, cmos clr's, reseated the chip and so forth but it always behaves like this..
> 
> Now my mate has a Unify (almost the same board) with a 10900KF and his chip behaves totally normal. 1.290 for 5.1 1.356 for 5.2 1.480 for 5.3, those are totally acceptable numbers... It's so weird. It never goes >1.60v when setting a high multi..


It's your chip causing that huge voltage spike, not the board. With everything on auto, you should probably set your AC/DC LL to Advanced and set them both at 1.

If I go to 5.2Ghz with auto voltages, I'll get 1.52v. I suggest enabling TVB Optimization, then I get 1.37v at Mode4 LLC and 1/1 AC/DC LL, which is much more reasonable. 

I don't know why you're worried about the voltage changing off temperature. With a custom cooling setup you shouldn't be hitting high temps. With my custom loop, I don't see voltage change much at all - if it does, it's very little.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Ketku- said:


> Thank you for answer, but what you mean "AC_LL and DC_LL really dont know that. My oc is sync all core


LLC6 is no bad choice, but LLC5 most time better with Apex XII.Allcore is a good choice, TVB etc. bring you really nothing.
It give´s some benchmark´s like geekbench, CPU-Z, there get you a higher score but that´s all, in 24/7 gaming most time nearly all core´s are used.
With allcore you can drive lower vcore, that´s easier to cooling and stability, AC_LL and DC_LL you can let there on Auto.
In future gen´s tvb etc. get much more important, but for CML it´s like useless.

IO/SA in HWinfo arround up to 1,4V is ok, but some people drive higher also without problem´s.
The max. current is arround 240A, so don´t go to high in ampere if you test stabilty.
How high you can set the VCore is a question of temp/ampere, with lower temp you need less VCore and 100mhz are only arround 2%, to push max. frequency bring less performance and make watt/performance inefficient.(max. VCore intel Spec is 1,52V load voltage, with the "drop voltage" up to 1,72V idle)
The most impact has the ramoc, so it´s more important to have a good ram setting.


----------



## Imprezzion

acoustic said:


> It's your chip causing that huge voltage spike, not the board. With everything on auto, you should probably set your AC/DC LL to Advanced and set them both at 1.
> 
> If I go to 5.2Ghz with auto voltages, I'll get 1.52v. I suggest enabling TVB Optimization, then I get 1.37v at Mode4 LLC and 1/1 AC/DC LL, which is much more reasonable.
> 
> I don't know why you're worried about the voltage changing off temperature. With a custom cooling setup you shouldn't be hitting high temps. With my custom loop, I don't see voltage change much at all - if it does, it's very little.


Well, on 5.3 all core 1.44v even custom loop will go 80+ in CB23 AVX. It's just too much heat to pull from the die at that point.


----------



## acoustic

Imprezzion said:


> Well, on 5.3 all core 1.44v even custom loop will go 80+ in CB23 AVX. It's just too much heat to pull from the die at that point.


I think you need to just face the fact that the chip isn't good enough to run 5.3 daily. You could probably drop temps a couple C further by getting rid of the EK block and going with an Optimus Sig V2 or Foundation, but imo, not worth it.

Stick to 5.2, or even 5.1. I was running 5.2 with TVB enabled for a bit, and ended up just going back to 5.1. 5.2/1.37v runs cool (low 60s in high CPU wattage gaming) but dumping the extra wattage into the loop makes no sense for the zero performance increase. I'd rather save the dissipation for the GPU so I can keep the GPU temps down as much as possible.


----------



## Imprezzion

acoustic said:


> I think you need to just face the fact that the chip isn't good enough to run 5.3 daily. You could probably drop temps a couple C further by getting rid of the EK block and going with an Optimus Sig V2 or Foundation, but imo, not worth it.
> 
> Stick to 5.2, or even 5.1. I was running 5.2 with TVB enabled for a bit, and ended up just going back to 5.1. 5.2/1.37v runs cool (low 60s in high CPU wattage gaming) but dumping the extra wattage into the loop makes no sense for the zero performance increase. I'd rather save the dissipation for the GPU so I can keep the GPU temps down as much as possible.


I am doing just that haha. Went back to 5.25 (yes, bclk 105x50) and even that small of a drop means I can go from 1.44v to 1.363v perfectly stable (AVX) and 1.332v no AVX which is a LOT cooler. It still hits 72c ish now and then when compiling shaders or loading stuff (~230w power) but yeah.

I have a "daily" profile set in BIOS of 5.1/4.5 with 4400C17 memory on very conservative voltages (1.270v CPU 1.35v IO 1.25v SA 1.50v DRAM) and that even with CB23 barely goes over 60c and even Prime95 Small FFT with AVX @ 323w barely touches 80c so..

I might wanna try to switch from Coollaboratory Liquid Ultra to Conductonaut just for the fun of testing it.


----------



## acoustic

Nah. Cool Labs Ultra > overhyped Thermal Grizzly


----------



## Imprezzion

acoustic said:


> Nah. Cool Labs Ultra > overhyped Thermal Grizzly


I have both here and CLU is way easier to spread and stick to surfaces imo. It also doesn't clump and dry up as much as Conductonaut does. Luckily I have like 3 and a half package of CLU still so. My GPU is not even on CLU, just the good ol' trusty Prolimatech PK-3, and it barely hits 44c load lol. I love PK-3.


----------



## acoustic

I used KingpinX for the GPU. That's my go-to thermal paste now.. love that stuff.


----------



## Imprezzion

So, with the TVB Optimizations enabled the high voltage issue is gone, 5.2 on all Auto to determine offset gives me 1.346v which is 0.015 more then it needs. The only thing that really still pissed me off with this board is the fact there's no way to disable the AVX over voltage boosting. 1.334v is all it'll ever need even for AVX. But setting this in the BIOS means 1.376-1.380v load in games that run AVX because auto offset..

If I just simply lower the set voltage to compensate I have to go as low as 1.303-1.296v which means I can't even run a memory test with TestMem5 as that is 100% load but SSE not AVX and the chip is nowhere near stable at 1.296v without AVX...

MSI, just let me set a static load voltage while keeping the EIST / C-State voltages active ffs... Or at least allow an option to disable the 0.040v AVX boost like basically every other board..

EDIT: nevermind. It doesn't work at all. Setting bios to 55x2 54x3 53x5 52x10 with optimization on it shows 1.346v. idle in Windows is 1.346v. Then I start CB23 multicore, core clocks drop to 5.1 not even 5.2 and voltage goes straight to the moon 1.490. VR VOut is over 1.45... AC/DC 1 LLC Auto (mode 5). I have no idea why it's dropping to 5.1 (temps 80-82c) or why it just absolutely yeets ALL the volts again...

The ONLY way I can make this board behaves is just Auto the entire BIOS except RAM timings and clocks and do everything through Intel XTU. That works flawless. No AVX overvolting, OCTVB works the way it should, per-core OC works fine, voltage doesn't spazz out under load... Only problem is still the lack of a proper apply on boot system...


----------



## GeneO

Imprezzion said:


> So, with the TVB Optimizations enabled the high voltage issue is gone, 5.2 on all Auto to determine offset gives me 1.346v which is 0.015 more then it needs. The only thing that really still pissed me off with this board is the fact there's no way to disable the AVX over voltage boosting. 1.334v is all it'll ever need even for AVX. But setting this in the BIOS means 1.376-1.380v load in games that run AVX because auto offset..
> 
> If I just simply lower the set voltage to compensate I have to go as low as 1.303-1.296v which means I can't even run a memory test with TestMem5 as that is 100% load but SSE not AVX and the chip is nowhere near stable at 1.296v without AVX...


I don't think you can disable the AVX boost (guard band) on any board with a tenth gen.

What ios ACLL set to when all of this overvolting is happening?


----------



## Ketku-

Guys!
Anyone know what is the Problem, vcore is auto BIOS , all core 51 and offset voltage -0.080.

BUT my CPU Mhz wont idle or Vcore wont idle. Windows balanced mode is Active and wont work?

Asus Apex / i9-10900k

EDIT: Solved, RGB asus aura was make my cpu stress.. Now static color and work 100%


----------



## Imprezzion

GeneO said:


> I don't think you can disable the AVX boost (guard band) on any board with a tenth gen.
> 
> What ios ACLL set to when all of this overvolting is happening?


MSI doesn't give mOhm values I believe but it's "90" aka mode_9 on Auto.


----------



## acoustic

Imprezzion said:


> MSI doesn't give mOhm values I believe but it's "90" aka mode_9 on Auto.


Set it to Advanced and set both to 1. That will drop voltage decently. If that's too much of a drop, try 20. When using full auto voltages, I leave DC LL on 1. When I was manually adjusting it, I was seeing oddities that didn't make sense. Set DC LL back to 1 and they went away. AC LL can be adjusted independently of DC LL.


----------



## GeneO

Imprezzion said:


> MSI doesn't give mOhm values I believe but it's "90" aka mode_9 on Auto.


I believe that equates to .9 mohm. which if so is high. It means it will boost your voltage to around .090 V at 100A, .18V at 200 amps. Could be the source of your problem.


----------



## Imprezzion

GeneO said:


> I believe that equates to .9 mohm. which if so is high. It means it will boost your voltage to around .090 V at 100A, .18V at 200 amps. Could be the source of your problem.


I mean, it's what the MSI BIOS gives it at "optimized defaults" and then changing literally nothing except multiplier to 52.

Up to 51 it behaves fine but as soon as you go to 52 or higher it spaces out on voltage and goes full 1.6v+.

Setting 1 works tho, 1.448v at 52 and 53 both. Chip doesn't need that much but it's doable.

I used XTU now as apply on boot actually works in my fresh Windows 11 install and that allowed me to set up voltage without AVX boosting so that it's always the same load voltage and I set up OCTVB and per core boost as well. Rock solid so far.

AC/DC 1, LLC4, stock VRM switching frequencies and auto voltage and clocks in BIOS.

In XTU:
My 2 Prime cores (#8 and 9) on 5.4Ghz.
Rest of them on 5.3Ghz.
OCTVB -1 @ 74c.
V/F curve set to 1.416v for 5.3/5.4, 1.334v for 5.2 and 1.272v for 5.1.
Cache on 4.8.

This runs perfectly stable and even in Cinebench R23 it mostly maintains 5.3+5.4 with some mild -1 binning due to OCTVB, in Prime95 Small FFT with AVX it downclocks nicely to 5.2/5.1 and maintains stability perfectly. Gaming is always max clocks.

This protects it from degradation due to temps + volts but allows it to run as high as it wants in 99% of gaming situations.

There is quite a large difference between vCore (VCC Sense which all my numbers are) and Die Sense / VR VOut tho. 1.416v 5.3+5.4 vCore is about 1.372-1.380v VR VOut but that's fine. The minimum required VR VOut I need for 5.3 is 1.356v but then the Prime cores won't sustain 5.4 so I raised it slightly and now they do.


----------



## fray_bentos

Imprezzion said:


> I mean, it's what the MSI BIOS gives it at "optimized defaults" and then changing literally nothing except multiplier to 52.
> 
> Up to 51 it behaves fine but as soon as you go to 52 or higher it spaces out on voltage and goes full 1.6v+.
> 
> Setting 1 works tho, 1.448v at 52 and 53 both. Chip doesn't need that much but it's doable.
> 
> I used XTU now as apply on boot actually works in my fresh Windows 11 install and that allowed me to set up voltage without AVX boosting so that it's always the same load voltage and I set up OCTVB and per core boost as well. Rock solid so far.
> 
> AC/DC 1, LLC4, stock VRM switching frequencies and auto voltage and clocks in BIOS.
> 
> In XTU:
> My 2 Prime cores (#8 and 9) on 5.4Ghz.
> Rest of them on 5.3Ghz.
> OCTVB -1 @ 74c.
> V/F curve set to 1.416v for 5.3/5.4, 1.334v for 5.2 and 1.272v for 5.1.
> Cache on 4.8.
> 
> This runs perfectly stable and even in Cinebench R23 it mostly maintains 5.3+5.4 with some mild -1 binning due to OCTVB, in Prime95 Small FFT with AVX it downclocks nicely to 5.2/5.1 and maintains stability perfectly. Gaming is always max clocks.
> 
> This protects it from degradation due to temps + volts but allows it to run as high as it wants in 99% of gaming situations.
> 
> There is quite a large difference between vCore (VCC Sense which all my numbers are) and Die Sense / VR VOut tho. 1.416v 5.3+5.4 vCore is about 1.372-1.380v VR VOut but that's fine. The minimum required VR VOut I need for 5.3 is 1.356v but then the Prime cores won't sustain 5.4 so I raised it slightly and now they do.


My MSI board sets 1 for any non-default setting; which is what mine is at. I'm sure that gets set as 1 for a reason when overclocking - overvoltage avoidance... Mine also sets 8 when at defaults, but I never run it that way.


----------



## Imprezzion

fray_bentos said:


> My MSI board sets 1 for any non-default setting; which is what mine is at. I'm sure that gets set as 1 for a reason when overclocking - overvoltage avoidance... Mine also sets 8 when at defaults, but I never run it that way.


Normally neither do I but when using XTU in Windows for OC you kinda have to have everything on Auto to have full control hehe. I need XTU for OCTVB as we cannot set that in the BIOS afaik. I do my RAM from the BIOS, set AC/DC to 1, LLC4, leave the rest Auto, and do everything CPU related in XTU now. V/F Curve, OCTVB @ 74c -1 bin, frequency and cache.


----------



## Intrud3r

Somehow using intel XTU works better on my board too -->

If I use any other cache ratio other then 43 setting it in my bios using adaptive voltages, I get idle lockups.

If I use all auto settings in bios, and use Intel XTU to set cache ratio to 47, it runs flawlessly for 22 hours now (that is including a couple of hours sleep time from my end, and the rest is working through citrix (so my system is mostly idling the whole day).

Running the following atm:









Resulting in the following for the 22 hours it runs after the last reboot:


----------



## Imprezzion

Intrud3r said:


> Somehow using intel XTU works better on my board too -->
> 
> If I use any other cache ratio other then 43 setting it in my bios using adaptive voltages, I get idle lockups.
> 
> If I use all auto settings in bios, and use Intel XTU to set cache ratio to 47, it runs flawlessly for 22 hours now (that is including a couple of hours sleep time from my end, and the rest is working through citrix (so my system is mostly idling the whole day).
> 
> Running the following atm:
> View attachment 2525508
> 
> 
> Resulting in the following for the 22 hours it runs after the last reboot:
> View attachment 2525509


I have the exact same. The idle lockups with BIOS cache. I can get away with 45 in the BIOS but nothing higher. 47 or up freezes at login screen. In XTU 48 is totally fine.

And the total lack of OCTVB settings in the BIOS is also quite a shame. Voltage is also much more stable in XTU. No more AVX offsets that you can't change or whatever. Set 1.423, get 1.423. In any load. No +0.040 AVX offset that means the already hot AVX loads will go to like 1.47v like the BIOS does.. 

Here's how mine is set up. 4h uptime. HWINFO64 doesn't show the 5400 as it monitors "Core #0 Clock" but my Prime cores are #8 and #9 so usually those are the only ones boosting to 5400 if I show all 10 cores in HWINFO64 lol. I kinda wanted to do a per-core OC with 1-7 at 5300 and 8-9 at 5400 but then you have to disable OCTVB and I like the fact it downclocks at 75c.


----------



## Intrud3r

On my board I can enable the voltage optimization from tvb and the frequency clipping, but both only as enable / disable / auto .... voltage opt ... ok, but freq. clipping .... nothing to change, and with xtu you have the freedom to choose temp and ratio ....


----------



## Imprezzion

Intrud3r said:


> On my board I can enable the voltage optimization from tvb and the frequency clipping, but both only as enable / disable / auto .... voltage opt ... ok, but freq. clipping .... nothing to change, and with xtu you have the freedom to choose temp and ratio ....


Even if I manually enable clipping and voltage optimization in the BIOS it still allows it to go straight to 90c+ in Prime95 Small FFT AVX FMA3 without ever downclocking. If I set it up like above in XTU it straight away drops to 5200 the second it hits 75c. Like it should. Hell, I for the fun of it just set 5400 all-core with OCTVB -2 with a base voltage of 1.496v, handled it perfectly in several benchmarks. Cinebench R23 dropped to 5200, Watch Dogs Legion stayed at 5400 basically the whole benchmark, Division 2 dropped to 5200 while loading the scene but during the bench it stayed at 5400, SoTR same story, loading and shader compilation is dropping to 5200 but during gameplay it holds 5400 fine. And as expected max core temps for all 10 75 and 76c.

Maybe I'll even be able to get away with 5400 @ 1.496 if you guys agree that with OCTVB @ 75c that would still be "safe".


----------



## Intrud3r

I've got too much crap running in the background for 2 core boost to actually have an effect imho .... as you saw in my screenshot, 55 is never touched within 22 hours .... it will eventually .... but that takes time, it needs to be idle enough to be able too ...

example of crap running in background all the time:

plex media server
tautulli
Home Assistant (hasswp)
Hue sync (active light sync for 2 hue play bars)
Outlook
and the rest of the usual crap, see screenshot


















(assuming you know which programs on my taskbar are active)

This is what runs all the time, even while I game on my pc.
Opera browser has like 10 open tabs in different workspaces.
(the overclock.net icon is a dedicated microsoft edge window (without tabs / menubars and such, just the site linked to intel cpu's)

It takes some time to be able to idle enough cause of all the crap running 

Just thinking about it, maybe somebody finds it usefull. Following example is for a dedicated window using edge, you can change the url to whatever you want.

"C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft\Edge\Application\msedge.exe" --app=www.linktowebsite.example

I love that stuff, dedicated windows for certain crap. Anyways ... maybe somebody finds it usefull.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I'm not an Asus fanboy, but I have no doubt that with a ROG Maximus it's much easier to achieve high clocks... I can configure everything in the BIOS.


----------



## Intrud3r

RobertoSampaio said:


> I'm not an Asus fanboy, but I have no doubt that with a ROG Maximus it's much easier to achieve high clocks... I can configure everything in the BIOS.


My next board will be an Asus too ... can't stand the fact that I can't compare sp rating (even tho I know it doesn't say all too much ... but still), and the lacking of tuning options ....

Must say I'm not really dissapointed with these gigabyte boards .... z390 auros ultra did it's work and now my z490 auros master is showing what it's capable off, so I am quite happy ... but meh ... those little things nag on me.


----------



## Intrud3r

@RobertoSampaio 

Just for kicks, I used your excel sheet for comparison looking at the voltages used for the higher then 5.3 ratios and used my own settings and ended up with +100mv from point 5.2 for 5.3 and low 5.4 and darn low 5.5 loads. Seems to work quite nicely up to now  (apart from the fact that it hasn't hit 5.5 core clock in 23 hours now, but prolly cause off the background crap)


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Intrud3r said:


> @RobertoSampaio
> 
> Just for kicks, I used your excel sheet for comparison looking at the voltages used for the higher then 5.3 ratios and used my own settings and ended up with +100mv from point 5.2 for 5.3 and low 5.4 and darn low 5.5 loads. Seems to work quite nicely up to now  (apart from the fact that it hasn't hit 5.5 core clock in 23 hours now, but prolly cause off the background crap)



Yes, background apps are a problem...
Try to configure 4 cores to 55x, and it will hit easily...

This is the last version...









Dropbox - File Deleted


Dropbox is a free service that lets you bring your photos, docs, and videos anywhere and share them easily. Never email yourself a file again!




www.dropbox.com


----------



## Imprezzion

I wish I could've found a Apex for a good price before I put my whole custom loop together lol. I mean, it's not like that 54x2 is going to matter whatsoever in real world performance since any meaningful load drops it to 53x10 due to everything being multi threaded anyway so I'll just go with 53x10 and leave it there.

I still wonder if running VCC Sense 1.496v (die sense / VR VOut 1.458v) is a good idea for the longevity / degradation on the chip even if I limit it to 75c with OCTVB but I kinda wanna try gaming on 54x10 for an evening just to see if it can handle it lol.

The MSI Ace (and unify I put in a mates build) Z490 has surprised me a lot and it's a very stable and easy to use board but it just lacks some basic stuff like AVX offset voltage tuning, no OCTVB in the BIOS and no way to set cache min-max. Only max, and it causes the same idle crashes..

EDIT: 5.4 all-core with OCTVB -1 is kinda fine but yeah, 1.505v VCC Sense and 1.502v VR VOut... Even with OCTVB limiting it it still feels like just asking for trouble now.. 277w peek only playing some games like Division 2, Watch Dogs Legion and Battlefield 1 lol...


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Imprezzion said:


> I wish I could've found a Apex for a good price before I put my whole custom loop together lol. I mean, it's not like that 54x2 is going to matter whatsoever in real world performance since any meaningful load drops it to 53x10 due to everything being multi threaded anyway so I'll just go with 53x10 and leave it there.
> 
> I still wonder if running VCC Sense 1.496v (die sense / VR VOut 1.458v) is a good idea for the longevity / degradation on the chip even if I limit it to 75c with OCTVB but I kinda wanna try gaming on 54x10 for an evening just to see if it can handle it lol.
> 
> The MSI Ace (and unify I put in a mates build) Z490 has surprised me a lot and it's a very stable and easy to use board but it just lacks some basic stuff like AVX offset voltage tuning, no OCTVB in the BIOS and no way to set cache min-max. Only max, and it causes the same idle crashes..
> 
> EDIT: 5.4 all-core with OCTVB -1 is kinda fine but yeah, 1.505v VCC Sense and 1.502v VR VOut... Even with OCTVB limiting it it still feels like just asking for trouble now.. 277w peek only playing some games like Division 2, Watch Dogs Legion and Battlefield 1 lol...


I don't think 1.50V is a problem once some CPU have factory VF#8 = 1.603

And take a look... 1.603v with AC/DC_LL=0.01... 
So this is the “necessary” voltage to run 53x... 
If you apply the LLC and AC_LL you can imagine the idle Vcore for 53x


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Look this SP48 simulation using LLC#4 and AC_LL=0.5....


----------



## Delpize

Hi @Falkentyne,

I'v been following your guides, suggestions for very long time, so yesterday i wanted to try latest version of linx LinX v0.9.11 & Legacy (한국어, 일반 & 레거시) from here. Stock ram, stock 10850k(Locked 43ghz/42 cache at 1.4v llc5) everything on stock and i just cant match residuals on 8144 size. I am more stable on higher size tests like 31632.I could pass 20 cycyle but i still dont trust im stable cuz when i try lower sizes like below 10k. it never matches. So, some of my friends told me that, on 10th gen, you should have to disable two core. Then i tried 8 core. The results were better. So What would you suggest? Even 43ghz/42cache stock ram 1.4v llc 5 coudlnt pass, where is the mistake? Is there a setting or voltage setting in bios on default which is wrong? Asus z490 Apex. 

Hope you can see my message and reply, 

Thank you sir,

Big fan.


----------



## Falkentyne

Delpize said:


> Hi @Falkentyne,
> 
> I'v been following your guides, suggestions for very long time, so yesterday i wanted to try latest version of linx LinX v0.9.11 & Legacy (한국어, 일반 & 레거시) from here. Stock ram, stock 10850k(Locked 43ghz/42 cache at 1.4v llc5) everything on stock and i just cant match residuals on 8144 size. I am more stable on higher size tests like 31632.I could pass 20 cycyle but i still dont trust im stable cuz when i try lower sizes like below 10k. it never matches. So, some of my friends told me that, on 10th gen, you should have to disable two core. Then i tried 8 core. The results were better. So What would you suggest? Even 43ghz/42cache stock ram 1.4v llc 5 coudlnt pass, where is the mistake? Is there a setting or voltage setting in bios on default which is wrong? Asus z490 Apex.
> 
> Hope you can see my message and reply,
> 
> Thank you sir,
> 
> Big fan.


Sorry cannot help with this.


----------



## Delpize

Falkentyne said:


> Sorry cannot help with this.


Thank you for your fast respond,

Can't you atleast state your opinion? I mean why can't you help, is it too complicated? Can't you give atleast an idea...


I know you are the right person to ask. There is no doubt.


----------



## Falkentyne

Delpize said:


> Thank you for your fast respond,
> 
> Can't you atleast state your opinion? I mean why can't you help, is it too complicated? Can't you give atleast an idea...
> 
> 
> I know you are the right person to ask. There is no doubt.


I've been studying chess all day. I'm focusing on my life and my career. I do not know how to answer this question. Sorry if that's not what you want to hear. Please don't be so rude and selfish. Have a nice day.


----------



## Betroz

Delpize said:


> I mean why can't you help, is it too complicated? Can't you give atleast an idea...


You say stock RAM, but is that 2133 MHz or XMP profile? Have you updated your BIOS?

Why use LinX to test with... You don't need to. AIDA64 stresstest, Blender Open Data, Cinebench R23 in a loop or just playing Battlefield 5 multiplayer is good enough for CPU testing. RAM testing is another matter.


----------



## Delpize

Falkentyne said:


> I've been studying chess all day. I'm focusing on my life and my career. I do not know how to answer this question. Sorry if that's not what you want to hear. Please don't be so rude and selfish. Have a nice day.


I am at work, i am also have to focus my career, life, my kid and my woman. I'm a guy whos working 12h a day and only 3.5h left for his hobbies. I don't know what happened to you or what you'vbeen through. But if this account didnt sold, if this is real Falkentyne, then there is no word to talk about. 

Thanks again.


----------



## Delpize

Betroz said:


> You say stock RAM, but is that 2133 MHz or XMP profile? Have you updated your BIOS?
> 
> Why use LinX to test with... You don't need to. AIDA64 stresstest, Blender Open Data, Cinebench R23 in a loop or just playing Battlefield 5 multiplayer is good enough for CPU testing. RAM testing is another matter.


Lınx is the true test. Yes its 2133 and stock 10850k locked 43/42. Residuals wont match no matter what on 10 cores ht on. Bıos on my z490 apex is 0088 which is not the latest.


----------



## Betroz

Delpize said:


> Lınx is the true test.


Well then I suggest you create your own thread about LinX, cause most people do not use that test any more. It's a bit like running Prime95 with full AVX and AVX-512. Good luck with that.


----------



## Mitos

Delpize said:


> Lınx is the true test. Yes its 2133 and stock 10850k locked 43/42. Residuals wont match no matter what on 10 cores ht on. Bıos on my z490 apex is 0088 which is not the latest.


Read the @Luck100 posts for reassurance:









Unstable 9900K at stock


Any ideas what could cause residuals in LinX to vary between runs, when the CPU is at stock settings? This is my system: CPU: 9900K MB: Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Elite Memory: Corsair 4x8GB 3200 MHz CL16 CPU Cooler: Corsair H115i Pro PSU: EVGA Supernova G2 750 W Memory is tested to 16000 % coverage...




www.overclock.net





Edit
I achieved this very hard without moving the mouse during the test:


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Mitos said:


> Read the @Luck100 posts for reassurance:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unstable 9900K at stock
> 
> 
> Any ideas what could cause residuals in LinX to vary between runs, when the CPU is at stock settings? This is my system: CPU: 9900K MB: Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Elite Memory: Corsair 4x8GB 3200 MHz CL16 CPU Cooler: Corsair H115i Pro PSU: EVGA Supernova G2 750 W Memory is tested to 16000 % coverage...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edit
> I achieved this very hard without moving the mouse during the test:


More than 300W.... Wow....
Did you calibrate DC_LL ?


----------



## Mitos

LLC-Turbo, AC/DC loadline to "1"


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Mitos said:


> LLC-Turbo, AC/DC loadline to "1"


Sorry, I may be wrong, but I thing 300w is incompatible with 51x... 
But I need to tell you, I don't know well your MB...
Or you have the worst CPU in the world... Kkkk, Or linX is a CPU killer... And in this case it's not a good idea to run it...

Probably you can run cbr23 @51x with 1,25v ~ 1,30v

200A*1,3= 260w in the worst scenario.

I think people here run 51x @ full load under 250W...

Ps. I think your vcore should match vrout at full load with a correct DC_LL.


----------



## Mitos

Or linX is a CPU killer- this is true. I didn't run it anymore
in this post I have shown CB23: LLC- High, AC/DC loadline to "1" 








Overclocking 10900k results, bins and discussion


Does it work with EIST or speedshift enabled? IIRC for any frequency reduction you needed one of them enabled along with C1E. EDIT: I set my voltage to manual and left c-states, EIST and speedshift enabled and I see my multipliers drop at idle. So I would think it should work with EIST or...




www.overclock.net


----------



## Delpize

Mitos said:


> Read the @Luck100 posts for reassurance:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unstable 9900K at stock
> 
> 
> Any ideas what could cause residuals in LinX to vary between runs, when the CPU is at stock settings? This is my system: CPU: 9900K MB: Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Elite Memory: Corsair 4x8GB 3200 MHz CL16 CPU Cooler: Corsair H115i Pro PSU: EVGA Supernova G2 750 W Memory is tested to 16000 % coverage...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.overclock.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edit
> I achieved this very hard without moving the mouse during the test:


Naa, try lower size. Expecially below 10k. Try 8144 for example. There is no way any10850/10900k could pass that test without mismatchinng even with BARE STOCK settings.
Falkentyn knows better but, last time i see him, he was playing chess so, yeah. Whoever has 10900k or 10850k, ı suggest them to test below 10k size on LinX test.


----------



## acoustic

Delpize said:


> Naa, try lower size. Expecially below 10k. Try 8144 for example. There is no way any10850/10900k could pass that test without mismatchinng even with BARE STOCK settings.
> Falkentyn knows better but, last time i see him, he was playing chess so, yeah. Whoever has 10900k or 10850k, ı suggest them to test below 10k size on LinX test.


What is the point of testing 8144? It's already been made clear, by the fact that stress-tests can show stability, but then flag WHEA errors in games, that these hardcore stress-tests are not indicative of stability.

Back in the day if you were P95/OCCT/IBT stable, you were stable everywhere. That's not the case anymore - so imo, the whole point of pumping all this wattage and heat through the chip has become pointless.


----------



## Delpize

acoustic said:


> What is the point of testing 8144? It's already been made clear, by the fact that stress-tests can show stability, but then flag WHEA errors in games, that these hardcore stress-tests are not indicative of stability.
> 
> Back in the day if you were P95/OCCT/IBT stable, you were stable everywhere. That's not the case anymore - so imo, the whole point of pumping all this wattage and heat through the chip has become pointless.


So, what test you suggesting for Cpu/ram nowdays?


----------



## acoustic

Delpize said:


> So, what test you suggesting for Cpu/ram nowdays?


Cinebench R20, Cinebench R23 2-3 hour loop, and then RTX heavy games! Metro Exodus, Ghostrunner, etc. I still log WHEA errors in Metro Exodus even though literally every other application on my PC runs perfect .. it's ridiculous.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

These Stress tests just test the stability at a determined frequency, at full load...

If you run your cpu at the same way you did at 90s: sync all cores, fixed voltage, high LLC, DC_LL and AC_LL not tuned... It's ok. 

But if you run "by core", adaptive voltage, OCTVB, c-states, etc. These stress tests are useless...

If you want to explore all technologies of the CPU and MB, You need to be stable running some cores at high frequencies, some cores with load, loads transients, be care with VRM transients, find the minimum voltage for each frequency for that number of cores, adjust octvb temperatures...

That's why most people can run prime95 but crashes using YouTube... LOL.


----------



## Imprezzion

RobertoSampaio said:


> These Stress tests just test the stability at a determined frequency, at full load...
> 
> If you run your cpu at the same way you did at 90s: sync all cores, fixed voltage, high LLC, DC_LL and AC_LL not tuned... It's ok.
> 
> But if you run "by core", adaptive voltage, OCTVB, c-states, etc. These stress tests are useless...
> 
> If you want to explore all technologies of the CPU and MB, You need to be stable running some cores at high frequencies, some cores with load, loads transients, be care with VRM transients, find the minimum voltage for each frequency for that number of cores, adjust octvb temperatures...
> 
> That's why most people can run prime95 but crashes using YouTube... LOL.


Exactly. My chip absolutely hates adaptive voltages and C-States and such. It can be totally fine under a full synthetic load but immediately crash when it shifts frequencies and parks cores.

That's why I usually... Simply try. Just set whatever you expect to be stable and daily use for a week. If no weirdness happens and WHEA log is clean it's fine.

I mean, I do run 30m Cinebench R23 single and multi core over dinner, 30m Prime95 Small without AVX while doing the dishes and 1 hour TestMem5 if I'm bored after to make sure CPU didn't make a proven stable memory OC unstable but that's the most I'll ever test lol. And, just for the fun of it, like 30-60 seconds Prime95 Small FFT with FMA3 AVX just to see how much watts it pulls, how high the vdroop is and how hot it gets lol. Currently at 5.3/4.8 @ 1.416v it droops to 1.383v VR VOut, 363w power, 89-94c. It won't instantly overheat the second I actually do use AVX at that level so it's fine. I enabled OCTVB then at 75c -2 so even if I then start Prime95 Small FFT with AVX again it will limit down to 5.1 and stay at or under 75c.

I have matched AC/DC perfectly btw, vCore and VR VOut are at most 0.008v apart. VCore reads 1.424v, actual is 1.416v.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I think real bench is the best for stability...
3 rounds is enough...
After that try a movie in YouTube... LOL
When you go sleep let the PC completely idle and check if it is alive at morning... Kkk

I'm thinking how people will overclock the 12900k... Sync all cores and fixed voltage will be a shame...


----------



## Nizzen

RobertoSampaio said:


> I think real bench is the best for stability...
> 3 rounds is enough...
> After that try a movie in YouTube... LOL
> When you go sleep let the PC completely idle and check if it is alive at morning... Kkk
> 
> I'm thinking how people will overclock the 12900k... Sync all cores and fixed voltage will be a shame...


Whatever it takes to gain more fps in Battlefield 2042 
I think all core OC wil win again


----------



## acoustic

RobertoSampaio said:


> I think real bench is the best for stability...
> 3 rounds is enough...
> After that try a movie in YouTube... LOL
> When you go sleep let the PC completely idle and check if it is alive at morning... Kkk
> 
> I'm thinking how people will overclock the 12900k... Sync all cores and fixed voltage will be a shame...


Unfortunately, I found Realbench is worse than games for stability testing. I was Realbench 24hr stable but hard locking in Metro Exodus


----------



## RobertoSampaio

acoustic said:


> Unfortunately, I found Realbench is worse than games for stability testing. I was Realbench 24hr stable but hard locking in Metro Exodus


Real Bench is good for the "load to idle to load" test...
As I said, 3 rounds is enough... 
Any test longer than 10 minutes is testing your cooler, not stability... unless you are testing memory positions.

..."but my test fail after 10 hours...." 
Ok, your CPU cant run 10 hours at 80C... is it....


----------



## acoustic

RobertoSampaio said:


> Any test longer than 10 minutes is testing your cooler, not stability... unless you are testing memory positions.
> 
> ..."but my test fail after 10 hours...."
> Ok, your CPU cant run 10 hours at 80C... is it....


That's not true, but hey..


----------



## RobertoSampaio

acoustic said:


> That's not true, but hey..


You're right... I'm oversimplifying.
I know it's not that easy.


----------



## Imprezzion

I mean, some laptops run 95-99c under almost any meaningful load so how much heat can a CPU actually take.. no one knows. And I doubt anyone wants to volunteer a 10th gen K chip to sacrifice lol.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

This is not fair...
Laptops use a poor cooler solution and a 50w tdp CPU... And throttle all the time running at 100C... All following the project.

We take a 125w CPU, overclock cache, overclock base clock, overclock memory, delid, apply liquid metal, use a super custom watercooler, run it more than 2 times the tdp... 

After 10hs running the worst benchmark we found it fails... And? LOL

We say... "it's not stable"... Kkkkkkkkkk


----------



## Imprezzion

RobertoSampaio said:


> This is not fair...
> Laptops use a poor cooler solution and a 50w tdp CPU... And throttle all the time running at 100C... All following the project.
> 
> We take a 125w CPU, overclock cache, overclock base clock, overclock memory, delid, apply liquid metal, use a super custom watercooler, run it more than 2 times the tdp...
> 
> After 10hs running the worst benchmark we found it fails... And? LOL
> 
> We say... "it's not stable"... Kkkkkkkkkk


I didn't mean those laptops. There are laptops that are desktop replacement using full desktop choose also AIO PC's like those monitor mounted Dell things. They run desktop CPU's spamming throttling points all the time.

I had a XNotebooks (Clevo) gaming laptop with a desktop 6700K and 2 HD6990M's in Crossfire. It ran 90+c the whole time when gaming and when I used it at school for running VM's and such.


----------



## GeneO

Imprezzion said:


> I mean, some laptops run 95-99c under almost any meaningful load so how much heat can a CPU actually take.. no one knows. And I doubt anyone wants to volunteer a 10th gen K chip to sacrifice lol.


The laptop is high temperature but low current. It is high temperature and high current that really degrade a CPU - like you reach on stress tests on desktop CPU.

EDIT: Just read your second post.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

You're right, but they are designed for this...
Our PCs "we design" completely out of spec.
The only thing I respect is the PSU wattage... LOL

I think there are 2 types of overclocking nowadays...
The old school, and a new one...

The old school is like a dragster.
Brutal force, high clock, hi power, hi temp, high benchmarks scores.

The new is like a street supercar... Less power, more efficient, faster on curves...
OCTVB, C-States, Adaptive voltage, LLC less agressive with AC/DC_LL balanced...

And there is no right and wrong...

I really like this second one...
I dont care about FPS...
I care about use all adjusts I can to hit efficiency.

I think I will really enjoy 12900k !


----------



## Imprezzion

RobertoSampaio said:


> You're right, but they are designed for this...
> Our PCs "we design" completely out of spec.
> The only thing I respect is the PSU wattage... LOL
> 
> I think there are 2 types of overclocking nowadays...
> The old school, and a new one...
> 
> The old school is like a dragster.
> Brutal force, high clock, hi power, hi temp, high benchmarks scores.
> 
> The new is like a street supercar... Less power, more efficient, faster on curves...
> OCTVB, C-States, Adaptive voltage, LLC less agressive with AC/DC_LL balanced...
> 
> And there is no right and wrong...
> 
> I really like this second one...
> I dont care about FPS...
> I care about use all adjusts I can to hit efficiency.
> 
> I think I will really enjoy 12900k !


My main rig with the 10900K is pure for gaming. For all other tasks like NAS, Webserver hosting, VM host and work related stuff I have a proper server with a Xeon that supports all modern virtualization, ECC RAM and such..

I benched a LOT of games with 5.1/4.5, 5.2/4.6 and 5.3/4.8. RAM in all tests 4400 17-17-17. Believe me when I say there is almost zero measurable and repeatable difference between any of these benchmarks with a 2100Mhz+ RTX3080 @ 1080P 280Hz HDR Enabled. 

Synthetics show a difference obviously. CB23 shows quite a difference, so does CPU test in 3DMark, but GPU score is the same. Any game benchmark shows no difference outside of margin of error with the one notable exception of GTA V. 

So yeah, 5.1/4.5 is enough for anyone gaming.


----------



## ViTosS

Imprezzion said:


> My main rig with the 10900K is pure for gaming. For all other tasks like NAS, Webserver hosting, VM host and work related stuff I have a proper server with a Xeon that supports all modern virtualization, ECC RAM and such..
> 
> I benched a LOT of games with 5.1/4.5, 5.2/4.6 and 5.3/4.8. RAM in all tests 4400 17-17-17. Believe me when I say there is almost zero measurable and repeatable difference between any of these benchmarks with a 2100Mhz+ RTX3080 @ 1080P 280Hz HDR Enabled.
> 
> Synthetics show a difference obviously. CB23 shows quite a difference, so does CPU test in 3DMark, but GPU score is the same. Any game benchmark shows no difference outside of margin of error with the one notable exception of GTA V.
> 
> So yeah, 5.1/4.5 is enough for anyone gaming.


You can get more fps tweaking RAM instead of CPU, and CPU OC is pretty easy and straight forward, I know there is no game that makes difference from 5.0 to 5.3Ghz playing at my resolution 1440p with an RTX 3080Ti, but for CPU bound scenarios you can get more of your GPU usage and minimum fps by OCing your RAM than bumping 200Mhz in the CPU clock...

Example, if you want to run Warzone 200+ fps you need to have good RAM (BDie of course) OC, with good bandwidth and latency, otherwise you won't reach that, 10900k stock is 4.9Ghz all core, even if you use 5.3Ghz all core you still won't hit that 220-250fps mark if you have crap RAM...


----------



## cptclutch

Funny this is the conversation right now as I just lowered my OC from 5.3 at 1.44v to 5.2 at 1.37v and so far seems like my room is significantly cooler. Is that voltage difference enough to have a large impact on room temps? 

Also is it easier to OC your ram higher if your core clock is lower?


----------



## Imprezzion

cptclutch said:


> Funny this is the conversation right now as I just lowered my OC from 5.3 at 1.44v to 5.2 at 1.37v and so far seems like my room is significantly cooler. Is that voltage difference enough to have a large impact on temps? Also is it easier to OC your ram higher if your core clock is lower?


First part. Yes. If I drop from 5.3 @ 1.416v to 5.2 1.344v my water temps are quite a lot lower lol.

Second part, no. Quite the contrary. Especially memory OC with high cache can require a high vCore to be stable.


----------



## acoustic

If you're not seeing a difference with a CPU OC, you're just not playing games that are CPU limited.


----------



## ViTosS

acoustic said:


> If you're not seeing a difference with a CPU OC, you're just not playing games that are CPU limited.


Even that the difference is marginally, when I tested HZD benchmark 5.0 vs 5.2Ghz, I only gained 6fps, from 252 to 258, and that is 1080p low 50% resolution scale.


----------



## cstkl1

Intrud3r said:


> Somehow using intel XTU works better on my board too -->
> 
> If I use any other cache ratio other then 43 setting it in my bios using adaptive voltages, I get idle lockups.
> 
> If I use all auto settings in bios, and use Intel XTU to set cache ratio to 47, it runs flawlessly for 22 hours now (that is including a couple of hours sleep time from my end, and the rest is working through citrix (so my system is mostly idling the whole day).
> 
> Running the following atm:
> View attachment 2525508
> 
> 
> Resulting in the following for the 22 hours it runs after the last reboot:
> View attachment 2525509


sounds
transient issues 

test fft112 with all avx disable + see any L0 etc pop up or not


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Hi,
I'm building a new setup and need to buy a watercooler.
I like AIO. I'm looking for a good 360mm AIO that I can define and store the fan curves into the pump circuit (based on the water temp). I don't want to run a software all the time for it.
I have a corsair 115i that I can make it via corsair link, but I don't find this model for selling anymore. The new corsair models you have to run iCue, and I don't like it.
Any idea what I could buy?


----------



## Betroz

RobertoSampaio said:


> Any idea what I could buy?


Arctic Liquid Freezer II 360. If you need a bit more performance, you could swap out the fans on it later.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Betroz said:


> Arctic Liquid Freezer II 360. If you need a bit more performance, you could swap out the fans on it later.


And I don't need a software running all the time to control the fans, right?
I need to check if I can find it in my local market.


----------



## Betroz

RobertoSampaio said:


> And I don't need a software running all the time to control the fans, right?
> I need to check if I can find it in my local market.


You set up a profile in the BIOS, so no software in Windows.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Betroz said:


> Arctic Liquid Freezer II 360. If you need a bit more performance, you could swap out the fans on it later.


I saw there is an 420 artic ... I think I can use it on cosmos 700M...


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Betroz said:


> You set up a profile in the BIOS, so no software in Windows.


I think the block with the fan is too big... It will not fit in the ROG Extreme MB... 
I saw some videos and I definitely it will not fit...


----------



## Betroz

RobertoSampaio said:


> I think the block with the fan is too big... It will not fit in the ROG Extreme MB...
> I saw some videos and I definitely it will not fit...


It fits just fine on my Asus Apex XII.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Is it possible to take a pic?
Looks like I will have a problem with it and the VRM radiator.


----------



## Betroz

RobertoSampaio said:


> Is it possible to take a pic?


----------



## ViTosS

RobertoSampaio said:


> Hi,
> I'm building a new setup and need to buy a watercooler.
> I like AIO. I'm looking for a good 360mm AIO that I can define and store the fan curves into the pump circuit (based on the water temp). I don't want to run a software all the time for it.
> I have a corsair 115i that I can make it via corsair link, but I don't find this model for selling anymore. The new corsair models you have to run iCue, and I don't like it.
> Any idea what I could buy?


Lian Li Galahad 360mm, in the tests I saw it was running neck to neck with Arctic and EK AIOs, also it has a great price in Brazil and you don't need software to control, pump run always at max speed and you control the fans on the radiator in BIOS, also you can set RGB on the block using a mini controller that plugs into the block, no software needed.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Betroz said:


> View attachment 2526362


I have a space of 10x10cm...
I'll check the size of the artic block

EDITED:
It is 98x78mm... Will fit !

What do you think about its fan? It makes any difference?
I have a formula, so my VRM is water cooled... I have it running 1000KHz full fase extreme at 50C.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

ViTosS said:


> Lian Li Galahad 360mm, in the tests I saw it was running neck to neck with Arctic and EK AIOs, also it has a great price in Brazil and you don't need software to control, pump run always at max speed and you control the fans on the radiator in BIOS, also you can set RGB on the block using a mini controller that plugs into the block, no software needed.
> 
> View attachment 2526373


I'm interested in artic freezer 420 because I have it for a very nice price here...


----------



## ViTosS

RobertoSampaio said:


> I'm interested in artic freezer 420 because I have it for a very nice price here...


In Brazil? Only if you import and deal with taxes


----------



## RobertoSampaio

R$1200 with taxes....


----------



## GeneO

EK-360 probably won't fit. Only fits one orientation (fittings up) on my Hero. But, EK is coming out with a new AIO in October, the nucleus, which has a block with a smaller footprint:









EK-Nucleus AIO CR360 Vision D-RGB


The EK-Nucleus AIO CR360 Vision D-RGB is an all-in-one liquid cooling solution featuring a 24-bit color LCD display. It is designed to fit most modern cases and features a triple fan setup with a slim 360mm radiator. Compatible with most modern processors on the market, it is also ready for the...




www.ekwb.com





For all any of the AIO discussed here, I do not think any of them have a water temperature sensor that you can use to control the fans.


----------



## GeneO

ViTosS said:


> Lian Li Galahad 360mm, in the tests I saw it was running neck to neck with Arctic and EK AIOs, also it has a great price in Brazil and you don't need software to control, pump run always at max speed and you control the fans on the radiator in BIOS, also you can set RGB on the block using a mini controller that plugs into the block, no software needed.
> 
> View attachment 2526373


I almost got one of those


----------



## Betroz

GeneO said:


> For all any of the AIO discussed here, I do not think any of them have a water temperature sensor that you can use to control the fans.


No, not on the Arctric Freezer. The fans and pump are linked. I have set them to follow the CPU temp.



RobertoSampaio said:


> I'm interested in artic freezer 420 because I have it for a very nice price here...


I don't know how good the 140mm fans are on that one.


----------



## Imprezzion

Betroz said:


> No, not on the Arctric Freezer. The fans and pump are linked. I have set them to follow the CPU temp.
> 
> 
> I don't know how good the 140mm fans are on that one.


The fans are the strong suit of that cooler. Arctic fans in general are very good.

I got myself a whole bunch of L0 errors in Far Cry 5, that game is almost worse than Metro Exodus as a L0 simulator lol. And it generates a LOT of heat.. even with my full direct die custom loop it still hits like 78c core temps at 270w peaks.. I guess with temps and power consumption like that it definitely uses some form of AVX. I backed off to 5.2 all core and the errors haven't come back so..


----------



## JSHamlet234

Imprezzion said:


> The fans are the strong suit of that cooler. Arctic fans in general are very good.


The fans are definitely what make the Arctic perform so well. I had both an Arctic Liquid Freezer II 280 and an EVGA CLC 280 for testing, and the EVGA was actually the better cooler when both were equipped with Arctic fans. The EVGA is a standard Asetek manufactured unit, very similar if not identical to a Corsair H115i or NXZT Kraken X62.


----------



## Betroz

JSHamlet234 said:


> The fans are definitely what make the Arctic perform so well.


Yes, I have the 360 Freezer myself. The radiator is thicker than most other 360mm AIO's, so it not just the fans.


----------



## JSHamlet234

Betroz said:


> Yes, I have the 360 Freezer myself. The radiator is thicker than most other 360mm AIO's, so it not just the fans.


50% thicker but with 2/3 of the fin density.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I think the only one you can control the fans by water temperature is the corsair. I have 115i on my 10900k and it works great...

I also have my Maximus formula with the water cooled VRM... I use a 140mm AIO to do this. I cut the hose and adapted it to the VRM.

Now I'm going to build a new setup with a Maximus Extreme... so I'm worried about VRM temps.

I want to use a 420mm AIO. So the options are Ardtic and Corsair.

The arctic has that VRM fan, but I don't know if it's effective.

Corsairs, on the other hand, have the possibility, with the Corsair Link software, to define the pump curve and the fan curve looking at the water temperature. It Works very well.


----------



## Falkentyne

RobertoSampaio said:


> Is it possible to take a pic?
> Looks like I will have a problem with it and the VRM radiator.


I have this motherboard and LFII 360 also, as top intake.
No problem whatsoever.
Your problem is the case, not the motherboard. Some cases have better z-height clearance from motherboard to top.
I have a fractal define 7 XL that has extra top spacing. The regular define 7 has less, for example. The Meshify 2 XL should be identical to the Define 7 XL here.
You need a case with better clearance for thick rads.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Falkentyne said:


> I have this motherboard and LFII 360 also, as top intake.
> No problem whatsoever.
> Your problem is the case, not the motherboard. Some cases have better z-height clearance from motherboard to top.
> I have a fractal define 7 XL that has extra top spacing. The regular define 7 has less, for example. The Meshify 2 XL should be identical to the Define 7 XL here.
> You need a case with better clearance for thick rads.


I'm going to buy a "cosmos c700m"... So I think I'll not have any space problem with it... I hope... LOL
My concern is how to cool the VRM... I'm used to the M12 formula... And I live in a hot place...
So I'm thinking if Arctic Freeze can help with this or that fan is just for noise... LOL


----------



## fray_bentos

RobertoSampaio said:


> I'm going to buy a "cosmos c700m"... So I think I'll not have any space problem with it... I hope... LOL
> My concern is how to cool the VRM... I'm used to the M12 formula... And I live in a hot place...
> So I'm thinking if Arctic Freeze can help with this or that fan is just for noise... LOL


If this is true as stated in your signature "_Full Load:[email protected],247mv_ ", you shouldn't need VRM cooling as you won't be pulling large amounts of power. Even if you are "upgrading" your motherboard, I strongly suspect this will gain you zero additional OC ability as the main determinant of that is the quality of your CPU. You'd be wiser waiting for Alder Lake.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

fray_bentos said:


> If this is true as stated in your signature "_Full Load:[email protected],247mv_ ", you shouldn't need VRM cooling as you won't be pulling large amounts of power. Even if you are "upgrading" your motherboard, I strongly suspect this will gain you zero additional OC ability as the main determinant of that is the quality of your CPU. You'd be wiser waiting for Alder Lake.



I set my M12F to LLC#[email protected] - [email protected] ... This make VRM run hot...

And I'm planing the new setup with M14E and 12900K


----------



## acoustic

I'd go APEX over the Extreme, esp. if you're focused on OCing, but that's just me. The Extreme is going to be .. extreme... in price, that's for sure. lol


----------



## Betroz

Falkentyne said:


> I have this motherboard and LFII 360 also, as top intake.
> No problem whatsoever.


And dumping all that heat on the VRM and memory modules...


----------



## Falkentyne

Betroz said:


> And dumping all that heat on the VRM and memory modules...


you realize stock configuration is exhaust right?
I used it as exhaust and my memory temps went up to 50C in TM5 and errored out and my CPU was 10C hotter.
Switched it to intake and it dropped my memory temps by 8C and CPU by close to the same. Even the VRM's were cooler.

Cant make generic statements like what you made. Has to be done on a case by case basis.


----------



## Betroz

Falkentyne said:


> Cant make generic statements like what you made. Has to be done on a case by case basis.


That's true. Could you share a pic of your setup? If not here, in a PM


----------



## Falkentyne

Betroz said:


> That's true. Could you share a pic of your setup? If not here, in a PM


Um it's too messy to share sorry.
Everyone here always brags about how castlelike or fantasy world like their systems look. For someone with a painful back disability and in a difficult housing situation, it would just make people roll their eyes. Cable management is good enough to not block air though.
Anyway its a fractal define 7 XL with solid side panel. Case is extremely large and deep which is why I need top intake. That's even with 2x3000 RPM 140mm Noctua fans in the front. The meshify 2 XL wasn't out when I bought the case.
If i open the front door with top exhaust, before I switched the top to intake, CPU temps drop about 10C compared to closed front door, but memory not quite as much. 
If I use top intake (3x noctua 3000 rpm 120mm) and open the front case door, there's only a 1C difference between open and closed front door in Prime95 small FFT FMA3 CPU testing @ 5 ghz (10900k). So I was intake airflow starved because of the restrictive front door. However the GPU drops by about 4C with the front door open vs closed front. Didn't bother testing that (CPU) stuff with RKL that I now use, because RKL is a furnace, only the 3090.

I didn't have my 3090 when I was still on exhaust top so I don't know how it would differ with top exhaust and the front door.


----------



## Betroz

Falkentyne said:


> Anyway its a fractal define 7 XL with solid side panel. Case is extremely large and deep which is why I need top intake.


Yeah that makes sense - you went for positive airpressure.


----------



## GeneO

Betroz said:


> Yeah that makes sense - you went for positive airpressure.


That will cool your cpu best. Makes a significant difference. I assume top because hoses won't reach front?


----------



## Betroz

GeneO said:


> That will cool your cpu best. Makes a significant difference. I assume top because hoses won't reach front?


Are you talking about my setup or his? The hoses on my AIO are long enough to have the AIO in front of my case.


----------



## GeneO

Betroz said:


> Are you talking about my setup or his? The hoses on my AIO are long enough to have the AIO in front of my case.


Falkentyne's


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Falkentyne said:


> you realize stock configuration is exhaust right?
> I used it as exhaust and my memory temps went up to 50C in TM5 and errored out and my CPU was 10C hotter.
> Switched it to intake and it dropped my memory temps by 8C and CPU by close to the same. Even the VRM's were cooler.
> 
> Cant make generic statements like what you made. Has to be done on a case by case basis.


I was thinking about this...
I have my as exhaust and have the water hot all the time.
Next I'll mount the fans in a way I can change the air direction easily and test...


----------



## Astral85

My EK D5 pump at 4200 RPM in custom loop cuts my peak CPU package load temps by 4-5C compared to 1400 RPM which is what I run at idle. So that is head pressure just from the pump, the fans are still idling at 800 RPM.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Astral85 said:


> My EK D5 pump at 4200 RPM in custom loop cuts my peak CPU package load temps by 4-5C compared to 1400 RPM which is what I run at idle. So that is head pressure just from the pump, the fans are still idling at 800 RPM.



Here is a good explanation about flow...


----------



## KillerBee33

Hey all. Need help undervolting 10900K without loosing the performance. MSI Z490 CARBON. Thanks.


----------



## fray_bentos

KillerBee33 said:


> Hey all. Need help undervolting 10900K without loosing the performance. MSI Z490 CARBON. Thanks.


Hey. Reduce voltage step by step until it crashes. Thanks.😄


----------



## KillerBee33

fray_bentos said:


> Hey. Reduce voltage step by step until it crashes. Thanks.😄


I'm @ 1.225 V still hit 80's in testing.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Has anyone tested the Alphacool Eisbaer 360 or 420mm?


----------



## Imprezzion

RobertoSampaio said:


> Has anyone tested the Alphacool Eisbaer 360 or 420mm?


The normal, LT or Aurora one? I haven't used them personally but kitguru review of the Aurora 360 shows it's terrible lol.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Its not easy to find a decent AIO like corsair 115i... 
I hate iCue... The 115i allows me to save the pump and fan configuration in the pump circuit using corsair link...
And I think its impossible to use "corsair link" to connect to the new corsair capellix


----------



## GeneO

Report


RobertoSampaio said:


> Its not easy to find a decent AIO like corsair 115i...
> I hate iCue... The 115i allows me to save the pump and fan configuration in the pump circuit using corsair link...
> And I think its impossible to use "corsair link" to connect to the new corsair capellix


Depends on what you are looking for and your expectations IMO. Do you need to control the AIO based on water temperature? You could control it fans or pump based on the radiator exhaust temperature with a probe for example, or get some good fans and set it to a contant speed, or, not ideally, base it on CPU temperature.

I am just controlling mine through AISuite and the CPU temperature, which is reasonable I think, since that is all it is cooling.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I have my corsair 115i running pump at full speed all the time and this fan curve depend on water temp...


----------



## OC-NightHawk

RobertoSampaio said:


> I have my corsair 115i running pump at full speed all the time and this fan curve depend on water temp...
> 
> View attachment 2527004
> View attachment 2527005


I miss Corsair Link. That was a much nicer design.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I refuse to use iCUE.... LOL


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I think I'll buy a corsair 115i and change the radiator for a bigger one... LOL


----------



## GeneO

RobertoSampaio said:


> I refuse to use iCUE.... LOL
> 
> 
> View attachment 2527006





RobertoSampaio said:


> I have my corsair 115i running pump at full speed all the time and this fan curve depend on water temp...
> 
> View attachment 2527004
> View attachment 2527005


Yeah, I know. I meant radiator fans, not pump. But you do not have to run the fans based on water temperature. That severely limits the AIO choices you have,


----------



## RobertoSampaio

So far, the only one I like was Arctic Freeze II 420mm...


----------



## Imprezzion

RobertoSampaio said:


> So far, the only one I like was Arctic Freeze II 420mm...


NZXT CAM is kinda alright these days. Look at a X72/X73 or Z series.


----------



## Betroz

If you guys care about latency / fps in games, know that AIO bloatware running in the background is a bad idea. Maybe newer versions have improved and do not use much CPU cycles, but still.


----------



## fray_bentos

KillerBee33 said:


> I'm @ 1.225 V still hit 80's in testing.


Is your voltage actually lowering (are you monitoring Vcore under load in HWiNFO64)? If voltage is not lowering on doing bios changes then you likely need to use voltage offset mode. Also, 80 C with what load?


----------



## KillerBee33

fray_bentos said:


> Is your voltage actually lowering (are you monitoring Vcore under load in HWiNFO64)? If voltage is not lowering on doing bios changes then you likely need to use voltage offset mode. Also, 80 C with what load?


Yeap, it's hanging @ 1.225-8 at any load. Hits 80's in Cinebench R20 and PerformanceTest. Gaming however stays in 50's-low 60's








Even running TimeSpy dips in the 70's


----------



## Nizzen

KillerBee33 said:


> Yeap, it's hanging @ 1.225-8 at any load. Hits 80's in Cinebench R20 and PerformanceTest. Gaming however stays in 50's-low 60's
> View attachment 2527077
> 
> Even running TimeSpy dips in the 70's
> View attachment 2527079


Do you play Cinebench, or do you play games the most? That's the question 
If you do play games the most, leave it.


----------



## KillerBee33

Nizzen said:


> Do you play Cinebench, or do you play games the most? That's the question
> If you do play games the most, leave it.


Yeah, i get it, it's not horrible but I'm about to get a new chassis so trying to figure out if i got a bad chip or i need a new block.
BTW, any suggestions on a LGA 1200 blocks? I'm with Swiftechs Apogee SKF which did a good job on my 6700K-4.7 @ 1325V


----------



## Nizzen

KillerBee33 said:


> Yeah, i get it, it's not horrible but I'm about to get a new chassis so trying to figure out if i got a bad chip or i need a new block.
> BTW, any suggestions on a LGA 1200 blocks? I'm with Swiftechs Apogee SKF which did a good job on my 6700K-4.7 @ 1325V


Supercool computer direct die block  Best there is 😎


----------



## KillerBee33

Nizzen said:


> Supercool computer direct die block  Best there is 😎


I's like something simpler than that plz. Plug & Play perhaps 😅


----------



## fray_bentos

If anyone wants to play WHEA parity error hell, then Ghostrunner is now free to download on Amazon Prime Gaming (you need an Amazon Prime account). I need to run an AVX offset of -2 to run that stable in Direct X12 mode with RTX enabled in game. To run in Direct X12 mode, you can open from the DX12 start menu shortcut, or from within Gog, the look for the "sliders" icon top right-middle of the screen on the game page, then click on that then "additional executables", "Ghost Runner DX12", then enable RTX in game (if you have an RTX GPU, and watch the parity errors flood in).

Star Wars Squadrons and Alien Isolation are also free this month.





Prime Gaming


Prime Gaming Home Page




gaming.amazon.com


----------



## Imprezzion

KillerBee33 said:


> I's like something simpler than that plz. Plug & Play perhaps 😅


Depends on the budget. EK Velocity or Alphacool Eisblock XPX are good options or if money doesn't matter Optimus Signature V2.

What rads and pump have you got and is GPU in the loop as well?

For reference, I run a EK Supremacy EVO direct die with a single D5, Bykski 3080 in the loop on a Nemesis GTX 420 + 240 both push pull and I can run 5.3 all core @ 1.424v (1.387v VR VOut) at slightly higher temps then you have now. Around 82c Cinebench and low 70's in CPU intensive gaming with the GPU at full 350w heat load.

Idle is basically ambient +3-5c. CPU sat at 21-22c across all cores and GPU sat at a flat 19c with 16c ambient in my gaming room.


----------



## fray_bentos

KillerBee33 said:


> I's like something simpler than that plz. Plug & Play perhaps 😅


Also, for checking stability, get rid of HWMonitor and run HWiNFO64 instead in monitoring mode and look out for WHEA errors when gaming or running benchmarks at the very bottom of all the sensors listed.


----------



## KillerBee33

Imprezzion said:


> Depends on the budget. EK Velocity or Alphacool Eisblock XPX are good options or if money doesn't matter Optimus Signature V2.


Swiftech H360 plus 240 Rad. Cpu+GPU loop. Titan [email protected],10900K Stock @ 1.225V, Mem. [email protected] My gaming temps @ 1440P120Hz


----------



## KillerBee33

fray_bentos said:


> Also, for checking stability, get rid of HWMonitor and run HWiNFO64 instead in monitoring mode and look out for WHEA errors when gaming or running benchmarks at the very bottom of all the sensors listed.


I'll give it a shot. Thanx.
PS: What am I looking for here?


----------



## robalm

I don't know if my new ek watercooling setup is crap or good?
Room temp 21c
i9 10900k 5ghz 1.29v > 1.208v load
cinebech r20 = 57c hottest core (about 185w)

360 rad with 3x Noctua NF-A12x25 PWM running at max speed @2000rpm
Pump running 100%.


----------



## fray_bentos

KillerBee33 said:


> I'll give it a shot. Thanx.
> PS: What am I looking for here?
> View attachment 2527089


Yep, the red bit. It looks like you are running fixed voltage, I'd recommend adaptive offset mode instead.


----------



## KillerBee33

fray_bentos said:


> Yep, the red bit. It looks like you are running fixed voltage, I'd recommend adaptive offset mode instead.


I'll do that now.I also have CPU loadline Cal. seto to 2 if that matters.
-With Adaptive Offset temperatures jumped to 88 and cinebench score dropped by 70


----------



## fray_bentos

KillerBee33 said:


> I'll do that now.I also have CPU loadline Cal. seto to 2 if that matters.
> -With Adaptive Offset temperatures jumped to 88 and cinebench score dropped by 70


What make of mobo? LLC levels are different between manufacturers. If on MSI then LLC2 is way too high and would explain your high temps. I run LLC6... I would recommend lowering LLC to at least 4, and increasing Vcore alongside that, you'll get more droop under load, which will keep temps under check. LLC6 worked best for me with adaptive settings on MSI for both a 10600K I had and this 10900KF. On LLC6, even if you set a high voltage (e.g. over 1.40 V), you'll never see anything near that and under load it will droop with lower voltage than stock settings and hence cooler.


----------



## KillerBee33

fray_bentos said:


> What make of mobo? LLC levels are different between manufacturers. If on MSI then LLC2 is way too high and would explain your high temps. I run LLC6... I would recommend lowering LLC to at least 4, and increasing Vcore alongside that, you'll get more droop under load, which will keep temps under check. LLC6 worked best for me with adaptive settings on MSI for both a 10600K I had and this 10900KF. Even if you set a high voltage (e.g. over 1.40 V), you'll never see anything near that and it will droop with lower voltage than stock settings and hence cooler.


Yeah it's MSI Z490. I'll try that right now


----------



## KillerBee33

Well, adaptive offset mode hides the Core Voltage...


----------



## fray_bentos

KillerBee33 said:


> Well, adaptive offset mode hides the Core Voltage...
> View attachment 2527102


Yes, that's the correct behaviour; you can still see it in windows though. Offset means offset relative to the voltage/frequency curve programmed into your CPU (it's different for every CPU, hence why you can't set it yourself other than as a difference relative to the V/F curve i.e. offset). You could leave it in the offset mode and drop LLC one step at a time, and adjust the offset (upwards) incrementally and keep seeing what you get in Windows. Mobos don't let you set a voltage lower than the voltage you would get based on the defined V/F curve programmed into a particular CPU. However, I use "adaptive" not "adaptive offset"; since my LLC is droopy I am setting a Vcore higher than stock, so the default voltage/frequency curve is ignored AND I can set the voltage in the bios. You might need still to use an offset mode if you want to get a Vcore (or VID) lower than in the default V/F curve, but I am not 100% sure.


----------



## KillerBee33

fray_bentos said:


> Yes, that's the correct behaviour; you can still see it in windows though. Offset means offset relative to the voltage/frequency curve programmed into your CPU (it's different for every CPU, hence why you can't set it yourself other than as a difference relative to the V/F curve i.e. offset). You could leave it in the offset mode and drop LLC one step at a time, and adjust the offset (upwards) incrementally and keep seeing what you get in Windows. Mobos don't let you set a voltage lower than the voltage you would get based on the defined V/F curve programmed into a particular CPU. However, I use "adaptive" not "adaptive offset"; since my LLC is droopy I am setting a Vcore higher than stock, so the default voltage/frequency curve is ignored AND I can set the voltage in the bios. You might need still to use an offset mode if you want to get a Vcore (or VID) lower than in the default V/F curve, but I am not 100% sure.


My fault...Was using Advanced Offset mode instead of adaptive 😅
[email protected] dropped 2 degrees from usual 80 in cenebench


----------



## fray_bentos

KillerBee33 said:


> My fault...Was using Advanced Offset mode instead of adaptive 😅 so I'm on the adaptiveoffset and LLC6


Yeah, you might need to systematically play around with different LLC/Vcore combinations and see what works best for you (i.e. stable with lowest power consumption under load). I found cinebench good for quick and dirty stability tests. Oh, yeah and make sure to disable all the intel virtualisation and VT-d stuff (if you are not using it, that adds higher Vcore requirements / instability even if you are not using it for some reason).


----------



## KillerBee33

fray_bentos said:


> Yeah, you might need to systematically play around with different LLC/Vcore combinations and see what works best for you (i.e. stable with lowest power consumption under load). I found cinebench good for quick and dirty stability tests. Oh, yeah and make sure to disable all the intel virtualisation and VT-d stuff (if you are not using it, that adds higher Vcore requirements / instability even if you are not using it for some reason).


The are no options for the VT or VT-d however if i go to CPU Specs in bios it shows this


----------



## fray_bentos

KillerBee33 said:


> The are no options for the VT or VT-d however if i go to CPU Specs in bios it shows this
> View attachment 2527115


The virtualization settings might or might not be under the OC menu, perhaps "motherboard settings". Look for "CPU features".


----------



## KillerBee33

Now i'm fully confused. Kept the LLC6-AdaptiveOffset but raised V to 1.325 instead of 1.225 now my temperatures dropped to 76


----------



## KillerBee33

fray_bentos said:


> The virtualization settings might or might not be under the OC menu, perhaps "motherboard settings". Look for "CPU features".


Someone has the same board and claims the are no Virtualization settings in MSI Z490 Bios. I also looked everywhere and other than that screen with some info i saw no options





MSI Global English Forum


...




forum-en.msi.com


----------



## fray_bentos

KillerBee33 said:


> Someone has the same board and claims the are no Virtualization settings in MSI Z490 Bios. I also looked everywhere and other than that screen with some info i saw no options
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MSI Global English Forum
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forum-en.msi.com


Pretty sure they are wrong or it was an old BIOS revision. On my lowest end MSI Z490 the settings for virtualization are under the OC menu, scroll right to the bottom "CPU features". Intel virtualization and Intel VT-d can be disabled there. I just checked.


----------



## fray_bentos

KillerBee33 said:


> Now i'm fully confused. Kept the LLC6-AdaptiveOffset but raised V to 1.325 instead of 1.225 now my temperatures dropped to 76
> View attachment 2527116


Running two monitoring softwares at the same time can lead to reading bugs. I also find power usage more reproducible than temperatures.


----------



## KillerBee33

fray_bentos said:


> Pretty sure they are wrong or it was an old BIOS revision. On my lowest end MSI Z490 the settings for virtualization are under the OC menu, scroll right to the bottom "CPU features". Intel virtualization and Intel VT-d can be disabled there. I just checked.


You were right. Found it.
Also, kept all the previous settings but locked Core to 51 and got few cores hitting 101. That's "LLC6-AdaptiveOffset-5.1 @ 1.325V


----------



## fray_bentos

KillerBee33 said:


> You were right. Found it.
> View attachment 2527119
> 
> Also, kept all the previous settings but locked Core to 51 and got few cores hitting 101. That's "LLC6-AdaptiveOffset-5.1 @ 1.325V


Yes as you increase CPU ratio, the voltage will scale up as this is defined on the V/F curve. Stock is x49 on ten cores, which will request less voltage. You may be able to work the offset down from there, depending on silicon lottery.


----------



## KillerBee33

fray_bentos said:


> Yes as you increase CPU ratio, the voltage will scale up as this is defined on the V/F curve. Stock is x49 on ten cores, which will request less voltage. You may be able to work the offset down from there, depending on silicon lottery.


I just did 1.275V+LLC4 and it crashed.


----------



## fray_bentos

KillerBee33 said:


> I just did 1.275V+LLC4 and it crashed.


Indeed, I have a whole spreadsheet full of crashy LLC / voltage combinations. Enjoy tweaking... it might take a few days weeks to settle on your best setting.😅 Referring to my sheet I need 1.35V set at LLC4 for 51 all core.


----------



## KillerBee33

fray_bentos said:


> Indeed, I have a whole spreadsheet full of crashy LLC / voltage combinations. Enjoy tweaking... it might take a few days weeks to settle on your best setting😅


Thanks for your help/time.


----------



## Imprezzion

For MSI just start at Adaptive + Offset with Auto vCore and offsets, LLC4, Lite Load Normal at Mode_1, boot to Windows and check voltage.


----------



## KillerBee33

Imprezzion said:


> For MSI just start at Adaptive + Offset with Auto vCore and offsets, LLC4, Lite Load Normal at Mode_1, boot to Windows and check voltage.


So far the best i've got is 5.1 @ 1.290V-LLC6 Best score in Cinebench for my chip so far 6614 and max. temp. 89
Never mind:...Just got 5.1 @ 1.275V-LLC6 Adaptive+Offset Memory still 4000MHz @ 1.450V.(XMP Off) Cinebench 6618 Max.Temp. 87.5

_
I ran few more tests with the values above and it turned out even when they've passed the tests it wasn't stable, as @fray_bentos mentioned i got WHEA errors. So i kept it "Default @ 1.150V LLC6 with Mem. 4000MHz @ 1.450V" 
Still not sure if it's a bad chip or something wrong with my block. Anyone got experience with Phanteks Glacier C350i ? I was thinking og getting that instead of what i've got.


----------



## fray_bentos

KillerBee33 said:


> So far the best i've got is 5.1 @ 1.290V-LLC6 Best score in Cinebench for my chip so far 6614 and max. temp. 89
> Never mind:...Just got 5.1 @ 1.275V-LLC6 Adaptive+Offset Memory still 4000MHz @ 1.450V.(XMP Off) Cinebench 6618 Max.Temp. 87.5
> 
> _
> I ran few more tests with the values above and it turned out even when they've passed the tests it wasn't stable, as @fray_bentos mentioned i got WHEA errors. So i kept it "Default @ 1.150V LLC6 with Mem. 4000MHz @ 1.450V"
> Still not sure if it's a bad chip or something wrong with my block. Anyone got experience with Phanteks Glacier C350i ? I was thinking og getting that instead of what i've got.


One way we can assess if your cooling is bad, or of it is a bad chip is if you report your Vcore under load, the total package power, and max temp with a known standard load e.g. Cinebench RX. The slight difficulty is that poorer cooling = more instability and voltage also increases as temps increase due to Intel voltage optimizations (leave that enabled by the way). Once you cross 85 C then that's seems to be a wall where errors start piling in.and could be what is happening here.


----------



## KillerBee33

fray_bentos said:


> One way we can assess if your cooling is bad, or of it is a bad chip is if you report your Vcore under load, the total package power, and max temp with a known standard load e.g. Cinebench RX. The slight difficulty is that poorer cooling = more instability and voltage also increases as temps increase due to Intel voltage optimizations (leave that enabled by the way). Once you cross 85 C then that's seems to be a wall where errors start piling in.and could be what is happening here.


I'll keep it as is for now, performance isn't bad. When i get that new chassis i'd try a new block bcz that's the only problem that may be in this case. Titan XP on the same loop as the CPU and it's a hungry card plus overclocked and i rarely see 50 degrees on that, had my 6700K running in the same loop for 5 years 4.7 @ 1.325V and rarely saw it hit 70. I was thinking to try Phanteks Glacier C350 for a new block, i can get it for $82 which is not bad.


----------



## acoustic

fray_bentos said:


> If anyone wants to play WHEA parity error hell, then Ghostrunner is now free to download on Amazon Prime Gaming (you need an Amazon Prime account). I need to run an AVX offset of -2 to run that stable in Direct X12 mode with RTX enabled in game. To run in Direct X12 mode, you can open from the DX12 start menu shortcut, or from within Gog, the look for the "sliders" icon top right-middle of the screen on the game page, then click on that then "additional executables", "Ghost Runner DX12", then enable RTX in game (if you have an RTX GPU, and watch the parity errors flood in).
> 
> Star Wars Squadrons and Alien Isolation are also free this month.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prime Gaming
> 
> 
> Prime Gaming Home Page
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gaming.amazon.com


Oh god no no no don't make me go down this hell hole again!!!


----------



## fray_bentos

acoustic said:


> Oh god no no no don't make me go down this hell hole again!!!


Aside from the error hell. I did reinstall it, but yeah having tried it again, I am definitely not a fan of games that make you die over and over again until each section is perfect...


----------



## YaqY

Just some testing of my SP97 10900k with direct die. Hyperthreading on and all testing was done with llc 5 and cinebench normal priority. You can see the set/load volts from HwInfo. Voltages weren't completely minimised and i didnt bother for WHEA errors, just some stats for people to compare with. Memory was just at 4400Mhz tightened, haven't touched it much yet.
53x








54x








55x


----------



## Nizzen

YaqY said:


> Just some testing of my SP97 10900k with direct die. Hyperthreading on and all testing was done with llc 5 and cinebench normal priority. You can see the set/load volts from HwInfo. Voltages weren't completely minimised and i didnt bother for WHEA errors, just some stats for people to compare with. Memory was just at 4400Mhz tightened, haven't touched it much yet.
> 53x
> View attachment 2527317
> 
> 54x
> View attachment 2527318
> 
> 55x
> View attachment 2527319


Where is 56x


----------



## YaqY

Nizzen said:


> Where is 56x


I will try for it when the weather is colder here (Australia). I think in winter it can be done for sure.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Really good chip, my chip don´t boot 5600^^, in my case it scale awesome up to 5,4ghz, 5,5ghz the vcore is there a really big question of temp.
Your score is a little bit low, i use kaspersky that close the bad windows defender and i also use inspectre.
For testing performance Geekbench really good here at 5,5Ghz, but need in my case more VCore as CB20.








https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/16368134

and here is the old list for compare
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/search?dir=desc&q=10900k&sort=multicore_score


----------



## YaqY

PhoenixMDA said:


> Really good chip, my chip don´t boot 5600^^, in my case it scale awesome up to 5,4ghz, 5,5ghz the vcore is there a really big question of temp.
> Your score is a little bit low, i use kaspersky that close the bad windows defender and i also use inspectre.
> For testing performance Geekbench really good here at 5,5Ghz, but need in my case more VCore as CB20.
> View attachment 2527321
> 
> https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/16368134
> 
> and here is the old list for compare
> https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/search?dir=desc&q=10900k&sort=multicore_score
> View attachment 2527325


Yea the OS is just an OS I use for stability testing so not optimised at all. All the runs were done with hwinfo open too which also makes the score a bit worse.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

YaqY said:


> Yea the OS is just an OS I use for stability testing so not optimised at all. All the runs were done with hwinfo open too which also makes the score a bit worse.


Yes that´s right, HWinfo was in my case also open and it´s also my normal OS, the windows defender take´s much performance and is also buggy, 
that´s the reason why i use kaskersky.


----------



## KillerBee33

Is there a way to lower this? No matter what i do it's still maxes @ 1.355V


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Does anyone have odyssey g9 monitor? what do you think?
Does the 3080 get about 100fps overall with it?


----------



## PhoenixMDA

A question of the game, the 3080 is ok for 5120x1440, but on max. settings you dont get 100FPS in every game.bf5 no problem without rtx, [email protected] arround 80-120FPS.
CP2077 max. settings with dlss middle over 60FPS^^.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

I don't know if I buy a g9 or a g5....
I have a LG 34 (2560 x 1080) and about 120fps overall.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

5120x1440 need a little bit less performance as uhd, 32:9 is nice for immersion gaming and really good for working.
But it cost much performance more as your 2550x1080.It's all very good play able, but not for high fps Player.


----------



## KillerBee33

Imprezzion said:


> Depends on the budget. EK Velocity or Alphacool Eisblock XPX are good options or if money doesn't matter Optimus Signature V2.


Did some research and got me a Watercool Heatkiller IV Pro full nickel.


----------



## Betroz

@Falkentyne and others :

How was it again regarding the voltage readouts in HWInfo64 with IO and SA voltages on the Asus XII Apex. When I set 1.38 SA in BIOS, that jumps to 1.425v in HWInfo64 under load. Is that accurate?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Betroz said:


> @Falkentyne and others :
> 
> How was it again regarding the voltage readouts in HWInfo64 with IO and SA voltages on the Asus XII Apex. When I set 1.38 SA in BIOS, that jumps to 1.425v in HWInfo64 under load. Is that accurate?


My M12F rises 25mv under load. I set 1.240 and it goes to 1.265


----------



## Betroz

RobertoSampaio said:


> My M12F rises 25mv under load. I set 1.240 and it goes to 1.265


Yes, but is that an accurate reading, is what I wanted to know.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Betroz said:


> Yes, but is that an accurate reading, is what I wanted to know.


Use a muiltimeter(DMM) on the probelt measurement points on the right side of the board to get an accurate reading.


----------



## fray_bentos

Betroz said:


> @Falkentyne and others :
> 
> How was it again regarding the voltage readouts in HWInfo64 with IO and SA voltages on the Asus XII Apex. When I set 1.38 SA in BIOS, that jumps to 1.425v in HWInfo64 under load. Is that accurate?


The bigger question is why do you need 1.38 V SA?


----------



## Betroz

fray_bentos said:


> The bigger question is why do you need 1.38 V SA?


Overclocking memory....


----------



## fray_bentos

Betroz said:


> Overclocking memory....


How far? I mean I hit 4200 MHz 16-16-16 with only 1.20 V.


----------



## Betroz

fray_bentos said:


> How far? I mean I hit 4200 MHz 16-16-16 with only 1.20 V.


That is probably with singel rank memory (2 x 8GB). I have 2 x 16GB DR sticks at 4300C16, and that stresses the IMC more. Then there is silicon lottery


----------



## YaqY

MrTOOSHORT said:


> Use a muiltimeter(DMM) on the probelt measurement points on the right side of the board to get an accurate reading.


Can’t be sure those points are accurate, they might just probe the same sensor readings you get in hwinfo. It’s just like some boards with Msi and those probe points which just probe socket vcore which is useless.


----------



## GeneO

Betroz said:


> @Falkentyne and others :
> 
> How was it again regarding the voltage readouts in HWInfo64 with IO and SA voltages on the Asus XII Apex. When I set 1.38 SA in BIOS, that jumps to 1.425v in HWInfo64 under load. Is that accurate?


Yes, I thiink so. SA has a high loadline (on my Hero)


----------



## Intrud3r

example of my system ... 1.340V is set in bios.


----------



## schoolofmonkey

Intrud3r said:


> example of my system ... 1.340V is set in bios.
> 
> View attachment 2527555


My XII Hero set my VCCSA/VCCIO to 1.45v, I'm using a G-Skill F4-3600C16-16GTZN 2x16GB 3600Mhz 16-16-16-38 Kit,
Samsung B-Die.
I had to manually set them to 1.3v, which was completely stable, probably could of went lower.


----------



## jeiselramos

schoolofmonkey said:


> My XII Hero set my VCCSA/VCCIO to 1.45v, I'm using a G-Skill F4-3600C16-16GTZN 2x16GB 3600Mhz 16-16-16-38 Kit,
> Samsung B-Die.
> I had to manually set them to 1.3v, which was completely stable, probably could of went lower.


Sure, I've 1.2 for 4200C16 and 1.25 for 4400C17

Sent from my IN2023 using Tapatalk


----------



## Betroz

jeiselramos said:


> Sure, I've 1.2 for 4200C16 and 1.25 for 4400C17


Again... this depends on silicon lottery


----------



## jeiselramos

Betroz said:


> Again... this depends on silicon lottery


True but he can try to go lower, this is what I meant

Sent from my IN2023 using Tapatalk


----------



## schoolofmonkey

jeiselramos said:


> Sure, I've 1.2 for 4200C16 and 1.25 for 4400C17
> 
> Sent from my IN2023 using Tapatalk


All I need to do is set XMP in the BIOS and it'll automatically set it to 1.45v when left at Auto.

I've had it running at 1.25 fine as well, usually if I set it to 1.3v it'll sit around 1.28v, figured that's safe and I couldn't be bothered testing for hours.. 🤣


----------



## rickmig

schoolofmonkey said:


> All I need to do is set XMP in the BIOS and it'll automatically set it to 1.45v when left at Auto.
> 
> I've had it running at 1.25 fine as well, usually if I set it to 1.3v it'll sit around 1.28v, figured that's safe and I couldn't be bothered testing for hours.. 🤣



Hi there,

I have 2x16Gb G-Skill 3600C16 and my Asus Strix Z590 also puts VCCIO and VCCSA @1.3~ and 1.4~ ,respectively, at AUTO setting. I've been using for weeks VCCIO = 1.008v and VCCSA = 1.088v zero problems.
In the past few days using VCCIO = 0.960v and VCCSA = 1.040v also no problems.
RAM @1.35 default volts.
Gaming (I play 3 to 6 hours straight COD warzone, daily) youtubing, editing videos etc.
Using default cache = 43x for now.
CPU @53x4 52x6 51x8 50x10
Regards,
RicK


----------



## timeToy

10900KF (Delid, LM and 280mm AIO)
48x cache | 5.2x10 (AVX) | 5.3x10 (no AVX) @ 1.288v under Prime95 load
4x8GB Samsung B die @ 4000MHz c15-16-16-32 tight timings
I have to run VCCSA @ 1.4v and VCCIO @ 1.3v to be stable with testMem5 and Linpack

I'd like to see if the people running low VCCSA can pass testMem5 and Linpack?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

After the last HW-info update, I'm having an issue with effective clocks...

Almost 7GHz... kkkk

Is anyone having the same issue?


----------



## acoustic

Just an FYI for my MSI guys like @Imprezzion 

New BIOS out for our MSI boards. I haven't tested if there's any changes, but this newest BIOS adds "Win11 Support". Can't say I see a difference.


----------



## KillerBee33

acoustic said:


> Just an FYI for my MSI guys like @Imprezzion
> 
> New BIOS out for our MSI boards. I haven't tested if there's any changes, but this newest BIOS adds "Win11 Support". Can't say I see a difference.


It Automatically Enables "PTT" =TPM 2.0


----------



## acoustic

KillerBee33 said:


> It Automatically Enables "PTT" =TPM 2.0


Ah, gotcha. I forgot that it's disabled by default on previous BIOS releases.


----------



## Imprezzion

That's it? Lol. Not going to upgrade then. Everything is working just fine on my current BIOS. I run like 3 versions ago now and W11 works fine.


----------



## KillerBee33

Imprezzion said:


> That's it? Lol. Not going to upgrade then. Everything is working just fine on my current BIOS. I run like 3 versions ago now and W11 works fine.


I've updated bios on my MSI as soon as it came out for the last two boards. The only downside i see is rearranging fans right after 😅


----------



## acoustic

Imprezzion said:


> That's it? Lol. Not going to upgrade then. Everything is working just fine on my current BIOS. I run like 3 versions ago now and W11 works fine.


There was something else in the changelog but I forgot.


----------



## Imprezzion

acoustic said:


> There was something else in the changelog but I forgot.


Thunderbolt related afaik. I don't use it. Only a €13 USB-C dock now and then from AliExpress for some more front IO lol.


----------



## GraphicsWhore

Decided to go direct die on my 10850K using RockIt Cool's kit. Delidded, cleaned, applied LM and put back together. Good news: POST. Bad news: temp warning. Guess it's contact and although I followed their install video to the T I found another video that specifically references EK Supremacy and Velocity blocks that says not to use EK's washers for standoffs as they're not needed, so guess I'll remove and try again.


----------



## Imprezzion

GraphicsWhore said:


> Decided to go direct die on my 10850K using RockIt Cool's kit. Delidded, cleaned, applied LM and put back together. Good news: POST. Bad news: temp warning. Guess it's contact and although I followed their install video to the T I found another video that specifically references EK Supremacy and Velocity blocks that says not to use EK's washers for standoffs as they're not needed, so guess I'll remove and try again.


Supremacy EVO I use does not use the washers. Stock standoffs, stock springs and thumbnuts, stock backplate, no washers. Mount is perfect with liquid metal.


----------



## GraphicsWhore

Imprezzion said:


> Supremacy EVO I use does not use the washers. Stock standoffs, stock springs and thumbnuts, stock backplate, no washers. Mount is perfect with liquid metal.


Is this with rockitcool’s kit? Did you put their washers on the back like it shows in the video? Or just no washers at all?


----------



## Imprezzion

GraphicsWhore said:


> Is this with rockitcool’s kit? Did you put their washers on the back like it shows in the video? Or just no washers at all?


As far as I can remember none at all. But the mounts been on there for quite a while, I'm not 100% sure lol.


----------



## GraphicsWhore

Imprezzion said:


> As far as I can remember none at all. But the mounts been on there for quite a while, I'm not 100% sure lol.


I spoke with them and actually ditched everything: the backplate, rubber gasket, washers. They also told me to use the 2066 standoffs, so it's just those with M4 nuts on the back. Worked perfectly.


----------



## KillerBee33

fray_bentos said:


> One way we can assess if your cooling is bad, or of it is a bad chip is if you report your Vcore under load, the total package power, and max temp with a known standard load e.g. Cinebench RX. The slight difficulty is that poorer cooling = more instability and voltage also increases as temps increase due to Intel voltage optimizations (leave that enabled by the way). Once you cross 85 C then that's seems to be a wall where errors start piling in.and could be what is happening here.


Got a Phanteks C350i block and finally got some things resolved. 5.1-48ring,Enhanced Turbo disabled, AVX 0, Adaptive @ 1.350v, LLC6, SA+IO Auto. Memory running 4000 @ 1.45V. CinebenchR20-6675 and no matter what i throw at it tops out at 82 degrees. No WHEA errors. Again, thanx for your help.


----------



## Mappi75

Hello,
i got a SP100 and SP110 10900k - which is the best OC board for this cpu today!?
got the Apex XII and Apex XIII the z490 and z590 godlike, Maximus Extreme XII. 
are the better boards out?
i did only mem oc in the past and z590 goes a little bit higher but i got still problems to run 32gb 4400CL17 out of the box which are not stable. 
now i want to focus on oc the 10900k. is there the holy grale for a 10900k available!?
thanks for helping!


----------



## Nizzen

Mappi75 said:


> Hello,
> i got a SP100 and SP110 10900k - which is the best OC board for this cpu today!?
> got the Apex XII and Apex XIII the z490 and z590 godlike, Maximus Extreme XII.
> are the better boards out?
> i did only mem oc in the past and z590 goes a little bit higher but i got still problems to run 32gb 4400CL17 out of the box which are not stable.
> now i want to focus on oc the 10900k. is there the holy grale for a 10900k available!?
> thanks for helping!


Z490 Apex has been the best for 10900k for me 
Don't look at the result, but the speed is there. Was done with normal windows 10 ages ago 








I haven't seen many complete 5600mhz in CB 20 on water 
Used SuperCool Computer direct die block, direct in socket.


----------



## Mappi75

Its still "better" to stay at older comet lake bios versions instead rocket lake(for z490 boards)?


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Maximus Extreme XII, for CPU OCing, is the better.
I like the formula because the VRM cooler solution...
If you use full phase control and VRM high frequencies, you will have a hot VRM.
But all depends on what kind of OC you will do.


----------



## Nizzen

Mappi75 said:


> Its still "better" to stay at older comet lake bios versions instead rocket lake(for z490 boards)?


Old is better. I think the 0088 bios is one of the best 






ROG-MAXIMUS-XII-APEX-ASUS-0088.CAP







drive.google.com


----------



## Nizzen

RobertoSampaio said:


> Maximus Extreme XII, for CPU OCing, is the better.
> I like the formula because the VRM cooler solution...
> If you use full phase control and VRM high frequencies, you will have a hot VRM.
> But all depends on what kind of OC you will do.


Until this day, I haven't seen any proof that Extreme XII is better than Apex XII for cpu OC 
Not for Memory OC either.


----------



## Mappi75

interresting i got two Maximus Extreme XII mobos..

First i want to test how high i can go wit the SP110 cpu and then i will find a 24/7 stable setup with lowering the voltages..

Edit:
want to create a second gaming pc for games which runs better on a 10900k instead 11900k (playing on FullHD @360Hz)


----------



## Betroz

Nizzen said:


> Old is better. I think the 0088 bios is one of the best


I get good results with 2301 BIOS aswell.


----------



## jeiselramos

Betroz said:


> I get good results with 2301 BIOS aswell.


Even the lastest 2402 isn't bad

Sent from my IN2023 using Tapatalk


----------



## Nizzen

jeiselramos said:


> Even the lastest 2402 isn't bad
> 
> Sent from my IN2023 using Tapatalk


*Apex is king


----------



## Mappi75

Does make the Asrock Z590 Formula or MSI Z590 Unfiy-X any sense?
The last should be good für 11900K AND 10900K for ram oc ?

BTW: GB Aorus z590 Extreme was terrible for 10900K! Not possible to change and save the VCSSA voltage! 
Not able to read vccio 2 with a 11900k.


----------



## Nizzen

Mappi75 said:


> Does make the Asrock Z590 Formula or MSI Z590 Unfiy-X any sense?
> The last should be good für 11900K AND 10900K for ram oc ?
> 
> BTW: GB Aorus z590 Extreme was terrible for 10900K! Not possible to change and save the VCSSA voltage!
> Not able to read vccio 2 with a 11900k.


In my opinion: There is no need to try anything else than Apex for 10900k.
Msi z490 itx is pretty good for being a very small board, and will do 95% of the memory OC of Apex z490. Now z490 itx is running my first 11700k pre release cpu.  Gaming computer #3 in the family


----------



## Mappi75

Ok then i should not sell the Apex XII which i do ATM 

Edit: got G.Skill 16GB 4800 CL18 & CL17 Kit and 2x 32GB 4400 CL17 and want to get the best out of it!

Edit: ok one idea i got - my 4400+ oc doesnt work maybe - because i using only air cooling during ram oc (cpu is not overclocked).


----------



## Nizzen

Mappi75 said:


> Ok then i should not sell the Apex XII which i do ATM


Apex is worth more than gold, so NEVER sell Apex boards. They will shine on hwbot.org for centuries 🤓


----------



## acoustic

Mappi75 said:


> Ok then i should not sell the Apex XII which i do ATM
> 
> Edit: got G.Skill 16GB 4800 CL18 & CL17 Kit and 2x 32GB 4400 CL17 and want to get the best out of it!
> 
> Edit: ok one idea i got - my 4400+ oc doesnt work maybe - because i using only air cooling during ram oc (cpu is not overclocked).


What do you have your VCCIO and VCCSA voltages set to? 4400+ is going to stress the IMC of the chip. If you can check the temps of the sticks then that's possibly a cause.


----------



## Mappi75

I tried to use max 1,35v for both voltages. The Apex XII gives loading the xmp profile V1,5+ vcssa and V 1,4+ for vccio which is too high.
Temps are never a problem because i use 2x80mm Noctua's only for the ram.


----------



## acoustic

Try manipulating the voltages a bit. Sometimes too much VCCIO/SA can cause instability rather than help. 1.3v for both or 1.32v etc.

Also, what was the vDIMM voltage at? Manually set to 1.5v and see if it helps.


----------



## Mappi75

Thanks, i lowering both voltages to 1,30v - its the first time that hci memtest would run to 60% coverage (still running).
vDimm voltage is 1,50v by xmp. Will test with GSAT too later.

Edit: as always GSAT shows errors... it does not matter when i go down to 4300, 4266 or 4200mhz


----------



## PhoenixMDA

It give´s instructions for ramoc how to do, with 2x16gb use apex xII.


----------



## acoustic

Mappi75 said:


> Thanks, i lowering both voltages to 1,30v - its the first time that hci memtest would run to 60% coverage (still running).
> vDimm voltage is 1,50v by xmp. Will test with GSAT too later.
> 
> Edit: as always GSAT shows errors... it does not matter when i go down to 4300, 4266 or 4200mhz


You can try going even lower on VCCIO/SA. I run 4266C17 2x16gb sticks at 1.19v VCCIO/SA on an MSI Z490 ACE. It's all dependant on your chip, and sometimes your mobo with the way it is automatically setting some values.

I believe I remember reading that memory OC is better on the Z490 APEX for the 10900K than the Z590 APEX. It's basically preferred to run Z490 for 10th gen and Z590 for 11th gen, despite them being compatible on both chipsets.

If you want to make it work on the board you are using right now, you may find more stability by manually setting your RTL/IOL values. There is a ton of info in the DDR4 Mem OCing thread, might be worth checking out.


----------



## Kelvan

Falkentyne said:


> LOL I don't think any CPU is capable of that. You would need one hell of a guardband to survive the initial load voltage.
> 
> Typical 5 ghz prime95 AVX load for example, assume VCPU @ 5 ghz=1.20v, LLC Level 2, IOUT 200A...
> That would be 980mv request at ambient (30C) after vdrop.
> Even with TVB slowly temp boost raising VCPU, that would be an instant crash anyway.
> 
> And a super high SP chip won't help because that just means vCPU would be much lower (let's say a SP 120 chip has 1.150v vCPU @ 5 ghz. Then you're looking at 930mv request...)


Sorry for bringing the old post up, but I have a question regarding what you wrote here. In my research for OC I came across this post of yours, also many more on reddit which explained how LLC and AC/DC LL work, thank you a LOT for that as those explanations were very helpful for my understanding of those Settings.

In one of the other posts you wrote once, that in case of Best Case Scenario on Asus or Setting AC DC to 0.01 you will need a high enough LLC to compensate for that, at least LLC 4 or 5 on Asus. LLC 1 or 2 will not be enough. Also that you should not use LLC (or high LLC?) with Auto Settings.

Unfortunately that is what I did, my 9900K CPU was unstable at my Settings on LLC2 on an Asus Z390-I Board (which has 7 LLC Settings total and I know has only a Super IO Sense which is not super correct), and I wanted to do a test on Auto Settings.

My Settings were:
9900K at 4.7 GHz, Uncore x44
Best Case Scenario SVID, AC DC on Auto (which Asus sets to 0.01 in Best Case).
LLC 2 on Auto Voltage

I tried OCCT Large Data Set with AVX2, of course it crashed on me. Then I tested with manual Settings thoroughly with different LLC and now I was able to come across stable Settings for my CPU, those are
Best Case Scenario, AC DC 0.01, LLC 3, Offset +0.100 which is 100 mV and a sustained Vcore of 1.190-1.208 Range on OCCT Large Data Set with AVX2 Instructions, which my CPU needs to be stable.

On LLC 4, my CPU would need a positive Offset of +0.060 instead of +0.100 to remain stable, but I opted for LLC 3 for longevity, which to my understanding is better if you have a lower LLC Setting/higher Vcore instead of high LLC Setting/lower Vcore.

But my question is, you explained here that with the voltage request from the CPU on Auto and LLC 2 with ACDC 0.01 on best case scenario you would need a hell of a guardband to survive the initial load voltage, as it would be massive on 200A. Do you mean it in terms of Stability or in terms of actual degradation of CPU or the VRMs?

My Clock was lower with 4.7 GHz and I am not sure how many Amps I pulled on that OCCT Test on Auto voltage as I crashed instantly, on stable Settings OCCT pulls up to max 158-160 Watt with 1.190-1.208 Vcore for me so I suspect the Amp on that is about 130? (160/1.208 = 132).

Did I cause damage to the CPU with that test which crashed instantly because of a high Auto mv request (my mistake of course, for running it at Auto voltage with LLC 2 and 0.01 AC DC LL) which the guardband if I understand correctly, couldnt handle?

Apologies for asking about the 9900K not the 10900K, but I saw your post here so I decided to ask you in this thread, if I may.


----------



## safedisk

*ROG MAXIMUS XII Series Beta Bios 2403 UPDATE*

1. Some bug fixes
2. Microcode Update 0x50 Ver

ROG MAXIMUS XII HERO BETA BIOS 2403

ROG MAXIMUS XII APEX BETA BIOS 2403

ROG MAXIMUS XII FORMULA BETA BIOS 2403

ROG MAXIMUS XII EXTREME BETA BIOS 2403


----------



## Imprezzion

Ok, i might've degraded my CPU a tad. I bought Far Cry 6 and the game kept crashing and giving core errors in HWINFO64 and I tried many different things but only a downclock fixed it. It had weird stuttering and random crashes in other games as well but never looked at it and blamed windows 11. 

So 5.3 all core 47 cache @ 1.391v VR VOut (1.424v VCC Sense) might've been a tad too much. Temps mid 70's while gaming with 87c peak in benchmarks like Cinebench with AVX. Not that extreme.

Also my BIOS broke for some reason as it would set my RAM at 2133 regardless of what RAM multiplier I set. Had to fully clear CMOS and even after reloading the saved profile with those core clocks and 4400C17 RAM that I was running it would no longer POST and gave a 7F or 09 error usually with DRAM LED.

So, i went back to an older profile that is 100% tested stable, 5.1/4.6 @ 1.291v VCC Sense (1.26xv VR VOut) and 4200C15 RAM and that booted fine and seems to run both Far Cry 6 and Division 2 (which also random C2D all the time) just fine..

Not sure if it was the RAM or the CPU or the BIOS acting up but when I set the 5.3/4.7 clocks and voltages in this working profile it still C2D within minutes so 5.3/4.7 definitely isn't stable anymore when it always was so my guess is degradation.

Good timing with Alder Lake around the corner.


----------



## Betroz

safedisk said:


> *ROG MAXIMUS XII Series Beta Bios 2403 UPDATE*
> 
> 1. *Some bug fixes*
> 2. Microcode Update 0x50 Ver


Asus is allways SO informative with their BIOS release notes...


----------



## fray_bentos

Imprezzion said:


> Ok, i might've degraded my CPU a tad. I bought Far Cry 6 and the game kept crashing and giving core errors in HWINFO64 and I tried many different things but only a downclock fixed it. It had weird stuttering and random crashes in other games as well but never looked at it and blamed windows 11.
> 
> So 5.3 all core 47 cache @ 1.391v VR VOut (1.424v VCC Sense) might've been a tad too much. Temps mid 70's while gaming with 87c peak in benchmarks like Cinebench with AVX. Not that extreme.
> 
> Also my BIOS broke for some reason as it would set my RAM at 2133 regardless of what RAM multiplier I set. Had to fully clear CMOS and even after reloading the saved profile with those core clocks and 4400C17 RAM that I was running it would no longer POST and gave a 7F or 09 error usually with DRAM LED.
> 
> So, i went back to an older profile that is 100% tested stable, 5.1/4.6 @ 1.291v VCC Sense (1.26xv VR VOut) and 4200C15 RAM and that booted fine and seems to run both Far Cry 6 and Division 2 (which also random C2D all the time) just fine..
> 
> Not sure if it was the RAM or the CPU or the BIOS acting up but when I set the 5.3/4.7 clocks and voltages in this working profile it still C2D within minutes so 5.3/4.7 definitely isn't stable anymore when it always was so my guess is degradation.
> 
> Good timing with Alder Lake around the corner.


Incidentally, I found FarCry 5 would run my CPU at higher voltages than I was happy with (1.37 V), while most other games run nearer 1.31 V (maxing no more than 1.35 V at odd peaks). I actually made a different BIOS profile with x1 lower multiplier and associated voltage just for FarCry 5.


----------



## Imprezzion

fray_bentos said:


> Incidentally, I found FarCry 5 would run my CPU at higher voltages than I was happy with (1.37 V), while most other games run nearer 1.31 V (maxing no more than 1.35 V at odd peaks). I actually made a different BIOS profile with x1 lower multiplier and associated voltage just for FarCry 5.


Yeah FC5 and New Dawn also acted up for me but that was partially due to BIOS being stuck on 2133 memory frequency so my PC ran like garbage. Loads of FPS drops, stuttering and such.. not weird when running 2133 17-17-17 lol. 

I got it set up with a full clean BIOS flash now roughly like it should be at 5.1/4.6 @ 1.290v VCC Sense but it still gave 1 single error after 2.5 hours of playing FC6. It was this one. What does that generally relate to. Cache, core, RAM, voltage?


----------



## GeneO

safedisk said:


> *ROG MAXIMUS XII Series Beta Bios 2403 UPDATE*
> 
> 1. Some bug fixes
> 2. Microcode Update 0x50 Ver
> 
> ROG MAXIMUS XII HERO BETA BIOS 2403
> 
> ROG MAXIMUS XII APEX BETA BIOS 2403
> 
> ROG MAXIMUS XII FORMULA BETA BIOS 2403
> 
> ROG MAXIMUS XII EXTREME BETA BIOS 2403


Testing this on my 10900k now. BTW, the new microcode must be for 11the gen. Microcode for 10900k is still E2.
I am running EC which I find pretty stable (tried microcode EE on BIOS 2402 and got some WHEA).
Will edit this post if I find any issues.


----------



## acoustic

Imprezzion said:


> Yeah FC5 and New Dawn also acted up for me but that was partially due to BIOS being stuck on 2133 memory frequency so my PC ran like garbage. Loads of FPS drops, stuttering and such.. not weird when running 2133 17-17-17 lol.
> 
> I got it set up with a full clean BIOS flash now roughly like it should be at 5.1/4.6 @ 1.290v VCC Sense but it still gave 1 single error after 2.5 hours of playing FC6. It was this one. What does that generally relate to. Cache, core, RAM, voltage?
> 
> View attachment 2530348


Hehe internal parity error. Welcome to Comet Lake. 

Up your vCore or drop your frequency. That's the only two solutions.


----------



## Falkentyne

Imprezzion said:


> Yeah FC5 and New Dawn also acted up for me but that was partially due to BIOS being stuck on 2133 memory frequency so my PC ran like garbage. Loads of FPS drops, stuttering and such.. not weird when running 2133 17-17-17 lol.
> 
> I got it set up with a full clean BIOS flash now roughly like it should be at 5.1/4.6 @ 1.290v VCC Sense but it still gave 1 single error after 2.5 hours of playing FC6. It was this one. What does that generally relate to. Cache, core, RAM, voltage?
> 
> View attachment 2530348


Skylake cache/ring->core overclock problem. Skylake cores specific.
Gets worse with multiple cores/threads in use. Very rare on 4C/8T chips. Started getting noticed on 8 core/16 thread chips. Extremely common on 10 core chips now depending on what you're running. Discussed about here for years (surprised you didn't know this). Most common in Minecraft when overclocked. NO one really cared or noticed much (since no one cares about Minecraft) until Apex Legends was first released and everyone started seeing these errors or random crashes, and the cat came out of the bag. And this was on 9900k...

Fix: Reduce your cache speed, reduce your core overclock, increase your vcore (sometimes drastically), increase the level of Loadline Calibration (oddly enough a very aggressive LLC setting (or the highest setting) helps prevent this but causes a higher chance of "Cpu Cache L0 errors" from unstable virtual cores/threads, if your vcore is not high enough when Hyperthreading is enabled), or upgrade to Rocket Lake or Alder Lake.

Internal Parity Errors no longer happen on Rocket Lake or Alder Lake. Instead you just BSOD or hard lock (or the application crashes as it should).


----------



## Imprezzion

Falkentyne said:


> Skylake cache/ring->core overclock problem. Skylake cores specific.
> Gets worse with multiple cores/threads in use. Very rare on 4C/8T chips. Started getting noticed on 8 core/16 thread chips. Extremely common on 10 core chips now depending on what you're running. Discussed about here for years (surprised you didn't know this). Most common in Minecraft when overclocked. NO one really cared or noticed much (since no one cares about Minecraft) until Apex Legends was first released and everyone started seeing these errors or random crashes, and the cat came out of the bag. And this was on 9900k...
> 
> Fix: Reduce your cache speed, reduce your core overclock, increase your vcore (sometimes drastically), increase the level of Loadline Calibration (oddly enough a very aggressive LLC setting (or the highest setting) helps prevent this but causes a higher chance of "Cpu Cache L0 errors" from unstable virtual cores/threads, if your vcore is not high enough when Hyperthreading is enabled), or upgrade to Rocket Lake or Alder Lake.
> 
> Internal Parity Errors no longer happen on Rocket Lake or Alder Lake. Instead you just BSOD or hard lock (or the application crashes as it should).


Oh I know about it just never had my specific CPU give me any of them since I bought it and clocked it lol. Not even in the infamous Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition. But now with my BIOS acting weird not wanting to run any memory multiplier I set and suddenly the CPU being unstable at settings it always ran just fine in games it always ran fine (Division 2 400+ hours) I am now looking at what went wrong lol.

I on the one hand doubt 1.424v set voltage (1.390v VR VOut) would be enough to degrade it especially when staying under 80c cores direct die with custom water but it does look more and more like it. It will do none of the previously stable settings anymore. 5.1/4.5 @ 1.270v is unstable now as is 5.2/4.6 @ 1.344v and 5.3/4.7 @ 1.424v set voltages, VCC Sense. Not die sense. Those 3 were all 3 stable profiles that never gave me any problems in any game including the 400+ hours of Division 2 but now Division 2 will just either hard lock or C2D within 10 minutes. Raising the 5.1/4.5 profile to 1.290v seems to almost fix it except that one parity error I got in 2.5 hours. Might get away with just running 1.30v. 

I will upgrade to Alder but it ain't out yet and my Supermacy EVO is still not listed as getting a LGA1700 bracket so I probably have to switch blocks as well at that point.


----------



## cstkl1

Betroz said:


> Asus is allways SO informative with their BIOS release notes...


other brands not even supporting ucodes. so.. 
rather something with no info than nothing at all.


----------



## 1devomer

Imprezzion said:


> Oh I know about it just never had my specific CPU give me any of them since I bought it and clocked it lol. Not even in the infamous Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition. But now with my BIOS acting weird not wanting to run any memory multiplier I set and suddenly the CPU being unstable at settings it always ran just fine in games it always ran fine (Division 2 400+ hours) I am now looking at what went wrong lol.
> 
> I on the one hand doubt 1.424v set voltage (1.390v VR VOut) would be enough to degrade it especially when staying under 80c cores direct die with custom water but it does look more and more like it. It will do none of the previously stable settings anymore. 5.1/4.5 @ 1.270v is unstable now as is 5.2/4.6 @ 1.344v and 5.3/4.7 @ 1.424v set voltages, VCC Sense. Not die sense. Those 3 were all 3 stable profiles that never gave me any problems in any game including the 400+ hours of Division 2 but now Division 2 will just either hard lock or C2D within 10 minutes. Raising the 5.1/4.5 profile to 1.290v seems to almost fix it except that one parity error I got in 2.5 hours. Might get away with just running 1.30v.
> 
> I will upgrade to Alder but it ain't out yet and my Supermacy EVO is still not listed as getting a LGA1700 bracket so I probably have to switch blocks as well at that point.


Your cpu is badly binned, and as @Falkentyne said, these are very huge cpu core errors and should lend straight to a BSOD.

Only dropping the clocks, adding core voltage or dropping the T° will make them disappears, which is not an easy task, if your cpu is not good to start with.


----------



## Betroz

Falkentyne said:


> Internal Parity Errors no longer happen on Rocket Lake or Alder Lake. Instead you just BSOD or hard lock (or the application crashes as it should).


A WHEA error is at least more informative than just a hard lock. If the application just crashes it is difficult to know if it's because it's just buggy or something else.


----------



## Falkentyne

Betroz said:


> A WHEA error is at least more informative than just a hard lock. If the application just crashes it is difficult to know if it's because it's just buggy or something else.


A hard lock on Alder Lake means: Too high temps or too low vcore, just like Rocket Lake.
Same for "Clock watchdog timeout". There isn't much guesswork there. You're either stable or you BSOD or hard lock 

If you get a system service exception or an IRQL not less or equal or a 'memory management" BSOD when you aren't yeeting memory timings, it's a bit more complicated (more on this on NDA lift).

Now on the skylake platforms:
Internal parity errors don't tell you anything except something strange is unstable. And Minecraft generates them more than anything else. These never lead to a clock watchdog timeout BSOD. Usually the game just crashes. Very occasionally you'll get a BSOD 0x124 (WHEA uncorrectable error) meaning the parity error wasn't corrected. The application/game crashing means the error wasn't even detected and it put the game in an unstable state.

At least CPU Cache L0 errors tell you something meaningful since they don't occur with hyperthreading disabled, the L0 register store has to do with "duplicated" registers, e.g. EAX appearing twice as a virtual register, since it has to appear to the OS as a physical CPU, so it means you have low level corruption on a hyperthreaded core.

L0 errors often lead to errors that "look" like traditional memory errors (system service exception, IRQL_not less or equal), since hyperthreaded cores use this. You don't get them with HT off

However you _DO_ get parity errors with HT disabled!


----------



## Imprezzion

Falkentyne said:


> A hard lock on Alder Lake means: Too high temps or too low vcore, just like Rocket Lake.
> Same for "Clock watchdog timeout". There isn't much guesswork there. You're either stable or you BSOD or hard lock
> 
> If you get a system service exception or an IRQL not less or equal or a 'memory management" BSOD when you aren't yeeting memory timings, it's a bit more complicated (more on this on NDA lift).
> 
> Now on the skylake platforms:
> Internal parity errors don't tell you anything except something strange is unstable.  And Minecraft generates them more than anything else. These never lead to a clock watchdog timeout BSOD. Usually the game just crashes. Very occasionally you'll get a BSOD 0x124 (WHEA uncorrectable error) meaning the parity error wasn't corrected. The application/game crashing means the error wasn't even detected and it put the game in an unstable state.
> 
> At least CPU Cache L0 errors tell you something meaningful since they don't occur with hyperthreading disabled, the L0 register store has to do with "duplicated" registers, e.g. EAX appearing twice as a virtual register, since it has to appear to the OS as a physical CPU, so it means you have low level corruption on a hyperthreaded core.
> 
> L0 errors often lead to errors that "look" like traditional memory errors (system service exception, IRQL_not less or equal), since hyperthreaded cores use this. You don't get them with HT off
> 
> However you _DO_ get parity errors with HT disabled!


Raised voltages from 1.424 to 1.448, went on a bit of co-op FC6 with a buddy, went great for an hour or so, no parity errors or anything, then sudden IRQL BSOD. Hmm.. I'd better back off of 5.3. Poor thing never liked it..


----------



## timeToy

I know it's controversial, but I fell you need to be able to run Prime95 Small FFT with AVX to call your overclock "stable", in my case it's 5.2GHz, with no AVX at 5.3Ghz. But once you can handle Prime95 you can handle anything!


----------



## GeneO

timeToy said:


> I know it's controversial, but I fell you need to be able to run Prime95 Small FFT with AVX to call your overclock "stable", in my case it's 5.2GHz, with no AVX at 5.3Ghz. But once you can handle Prime95 you can handle anything!


Except Minecraft


----------



## RobertoSampaio

My 34gl750 lg monitor is dead...
Any suggestion about a good 34" monitor?


----------



## jeiselramos

RobertoSampaio said:


> My 34gl750 lg monitor is dead...
> Any suggestion about a good 34" monitor?


34GP950g or 34GN850

Inviato dal mio IN2023 utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## RobertoSampaio

jeiselramos said:


> 34GP950g or 34GN850
> 
> Inviato dal mio IN2023 utilizzando Tapatalk


I cant find these models here in brazil... 

I think about Odyssey G5


----------



## Falkentyne

GeneO said:


> Except Minecraft


Minecraft will generate internal parity errors at voltages that will _PASS_ Prime95 small FFT FMA3!

You can't use "I'm AVX stable" and claim you're stable on this platform.
If you can pass minecraft without internal parity errors, without setting affinity or disabling cores, maybe you're stable.
Best way to find parity errors in MC is to play multiplayer. You need to be on a lobby with lots of people. Hypixel unfortunately has a timeout where it throws you into some naughty room if you're afk too long. Cubecraft works best for this.

You can get errors in single player also but it takes longer...sometimes MUCH MUCH longer.
I assume it's based on player models loading and being present and what's going on in the game.
A lot more going on in multiplayer.
play.cubecraft.net gives parity errors the best. Just sit around idle in the lobby.


----------



## GeneO

Falkentyne said:


> Minecraft will generate internal parity errors at voltages that will _PASS_ Prime95 small FFT FMA3!
> 
> You can't use "I'm AVX stable" and claim you're stable on this platform.
> If you can pass minecraft without internal parity errors, without setting affinity or disabling cores, maybe you're stable.
> Best way to find parity errors in MC is to play multiplayer. You need to be on a lobby with lots of people. Hypixel unfortunately has a timeout where it throws you into some naughty room if you're afk too long. Cubecraft works best for this.
> 
> You can get errors in single player also but it takes longer...sometimes MUCH MUCH longer.
> I assume it's based on player models loading and being present and what's going on in the game.
> A lot more going on in multiplayer.
> play.cubecraft.net gives parity errors the best. Just sit around idle in the lobby.


Hee, I thought that would elicit a response from you. LOL.


----------



## Betroz

Falkentyne said:


> Minecraft will generate internal parity errors at voltages that will _PASS_ Prime95 small FFT FMA3!
> 
> You can't use "I'm AVX stable" and claim you're stable on this platform.
> If you can pass minecraft without internal parity errors, without setting affinity or disabling cores, maybe you're stable.


It sounds almost like there is an architecture flaw here with these CPUs, cause normally games don't stress the CPU more than Prime95 AVX. Does disabling Hyperthreading help to solve this Minecraft issue on your overclocked 10900K? Does it happen even at pure Intel stock settings too?


----------



## Falkentyne

Betroz said:


> It sounds almost like there is an architecture flaw here with these CPUs, cause normally games don't stress the CPU more than Prime95 AVX. Does disabling Hyperthreading help to solve this Minecraft issue on your overclocked 10900K? Does it happen even at pure Intel stock settings too?


I haven't used that system in more than 6 months. But disabling hyperthreading, not much. (Disabling HT stops cpu cache L0 errors, instead you just get clock watchdog timeouts if you're very unstable). And yes it happens at stock speed (4.7 ghz) if I try to run on lower vcore. At "stock" vcore, (i assume that's something like 1.15v at full load), no.


----------



## acoustic

Betroz said:


> It sounds almost like there is an architecture flaw here with these CPUs, cause normally games don't stress the CPU more than Prime95 AVX. Does disabling Hyperthreading help to solve this Minecraft issue on your overclocked 10900K? Does it happen even at pure Intel stock settings too?


Yes it's a architectural flaw. There have been reports of CPU CACHE L0 and Internal Parity Errors even on 100% stock settings.

Intel jammed those 10 cores in and quickly realized it wasn't such a good idea, lol.


----------



## Betroz

acoustic said:


> Yes it's a architectural flaw. There have been reports of CPU CACHE L0 and Internal Parity Errors even on 100% stock settings.
> 
> Intel jammed those 10 cores in and quickly realized it wasn't such a good idea, lol.


As long as my 10900K is stable for what I use my computer for, that's good enough for me.


----------



## acoustic

Betroz said:


> As long as my 10900K is stable for what I use my computer for, that's good enough for me.


Hey, that's all that matters. I spent a lot of time tinkering to try and fix my Cache L0 errors, and ultimately the only way to fix them in some applications was to rip 1.44v through it just to keep 5.1 all-core stable.

I think a lot of the early production 10900K chips hide this issue because they're higher quality silicon; my 10900K is a later batch and not a very good sample.

The biggest takeaway from the weeks I spent on this stuff, was that stress-tests do not guarantee stability in this modern age of processors. You can pass P95 small FFT, OCCT, Realbench, Cinebench, and then play a game for thirty minutes and CTD/WHEA/BSOD. It's imperative that you use the applications you will use daily to test stability, and a thirty minute run of Cinebench won't hurt either.


----------



## 1devomer

acoustic said:


> Hey, that's all that matters. I spent a lot of time tinkering to try and fix my Cache L0 errors, and ultimately the only way to fix them in some applications was to rip 1.44v through it just to keep 5.1 all-core stable.
> 
> I think a lot of the early production 10900K chips hide this issue because they're higher quality silicon; my 10900K is a later batch and not a very good sample.
> 
> The biggest takeaway from the weeks I spent on this stuff, was that stress-tests do not guarantee stability in this modern age of processors. You can pass P95 small FFT, OCCT, Realbench, Cinebench, and then play a game for thirty minutes and CTD/WHEA/BSOD. It's imperative that you use the applications you will use daily to test stability, and a thirty minute run of Cinebench won't hurt either.


It is more because you can't really asses the AVX stability without melting the cpu, at 5.1Ghz, as anyone of us.
My bad 10600k, trow L0 and parity, but with the right core voltage and T°, these disappeared.

So you have to make a choice, either you acknowledge that you can't run AVX heavy task at 5.1Ghz, and need to go down to something like 4.9Ghz.
Either, you close your eyes and call it a day, hiding the reality under the rug.

But if you test the stability with the appropriate tool, you will get accurate stability over a large panel of applications.
Unfortunately for us, either AMD and Intel are playing a bit too much with the overclocking room and with loose binning algorithm.

I tested the stability without AVX on Prime, i have not a single crash due to non AVX applications.
I tested the AVX with CB R23, but i still got L0 when playing BFV, i had to add another 0.05v on top of the CB R23 core voltage, to be able to play hours without L0 WHEA!

So CB R23 is not a good tool to assess real AVX stability, but rather to get a glance of what is needed to get at least some AVX stability.
Prime is the right tool to assess AVX stability, but it melts your cpu if one pretends to run the same clock as without AVX.

If some want have a glance at the Intel Machine Check Architecture, you can find the IA-32/64 manual below.


----------



## Imprezzion

Falkentyne said:


> Minecraft will generate internal parity errors at voltages that will _PASS_ Prime95 small FFT FMA3!
> 
> You can't use "I'm AVX stable" and claim you're stable on this platform.
> If you can pass minecraft without internal parity errors, without setting affinity or disabling cores, maybe you're stable.
> Best way to find parity errors in MC is to play multiplayer. You need to be on a lobby with lots of people. Hypixel unfortunately has a timeout where it throws you into some naughty room if you're afk too long. Cubecraft works best for this.
> 
> You can get errors in single player also but it takes longer...sometimes MUCH MUCH longer.
> I assume it's based on player models loading and being present and what's going on in the game.
> A lot more going on in multiplayer.
> play.cubecraft.net gives parity errors the best. Just sit around idle in the lobby.


I also kinda agree with @timeToy . You're only really stable if you can pass ANY test at ANY length and I do like P95 small AVX but on a 10900K even direct die with liquid metal and with a 420+240 Nemesis GTX custom loop it is very very hard to cool. I CAN do it at 5.1 staying under 90c. But 5.2 and especially 5.3 with voltages towards 1.40v die sense it is not possible to cool 370w of AVX madness. It hits like 96-99c across the cores and will throttle. The radiators don't even make a difference and neither does fan or pump speed. The block just cannot physically draw heat out of the die fast enough and just overpowers it completely.

I will go and play some FC6 co-op now again and see if the crashes are gone at 5.1.


----------



## fray_bentos

acoustic said:


> Hey, that's all that matters. I spent a lot of time tinkering to try and fix my Cache L0 errors, and ultimately the only way to fix them in some applications was to rip 1.44v through it just to keep 5.1 all-core stable.
> 
> I think a lot of the early production 10900K chips hide this issue because they're higher quality silicon; my 10900K is a later batch and not a very good sample.
> 
> The biggest takeaway from the weeks I spent on this stuff, was that stress-tests do not guarantee stability in this modern age of processors. You can pass P95 small FFT, OCCT, Realbench, Cinebench, and then play a game for thirty minutes and CTD/WHEA/BSOD. It's imperative that you use the applications you will use daily to test stability, and a thirty minute run of Cinebench won't hurt either.


Level 0 errors are definitely fixable with higher Vcore, or lower clock / cache. Parity errors are the harder ones to shift as they need way more Vcore / clock lowering. In my experience, if you are seeing L0 errors _at all_ then you are nowhere near stable. I'm much of the way through Arkham Knight using my 53x (49x cache) HT off settings (this game runs smoother with HT off), and it has been one of the few games that throws up parity errors. So far I have lifted my set Vcore from 1.37 V LLC5 (MSI) to 1.43 V (= 1.354 V max get); the parity errors are definitely getting less frequent as the voltage goes up. I'm getting close to my personal voltage wall, so if I get any more parity errors I am going to drop cache ratio, then if that doesn't work, clock. Indeed, mirroring what you say, unlike Prime 95, gaming is a real-life scenario where I do care if I am getting errors and need to take appropriate action.


----------



## GeneO

nm


----------



## Imprezzion

Fixed it. 5 hours of FC6 with zero issues. Dropped cache to 45, raised RAM back to 4400 17-17-17 as RAM was not part of the problem, set 5.2 all core. Had to go from previously thought stable 1.344v (1.303v VR VOut) all the way to 1.390v (1.351v VR VOut) but the errors are gone. It's totally stable now and no more parity errors. Still benches CB23 at 171xx so didn't lose all that much performance either.


----------



## timeToy

No crashes with Far Cry 6 here...


----------



## Betroz

timeToy said:


> No crashes with Far Cry 6 here...


Did you check for WHEA errors...?


----------



## fray_bentos

timeToy said:


> No crashes with Far Cry 6 here...
> View attachment 2530582


If a parity error is caught and corrected it will show as a WHEA error, but there will be no crash. For example, Arkham Knight was crashing on me less often than the (corrected) WHEA internal parity errors were pinging up.


----------



## timeToy

No WHEA errors after a few hours of play.


----------



## fray_bentos

timeToy said:


> No WHEA errors after a few hours of play.
> View attachment 2530665


Thanks for letting us know... Good stuff.


----------



## Salve1412

Guys, don't know if someone here uses Ghostrunner (full game, not demo) for testing purposes (as a "Parity checker") but I've noticed that something has changed with the latest Halloween patch: I played the third level twice with RT Enabled and I didn't get a single Parity Error or crash. Of course my overclocking settings were the same as before: with them I used to get 5 Parity Errors on average and occasionally random crashes while playing the third level. Interesting.


----------



## Imprezzion

Well, the new Guardians of the Galaxy turned into WHEA simulator for me as well with RT on Ultra and no DLSS... 6 in 40 minutes. On different threads no less lol. (Mostly 11 tho).

So, smart me decided to update my BIOS to the full Windows 11 supported one as I do run 11.

That went well... It didn't POST after exiting M-Flash after the flash so i CLR CMOS and tried again. 00 on the debug and CPU LED... So, bad flash... Took me half an hour to get a FAT32 stick to recognize with flashback and flash it again with flashback before it finally booted again... Good start.

Set everything up again, RAM on my Gen. approved and tested 4400C17 profile and left CPU fully stock. Ran fine on 4.9 boost no WHEA. Set 5.1 all-core at plenty of voltage (1.40v) with Auto lite load and LLC. WHEA all over the place...

I finally managed to fix it by remembering a tip I read here to set a very high LLC level. So, went for turbo ratio OC with 53x2 and 51x10, Auto adaptive voltage, no offsets, LLC3, lite load mode_1. This gives it about 1.332v. And magically all WHEA's are gone. Played for 2 hours and 5 hours of Far Cry 6 which also have WHEA before, zero errors.

So yeah, yeeting the LLC way higher then I'd usually run works for some weird reason..

Temps are fine, the overshoot isn't all that bad and it even ran 46 cache without issue.

I am trying 52 tomorrow but I know my board. It will throw an insane voltage at it on Auto adaptive on 52, probably like 1.56v at LLC3 so I'd have to run a substantial negative adaptive offset. Dunno how happy it will be with that on idle.. 

I also kinda sold this kit to a mate or at least promised him he could buy my set when I het something else as a new toy. Most likely temporarily a used 5900X with a random used B550/X570 board just to play with AMD for a bit while waiting for DDR5 to mature a little and then going to a 12900K or whatever AMD comes up with later.


----------



## Falkentyne

Imprezzion said:


> Well, the new Guardians of the Galaxy turned into WHEA simulator for me as well with RT on Ultra and no DLSS... 6 in 40 minutes. On different threads no less lol. (Mostly 11 tho).
> 
> So, smart me decided to update my BIOS to the full Windows 11 supported one as I do run 11.
> 
> That went well... It didn't POST after exiting M-Flash after the flash so i CLR CMOS and tried again. 00 on the debug and CPU LED... So, bad flash... Took me half an hour to get a FAT32 stick to recognize with flashback and flash it again with flashback before it finally booted again... Good start.
> 
> Set everything up again, RAM on my Gen. approved and tested 4400C17 profile and left CPU fully stock. Ran fine on 4.9 boost no WHEA. Set 5.1 all-core at plenty of voltage (1.40v) with Auto lite load and LLC. WHEA all over the place...
> 
> I finally managed to fix it by remembering a tip I read here to set a very high LLC level. So, went for turbo ratio OC with 53x2 and 51x10, Auto adaptive voltage, no offsets, LLC3, lite load mode_1. This gives it about 1.332v. And magically all WHEA's are gone. Played for 2 hours and 5 hours of Far Cry 6 which also have WHEA before, zero errors.
> 
> So yeah, yeeting the LLC way higher then I'd usually run works for some weird reason..
> 
> Temps are fine, the overshoot isn't all that bad and it even ran 46 cache without issue.
> 
> I am trying 52 tomorrow but I know my board. It will throw an insane voltage at it on Auto adaptive on 52, probably like 1.56v at LLC3 so I'd have to run a substantial negative adaptive offset. Dunno how happy it will be with that on idle..
> 
> I also kinda sold this kit to a mate or at least promised him he could buy my set when I het something else as a new toy. Most likely temporarily a used 5900X with a random used B550/X570 board just to play with AMD for a bit while waiting for DDR5 to mature a little and then going to a 12900K or whatever AMD comes up with later.


That was me who said that.
Yeeting the LLC also yeets the cache voltage as the cpu core and cache voltages are linked.


----------



## ViTosS

When I was having trouble with WHEAs, reducing cache from 4.7 to 4.3 didn't solve, only way to solve was increase vcore drastically (at least for COD BO CW), anyway, I played 30 min of Far Cry 6 no WHEAs, didn't play more than that because not feeling like playing that game, so generic and copy paste from the previus FC series... Anyway, I just use my vcore the regular one (minimum that passes stress tests), if I deal with a game like Metro Exodus for example in the future I will jump bump vcore and that's it.


----------



## Imprezzion

ViTosS said:


> When I was having trouble with WHEAs, reducing cache from 4.7 to 4.3 didn't solve, only way to solve was increase vcore drastically (at least for COD BO CW), anyway, I played 30 min of Far Cry 6 no WHEAs, didn't play more than that because not feeling like playing that game, so generic and copy paste from the previus FC series... Anyway, I just use my vcore the regular one (minimum that passes stress tests), if I deal with a game like Metro Exodus for example in the future I will jump bump vcore and that's it.


I used 43 cache (auto) with just 1.40v at 5.1 all-core (dynamic mode, adaptive offset +130) which is way more then it generally needs for stress tests but with LLC6 it still WHEA's. With a much lower voltage but higher LLC it does stay stable. It's weird but it works.


----------



## acoustic

Imprezzion said:


> I used 43 cache (auto) with just 1.40v at 5.1 all-core (dynamic mode, adaptive offset +130) which is way more then it generally needs for stress tests but with LLC6 it still WHEA's. With a much lower voltage but higher LLC it does stay stable. It's weird but it works.


Yeah, Falkentyne had mentioned that very high LLC can be a fix for Internal Parity and/or CPU Cache L0 errors. Nice that you found a solution! I may mess with LLC3 since you had success, and see if it works. I currently run:

LLC4 w/ 700Khz switching
AC_LL 18
DC_LL 21
53x4 / 51x10 / 48x cache -- VCC Sense / Adaptive / Auto vCore

I do get WHEA errors in Metro Exodus with this setup, but that's the only game I have them in. Once I finalize this new mem OC, I'll try LLC3 and see if it gives me similar results. I'll have to re-tune DC_LL for the new LLC, but shouldn't take more than a couple minutes.

Sorry to hear you had issues flashing the MSI BIOS. I actually had the same thing happen with the BIOS before last, if you remember - was getting 00 post-code as if my CPU or board was completely dead. The BIOS Flashback feature saved it, thankfully, with the USB stick in the back. I just had to re-flash the BIOS again and it worked fine. I've never had that happen with an ASUS board, so it was definitely strange. Weird that you had the same thing happen too!


----------



## Betroz

acoustic said:


> I do get WHEA errors in Metro Exodus with this setup, but that's the only game I have them in. Once I finalize this new mem OC, I'll try LLC3 and see if it gives me similar results. I'll have to re-tune DC_LL for the new LLC, but shouldn't take more than a couple minutes.


Try to set LLC to level 6. I have used LLC6 with my 10900K since day 1


----------



## acoustic

Betroz said:


> Try to set LLC to level 6. I have used LLC6 with my 10900K since day 1


On MSI boards, the LLC is flipped - LLC1 is our strongest LLC, and LLC8 is our weakest.

LLC4 is probably about equivalent to LLC6.


----------



## Imprezzion

It did not like 5.2's high negative offset. It froze with looping sound while idle on YouTube lol. -135 adaptive offset is a tad too much. It gives it 1.500v in the BIOS on Auto lol. Shows how bad my bin is I guess.. I'll try with advanced offset to minimize the effects on idle and switching vCore when I get back from work today.


----------



## Betroz

Imprezzion said:


> It did not like 5.2's high negative offset. It froze with looping sound while idle on YouTube lol. -135 adaptive offset is a tad too much. It gives it 1.500v in the BIOS on Auto lol. Shows how bad my bin is I guess.. I'll try with advanced offset to minimize the effects on idle and switching vCore when I get back from work today.


Is that 100 Mhz extra really worth the hassle...? Go down to 5.1 allcore and 4.7 cache


----------



## Imprezzion

Betroz said:


> Is that 100 Mhz extra really worth the hassle...? Go down to 5.1 allcore and 4.7 cache


4.7 cache is going to be a stretch. It was never very stable above 46 but maybe with the higher LLC I run now it will stabilize.


----------



## ViTosS

I had to replace a 8 year old PSU (Corsair AX860), with that PSU I only was able to pass Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition with 1.34v vcore, now with a brand new PSU (Corsai RM850x) I was able to lower it to 1.30v to pass, tested many times, also was able to reduce my minimum stable voltage in stress tests from 1.28v to 1.26v, all of that just by changing PSU... RAM OC stood the same btw.


----------



## Astral85

Finally got this thing to all core 5.2/47 without blowing the lid off. Under load it's stable at 1.31V (Vdroop) with LLC6. I'm running manual Vcore but want to try and get this stable with adaptive voltage.


----------



## madrebel

Greetings, dear overclockers!
I am very interested in your experience of finding stable voltages vcore, vcci, vccsa: which programs (and what version?) did you use to test voltage stability? what testing methods do you prefer to use in these programs? what duration of the tests do you choose? Is it possible to test voltages in less than 1 hour with any program (e.g. linx)?
How do you know if you need to raise the LLC level?


----------



## criskoe

Seems these days with the 10th gen CPUs, the best way to find stability is to just play your games. Many people have reported that their systems will pass hours and hours of synthetic stress tests and benchmarks but will throw whea errors and have issues in some games.


----------



## FedericoUY

madrebel said:


> Greetings, dear overclockers!
> I am very interested in your experience of finding stable voltages vcore, vcci, vccsa: which programs (and what version?) did you use to test voltage stability? what testing methods do you prefer to use in these programs? what duration of the tests do you choose? Is it possible to test voltages in less than 1 hour with any program (e.g. linx)?
> How do you know if you need to raise the LLC level?


I use for ram hci memtest 7.0 pro > instances as threads you have (in this case: 20), and as much ram as you can.
For cpu > blender full, cinebench r23 10 (or more) minutes and battlefield's gaming. I do not waste power anymore on prime95, as this cpu is very hard to keep low temps.
LLC in asus set to 6, as I dont like vdroop, 6 lvl will keep the volts you set and a little of overvolting in some scenarios.


----------



## madrebel

FedericoUY said:


> I use for ram hci memtest 7.0 pro > instances as threads you have (in this case: 20), and as much ram as you can.
> For cpu > blender full, cinebench r23 10 (or more) minutes and battlefield's gaming. I do not waste power anymore on prime95, as this cpu is very hard to keep low temps.
> LLC in asus set to 6, as I dont like vdroop, 6 lvl will keep the volts you set and a little of overvolting in some scenarios.


Thank you for your reply! I really hope to finish setting up my system for 5GHz and adaptive mode soon!
Please share your experiences! what additional bios settings do you change for better performance in adaptive mode (speedshift, speedstep, C-states and others)?
Please could you share your bios configurations! I will have them as a reference! And I'm sure they will be of great help to many when configuring additional bios partitions for maximum performance and stability in adaptive mode.

I made an album with screenshots of my little progress in overclocking: https://ibb.co/album/6n8PpS

I also have an inexpert question about VF curves 
In bios my motherboard shows a possible voltage for 5GHz - 1.334v
Is this value the voltage under load or at idle? Should I use this value as a guide when searching for minimum stable voltage for 5GHz?


----------



## AeonMW2

Imprezzion said:


> Well, the new Guardians of the Galaxy turned into WHEA simulator for me as well with RT on Ultra and no DLSS... 6 in 40 minutes. On different threads no less lol. (Mostly 11 tho).


Can confirm, this game and Metro Exodus EE just destroyed every last bit of confidence in my OC.
I thought it was error free for like a year. Then Metro Exodus EE happened, but there was like 1-2 errors in a day.
And then Guardians. A LOT of Internal parity errors.

5.0 all core/4.5 cache, 1.375 vcore BIOS, LLC HIGH, ~1.275v VROUT under Cinebench R20 load
Will try to bump LLC to Turbo later today as many suggest
We'll see


----------



## HREN

AeonMW2 said:


> Can confirm, this game and Metro Exodus EE just destroyed every last bit of confidence in my OC.
> I thought it was error free for like a year. Then Metro Exodus EE happened, but there was like 1-2 errors in a day.
> And then Guardians. A LOT of Internal parity errors.
> 
> 5.0 all core/4.5 cache, 1.375 vcore BIOS, LLC HIGH, ~1.275v VROUT under Cinebench R20 load
> Will try to bump LLC to Turbo later today as many suggest
> We'll see


1.375 vcore BIOS - it' too high. Try 1.29-1.3 for 5.0avx0 (4.7 cache) and Lynx. 
1.38 - it's for 5.2avx0


----------



## AeonMW2

HREN said:


> 1.375 vcore BIOS - it' too high. Try 1.29-1.3 for 5.0avx0 (4.7 cache) and Lynx.
> 1.38 - it's for 5.2avx0


I really don't think it's any high. Note, that it's 1.375 vcore with High LLC, not Turbo. and VRVOUT is again only 1.275 under heavy load
anything less than that and it't not gonna be stable.

for Turbo i will probably target ~1.325 vcore in BIOS and same VRVOUT


----------



## ViTosS

Guess what guys, BF 2042 is the new Metro Exodus (but in a subtile way), getting WHEA even in the voltage that is 100% guaranteed to pass Metro Exodus


----------



## criskoe

ViTosS said:


> Guess what guys, BF 2042 is the new Metro Exodus (but in a subtile way), getting WHEA even in the voltage that is 100% guaranteed to pass Metro Exodus


Yup.

8 hour AVX Prime small fft run = zero issues or wheas.
8 hour AVX Prime Blend Run = zero issues or wheas.
8 hour Cinebench Run = zero issues or wheas.
8 hour Realbench Run = zero issues or wheas.

BF2042 = No crashing but random rare wheas.

Just play games to find stability these days guys...

To be honest. I dont care as long as my games dont crash.


----------



## AeonMW2

oddly enough, Metro Exodus gives me more errors (especially on loading screens) than BF2042. I have played 50 hours of BF2042 and seen only 2 errors. While Metro gives me one every 5-7 load screens consistently

I have tried to bump LLC to turbo, but sadly no luck - whea in Metro still reproduceable.
Next thing ill try is disabling HT and going for something like 5.2-5.3 instead of 5.0 with HT.
I think no HT is actually gonna be faster in games. At least in BF2042. And I don't care about non gaming applications


----------



## fray_bentos

AeonMW2 said:


> oddly enough, Metro Exodus gives me more errors (especially on loading screens) than BF2042. I have played 50 hours of BF2042 and seen only 2 errors. While Metro gives me one every 5-7 load screens consistently
> 
> I have tried to bump LLC to turbo, but sadly no luck - whea in Metro still reproduceable.
> Next thing ill try is disabling HT and going for something like 5.2-5.3 instead of 5.0 with HT.
> I think no HT is actually gonna be faster in games. At least in BF2042. And I don't care about non gaming applications


Indeed. I started off with my main OC profile as HT on at 5.2 GHz, but now I have swapped to 5.3 GHz HT off as my main profile. Firstly, I found HT off easier to find a stable voltage for. Secondly, my HT off profile runs with less load voltage, less power, less heat, and accordingly, less risk of pushing things too far. Despite the expectation for less Vdroop with HT off, I think the load voltage with HT off is lower than HT on because the extra heat from HT results in Intel voltage optimisations adding more voltage to maintain stability (note: turning Intel voltage optimisations off just makes things even hotter). Thirdly, HT off/on makes no difference in MOST games. There are only a few games where I spotted a noticeable difference between HT on and off:

Project Cars 2: HT on is better (large fps drops with particles on high with HT off, but ONLY when it is raining. Lowering particle effects to medium solves the problem for HT off).
Shadow of the Tomb Raider: HT off is better (also seen in the benchmarks).
Assassin's Creed Odyssey: HT off is better (more stutters/dips with HT on).
Batman Arkham Knight: HT off is better (more stutters with HT on).
All other games so far: no difference HT on or off (not CPU limited or maxing monitor fps 144/165 Hz).

If games start making use of more threads in the future I will move back to HT on as my main profile.

Honestly, I can see the 10900K(F)s being run in gaming PCs for quite a few years; in much the same way that people ran their i7-2600Ks into the ground. This might be especially true given that Intel roadmaps show that they will be sticking with a max of 8 P cores for the next few years (in much the same way that things stagnated at 4 cores until AMD got back in the game).

Some more HT on / off comparisons with 10900K (vs 12600K and 12900K) here: PCBuilding

The 10900K HT off profile beats HT on in all gaming cases.


----------



## l.kristensen.1981

skullbringer said:


> 2.
> 1st was 10900K SP63, but still did 5.3 GHz without delid, sent it back though
> 2nd was 10900KF SP96, lucky I guess
> 
> SP isn't everything. SP 83 chips can do 5.6 GHz, whereas mine is maxed out at 5.5 e.g. Then there is Nizzen with his SP63 that does 5.5 GHz on direct die, SP is like very inaccurate


Hi. I just installed a nCore v1 direct die water block. The thing is genius! The water block has kind of like a IHS built in that locks into the CPU socket locking system. I just LOVE it! After that I could push my SP63 to do stuff, I guess it shouldnt be able of being a SP63- even on custom loop.

So I managed to do a PERFECT 5.2 Ghz / 4.7 Ghz OC with the nCore. This setup can run RealBench and is rock solid. Even Linpack can run- something that was not possible before due to overheat, even on custom loop.

I am in the process of testing 5.3 Ghz now. It does require much more tweaking due to my CPU unfortunatly has a very high wall going to 5.2 and 5.3 I on the very limit of what is possible.

My SP63 is not that great sadly- normally I run 5.0 Ghz for very efficient performance contra power consumption. This can be run with 1.305v Sometimes I ran 50x core 47x cache but that requires a little more voltage.

My V/F curve from the factory is

5.1 @ 1.343v - This is somewhat pretty accurate depending on LLC- give and take.
5.2 @ 1.498v - This was too high at least in my case. I was able to stabilize at 1.44v LLC6. Rock solid 52/47x, although taking the cache to 47x brings more heat. But this gave a stunning CB23 score at 17600. My highest 24/7/365 stable score!
5.3 @ 1.528v is somewhat tricky because the VID is at the very limit of what Intel specs VID and allows! So Cinebench becomes a challenge at 53x. This makes all attempt at LLC7 CB23 impossible to complete, although so far its completely game stable. All other LLC and under 1.50v would throw a L0 cache error almost instant. With advanced trickery through customized vcore "auto", LLC AC/DC and V/F curves I am able to complete CB23 on 53x- this gave a high score record at almost 17700 points! Quite an improvement over stock 16300. Back in the day I remember "auto" was considered DISABLED in OC territory. But I have to say that I can achieve results now with fully customized auto that manual vcore cannot do. This has to do with v/f curve, ac dc LLC, regular LLC and the fact that the VRM is so intelligent and fast that it can produce "magic" -a manuel static setting simply cannot. I can even now get AUTO to run with LLC4 on 53x within a very finetuned window of voltage, because it can somehow compensate "behind the scenes"  Thats impossible to do on 53x LLC4 manuel vcore without extreme voltage closing in on 1.55-1.60v+ range on my cpu. However if left unchanged and stock at 5.3 Ghz it is EXTREMELY dangerous! My CPU goes to 1.66v in this scenario! No warning what so ever it just adds voltage and "predicts" ... not good with high clock and SP63. I had this settings by accident after BIOS reset etc. and was shocked when I saw this in CB23. So good thing always to monitor!  I pulled the power cable when I realized this, reboot and changed the settings of corse hehe.. BUT AUTO fully customized it can really be a power wizard. And if you decide to run high voltage like me you really want ALL C states and power saving features enabled for low idle and lower lighter/medium workload and games voltage. The motherboard is very good at balancing and reduce voltage while keeping full clock under gaming with all this in place. Its actually rare and happens very fast when the CPU needs full clock voltage under load. That's why I decided to run with high voltage for gaming 24/7. Because most of the time it never runs the full voltage in what I call "Advanced Auto". Also I wanna push limits and don't care if the CPU goes to 10 years instead of 15 haha! My temps are also 100% ok. So after messing with this like a madman (100 hours and 1000 reboots later), I have now come to appreciate how good the auto tools and quality VRMs is nowadays. Its just "auto-out-of-the-box" with extreme OC that is not good, at least not with a low/normal bin CPU. My mobo is Asus Z490-E/10900K

Currently im on : LLC7 @ 1.45/1.455v BIOS SET. This is the lowest I can get stable at so far all games I tested with no errors. I usually play GTA V with extreme gfx mods for a few hours. This is one of the best and most OC sensitive games I know of. This setting with GTA can rarely throw 1 L0 error. Im still tweaking 53x with auto as this is what I prefer to save overall voltage, power and heat. Also working on eliminating that 1 L0 error which should be possible.

I also noticed after direct die cooling, my AI auto now can boost to 5.5 Ghz! on 2 cores. So after I discovered that I am trying out, just for fun a OC per core usage scheme.

2 x 5.5 Ghz
4 x 5.4 Ghz
6 x 5.3 Ghz
10 x 5.2 Ghz

@1.45v LL7

Have not experienced more with this yet!

So far its working great, although I never really was into this "per core" OC. But if I can tweak it even further to .. ex. 5.5 Ghz on 4 cores and 5.3 Ghz on all core! It begins to make a LOT of sense! 

EDIT: Actually testing this out right now! 5.5 x 4, 5.4 x 6 and all core 5.3.. so far so good.. Thats pretty impressive.. IMO

But needless to say the nCore direct die block with liquid metal enabled all this. Before the concentrated heat was so intense in this OC range that my regular water block could not heat transfer fast enough.

I just wish I had a SP gold chip haha! .. But my luck are always out that's why I got a SP63. But I think I managed ok anyway at the end of the day.

Lasse


----------



## fray_bentos

l.kristensen.1981 said:


> Hi. I just installed a nCore v1 direct die water block. The thing is genius! The water block has kind of like a IHS built in that locks into the CPU socket locking system. I just LOVE it! After that I could push my SP63 to do stuff, I guess it shouldnt be able of being a SP63- even on custom loop.
> 
> So I managed to do a PERFECT 5.2 Ghz / 4.7 Ghz OC with the nCore. This setup can run RealBench and is rock solid. Even Linpack can run- something that was not possible before due to overheat, even on custom loop.
> 
> I am in the process of testing 5.3 Ghz now. It does require much more tweaking due to my CPU unfortunatly has a very high wall going to 5.2 and 5.3 I on the very limit of what is possible.
> 
> My SP63 is not that great sadly- normally I run 5.0 Ghz for very efficient performance contra power consumption. This can be run with 1.305v Sometimes I ran 50x core 47x cache but that requires a little more voltage.
> 
> My V/F curve from the factory is
> 
> 5.1 @ 1.343v - This is somewhat pretty accurate depending on LLC- give and take.
> 5.2 @ 1.498v - This was too high at least in my case. I was able to stabilize at 1.44v LLC6. Rock solid 52/47x, although taking the cache to 47x brings more heat. But this gave a stunning CB23 score at 17600. My highest 24/7/365 stable score!
> 5.3 @ 1.528v is somewhat tricky because the VID is at the very limit of what Intel specs VID and allows! So Cinebench becomes a challenge at 53x. This makes all attempt at LLC7 CB23 impossible to complete, although so far its completely game stable. All other LLC and under 1.50v would throw a L0 cache error almost instant. With advanced trickery through customized vcore "auto", LLC AC/DC and V/F curves I am able to complete CB23 on 53x- this gave a high score record at almost 17700 points! Quite an improvement over stock 16300. Back in the day I remember "auto" was considered DISABLED in OC territory. But I have to say that I can achieve results now with fully customized auto that manual vcore cannot do. This has to do with v/f curve, ac dc LLC, regular LLC and the fact that the VRM is so intelligent and fast that it can produce "magic" -a manuel static setting simply cannot. I can even now get AUTO to run with LLC4 on 53x within a very finetuned window of voltage, because it can somehow compensate "behind the scenes"  Thats impossible to do on 53x LLC4 manuel vcore without extreme voltage closing in on 1.55-1.60v+ range on my cpu. However if left unchanged and stock at 5.3 Ghz it is EXTREMELY dangerous! My CPU goes to 1.66v in this scenario! No warning what so ever it just adds voltage and "predicts" ... not good with high clock and SP63. I had this settings by accident after BIOS reset etc. and was shocked when I saw this in CB23. So good thing always to monitor!  I pulled the power cable when I realized this, reboot and changed the settings of corse hehe.. BUT AUTO fully customized it can really be a power wizard. And if you decide to run high voltage like me you really want ALL C states and power saving features enabled for low idle and lower lighter/medium workload and games voltage. The motherboard is very good at balancing and reduce voltage while keeping full clock under gaming with all this in place. Its actually rare and happens very fast when the CPU needs full clock voltage under load. That's why I decided to run with high voltage for gaming 24/7. Because most of the time it never runs the full voltage in what I call "Advanced Auto". Also I wanna push limits and don't care if the CPU goes to 10 years instead of 15 haha! My temps are also 100% ok. So after messing with this like a madman (100 hours and 1000 reboots later), I have now come to appreciate how good the auto tools and quality VRMs is nowadays. Its just "auto-out-of-the-box" with extreme OC that is not good, at least not with a low/normal bin CPU. My mobo is Asus Z490-E/10900K
> 
> Currently im on : LLC7 @ 1.45/1.455v BIOS SET. This is the lowest I can get stable at so far all games I tested with no errors. I usually play GTA V with extreme gfx mods for a few hours. This is one of the best and most OC sensitive games I know of. This setting with GTA can rarely throw 1 L0 error. Im still tweaking 53x with auto as this is what I prefer to save overall voltage, power and heat. Also working on eliminating that 1 L0 error which should be possible.
> 
> I also noticed after direct die cooling, my AI auto now can boost to 5.5 Ghz! on 2 cores. So after I discovered that I am trying out, just for fun a OC per core usage scheme.
> 
> 2 x 5.5 Ghz
> 4 x 5.4 Ghz
> 6 x 5.3 Ghz
> 10 x 5.2 Ghz
> 
> @1.45v LL7
> 
> Have not experienced more with this yet!
> 
> So far its working great, although I never really was into this "per core" OC. But if I can tweak it even further to .. ex. 5.5 Ghz on 4 cores and 5.3 Ghz on all core! It begins to make a LOT of sense!
> 
> EDIT: Actually testing this out right now! 5.5 x 4, 5.4 x 6 and all core 5.3.. so far so good.. Thats pretty impressive.. IMO
> 
> But needless to say the nCore direct die block with liquid metal enabled all this. Before the concentrated heat was so intense in this OC range that my regular water block could not heat transfer fast enough.
> 
> I just wish I had a SP gold chip haha! .. But my luck are always out that's why I got a SP63. But I think I managed ok anyway at the end of the day.
> 
> Lasse


Pushing LLC7 (Asus) isn't wise. It is too extreme and pumps up voltages and temperatures (vs. MSI boards, where LLC 8 is most droopy).

If your primary use case is normal PC work and gaming, I would recommend turning off hyperthreading = higher all core OC (probably +100/200 MHz), no more level 0 errors, lower voltage, lower temperatures, and better gaming performance in almost all games.

See 10900K 10C/10T vs 10C/20T results here:





PCBuilding


KingFaris10's Site




kingfaris.co.uk





GTA V is good at revealing level 0 errors (provided that you are not GPU bottlenecked by graphics enhancements). However, if you are still getting any level 0 errors you are no where near stable, at some point you will hit a load that generates parity errors, which could mean you need to add another +0.05 V to Vcore to solve (and you have already run out of headroom).

Per core overclocking is fairly useless when running games; if you monitor your clocks in HWiNFO64 whilst gaming (using the graph feature, double click on a ratio/clock speed) you'll always drop down to the all-core clock speed anyway. Getting per core overclock stable also requires more voltage (and time and effort). The only benefit of per core clocking is that the user feels like they have a faster chip because they can occasionally hit a "biggerer" number.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

For those who like to play with high LLC:

Why to choose a low or a high LLC?

Many like to tinker with their motherboard load-line settings to achieve better overclocking results.
But how does this setting really work and how does the voltage output change with it?
Check below to find out.

*What is Load-Line?*
The load-line setting, normally in mΩ (milliohms), determines how much the output voltage decreases when loaded. This is derived from Ohm’s Law U = R*I. The drop in output voltage is calculated as load-line * Iout (output current).
For example a load-line of 1 mΩ and output current of 100 A, dU = 0.001 Ω * 100 A = 0.100 V. At 1.300 V set-point output voltage, when loaded with 100 A the output would really be 1.300 – 0.100 = 1.200 V.
The primary reason for using a load-line in modern systems is to reduce voltage spikes (overshoot) when going from high to low output current and achieve a more predictable behavior.

Load-Line Levels or similar are profiles created by motherboard manufacturers to obfuscate and “simplify” different load-line values for users.
Another reason for these profiles is because additional VRM (Voltage Regulator Module) settings may need to adjusted along with the load-line value to keep it operating within spec.

*The LLC effect:*

The captures below show the output voltage transient behavior when loaded with about 70 A for ~150 μs.

The LLC1 capture illustrates ideal load-line behavior.

As the load-line value decreases (higher level), the line flattens and the under/overshoot spikes at start and finish become more pronounced.
The lowest voltage point at the beginning of the load transient does not improve much. In this case, using a Load-Line Level of above 3 seems questionable.
The load voltage would increase meaning higher power consumption, but the worst case lowest voltage would stay the same.



































































The graphs above are for a static voltage. Can you imagine the mess using "By core", Adaptive voltage and OCTVB?
That's why it's easier to stabilize this type of OC using a high-impedance LLC.

Credits: ElmorLabs


*About Phases:*


----------



## zebra_hun

Hello,

I use LLC7, for me is good. 
Allcore 5.4GHz need 1.385V under load (CbR23), this is in BIOS 1.44V, and VCore Latch Max (spike) is 1.49V. Ok, this oc is short run, daily right me allcore 5GHz and 1.15V VCore under load. Die sense, socket sence don't care.










I wanted to see VDrop, tested LLC 5-8 (Asus), for 5.1GHz need my 10850k 1.208V VCore under Cinebench R23. LLC8 biggest spike is 1.27V. I thik, this is not dangerous. 24/7 i use LLC7.

Question: LLC7 and 8 danger, or not? I know, VCore isn't "nice", but 24/7 5GHz 1.15V LLC8, or LLC7 and in BIOS 1.20V and under load 1.15-1.16V better?
Thanks.
There is my result:











[LLC8]
[LLC7]
[LLC6]
[LLC5]


----------



## FedericoUY

I don't consider CB R23 a stability test all by itself, but that is hands down, the best 10850k that I've seen so far. It's hard to see even 10900k's that would do those speeds with those volts. Congrats on that chip, golden 10850 for sure.


----------



## zebra_hun

FedericoUY said:


> I don't consider CB R23 a stability test all by itself, but that is hands down, the best 10850k that I've seen so far. It's hard to see even 10900k's that would do those speeds with those volts. Congrats on that chip, golden 10850 for sure.


Thanks. 

I wanted to show my VDrop, and i don't know yet, what is the best LLC.
My 24/7 settings is allcore 5GHz, and it is 1.155V VCore under Load. 
In BIOS it is 1.165V Fixed VCore. This is LLC 8, and stabil settings. No much VDrop.
Biggest spike is 1.30V, on HWINFO VCore Latch min and max field.
I hope that is (the spike) not harmful, destructive and degrading.

1 hour long P95 stability test (small fft), and 30 min long CbR23. 
For normal gaming this OC enough for me. Plus 1 CbR23 5GHz Bench.






















Exteme OC, yea, sometimes running  (always LLC7)


----------



## RobertoSampaio

Edited.

Please read few posts above.


----------



## fray_bentos

RobertoSampaio said:


> *The LLC effect:*
> 
> Many like to tinker with their motherboard load-line settings to achieve better overclocking results. But how does this setting really work and how does the voltage output change with it? Check below to find out.
> 
> *What is Load-Line?*
> The load-line setting, normally in mΩ (milliohms), determines how much the output voltage decreases when loaded. This is derived from Ohm’s Law U = R*I. The drop in output voltage is calculated as load-line * Iout (output current). For example a load-line of 1 mΩ and output current of 100 A, dU = 0.001 Ω * 100 A = 0.100 V. At 1.300 V set-point output voltage, when loaded with 100 A the output would really be 1.300 – 0.100 = 1.200 V. The primary reason for using a load-line in modern systems is to reduce voltage spikes (overshoot) when going from high to low output current and achieve a more predictable behavior.
> 
> Load-Line Levels or similar are profiles created by motherboard manufacturers to obfuscate and “simplify” different load-line values for users. Another reason for these profiles is because additional VRM (Voltage Regulator Module) settings may need to adjusted along with the load-line value to keep it operating within spec.
> The captures below show the output voltage transient behavior when loaded with about 70 A for ~150 μs. The LLC1 capture illustrates ideal load-line behavior.
> As the load-line value decreases (higher level), the line flattens and the under/overshoot spikes at start and finish become more pronounced.
> The lowest voltage point at the beginning of the load transient does not improve much. In this case, using a Load-Line Level of above 3 seems questionable.
> The load voltage would increase meaning higher power consumption, but the worst case lowest voltage would stay the same.
> 
> View attachment 2538547
> View attachment 2538548
> 
> View attachment 2538549
> View attachment 2538550
> 
> View attachment 2538551
> View attachment 2538552
> 
> View attachment 2538553
> View attachment 2538554
> 
> 
> Credits: ElmorLabs


Why have you posted this again? Post 5,823  just 8 days ago and 4 posts above.


----------



## zebra_hun

fray_bentos said:


> Why have you posted this again? Post 5,823  just 8 days ago and 4 posts above.


I think, he posted me. I will to write later, but english is not my main language, so it is not easy. I saw the pics, they are super, we can see all llc voltage with scope. 
But i'm not 100% sure, the low llc, with extreme vdrop is good. Yes, straight, nice, but i linked my pic, with my results. On 1.15-1.20V with llc7-8 is good for me.
Ok, i'm not a pro pc master.


----------



## RobertoSampaio

fray_bentos said:


> Why have you posted this again? Post 5,823  just 8 days ago and 4 posts above.


Thanks. I edited my post.


----------



## ViTosS

My delid results (Conductonaut on top of the die and under the IHS + on top of the IHS and under the AIO block), when I ran the test before delid (3 Cinebench R23 runs) the ambient temperature was 4-5c higher, so an average of 8-10c of drop! I'm happy


----------



## Cpfan1

SP minus63 garbage coming in hot! The motherbord im using is apex 12 and im struggling to get past 46 ring and 51 uncore. Here are my settings:

Ai overclock tuner manual
Cpu svid support disabled
Avx negative offset 0
Svid behavior auto
Asus mce disabled
Bclk aware adaptive voltage disabled
Ring down bin disabled
Pll termination voltage auto
Everything maxed out in cpu power management tab
Allcore ratio limit 51
Cache 47 (not stable) 
Vccio 1.33
Vccsa 1.36 
Vcore 1.385
Ht disabled
Llc 5
Cpu current capability 110%
Vrm spread speectrum disabled
Cpu power duty/phase extreme
Everything is disabled in tvb tab
Bclk spread spectrum disabled
SpeedStep auto
Speed Shift auto
Turbo boost 3.0 disabled 
Turbo mode enabled
C states disabled 
Dual tau boost disabled

Is everything right here?


----------



## zebra_hun

My 24/7 settings:

(This is not extrem OC Profil, all data on pics)

Fixed frequency and vcore. I use LLC7,
it's also too high a voltage drop. In BIOS 1.25V Vcore,
under load (P95 small fft with AVX 1.120V Vcore.

5100/[email protected]

In these settings, this is what the CBR23 looks like:











This is CBR23 30 min long stability test with HWINFO:











Of course, the disgusting Prime 95 small fft AVX can't be missed either. I also ran this for half an hour, I think that's enough. 300Watt is very large.










I think this is a completely stable system, there is no WHEA error either under P95 or in Battlefield games.


Since the memories were also overclocked, I also tested them for stress.

Testmem 5 with ABSOLUT Config, (2.5 hours) + GSAT (1 hour)











Finally, the memory controller with P95 large fft.










There was no error anywhere, extremely low voltages, not a day was the setting. I tested a lot by the time I got here.


----------



## Ashtrix

Hello, Happy New Year to all. A huge thanks to everyone in this thread I learnt quite some information and still have to learn a lot more. I never actually got a chance to post here despite me signing up a decade ago, since I had a Notebook most of the time and I'm active on Notebook Review Forum with other like minded folks.

However I made a decision finally to build a desktop, very very late. But better be late than never. Did not opt for new 12th gen because of E cores and heat density being far too high for a less % gain along with DDR5 on top, AMD had those IOD issues all over out of box and once we touch DRAM the CPU and system stability becomes a lottery plus AMD never provided any documentation be it for the chipset or CPU so learning anything related to CPU becomes a chore and digging reddit rather than Datasheets like Intel does.

That said. I got a few SP rating screenshots of BIOS before and after update along with V/F values for 2 CPUs out of a large lot. I did not build my machine yet, but rather I was only trying to bin the CPUs so there's no cooler on the processor.. I noticed there's a 10-20mv added once the BIOS was updated, SP however remained the same along with VIDs in V/F offset window. But the Cooler points changed a lot for the SP113 chip, may I know what is this Cooler pts ? (I learnt that they are basically ASUS telling how good the cooling is on the CPU) I see some folks post their SP60 processors have 150 pts and some SP100 also have similar cooler pts. The motherboard is an ASUS Maximus XIII Z590 Hero, shipped with 0902 BIOS. Everything auto no changes done.

*BIOS 0902 *

10900K - China V124H073 - SP113


Spoiler














10900KF - Vietnam X139M383 - SP92


Spoiler















Had to do a CMOS reset as I saw the VF for 10900K being wrong like this once the BIOS was updated, was worried if the VIDs and SP rating would get updated to very low.



Spoiler















*BIOS 1202, after CMOS reset*

10900K - China V124H073 - SP113


Spoiler























10900KF - Vietnam X139M383 - SP92


Spoiler















I noticed the heavy AVX and cache clocks for the 113 is lower than the other 92 one which is weird while it should be other way around, do not understand why is that. And the VID for both 5.2 and 5.3 is same for the higher SP processor. *Edit *- Okay I read a very old post of Falkentyne, so based off on Cooler pts AI is suggesting those clock speeds. Makes sense that lower cooler points is lower clock ratio prediction. And apparently this is those CPUs which have same VID for 5.2 and 5.3 as well.

Just wanted to share my findings to the community. Thanks.


----------



## ViTosS

zebra_hun said:


> My 24/7 settings:
> 
> (This is not extrem OC Profil, all data on pics)
> 
> Fixed frequency and vcore. I use LLC7,
> it's also too high a voltage drop. In BIOS 1.25V Vcore,
> under load (P95 small fft with AVX 1.120V Vcore.
> 
> 5100/[email protected]
> 
> In these settings, this is what the CBR23 looks like:
> 
> View attachment 2540042
> 
> 
> 
> This is CBR23 30 min long stability test with HWINFO:
> 
> View attachment 2540043
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, the disgusting Prime 95 small fft AVX can't be missed either. I also ran this for half an hour, I think that's enough. 300Watt is very large.
> 
> View attachment 2540044
> 
> 
> I think this is a completely stable system, there is no WHEA error either under P95 or in Battlefield games.
> 
> 
> Since the memories were also overclocked, I also tested them for stress.
> 
> Testmem 5 with ABSOLUT Config, (2.5 hours) + GSAT (1 hour)
> 
> View attachment 2540045
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, the memory controller with P95 large fft.
> 
> View attachment 2540046
> 
> 
> There was no error anywhere, extremely low voltages, not a day was the setting. I tested a lot by the time I got here.


Your temperatures are insanely low, what is your cooling system?


----------



## zebra_hun

ViTosS said:


> Your temperatures are insanely low, what is your cooling system?


Here was a very good and helpful conversation on this topic. Below me is the radiator in the wine cellar. There is a permanent 6-8C there.
DDR4 Topic


----------



## Betroz

Wondering if my 10900K has degraded. Started a thread about it here : Has my 10900K degraded?
Thanks


----------



## Ketku-

I was able get kit here @ Finland: *F4-4000C14D-32GTES* / *G.Skill Trident Z Royal Elite Silver 32GB (2x 16GB) 4000MHz CL14-15-15-35 1.55V*

Current kit is: *F4-4400C17D-32GTRS* / *G.Skill Trident Z Royal Silver 32GB (2x16GB) 4400MHz CL17-18-18-38 1.5V*

Is there any benefit to this uprage as to be honest or no? I can still cancel my purchase and return the ram.


----------



## Betroz

What vcore, IO and SA voltages do you guys use for daily? Do SP63 10900K's have poor silicon in regards to cache clocks and longevity?


----------



## bscool

Ketku- said:


> I was able get kit here @ Finland: *F4-4000C14D-32GTES* / *G.Skill Trident Z Royal Elite Silver 32GB (2x 16GB) 4000MHz CL14-15-15-35 1.55V*
> 
> Current kit is: *F4-4400C17D-32GTRS* / *G.Skill Trident Z Royal Silver 32GB (2x16GB) 4400MHz CL17-18-18-38 1.5V*
> 
> Is there any benefit to this uprage as to be honest or no? I can still cancel my purchase and return the ram.


No, unless you care about every last bit of mem oc.

I have both kits in Ripjaw so same but different heat speader and for the price the 4000c14 is not worth it. But if you like playing with memory oc then it may be worth it to play.

Not like you will gain 10% performance increase. Probably not even 1%.

But your aida64 latency bench might drop by .5ns


----------



## Ketku-

bscool said:


> No, unless you care about every last bit of mem oc.
> 
> I have both kits in Ripjaw so same but different heat speader and for the price the 4000c14 is not worth it. But if you like playing with memory oc then it may be worth it to play.
> 
> Not like you will gain 10% performance increase. Probably not even 1%.
> 
> But your aida64 latency bench might drop by .5ns


Haha you are true mate. Thats why i was ask that question here. 
So i decide cancel my order, take time again get "good" it. 

Current Aida my setup (Read sign): 68t / 67.5-68t / 65.5-66t / 38ns - 5.1ghz/48cache - Linpack 650Gflops/completely stable


----------



## 7empe

10900KF batch V124F001 SP 63:

5.0 GHz core, 4.8 GHz AVX, 4.7 GHz cache @ 1.29V vcore with LLC 5
IMC characteristics in this case:
2x16 GB dual rank b-die 4400C16 VCCIO:1.27V, VCCSA:1.280V


5.1 GHz core, 5.0 GHz AVX, 4.7 GHz cache @ 1.33V vcore with LLC 5
IMC characteristics in this case:
2x16 GB dual rank b-die 4400C16 VCCIO:1.27V, VCCSA:1.280V


5.2 GHz core, 5.1 GHz AVX, 4.9 GHz cache @ 1.41V vcore with LLC 5
IMC characteristics in this case:
2x16 GB dual rank b-die 4400C16 VCCIO:1.31V, VCCSA:1.300V
2x16 GB dual rank b-die 4500C16 VCCIO:1.31V, VCCSA:1.380V
2x16 GB dual rank b-die 4533C16 VCCIO:1.31V, VCCSA:1.425V



10900KF batch X037H091 SP 53:

5.1 GHz core, 5.0 GHz AVX, 4.7 GHz cache @ 1.355V vcore with LLC 5
IMC characteristics in this case:
2x16 GB dual rank b-die 4400C16 VCCIO:1.31V, VCCSA:1.325V


----------



## Ketku-

7empe said:


> 10900KF batch V124F001 SP 63:
> 
> 5.0 GHz core, 4.8 GHz AVX, 4.7 GHz cache @ 1.29V vcore with LLC 5
> IMC characteristics in this case:
> 2x16 GB dual rank b-die 4400C16 VCCIO:1.27V, VCCSA:1.280V
> 
> 
> 5.1 GHz core, 5.0 GHz AVX, 4.7 GHz cache @ 1.33V vcore with LLC 5
> IMC characteristics in this case:
> 2x16 GB dual rank b-die 4400C16 VCCIO:1.27V, VCCSA:1.280V
> 
> 
> 5.2 GHz core, 5.1 GHz AVX, 4.9 GHz cache @ 1.41V vcore with LLC 5
> IMC characteristics in this case:
> 2x16 GB dual rank b-die 4400C16 VCCIO:1.31V, VCCSA:1.300V
> 2x16 GB dual rank b-die 4500C16 VCCIO:1.31V, VCCSA:1.380V
> 2x16 GB dual rank b-die 4533C16 VCCIO:1.31V, VCCSA:1.425V
> 
> 
> 
> 10900KF batch X037H091 SP 53:
> 
> 5.1 GHz core, 5.0 GHz AVX, 4.7 GHz cache @ 1.355V vcore with LLC 5
> IMC characteristics in this case:
> 2x16 GB dual rank b-die 4400C16 VCCIO:1.31V, VCCSA:1.325V


Show results: Linpack Extreme and Aida64, and are they really stable.. I wont belive easy it.


----------



## rickmig

7empe said:


> 10900KF batch V124F001 SP 63:
> 
> 5.0 GHz core, 4.8 GHz AVX, 4.7 GHz cache @ 1.29V vcore with LLC 5
> IMC characteristics in this case:
> 2x16 GB dual rank b-die 4400C16 VCCIO:1.27V, VCCSA:1.280V
> 
> 
> 5.1 GHz core, 5.0 GHz AVX, 4.7 GHz cache @ 1.33V vcore with LLC 5
> IMC characteristics in this case:
> 2x16 GB dual rank b-die 4400C16 VCCIO:1.27V, VCCSA:1.280V
> 
> 
> 5.2 GHz core, 5.1 GHz AVX, 4.9 GHz cache @ 1.41V vcore with LLC 5
> IMC characteristics in this case:
> 2x16 GB dual rank b-die 4400C16 VCCIO:1.31V, VCCSA:1.300V
> 2x16 GB dual rank b-die 4500C16 VCCIO:1.31V, VCCSA:1.380V
> 2x16 GB dual rank b-die 4533C16 VCCIO:1.31V, VCCSA:1.425V
> 
> 
> 
> 10900KF batch X037H091 SP 53:
> 
> 5.1 GHz core, 5.0 GHz AVX, 4.7 GHz cache @ 1.355V vcore with LLC 5
> IMC characteristics in this case:
> 2x16 GB dual rank b-die 4400C16 VCCIO:1.31V, VCCSA:1.325V


Hi @7empe , your results 5.0 @1.29v and 5.1 @1.33v are values set in BIOS!??
What is your Vcore in load for 50X, 51X and 52X ??
Just curious because I also have a SP63 sample. I don't use fixed Vcore so I just know my full load Vcore. 
Regards,
Rick


----------



## 7empe

rickmig said:


> Hi @7empe , your results 5.0 @1.29v and 5.1 @1.33v are values set in BIOS!??
> What is your Vcore in load for 50X, 51X and 52X ??
> Just curious because I also have a SP63 sample. I don't use fixed Vcore so I just know my full load Vcore.
> Regards,
> Rick


Hi Rick,
Using the Prime95 small FFT load, the ProbeIt pins give following Vcore values on my multimeter:

5.0 GHz AVX load : 1,175V (1.33V manual voltage set in BIOS with LLC=5)
5.1 GHz AVX load: 1,237V (1.41V manual voltage set in BIOS with LLC=5)
5.2 GHZ non-AVX load: 1,273V (1.41V manual voltage set in BIOS with LLC=5)
Please note that chips even with the same SP can overclock quite differently. Take a look on this histogram.

EDIT: 1.41V is needed for 5.1 GHz AVX. For 5.2 GHz non-AVX the 1.395V is needed.

Kind regards,
7empe


----------



## rickmig

7empe said:


> Hi Rick,
> Using the Prime95 small FFT load, the ProbeIt pins give following Vcore values on my multimeter:
> 
> 5.0 GHz AVX load : 1,175V (1.33V manual voltage set in BIOS with LLC=5)
> 5.1 GHz AVX load: 1,237V (1.41V manual voltage set in BIOS with LLC=5)
> 5.2 GHZ non-AVX load: 1,273V (1.41V manual voltage set in BIOS with LLC=5)
> Please note that chips even with the same SP can overclock quite differently. Take a look on this histogram.
> 
> EDIT: 1.41V is needed for 5.1 GHz AVX. For 5.2 GHz non-AVX the 1.395V is needed.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 7empe


Hi, thanks for the response. 
Do you know the load values of Vcore in load in HWinfo, for instance?
Of course I know even same SP may vary a lot, but its just to get a representation. I just use LLC #2. #3 and #4, yet to try LLC#5 
Regards,
Rick


----------



## centvalny

Edit.


----------



## 7empe

rickmig said:


> Hi, thanks for the response.
> Do you know the load values of Vcore in load in HWinfo, for instance?
> Of course I know even same SP may vary a lot, but its just to get a representation. I just use LLC #2. #3 and #4, yet to try LLC#5
> Regards,
> Rick


HWinfo has +10 mV higher reading for VCCIO and +4 mV higher reading for VCCSA from the values measured using multimeter.


----------



## Us3rN4m3

Hey all, new to this forum. Thought I'd throw my results in the mix:

(Tested with realbench for 4 hours)

10900KF SP82 delidded, rocketcool direct die, coductonaught, Maximus XII formula, Neo 4000 CL16, 4.3 cache, ambient: 28-29c

5.0 1.190v bios, 1.101v load, LLC6 - 55c
5.1 1.25v bios, 1.154v load, LLC6 - 63c
5.2 1.330v bios, 1.225v load, LLC6 - 70c

Let me know if you'd like any more details.


----------



## Betroz

Have anyone here used Y-cruncher for stability testing? I have found it very useful for testing IMC and required IO/SA voltages. Voltages that were stable with other tests were not in this test. I had to go from 1.27 IO and 1.325 SA (BIOS set) to 1.35 IO and 1.40 SA. I did not test every little voltage increment, so I could probably lower the voltages some, but testing every minor increment takes time. I used these settings :


----------



## zebra_hun

I think the most optimal test for the IMC test is the P95 Large FFT. 1 hour is enough. I never tested it with Y Cruncher. I think it's strong, like Small FFT with AVX for VCore. I'm testing VCore without the AVX P95. So this is optimal in my opinion.


----------



## bscool

zebra_hun said:


> I think the most optimal test for the IMC test is the P95 Large FFT. 1 hour is enough. I never tested it with Y Cruncher. I think it's strong, like Small FFT with AVX for VCore. I'm testing VCore without the AVX P95. So this is optimal in my opinion.


The good thing about y cruncher is within seconds you will have an idea if something is off, it wont run. Not saying anyone should use it that is why I like it though.


----------



## zebra_hun

bscool said:


> The good thing about y cruncher is within seconds you will have an idea if something is off, it wont run. Not saying anyone should use it that is why I like it though.


It's not a few seconds. I've never tried this, the test may not be good. Anyway, this is my 24/7 setting. (Y Cruncher)










VCC IO and VCC SA voltage are 1.168V. Tested TM5 long ABSOLUT + GSat + P95 Large FFT. It's 4 hous long stability test. X36/X33 - X50/[email protected]

For Y Cruncher switched to fixed VCore and frequenc.
Extreme load on the CPU, so I raised VCore. I know, my cpu is stable at 1.10V but during the SFT test the voltage was 0.9V. 
I set it to 1.10V on AC 5 GHz.
Here is my result:











I like this 24/7 setting, 64/64/62 GB/s - 37ns Latency at 1.43V DRAM and IO and SA Voltage are 1.168V.
Thank you guys, didn't know Y Cruncher Stress test.


----------



## Betroz

zebra_hun said:


> VCC IO and VCC SA voltage are 1.168V


Wow. Your CPU must have a really good IMC! I bet with the right memory sticks, you could probably do 4600C16 with 2x16gb.


----------



## zebra_hun

Betroz said:


> Wow. Your CPU must have a really good IMC! I bet with the right memory sticks, you could probably do 4600C16 with 2x16gb.


Thx. Unfortunately, I can't stabilize the 4600 CL16. I've got another profil, it's 4266MHz CL16. It is already stable at 1.5V DRAM. I think the CL16 costs a lot.

Here is my RAM OC test:









I was able to lower the IO and SA 1.20V to 1.18V.
Y Cruncher CL16 4266MHz:










I'll try to stabilize the 4400-4500MHz profiles later, but I don't think my 3200MHz kit will add more. This is the end.


----------



## Enterprise24

Hi there I have a question. Why does by core usage on APEX XII show only 8 cores when I have 10900KF.


----------



## GeneO

Doesn't work like you think. So you might enter:

53
2
52
4
51
Auto

Which would mean 2 or fewer cores run 53, 3-4 run 52 and 10-5 run 51


----------



## grandosegood

hey guys, i am going to be setting up a system soon, and wanted to know if these were good numbers to start with

asus z490-f
10900kf
large corsair case all fan bays used
arctic liquid freezer II 360 with 6 fans doing push/pull out the top of the case
64GB Corsair 3600mhz running XMP

cpu: 51 or 52
cache: x49
cpu vcore: 1.35
LLC: 4 or 5
vccio: 1.2

any other voltages i should change? i value stability more, so i'd be ok with lower numbers. I also haven't overclocked for quite some time, so this will be my first overclock in several years. Thanks.


----------



## Betroz

grandosegood said:


> any other voltages i should change? i value stability more, so i'd be ok with lower numbers.


Every CPU will be different - silicon lottery and all that. Cores at 51x and cache at 49x will require alot of voltage to be stable, and will run hot.


----------



## ViTosS

My CPU can run cache 4.9Ghz with the same voltage of 4.7Ghz, both core at 5.0Ghz.


----------



## criskoe

My CPU can pass 8 hour loop runs of prime, cinebench and realbench at very low voltages with zero errors or problems.. But still throw whea errors in some games. I had to bump voltage quite a bit or raise LLC to get them to stop. Honestly I stopped caring tho... As long as my applications and game dont crash Im happy.


----------



## Betroz

ViTosS said:


> My CPU can run cache 4.9Ghz with the same voltage of 4.7Ghz, both core at 5.0Ghz.


Run AIDA64 cache-*only *stresstest for ~2 hours and see if it will pass. Overclocked cache degrades faster than overclocked cores. I run it at stock 4300 with my new 10900KF.


----------



## ViTosS

Betroz said:


> Run AIDA64 cache-*only *stresstest for ~2 hours and see if it will pass. Overclocked cache degrades faster than overclocked cores. I run it at stock 4300 with my new 10900KF.


Already run that for 2h, it's stable.


----------



## Enterprise24

zebra_hun said:


> Hello,
> 
> I use LLC7, for me is good.
> Allcore 5.4GHz need 1.385V under load (CbR23), this is in BIOS 1.44V, and VCore Latch Max (spike) is 1.49V. Ok, this oc is short run, daily right me allcore 5GHz and 1.15V VCore under load. Die sense, socket sence don't care.
> 
> View attachment 2538174
> 
> 
> I wanted to see VDrop, tested LLC 5-8 (Asus), for 5.1GHz need my 10850k 1.208V VCore under Cinebench R23. LLC8 biggest spike is 1.27V. I thik, this is not dangerous. 24/7 i use LLC7.
> 
> Question: LLC7 and 8 danger, or not? I know, VCore isn't "nice", but 24/7 5GHz 1.15V LLC8, or LLC7 and in BIOS 1.20V and under load 1.15-1.16V better?
> Thanks.
> There is my result:
> 
> View attachment 2538175
> 
> 
> 
> [LLC8]
> [LLC7]
> [LLC6]
> [LLC5]


Does anyone have an explanation for this ? Why does higher LLC lead to marginally lower power and current and that leads to lower temperature as well ? Is it OK to use LLC8 on low voltage like 1.2-1.3V assuming I don't test the CPU with current virus programs like Prime 95 FMA3 etc.


----------



## Enterprise24

Wanna share my "new" 10900KF V115H096 (Made in China) initial results.

Tested with Maximus XII Apex lastest 2403 BIOS and G.Skill F4-3600C14D-32GTZN 14-15-15-35 1.45V
Cooling is a custom loop with the old Koolance 380i lapped , GTX 240 and GTS 360 radiator , 3x Gentle Typhoon AP-15 1850 RPM , 3x EK Vardar 1800 RPM , SC600 pump. Gelid GC extreme thermal paste was used. Ambient temp 25C.

Temp is not so good not sure because of a bad batch on GC extreme or an old block was used or a combination of both. Anyway I will delid this and slap Supercool waterblock for direct die later. If temp drop by 16-18C then maybe my CPU needs to run at above average temp. If temp drop by more than 18C then Gelid or an old block is probably not good.

Lowest voltage to pass CB R15 5Ghz = 1.145V LLC8










5.1Ghz realbench quick test 15 minutes without L0 error 1.315V LLC6 resulted in 1.23V average load voltage. Cache speed is superbly run at 5.0Ghz (Only 100Mhz behind core).
Lower cache speed to hope for lower voltage doesn't work due to L0 error.










5.2Ghz R15 1.3V LLC7 probably 1.27V average load voltage (in the screenshot hwinfo64 was opened for 50 secs).










I didn't have a chance to try realbench on 5.2Ghz because 5.1 is already run at 87C.

Now let's test the IMC 4400Mhz RAM 16-16-16-32-2T is the highest clock that I can train without issue. IO / SA 1.3V , DRAM 1.54V BIOS set 30 minutes GSAT run.
Cache was lower probably due to I didn't disable ring down bin.










Starting with 4500Mhz it is very hard to train however it is still possible with ODT and slopes adjustment.

4533Mhz 16-16-16-32-2T 30 min GSAT 1.35V IO and SA 1.59V DRAM BIOS set.










4600Mhz 16-17-17-32-2T still needs a lot of work. 5 mins GSAT with 3 errors 1.41V IO / SA 1.63V DRAM BIOS set.










Highest bootable was 4700Mhz and it happen one time and never again.










I will update my direct die result later.


----------



## zebra_hun

Enterprise24 said:


> Does anyone have an explanation for this ? Why does higher LLC lead to marginally lower power and current and that leads to lower temperature as well ? Is it OK to use LLC8 on low voltage like 1.2-1.3V assuming I don't test the CPU with current virus programs like Prime 95 FMA3 etc.


This is my personal opinion, use LLC5 for normal daily use. When you need "extreme OC", you should go up, as higher VCore is required. Ex .: LLC 7 or 8.
My new daily settings, tested P95 non avx 45 minute.









I can go low to 1.11V VCore. (LLC5) If i use LLC8 it goes to 1.128V, under WHEA.


I use only high LLC if i wanna Benchmarking up to 1.4 - 1.5V Vcore. (AC 5.4 - 5.5GHz)





















Recommened for daily 5.0 - 5.1 GHz AC OC is LLC5. But if u wanna, use higher LLC, it's np.


----------



## Betroz

zebra_hun said:


> My new daily settings, tested P95 non avx 45 minute.


Well you didn't loose the silicon lottery with that one


----------



## Enterprise24

Yesterday the delidding was done. However core 6 was 13C hotter than the other core so I just delid again today. This time sadly core 5 is the hottest with 5C more than others.
Still a pretty solid result. Going from 83.1C average to 69.7C average. That is 14.1C lower and the hottest core from 87C to 76C (should be no more than 71C if I try to delid again).
Waterblock is Supercool direct die.


----------



## alexbrad

is anyone using 2403 bios on Asus Z490 boards paired with 10900K?
are there any gains for 10th with this bios?
they state that there are some ram compatibility and stability improvements... 

currently I'm using 1003 on my Apex XII...


----------



## GeneO

I am using it on my Hero XII with 10900KF. Can't say much on the RAM., but everything seems to work OK. I think there isn't much to gain for 10th gen. chips. I also modded it to run the latest EC microcode.


----------



## dikemelfino

0607


----------



## dikemelfino

dikemelfino said:


> 0607


temps from a couple timespy extremes - post delid with 2403, haven't done any real stresstests yet


----------



## fray_bentos

I found a new stability benchmark. Open God of War, sit in opening game menu, wait for crash to desktop or parity errors in HWiNFO64. It seems to throw errors pretty quickly, so I am using this to refine my OC profiles. My previously "stable" OC profiles are dropping like flies as I work through them. Preliminary findings are that it looks like my CPU clocks need to be dropped to 5.2 GHz (or Vcore/LLC lifted). Dropping cache to stock 43x hasn't fixed it in several failed previously "good" profiles, while lowering CPU clock at least increases the average time to a crash/parity error.

Edit 1: updating to the public beta release channel on Steam seems to have fixed these issues. I went back and reverted my previously good OC profiles.

Edit 2: Beta release became Patch v1.0.7

"Patch Notes
Fixes

Fixed a crash that impacted a high number of players after patch v1.0.5 caused by a Link Time Optimization complier issue"
Perhaps someone in the know knows how this relates to parity errors.


----------



## Salve1412

fray_bentos said:


> I found a new stability benchmark. Open God of War, sit in opening game menu, wait for crash to desktop or parity errors in HWiNFO64. It seems to throw errors pretty quickly, so I am using this to refine my OC profiles. My previously "stable" OC profiles are dropping like flies as I work through them. Preliminary findings are that it looks like my CPU clocks need to be dropped to 5.2 GHz (or Vcore/LLC lifted). Dropping cache to stock 43x hasn't fixed it in several failed previously "good" profiles, while lowering CPU clock at least increases the average time to a crash/parity error.
> 
> Edit 1: updating to the public beta release channel on Steam seems to have fixed these issues. I went back and reverted my previously good OC profiles.
> 
> Edit 2: Beta release became Patch v1.0.7
> 
> "Patch Notes
> Fixes
> 
> Fixed a crash that impacted a high number of players after patch v1.0.5 caused by a Link Time Optimization complier issue"
> Perhaps someone in the know knows how this relates to parity errors.


I mean, I wouldn't blame too much our otherwise stable overclocks when it is evident that more and more games are exposing the inner flaws of an architecture, flaws that take the form of Parity Errors. First of all these errors occur only in some scenarios, mostly of recent games (in my experience no "traditional" stress test generates them). In lower quality chips they sometimes manifest even at stock, but in general they are directly proportional to CPU frequency: with my above average 10900K at 5.1 they are absent, at 5.2 they are extremely rare, at 5.3 they become more frequent, at 5.4 they are a nightmare to cope with. Not much to do other than raising Vcore by absurd amounts in order to counter the phenomenon, or lower Core Ratio. Of course only if games' programmers don't manage to find countermeasures on their own, such as in this case or in that of Ghostrunner's latest patches.


----------



## hemon

Hi!

I have an important question:

Marvel's Guardians of the Galaxy produces WHEA internal parity errors on my i9-10900K that was 100% stable and error free for more than a year of use with there settings:

5.0 all core fixed OC, 1.245v under CB R20 load, LLC5 (Asus)

I can pass any stress test in the existence and I played many games without errors. But this game for some reason produces 1 error every 1-2 hours of playtime. For now i've yet to find a solution. Bumping up voltage seems to not helping. With 4.9 all core fixed SEEMS to be stable. Any suggestion?


----------



## Falkentyne

hemon said:


> Hi!
> 
> I have an important question:
> 
> Marvel's Guardians of the Galaxy produces WHEA internal parity errors on my i9-10900K that was 100% stable and error free for more than a year of use with there settings:
> 
> 5.0 all core fixed OC, 1.245v under CB R20 load, LLC5 (Asus)
> 
> I can pass any stress test in the existence and I played many games without errors. But this game for some reason produces 1 error every 1-2 hours of playtime. For now i've yet to find a solution. Bumping up voltage seems to not helping. With 4.9 all core fixed SEEMS to be stable. Any suggestion?


You can't fix the problem with any quick fix.

You can either
1) disable a few cores in the BIOS (this always works)
2) Increase LLC strength
3) increase Vcore (sometimes substantially)
4) use Process Lasso or just task manager and set affinity for the process to a restricted # of threads (similar to #1).
5) back off the overclock and chill.

The parity error issue gets worse the more threads that are available. Minecraft Java is one of the worst offenders.


----------



## criskoe

hemon said:


> Hi!
> 
> I have an important question:
> 
> Marvel's Guardians of the Galaxy produces WHEA internal parity errors on my i9-10900K that was 100% stable and error free for more than a year of use with there settings:
> 
> 5.0 all core fixed OC, 1.245v under CB R20 load, LLC5 (Asus)
> 
> I can pass any stress test in the existence and I played many games without errors. But this game for some reason produces 1 error every 1-2 hours of playtime. For now i've yet to find a solution. Bumping up voltage seems to not helping. With 4.9 all core fixed SEEMS to be stable. Any suggestion?


How high did you bump the vcore?

Hate to say it but more and more new games are gunna end up just like this. Whea errors...

My advice to you is just let it go... If your programs and games arnt crashing, let it be....

But if your dead set on keeping your overclock and cant bring yourself to just ignore the whea errors.. Your gunna have to play with the following. Bump the V Core even higher ( Possibly ALOT, Brute force), Use a higher LLC or lower your Cache.... You might even need a combination of all three or just one... But no one can tell you what you particular CPU will need. It will be different for everyone. Only you can make the adjustments and retest.. What might work for my cpu most likely wont work for yours.


----------



## hemon

Falkentyne said:


> You can't fix the problem with any quick fix.
> 
> You can either
> 1) disable a few cores in the BIOS (this always works)
> 2) Increase LLC strength
> 3) increase Vcore (sometimes substantially)
> 4) use Process Lasso or just task manager and set affinity for the process to a restricted # of threads (similar to #1).
> 5) back off the overclock and chill.
> 
> The parity error issue gets worse the more threads that are available. Minecraft Java is one of the worst offenders.





criskoe said:


> How high did you bump the vcore?
> 
> Hate to say it but more and more new games are gunna end up just like this. Whea errors...
> 
> My advice to you is just let it go... If your programs and games arnt crashing, let it be....
> 
> But if your dead set on keeping your overclock and cant bring yourself to just ignore the whea errors.. Your gunna have to play with the following. Bump the V Core even higher ( Possibly ALOT, Brute force), Use a higher LLC or lower your Cache.... You might even need a combination of all three or just one... But no one can tell you what you particular CPU will need. It will be different for everyone. Only you can make the adjustments and retest.. What might work for my cpu most likely wont work for yours.


Thank you for the help!

I actually increased the Vcore and for the moment I don't have any WHEA errors. I have 1.304V under load (before I had 1.243V) and I will try to decrease the Vcore a little bit until I don't receive any WHEA errors.


----------



## grandosegood

I'm trying to get my i9-10900KF (SP 53 bleargh) as close to 5.1ghz / 4.9 cache as possible on my Asus Z490-E. I have the following settings:
AI Tuner: Manual
MCE: Disabled
XMP 1, ram speed 3600mhz, voltage auto
CPU 51 with sync all cores
Cache min and max: auto (tops out from 4.5 to 4.7)
VCCIO/SA: 1.3 for both
LLC: 5
with vcore any less than 1.45, the system would crash upon starting OCCT small data set. with vcore on auto, the system boots and the stress test doesn't crash, but i'm getting 1.51 VID, which seems really high. On auto everything, i get 4.9 core/ 4-4.3 cache, VID 1.41ish.
Do i just have a cursed chip? am I stuck between running on high voltage or stock frequencies? Thanks again


----------



## GeneO

I can only get my SP63 10900KF up to 4.6 cache (and 5.1 GHz all core) on Hero XII LLC5. Try lowering your cache multiplier. Your vccio/ssa may be too high as well, you might want to try lowering them as well.


----------



## fray_bentos

grandosegood said:


> I'm trying to get my i9-10900KF (SP 53 bleargh) as close to 5.1ghz / 4.9 cache as possible on my Asus Z490-E. I have the following settings:
> AI Tuner: Manual
> MCE: Disabled
> XMP 1, ram speed 3600mhz, voltage auto
> CPU 51 with sync all cores
> Cache min and max: auto (tops out from 4.5 to 4.7)
> VCCIO/SA: 1.3 for both
> LLC: 5
> with vcore any less than 1.45, the system would crash upon starting OCCT small data set. with vcore on auto, the system boots and the stress test doesn't crash, but i'm getting 1.51 VID, which seems really high. On auto everything, i get 4.9 core/ 4-4.3 cache, VID 1.41ish.
> Do i just have a cursed chip? am I stuck between running on high voltage or stock frequencies? Thanks again


Lower the cache to 4.5, then see where you get, and if stable lift to 4.7 GHz. 4.9 GHz is "optimistic" even for the best chips (yours isn't).


----------



## zamnkel

Falkentyne said:


> People need to understand what I/O voltage (VCCIO) and SA Voltage (VCCSA) are and why, when you are overclocking memory, you MUST raise IO/SA voltages,
> and why you should not be too afraid of high IO/SA voltages.
> 
> The IMC is powered by a voltage rail (much like other rails) and there is a relationship between VCCIO and VCCSA, much like there is a relationship between
> AC Loadline and DC Loadline / VRM Loadline.
> 
> One functions are pre-output buffers and the other functions on post output buffers, much like AC Loadline functions on CPU _REQUEST_ voltage,
> and VRM Loadline functions on CPU _DELIVERED_ voltage (DC Loadline is a prediction of the VR VOUT, used for power measurements, VRM Loadline is the actual vdroop,
> set at intel default and tuned by loadline calibration, etc)....
> 
> So there is a relationship between them, and why IO/SA should be close to each other, much like ACLL and DCLL should match each other also.
> Although VCCIO is a special case since it also drives the shared L3 cache, and this gets even more tricky because the IMC controls hyperthreading,
> and hyperthreaded CPU cores function with virtualized instruction registers that are stored in a "L0" or level zero cache--the L0 cache is the
> virtualized instruction register store. Also this is why at higher memory speeds, you often need to increase CPU VCORE to keep your CPU stable, or increase IO/SA, or your CPU hyperthreading
> will be unstable...does this make sense?
> 
> Have any of you ever wondered why you don't usually get CPU Cache L0 errors if hyperthreading is disabled? And no System Service Exceptions, etc---but instead the application crashes
> if your vcore is too low, or you just get 0x101 (Clock watchdog) or 0x124 (WHEA uncorrectable) BSOD's? Well there you go...
> 
> So there is no Intel spec limit on VCCIO, but VCCSA has a 1.52v limit. Same as Vcore (without VRM Serial VID offset mode enabled, which is VRM command 33h, an IMPV8 command),
> But you see, 1.520v VID is based on default loadlines being respected (In other words, Vdroop is GOOD, boys), and then the -1.6mv / amp curve (9900k) or -1.1mv /A for 10900k etc...
> So as amps go up, the VID goes down...etc etc....so 245 amps on 10900k becomes 1.250v load voltage...
> Although I am not sure how the 1.720v VID limit for offset mode functions (command 33h allows up to 200mv of higher VID)---maybe this is for sub-zero crowd...I know nothing about this...
> 
> Anyway, even if you still think 1.520v with max vdroop (intel spec) is still bad, you can't do anything about it anyway, because AC Loadline (e.g., default AC Loadline like used on H chip series laptops) of 1.1 mOhms _WILL_ Boost the VID up to 1.520v anyway and not even tell you. Because AC Loadline will boost base VID (You can find this at idle---set AC/DC Loadline to 0.01 mOhms first, boot windows and look at HWinfo64),
> up depending on current, like this:
> 
> Vcore = vCPU + (ACLL mOhms * Amps). before vdroop. So if your vCPU is 1.210v at idle @ 30C, you try to draw a 245 amp Prime95 load
> in offset mode with +0mv (or Auto or adaptive vcore with +0mv offset), your AC Loadline will ASK FOR A VOLTAGE FROM THE VRM of:
> 
> 1210mv + (245 * 1.1 mOhm) =1479mv or 1.479v IF YOUR CPU IS AT 30C. So the CPU will ask for 1.479v from VRM at 30C. At 80C this will be higher (vCPU rises higher as temp rises, 1.55mv every C, or -1.55mv every C, starting at 100C and going down, at x52 multiplier I think) --probably 1.520v if VRM command 33h is off, because the VID cap will be 1.520v max. And this is intel spec so no need to be so scared.
> 
> But this is only half of the formula. You forgot about VRM Loadline.
> VRM Loadline of 1.1 mOhms is intel spec also, same as ACLL:
> So now you have vdroop to bring the voltage back down:
> 1.1 mOhm * 245A.....=269mv of vdroop....
> 
> 1520mv - 269mv = 1.250v....so your CPU is at 1.250v max safe voltage at 245A...intel spec.
> THIS IS WHY HAVING NO VDROOP IS BAD...IF YOU HAD NO VDROOP WITH THIS SPEC YOU WOULD BE 1.520V LOAD @ 245A....SEE ?
> 
> 
> But let's go to VCCSA with this.
> 
> As you can see you can't destroy your System Agent by using no vdroop at 1.520v Bios set voltage, like you can your CPU, because some fool thought no vdroop is good, when you are violating Intel's loadline spec and generating terrible transient ripple (read: https://elmorlabs.com/index.php/2019-09-05/vrm-load-line-visualized/ )
> 
> Because there is no loadline specification for VCCSA for you to destroy anyway. So you are not insta-breaking your IMC by using 1.50v system agent.
> VCCIO is similar.
> 
> Now think of CPU scaling here and that VCCIO and VCCSA are signal power rails...
> Let's say your CPU needs:
> 
> 1.250v for 5 ghz core
> 1.450v for 5 ghz ring ratio
> 1.55-1.60v for 5 ghz DDR RAM ratio...
> 1.40v VCCSA for 4400 mhz DDR RAM
> 1.65v VCCSA for 5 ghz DDR RAM
> 
> IO and SA are affected too so you may need 1.4v+ for 4400 mhz +. See?
> This is normal. And there is also a frequency point where the voltage you need to run faster frequency gets more steep
> 
> Like:
> 1.012v for 4.7 ghz
> 1.043v for 4.8 ghz
> 1.083v for 4.9 ghz
> 1.124v for 5.0 ghz
> 1.180v for 5.1 ghz
> 1.235v for 5.2 ghz
> 1.335v for 5.3 ghz....
> 
> The same thing happens with memory frequency, just not so sharp. But DDR 4400 + requires scaling IO/SA too. But not as sharp scaling for DDR voltage etc.
> Hope you guys will understand this.



I can't thank you enough for the time it took to write this all out, and for many other posts of knowledge. I am going through every page of this thread and read all the years of good information.


----------



## KillerBee33

Hey all. What may be the reason MSI Z490+10900K don't have a HDMI signal?


----------



## criskoe

KillerBee33 said:


> Hey all. What may be the reason MSI Z490+10900K don't have a HDMI signal?


The bios could have the video set to PCIE If there was a video card installed before. You could try to reset cmos (Bios) and see if it then sends the display signal through the integrated gfx.


----------



## KillerBee33

criskoe said:


> The bios could have the video set to PCIE If there was a video card installed before. You could try to reset cmos (Bios) and see if it then sends the display signal through the integrated gfx.


You saying Integrated wont kick in until dedicated GPU is removed from the pcie?


----------



## criskoe

KillerBee33 said:


> You saying Integrated wont kick in until dedicated GPU is removed from the pcie?


Ive seen that happen before. It detects a PCIE GPU or the last connection was a PCIE GPU so it forces the output video there. You might need to get into the bios and manual set it to integrated gfx if you still have a gfx card installed.

And if for some reason you cant get into the bios still, I recommend removing the GFX card and then try to reset the cmos with only the intergraded HDMI connected.

Are you trying to use both at the same time or something?


----------



## criskoe

Double post*


----------



## KillerBee33

criskoe said:


> Ive seen that happen before. It detects a PCIE GPU or the last connection was a PCIE GPU so it forces the output video there. You might need to get into the bios and manual set it to integrated gfx if you still have a gfx card installed.
> 
> And if for some reason you cant get into the bios still, I recommend removing the GFX card and then try to reset the cmos with only the intergraded HDMI connected.
> 
> Are you trying to use both at the same time or something?


Edit: Thanx for the reply. Once the GPU is out everything worked without bios reset. Last time I used Integrated GFX was probably 2014 and I couldn't remember what was done 🤟


----------



## djdox16

RobertoSampaio said:


> Hi,
> 
> I never had a Gigabyte MB... But I can try to help you...
> Please, take a pic of this...
> 
> View attachment 2488606


Hello! Been browsing the thread for 10900k overclocking and i saw you ask for these two rows from hwinfo so that you can aid some guy and i'm really curios if there's something i can do more with my cpu - tho i'm fine with the actual result. Just got it and played around a little and managed to get it to do 5.1ghz 4.8 ring, 1.365v LLC4 on a MSI Z490A Pro. Ram (dual rank b-die) is also oc-ed 4000 flat 16 and tight tertiaries @1.5V, SA 1.3V, IO 1.25V. Temps are fine in ordinary tasks or something like cinebench but I can't cool it while running prime95 small fft or linpack extreme since it's pulling like 350W. AIO is liquid freezer II 280mm which does fine until you go over 300W - previously had a 10700k that pulled 280w in linpack without going over 85-90C (upgraded to 10900k because i got it for free).
View attachment 2561582


----------



## KillerBee33

Anyone on OCN takes orders to delid my 10900K ?


----------



## Imprezzion

Absolute score this thing is. It's a SP86 10900K Avengers Edition. Running direct die with Conductonaut and a EK Velocity block + shorter standoffs + RockItCool direct die frame.
It just absolutely breezes to 5.4 all core with 5.0 cache. The cores will do 5.4 much lower voltage wise, even 1.364v is stable for 30 minutes, but the cache needs 1.412 to run 5.0.
This thing has got to be absolutely golden sample territory lol.

I haven't tested the IMC yet, it's on default JEDEC speeds for now, but man.. this is exciting. Hell, it might even do 5.5 all core..

I'll let it loop CB R23 for an hour and see if it throws any L0 errors or core parity errors.










Edit: forgot to screenshot it but it passed 1 hour R23, no errors. The IMC is being a bit more of a chore. Haven't got it to successfully boot above 4000 yet but k. Work in progress. Even if it's a dud I can run 3866 with tight timings and still outperform the 11900K latency wise.


----------



## Imprezzion

Ehm what now. After tweaking RAM to 4266C15 stable with IO/SA tuned and such I found out it can run way way lower vcore then I initially thought. I basically just ran it at AC 0.01 DC 0.43 matched LLC6 Auto vCore auto curve but I'm at -0.070v now at 5.3 all core in the curve and it still passes every test possible.. including AVX... Hell, it can run prime95 small AVX on fine without even breaking 85c at 351w and it's stable. No L0 errors, no workers dropping out.. how am I running 5.3 all core 5.0 cache at 1.314v and stable... Only when I go under 1.305v will it actually crash after an hour or so and at 1.279 it BSOD's eventually but 1.314v was fine during breakfast and when I came back all workers still running no rounding errors max temp 84c hottest core.. like.. this chip.. I mean, 5.4 all core is still a struggle as it really hits a voltage wall there and needs at least 1.412v to pass AVX which gets too hot but without AVX2 around 1.359v is enough for 5.4. I think I'm going to set 55x2 54x4 and 53x10 or something.


----------



## rickmig

Hi all!
I have a situation with my settings/system which i cannot get along.
I've updated my BIOS to 1402 with a STRIX Z590-F + 10900K and now when I do benchmarks (CInebench R23 or CPU-Z bench or whatever) my frequency is @4900 Mhz but my effective cores are between 4800~--> 4900... Never get to 4900 , nad it showin the scores. I'm pretty sure a few months ago when I tested I got like 16500~for CB23 and 7400~in CPU-Z and now only 15200~ CB23 and 7000~CPU-Z.
So I check the knobs and settings in BIOS to try and find out what it is... Sometimes I turn of the VMAX STRESS option to disable and can get to effective clocks to 4900 Mhz but I flashed the 1202 BIOS(to check if if had something to do with it) and flashed back 1402 and now I can't even get to the effective 4900x..... I'm sure that I have always 
used VMAX STRESS = Enabled.in the past...
Also tried to play with TVB OPTIMIZATION settings with no avail...
I'm using 53X3, 51X6 , 50X8. 49X10, as always did. Or even 50X10 or 51X10, it's all the same.

Anyone as an ideia what it is??
Thanks so much
Regards,
RicK


----------



## zebra_hun

Pls read whole thread
MS virus


----------



## rickmig

zebra_hun said:


> Pls read whole thread
> MS virus


Hi @zebra_hun thanks for your response!
That's it! I'm pretty sure. I got the exact same symptoms, clock reduction while stress testing and who knows what else...
So an update from Micro$oft is the culprit. Strange that I don't see many people complain... It's so obvious in the bench scores!
So the solutions for know , besides disabling Win Defender, is to use Trottlestop 9.3 ??? Just open it ? it was to remain open? 
Hope there will be a solution for this... 

Note: I copied my post to your thread @zebra_hun to be in the right place.
Regards,
RicK


----------



## zebra_hun

Hi RicK!

Throttlestop 9.3 (older version, newest isn't good) help u. Enought with w10 or 11 start (do it autostart and 5 sec later autostop, u don't need this app) and stop. Do not disable Defender, can stay and running.
Yes, it is not just ~50MHz, it's a crap. CbR23 15200 points vs. 17000 points on allcore 5GHz. 
It's on all 8, 9,10 and 11th gen Intel... My all friends has this problem, nobody cares...
Cheers, zebra


----------



## zebra_hun

Do it with this method: Video


----------



## rickmig

zebra_hun said:


> Hi RicK!
> 
> Throttlestop 9.3 (older version, newest isn't good) help u. Enought with w10 or 11 start (do it autostart and 5 sec later autostop, u don't need this app) and stop. Do not disable Defender, can stay and running.
> Yes, it is not just ~50MHz, it's a crap. CbR23 15200 points vs. 17000 points on allcore 5GHz.
> It's on all 8, 9,10 and 11th gen Intel... My all friends has this problem, nobody cares...
> Cheers, zebra


Yeah it's ridiculous! It's like 1500 points in CB23 difference! It's really throttling the clocks! I haven't checked if it does any difference in gaming, because if it does, it's really a bad situation.
Maybe in the meantime someone can really get this to work properly without 3rd party software. If it's software related there's always hope...

@zebra_hun: as you were checking for the windows update that did this, can't we just uninstall the "specific" update so it does not do this?!?! Is it a possibility?

Regards,
RicK


----------



## zebra_hun

rickmig said:


> Yeah it's ridiculous! It's like 1500 points in CB23 difference! It's really throttling the clocks! I haven't checked if it does any difference in gaming, because if it does, it's really a bad situation.
> Maybe in the meantime someone can really get this to work properly without 3rd party software. If it's software related there's always hope...
> 
> @zebra_hun: as you were checking for the windows update that did this, can't we just uninstall the "specific" update so it does not do this?!?! Is it a possibility?
> 
> Regards,
> RicK


Impossible... Tried disable ms updates, but this crap in background installed. 
Try it out. Install a fresh windows. I tried. Install all driver, your pc works perfect, but do not connect to the internet. Tried a whole day so offline, everythings was fine. Whole day benched, absolut ok.
Ok, lets see with internet and disabled 3 place ms updates. Ms updates wasn't there, but 8 mins later after internet, my pc infected, can't run fullgas.
Impossible. I don't know what is it, a piece of s...t for ms defender, but TS9.3 makes wonder.
This is the best, what we can do.


----------



## rickmig

Ok I understand.
The strange thing is, i'm sure that 2 days ago I used the VMAX Stress setting in ASUS BIOS to disabled and I gor back my effective clocks to 4900 (in 49X10 case)! I Enabled and Disabled again and it does reduce it when enabled and got back to "normal" when disabled. Yesterday after dealing with BIOS install back and forth (1202 and 1402) now even with VMAX Stress disables I can't get 4900Mhz full !!
It's reallyyyyyyy strange... 
When I get home i will try the throttlestop thing 

Regards,
RicK


----------



## rickmig

Another question to you @zebra_hun , i see you got a 10850K, and I saw that you use 1.12~ Vcore volts for 5000 Mhz, @ 40ºC temps ?!? Is that it? anything special you use here?
I need 1.23v @5000 Mhz with temps around 75ºC in CB23... Well can it be the temps? Even in winter with 17ºC ambient I cannot get close to your temps with my 10900K. maybe 65ºC min...and the same 1.23v.

Regards.
RicK


----------



## zebra_hun

Waterloop on cpu, vga and ram. Radiators are under my house in celler (Keller). Sorry, it's not my main language. It was winter, cellar door was open whole winter  It's 2m under my pc, and i had 6-8C water.
Now it's extreme summer, i've got ~19-20C water, i can't hold my vcore a stability. For ac 5GHz i need 1.14-1.15V Vcore under load. SP63 oc potentional, not bad, but it is not the best.
Yesterday ive made new settings, it was unstable, so looks like now:

CPU Test avx on, Aida FPU +Furemark. This is whole system stability test, cooler too.

IMC Test P95 Large FFT. This checks the Memory Controller.

TM5 Ram Test OC'ed my Kits, so i need stress testing now, it's not cold water.

Everithing set it up for summer, and for 20C water, and optimised for lowest voltage.


----------



## rickmig

Yeah mine is SP63 also, but I cannot do less than 1.22~Vcore for 5000Mhz. Temps you've are really better and maybe that's the difference.... and your CPU can stand much lower voltage than mine. ~0.070v which is a lot!
Another thing I remembered is that my board is a STRIX and yours have die sense to read Vcore, no?!? Mine is Socket Sense and that's maybe another factor for the difference.
Regards,
RicK


----------



## zebra_hun

rickmig said:


> Yeah mine is SP63 also, but I cannot do less than 1.22~Vcore for 5000Mhz. Temps you've are really better and maybe that's the difference.... and your CPU can stand much lower voltage than mine. ~0.070v which is a lot!
> Another thing I remembered is that my board is a STRIX and yours have die sense to read Vcore, no?!? Mine is Socket Sense and that's maybe another factor for the difference.
> Regards,
> RicK


Yup, die sense. Z590 Apex. 1.15V die sense=~1.22V socket sense. My cpu is delidded, ihs cap is back, not direct die. I won ~12C on full load 5GHz. I check always HWINFO WHEA, not allowed error. Cold water and delid help a lot.


----------



## rickmig

OK, just tested and Throttlestop really does the trick. Back to "normal" frequencies. I just open and closed it, and it is enough. Other thing I noticed is, if the pc goes to sleep, when it awakes it's does go back to 4850~slow mode again..... Have to open again Throttlespot.
Just hope for a sotution in the future.
Regards,
RicK


----------



## zebra_hun

rickmig said:


> OK, just tested and Throttlestop really does the trick. Back to "normal" frequencies. I just open and closed it, and it is enough. Other thing I noticed is, if the pc goes to sleep, when it awakes it's does go back to 4850~slow mode again..... Have to open again Throttlespot.
> Just hope for a sotution in the future.
> Regards,
> RicK


Disable sleep, or run in background the TS.
*Solution? No, Intel and ms created this crap bacause buy a new one 12th gen cpu*. They wanna kill the old system, need money. Skylake is good enough.
All 8, 9, 10, and 11th gen Intel PC infected, just nobody cares. After restart 10 min latewr 100% handbreak is on.


----------



## Nizzen

zebra_hun said:


> Disable sleep, or run in background the TS.
> *Solution? No, Intel and ms created this crap bacause buy a new one 12th gen cpu*. They wanna kill the old system, need money. Skylake is good enough.
> All 8, 9, 10, and 11th gen Intel PC infected, just nobody cares. After restart 10 min latewr 100% handbreak is on.


Strange I didn't notice this on 8700k/9900k/10900k. Maybe because I ran Apex MB and didn't run stock settings


----------



## zebra_hun

Nizzen said:


> Strange I didn't notice this on 8700k/9900k/10900k. Maybe because I ran Apex MB and didn't run stock settings


Because not everyone has this error.
I've got Apex too, and optimised settings, allcore 5GHz.
This is if it's good:









And if it has error:









-1200-1500 Points.

What is certain:

A friend who does not use ms defender, uses ESET software instead, and quarantines that ms update with ESET.









Another solution:

Use Revi OS Revision - Download
It has nothing to do with microsoft, no connection to ms.
An original W10 and W11 has this crap after 10 min later the PC new or restart.
Pls do a test after 10 min the new start. A CbR23.

Install the kb890830 ms update!!! 
*At 10:20* installed this update, and error... This is a fresh W10 install, and i show how infected the whole OS. First time on internet, and updates...


----------



## Imprezzion

This is very interesting. I have to be honest, seeing you score 170xx on 5Ghz all core makes me think I have the same issues as I barely hit 17800 on 5.3 all core with 5Ghz cache and 4266C15 tight RAM. Temps well under 80c as I only run 1.334v die sense vCore for 5.3/5.0. Gotta love this SP86 beast. 

Does this happen on all windows versions? I run W11 Insider latest build.

I can test it with throttle stop tonight and see if scores change drastically after running TS?


----------



## zebra_hun

Imprezzion said:


> This is very interesting. I have to be honest, seeing you score 170xx on 5Ghz all core makes me think I have the same issues as I barely hit 17800 on 5.3 all core with 5Ghz cache and 4266C15 tight RAM. Temps well under 80c as I only run 1.334v die sense vCore for 5.3/5.0. Gotta love this SP86 beast.
> 
> Does this happen on all windows versions? I run W11 Insider latest build.
> 
> I can test it with throttle stop tonight and see if scores change drastically after running TS?


Allcore 5.1GHz: 17400 points. This is normal.









5GHz limit:
This is my record:


----------



## Imprezzion

zebra_hun said:


> Allcore 5.1GHz: 17400 points. This is normal.
> View attachment 2563379
> 
> 
> 5GHz limit:
> This is my record:
> View attachment 2563380












Ran this with all the normal bloat started up, Discord, few launchers, that kinda stuff. Water in the loop ain't warmed up yet but it stayed basically under 70c even at 5.3 lol. Once the loop gets to normal temp and the GPU heats up it's usually around 73-74c ish. My water to ambient delta is quite low as I have way too much rad and push pull fans for the components it cools lol.


----------



## zebra_hun

Imprezzion said:


> View attachment 2563402
> 
> 
> Ran this with all the normal bloat started up, Discord, few launchers, that kinda stuff. Water in the loop ain't warmed up yet but it stayed basically under 70c even at 5.3 lol. Once the loop gets to normal temp and the GPU heats up it's usually around 73-74c ish. My water to ambient delta is quite low as I have way too much rad and push pull fans for the components it cools lol.


Your windows system has no problem. A lot of people have this Defender bug. Does this work for you 10-15 minutes later after a restart?


----------



## zebra_hun

Imprezzion said:


> View attachment 2563402
> 
> 
> Ran this with all the normal bloat started up, Discord, few launchers, that kinda stuff. Water in the loop ain't warmed up yet but it stayed basically under 70c even at 5.3 lol. Once the loop gets to normal temp and the GPU heats up it's usually around 73-74c ish. My water to ambient delta is quite low as I have way too much rad and push pull fans for the components it cools lol.


You made me feel good about Benchmark again. I tried the x53 / x50 frequency, I'm raising it a bit
Two rounds, first without HWINFO, second with HWINFO. 18.122 points 
1.34V Vcore under load, i use always ~ 100mV Vdrop.

Edit:

What is your LLC? Your CPU is better, i think your load voltage is lower, but i can't see that. I make always two run, first for the score, second run we can see under load datei. 256W is lower=better oc potential. SP63 is mine. Between IHS and Chip chanced to TGC, but between IHS and Block is normal paste. Your temperatures are super.
It is direct die?

Better quality


----------



## zebra_hun

W Defender fix and offical thread


----------



## rickmig

Hi all,
@zebra_hun and @unclewebb :
I've read the above thread from TechPowerUp and we're getting somewhere 
Thanks @unclewebb for all the insight/help/know-how abou this "problem"!

Now, I began to use the "Counter Control" app to check my Win Defender bug, and to my surprise I dont' have it anymore. The app says: NORMAL 0x330 (always) and running CBR23 and all that stuff it shows back the "old" effective MHz as it should.
To my knowledge the app itself don't trigger anything right??
Just to note that I did NOT open ThrottleStop 9.5 at any time, of course. Be checking today, maybe it can still trigger over time. Will keep checking it.
Note 2: didn't install anything new/special in windows besides de normal win updates.
Regards,
RicK


----------



## zebra_hun

rickmig said:


> Hi all,
> @zebra_hun and @unclewebb :
> I've read the above thread from TechPowerUp and we're getting somewhere
> Thanks @unclewebb for all the insight/help/know-how abou this "problem"!
> 
> Now, I began to use the "Counter Control" app to check my Win Defender bug, and to my surprise I dont' have it anymore. The app says: NORMAL 0x330 (always) and running CBR23 and all that stuff it shows back the "old" effective MHz as it should.
> To my knowledge the app itself don't trigger anything right??
> Just to note that I did NOT open ThrottleStop 9.5 at any time, of course. Be checking today, maybe it can still trigger over time. Will keep checking it.
> Note 2: didn't install anything new/special in windows besides de normal win updates.
> Regards,
> RicK


I didn't tested yet, i'm in work. Just i shared, but i'll check. For me, it's started 9.3 ts auto with w11, and use the .ini 5sec later autostop.
So it works fine, but maybe ms patched this bug, i don't know. I have to check. If i am at home, i write here.


----------



## zebra_hun

rickmig said:


> Hi all,
> @zebra_hun and @unclewebb :
> I've read the above thread from TechPowerUp and we're getting somewhere
> Thanks @unclewebb for all the insight/help/know-how abou this "problem"!
> 
> Now, I began to use the "Counter Control" app to check my Win Defender bug, and to my surprise I dont' have it anymore. The app says: NORMAL 0x330 (always) and running CBR23 and all that stuff it shows back the "old" effective MHz as it should.
> To my knowledge the app itself don't trigger anything right??
> Just to note that I did NOT open ThrottleStop 9.5 at any time, of course. Be checking today, maybe it can still trigger over time. Will keep checking it.
> Note 2: didn't install anything new/special in windows besides de normal win updates.
> Regards,
> RicK


Hi Rickmig,

i've tested, and it's same crap... Removed ThrottleStop 9.3 version from autostart, then absolut normal windows 11.
Newstart, no effective clock, no Cninebench score... Started Counter reset and reset, works fine. Restart, and same defender bug, not works good.
TS 9.5 download and test. Start, works fine, but after restart crap again.
Original, up to date w11, with lot of background process.
TS 9.3 and 9.5 and CR help, works.
For me, and lot of people, best solution is, add to autostart with windows, and 5 sec later autostop.
I made a short video:
Cb test without CR, dann with CR. TS 9.5 is same, super good.
*15500 vs. 16700 points... *_(sure, lot of background process)_

YT Video Link


----------



## rickmig

Hi!
Well i'm on my 2nd day using the Counter Control open to check. Always Normal ir Not Use when waking PC from sleep condition... Never saw "Defender" and effective clocks are normal in HWinfo as they used to be in past months... Strange, since I didn't do anything. Didn't open ThrottleStop since...
I'll keep looking.
Logs form Counter Control:
2022-06-28 10:37:44 00:03:59 0x330 Normal

2022-06-28 10:38:35 00:00:30 0x330 Normal

2022-06-28 12:23:06 01:44:26 0x330 Normal
2022-06-28 12:23:09 00:00:03 0x000 Not Used
2022-06-28 12:23:36 00:00:27 0x330 Normal

2022-06-28 14:32:10 02:08:32 0x330 Normal
2022-06-28 14:32:12 00:00:02 0x000 Not Used
2022-06-28 14:44:43 00:12:31 0x330 Normal

2022-06-28 14:44:47 00:00:02 0x330 Normal

2022-06-29 00:15:47 09:26:50 0x330 Normal
2022-06-29 00:15:50 00:00:03 0x000 Not Used
2022-06-29 11:29:45 11:13:55 0x330 Normal
2022-06-29 11:29:48 00:00:03 0x000 Not Used
2022-06-29 11:34:35 00:04:47 0x330 Normal

Regards,
RicK


----------



## zebra_hun

rickmig said:


> Hi!
> Well i'm on my 2nd day using the Counter Control open to check. Always Normal ir Not Use when waking PC from sleep condition... Never saw "Defender" and effective clocks are normal in HWinfo as they used to be in past months... Strange, since I didn't do anything. Didn't open ThrottleStop since...
> I'll keep looking.
> Logs form Counter Control:
> 2022-06-28 10:37:44 00:03:59 0x330 Normal
> 
> 2022-06-28 10:38:35 00:00:30 0x330 Normal
> 
> 2022-06-28 12:23:06 01:44:26 0x330 Normal
> 2022-06-28 12:23:09 00:00:03 0x000 Not Used
> 2022-06-28 12:23:36 00:00:27 0x330 Normal
> 
> 2022-06-28 14:32:10 02:08:32 0x330 Normal
> 2022-06-28 14:32:12 00:00:02 0x000 Not Used
> 2022-06-28 14:44:43 00:12:31 0x330 Normal
> 
> 2022-06-28 14:44:47 00:00:02 0x330 Normal
> 
> 2022-06-29 00:15:47 09:26:50 0x330 Normal
> 2022-06-29 00:15:50 00:00:03 0x000 Not Used
> 2022-06-29 11:29:45 11:13:55 0x330 Normal
> 2022-06-29 11:29:48 00:00:03 0x000 Not Used
> 2022-06-29 11:34:35 00:04:47 0x330 Normal
> 
> Regards,
> RicK


If u do not need it, u can delete. I have to use TS, without reset counters, bug is still alive. Allowed all ms update, my w11 is up to date.
Be happy with your config  I hope never come back for u.


----------



## Imprezzion

I'll test it after work tonight. I run W11 Pro Insider Dev channel latest build fully updated and also just use defender. I could also opt to disable defender and just use my businesses Bitdefender account but k.

Edit: so far it's been 330 normal every time I checked after different actions. Cold boot, hot boot, after playing division 2, after just watching some YouTube, working a bit on a remote desktop, normal every time.


----------



## Pk1

Man I'm so glad I stumbled on this thread! I have been pulling my hair out over the last week or so because I couldn't figure out why all of a sudden my benchmark scores were lower than they were just a few weeks ago. I recently did a memory OC and I re-ran some benchmarks to see if things improved. Instead I got like 200pts lower in XTU2 and 3dMark CPU profile. I thought my memory OC was bad so I went back to my previous settings and my score was still low. After fresh install, BIOS changes, and disk cleanup my score still stayed below what it was as recently as June 15th 2022. Finally after reading this thread I installed TS 9.5, ran the benchmark, and viola my scores have returned to normal. I don't care about the score but it was driving me crazy trying to figure out how/why I was losing performance. Thanks for posting this and figuring it out!!!


----------



## Imprezzion

I got fed up with the heat my PC outputs in this weather adding to my ambients in my room when running the full 5.3 all core 5.0 cache @ 1.364v so I decided to spend some time making a lower all core OC for hot summer temps. 

I got it to run 5.1 all core with 5.3x3 for lower thread stuff, cache 4.8, at 1.224v and it passes prime95/Cinebench R23/x265 just fine even with AVX enabled. Small FFT AVX on hits about 78c. It dropped power draw like 80w as well. This really is one hell of a sample to do AVX2 5.1 at just 1.224v lol.


----------



## Nizzen

Imprezzion said:


> I got fed up with the heat my PC outputs in this weather adding to my ambients in my room when running the full 5.3 all core 5.0 cache @ 1.364v so I decided to spend some time making a lower all core OC for hot summer temps.
> 
> I got it to run 5.1 all core with 5.3x3 for lower thread stuff, cache 4.8, at 1.224v and it passes prime95/Cinebench R23/x265 just fine even with AVX enabled. Small FFT AVX on hits about 78c. It dropped power draw like 80w as well. This really is one hell of a sample to do AVX2 5.1 at just 1.224v lol.


If you use the computer for gaming, performance is in the memory performance. 
5ghz and sub 40ns /65GB/s is all you need


----------



## Imprezzion

Nizzen said:


> If you use the computer for gaming, performance is in the memory performance.
> 5ghz and sub 40ns /65GB/s is all you need


This rig is purely gaming yes. I do all my work stuff on a VM in our server park. I run 4400 straight 17's @ 1.50v DRAM on 5.1/4.8 and 4266C15 @ 1.61v DRAM at 5.3/5.0 66-67GB at 36.x ns. Runs great.


----------



## rickmig

Hi, well after some "good" days without the Defender BUG, it's strikes again... Yesterday I got the"defender / warning" message in the CounterControl app. Reset = it's goes normal. 
What i'm failing to understand is what triggers it!?!? I got some solid days/week all normal and now back to the bug. Didn't do anything in windows...Reallyyyyyyy weird.
And with the bug it came a lot of crashes in Fortnite (for example) which didn't happen before and I can only relate to this thing... or a coincidence I don't know.

Regards,
RicK


----------



## zebra_hun

rickmig said:


> Hi, well after some "good" days without the Defender BUG, it's strikes again... Yesterday I got the"defender / warning" message in the CounterControl app. Reset = it's goes normal.
> What i'm failing to understand is what triggers it!?!? I got some solid days/week all normal and now back to the bug. Didn't do anything in windows...Reallyyyyyyy weird.
> And with the bug it came a lot of crashes in Fortnite (for example) which didn't happen before and I can only relate to this thing... or a coincidence I don't know.
> 
> Regards,
> RicK


With some friends, tested this crap. 9.5 version forget. Use the old 9.3 version, it works fine. Only 9.3! All other version isn't good.
Download - "show older version" -click, and find 9.3.
Perfect version.


----------



## rickmig

zebra_hun said:


> With some friends, tested this crap. 9.5 version forget. Use the old 9.3 version, it works fine. Only 9.3! All other version isn't good.
> Download - "show older version" -click, and find 9.3.
> Perfect version.


Well I'm just using Counter Control app to check and reset and work fine. Tested also Throttlestop 9.5 and works good too... The problem here is why this bug comes and goes!!! I hoped that it had been updated from microsoft with a fix, but I guess it didn't.


----------



## zebra_hun

Counter reset is a controll, no more. TS 9.3 is the best solution, and this bug never come back. Not the best solution, but this is all we can do now.
PC start one time with TS and close. With newer 9.5, later error again. 15 min, half hour... 
Haha, ms fix it never


----------



## rickmig

zebra_hun said:


> Counter reset is a controll, no more. TS 9.3 is the best solution, and this bug never come back. Not the best solution, but this is all we can do now.
> PC start one time with TS and close. With newer 9.5, later error again. 15 min, half hour...
> Haha, ms fix it never


I will try with TS 9.5 and check.
With Counter Control If I press the "reset" button it stays OK for as long as the pc is up. If it goes to sleep the bug comes back, with CounterControl or with Throttlestop.

I must understand why I got so many days without the bug!! Restart/shutdown/sleep whatever it was OK!! Really clueless now!


----------



## zebra_hun

rickmig said:


> I will try with TS 9.5 and check.
> With Counter Control If I press the "reset" button it stays OK for as long as the pc is up. If it goes to sleep the bug comes back, with CounterControl or with Throttlestop.
> 
> I must understand why I got so many days without the bug!! Restart/shutdown/sleep whatever it was OK!! Really clueless now!


I don't know, was lucky  since march is the bug with me. Accepted, i can live with ts, better than without 
Another solution is, use eva or revi os. There isn't ms connect, ms update and defender. Tested, but online, not so good. I don't wanna connect to net without antivir, it's me the best TS.


----------



## Pk1

zebra_hun said:


> Counter reset is a controll, no more. TS 9.3 is the best solution, and this bug never come back. Not the best solution, but this is all we can do now.
> PC start one time with TS and close. With newer 9.5, later error again. 15 min, half hour...
> Haha, ms fix it never


Can confirm that TS 9.5 allows bug to return 15 mins or so later. Quite annoying. I will definitely try 9.3. Thanks!


----------



## rickmig

Pk1 said:


> Can confirm that TS 9.5 allows bug to return 15 mins or so later. Quite annoying. I will definitely try 9.3. Thanks!


Can confirm also 9.5 works for just a few minutes, then goes back to Defender/Warning.
But Counter Control app works fine.
Regards


----------



## unclewebb

rickmig said:


> 9.5 works for just a few minutes


Are you allowing ThrottleStop 9.5 to run in the background or are you immediately exiting ThrottleStop after starting it?

It takes ThrottleStop 9.5 about 15 seconds before it starts a timer. If you immediately exit ThrottleStop, this timer will not get started and the Windows Defender bug will return.

ThrottleStop 9.3 works immediately. At the moment, best to use that version if you want to exit ThrottleStop immediately.

ThrottleStop 9.5.1 and beyond will start the necessary timer immediately and should work the same as ThrottleStop 9.3.


----------



## rickmig

Yeah I was open and exiting right next. So maybe it is it. Thanks @unclewebb 
Regards

NOTE: One other thing I noticed is, when MS defender updates is Security definitions the counter goes to "normal" always. Of course then 10/15 minutes later it goes back to Warning/Defender.......


----------



## GeneO

So I decided I am going to stick with my 10900k and Asus ROG Hero z590 for a while (rather than spend a bunch for 12 or 13th gen or downgrade to 11th gen). I had a bottom of the barrel 10900KF, SP63, that took around 1.3v load to do 5.1 and it needed delided to get there. No way I could get to 5.2. And the uncore topped at 4.6. Since new 10900K are dirt cheap ($329) I decided to take.a chance. Lucked out and got an SP81 from China from 2022. I can now easily hit 5.2 at less voltage than the previous 5.1,and get at least uncore 47, all without a delid. The IMC seems stronger. My memory overclock of 3200CL14 > 4100 CL16 carried over fine, I have yet to see if I can push the memory speed higher with the same sub-timings but still under 1.5v VDIMM.

So here are the new 24x7 settings. They are stable under AVX load.
5.2 all core, AVX=0, 1.26-1.28v under stress testing load 
V/F(7) = 1.403v, LLC=5, ACLL= 0.01 mohm. DCLL=0.80 mohm (=LLC5)
VDIMM= 1.48v, VCCSA= 1.2v, VCCIO=1.18v
2x16GB g.skill 3200CL14 b-die @ 4100 16-16-34, tight secondary and tertiary timings
memory tested with 6 cycles TM5 Absolut, 12,000% Karhu


----------



## Pk1

GeneO said:


> So I decided I am going to stick with my 10900k and Asus ROG Hero z590 for a while (rather than spend a bunch for 12 or 13th gen or downgrade to 11th gen). I had a bottom of the barrel 10900KF, SP63, that took around 1.3v load to do 5.1 and it needed delided to get there. No way I could get to 5.2. And the uncore topped at 4.6. Since new 10900K are dirt cheap ($329) I decided to take.a chance. Lucked out and got an SP81 from China from 2022. I can now easily hit 5.2 at less voltage than the previous 5.1,and get at least uncore 47, all without a delid. The IMC seems stronger. My memory overclock of 3200CL14 > 4100 CL16 carried over fine, I have yet to see if I can push the memory speed higher with the same sub-timings but still under 1.5v VDIMM.
> 
> So here are the new 24x7 settings. They are stable under AVX load.
> 5.2 all core, AVX=0, 1.26-1.28v under stress testing load
> V/F(7) = 1.403v, LLC=5, ACLL= 0.01 mohm. DCLL=0.80 mohm (=LLC5)
> VDIMM= 1.48v, VCCSA= 1.2v, VCCIO=1.18v
> 2x16GB g.skill 3200CL14 b-die @ 4100 16-16-34, tight secondary and tertiary timings
> memory tested with 6 cycles TM5 Absolut, 12,000% Karhu
> 
> View attachment 2566441
> 
> 
> View attachment 2566442


Nice! Looks really good. I'm quite jealous...
My 10850k needs 1.4v bios LLC4 on MSI to do 5.1/4.7ring lol. I run 4000c15. I should probably see if I can run faster but I'm lazy. Anyway sweet setup my friend! Hopefully, 14th gen Meteor Lake will be a worthwhile upgrade.


----------



## GeneO

Pk1 said:


> Nice! Looks really good. I'm quite jealous...
> My 10850k needs 1.4v bios LLC4 on MSI to do 5.1/4.7ring lol. I run 4000c15. I should probably see if I can run faster but I'm lazy. Anyway sweet setup my friend! Hopefully, 14th gen Meteor Lake will be a worthwhile upgrade.


Hey thanks. That is probably about right for me - 14th gen.


----------



## KillerBee33

Hey. So I got an issue I have never seen before. MSI Z490-10900K, Windows 11.
Noticed my CPU running in 50's at idle but when I open TaskManager or HWiNFO it drops to it's normal 30 degrees and and usage drops. However, if I run Afterburner without those two open I can see CPU usage is 100%. This only happens when the Ethernet or WiFi is on.


----------



## Imprezzion

KillerBee33 said:


> Hey. So I got an issue I have never seen before. MSI Z490-10900K, Windows 11.
> Noticed my CPU running in 50's at idle but when I open TaskManager or HWiNFO it drops to it's normal 30 degrees and and usage drops. However, if I run Afterburner without those two open I can see CPU usage is 100%. This only happens when the Ethernet or WiFi is on.


Mining virus.


----------



## KillerBee33

Imprezzion said:


> Mining virus.


I went ahead and nuked my Windows. For the future, any idea how to remove it?


----------



## Imprezzion

KillerBee33 said:


> I went ahead and nuked my Windows. For the future, any idea how to remove it?


Check in taskmanager details tab which process takes the CPU %, right mouse on it, open file location (most likely an appdata or temp folder), force close the process, yeet the .exe away that causes it. Problem (mostly) solved unless it reinstalls itself. Or get a proper scanner like Malwarebytes or Bitdefender and run that and let that deal with it. If it won't let you remove the file, try Revo uninstaller or boot from a recovery USB (Windows installer or Linux or whatever) and remove it from a different boot environment / OS or if using a windows install USB use the built in command line.


----------



## KillerBee33

Imprezzion said:


> Check in taskmanager details tab which process takes the CPU %, right mouse on it, open file location (most likely an appdata or temp folder), force close the process, yeet the .exe away that causes it. Problem (mostly) solved unless it reinstalls itself. Or get a proper scanner like Malwarebytes or Bitdefender and run that and let that deal with it. If it won't let you remove the file, try Revo uninstaller or boot from a recovery USB (Windows installer or Linux or whatever) and remove it from a different boot environment / OS or if using a windows install USB use the built in command line.


Well, thats the thing I had an issue with. The only program that Process didn't detect was the Afterburner. I had afterburner open and 100% CPU usage, as soon as i open TSKManager or HWiNFO, CPU usage in afterburner showed it dropped to idle. Malwarebytes didn't find anything at all and I even tried 3rd party Task Manager alternatives to see what's taking up my CPU which had exactly the same results, CPU usage would drop as soon as I open any monitoring application except Afterburner. Ehh, that gave me a chance to finally go back to W10.


----------



## Imprezzion

Anyone ever use ASUS AI Overclocking? I got bored and decided to give it a shot and to my surprise after giving it enough time to "learn" my CPU and my cooler capacity (sits around 183-186 now) the AI OC actually gave me a incredibly accurate OC that has voltages and frequencies nearly identical to what I tested with a normal all core manual OC. I'm very surprised it works as well as it does. 

It set up the chip with 54x2, 53x3, 52x5 and 51x10 with adaptive 1.411v, LLC4, AC 0.01, DC 1.00. I assume it also sets a customized V/F Curve? It runs 1.225v die sense under AVX load at 5.1 all core which is exactly what the chip needed in manual testing and the voltages for partial loads at 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 also match almost perfectly within 0.010v what my manual testing needed. It also seems to respect the "preferred cores" for lower thread loads and sets the clocks for the correct cores. 

This is quite the system if it really works as well as it does for me. Anyone else care to chime in with results?


----------



## mxthunder

Just posting up my results. Been rocking a 10900k since release day back in 2020. Running a flat 5100 all core/4800 cache. 1.38V set in bios = 1.25V under load with medium LLC. Rock stable for years now. Temps reach mid 80's running linpack/small FFT's under my custom loop.


----------



## tps3443

Imprezzion said:


> Anyone ever use ASUS AI Overclocking? I got bored and decided to give it a shot and to my surprise after giving it enough time to "learn" my CPU and my cooler capacity (sits around 183-186 now) the AI OC actually gave me a incredibly accurate OC that has voltages and frequencies nearly identical to what I tested with a normal all core manual OC. I'm very surprised it works as well as it does.
> 
> It set up the chip with 54x2, 53x3, 52x5 and 51x10 with adaptive 1.411v, LLC4, AC 0.01, DC 1.00. I assume it also sets a customized V/F Curve? It runs 1.225v die sense under AVX load at 5.1 all core which is exactly what the chip needed in manual testing and the voltages for partial loads at 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 also match almost perfectly within 0.010v what my manual testing needed. It also seems to respect the "preferred cores" for lower thread loads and sets the clocks for the correct cores.
> 
> This is quite the system if it really works as well as it does for me. Anyone else care to chime in with results?


You know, another software that’s actually really good is the “Intel Performance Maximizer” It installs a 7GB partition on to your HDD/SSD, and then runs the software outside of windows. It literally runs for about 1 hour straight testing each core with all voltages. And it determines the best 100% true stable ”ALL-CORE” Overclock with your cooling.

I ran this on my 11900K before I delidded it, and using just ambient water cooling, and Intel discovered the same thing I did.

Some Modern OC software works pretty darn good. And the Intel performance Maximizer works on 10th Gen Intel processors too!


----------



## Imprezzion

tps3443 said:


> You know, another software that’s actually really good is the “Intel Performance Maximizer” It installs a 7GB partition on to your HDD/SSD, and then runs the software outside of windows. It literally runs for about 1 hour straight testing each core with all voltages. And it determines the best 100% true stable ”ALL-CORE” Overclock with your cooling.
> 
> I ran this on my 11900K before I delidded it, and using just ambient water cooling, and Intel discovered the same thing I did.
> 
> Some Modern OC software works pretty darn good. And the Intel performance Maximizer works on 10th Gen Intel processors too!
> 
> 
> View attachment 2570150


Hmm, sounds nice. I don't like OC programs for CPU in Windows but if this runs outside it would be an option. I used Intel XTU for a while on my old Z490 Ace and it works well and it's nice for on the fly voltage tweaking if say, a worker drops in Prime95, no need to reboot.

ASUS AI OC however is fully BIOS based. It does not run in Windows nor does it require any ASUS software installed. It used SP data together with "cooler performance" which the BIOS learns over time and adjusts it from there.

I am not running it right now. I have it set to all Auto vCore, LLC and AC/DC now with x51 all core and 48 cache in BIOS with OCTVB +2 with -1 at 75c and -2 at 85c. Even with like 28c ambients it's holding 5.3 @ ~1.424-1.430v all core in games just fine, temps max around 73c.


----------



## fray_bentos

tps3443 said:


> You know, another software that’s actually really good is the “Intel Performance Maximizer” It installs a 7GB partition on to your HDD/SSD, and then runs the software outside of windows. It literally runs for about 1 hour straight testing each core with all voltages. And it determines the best 100% true stable ”ALL-CORE” Overclock with your cooling.
> 
> I ran this on my 11900K before I delidded it, and using just ambient water cooling, and Intel discovered the same thing I did.
> 
> Some Modern OC software works pretty darn good. And the Intel performance Maximizer works on 10th Gen Intel processors too!
> 
> 
> View attachment 2570150


Intel overclocker does not explore LLC settings, which is key for finding a good OC on a modern processor. You'd have to run it at each LLC setting. I also wouldn't trust it not to apply too much voltage. The old version I tried didn't give very impressive results for me. Also, in contrast to your screenshot showing "all core" OC, the old version used to just state "frequency after testing", which on checking was not an all core OC. Did you check you really get 5.4 GHz on all cores simultaneously under an 8-core load? I wouldn't be surprised if Intel used that terminology to say all cores can hit 5.4 GHz, but not simultaneously!


----------



## tps3443

fray_bentos said:


> Intel overclocker does not explore LLC settings, which is key for finding a good OC on a modern processor. You'd have to run it at each LLC setting. I also wouldn't trust it not to apply too much voltage. The old version I tried didn't give very impressive results for me. Also, in contrast to your screenshot showing "all core" OC, the old version used to just state "frequency after testing", which on checking was not an all core OC. Did you check you really get 5.4 GHz on all cores simultaneously under an 8-core load? I wouldn't be surprised if Intel used that terminology to say all cores can hit 5.4 GHz, but not simultaneously!


Intel performance Maximizer is legit fun! It pushes all cores though. I’m an extreme overclocker man. I only ran it for laughs. Well, Intel performance Maximizer won’t spit out no high frequency BS single boost numbers. It only gives a “ALL CORE BOOST” unless your chip is purely a miracle silicon sample you just won’t see high numbers like that. I’ve seen it ran numerous times on several CPU’s. It’s actually a great tool to quickly check the quality of a CPU. 

It only applies the voltage the CPU requires for any given frequency depending on how good your silicon is. If you run the test, and it doesn’t fare well, then under a heavy load that’s probably all your chip is capable of with your cooling and the safest maximum voltage. I have another 11900K that only passed 5.1Ghz on the Intel Performance Maximizer. 11700K’s bonk out at 4.9Ghz. But, if it’s good! Then its good, and Intel performance Maximizer will tell you if it is or not.

This chip is a top 1% 11900K though. And it was all cores at 5.4Ghz yes. I already knew what the CPU could do, it has been ran at 5.5Ghz all cores for close to a year.


----------



## fray_bentos

tps3443 said:


> Intel performance Maximizer is legit fun! It pushes all cores though. I’m an extreme overclocker man. I only ran it for laughs. Well, Intel performance Maximizer won’t spit out no high frequency BS single boost numbers. It only gives a “ALL CORE BOOST” unless your chip is purely a miracle silicon sample you just won’t see high numbers like that. I’ve seen it ran numerous times on several CPU’s. It’s actually a great tool to quickly check the quality of a CPU.
> 
> It only applies the voltage the CPU requires for any given frequency depending on how good your silicon is. If you run the test, and it doesn’t fare well, then under a heavy load that’s probably all your chip is capable of with your cooling and the safest maximum voltage. I have another 11900K that only passed 5.1Ghz on the Intel Performance Maximizer. 11700K’s bonk out at 4.9Ghz. But, if it’s good! Then its good, and Intel performance Maximizer will tell you if it is or not.
> 
> This chip is a top 1% 11900K though. And it was all cores at 5.4Ghz yes. I already knew what the CPU could do, it has been ran at 5.5Ghz all cores for close to a year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2570197


Thanks for explaining, it was indeed that 5.4 GHz that made me most sceptical!


----------



## tps3443

fray_bentos said:


> Thanks for explaining, it was indeed that 5.4 GHz that made me most sceptical!


For sure. It looks like a gimmick I know lol. But, from what I’ve gathered the Intel Performance Maximizer is totally legit at giving a very close representation of what we would be able to achieve overclocking in the bios with any specific CPU.

I know that when I eventually start honing in on 12th Gen i9’s or 13th Gen i9’s. I’m going to run it and I’ll know in just a few minutes how good the CPU is. Because SP rating alone is not an accurate representation. I my self love a really really good CPU. And it’s a shame that their binning is really so far apart. Especially considering we’re paying so much for these top shelf CPU’s.

Once you experience a top shelf sample, you want that with everything.


----------



## Imprezzion

tps3443 said:


> Intel performance Maximizer is legit fun! It pushes all cores though. I’m an extreme overclocker man. I only ran it for laughs. Well, Intel performance Maximizer won’t spit out no high frequency BS single boost numbers. It only gives a “ALL CORE BOOST” unless your chip is purely a miracle silicon sample you just won’t see high numbers like that. I’ve seen it ran numerous times on several CPU’s. It’s actually a great tool to quickly check the quality of a CPU.
> 
> It only applies the voltage the CPU requires for any given frequency depending on how good your silicon is. If you run the test, and it doesn’t fare well, then under a heavy load that’s probably all your chip is capable of with your cooling and the safest maximum voltage. I have another 11900K that only passed 5.1Ghz on the Intel Performance Maximizer. 11700K’s bonk out at 4.9Ghz. But, if it’s good! Then its good, and Intel performance Maximizer will tell you if it is or not.
> 
> This chip is a top 1% 11900K though. And it was all cores at 5.4Ghz yes. I already knew what the CPU could do, it has been ran at 5.5Ghz all cores for close to a year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2570197


What percentage would you count my 10900K at? 5.3 all core 5.0 cache 1.354v die sense 1.411v BIOS LLC4. SP86. 5.4 all core can be done, 1.448v, 5.5 haven't tested. This is all heavy load avx stable btw. 5.1 @ 1.220v 5.2 @ 1.290v.


----------



## tps3443

Imprezzion said:


> What percentage would you count my 10900K at? 5.3 all core 5.0 cache 1.354v die sense 1.411v BIOS LLC4. SP86. 5.4 all core can be done, 1.448v, 5.5 haven't tested. This is all heavy load avx stable btw. 5.1 @ 1.220v 5.2 @ 1.290v.


It is far better than most I know that. So I would say probably the best out of (4) 10900K’s. Samples like you have are not too uncommon. But they’re Fantastic because they’re 5.3Ghz all core at SUB 300 watts, and possible with less expensive cooling. You do have a really really good cache as well.

I have always wanted one of those Golden LTT 10900K’s. I’d probably buy one right now if given the opportunity. They are all like SP105-SP120+ and do 5.7Ghz fairly easily. ^ 5.7 may sound crazy and impossible. But any 10900K could clock +200MHz higher than any 11900K on average. So if a golden 11900K can do 5.5, then a golden 10900K can do 5.7Ghz. (With delid and proper cooling of course)

PS: I know of a 11900K substantially better than even mine. That may sound crazy lol. But it did have a bad IMC.



Have you delidded your CPU Yet? Once that’s done, another bin in frequency is available with rock solid stability and slightly less voltage demand.


----------



## Imprezzion

tps3443 said:


> It is far better than most I know that. So I would say probably the best out of (4) 10900K’s. Samples like you have are not too uncommon. But they’re Fantastic because they’re 5.3Ghz all core at SUB 300 watts, and possible with less expensive cooling. You do have a really really good cache as well.
> 
> I have always wanted one of those Golden LTT 10900K’s. I’d probably buy one right now if given the opportunity. They are all like SP105-SP120+ and do 5.7Ghz fairly easily. ^ 5.7 may sound crazy and impossible. But any 10900K could clock +200MHz higher than any 11900K on average. So if a golden 11900K can do 5.5, then a golden 10900K can do 5.7Ghz. (With delid and proper cooling of course)
> 
> PS: I know of a 11900K substantially better than even mine. That may sound crazy lol. But it did have a bad IMC.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you delidded your CPU Yet? Once that’s done, another bin in frequency is available with rock solid stability and slightly less voltage demand.


Yes it is direct die cooled with a RockItCool frame and a EK Velocity block. Even prime95 small FFT with AVX enabled stays sub 90c and stuff like Cinebench R23 on 5.2 1.290v barely hits 65.


----------



## tps3443

Imprezzion said:


> Yes it is direct die cooled with a RockItCool frame and a EK Velocity block. Even prime95 small FFT with AVX enabled stays sub 90c and stuff like Cinebench R23 on 5.2 1.290v barely hits 65.



Did your new 11900K replace this CPU? Since you've tuned the new 11900K, have you done any sort of real world comparisons between them? 

Even though I like overclocking and benching stuff. I really use my system for work everyday and gaming in my free time. This was the whole reason for even running an 11900K.


----------



## Imprezzion

tps3443 said:


> Did your new 11900K replace this CPU? Since you've tuned the new 11900K, have you done any sort of real world comparisons between them?
> 
> Even though I like overclocking and benching stuff. I really use my system for work everyday and gaming in my free time. This was the whole reason for even running an 11900K.


Yes, it is. The in game comparisons aren't fair as I didn't run ReBAR on the 10900K nor did it have PCI-E 4.0 which this does have so that kinda skews the FPS numbers. I know PCI-E 3.0 isn't a bottleneck but there is 1-2% in it especially with ReBAR. 

In for example the Division 2 the averages are pretty much the same but the frame time consistency and 0.1% lows are much better on the 11900K. Most games show the same. Average is the same or slightly better on the 11900K but 1% / 0.1% lows are way higher. Cinebench is about equal between the 2. The 11900K wins single thread by quite a lot, the 10900K gets about 1100 points more multithreaded but it has 2 more cores and a higher all core clock. CPU-Z the 11900K beats the 10900K single core with 40 points, multicore about +900 for the 10900K. 

I can now also use M.2 4.0 which is great. The firecuda 1tb boot drive really flies now.


----------



## fray_bentos

tps3443 said:


> Did your new 11900K replace this CPU? Since you've tuned the new 11900K, have you done any sort of real world comparisons between them?
> 
> Even though I like overclocking and benching stuff. I really use my system for work everyday and gaming in my free time. This was the whole reason for even running an 11900K.


Overclocked to hilt vs overclocked to the hilt (average samples)





PCBuilding


KingFaris10's Site




kingfaris.co.uk


----------



## tps3443

Imprezzion said:


> Yes, it is. The in game comparisons aren't fair as I didn't run ReBAR on the 10900K nor did it have PCI-E 4.0 which this does have so that kinda skews the FPS numbers. I know PCI-E 3.0 isn't a bottleneck but there is 1-2% in it especially with ReBAR.
> 
> In for example the Division 2 the averages are pretty much the same but the frame time consistency and 0.1% lows are much better on the 11900K. Most games show the same. Average is the same or slightly better on the 11900K but 1% / 0.1% lows are way higher. Cinebench is about equal between the 2. The 11900K wins single thread by quite a lot, the 10900K gets about 1100 points more multithreaded but it has 2 more cores and a higher all core clock. CPU-Z the 11900K beats the 10900K single core with 40 points, multicore about +900 for the 10900K.
> 
> I can now also use M.2 4.0 which is great. The firecuda 1tb boot drive really flies now.


Well from the sound of it, you had a really good 10900K. I’ve owned (2) 10900K’s and they were all 5.2Ghz stable chips. I had a 10850K that was a SP85 and it could run 5.4Ghz. “Definitely not average”

But yeah that’s one advantage to Z590. As for using a Gen4 M.2, I don’t have one yet but I need to ditch my raid 0 M.2’s Gen 3‘s for just one bigger m.2 Gen 4 SSD.


Anyways, check out this review it demonstrates some interesting findings between the two CPU’s. Considering the 10900K is clocked default 100Mhz faster all core.










Intel’s 11th Gen Core i9 processor boosts Microsoft Flight Simulator by 20 percent


Intel’s latest processors offer speedy PCIe 4.0 support and more.




www.theverge.com






This is another great example with an updated bios and microcode after the initial launch. 11900K’s were initially stuck at 4.8Ghz no matter if the power limits were removed.









Intel Rocket Lake Revisited: Core i9-11900K Performance Boost After BIOS Update - PC Perspective


Intel Rocket Lake Revisited: Core i9-11900K Performance Boost After BIOS Update Rather than simply updating our Rocket Lake-S launch review, I have taken it




pcper.com


----------



## zebra_hun

Tested my CML CPU, and the VCCIO and VCCSA voltages are now extreme low. For 50x/[email protected] right 1.12V
Tested TM5 Advanced, harder than Extreme1 or Absolut, then AIDA Cache and memory stress. Just TM5 is not enought. With one hour GSat or AIDA stress is the test better.











One hour AIDA FPU stress for VCore. Just 1.14V VCore under heavy FPU load, harder than a Cb R23.
This is my daily profil with extreme low voltages.











A bonus, but i personaly don't like this high freq.
All core 5300MHz and Cache 5000MHz with an special memory oc. This is my bench profil.
Need 1.28V VCore under load for 53x.


----------



## Falkentyne

zebra_hun said:


> Tested my CML CPU, and the VCCIO and VCCSA voltages are now extreme low. For 50x/[email protected] right 1.12V


What's the SP of that chip?


----------



## zebra_hun

SP63, but sometimes 116. Asus can't read good.


----------



## Falkentyne

zebra_hun said:


> SP63, but sometimes 116. Asus can't read good.


Just noticed your very good cooling. Can do wonders for an average chip.


----------



## zebra_hun

Falkentyne said:


> Just noticed your very good cooling. Can do wonders for an average chip.


True. If you're not a lottery winner, build a good water cooler.
This is ~23C ambient, and P95 small fft with AVX.
LLC6, higher idle voltage, because more powerful test.
Load voltage with normal temperature is 1.15V for P95 small fft, avx, i think, not bad. (tested 15 min long, enought me, i hate p95 small fft)
Picture is below.

If i use chilled water ~5-8C, i can low to 1.11V on 5GHz
5.1Ghz 1.14V (non avx)
Or 5.5GHz extreme cpu bench


----------



## Falkentyne

zebra_hun said:


> True. If you're not a lottery winner, build a good water cooler.
> This is ~23C ambient, and P95 small fft with AVX.
> LLC6, higher idle voltage, because more powerful test.
> Load voltage with normal temperature is 1.15V for P95 small fft, avx, i think, not bad. (tested 15 min long, enought me, i hate p95 small fft)
> Picture is below.
> 
> If i use chilled water ~5-8C, i can low to 1.11V on 5GHz
> 5.1Ghz 1.14V (non avx)
> Or 5.5GHz extreme cpu bench


73C.
My SP94 10900K could do FMA3 small FFT prime95 at 5 ghz at 1.146v (load die sense), which was the bare minimum (I think I used some Asus VRM tweaks too, didn't need to with Z590 as that had a ISL 69269 VRM rather than the IR 35201 on Z490) but that was 86C load on a liquid freezer II 360. 

5.1 ghz could do AVX1 small FFT prime95 (barely) at 1.19v load but would be 95C+ after like 10 minutes and not safe to run. Chip is retired now but at the last test (before RKL), still was able to do the same FMA3 vcore at 5 ghz load.


----------



## ReXtN

I think i might have either the worst bin 10900k or worst motherboard in history..
5ghz = 1.36vcore @llc6 (1.363v under load)
5.1ghz = 1.395vcore @llc6 (1.393v under load) - 263W
5.2ghz = 1.43vcore @llc6 (1.423v under load) - 298W
Ring has been 4.3 to 4.8ghz with same results.
Speedstep disabled
C-states disabled

The 5ghz and 5.1ghz settings is 24/7-stable, and maximum seeing 85c while gaming and such(custom WC, with fancurve scaling after watertemp, basically no noise)

Tested Vcore to AUTO, llc AUTO and 5.2ghz all core:
Vcore @1.495v at idle, and 1.402v at load. And it was unstable, and bsod right after running R20.

Have you guys actually seen a chip this bad before?
Anything i should try out or test?

It´s an Asus Z490-Plus WiFi mobo fyi.


----------



## Falkentyne

ReXtN said:


> I think i might have either the worst bin 10900k or worst motherboard in history..
> 5ghz = 1.36vcore @llc6 (1.363v under load)
> 5.1ghz = 1.395vcore @llc6 (1.393v under load) - 263W
> 5.2ghz = 1.43vcore @llc6 (1.423v under load) - 298W
> Ring has been 4.3 to 4.8ghz with same results.
> Speedstep disabled
> C-states disabled
> 
> The 5ghz and 5.1ghz settings is 24/7-stable, and maximum seeing 85c while gaming and such(custom WC, with fancurve scaling after watertemp, basically no noise)
> 
> Tested Vcore to AUTO, llc AUTO and 5.2ghz all core:
> Vcore @1.495v at idle, and 1.402v at load. And it was unstable, and bsod right after running R20.
> 
> Have you guys actually seen a chip this bad before?
> Anything i should try out or test?
> 
> It´s an Asus Z490-Plus WiFi mobo fyi.


That's not even close to the worst.
My SP94 10900K ES needed (I forgot sorta, been awhile) something like 1.270v bios set + LLC6 to be stable under prime95 small FFT FMA3 stress test @ 5 ghz, this is 1.154v under load, and was regular (not prime95) stress test stable at 5.2 ghz at I think 1.24v load (5.1 under AVX1 prime95 was too hot to stress, even at 1.181v load, got past 95C on AIO). This was an above average chip, your chip looks average to me.

Your board doesn't have die sense voltage, so your vcore at load is showing up at least 50mv higher than what it really is, or in other words, the true vcore is at least 50mv lower than what is being displayed. So depending on what you're running, that can be anywhere between actual 1.25-1.30v, not 1.363v. LLC6 is, IIRC, 0.48 mohms of loadline on those asus boards, NOT 0 mohm loadline, like your load voltage implies (flat loadline).


----------



## ReXtN

Falkentyne said:


> That's not even close to the worst.
> My SP94 10900K ES needed (I forgot sorta, been awhile) something like 1.270v bios set + LLC6 to be stable under prime95 small FFT FMA3 stress test @ 5 ghz, this is 1.154v under load, and was regular (not prime95) stress test stable at 5.2 ghz at I think 1.24v load (5.1 under AVX1 prime95 was too hot to stress, even at 1.181v load, got past 95C on AIO). This was an above average chip, your chip looks average to me.
> 
> Your board doesn't have die sense voltage, so your vcore at load is at least 50mv higher than what it really is. So depending on what you're running, that can be anywhere between actual 1.25-1.30v, not 1.363v. LLC6 is, IIRC, 0.48 mohms of loadline on those asus boards, NOT 0 mohm loadline, like your load voltage implies (flat loadline).


Thanks for the clarification!
Sadly the Z490-plus mobo doesnt show SP-numbers.
Makes sense with the die-sense voltage as well, thanks for the info👌
Llc6 in my case droops maybe a few mv from idle, no more than 7mv in my experience, which is weird if its supposed to be 48mohm.

Is the non die-sense voltage the reason behind my Core VIDs being 50-100mv lower than my Vcore? 🤔

Thinking about going direct-die cooling soon tbh.. Too maybe squeeze out an extra 1-200mhz for daily use.. just to prolong the usable life of it. Or else i might just upgrade to 13th gen when reviews are out.


----------



## Falkentyne

ReXtN said:


> Thanks for the clarification!
> Sadly the Z490-plus mobo doesnt show SP-numbers.
> Makes sense with the die-sense voltage as well, thanks for the info👌
> Llc6 in my case droops maybe a few mv from idle, no more than 7mv in my experience, which is weird if its supposed to be 48mohm.
> 
> Is the non die-sense voltage the reason behind my Core VIDs being 50-100mv lower than my Vcore? 🤔
> 
> Thinking about going direct-die cooling soon tbh.. Too maybe squeeze out an extra 1-200mhz for daily use.. just to prolong the usable life of it. Or else i might just upgrade to 13th gen when reviews are out.


I made a mistake.
I meant, the vcore at load is at least 50mv LOWER than you see on your sensors.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

ReXtN said:


> I think i might have either the worst bin 10900k or worst motherboard in history..
> 5ghz = 1.36vcore @llc6 (1.363v under load)
> 5.1ghz = 1.395vcore @llc6 (1.393v under load) - 263W
> 5.2ghz = 1.43vcore @llc6 (1.423v under load) - 298W
> Ring has been 4.3 to 4.8ghz with same results.
> Speedstep disabled
> C-states disabled
> 
> The 5ghz and 5.1ghz settings is 24/7-stable, and maximum seeing 85c while gaming and such(custom WC, with fancurve scaling after watertemp, basically no noise)
> 
> Tested Vcore to AUTO, llc AUTO and 5.2ghz all core:
> Vcore @1.495v at idle, and 1.402v at load. And it was unstable, and bsod right after running R20.
> 
> Have you guys actually seen a chip this bad before?
> Anything i should try out or test?
> 
> It´s an Asus Z490-Plus WiFi mobo fyi.


You need more VDrop to get it better stable, min. 100mV between idle to load.
Your chip is really not good, my worst case Chip was an 8700k who also need for 5ghz over 1,3V Load for *Non*AVX.
Good chip´s do 5ghz under 1,2V load (socket sense), top chips as example 5,2ghz(9900k) undellided 1,24V socket sense for CB23, or my 10900k 1,[email protected],2Ghz delidded CB23 direct sense. 
I think if you unhappy go to 13th gen, delid make that case not really better.


----------



## ReXtN

PhoenixMDA said:


> You need more VDrop to get it better stable, min. 100mV between idle to load.
> Your chip is really not good, my worst case Chip was an 8700k who also need for 5ghz over 1,3V Load for *Non*AVX.
> Good chip´s do 5ghz under 1,2V load (socket sense), top chips as example 5,2ghz(9900k) undellided 1,24V socket sense for CB23, or my 10900k 1,[email protected],2Ghz delidded CB23 direct sense.
> I think if you unhappy go to 13th gen, delid make that case not really better.


Ahh, might be onto something there.. Might change to LLC5 or LLC4 later today then and try.

Yeah, the delid and direct die wouldn't make it much better, but at least lower temps so i could push more voltage at the "problem"  hehe
Ill wait for 13th gen reviews and benchmarks anyways


----------



## PhoenixMDA

It´s better to do less frequency and lower the voltage for lower temps^^.
A non delid chip is also better to sell if it not like a gold chip, it´s nice to have a good chip, but in reality at 5Ghz 100Mhz are only 1% Performance, thats like nothing.

I think the 13th is a good choice, i have also order a 13900k, i hope to get no crap chip 😅.


----------



## Falkentyne

PhoenixMDA said:


> You need more VDrop to get it better stable, min. 100mV between idle to load.
> Your chip is really not good, my worst case Chip was an 8700k who also need for 5ghz over 1,3V Load for *Non*AVX.
> Good chip´s do 5ghz under 1,2V load (socket sense), top chips as example 5,2ghz(9900k) undellided 1,24V socket sense for CB23, or my 10900k 1,[email protected],2Ghz delidded CB23 direct sense.
> I think if you unhappy go to 13th gen, delid make that case not really better.


You didn't read anything I wrote, did you?
His vdrop is fine. It's socket sense.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Falkentyne said:


> You didn't read anything I wrote, did you?
> His vdrop is fine. It's socket sense.


My reply was to this:
5ghz = 1.36vcore(*idle???*) @llc6 (1.363v under load) 
and that:
Tested Vcore to AUTO, llc AUTO and 5.2ghz all core:
Vcore @1.495v at idle, and 1.402v at load. And it was unstable, and bsod right after running R20.

I need with an Apex min 100mV idle to load at 200W to get the best low vcore result and lowest temp at full load, he has not so a strong VRM like the Apex so he need more.


----------



## Falkentyne

PhoenixMDA said:


> My reply was to this:
> 5ghz = 1.36vcore(*idle???*) @llc6 (1.363v under load)
> and that:
> Tested Vcore to AUTO, llc AUTO and 5.2ghz all core:
> Vcore @1.495v at idle, and 1.402v at load. And it was unstable, and bsod right after running R20.
> 
> I need with an Apex min 100mV idle to load at 200W to get the best low vcore result and lowest temp at full load, he has not so a strong VRM like the Apex so he need more.


More relaxed LLC is always best for vmin, but that's only going to show in extreme stress testing (Prime95, Y-cruncher, LinX) when you are at your bare "Vmin" and may only give 10-20mv improvement.
It's not going to affect day to day stability at all (max amps is lower). His socket sense voltage looks like he is using a flat loadline, but he's using 0.48 mohms loadline, which is good enough.

Also, for the "Parity Error" problem, at least in Minecraft and other games, a stronger LLC is always better than a weaker LLC. (LLC8 is actually best for minecraft but terrible for stress testing).

These days, I also prefer a low idle voltage. I would much rather run 1.3v idle for 1.20v load (stable vmin) @ LLC6, than 1.4v idle for 1.19v (stable vmin) load at llc4. 1.3v idle is a lot better than 1.4v idle.

And yes, voltage DOES matter, regardless what people claim. Intel specifies 1.520v max VID + (200mv), although I am completely convinced now that the extra 200mv is sub-ambient runs, but at 1.520v, the CPU should NOT be subjected to ANY clocks at all on ambient (0A IOUT). A person years ago tested 1.50v, 1.55v, 1.60v and 1.65v completely idle in windows, and found -10mv vmin stability over a few weeks, starting at 1.50v despite the CPU being fully idle (since there is still load on the CPU, even if it's only 20 or 30 amps, it's still load).

Assuming that on those old processors, 2.1 mohms was intel specification for loadline, then at something, assuming 20A idle, 1.520v - (2.1 mohm * 20A IOUT) would give 1.478v as the absolute max safe idle voltage at 20 amps. 1.520v pure idle (flat loadline) would therefore cause degradation slowly.

So when NOT using c-states, I just prefer to use a stronger LLC and a lower idle voltage, because 10mv higher load vmin means absolutely nothing if you have good temps.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

I know that you mean, if the Vdrop too much it´s also not better. He has not so a strong board, the best is he test it at 5ghz that is the best under load in his case.
My Z370 Asrock with has need with [email protected] min 50mV, but with [email protected] 5,2Ghz min 150mV+ to get stable without WHEA.
My Hero Z390 has also needed LLC5 with 9900k and over 120mV at 5,2Ghz.
With the Apex z490 for me it´s also possible with LLC6 and lower VDrop, the VRM is much better, i know that not only few has problems with WHEA.
In my case i was not able to replicate that/ no WHEA Problem but i haveone of the best 10900k chip´s and my chip goes never over 55° also in hot summer because of 3° delta air/water.

Some Workload´s are really heavy like texture decompress by Horizon Zero Dawn and so on, for that it´s good to be safe also in full load and 5-10° more CPU temp
as testet are enough to get error´s, so i let ever a good headroom.


----------



## Betroz

I do wonder if overclocking is worth it for us plebs with only an AIO cooler. Even if games would scale linearly in fps with the increase in CPU frequency, the difference is small. Stock allcore for a 10900K is 4900 Mhz, og for us with an AIO, 5100 Mhz is about the realistic max. That would be just a 4% increase in performance...at the cost of more heat and noise.


----------



## zebra_hun

Betroz said:


> I do wonder if overclocking is worth it for us plebs with only an AIO cooler. Even if games would scale linearly in fps with the increase in CPU frequency, the difference is small. Stock allcore for a 10900K is 4900 Mhz, og for us with an AIO, 5100 Mhz is about the realistic max. That would be just a 4% increase in performance...at the cost of more heat and noise.


Cpu oc is nothing,
Ram oc is good. 

This is Hungarian (my main language), but no need to understand, or use Google translate.
Tomb Raider tested with my ram profiles and cpu/cache oc.
Cpu oc =~1-2%...
TR bench test


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Betroz said:


> I do wonder if overclocking is worth it for us plebs with only an AIO cooler. Even if games would scale linearly in fps with the increase in CPU frequency, the difference is small. Stock allcore for a 10900K is 4900 Mhz, og for us with an AIO, 5100 Mhz is about the realistic max. That would be just a 4% increase in performance...at the cost of more heat and noise.


Like zebra_hun has said ramoc bring really much to intel Spec´s over 40% in CPU gaming Power, but CPU OC less.
I can also do 5,4ghz stable in 24/7, but i use 5,1ghz because in reality same FPS by much lower wattage.


----------



## Betroz

PhoenixMDA said:


> Like zebra_hun has said ramoc bring really much to intel Spec´s over 40% in CPU gaming Power, but CPU OC less.
> I can also do 5,4ghz stable in 24/7, but i use 5,1ghz because in reality same FPS by much lower wattage.


With my cooling I can run 5.1 allcore, but that is max for my AIO. At the moment I run stock CPU (with raised power limit) and a RAM OC - 4133C16, but can go higher here aswell, but the added IO and SA becomes a bit too high I think (in regard to degraded IMC).


----------



## erickanu003

What is your Vccsa and Ring multiplier still the same?


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Betroz said:


> With my cooling I can run 5.1 allcore, but that is max for my AIO. At the moment I run stock CPU (with raised power limit) and a RAM OC - 4133C16, but can go higher here aswell, but the added IO and SA becomes a bit too high I think (in regard to degraded IMC).


I use 5,[email protected],25V Bios LLC5 Apex VII and 2x16GB 4600CL16-16 1,55V Bios 1,33V IO/SA Bios, but with selected HW.That are the voltage´s i need really without any issues other the whole time.
Before i had drive with lower IO/SA 1,3/1,31V, but in some weeks it gave´s an boot issue.
Gigabyte say´s on there website 1,35V Bios is safe area IO/SA.
In 24/7 i think it bring no much to raise up to limit, it´s more important that it´s really stable.I must say that is my best CPU an Mem in a generation other the whole time of other 20 years. 😅The selected 4000C14Bin goe´s with me by 13900k, i can´t separate...🤷‍♂️


----------



## Betroz

erickanu003 said:


> What is your Vccsa and Ring multiplier still the same?


1.30v set in BIOS. Stock 43 ring.


----------



## Betroz

PhoenixMDA said:


> I use 5,[email protected],25V Bios LLC5 Apex VII


That must be a golden sample. Just for a static 5.0 allcore on my 10900K, I need to set 1.36v in BIOS with LLC5...


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Betroz said:


> That must be a golden sample. Just for a static 5.0 allcore on my 10900K, I need to set 1.36v in BIOS with LLC5...


Yes the chip is awesome and also the best in HWL Forum, SoldierRBT had nearly the same 10900k.
With direct die and 200L Flow really great temps, i use 5,[email protected],25V LLC5 for 24/7, but you see it´s also possible with 1,2VLLC5 Bios but there are WHEA or crash also possible by CB23^^
1,1V Load for 5,1Ghz is mor than great.I hope that i get no crap 13900k, but to get such a chip quality is like unpossible^^


----------



## zebra_hun

PhoenixMDA said:


> Yes the chip is awesome and also the best in HWL Forum, SoldierRBT had nearly the same 10900k.
> With direct die and 200L Flow really great temps, i use 5,[email protected],25V LLC5 for 24/7, but you see it´s also possible with 1,2VLLC5 Bios but there are WHEA or crash also possible by CB23^^
> 1,1V Load for 5,1Ghz is mor than great.I hope that i get no crap 13900k, but to get such a chip quality is like unpossible^^
> View attachment 2574302
> 
> View attachment 2574303


Your cpu is the best, settings, too. 
I hope, i will see from you some good tipps and setting later, if u r on RL. Your comments are helped me lot.
Nachträglich danke


----------



## Betroz

PhoenixMDA said:


> 1,1V Load for 5,1Ghz is mor than great.I hope that i get no crap 13900k


With such a great chip and with your cooling, why not run it at 5.2 - 5.3 allcore and keep it for awhile longer? Sure the 13900K will be faster, but in games you would be mostly GPU limited anyways.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

Betroz said:


> With such a great chip and with your cooling, why not run it at 5.2 - 5.3 allcore and keep it for awhile longer? Sure the 13900K will be faster, but in games you would be mostly GPU limited anyways.


You have explained it by yourself, most time GPU limit, it make no sense, to raise up to 5,3ghz that are only 4%.
The same by the GPU here is an expample BF5 [email protected] without RTX GPU is an RTX3090Suprim(H2O) .The third is full power GPU with curve
and mem +1400 and not +1200.
The 13900k i take because it´s the last and fastest CPU there i can use my selected DDR4 and i have much more multicore power for heavy workloads.
P.S. The bench is on the same place on the BF5 Map, i know it looks different.... it´s only a compare.









My Monitor make GSync 120FPS so i take the last Setting. 🤷‍♂️ 😅









@zebra_hun
THX...i hope i get an good IMC/CPU that is the most important by Gear1, there are no so much possiblity because the control signals are not so important in that lower frequency.The good thing is i have my selected 4000C14bin, so one thing less needed....
I will see that i can reach and hope that asus make a good bios for the Z690Strix D4^^.


----------



## Betroz

PhoenixMDA said:


> The 13900k i take because it´s the last and fastest CPU there i can use my selected DDR4 and i have much more multicore power for heavy workloads.


That makes perfect sense


----------



## zebra_hun

PhoenixMDA said:


> Yes the chip is awesome and also the best in HWL Forum, SoldierRBT had nearly the same 10900k.
> With direct die and 200L Flow really great temps, i use 5,[email protected],25V LLC5 for 24/7, but you see it´s also possible with 1,2VLLC5 Bios but there are WHEA or crash also possible by CB23^^
> 1,1V Load for 5,1Ghz is mor than great.I hope that i get no crap 13900k, but to get such a chip quality is like unpossible^^
> View attachment 2574302
> 
> View attachment 2574303


Your 10900 cpu is the greatest of all around the world. 5.1/4.8GHz on 1.10-1.11V is impossible without WHEA (CBR23 stable).
Retested my cpu, it's not a golden chip, but not bad. SP63 can do 5.0/4.7GHz on 1.110-1.119V CB stable.
For 5.1GHz i need 1.14V load voltage without WHEA.
I hope you find your calculations on the Raptor Lake cpu, I'll wait a little longer. I' will try direct die now, maybe help me, coast not much. (Rockit tool kit)
Now i use with ihs and normal paste, but de-relided under ihs.
I've checked Tomb Raider 1080 lowest BM on ADL 12600k, without ram oc ~240 fps, with ram oc 280 fps.
I can do 280 fps on my 24/7 setup (50x/47x440MHz ram), and 300+ fps overclocked. I've seen your TR Bench somewhere, i remember it was over 320 fps.
Can u share it? Iwanna to see one more time, 
This is a game performanche. 

This is my 50x/[email protected] CL17, 1.12V IO/SA, 1.395V Vdimm. 1.11V Load Vcore. Better quality pic


----------



## PhoenixMDA

@zebra_hun
Your chip is really good, my other 2 10900k before has needed arround 1,[email protected] give better chip´s as my i have compare the voltage my chip is 
from voltage i think arround SP103, the best chip was an crazy KF with SP126^^.
i must say im pretty happy with the rockit frame, great temp and no problems with ramoc, all fine.
But the Tombraider bench was max. out with 5,6Ghz and 4666CL16-16 that is nothing for 24/7 only bench.
The cpu+board/cooler goes in good hands of a friend, i had really a great time and fun with the HW.


----------



## zebra_hun

PhoenixMDA said:


> @zebra_hun
> Your chip is really good, my other 2 10900k before has needed arround 1,[email protected] give better chip´s as my i have compare the voltage my chip is
> from voltage i think arround SP103, the best chip was an crazy KF with SP126^^.
> i must say im pretty happy with the rockit frame, great temp and no problems with ramoc, all fine.
> But the Tombraider bench was max. out with 5,6Ghz and 4666CL16-16 that is nothing for 24/7 only bench.
> The cpu+board/cooler goes in good hands of a friend, i had really a great time and fun with the HW.
> View attachment 2574415


325/231 avg/min fps with Comet Lake, absolut super game performanche. 
I told some friends, bench pls 12600k TR 1080 lowest, and default bios settings ~230 fps, not pro oc'ed ram ~260 fps. Many people think, ADL 12600k is better than CML. Then show me Cinebench score...
On my 24/7 settings (50x/[email protected] Cl17) i've got 285 fps in Tomb Raider Bench, and if i use 54x/51x, i've 302 fps. Windows isn't tweaked, all backgrounprocess running, i need Steam, Origin, Logitech, MSI AB...etc.

Total anders, wenn du Zeit und Lust hast, antwort mir.

4400Cl17 is my last stabilized ram profil, this is perfect, tested. Test1 Test2

I wanted to higher frequenz, but with Cl17 will be harder. 4400 is yet weird, Vref is 0.48.
4533 is on another side, Vref is 0.515. 
4533Cl17
I don't know, possible drive to stabil, or not. A quick test run without error, but ca. 20 min later error.
Tried everithing i think, now gave up, if i have time, it will be tested later.
What on screen is not. ODTs are 80 48 40, tried another number, but isn't better, just bad. These are the best.
Slopes, nooo, no way, tried, but chaos, on auto the whole section now. 
4533Cl17 is super low voltage, quick test is ok with 1.48Vdimm, io/sa are 1.28V.
I wanted to buy same as your kit, impossible to buy in Hungary 4000Cl14. Stay my old kit, 3200Cl14.
This is not bad, my 4400 profil, but i think, that 4533MHz with those voltages are perfect. I can't find, where should i to loose. Only the three voltage set it up, all other are on auto.
I want to stay on Cl17, Cl16 easy to drive, but coast to much voltage. 4533Cl16

Thank you, just if you have a little time answer me.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

That 4400CL17 run is very good, Vref most cases arround 0,49-0,53.
IO/SA most people need for 4500-4600mhz 1,3-1,36, i had the both at the same value or SA a little bit higher as IO.
It´s not said that you get an 4000C14 Kit that can do CL17 in higher frequency, i had 2 kit´s that can´t that, only 1 Stick of each kit together was possible to do that,
so i have take this 2 Sticks together.
Stable 4500-4600+CL17 Kit´s are really rar and you need a really good imc for that.


----------



## zebra_hun

Re benched TR with my 4533MHz CL16 Profil, this is far far away from your score. You miss here, but this topic is death...
Maybe somebody support this good bench forum:
TR Bench
What is the Secret? 
I made this bench now 5500/[email protected] CL16, but just 308 fps ...


----------



## Robertomcat

Hi guys, good afternoon.
I have the 10900K processor for a long time working at 5.2GHz, a manual voltage of 1.310 and the LLC at 6.

The question is that I would like to be able to leave the voltage in an idle mode, and that maximum reached a voltage of 1,310, as in the frequency, that when the processor was relaxed to work at 800MHz for example. Is there any way to configure it? Thanks


----------



## fray_bentos

Robertomcat said:


> Hi guys, good afternoon.
> I have the 10900K processor for a long time working at 5.2GHz, a manual voltage of 1.310 and the LLC at 6.
> 
> The question is that I would like to be able to leave the voltage in an idle mode, and that maximum reached a voltage of 1,310, as in the frequency, that when the processor was relaxed to work at 800MHz for example. Is there any way to configure it? Thanks


Yes, use adaptive mode and adaptive voltage. You may need to increase Vcore a notch to keep stability with adaptive clocks.


----------



## Robertomcat

fray_bentos said:


> Yes, use adaptive mode and adaptive voltage. You may need to increase Vcore a notch to keep stability with adaptive clocks.


I understood it was in those modes, but I wasn't sure, and I had done some tests but they had all gone wrong. I will try again. Is there a specific guide to follow? Thank you.


----------



## zebra_hun

Robertomcat said:


> I understood it was in those modes, but I wasn't sure, and I had done some tests but they had all gone wrong. I will try again. Is there a specific guide to follow? Thank you.


Hi. I wrote a quick guide for friends, but it is Hungarian. Maybe help Google Translate.
Lot of BIOS picture help you.
At the end, IA AC DC LLC didn't done, it missing, but this is a good start.

Part 1 fixed voltage
Part 2 adaptive voltage

The part 1 i think is done, but no problem, if you read or check.
That is not for pro overclockers, this is for beginners.
Maybe help


----------



## Robertomcat

zebra_hun said:


> Hi. I wrote a quick guide for friends, but it is Hungarian. Maybe help Google Translate.
> Lot of BIOS picture help you.
> At the end, IA AC DC LLC didn't done, it missing, but this is a good start.
> 
> Part 1 fixed voltage
> Part 2 adaptive voltage
> 
> The part 1 i think is done, but no problem, if you read or check.
> That is not for pro overclockers, this is for beginners.
> Maybe help


Okay, thank you very much. I will go through the to see if I can perform the steps correctly. But I have seen that in the BIOS of the motherboard Asus Rog Strix Z490-E in the section of the synchronization of the cores does not appear the adaptive. Well, I'm going to review the guide. Thanks


----------



## PhoenixMDA

zebra_hun said:


> Re benched TR with my 4533MHz CL16 Profil, this is far far away from your score. You miss here, but this topic is death...
> Maybe somebody support this good bench forum:
> TR Bench
> What is the Secret?
> I made this bench now 5500/[email protected] CL16, but just 308 fps ...


It was with 5,6Ghz/5,1/4666Mhz that is the reason why i have a better score.You see it by aida value´s.
The Latency and the copy is really good and no other process during benchmark have to run.


----------



## zebra_hun

That ram profil is impossible category me. 
I need a fresh install Windows, now running a million background process. Or i need an extra ssd with tweaked W10 for benching 
I will try later if i have fresh W10. I made it my 70 70 68 35ns 4533 cl16 17 profil.
Tried 5600MHz and gpu 2220MHz, and 5 sec before end, black screen, no signal, next round was only 5.5GHz and 2090MHz gpu.
I had 4600cl16, but with new 1402 bios dosn't work. 1202 was better. Or i dont know, how can i drive 4600 cl16. Over 1.6V and 1.4V io/sa ..., i dont wanna kill, this is the max limit. Ok, temperature isn't high, ca. 25°C under stress.
Hausaufgabe: create a 4600 cl16 for benching  quick test without error enough me.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

I use 2403, but it´s not said that it works good for you.
It´s better not to kill your HW^^.
My mem(under H2O) only need 1,59V for that Memtest Gsat stable.So i don´t risk anything....
IO/SA is also not higher as 1,36V in that case, over 1,38V io/sa bring with my chip nothing, that´s a question of the CPU how much IO/SA is needed and
how high it goes really stable.4666Mhz is my stable limit.
Bench is 4750mhz possible with that chip and if you raise the cache to high your Win installation crashes really fast^^.
So i let such things i need my pc working^^


----------



## zebra_hun

I've got XIII Apex, i forgot, not the same mobo and BIOS.
OK, i fixed voltages, 1.575Vdimm, IO/SA 1.37V. Only 0.51 VRef boot, all other not.
This is just benchstable, 1 time TM5 quick test without error ran. No more...
Flat 16 16 16 no way, only 16 17 17, but it works "perfect", no BSOD or something else.
55x/52x ran TR, new record me 

Many thx!!!👍

This is good for me and for a 10850k.
313 AVG FPS is super.
I can forget 0% GPU Bound, without MSI AB ran, RTX3080 was default.


----------



## PhoenixMDA

I don´t have seen that you have the Apex XIII, i don´t have tested at my own if the same possible or not as with Apex XII and CML, but your result is really good.


----------



## fray_bentos

Robertomcat said:


> I understood it was in those modes, but I wasn't sure, and I had done some tests but they had all gone wrong. I will try again. Is there a specific guide to follow? Thank you.


No need to overcomplicate things. Keep your static settings, enable adaptive voltage and adaptive clocks and slowly increase Vcore until stable. Every CPU, RAM, Mobo combination will be different, so guides are of limited utility.


----------



## SirBubby

Upgraded from a 10700k the other day. I was able to run 1.40 vcore and temps didn't get above 80c on stress testing. This 10900k runs hot! I'm running 1.380 vcore and some cores are reaching 90c!

Anyway I can only get a disappointing 5.1 all core. ASUS gave my CPU a SP of 79. My settings below, anyone have any suggestions? I haven't overclocked the ram yet.

Xmp 2
Bclk spread spectrum disabled
Asus multicore enhancement enabled
Sync all cores
51
LLC 6
Power limits set to max
Ring down bin enabled 
Ratio 47
Bclk aware adaptive voltage disabled 
Vcore 1.380
Intel speedstep disabled 
Intel speed shift disabled 

If I use 1.375 I blue screen. LLC5 I blue screen.


----------



## GeneO

SirBubby said:


> Upgraded from a 10700k the other day. I was able to run 1.40 vcore and temps didn't get above 80c on stress testing. This 10900k runs hot! I'm running 1.380 vcore and some cores are reaching 90c!
> 
> Anyway I can only get a disappointing 5.1 all core. ASUS gave my CPU a SP of 79. My settings below, anyone have any suggestions? I haven't overclocked the ram yet.
> 
> Xmp 2
> Bclk spread spectrum disabled
> Asus multicore enhancement enabled
> Sync all cores
> 51
> LLC 6
> Power limits set to max
> Ring down bin enabled
> Ratio 47
> Bclk aware adaptive voltage disabled
> Vcore 1.380
> Intel speedstep disabled
> Intel speed shift disabled
> 
> If I use 1.375 I blue screen. LLC5 I blue screen.


Yeah, it is at least 25% hotter (core count) so 80c -> 100c. You may not make higher than 51 because of temperatures. You could try lowering your ring ratio below 47. 

What is your cooling?


----------



## SirBubby

GeneO said:


> Yeah, it is at least 25% hotter (core count) so 80c -> 100c. You may not make higher than 51 because of temperatures. You could try lowering your ring ratio below 47.
> 
> What is your cooling?


EKWB 240 AIO. I'm now debating a 280mm AIO or custom loop. May not be worth it though. I've seen a lot of 5.2+ all core sub 1.350 vcore with this chip. Guess I didn't hit the lottery.

_Edit_ I just saw your results, 5.2 @1.28v?! Is that all core? My other thought was overclocking per core. This might be better for me since I only use this PC for gaming.


----------



## Betroz

SirBubby said:


> _Edit_ I just saw your results, 5.2 @1.28v?! Is that all core? My other thought was overclocking per core. This might be better for me since I only use this PC for gaming.


If you only use it for gaming, I would say that an allcore static OC is the way to go.


----------



## GeneO

SirBubby said:


> EKWB 240 AIO. I'm now debating a 280mm AIO or custom loop. May not be worth it though. I've seen a lot of 5.2+ all core sub 1.350 vcore with this chip. Guess I didn't hit the lottery.
> 
> _Edit_ I just saw your results, 5.2 @1.28v?! Is that all core? My other thought was overclocking per core. This might be better for me since I only use this PC for gaming.



Yes, all-core. But I usually run it at 5.1. If I delid this one I will full-time 5.2. This is my second 10900k. The first would do 5.1 1.3v vcore delidded. I could never get a stable 5.2 on it.


----------



## KillerBee33

humm. I can do 5.1 all core 4.8 ring LLC6-1.32 Adaptive which seems stable on Win 10. But running this on W11 comes up with WHEA errors. 
MSI z490 and as far as I understand MSI LLC is backwards...Higher number=Lower Voltage


----------



## djdox16

Did anyone update the microcode on his 10900k? Seems like mine is stuck at F0 while the last version is cpu*A0655*_plat22_ver000000*F4*_*2022-07-31*_PRD_27BD05B5. Also did you find any performance increase/decrease and voltage requirements changes (which implies temps too) ?


----------



## GeneO

I’m on F0. I haven’t noticed any significant impact on overclocking.

Hadn’t looked for new microcode for a while. I wasn’t aware of F4. Will try it when I get a chance. You can mod the bios to use F4 with UBU. Thanks for the heads-up.


----------



## bhav

I don't think I posted this here, I initially just put it on reddit and XS, its just OCCT bench scores between my 10900k, 12600 non k (didnt know about locked SA volts when I bought it so sold it), and 12600k:










This is my 10900k at 5.3 all core no offset. It takes 1.45v highest LLC and temps were no good for anything more than running a quick bench (I used 5.1 for 24/7). I had a wattage meter with it to test, and this chip and my OCed 1080 Ti pulled just under 650w peak, though thats at 5.1 Ghz.










This is the 12600 non K with 4.4 all core and cache, thermal limits removed and a slight undervolt. I bought this first for my 4K build not knowing about locked SA voltage and then sold it. Temperatures never went past the mid to high 60s, and power draw of under 90w which was the reason I had bought it for, not knowing that it was fixed at .95v SA.










This is my current 12600k at 5.1 all core, 5.0 cache, 4.0 e core. To get the temps within limits on a 140mm AIO, I have the middle LLC value of 3, and 1.34 (highest LLC and lower volts was instant 100c). Currently it still peaks at 95c, but you can blame that on my bad decision of having wanted to stick to ITX for this build and only a 140mm AIO.

I'll be switching to atx open frame and a 13700k or 13900k soon, and replacing the 10900k with the 12600k build (I have 4k lounge setup and 1440p desk setup).

I completely didn't need a K series for the 4k build though, but the 12600 couldn't even run 3600CL16 without blue screen so never again. I absolutely despise intel for advertising ram overclocking on non Z and K then locking them to 0.95v SA, but AMD have gone DDR5 only so I'd have to drop another £180-200 at least on bog standard 4800-5200 DDR5 ram if I wanted to switch over.

The 12600 non K was the biggest nightmare I've had and the first time I time I tried a non k believing the advertising that I could at least overclock my ram on it. I'm getting an MSI MAG Z790 and new case (already pre ordered) as my current Asrock Z690 was a stopgap DDR4 board that is locked to 150w CPUs, and a 13th gen CPU later after going through all the reviews to decide which, and waiting for a software bundle. I was holding out for a chance of a premium DDR4 itx board with Z790, but thats not happening, and the DDR5 ones cost a lot more than my past strix itx boards did, so I'm going back to atx.

Also I had my current ram running at 4533-4600CL15 with the voltage at 1.72v on the 10900k (rare blue screens at 4600 unfortunately), on Z690 it does 4800CL17 gear 2 or 3800CL13 gear 1. Can't tell any difference at 4k so I just use the bigger number, and I had no clue about gear when I bought the 12th gen stuff. Its only Micron B die though so nowhere near as good latency as Samsung B die at any settings, but it was cheap on sale when I got it.


----------



## GeneO

Nice comparison.

Why are your multi-thread scores so low on your 10900k?


----------



## bhav

GeneO said:


> Nice comparison.
> 
> Why are your multi-thread scores so low on your 10900k?


No idea, I simply assumed Alderlake was better.

10900k was so much better for DDR4 overclocking as it didn't have gears, but the CPU performance gain from 12th gen is too much better than that.


----------



## GeneO

bhav said:


> No idea, I simply assumed Alderlake was better.
> 
> 10900k was so much better for DDR4 overclocking as it didn't have gears, but the CPU performance gain from 12th gen is too much better than that.



A bit strange. Maybe it is different versions of OCCT, but I would expect the multi-thread to be around 10x the single. This is at 5.2 GHz, 4100 16-16-36 with tight timings (38 something ns).


----------



## GeneO

djdox16 said:


> Did anyone update the microcode on his 10900k? Seems like mine is stuck at F0 while the last version is cpu*A0655*_plat22_ver000000*F4*_*2022-07-31*_PRD_27BD05B5. Also did you find any performance increase/decrease and voltage requirements changes (which implies temps too) ?


Still testing F4, but so far seems OK on my memory and CPU overclock.


----------



## KillerBee33

Ouch...I guess there's no point of getting 4XXX


----------



## djdox16

GeneO said:


> Still testing F4, but so far seems OK on my memory and CPU overclock.


Do you have some time to give me some info on how to update the microcode? Been looking for a while but got no idea on how to do it. Got a z490a pro which didnt get updated microcode. Waiting for a pm or maybe you can post here, might be helful for other people too.


----------



## GeneO

djdox16 said:


> Do you have some time to give me some info on how to update the microcode? Been looking for a while but got no idea on how to do it. Got a z490a pro which didnt get updated microcode. Waiting for a pm or maybe you can post here, might be helful for other people too.


I'll try later today


----------



## fray_bentos

KillerBee33 said:


> Ouch...I guess there's no point of getting 4XXX
> View attachment 2576390


Ouch what? Nobody knows what this table is showing except you because you didn't tell us.


----------



## KillerBee33

fray_bentos said:


> Ouch what? Nobody knows what this table is showing except you because you didn't tell us.


TimeSpy runs with 10900K VS 12900K and 4090's


----------



## bhav

GeneO said:


> A bit strange. Maybe it is different versions of OCCT, but I would expect the multi-thread to be around 10x the single. This is at 5.2 GHz, 4100 16-16-36 with tight timings (38 something ns).


Odd, I did run OCCT bench a lot and never saw much better. my ram latency was 41ns at 4500-4600CL15, but micron B die secondary and tertiary timings are weak, and also only single rank so not as good as yours. Its better ram for running 4 sticks it turns out as you get 4x16Gb SR, but with just 2 sticks its purely just clock speed and CAS latency, everything else about it is worse than samsung ram, but it was a lot cheaper when it went on sale.

Currently its back up to its joke price of £350 for 2x16, at that point you just buy samsung B die or DDR5 instead. Which is a shame because if I could add 2 more sticks on the new board I'd get better performance with having interleaving back.

I'll keep an eye on it if it ever goes on sale again.


----------



## fray_bentos

KillerBee33 said:


> TimeSpy runs with 10900K VS 12900K and 4090's
> View attachment 2576691


As expected for a benchmark that is designed to be GPU limited.


----------



## bhav

That's a problem though because as good as the 10900k was, its been completely outclassed in just 2 generations by alderlake.

It made me completely regret paying £530 for one.

Initially I said I'd only go for x600k CPUs now, then I remembered about the golden IMC my 10900k has. Even if its been so outclassed, the micron B die overclocks on it were so good.

Now I have to waste money on 16 e cores to try and get something similar.


----------



## GeneO

Well I do disagree a bit. While alderlake outclasses the 10900k in single thread performance it doesn't do as well in multithread. In addition, the 10900k outclasses it in memory overclocking and performance. So I am comfortable in staying with the 10900k until I see how the 14th gen plays out.


----------



## bhav

GeneO said:


> Well I do disagree a bit. While alderlake outclasses the 10900k in single thread performance it doesn't do as well in multithread. In addition, the 10900k outclasses it in memory overclocking and performance. So I am comfortable in staying with the 10900k until I see how the 14th gen plays out.


I get there was something wrong with my OCCT bench, since I still have the build setup as my desk PC I'll give it another go at some point.

But I'm not sure if you've heard of Anno 1800 performance, mid to late game 10900ks tank to 20-25 FPS minimums at 1440p. After the 12900k came out, early users reported an uplift to 45 FPS minimum 1440p.

I was asking again on the Anno subreddit curious about how e cores affect the game for my 4k setup and 13900k upgrade, and someone that had tried it on a 12900k with both a 1080 Ti and 4090 at 4k reported 30-60 FPS on both GPUs.

This is the single most CPU intensive and limited game and unfortunately its my second favourite series after Civ.


----------



## KillerBee33

GeneO said:


> Well I do disagree a bit. While alderlake outclasses the 10900k in single thread performance it doesn't do as well in multithread. In addition, the 10900k outclasses it in memory overclocking and performance. So I am comfortable in staying with the 10900k until I see how the 14th gen plays out.


13XXX is OUT tomorrow. We are going into 600+W gpu's and 350+W cpu's. Something tells me next Gen might be all Mobile with much lower power consumption.


----------



## GeneO

KillerBee33 said:


> 13XXX is OUT tomorrow. We are going into 600+W gpu's and 350+W cpu's. Something tells me next Gen might be all Mobile with much lower power consumption.


Will it be much different than the 12th gen though? I was guessing not, but hope I'm wrong.


----------



## KillerBee33

GeneO said:


> Will it be much different than the 12th gen though? I was guessing not, but hope I'm wrong.


I will definitely be watching everything that will be out from AMD,Intel and Nvidia in the next 8 months but I think I'm gonna sit this one out.


----------



## Betroz

KillerBee33 said:


> 13XXX is OUT tomorrow. We are going into 600+W gpu's and 350+W cpu's. Something tells me next Gen might be all Mobile with much lower power consumption.


Or Intel will continue with 8 P-cores and just add more E-Cores going forward. Can you imagine a future Intel CPU with 8 P-cores and 128 E-Cores


----------



## bhav

GeneO said:


> Will it be much different than the 12th gen though? I was guessing not, but hope I'm wrong.












From LTT.


----------



## bhav

I was just reading through my XS posts again and spotted this thing that I had forgotten about:










Bottom right corner ...

That was the E die at 4200CL16, 40.9ns latency, b die at 4500CL15 was only 41.9ns.

Also back then I was in the 99th percentile for my ram scores. I felt special.

Now everyone can do this :c


----------



## KillerBee33

Anyone else had their MSI z490 reset unexpectedly on Win10 or 11 in the past few days?
I don't have anything Installed from MSI and my RGB lights reset overnight. System did not shut down or restart, I left HWiNFO running and it was still running in the morning.


----------



## bhav

Only just noticed there's an appraisal section here, so removing this post.


----------



## kosovaboyl

Hy, i have the chance to bye a "G.Skill Trident Z Neo 3600 CL16-16-16-36" cheap. Is it possible to push this ram to 40ns? They should be B-Die dual Rank.I have an 10900KF an an MSI z590i unify


----------



## djdox16

kosovaboyl said:


> Hy, i have the chance to bye a "G.Skill Trident Z Neo 3600 CL16-16-16-36" cheap. Is it possible to push this ram to 40ns? They should be B-Die dual Rank.I have an 10900KF an an MSI z590i unify


sure thing. i probably run a worse bin (2x16 4000 19-19-19-39 1.35v) at 4000 16-16-16-28 1.5v and have ~37ns on a 10900k + msi z490 a pro


----------



## bhav

Now I was just wondering about keeping the 10900k and selling the 12600k instead ... however I should be able to OC the 12600k much higher as it uses much less power, and it opens the option to drop in a 13600k later after they go EOL.

But I go from a gold IMC to a junk one


----------



## Nono31

10900k oc in core and memory (with good latency) do better than 12700k oc. Ram oc potential is huge ( at least 30% fps more just for oc memory). You don't have this on 12700k cause imc is bad. 12900k can push higher so 10900k oc dont' match 12900k oc.


----------



## Nono31

kosovaboyl said:


> Hy, i have the chance to bye a "G.Skill Trident Z Neo 3600 CL16-16-16-36" cheap. Is it possible to push this ram to 40ns? They should be B-Die dual Rank.I have an 10900KF an an MSI z590i unify


Sure you should be able to reach 36ns i think. You have the top 3 best mobo to reach tthe lowest latency.


----------



## bhav

Nono31 said:


> 10900k oc in core and memory (with good latency) do better than 12700k oc. Ram oc potential is huge ( at least 30% fps more just for oc memory). You don't have this on 12700k cause imc is bad. 12900k can push higher so 10900k oc dont' match 12900k oc.


Not technically true.

Ram can be OCed on 12th / 13th gen too, albeit sacrificing latency for gear 2.

10900K is extremely power inefficient, needs huge amounts of voltage to run at 5.3+ all core OC.

So the difference is between 5-10ns ram latency and faster / more efficient cores / far stronger single threaded performance.

30% more FPS from memory overclocking is also a stretch, you wouldn't even reach 5% gains at 4K.


----------



## Mappi75

Got two 10900K: SP100 & SP110


----------



## GeneO

Mappi75 said:


> Got two 10900K: SP100 & SP110


Woah!


----------



## Mappi75

Same batch got them since 01/2021 (in one order) but never test them for oc/undervolting.

At this time i was looking for RAM OC.


----------



## bhav

I think the SP on mine was over 100, below 110, but I can't be bothered to turn it on to check yet.


----------



## Mappi75

it was SP 101 & 110 to be precisely

the 101 got 7 degrees difference between hottest and cooles core (with y-cruncher)

On the SP 110 the difference is only 3 degrees (never saw this before).


----------



## Nono31

bhav said:


> 10900K is extremely power inefficient, needs huge amounts of voltage to run at 5.3+ all core


I am not really agree about that comparing 12700k.
I push 1.4v llc4 on Asus or equivalent on Msi mobo with 10900k to reach 5.2ghz ht on 10 core.
I have to push 1.4v on 12700k to reach 5.1ghz with Pcore and Ecore on.
So 10900k is not really inefficient comparing 12700k.
About power consumption is equal, max in game i play is around 220w for both.


----------



## Nono31

bhav said:


> So the difference is between 5-10ns ram latency and faster / more efficient cores / far stronger single threaded performance.


Not exactly like you said, i hate my 12700k. Max imc 4000mhz and max ringe with E core on 4300mhz. So disapointing comparing my 10900k: imc 4667mhz and ring 5ghz.
Difference latency is 12ns. 33.6ns for 10900k.


----------



## bhav

Nono31 said:


> I am not really agree about that comparing 12700k.
> I push 1.4v llc4 on Asus or equivalent on Msi mobo with 10900k to reach 5.2ghz ht on 10 core.
> I have to push 1.4v on 12700k to reach 5.1ghz with Pcore and Ecore on.
> So 10900k is not really inefficient comparing 12700k.
> About power consumption is equal, max in game i play is around 220w for both.


Why do you compare clock speed to clock speed?

12th gen at even 4 Ghz give more perf per core than a 10900K at 5.3 Ghz lol.

Performance per watt is terrible on all 14nm+++ chips compared to current chips.


----------



## Betroz

bhav said:


> 12th gen at even 4 Ghz give more perf per core than a 10900K at 5.3 Ghz lol.


Yes IPC is way better for 12900K/13900K over the 10900K, but in some weird way it feels like a downgrade to go from 10 "P-cores" down to 8. If the rumours are true, next years 14900K will only have 6 P-cores...but even higher IPC. Game developers see this and will only optimize their games for 6-8 cores for a loooong time it seams


----------



## bhav

Betroz said:


> Game developers see this and will only optimize their games for 6-8 cores for a loooong time it seams


Game developers don't do anything as such, we've had 6c/12t since Core I series first gen with the 970 and 980 CPUs.

Theres barely ever been even 1% of games that are made to optimise even 6 cores.


----------



## Betroz

bhav said:


> Theres barely ever been even 1% of games that are made to optimise even 6 cores.


Battlefield is one that uses more than 6 cores, and I happen to play that.


----------



## Nono31

bhav said:


> Why do you compare clock speed to clock speed?
> 
> 12th gen at even 4 Ghz give more perf per core than a 10900K at 5.3 Ghz lol.
> 
> Performance per watt is terrible on all 14nm+++ chips compared to current chips.


I am agree in one part and disagree in general what you said.
Ipc is 28% better on 12900k vs 10900k on single core we agree about that.
But ring and imc ram struggle all of this. And 12700k struggle more than 12900k.
At this point a 12700k with 28% more ipc don't do better in game like csgo (another game using 8 cores) than 10900k push with higher ring and imc.

The great value is 13900k with a ring that push as high as 10900k and imc correct a little higher than previous gen. This one cpu is not stuggle by ring and with a good ram it's ok about imc


----------



## bhav

Just remembered to check my 10900K SP and I was wrong, its actually 'only' 98, but the IMC on it is just mega wow.

Now I'm also re deciding, do I really want to sell he 10900k, or keep it and sell the 12600k :/

My 12600K only manages 3800 G1, so on the second kit I will be using it will be stuck to 3733CL14, vs 4200CL16 on the 10900k, but at that small a difference it probably wont do much.

The 4600CL16 capable kit will be wanting to go on the 13th gen upgrade, even at G1 speeds it does everything at much lower timings, so my 10900K would be gimped without that ram still with it.

I really screwed up by not buying two kits of Ballistix Max when it went on sale, also I heard from my threads on reddit that people with the newer Hynix DJR DDR4 kits haven't even managed my current 4900CL17 settings, DJR clocks a lot higher but the timings are even worse than Micron B die, which is in turn worse than Samsung B die.

So meh, if the old crap ram is going on the second system, I suppose keep the 12600k.


----------



## Mappi75

Thats what my Apex show for the SP 101 cpu:









Tested all core 5Ghz with 1,330v (bios) = 1,128v (cpu-z)
or hwinfo min. 1,170v / max. 1,239v / avg. 1,224v

CB23 runs easy but y-cruncher 1>7>0 needed above voltages for runnig 4+ hours perfect stable.

For 5,1GHz i need much more voltage like 1,39v-1,40v

5,2Ghz i did not get stable...how high can i go with the voltage in the bios?
Cooling on air... thank you!


----------



## bhav

Those numbers seem wrong, mine is 5.3 stable at 1.425v, but too much heat for daily use.


----------



## mxthunder

Well the onboard NIC died on my Z490 aorus master. Kinda using that as an excused to upgrade to 13th gen. I didnt realize how badly 10th gen has aged as I kind of ignored alder lake reviews, but i jumped on the raptor lake hype train and I am now kinda feeling like I need to upgrade.


----------



## bhav

mxthunder said:


> Well the onboard NIC died on my Z490 aorus master. Kinda using that as an excused to upgrade to 13th gen. I didnt realize how badly 10th gen has aged as I kind of ignored alder lake reviews, but i jumped on the raptor lake hype train and I am now kinda feeling like I need to upgrade.


The issue with everything up to 10th gen was the 14nm process. As soon as Intel dropped to 10nm with 12th gen, the performance per core just blows everything up to 10th gen out of the water.


----------



## fray_bentos

bhav said:


> The issue with everything up to 10th gen was the 14nm process. As soon as Intel dropped to 10nm with 12th gen, the performance per core just blows everything up to 10th gen out of the water.


What about 11th gen?


----------



## bhav

fray_bentos said:


> What about 11th gen?


Waste of sand.


----------



## Nizzen

Nono31 said:


> 10900k oc in core and memory (with good latency) do better than 12700k oc. Ram oc potential is huge ( at least 30% fps more just for oc memory). You don't have this on 12700k cause imc is bad. 12900k can push higher so 10900k oc dont' match 12900k oc.


Show us numbers that prove the claim. This is helping this forums to get better


----------



## Nizzen

bhav said:


> Game developers don't do anything as such, we've had 6c/12t since Core I series first gen with the 970 and 980 CPUs.
> 
> Theres barely ever been even 1% of games that are made to optimise even 6 cores.


Try Battlefield 2042 today, then repport back on the cpu load


----------



## bhav

Nizzen said:


> Try Battlefield 2042 today, then repport back on the cpu load


Well done for pointing out one of the 1% of games that use multiple threads in excess of 4.


----------



## bhav

Also as some people are posting out of fanboyism, it doesn't matter how high you OC a 10900K or its ram, it will still have lower per core performance than a BCLK overclocked Celeron G6900.


----------



## Nizzen

bhav said:


> Also as some people are posting out of fanboyism, it doesn't matter how high you OC a 10900K or its ram, it will still have lower per core performance than a BCLK overclocked Celeron G6900.


Pleace share benchmarks


----------



## bhav

Nizzen said:


> Pleace share benchmarks


Theres literally hundreds of articles on this:









Intel Celeron G6900 Outperforms Core i9-10900K in Benchmark | Digital Trends


No one would expect much from Intel's most entry-level Alder Lake CPU, the G6900, but it still managed to outperform the high-end Core i9-10900K in a benchmark.




www.digitaltrends.com





I already posted my 10900K 5.3 Ghz & 4533CL15 OCCT result vs 12600 non K and whatever the ram was managing to run at, the 10900K comes nowhere close.

OFC everyone said there was something wrong with my OCCT test on the 10900K, or that OCCT is a crap test etc etc.

No reviews that show a 12600K losing on average to a 10900K, again only a handful of a few games where the 10900K is better in such titles where more than 6 cores were being saturated.


----------



## Betroz

bhav said:


> No reviews that show a 12600K losing on average to a 10900K, again only a handful of a few games where the 10900K is better in such titles where more than 6 cores were being saturated.


Well BF2042 Season 3 on a 128 player server will hammer the CPU hard! Try that.


----------



## bhav

Betroz said:


> Well BF2042 Season 3 on a 128 player server will hammer the CPU hard! Try that.


Same one game thats the only game that anyone can even name for a multithreaded example.

So lets see, 1 game out of every game that exists = 0.000000000000000000000000000001% of games?

Buuuut anyway:









Battlefield 2042 CPU Benchmark feat. 128-Player Battles


Today we're taking a look at CPU performance in Battlefield 2042 and this may well be the most difficult benchmark we've ever done. But we've succeeded and...




www.techspot.com





12600K much better than 10900K and 11900K.

Also this is interesting, mainly the top two results:


----------



## Betroz

bhav said:


> Also this is interesting, mainly the top two results:



That test is old. Season 3 is much better optimized and new drivers too.
123 vs 126 fps is almost within margin of error, and the test was more GPU bound than CPU with the 12900K in this specific scenario. (ragardless of DDR4 vs DDR5)
Multiplayer games in general are more CPU bound, so not just 1 game...


----------

