Z390chipset, i9 9900k i79700k and i5

Discussion in 'Intel x86 CPUs and chipsets' started by kot0005, Jun 28, 2018.

  1. Plonkflopped

    Plonkflopped Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2012
    Messages:
    273
    Location:
    Brisbane
  2. PersianImmortal

    PersianImmortal Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    8,764
    Location:
    Canberra
    This confuses me. I've never had my CPU downclock to the 800MHz minimum, so maybe I'm the one who needs help because I still can't figure out how or why I get high clock speeds at low power states :( (not that I mind the bonus speed, I just can't work it out). Anyway, the advice most everyone seems to agree on is disabling Multicore enhancements, because it can aggressively keep the cores (over)volted. If you can share other BIOS settings, maybe someone who has a similar-functioning 9700K can help you. If it's an ASUS board, there were some new BIOS released yesterday,e.g 0805 for my ASUS Prime Z390-A, so he could try that.
     
  3. Plonkflopped

    Plonkflopped Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2012
    Messages:
    273
    Location:
    Brisbane
    It's not the idle state so much that is confusing it is the idle temps he is getting. The above pic is taken at an idle state yet still high 30 temps with an ambient outside temp of 26 :confused: That's on a custom water loop with 480 rad space and a 2080 in the loop. Load temps seem fine though.
     
  4. wintermute000

    wintermute000 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Messages:
    1,589
    Is that bad? Not an overclocker so only follow this stuff tangentially.

    I'm getting those kinds of temps idling at around 7W package power draw on a 4790 stock and CM212 (and similar ambient).... he's getting the same temps with more than double the wattage and better cooling?
     
  5. PersianImmortal

    PersianImmortal Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    8,764
    Location:
    Canberra
    I'm still trying to get my head around why so many different people seem to have different experiences with these CPUs, in terms of boost behaviour, idle clocks and voltage, and of course things like temp and TDP throttling. My best guess now is that it depends on the motherboard, as well as of course BIOS settings. It may be that different mobo manufacturers are implementing the boost in different ways, which also affects how the chips idle and generally reduce/increase frequency.
     
  6. shane41

    shane41 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    6,028
    Location:
    on the edge
    Why bother worrying about it. Some guys are not buying the big watercooling, so they struggle to hit 5Ghz. Settings also in bios can auto higher V core, then there's the processor is hot to start with.
    I had a 8700K, even delid liquid metal under the hood it ran 3x morrads. Called it Hot Bastard :tongue: Headin has a 9900K like this, runs hot. So the processors are not all the same. Why I prefer pre tested, not shop purchased

    I was extremely lucky to have x3 of his sold 6cores @ the one time. So the one I kept is up a multi on the others, runs cooler & does Cinebench R15 5Ghz 1.2v
    That can be a great indication of a low V processor, easy fast test.

    https://d1ebmxcfh8bf9c.cloudfront.net/u51600/image_id_2132977.png

    So the pic? That's to demonstrate this processor strength. Around 4pm 35+ degree ambient here & I'm pushing 5.5Ghz + 5.2Ghz uncore with massive 1.568v LLC5. It's a fast bench, less than a minute ;)
    6c6t as I don't want the added heat from HT, so I give it some stick " or you are fucking around low V & introduce possible known or unknown instability. " then your outputs are not as good.
    Cooling is a Koolance 370 block, 280 + 420 watercool rads from Germany. Very slick alloy looking parts.
    4Ghz cpu-z that's win10 & balanced mode, just I CBF setting performance sometimes.

    But I always back off settings or reboot when I'm done. ie back to 50x 45x 1.25v as I boot the machine every day. Brings me back to this booting defaults 4.3Ghz ... why?
    It's a K processor & that's what you guys have spent extra $ on. Run the bloody thing overclocked.
     
  7. PersianImmortal

    PersianImmortal Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    8,764
    Location:
    Canberra
    Right now my CPU boosts automatically, with no explicit overclocking by me (the motherboard decides based on TDP limit+auto volts+auto clocks) to a default of around 4.4-4.5GHz, sometimes up to 4.9GHz, while sitting on the desktop doing normal tasks like browsing or writing documents, or at idle, yet consumes only 8-11W doing it (at 1.22v) and generates no real heat and zero discernible noise because of my low RPM fan cooling. That's why I like to think I spent the extra money on this processor :)

    Before I bought this chip, I was under the impression that it would need to drop right down to 800MHz per core, or even its base clock of 3.6GHz, to maintain low power mode. It doesn't. It can do it close to 4.5GHz all day long with no effort and minimal cost. To me that's a very interesting feature that I want to understand better, because I believe it's a technique more people should consider using - as opposed to booting at a forced overclock of 5GHz, where I consume 30W at idle just doing nothing, generating a more heat and noise, along with having to use a more expensive cooling method. That extra power usage and speed isn't doing anything useful, especially as my chip is designed to boost up to 4.9GHz in less than 15nanoseconds when the workload needs it in short bursts.

    Untitled.jpg
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2019
  8. shane41

    shane41 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    6,028
    Location:
    on the edge
    Yeah your talking turbo's there, individual turbo's I guess would be the 4.9
    If your talking 11watt of your processor vs mine 30watt on idle. Then I guess yours will use more power than mine. These days I'm limited time on the internet OR doing OC

    If you make it about full load, then my machine will massively consume more power. I can overload a 860watt seasonic psu doing gpu benching. Then again benches are 5,10, 15 minutes mostly.
    My hobby solar is decent enough for the computers + fridge ... that electricity bill are no concern for me. So hundreds of watts consumption per hour I'm still in front full load :D

    5Ghz all the way back to Sandybridge was the goal. Now I have it :leet: be damned if I'll do power saving.
    I do have a low power itx board, that will be better for power consumption in the night on batteries ... haha one day I'll set it up
     
  9. PersianImmortal

    PersianImmortal Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    8,764
    Location:
    Canberra
    I'm not having a go at you mate, this isn't about wasting power or the extra cost or "being green" or anything like that :) You're in a different league, you're into extreme overclocking which is a hobby, and that's fair enough.

    What's fascinating me is my 9700K effectively seems to have a 4.2GHz base clock, rather than the advertised 3.6GHz base clock - mine has never fallen below 4.2GHz when left to auto Turbo and voltages. And it's doing this at low wattage. In the last two hours of running HWInfo in the background as I do various things (no gaming though), it's averaged 4.4GHz, ranging 4.2-4.9GHz, with power use ranging 6W to 40W, averaging 9W, which is pretty amazing to me:

    Untitled.jpg

    If I leave it to full auto-overclock/Turbo, running Prime95 for 10 minutes I average 4.6GHz all cores,1.3v and 70C (79C max):

    NoTDPLimitAutooverclock.png

    if I manually set it to 4.9GHz on all cores, but let the motherboard and CPU control voltages and LLC, it does 4.9GHz at 1.33v and 77C average (82C max):

    NoTDPLimitSemiAuto49GHzoverclock.png

    These aren't spectacular overclocking figures, so I don't have a golden chip. The point I'm getting at is that the average non-overclocking Joe like me can pick up any one of these chips along with a cheap air cooler, stick them in a mid-range motherboard, in a standard closed mid-tower case again with no special cooling, and get these results - off she goes with 4.2-4.9GHz of power on tap all day long, no effort required, at very reasonable heat and wattage.

    Am I easily impressed, or is that not a big selling point for the 9700K in particular, that seems to have been ignored?
     
  10. shane41

    shane41 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    6,028
    Location:
    on the edge
    1. It's there in the bios. Select yes, writing is like " do you have adequate cooling " If you had selected NO ... then you have bog standard Intel settings.
    So your in a performance mode of the motherboard set like my Asus Apex does

    2. How can you be sure? Until you take that puppy out of Auto ;) Many do not know, then sell & the buyer finds a stellar processor for cheap.

    3. Me too. I've watched the progress of these processor since Ivybridge days ... haha 5Ghz could not be done on 3570K's 48x required a shit load of volts

    edit. The comment extreme ... haha far from it :tongue: I just buy a lot of expensive parts that get used once or twice then get packed away. Worse than a museum & stupid costly collecting it all.
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2019
  11. PersianImmortal

    PersianImmortal Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    8,764
    Location:
    Canberra
    I've never really been an overclocker even when I first joined OCAU back in 1999 and got a Pentium III 550 to 880MHz. It took too much time effort and cost, and I never felt it was stable enough for daily use. I used to discourage people from doing it because as the saying goes "overclocking is easy, overclocking properly is hard". Compared to most people you're an extreme overclocker if you're pushing these chips as far as you do :)

    And now, due to popular demand, here's what my CPU looks like when I let it downclock to 880MHz. Darkbastard and others said it was the Power Plan settings that prevented it downclocking properly, and they were right. Even when using a custom plan, the base for the plan must be changed from High Performance to Balanced or lower to allow the CPU to downclock all the way to 800MHz. Previously, just altering the Maximum and Minimum Processor States in my custom power plan did the trick on other CPUs.

    BUT - I was right (as I always am ;)) in saying that ultimately it makes no real difference to power usage and temps because the onboard CPU-managed power states do most of the work, and some of them take over from the OS when enabled, ignoring OS limitations. I can't see the downside to effectively running the chip at a 4.2GHz base clock and 4.4Ghz average speed, rather than an 800MHz base clock and 1GHz average speed:

    800MHz minimum clock:

    800MHzIdle.png


    4.2GHz minimum clock:

    FullAutoIdle.png

    800Mhz min - desktop at idle and low load usage:
    CPU Frequency: 800MHz min, 4.7-4.8GHz max, 1GHz average
    CPU Package Power: 5W minimum, 32W maximum, 9W average
    Temps: 36-59C, averaging 38C
    Voltages: 0.87 to 1.33, averaging 0.94v

    4.2GHz base clock in the same general conditions:
    CPU Frequency: 4.2GHz min, 4.9GHz max, 4.4GHz average
    CPU Package Power 6W minimum, 40W maximum, 9W average.
    Temps: 31-64C, averaging 34C
    Voltages: 1.18 to 1.38v, averaging 1.24v

    The maximums are different because I didn't do exactly the same things on my desktop for each run. the big difference is the voltages, but paradoxically, the 800MHz base clock run shows higher minimum and average temps, whereas the 4.2GHz base clock run shows lower min and average (ambient temps should be the same)



    /EDIT: SO as I was writing this, I got the obvious idea to mix both modes. Run a Balance-based power plan, but run the remaining settings as per my other preferences. It's looking better!

    800MHzmin49GHzSemiAuto.png

    800Mhz min, 4.9GHz manually selected Max, Auto volts, auto LLC - desktop at idle and low load usage:
    CPU Frequency: 800MHz min, 4.9GHz max, 1.5GHz average
    CPU Package Power: 6W minimum, 32W maximum, 10W average
    Temps: 36-54C, averaging 36C
    Voltages: 0.87 to 1.34, averaging 0.93v
     
  12. shane41

    shane41 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    6,028
    Location:
    on the edge
    Well you're doing far more stuff there than I ever do :thumbup::tongue: I just prefer constant volts & up multi > bench > run
    ____
    Yeah the overclocking haha I started the same way ... not much of a clue. Just practice man, you pick up ideas reading other posts, internet.
    Fun overclocking is a decent 775 board + a e6600 or e8400. The little one starts off 2.4Ghz & your doing ratio's & fun stuff. 50% OC is easy

    Haha I'm not extreme again :tongue: just do watercooling, that anyone can do. Special cooling is single stage & LN2 ... that's when your real fast.
     
    PersianImmortal likes this.
  13. tunksy

    tunksy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2010
    Messages:
    347
    Location:
    SA
    9900k is getting shippied. Gonna be fun seeing if i can get 5ghz daily
     
    shane41 likes this.
  14. mAJORD

    mAJORD Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2002
    Messages:
    9,403
    Location:
    Griffin , Brisbane

    Set TDP to a 95, run an AVX2 load, then you'll see it get a lot closer to the base clock.. AVX is the main reason for such a low baseckock.

    Regarding the low idle consumption.. That's just modern, heavily power gated processors for you. Nothing that unsual to see cores idle below ~200mw at 4ghz+. The Uncore is quite efficient on Skylake +, and only includes ringbus and pcie interface on desktop package

    But yes ultra low c6 clocks aren't really nessasary on desktop CPUs - who cares about a couple watt's difference in idle.. it's more for server and laptop - an extra 100mw saved per core in a 30 +core server, or for just 4 cores in a Laptop on battery makes a difference
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2019
  15. DarkSnipa

    DarkSnipa Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2017
    Messages:
    410
    Location:
    Perth
    Hi guys may I ask what is the voltage required for an average 9900K to achieve 5GHz all cores overclock? I managed to get a cheap OEM 9900K but I just do not have my main rig with me atm to test it out :(
     
  16. PersianImmortal

    PersianImmortal Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    8,764
    Location:
    Canberra
    See, my being a dumbass who was too stubborn to accept that the base power plan affected the power plan settings has resulted in a boon to everyone!

    Seriously, the way the CPU cycles clock speeds and voltages was starting to annoy me, it was constantly going between 800MHz and 4900MHz virtually every second, varying by core, presumably as part of the C-states keeping the cores alive. The problem is that on my system, the low rpm fans, which are literally undetectable at desktop/low load (closed case) keep ratching up a bit, then down a bit, and up, etc. when even a tiny bit of extra load is introduced, annoying me.

    I ran some more experiments to see what other configuration combinations might work, but disabling SpeedStep or SpeedShift simply makes the changes in frequency less granular, which doesn't help. So it turns out that the best configuration (in my opinion) is running it the way I originally was, which is to create a custom power plan based on Performance, then (in my case) set Core Voltage to Adaptive, LLC to Auto (it selects Level 2 at Auto), and then you can either manually set your target clock rate with TDP limit On (constant high performance but stays relatively cool), manually set clock rate with TDP Off (for maximum performance), or Auto Frequency and TDP On (My choice - good performance, but stays quite cool and silent, and is protected against too much stress). Now it's back to 4.5GHz base clock/average, boosts to 4.9GHz, and never falls below 4.2GHz even under load. For AVX I've set a 3 Offset so it should drop a bit automatically, but likely not under 3.9Ghz.

    You''ll need 1.21 gigawatts.

    To put it into perspective, in my case with a 9700K on standard air cooling, the voltage the system selects to keep me at 4.9GHz stable is 1.39v with LLC 7. If I try 5GHz, it blue screens after 2 minutes, presumably because the Ai overclocking algorithm is too conservative/cautious to boost voltages above 1.4v with the highest LLC. Research shows 1.32-1.35v works for your 9900K, but you need robust cooling and I have no idea what LLC will keep it there on your mobo, so start off with 4 or auto perhaps?
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2019
    DarkSnipa likes this.
  17. shane41

    shane41 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    6,028
    Location:
    on the edge
    Nup I don't except that. Your tuning a system the way you like it.
    One thing I never take for granted. ;) Is the wealth of experience or knowledge in this forum. Tip ... never take on Elvis, dude is the super brain :Paranoid:
    ________

    New & shiny has me in her grip. Guess what processor? Recent :Pirate:
     
  18. PersianImmortal

    PersianImmortal Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    8,764
    Location:
    Canberra
    Don't say Threadripper
     
  19. shane41

    shane41 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    6,028
    Location:
    on the edge
  20. PersianImmortal

    PersianImmortal Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    8,764
    Location:
    Canberra
    Good job, you just avoided a ban :)

    What are you targeting 4.??GHz

    Also, nice timing, just as the heatwave is starting to break :D
     

Share This Page