# Your Core i9-10850K/10900K settings?



## framebuffer (Mar 31, 2021)

Just curious what settings are you using for your 10th Gen. i9

Full Auto + MCE OFF
Full Auto + MCE ON
Full Auto + MCE ON w/ custom vCore
Manual (what settings?)


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 31, 2021)

I have my 10850K setup with Manual settings.

It will run at 5.2GHz if 2 or less cores are under load, and runs at 5.0GHz if more than 2 cores are under load. My Core/Cache voltage is 1.315v. AVX load runs at 5.0GHz as well.


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 31, 2021)

Dynamic @5.1 Ghz v1.36 (auto vcore - mobo detected tried offsets but all were slightly unstable) all core boost, Thermal velocity boost ON (drops to 5.0Ghz @ 1.30 after 70C) and 230W limit (drops to 4.4-4.8 Ghz for heavy avx at sustained 68C).


----------



## GerKNG (Mar 31, 2021)

10850K Z490 Unify:
5.1 Ghz All Core / 4.8 GHz Cache
1.4V standard LLC (around 1.31V in R23)


----------



## framebuffer (Apr 1, 2021)

OK thanks!


----------



## Outback Bronze (Apr 4, 2021)

Been playing around with one (10850k) and got all core 5ghz @ 1.272-1.292v. Passes RB in 15m test. Hottest core 81 avx off. Stable enough for me as it will never get close to that sort of load.

Is this silicone any good guys?

Seems pretty avg from what I've been seeing. Not bad but not good.


----------



## GerKNG (Apr 4, 2021)

Outback Bronze said:


> Stable enough for me as it will never get close to that sort of load.


there are games heavier than R23...
Cinebench has basically no transients and is on an oscilloscope a flat line.

btw. pretty normal Chip.


----------



## Outback Bronze (Apr 4, 2021)

GerKNG said:


> R23


 
Not using R23 mate. It's RB - RealBench.


----------



## GerKNG (Apr 4, 2021)

Outback Bronze said:


> Not using R23 mate. It's RB - RealBench.


i've read CB sorry


----------



## PaulieG (Apr 5, 2021)

I installed one of 2 10850k's last night and I believe it's the hottest chip I've ever owned at stock. It's under a EK AIO 240. I just let it run World Community grid at stock for an hour or so and found one core had actually hit 92c. I believe that's the hottest I've ever seen on any of my processors at stock since I got into PC building in 2006. That was very unexpected! I'm going to switch out the Vader fans for something higher CFM and see if that helps while I'm waiting for a EK AIO 360 to get here. Maybe try an offset on it too.


----------



## Outback Bronze (Apr 6, 2021)

PaulieG said:


> I installed one of 2 10850k's last night and I believe it's the hottest chip I've ever owned at stock. It's under a EK AIO 240. I just let it run World Community grid at stock for an hour or so and found one core had actually hit 92c. I believe that's the hottest I've ever seen on any of my processors at stock since I got into PC building in 2006. That was very unexpected! I'm going to switch out the Vader fans for something higher CFM and see if that helps while I'm waiting for a EK AIO 360 to get here. Maybe try an offset on it too.



I've notice that @ stock the voltage is very high. I manually had to change the voltage. The voltage @ stock was going past 1.5v. Is this the same in your case?

I changed the voltage to adaptive with a -0.100 offset, manually put x48 and everything else at stock (4.8Ghz everything auto) and the voltage was about 1.172v @ 4.8Ghz all core. Max temps were like 60°C.

I'm probably just going to run the CPU like this as its very cool and runs at like 100w. Seems to be the best for performance vs efficiency : )


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 6, 2021)

Outback Bronze said:


> I've notice that @ stock the voltage is very high. I manually had to change the voltage. The voltage @ stock was going past 1.5v. Is this the same in your case?
> 
> I changed the voltage to adaptive with a -0.100 offset, manually put x48 and everything else at stock (4.8Ghz everything auto) and the voltage was about 1.172v @ 4.8Ghz all core. Max temps were like 60°C.
> 
> I'm probably just going to run the CPU like this as its very cool and runs at like 100w. Seems to be the best for performance vs efficiency : )



Mine was running at like 1.45v out of the box. I think Intel just cranked the voltage to make sure these lower binned cores were stable.  Not only did I overclock to 5.2GHz(2-Cores)/5.0GHz(All-Core) but I also lowered the voltage to 1.315v. It runs in the 70s now.


----------



## Outback Bronze (Apr 6, 2021)

newtekie1 said:


> 5.2GHz(2-Cores)/5.0GHz(All-Core)



Yeah, I'm finding its been quite interesting overclocking these CPU's. Very extended bios with a tons of parameters to fiddle with.

Its a big difference form the old P4 days.  Voltage + FSB clock and that was it.

I'm getting a bit lost with these new CPU's and BIOS. Sooo much to change for a stable all core. This is why I'm pretty happy with 4.8Ghz. Quite simple. I haven't even started the memory OC yet..


----------



## PaulieG (Apr 6, 2021)

Outback Bronze said:


> I've notice that @ stock the voltage is very high. I manually had to change the voltage. The voltage @ stock was going past 1.5v. Is this the same in your case?
> 
> I changed the voltage to adaptive with a -0.100 offset, manually put x48 and everything else at stock (4.8Ghz everything auto) and the voltage was about 1.172v @ 4.8Ghz all core. Max temps were like 60°C.
> 
> I'm probably just going to run the CPU like this as its very cool and runs at like 100w. Seems to be the best for performance vs efficiency : )





newtekie1 said:


> Mine was running at like 1.45v out of the box. I think Intel just cranked the voltage to make sure these lower binned cores were stable.  Not only did I overclock to 5.2GHz(2-Cores)/5.0GHz(All-Core) but I also lowered the voltage to 1.315v. It runs in the 70s now.


Mine was was similar out of the box. It's striking how high voltages are at stock. I don't think it's just Intel. I think it's the board partners covering all chips from duds to golden samples in the most extreme way I've ever seen. Once I got into the bios and set manual settings, temps became far more reasonable. 72c 1.18v @ 4.8ghz running WCG/OCCT or Real Bench. I just saw a YT with Steve at GN addressing this, but now I can't find the link. I think it's irresponsible. I mean, a PC enthusiast is going to see this and fix it. Your 17 year old gamer who won't touch the bios and running a beast like this at stock voltages, many times with subpar cooling is going to be clueless and eventually degrade the chip at stock, which is just wrong.


----------



## unclewebb (Apr 6, 2021)

Intel was producing too many CPUs that needed lots of voltage to run at the advertised speed that the 10900K runs at. What to do? How about, drop the speed 100 MHz, crank up the voltage and the 10850K was born. 

Check out this comparison. Same CPU, same speed, same performance. First Cinebench test at default voltage and then the second test with a -125mV undervolt.   

Default Voltage






-125 mV undervolt


----------



## PaulieG (Apr 6, 2021)

unclewebb said:


> Intel was producing too many CPUs that needed lots of voltage to run at the advertised speed that the 10900K runs at. What to do? How about, drop the speed 100 MHz, crank up the voltage and the 10850K was born.
> 
> Check out this comparison. Same CPU, same speed, same performance. First Cinebench test at default voltage and then the second test with a -125mV undervolt.
> 
> ...


Thing is, it appears that many 10850k CAN run at higher frequencies on lower vcore without thermal issues if a user knows what they are doing in the bios to tweak it properly. So I'm wondering what specific limits determine whether a cpu ends up a 10900k or 10850k?

I still think thermals on 10th and 11th gen cpu's have as much to do with motherboard partners as Intel.
Don't Run Z490 Motherboards with Default Settings: Thermals, Power, Boosting, & MCE for 10th Gen CPUs | GamersNexus - Gaming PC Builds & Hardware Benchmarks


----------



## unclewebb (Apr 6, 2021)

PaulieG said:


> what specific limits determine whether a cpu ends up a 10900k or 10850k?


My 10850K runs great at reasonable voltage at its full load rated speed of 4800 MHz. When you overclock it to 5.2 GHz, the voltage necessary to be stable goes way up. It needs significantly more voltage to run stable at 5.2 GHz or 5.3 GHz compared to what a good 10900K needs.

Intel does not have all day to decide whether a CPU is good enough to be a 10900K or not. They likely use some simple and fast voltage frequency test. If stable, it becomes a 10900K, if it is stable with some additional voltage, it becomes a 10850K and if it is not stable at all, they throw it in the garbage. 

With any quick test like this there is going to be some overlap. There are going to be some good 10850K that perform exactly the same as a poor 10900K. My 10850K has an Asus SP rating of 63 and I have seen some 10900K with the exact same SP 63 rating.

Here is what the voltage curve looks like for my 10850K.







PaulieG said:


> I still think thermals on 10th and 11th gen cpu's have as much to do with motherboard partners as Intel.


Intel sets the default VID voltage table for each of their CPUs. At default settings, it is up to the motherboard to use this VID voltage information to determine the voltage.


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 6, 2021)

PaulieG said:


> Your 17 year old gamer who won't touch the bios and running a beast like this at stock voltages, many times with subpar cooling is going to be clueless and eventually degrade the chip at stock, which is just wrong.


The chips won't degrade during their usable lifetime. That's what thermal limits, power limits, etc. are there to prevent. And as long as it stays under 100° its fine.


----------



## phanbuey (Apr 6, 2021)

newtekie1 said:


> The chips won't degrade during their usable lifetime. That's what thermal limits, power limits, etc. are there to prevent. And as long as it stays under 100° its fine.



The 90C powerlimit is actually useful for throttling it on an OC - first time power throttles were a purposeful OCing strategy for me TBH, where I am ok at running at throttle lol.


----------



## ThrashZone (Apr 7, 2021)

framebuffer said:


> Just curious what settings are you using for your 10th Gen. i9
> 
> Full Auto + MCE OFF
> Full Auto + MCE ON
> ...


Hi,
asus apex
MCE On remove all limits which it doesn't
There's some more annoying settings that make you throttle like grandmas wheel chair lol 

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]


----------



## framebuffer (Apr 7, 2021)

very interesting reports
mine is on Full Auto (+ MCE ON), 4.80GHz all core Turbo but a little too toasty (1.35V and 80-85°C)

*my question is*, what happens if I leave everything auto but set a negative offset for the vcore that does not allow 4.80GHz to be stable? Will the CPU (MB?) auto-adjust the max Turbo frequency or it will try to keep 4.80 and crash?


----------



## unclewebb (Apr 7, 2021)

framebuffer said:


> will try to keep 4.80 and crash?


If you use too much negative offset voltage, your computer will not be stable and it will crash.

1.35V for 4.8 GHz all core seems like way too much voltage to me. Many 10th Gen Core i9 can run 4.8 GHz fully loaded at 1.20V. If your actual voltage is 1.35V, no surprise that your CPU is running hot. You have lots of room to reduce voltage.


----------



## framebuffer (Apr 7, 2021)

unclewebb said:


> If you use too much negative offset voltage, your computer will not be stable and it will crash.
> 
> *1.35V for 4.8 GHz all core seems like way too much voltage to me*. Many 10th Gen Core i9 can run 4.8 GHz fully loaded at 1.20V. If your actual voltage is 1.35V, no surprise that your CPU is running hot. You have lots of room to reduce voltage.
> 
> View attachment 195663



Sure, this is clear hehe 
What is not clear to me is if I need to treat the CPU as if it's overclocked and do the usual set-&-test process or, since everything is in auto, there is also an auto/adaptive mode to set a lower voltage

I mean, it feels a little stupid having all in auto and still have to stress test the CPU in order to find the real default voltage 
Or maybe having the TDP unlocked and MCE enabled has to be seen as the "auto overclock" feature that used to be a thing in old mainboards and which was always bad because it used to set the vcore too high


----------



## unclewebb (Apr 7, 2021)

framebuffer said:


> still have to stress test the CPU


No matter what your settings are, you should always stress test your computer. How else will you know if it is stable or not? Computers are a collection of random parts. No way to know if everything is working together correctly without doing some testing. 

I showed above that some negative offset voltage can drop full load temps by 17°C. To me, that is something that is worth looking into. 



framebuffer said:


> it used to set the vcore too high


Nothing has changed. The Vcore is always too high at default settings. Intel sets the voltage table within the CPU on the high side to guarantee long term stability. It is not necessary to use 1.35V at 4.8 GHz. On a 10th Gen, 10 core CPU, setting the CPU to the voltage that it needs to be stable can make a huge difference to power consumption and temps. 

Here is a quick and easy -75 mV undervolt on an Asus board.


----------



## Outback Bronze (Apr 8, 2021)

Hey guys,

I was able to return the 10850K (for reasons where the PC shop stuffed up..) and ended up paying a little more for the 10900KF.

I'm able to run 5.1Ghz all core under load @ 1.26v.

I'm trying to see how low I can get the voltage @ 4.8Ghz but no matter how much negative offset voltage I set, I can only get 1.104v under load. This is with adaptive set.

Anyway of getting it lower? Mobo is Z490 Vision D. 

I see most people are running Asus boards and getting SP ratings etc. Worth getting an Asus board?

Cheers.


----------



## framebuffer (Apr 15, 2021)

OK I finally managed to get rid of all the stuff going on and reboot to test some undervolt settings

First thing, the "general" Core/Cache Voltage offset seems to be not ideal to fine tune the offset, at least in a full auto frequency configuration.
I'll explain it better: I tried an offset of 0.100 (targeting somewhere around 1.225V for ACT situations) but the system crashed after the Windows login, while it was doing some 1-2 core heavy stuff, boosting around 5.2GHz, so I guess that -0.100V was too much from the auto voltage at the peak frequency.

I then reduced the offset to 0.050V and things seems to be stable, but I guess the offset should be set on a frequency base.
I found an advanced sub-menu where all the turbo states are listed and for 5.2GHz I see voltages around 1.500V  

In this menu it's possible to set an offset for each state, so I guess one should try to tune per-state voltages to find the lowest one for each one

At the moment, with the general 0.050V negative offset I have the following voltages during CB R20 with ACT at 4.80GHz

VCORE: 1.234V - 1.241V
VID#0-9: 1.334V

But I also have these max values from a normal system usage

VCORE (max): 1.421V
VID#0-9 (max): 1.510V

So, questions:
- I guess it's normal to have such high voltages for 1-2 core(s) turbo?
- what is the difference between VCORE and VID?
- is there a "better" way to do this? Maybe switching to full manual?


----------



## unclewebb (Apr 15, 2021)

framebuffer said:


> for 5.2GHz I see voltages around 1.500V


Same here for my 10850K. Needing an extra +0.2 V for an extra 200 MHz is not really worth it so I run 5000 GHz all core instead.






The Auto voltage seems to work good. If you switch to a fixed voltage then you are going to have to run high voltage all of the time. At default settings, CPU cores are only going to be getting high voltage when they are using the 52 multiplier. When fully loaded and the multiplier at 48, the voltage will automatically drop.

VID is the requested voltage. VCore is the voltage that the CPU is actually using. VCore is the important one.


----------



## ThrashZone (Apr 15, 2021)

framebuffer said:


> OK I finally managed to get rid of all the stuff going on and reboot to test some undervolt settings
> 
> First thing, the "general" Core/Cache Voltage offset seems to be not ideal to fine tune the offset, at least in a full auto frequency configuration.
> I'll explain it better: I tried an offset of 0.100 (targeting somewhere around 1.225V for ACT situations) but the system crashed after the Windows login, while it was doing some 1-2 core heavy stuff, boosting around 5.2GHz, so I guess that -0.100V was too much from the auto voltage at the peak frequency.
> ...


Hi,
What SP rating is your bios showing
Sounds like a low one sp 60 range ?
Also where was your chip made not China I'd bet.


----------



## framebuffer (Apr 16, 2021)

I guess it's very bad


----------



## ThrashZone (Apr 16, 2021)

Hi,
Don't feel like the lone ranger unclewebb's looks about the same as yours a little better at sp63.
Think newer came out of Vietnam ?


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Apr 16, 2021)

I'm running  all-core 4.9GHz at 1.284 volts, 100% full load on all cores running WCG


----------



## unclewebb (Apr 16, 2021)

A recent beta BIOS bumped the SP rating from 63 to 64.





I think this is close to the cutoff point between 10850K and 10900K. This is a good rating for a 10850K but I have seen 10900K with the same SP 63 rating. I would be choked if I spent extra money for a 10900K and ended up with a SP 63 dog.


----------



## framebuffer (Apr 16, 2021)

well actually that makes sense
what do you use to test stability *unclewebb*?


----------



## Outback Bronze (Apr 16, 2021)

unclewebb said:


> SP rating



Yeah it would be nice to know the rating of my 10900KF as I can run 5Ghz underload (RB 15m no AVX offset) @ 1.21v.

Having trouble with my 4400Mhz Thermaltake Tough Ram atm. Cant even get anything over 3000Mhz with XMP voltages and timing enabled 

I have just sent Gigabyte an email regarding this issue. I have put the CPU at stock just to test memory speeds. Anything over 3000Mhz wont boot which is very strange. 

I have even applied all the XMP timings manually so the AUTO function doesn't interfere and 1.3v on VCCIO & SA with no joy...


----------



## ThrashZone (Apr 16, 2021)

Hi,
I personally just go by blender opendata and or blender free demo files classroom/.. is pretty good since I have blender installed already it's easy to run and a good realistic measure of stability otherwise I'd just use opendata.
I do not use p95
Blender Open Data — blender.org

Blender
Demo Files — blender.org


----------



## Atomic77 (Apr 19, 2021)

Oh my gosh there is a such thing as i9? I'm just happy to have a i7 that is plenty fast for me.


----------



## RavinGamin (May 24, 2021)

I seem to have a weird vcore issue when using auto vcore to get a guide of voltages to work with.

I'm still playing with my OC to get stable but believe my system restarting once a week has been a ram issue.

Im due to test things but it seems that an all core 4.8ghz oc needs alot more vcore than in comparison to 4.9ghz or 5ghz.

I'll confirm vcores when back on pc but it was like...

4.7ghz = 1.22
4.8ghz = 1.32
4.9ghz = 1.29
5ghz = 1.34

I'm going to do some testing and will conform back.

I see comments in regards to loosing 200mhz or so when going for an all core oc but just how often is a cpu ever only using 1 or 2 cores for those to hit 5.2?

Ive tried several scenarios and never seen just 2 in action. Set a +2 offset for turbo so should have seen 5.4 if only 2 cores or 5.2 if 4 or so etc but only ever saw all on 5 with dips so surely better to get a locked 5ghz with no dips to 4.8 or even less?

I seem to have it stable at 4.9 at 1.28v llc on mode 2 but have had the system restart a few times. I think it is a ram issue though as my Vengeance 3600 wont boot past 3200 and had 2 bad memory stop bsod so set to 3000 and had one or two restarts in a week or two.
I ran on 5ghz v1.32 i think it was for a week with little issue until the bsod and restart but that could have been the ram so may try that oc again now rams dropped to 2933 for the time being.

If anyone with good experience of cpu and ram oc'ing is willing to chat via my discord please let me know. It would be massively appreciated!!!
Thank you in advance!!


----------



## tirasoft (May 27, 2021)

i9-10900KF
I am running as follows:
- CPU speeds (OC) : 5.5Ghz 1-6 cores / 5.4Ghz 7-10 cores ; avx2 offest -1 ; 5Ghz cache ring speed ; adaptive Vcore 1.46V ; Short Turbo Power 360W , Long Turbo Power 160W  ; -3 multiplier TVB above 55deg ; per pont voltage offsets custom  ; CPU core temperatures : 18-20deg idle and low load , max 55-60deg full load  , 45deg Gaming (sub ambient temp cooling using TEC + water cooling 360mm rad with 6x120mm Noctua push-pull Noctua industrial IPPC 3000 rpm fans / case fans : front-rear 140 mm , bottom fan 120mm, RAM fan 80mm , PCIE back fan 80 mm)
- RAM : 4000Mhz 16-18-18-36 CR2


----------



## phanbuey (May 27, 2021)

framebuffer said:


> View attachment 196940
> 
> I guess it's very bad



That's a little worse than mine but not by much.


----------



## s3b (May 10, 2022)

10850k, 5Ghz all core, 1.295v + LLC to level 6 (it’s the second highest), ASUS rog strix z490–E

Perfectly stable in all of my benchmark including R20/R23
R23 score: ~16200/~16000
R20 score: ~6200

My SP rating is: 64 (very sad)

Although I have an EK AIO 360 with 6 fans in a push-pull configuration, in cinebench I have temperatures ranging between 75 and 81 degrees


----------

