# Intel 9900k.. my findings.. Heat..



## trog100 (Jul 4, 2019)

this is only applies to my recently acquired example..

in some ways it seems a good example and maybe in some ways its a bad example... good.. it runs at 4.8 on all cores on what i consider a very low core voltage with minus offset of 0.08 it runs between 1.68 and 1.20.. but even at these low voltages it runs silly hot.. 10 minutes of handbrake has it at 100 C and its beginning to throttle..

i have just taken the cooler off and reseated it just to make sure there wasnt a problem there.. there wasnt..

it is a very hot summers day here in the UK room ambient is 27 C.. the system is now idling at 31 C.. a not a lot over room ambient..

gaming wise heat isnt a problem.. gaming temps are around 65 C.. quite clearly games dont load a 9900K much.. the much lower temps reflect this..

heat isnt a problem ether if the chip is set to stay within its intel claimed 95 watt tdp.. sadly the chip throttles down to just over 4 g when in this mode.. not exactly what i bought the f-cking thing for.. he he

trog


----------



## xtreemchaos (Jul 4, 2019)

wow 100c I don't think ive ever hit that with any cpu in the last 5 years, you might want to try some water cooling.


----------



## londiste (Jul 4, 2019)

trog100 said:


> it runs at 4.8 on all cores on what i consider a very low core voltage with minus offset of 0.08 it runs between 1.68 and 1.20.. but even at these low voltages it runs silly hot..


Are you talking about voltages there? 1.68V would be anything but low.
Did you overclock manually or let some motherboard or software do it automatically?

Edit:
If you did not actually overclock, it is running on some stupid MCE settings with automatic overclock.


----------



## Gungar (Jul 4, 2019)

1.68V holymoly xD mine is 1.37V @ 5 ghz all cores.


----------



## trog100 (Jul 4, 2019)

Gungar said:


> 1.68V holymoly xD mine is 1.37V @ 5 ghz all cores.



a typo on my part.. the lower reading should be 1.168 not 1.68.. whoops 

at a more normal 1.35 volts 5 g my chip would catch fire.. he he

what i have been trying to do (and having difficulty) is run a modest 4.8 g without it hitting 100 C and throttling when all cores are under full load..

trog

ps.. my 8700K ran hot at 5 g.. 4.9 was its sweet spot... in some ways i am not supersized at the results i am getting.. adding 33% more cores in the same sized package aint gonna come easy and in my case it dosnt..

i am not on some silly auto overclock.. i am very carefully undervoited to the point of instability setting in or very close.. i am running  0.080 offset of what would be something around 1.3 volts auto..


----------



## Hockster (Jul 4, 2019)

That voltage is way too high. My 9900K does 5.0 on all cores and only hits mid 80"s running Handbrake.

Edit: Saw correction, what cooler are you using?


----------



## Vario (Jul 4, 2019)

I'd consider returning it for another one, the heat seems unreasonable.  If it hits 100C in workloads, then the heatspreader is defective, probably bad solder job.  Remount the heatsink again to be sure of course.


----------



## londiste (Jul 4, 2019)

Hockster said:


> Edit: Saw correction, what cooler are you using?


If his system specs are accurate - Dark Rock TF .


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jul 4, 2019)

I personally see that CPU cooler as inadequate for an overclocked 9900k. Its no DRP4


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 4, 2019)

trog100 said:


> this is only applies to my recently acquired example..
> 
> in some ways it seems a good example and maybe in some ways its a bad example... good.. it runs at 4.8 on all cores on what i consider a very low core voltage with minus offset of 0.08 it runs between 1.68 and 1.20.. but even at these low voltages it runs silly hot.. 10 minutes of handbrake has it at 100 C and its beginning to throttle..
> 
> ...


1. Idle temps do not matter, really. CPU sensors are more accurate the higher they go (closer to max).

2. Gaming temps are typically MUCH lower than any stress test or handbrake. That is quite normal to see 20-30C+ differences. Thus is common for any chip.

3. That cooler isnt great in the first place. In fact it's nearly 15C off from top notch air... that's a ton. If you want 5ghz on that cpu, get high end air or a 2x120mm AIO.








						be quiet! Dark Rock TF Review
					

Can a mid-height downdraft cooler keep up with our overclocked Haswell-E CPU? We put the Dark Rock TF by be quiet! through our tests to find out.




					www.tomshardware.com
				




4. Where are you getting your vcore reading from? Cpuz? HWmonitor64? Coretemp? You may want to confirm your running voltage at the same time. Perhaps post a screenshot of where you are seeing this. Yes, I saw the (still uncorrected) typo in the first post..

Be sure to artificially limit it after you resolve the heat issue. "He he"

Earthdog


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 4, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> That cooler isnt great in the first place. In fact it's nearly 15C off from top notch air... that's a ton. If you want 5ghz on that cpu, get high end air or a 2x120mm AIO.





FreedomEclipse said:


> I personally see that CPU cooler as inadequate for an overclocked 9900k. Its no DRP4



This.  That cooler loses to a 92mm tower cooler...

With the 9900K, you either have to go extreme high end air cooling or at least 240mm AIO if you want near 5GHz under full load.  Also, if you use an air cooler, you better have some damn good case airflow, otherwise that thing is going to heatsoak pretty quickly.


----------



## trog100 (Jul 4, 2019)

FreedomEclipse said:


> I personally see that CPU cooler as inadequate for an overclocked 9900k. Its no DRP4



i get near the same results at 4.7 which dont consider an overclock.. my cooler is okay or should be for what i am doing with it..

let me be clear here.. i have been doing this for years and do have a vague idea of what i am doing..

i am also surprised at the results i am getting.. firstly how low i can get the core volts and secondly how f-cking hot this chips runs even at a very low core voltage..

one other thing to note.. the higher the core thread count the greater the temp difference between software that used them and software that dosnt.. in my case with this chip a good 30 C difference between division 2 65 C and realbench 100 C and throttling..

i aint doing nothing wrong here and have spent quite few hours in and out of the bios trying different options.. where i am now is about the best i can get..

keep in mind i am not trying extreme overclcocks.. just something i consider usable and lucky for me i dont do much video editing..

trog



newtekie1 said:


> This.  That cooler loses to a 92mm tower cooler...
> 
> With the 9900K, you either have to go extreme high end air cooling or at least 240mm AIO if you want near 5GHz under full load.  Also, if you use an air cooler, you better have some damn good case airflow, otherwise that thing is going to heatsoak pretty quickly.



to repeat i dont want 5 g.. would be happy with 4.8 or even stock at reasonable temps.. currently my case has both sides off i am still fiddling with it.. my ambient case temps are the same or very close to my ambient room temps..

please read whats already been said folks before chirping in with irrelevant comment..

my TF cooler blows air down on the motherboards hot bits its also augmented by a pair of case side fans which blow directly at it.. .. it works well and is as it is for a reason.. it work better then a normal side blowing tower cooler.. i have tried them..

trog


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 4, 2019)

trog100 said:


> my cooler is okay or should be for what i am doing with it..


Theres like 3 people AND a link which tells you otherwise. Denial is not just a river in Africa. 


trog100 said:


> let me be clear here.. i have been doing this for years and do have a *vague* idea of what i am doing..


Operative word in bold.


trog100 said:


> am also surprised at the results i am getting.. firstly how low i can get the core volts and secondly how f-cking hot this chips runs even at a very low core voltage..


please confirm your voltages. What software? Did you run handbrake at stock and see the load voltage??  Temps i'm concerned about your process and what voltage you are actually running...post screenshots... confirm with other software listed...

Your refusal to even consider other people's opinion is incredibly off putting. If you dont want to listen, dont post in a forum and start a blog instead.


----------



## TheMadDutchDude (Jul 4, 2019)

Yep, that cooler is sadly the issue. It's good, but not good enough for the 9900K with an OC.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 4, 2019)

trog100 said:


> to repeat i dont want 5 g.. would be happy with 4.8 or even stock at reasonable temps..



For someone making passive aggressive remarks about other's reading what has been said, you sure didn't do it yourself.  I said *NEAR* 5GHz.  Please read whats already been said.  4.8GHz is near 5GHz.



trog100 said:


> currently my case has both sides off i am still fiddling with it.. my ambient case temps are the same or very close to my ambient room temps..



The fact is, this is an 8-core chip.  It doesn't matter if you think the cooler is adequate.  It isn't.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jul 4, 2019)

trog100 said:


> i get near the same results at 4.7 which dont consider an overclock.. my cooler is okay or should be for what i am doing with it..
> 
> let me be clear here.. i have been doing this for years and do have a vague idea of what i am doing..
> 
> ...



well...

If you have years of experience. Know or can guess whats going on why are you asking for people's help and/or opinions when you are pretty much hell bent sticking to your own deductions and ignoring others?

Anyway - youve had multiple mentions about the cooler - threw that opinion out the window in the rudest fashion.

I hope you manage to get to the bottom of all your woes. Im out of your threads.


----------



## Vario (Jul 4, 2019)

You should check the other voltages as well. Some boards like to overvolt these and that would also be additional heat not to mention diminished lifespan.  Intel specification is 1.05 for VCSSA (system agent), 1.0V VCCST (cpu sustain supply voltage) and .95 for VCCIO (memory and cache controller)


----------



## trog100 (Jul 4, 2019)

let me make another thing very clear.. i am not asking for help.. simply reporting my findings regarding my recently acquired 9900k chip and how its behaving for those that maybe thinking of buying one are who are simply interested.. google does produce some very conflicting results i have pretty much read them all before posting my own results..

this pic shows very nice voltages but f-cking terrible temps.. under volting laptops is common practice to avoid excessive throttling.. with intels latest 9900k it seems careful under volting is required even on a desktop..  the pic is after five minutes at full all core load.. it wont run much hotter but its at its throttling point.. 









trog


----------



## TheMadDutchDude (Jul 4, 2019)

Your CPU at 4.8 GHz and 1.2v has >220w of TDP, fella. No wonder you're struggling...

Your cooler is not adequate, as mentioned.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 4, 2019)

.....and do other pieces of software agree? Why not run hwmonitor and capture mins and max and confirm.

Also, handbrake uses AVX iirc, so voltage when running it will likely be higher. Why you showed it with a different app is beyond me........

I'd also check the other voltages like was said above. If you enable xmp, chances are it raises those which could save a few degrees...

But in the end, your cooler just isnt up to the task as we said initially. A 9900k runs hotter than your previous chip. If you want to be "near" 5ghz, you'll need a better cooler. 



TheMadDutchDude said:


> Your CPU at 4.8 GHz and 1.2v has >220w of TDP


Do tell how you came up with this.


----------



## TheMadDutchDude (Jul 4, 2019)

I just used one of those PSU calculators with only the CPU info configured.

There is a formula for it, but my link/knowledge is just lacking on it right now. I tried an old-school one, but it came out at 133w, which is massively wrong.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jul 4, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Do tell how you came up with this.


Scientific Accurate Guesstimate.??
Its a Known (not Rumoured) Hot Running CPU
go 240>280 AIO or full Loop Otherwize this heat will drive you loopy


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 4, 2019)

trog100 said:


> with intels latest 9900k it seems careful under volting is required even on a desktop..


Not with proper cooling. Mine didnt...

....and neither does my 9960x with all c/t running 4.4 ghz. It's all about the cooling. You are also overclocking with all c/t that high. Have you tried at stock? I bet it still gets toasty... but better.

Get a more appropriate cooler for the job (4.8ghz).


----------



## londiste (Jul 4, 2019)

What do monitoring tools actually report as power draw?
Handbrake is probably AVX2 load. Very-very heavy if you run without offset.


----------



## trog100 (Jul 4, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Not with proper cooling. Mine didnt...
> 
> ....and neither does my 9960x with all c/t running 4.4 ghz. It's all about the cooling. You are also overclocking with all c/t that high. Have you tried at stock? I bet it still gets toasty... but better.
> 
> Get a more appropriate cooler for the job (4.8ghz).



first of all your chip is not my chip.. as i said right at the beginning my findings can only be applied to my chip.. as for your comments about getting a proper cooler.. rubbish for what i am trying to do...which is run close to stock at very low core voltage setting my cooling set up should be ample..

i have tried running this chip with hyperthreading off.. gaming temps are about the same which does kind of show games dont use much more than 6 threads..

all core full load temps come down massively i can run 5 G with HT off quite easily with temps less than 80 C..

oddly when i saw the core voltages i could get away with i thought a very good chip.. when i saw the temps on an all core load i thought differently..

having said all this.. this does all fit a logical thought pattern.. the 8700K 6 core 12 thead chip runs hot.. it figures adding 33% more cores is gonna make the 9900k f-cking hotter still... nothing comes free.. 

soldered on heat spreaders or not.. the intel claimed 95 watt tdp is also an out and out lie... what puzzles me is how they get away with it..

at a 95 watt tdp the chip throttles right down to about 4.2 gig.. and remarkably  enough the temps dont go much above 60 C ish with full all core load..

i can post a 95 watt limit example and an HT off example if anybody wants to see them.. 


trog


----------



## dorsetknob (Jul 4, 2019)

*trog100*
Advice from over the water 


eidairaman1 said:


> @dorsetknob let this guy have this link, the tf is too small, scythe has a ultra big one that would keep temps down.
> 
> Tdp on his cooler is 220w
> 
> ...


----------



## HD64G (Jul 4, 2019)

Step back to 4.5GHz to allow lower temps or go watercooling.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 4, 2019)

trog100 said:


> first of all your chip is not my chip..


True... but you arent seeing the forest through the trees. These run hot...yours, his, hers, and mine. While all will vary, the point is that while running avx/handbrake, voltage goes up and uses a lot more power. Your best bet imo is to manually overclock to w/e clock speed.

Did you look at Vccsa, io, voltages and adjust? 

Feels like you are just glossing over relevant information and replying willy nilly just to be difficult. 

Your handbrake load, at 4.8ghz, is too much for the cooler without an offset. Set a -3 offset and see if it works out better. Otherwise, it's clear you need a new cooler as you are throttling when running handbrake.


----------



## trog100 (Jul 4, 2019)

he he.. if was trying to hit 5 g or so i would agree with everything being said.. but i am not i am just trying to run very near stock without thermal throttling.. something i am miles off doing without a very carefully applied under-volt.. again something i really should not have to do..

okay dropping the frequency down to below stock is 100% something i should not have to do.. quite why folks are suggesting it i cant figure.. 

anyways i am gonna post a 95 watt tdp limit set of pics.. and one with HT turned off...

i am having a whinge about this £500 quid piece of sh-t   intel chip i have just bought.. he he..  its a waste of space.. no gain at all for gaming and runs too f-cking hot for real content creation.. 

trog


----------



## Vario (Jul 4, 2019)

If you are going to run a tiny heatsink on an 8 core 16 thread beast then you need to run an undervolt and an underclock.  Theres just no way around it.


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 4, 2019)

trog100 said:


> soldered on heat spreaders or not.. the intel claimed 95 watt tdp is also an out and out lie... what puzzles me is how they get away with it..



It isn't.  You just need to set it stock and leave it if you want to fit that (very limited) thermal profile.  Keep in mind allcore boosts will be thermally limited.

Also, you are probably running uncore synced.  Don't.  That'll heat you up A TON for nearly no gain.  Most boards also will do this by default.   think stock is 4.2 or 4.3 GHz.

Also a -2 AVX offset is considered stock IIRC.


----------



## trog100 (Jul 4, 2019)

Vario said:


> If you are going to run a tiny heatsink on an 8 core 16 thread beast then you need to run an undervolt and an underclock.  Theres just no way around it.




my heatsink aint tiny its f-cking huge.. it just blows down at the board instead of across it.. its also fed by case side fans.. so lets forget the tiny bollocks..

anyways the pics i promised.. first HT off.. basically turning a 9900k into a 9700k with a bit more cache... from what i am seeing a far better gaming option to buy in the first place.. not for me because i already had a nice 8700K to start with.. which i was gonna delid and keep but was daft enough to buy what i now consider a waste of space 9900k.. but it has been interesting playing with it..

curiosity aint killed my cats but it for sure dents my wallet every so often..







now this one is really interesting.. staying within the intel claimed 95 watt tdp.. between 4.4 and 4.5 frequency and a silly low core voltage and nice all core temps.. but then again people would be as well off buying the much cheaper ryzen chip.. one can see why intel are telling fibs.. 







my cooler.. just to put things straight..









						BQT BK020 - be quiet! Dark Rock TF CPU Cooler
					

Providing effective and quiet cooling for highly demanding overclocked systems in compact housings is no easy task. The Dark Rock TF CPU cooler from be quiet! masters this perfectly.Its top perf [...]




					www.reichelt.com
				




trog


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 4, 2019)

trog100 said:


> now this one is really interesting.. staying within the intel claimed 95 watt tdp.. between 4.5 and 4.5 frequency and a silly low core voltage and nice all core temps.. but then again people would be as well off buying the much cheaper ryzen chip.. one can see why intel are telling fibs..



Probably because your uncore is closer to stock.  Cache eats a ton of power and makes a ton of heat.  It also doesn't do much for performance.  Don't ask me why a manual OC syncs it's multiplier by default.

I'd set cache to 4.3 and see where you get.  I forget if it's that or 4.2 but should not matter really.

See my post.  I actually mess with a 9900k in my primary rig so I know how weird "stock" is.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 4, 2019)

trog100 said:


> he he.. if was trying to hit 5 g or so i would agree with everything being said.. but i am not i am just trying to run very near stock without thermal throttling.. something i am miles off doing without a very carefully applied under-volt.. again something i really should not have to do..
> 
> okay dropping the frequency down to below stock is 100% something i should not have to do.. quite why folks are suggesting it i cant figure..
> 
> ...


Oye vey... 

You have a lot to learn grasshoppa. 

1. He he nobody said you were shooting for that. I even said 4.8ghz.
2. He he "Near" stock is not stock. 4.8ghz all c/t is not stock. 
3. He he Because this is what some do to have a higher non avx overclock is to use the avx offset. This is quite common since avx really stress the cpu
 Since handbrake uses avx instructions, it would seem to benefit you to use the offset. So when avx hits, it lowers the clocks. Non avx where it was set to. A best of both worlds. 
4. He he its not a POS it's a PEBKAC issue (more specifically your outright denial that your heatsinknisnt good enough).
5. He he many told you in your other thread not to bother...and here you are...bitching about it. Maybe consider being open minded to the advice you've been given and you wouldnt run into these hardships. 

Earthdog


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 4, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Because this is what some do to have a higher non avx overclock is to use the avx offset. This is quite common since avx really stress the cpu
> Since handbrake uses avx instructions, it would seem to benefit you to use the offset. So when avx hits, it lowers the clocks. Non avx where it was set to. A best of both worlds.



I believe stock utilizes a -2 AVX offset too.

He does have one point..   Intel pulls a lot of tricks on "Stock" to fit the TDP.  But they do it all the same.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 4, 2019)

trog100 said:


> soldered on heat spreaders or not.. the intel claimed 95 watt tdp is also an out and out lie... what puzzles me is how they get away with it..


this is where a "vague" understanding of things is a problem when assumptions are based off of misinformation.  Also (side note), it is different than amd. 

Here is some reading...








						Why Intel Processors Draw More Power Than Expected: TDP and Turbo Explained
					






					www.anandtech.com
				






R-T-B said:


> I believe stock utilizes a -2 AVX offset too.


I dont recall offhand... but I dont think there is any...



R-T-B said:


> He does have one point..   Intel pulls a lot of tricks on "Stock" to fit the TDP.  But they do it all the same.


The "trick" is that it is at the base clocks. Check out that article.


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 4, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> I dont recall offhand... but I dont think there is any...



Like TDP, it may vary based on board vendor parameters, but my ASRock Z390 Taichi sets a -2 offset by default.

If I did not use that and an uncore offset this chip would never pass 4.7GHz allcore in Prime95 ever...  and that's with the throttle point set to 115C and liquid metal.  You have no idea how much Uncore and AVX blow the doors off the power draw.  The chip instacooks.  Here let me cook up a quick demo for you...


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 4, 2019)

It is a board thing, not from the cpu, yes.

Typically when overclocking these chips, you are supposed to lock down cache, and work on cpu. Once you dial in the cpu clock, then mess with cache... quite normal to lock it down when overclocking. For generations it was like this and it cant run 1:1. 

That cpu will throttle at 100C internally... that is its TJunction with tjmax a bit above that. These should be kept under 90c when stress testing for stability and headroom.

I know full well what avx and cache does to the cpu temps and power use.


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 4, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> I know full well what avx and cache does to the cpu temps and power use.



I was referencing others, I know you do.

Here, for those who "don't know" I keep my "wuh oh!" screen shot from when I disabled thermal throttling and stepped away from the PC once thinking 4.7Ghz Uncore/No AVX offset would be easy in my crazy blower setup for Prime95 Small FFTs.  Stepped out to get a Soda and came back to 106C Chip temp.

Never put the thermal throttling offset to 115 unless you are some kind of record bencher.  I did it assuming it would never hit it:  In short, don't.  4.7Ghz with uncore up is enough.  This didn't hurt my chip (fortunately) but I'm sure it wasn't helpful, either:

Look at that TDP.  It's awesome...  Package drawing an estimated 284 Watts.  If it wasn't for liquid metal and blower fans, that thing would've probably burned.


----------



## Rahnak (Jul 4, 2019)

trog100 said:


> soldered on heat spreaders or not.. the intel claimed 95 watt tdp is also an out and out lie... what puzzles me is how they get away with it..


The 95 W TDP is at base clock (3.6 GHz).


----------



## trog100 (Jul 4, 2019)

at 1.376 my chip would fry for sure.. lets not forget i am running at near 1.200 and still seeing heat problems with all 16 threads under load  my auto would be around 1.300 a minus 0.08 offset brings it down to the 1.200 stable voltage i am now running 3.80 g at..

to be honest i recon 3.8 at 1.200 is remarkably good.. as for 3.8 not being stock.. stop nit picking please.. 3.8 is something i am targeting.. 3.7 produces very similar results i have tried it and if needed would run at it.. 

i am also very i impressed at the chip being able to run 4.5 at 1.100 core voltages.. its lower than i would have guessed at.. its down there because i didnt turn the minus 0.08 offset off when i set the 95 watt limit.. without my minus 0.08 offset the chip would have to clock down to just over 4 g to stay within intel 95 watt tdp.. 

reviewers are at fault here for not properly testing this chip when they first got it.. gee how wonderful a 5 g turbo 8 core 16 thread chip and all in at tdp of 95 watts.. yeah right.. he he..

trog


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 4, 2019)

trog100 said:


> at 1.376 my chip would fry for sure..



Yours with that cooler certainly would.  I imagine it would at 1.2 if you have the cache and such up.  That screenshot has 3000RPM blower fans and a Noctua dual tower heatsink with Liquid Metal and it still overloaded.

I'm not even sure that voltage is acurate either.  I believe it's more like 1.325...  maybe LLC went crazy though.  Dunno.


----------



## trog100 (Jul 4, 2019)

Rahnak said:


> The 95 W TDP is at base clock (3.6 GHz).



so who buys a 9900k to run at its base clock.. nobody so its basically a lie.. not a lot else to say about that is there.. 

trog


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 4, 2019)

trog100 said:


> so who buys a 9900k to run at its base clock..



*looks around sheepishly*

*looks at system specs*

*leaves*

I mean seriously...  Granted, I played with OCing but I bought it more for the hyperthreading.  I really just lock the all-core down and run it stock.


----------



## advanced3 (Jul 4, 2019)

You seem to have a decent chip, just get better cooling for it. There's zero point in buying a K series CPU and a Z series board to not overclock.


----------



## Arctucas (Jul 4, 2019)

I believe my 9900K runs hot as well, and I have decent cooling.


----------



## trog100 (Jul 4, 2019)

R-T-B said:


> Yours with that cooler certainly would.  I imagine it would at 1.2 if you have the cache and such up.  That screenshot has 3000RPM blower fans and a Noctua dual tower heatsink with Liquid Metal and it still overloaded.
> 
> I'm not even sure that voltage is acurate either.  I believe it's more like 1.325...  maybe LLC went crazy though.  Dunno.




dude my cooler comes within a couple of degrees of the best tower coolers.. it beats most of them.. 

the story of my TF cooler goes back to the days when i ran couple of room heater 980ti cards in sli mode.. i did have a more normal large tower cooler to start off with but i had trouble cooling my 4790K cpu.. i needed case side fans to keep the 980ti cards in check.. a normal tower cooler ddint leave room for them.. 

my TF cooler is not the problem its rated at 220 watts and its how it is because it works f-cking well when combined with two side case fans directly feeding it room temp air.. if it didnt i would not have it.. 

but if no f-cker is gonna take my word for this there isnt much i can do about it.. he he..

i overclocked my 4790K cpu my 7700k cpu and my 8700k cpu all with this same cooler.. there genuinely is nothing wrong with it.. but i aint gonna go out and spend a couple of hundred quid just to prove it for people that refuse to take my word for it on here thats for sure.. he he

the problem here isnt my cooler its intels cram two more cores into an already hots running 8700k package tell a few fibs and hope to get away with it..   simple logic at work here folks 30% more cores mean 30% more heat getting rid of that heat has been my problem.. one i have solved by the way..

magic apart can someone tell me how to bung 30% more cores into an already hot running 8700K package clock it higher and get away with it.. 

soldered on heat spreaders and a thicker die dont seem to have worked.. at least not for me.. i am amazed its worked for others.. he he

a few weeks back i mentioned buying a 9900K i also said if i could not clock to 5 g i would be extremely disappointed.. well now i have bought one and yes i am extremely disappointed.. 

there have been rumors of intel bringing out a  5 g across all cores out of the box version of the 9900k in the near future.. just how they are gonna mange it i really cant figure it will be interesting to see..

trog



Arctucas said:


> I believe my 9900K runs hot as well, and I have decent cooling.
> 
> View attachment 126152




mine looks just like that when i first fire the burner up.. but after 10 minutes that nice looking 70 C moves up to near 100 c.. 

trog


----------



## xtreemchaos (Jul 4, 2019)

so what it boils down to is you want a bit of a rant bro "that's ok", as I see it you have 2 options 1 send the cpu back "get another or money back" or try a different cooler , theres a vast amount of know how on here and nobody would tell you anything wrong but its down to you if you want to take it   I know what id do I said it in my first post. goodluck.


----------



## John Naylor (Jul 4, 2019)

1.  A core voltage of 1.68 volts is scary ... something is very wrong here.  At 4.8, I'd expect 1.10 to 1.20.  Almsost every build we have done since Sandy Bridge (Other than Ivy) was limited by voltage.  If we break 80C under RoG Real Bench or max core breaks 1.40 (setting) or 1.50 for more than a second (in testing w/ AVX) , OC is done.  You're 1.68 is by no means a "low voltage"



			https://images.anandtech.com/doci/13400/9900K%20OC.png
		


*EDIT :  *OK 1.168 is well within here it should be

But look here:

5.2 Ghz / 1.35 volts w/ decent temps








						Intel Core i9 9900K processor review
					

In this review we take the new flagship mainstream processor for a test-driver, meet the premium Coffee Lake-S eight-core processor that has been discussed so much and plentiful lately. This little b... Overclocking




					www.guru3d.com
				




2.  Your using a short tower cooler is that a case limitation ?   A $46 Scythe Fuma would meet or beat anything under $150.  If ya want water, avoid the CLCs and gran an all copper AIO or custom build one.









						Swiftech
					





					www.swiftech.com
				



AIO Kits (2 x 120) = $135
AIO Kits (2 x 10) = $148

Kit you build
Starting at $259

Dark Rock TF is 2C worse than Noctua 15


			https://tpucdn.com/review/be-quiet-dark-rock-tf/images/temp_oc_aida64.png
		


Scythe Fuma is 1C better than Noc NH-D15 ... a move here would pick up 3C of cooling


			https://tpucdn.com/review/scythe-fuma/images/temp_oc_aida64.png
		


Swiftech H360-X3 oid 3c cooler than Noc NH-D15 ... a move here would pick up 5C of cooling


			https://tpucdn.com/review/swiftech-swiftech-h360x3-drive-x3-aio/images/temp_oc_aida64.png
		


So yes, you do have a very good cooler but there is room for improvement should you so desire.  Also, I have to wonder if the cooler's efficiency is being negatively impacted by case or case cooling.


3.  A case upgrade would also help... Love the Phanteks Evolve X TG but that's $190 - $200 ... the 600S is about $140-150 but w/ a $400+ MoBo and $500 CPU, Im guessing money isn't an issue.

4.  Case cooling - Good rule of thumb for case cooling"

One (1) 120mm case fan for each 50 - 75 watts of component power
One (1) 140mm case fan for each 75 - 100 watts of component power

CPU OC'd - 95 watts
MoBo = 40 w
2080 Ti - 358 watts + 10% on power limiter w/ MSI AB = 394
RAM (4 sticks) = 10 watts
Fans, USB + all else - 40 watts

That's  579 say 500 as everything won't always be maxed at the same time.   

120mm = 7 - 10 fans
140mm = 5 - 7 fans

9900k =  200 watts w/ multithreaded loads 200 at stock settings (https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/intel_core_i9_9900k_processor_review,5.html) ... hits 287 under p95 but you didn't build the PC to run P95.  

5.  What is ring multiplier.   From testing we've done here, this can be left at default for gaming.... if using GFX apps, didn't see any impact unless ring multiplier was > 3 less than core multiple ... so at 4.8, I'd go w/ 4.5 if GFX apps is a thing.  If no GFX apps, I'd leave at default.

6.  I'd do some testing .... while running your fav game, go into task manager and check the affinity for the exe file ... make sure all cores are checked and check our fps.  Now disable 1 core and repeat.  "Rinse and repeat", turning off 1 core at a time and note at what point you see a significant impact on fps.  try a few other games.  You may find that the games you play see no benefit from more than half (or less) your cores / threads being active.  Some options...

a)  Turn off HT ... not recommended if you do workstation work i.e Adobe premier, but I make BIOS profiles and save them.  When I wanna game, I boot w/ HT off, this has a higher ... CPU runs 7C hotter at same CPU multiplier w/ HT on.

b)  Use different multipliers - If from testing above you see no impact past X cores ... try putting 4 @ 4.9 and 4 at 4.7 .... or whatever ya like. Again... you sane save different BIOS settings as profiles.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 4, 2019)

R-T-B said:


> I'm not even sure that voltage is acurate either. I believe it's more like 1.325... maybe LLC went crazy though. Dunno.


I've been asking to confirm voltage in another program or to try manually setting 1.2V and seeing if 4.8ghz works. As was said, handbrake uses avx and when left on auto will use more power and perhaps more voltage. Hes on auto with an offset from what he describes so he board will use the cpu VID at whatever clock is set, minus the offset. LLC would be shown in the voltage already, so I think confirming that voltage is a good step as well as manually setting a voltage to confirm that is what it is actually getting. 

If you're not willing to overclock and try things to reach the 4.8ghz goal... then return it.


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 4, 2019)

advanced3 said:


> You seem to have a decent chip, just get better cooling for it. There's zero point in buying a K series CPU and a Z series board to not overclock.



My cooling is fine (probably beats many CL setups).  My reasoning was hyperthreading and to maybe OC later...  that and I like well built boards that I can scrub the management engine bits out of.  ASRock z390s are good for that.

Oh, you meant OP I think.  Sorry.  Still, meet use case, as obscure as it may be.


----------



## trog100 (Jul 4, 2019)

i have tried manual voltage setting earthdog.. manual settings was how i arrive at a stable at 4.8.. the voltage is correct.. 

manual voltages dont work that well when the cpu starts to throttle..  basically when the cpu throttles down the manual voltage dosnt come down with it.. 

auto with a reasonably correct minus off set works better.. as the chip throttles down the applied voltage comes down with it.. which means it dosnt throttle dwon as much.. 

keep working away and one day you may learn something.. 

one conclusion i have come to is that 100 C isnt overly hot for these intel chips.. letting the chip hit 100 C  and letting it throttle down if it needs to wont do any harm.. 

i aint sure if my 370 asus board lets you do it i dont think it does but some boards let you use 115 C and not 100 C as the throttle point.. 

believe it or not but i have spent a few hours fiddling with this thing.. 

i have reported what i have found.. i cant say i am not a bit disjointed but i can live with the limitations of what i have.. and it all fits with my basic logic.. you cant add 33% more cores and not expect heat problems when they are all being used.. intel would like folks to think you can but its obvious (to me at least) you cant 

playing games.. division2 in my case the cpu temps dont go over 65 C.. the same with the ashes benchmark cpu temps dont go over 65 C..  the answer to this is obvious.. less than half the 9900k cores/threads are being used.. 

also with the power limit at 95 watts temps dont go over 65 C but the cpu runs at 4,5 g.. about the same as the ryzen competitor.. the cores threads are being used but at low power.. 

trog


----------



## John Naylor (Jul 4, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> I've been asking to confirm voltage in another program or to try manually setting 1.2V and seeing if 4.8ghz works. As was said, handbrake uses avx and when left on auto will use more power and perhaps more voltage. Hes on auto with an offset from what he describes so he board will use the cpu VID at whatever clock is set, minus the offset. LLC would be shown in the voltage already, so I think confirming that voltage is a good step as well as manually setting a voltage to confirm that is what it is actually getting.
> 
> If you're not willing to overclock and try things to reach the 4.8ghz goal... then return it.



With Handbrake, your'e talking 255 watts w/ OC



trog100 said:


> also with the power limit at 95 watts temps dont go over 65 C but the cpu runs at 4,5 g.. about the same as the ryzen competitor.. the cores threads are being used but at low power..



If left to its own devices ... 900k uses big watts.  I left more numbers in Post #49









						Intel Core i9-9900K and Core i7-9700K Review
					

Power Consumption and Overclocking. Today we can finally show you how Intel's new octa-core 9th-gen processors perform. On hand for testing we have the Core i9-9900K, an 8 core/16 thread processor...




					www.techspot.com


----------



## RealNeil (Jul 4, 2019)

I'm not sure about your post. You had to know that most of us would see a chance to help you mitigate your heat issues and offer suggestions to you. Yet you say that there is no issue, so don't try to help. This, coming from someone who is always ready to jump in and help a brother.
 But help is what we do here. We enjoy tackling problems and solving them. Maybe you should consider closing this thread because you have us in agony here. I just don't see the point.


----------



## 27MaD (Jul 4, 2019)

An overclocked 9900K will hit the mid 80s on a water cooler , you have an air cooler........ not even a huge one.


----------



## freeagent (Jul 4, 2019)

I’m with the other guys here, you have a decent cooler, but not good enough for what you want to do. You gotta step it up to something better, or downclock it for the summer.


----------



## dorsetknob (Jul 4, 2019)

talk to @Knoxx29 about his Set up  or move to Alaska and air cool there


----------



## trog100 (Jul 4, 2019)

all it needs is to reevaluate what you think hot is.. i know what hot is my youngest son has a f-cking 9900k in a laptop.. it sounds like jet engine still runs hot and still throttles down when it feels like it..

i dont want to buy a larger case or fancy water cooling.. if i wanted that i would already have it.. i can afford it..

i dont do much contend creation stuff so gaming temps of 65 C will do me fine.. benchmarks again which i only run when finding out stuff pushing my all core load temps up to near 100 C will also do me fine..

i started this thread simply to pass on information... if people consider this a bad thing that is sad sign for tpu..

nuff said except for the fact i now have a nice used 8700K on ebay for £250 quid.. if anybody in the UK wants one.. i was hoping to clock my 9900k to 5 g... i now know that aint gonna happen.. but to be honest i should have know that in the first place.. he he

trog


----------



## biffzinker (Jul 4, 2019)

dorsetknob said:


> talk to @Knoxx29 about his Set up  or move to Alaska and air cool there


Only during the winter months, it's currently 86°F/30°C in the shade.


----------



## freeagent (Jul 4, 2019)

You don’t need watercooling or an aio to top your heat sink, there are others out there that perform as well as d14/15 or better for less. You can do it for fifty bucks.


----------



## RealNeil (Jul 4, 2019)

I was attracted to reading this thread initially because I have a 9900K sitting on the shelf.
I have a ROG STRIX Z390-E Gaming mainboard with 32GB of GEIL Super Luce 4133MHz. RAM

I plan to cool it with a Swiftech 280mm AIO, or a 360mm AlphaCoolWatercooling set. (kit)
I think that the Swiftech unit will do it well.


----------



## trog100 (Jul 5, 2019)

freeagent said:


> You don’t need watercooling or an aio to top your heat sink, there are others out there that perform as well as d14/15 or better for less. You can do it for fifty bucks.



my cooler as i keep saying isnt that bad and it wasnt cheap.. but i need more than a few C less to make any difference to my situation.. i know for sure i cant do that for fifty bucks.. he he

if i try and run the chip at 5 g or more i would need some very expensive  cooling to make even an an attempt at taming  it when its firing on all cores.. .. 1.35 volts or so would turn it into a furnace..

i have stated what my 9900k mileage is others may do better.. but i would not bet on it.. he he

trog

ps.. a quick review on my cooler..  as air coolers go its not bad..


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 5, 2019)

I think your last ditch effort is...

1. Confirm VccSA and vccIO are appropriate.
2. Confirm with another application your load voltage when using AVX.
3. Set an AVX offset for those loads and push up.
4. Your cooler isnt a potato...we get that. But it isnt really a 5ghz cooler either. Depending on the review, this cooler is a few C or 10C different than a true top notch air cooler. I'd first reconfirm all the voltages.

I really believe that your voltage when running avx/handbrake is skyrocketing and causing the throttling. I think its throttling already by temps and showing you a lower voltage. I've seen stock voltage with avx hit over 1.35V which is about the end of the road for top notch air and water. Slamming so hard into this wall barely above stock isnt right for whatever reason.

...or just enjoy your chip with leaving performance on the table. You're a fan of neutering your performance anyway.


----------



## Aerpoweron (Jul 5, 2019)

Hey everyone, did anyone bring up this video so far?
Der 8auer, why the 9900k runs so hot

The silicon die is quite thick, so the heat gets trapped inside the die.

I run the 9900k with a 3x120mm AOI, but temps are comparable to a Noctura NHD15.

And since we are in a 9900K thread, could anyone take another look at my 9900k Thread and maybe help me reproduce my problem?

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/i9-9900k-causes-noises-when-running-primegrid.256735/


----------



## trog100 (Jul 5, 2019)

i am still playing with this thing just for fun.. its been a pretend 9700k now its a pretend 8700K at 5 g.. two cores are disabled in the bios..

apart from its ability to run at a bit lower core voltage than my real 8700k it really is behaving just like an 8700k with a couple of extra cores stuck on it ( which in essence is exactly what it is.. he he) including the extra heat generated when all cores are running.. intels soldered on heat spreader dosnt seem to make much difference..







trog

ps.. this thing is now running massively under volted.. a minus 0.09 offset..


----------



## xtreemchaos (Jul 5, 2019)

well done, your sorted then ?...


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 5, 2019)

FreedomEclipse said:


> I personally see that CPU cooler as inadequate for an overclocked 9900k. Its no DRP4



My DRP3 is already struggling on an 8700K so...

In summer temps on my hot attic I really can't push much further than 1.3V at full continuous load or we get into troubling ranges. With normal room temps, 1.33V is just about the limit for sanity and longevity (80-85C max)


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jul 5, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> My DRP3 is already struggling on an 8700K so...
> 
> In summer temps on my hot attic I really can't push much further than 1.3V at full continuous load or we get into troubling ranges. With normal room temps, 1.33V is just about the limit for sanity and longevity (80-85C max)



a delid will drop those temps by 20c


----------



## londiste (Jul 5, 2019)

What is the power draw during these tests?


----------



## trog100 (Jul 5, 2019)

Aerpoweron said:


> Hey everyone, did anyone bring up this video so far?
> Der 8auer, why the 9900k runs so hot
> 
> The silicon die is quite thick, so the heat gets trapped inside the die.
> ...



i have seen the Der 8auer video.. but i cant shed any light on your noisy 9900k.. 

trog


----------



## Vario (Jul 5, 2019)

Considering the core and thread increase relative to the static lid size over 8 generations and you start to think that these things need a big heatsink to compensate, regardless of solder vs thermal paste debate.


----------



## londiste (Jul 5, 2019)

On that chart Skylake/Kaby Lake (4c) are 125mm^2, Coffee Lake (6c) is 150mm^2, Coffee Lake Refresh (8c) is 175mm^2.
For comparison, Zen and Zen+ are 200mm^2, new Zen2 will have 120mm^2 IO Die and 75mm^2 CPU chiplet.
None of that sounds particularly worrysome.

The area of die and IHS are much less important than simple power usage. The arguments and discussions around Intel and solder/paste brought out arguments suggesting that die size is a factor in the decision of whether the IHS is soldered but that is pretty much it. The other argument is how concentrated the heat is but I don't think anyone has reliably shown that to be the problem. It has theoretical merit but that has not been shown in practice.

It's all about power. Practically all of the power that CPU consumes gets converted into heat.

Intel wants (or needs) to run the CPUs are clocks that are not in the efficient range. When limited to 95W spec, they will be in the spec and will be coolable enough. Once you get them out of there it all goes to hell. And Intel wanted/allowed motherboard manufacturers to add MCE (and similar solutions) that will run 8700K at 130-160W at full load and 9900K at 160-200W at full load. Once you start overclocking on top of that the heat simply becomes unmanageable.


----------



## trog100 (Jul 5, 2019)

a hexus review on a 8086k chip.. its basically a binned 8700K..  6 core 12 thread.. it retails now at £440 on scan uk..

running handbrake at 5 g they have it showing 98 C.. their cooling is pretty good..

now just imagine adding 33% more heat generating cores to this already too hot mix..

if your imagination is good enough you have a 9900k.. he he..









						Intel Core i7-8086K (14nm)
					

A genuine enthusiast part or just a collector's item?




					www.hexus.net
				




trog


----------



## rootuser123 (Jul 5, 2019)

@trog100 You got a R0 stepping chip, when did you purchase it and what's the batch number (FPO Number) on that chip?


----------



## Tom.699 (Jul 5, 2019)

trog100 said:


> so who buys a 9900k to run at its base clock.. nobody so its basically a lie.. not a lot else to say about that is there..
> 
> trog



No, its not a lie, I run it at stock. I have Noctua NH-C14S and never see anything higher that 70C

If you cook you CPU ant 100C then it is your problem.
If you didn't ask for help (as you said) why did you make such long thread only to say something that applies to your particular situation. It does not help anybody else in any way and just creates confusion.


----------



## trog100 (Jul 5, 2019)

bought just less than a week ago from Scan UK.. 

the reason i bought it now was because i expect some heavy binning to happen as intel prepare for a 9900K refresh with 5 .g out the box on all cores.. 

trog


----------



## dorsetknob (Jul 5, 2019)

Tom.699 said:


> If you didn't ask for help (as you said) why did you make such long thread only to say something that applies to your particular situation. It does not help anybody else in any way and just creates confusion.


Par for Trog he like's a Rant..............and he still needs to improve his cooling ( i do Believe Intel Advised not to Overclock this Chip due to overheating issues).


----------



## trog100 (Jul 5, 2019)

Tom.699 said:


> No, its not a lie, I run it at stock. I have Noctua NH-C14S and never see anything higher that 70C
> 
> If you cook you CPU ant 100C then it is your problem.
> If you didn't ask for help (as you said) why did you make such long thread only to say something that applies to your particular situation. It does not help anybody else in any way and just creates confusion.



the thread runs on and i reply to comments just like i am doing to yours.. my asus bios has tons of settings but one says performance mode the other says power saving mode...  i assume power saving mode is the boards attempt to within intels 95 watt limit..

already owning a nice 8700K chip running nice and cool at 4.9 g.. i for sure didnt buy a 9900k to see it throttle down to 4.2 g while it tries to stay within intels false 95 tdp limit..

trog



dorsetknob said:


> Par for Trog he like's a Rant..............and he still needs to improve his cooling ( i do Believe Intel Advised not to Overclock this Chip due to overheating issues).




i currently have it set in "best gaming chip mode".. i just made that up but its still a pretend 6 core 12 thread 8700K running a nice and cool 5.g... to be honest being as i dont do content creation  i may well leave it this way.. 

i am also happy to admit i should not have bought this silly 9900k in the first place.. i should have stuck with my original intentions to delid my 8700k and bump it up to a nice and cool 5.g.. something it would not quite mange without a delid.. however my pretend 8700 with its lower voltage  does does this just fine.. he he

its also been fun playing with it and finding out stuff and my 8700K sold on ebay pretty quickly so i am a happy bunny..

trog

ps.. its also very difficult to figure out what "stock" actually means with this chip.. if it means staying within intels 95 watt tdp limit.. temps are not the slightest problem.. total lies abouts its performance would be the problem there.. he he


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 5, 2019)

FreedomEclipse said:


> a delid will drop those temps by 20c



I know, and I might jump at some point. Soonish  I'm lazy like that, the rig is for gaming, not endless tinkering.



dorsetknob said:


> Par for Trog he like's a Rant..............and he still needs to improve his cooling ( i do Believe Intel Advised not to Overclock this Chip due to overheating issues).



Holy shit so I wasn't the only one who noticed then


----------



## trog100 (Jul 5, 2019)

can someone tell me what they think stock setting for this 9900k chip are.. i will apply these setting and we can forget all about over clocking temps and just talk about stock tempts..

we might get some sense if we talk about temps at stock setting.. to be honest i aint sure what stock means with this chip.. it dosnt seem intel is ether..

while i am waiting for suggestions i will make some attempts to figure out "stock" none overclocked settings actually are..

trog


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 5, 2019)

trog100 said:


> can someone tell me what they think stock setting for this 9900k chip are.. i will apply these setting and we can forget all about over clocking temps and just talk about stock tempts..
> 
> we might get some sense if we talk about temps at stock setting.. to be honest i aint sure what stock means with this chip.. it dosnt seem intel is ether..
> 
> ...



Intel provides a voltage curve and it even applies to OC multipliers. Its simple to get there, use Offset voltage and set it it at +-0 and set the turbo to Auto. Then you can play around with the turbo and see what happens at higher clocks.


----------



## trog100 (Jul 5, 2019)

okay lets  start from scratch.. here is what i get with everything set at auto.. could this be considered stock for a 9900k.. ??

just bear in mind most folks who buy this chip and aint tech heads and might well end up with what i am seeing here.. nice temps but a pathetic 4.3 g on all cores..

the core voltage on auto is up around 1.35 before it all throttles down..







trog


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 5, 2019)

Yep, that seems about right to me - 4.3 all core turbo and inching into the 80C territory perfectly within spec and safe range (and on a rather midrange air tower). Try an AVX load now, some OCCT would be cool to see.

And take note of that loooow voltage there, though I'm sure this isn't peak. That'd be around 1.15 with vDroop, and 1.2 spike, give or take?

It'll be interesting to see how far the turbo clocks go without touching volts, and the voltage increase from just a turbo multi bump.

Some HWmonitor is also nice to see your vcore max/avg/min. It tells you something about stock LLC.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 5, 2019)

trog100 said:


> can someone tell me what they think stock setting for this 9900k chip are.. i will apply these setting and we can forget all about over clocking temps and just talk about stock tempts..
> 
> we might get some sense if we talk about temps at stock setting.. to be honest i aint sure what stock means with this chip.. it dosnt seem intel is ether..
> 
> ...


I (and others) asked this of you a day ago... to start over and see what voltages are with AVX loads (handbrake you were testing). You should run whatever stress test you run (Furmark for the CPU??? Not a common one) with Intel XTU up in the background and see if anything is throttling (same with Handbrake).



> while i am waiting for suggestions


I hope this was a joke.. see above. SMFH...


----------



## trog100 (Jul 5, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> Yep, that seems about right to me - 4.3 all core turbo and inching into the 80C territory perfectly within spec and safe range (and on a rather midrange air tower). Try an AVX load now, some OCCT would be cool to see.
> 
> And take note of that loooow voltage there, though I'm sure this isn't peak. That'd be around 1.15 with vDroop, and 1.2 spike, give or take?
> 
> It'll be interesting to see how far the turbo clocks go without touching volts, and the voltage increase from just a turbo multi bump.



so you are saying a 9900k should only be running at a measly 4.3 gig at stock.. ???

bear in mind i am trying to establish exactly what stock is not how to alter things.. i know how to do that..

even on a hot summer UK day my temps would not go above 65C on these settings.. they would not creep up to 80 C.. i think my chip is a later revision that will run on lower core voltages..

thanks for your comments..

i do know what is happening.. auto selects power saving mode and not performance mode.. oddly enough when you dont have the memory xmp set it dosnt do this on auto.. this dosnt help with what can be considered "stock" though.. 

trog


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 5, 2019)

trog100 said:


> so you are saying a 9900k should only be running at a measly 4.3 gig at stock.. ???
> 
> bear in mind i am trying to establish exactly what stock is not how to alter things.. i know how to do that..
> 
> ...



No, actually, it should be 4.7. Might be related to that stress test you run. I somehow thought of the 8700K stock turbo 

Don't forget your LLC setting. I don't know what it should be on your board for stock. Usually some pretty loose setting is auto.

Also check your AVX offset. This might also be set differently by the board maker on stock bios. I would suggest 0 offset.

NOTE: stock bios =/= Intel stock CPU settings!

Stock turbo




Stock frequency curve







trog100 said:


> i do know what is happening.. auto selects power saving mode and not performance mode.. oddly enough when you dont have the memory xmp set it dosnt do this on auto.. this dosnt help with what can be considered "stock" though..



Hmm. XMP is considered overclocking and it also affects CPU heat and volts, so. That definitely needs to be set NOT to XMP if you want stock.

OK. I'm done ninja editing now


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 5, 2019)

If he is seeing 4.3 GHz, he may be throttling or that is an AVX offset. Intel XTU will tell you throttling reasons (if any).



trog100 said:


> i do know what is happening.. auto selects power saving mode and not performance mode.. oddly enough when you dont have the memory xmp set it dosnt do this on auto.. this dosnt help with what can be considered "stock" though..


When selecting XMP, you likely said yes to enabling the core enhancement. You can run stock Intel settings with XMP on an ASUS board... just say NO to the MCE question after enabling XMP.


----------



## trog100 (Jul 5, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> I (and others) asked this of you a day ago... to start over and see what voltages are with AVX loads (handbrake you were testing). You should run whatever stress test you run (Furmark for the CPU??? Not a common one) with Intel XTU up in the background and see if anything is throttling (same with Handbrake).
> 
> I hope this was a joke.. see above. SMFH...




dude you have this well wrong.. i am just trying to establish what could be considered stock setting for a 9900k.. my duty is not to prove stuff to you and am not going to.. i know 100% i am not giving out false voltage figures.. past experience with you tells me you keep nit picking away for ever.. its just what you do.. 

trog


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 5, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> If he is seeing 4.3 GHz, he may be throttling or that is an AVX offset. Intel XTU will tell you throttling reasons (if any).
> 
> When selecting XMP, you likely said yes to enabling the core enhancement. You can run stock Intel settings with XMP on an ASUS board... just say NO to the MCE question after enabling XMP.





trog100 said:


> dude you have this well wrong.. i am just trying to establish what could be considered stock setting for a 9900k.. my duty is not to prove stuff to you and am not going to.. i know 100% i am not giving out false voltage figures.. past experience with you tells me you keep nit picking away for ever.. its just what you do..
> 
> trog



You do make a lovely couple


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 5, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> You do make a lovely couple


Where the husband murders the wife that never listens and drones on at times incoherently? Sounds about right!



Trog, I'm not asking you to prove anything to me. I am trying to help you (move forward). Myself and a half dozen others have thrown out these suggestions over the 90 posts in this thread. Including the one to start over. I also just told you exactly what you needed to hear to get your stock settings with XMP enabled and following whatever you are doing now. 

Nobody said you were giving out false information...but looking for a confirmation because those who have more than a 'vague' idea of how this works, thinks something isn't right. So maybe humor those around you, eh?


----------



## trog100 (Jul 5, 2019)

guys i am seeing 4.3 because this is what happens when the motherboard bios decider try and follow intels 95 watt tdp limitation..  

if i get rid of the auto setting and select performance mode we would be seeing.. 4.7 g.. 

no problems here except deciding which can be considered stock.. the mobo keeping to intels 95 tdp or the mobo ignoring it and running 125 watts or whatever it takes to maintain 4.7 g on all cores..

which is stock.. i am happy to go with 4.7 g at whatever watts it takes.. if we agree on this i will turn the auto selected power saving mode off.. 

i just want to know what people think stock is.. 

trog



Vayra86 said:


> You do make a lovely couple



rightly or wrongly the dog does my head in.. i am sure i do the same for him.. 

trog


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 5, 2019)

trog100 said:


> guys i am seeing 4.3 because this is what happens when the motherboard bios decider try and follow intels 95 watt tdp limitation..


Well whodeha..... a power limit........wonder who said that may be happening? lol


EarthDog said:


> If he is seeing 4.3 GHz, he may be throttling or that is an AVX offset. Intel XTU will tell you throttling reasons (if any).






trog100 said:


> select performance mode


What do you mean 'performance mode'? BIOS screenshot plz.

Stock is this - Set motherboard to OPTIMIZED DEFAULTS (its a Function key). Save, and reboot. That is stock for the board and BIOS you have. If you enable XMP to get the memory running at speed (though technically this is overclocking the IMC)... again... do not enable MCE when it asks and that should do it.



trog100 said:


> rightly or wrongly the dog does my head in.. i am sure i do the same for him..


Honestly, and truthfully, I laugh as I post these...but your posting style is annoying as hell. Certainly in a pub F2F we would likely enjoy each other's time, but through this forum, sweet jesus christ, no. 


I don't know if anyone has seen the Lego movie... but good cop/bad cops dad reminds me of trog... Remember the scene where the bad guy was trying to glue him down and asked a simple instruction of him and he couldn't follow it?? Stand over here and don't move... he doesn't stand there. Asks again, moves in the direction.... not quite there yet.... asks again, stands in the spot, then moves.... frustration ensues.



londiste said:


> Intel does have specs for processors. Stock is 95W with 118 W being allowed for up to 8 seconds.


I also linked an anandtech article earlier explaining all of this...


----------



## londiste (Jul 5, 2019)

trog100 said:


> which is stock.. i am happy to go with 4.7 g at whatever watts it takes.. if we agree on this i will turn the auto selected power saving mode off..
> i just want to know what people think stock is..


Intel does have specs for processors. Stock is 95W with 118 W being allowed for up to 8 seconds.
Unfortunately this is not what has been implemented. Is that by Intel or motherboard manufacturers is kind of irrelevant here.

Auto setting... do you happen to use an ASUS board by any chance? MCE is a thing since 8700K.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 5, 2019)

trog100 said:


> guys i am seeing 4.3 because this is what happens when the motherboard bios decider try and follow intels 95 watt tdp limitation..
> 
> if i get rid of the auto setting and select performance mode we would be seeing.. 4.7 g..
> 
> ...



That is some funny stuff. So basically the 8700K was the Intel TDP limited CPU, and 9 series is going over royally without them telling us  Boy I wonder why they needed to solder all of a sudden 

'Stock' is literally an OC setting.


----------



## hat (Jul 5, 2019)

trog100 said:


> guys i am seeing 4.3 because this is what happens when the motherboard bios decider try and follow intels 95 watt tdp limitation..
> 
> if i get rid of the auto setting and select performance mode we would be seeing.. 4.7 g..
> 
> ...



That's a messy subject, isn't it? Some might say true stock would be considered 3.6GHz, the CPU's base clock. Anything beyond that, that is, Turbo mode, is not guaranteed. That's also how they get away with calling it a 95w chip, when it most certainly is not when Turbo is active. You're not even at the clockspeeds coded into the chip for Turbo because the board is limiting it to 95 watts. This wasn't a problem with earlier chips because they could hit their max turbo frequency and still stay within the specified TDP, but now it's a mess because the specified "stock" turbo frequencies are going over the 95w limit. Whether or not it's considered stock to have that limit in place or not seems to be up in the air, not only among ourselves but also among mobo manufacturers?


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 5, 2019)

hat said:


> That's a messy subject, isn't it? Some might say true stock would be considered 3.6GHz, the CPU's base clock. Anything beyond that, that is, Turbo mode, is not guaranteed. That's also how they get away with calling it a 95w chip, when it most certainly is not when Turbo is active. You're not even at the clockspeeds coded into the chip for Turbo because the board is limiting it to 95 watts. This wasn't a problem with earlier chips because they could hit their max turbo frequency and still stay within the specified TDP, but now it's a mess because the specified "stock" turbo frequencies are going over the 95w limit. Whether or not it's considered stock to have that limit in place or not seems to be up in the air, not only among ourselves but also among mobo manufacturers?



Let's just call it what it is.

Intel was looking for more performance and found it while being as vague as possible about it. And mobo makers were eager to play ball.


----------



## londiste (Jul 5, 2019)

I stopped to consider that being purely on Intel after buying my AM4 system.

I have an AM4 board that caused me to re-think about running R5 2400G with the 90W PSU I have in that box. Monitoring tools showed CPU to consume 85-90W under load and a simple power meter essentially confirmed that was the case. At that point I assumed 2400G was a 90W TDP CPU. After looking at the CPU specs I found to my surprise that it is a 65W TDP CPU. Closer look revealed a setting in BIOS similar to MCE that kept running CPU at 3.9 on all cores as well as running full load on iGPU happily at the same time. That setting was gone after the next BIOS update, along with cTDP setting and couple others, to my dismay.


----------



## trog100 (Jul 5, 2019)

okay here we go at what most folks would consider stock.. auto selected 4.7 g on all cores.. take note i am not trying to overclcock this thing any more just trying to run it at "stock" speeds.. its still a thermal throttling oven.. a massive under-volt helps here but that for sure cant be called stock..






okay the dog dosnt believe what i am showing him.. but that aint unusual..  he he

trog


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 5, 2019)

Here, your new forum avatar


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 5, 2019)

Manually selecting a clock isnt stock. Auto is stock. You're also at 4.6, not 4.7 which is all core boost max/stock.

Regardless, notice how your voltage is changing as you did so? This is the multiplier VID doing work because you are on auto. If you put it at 4.7, the voltage should be different.

mentioned 20 mins ago...this is stock (for the board and bios)





EarthDog said:


> Stock is this - Set motherboard to OPTIMIZED DEFAULTS (its a Function key). Save, and reboot. That is stock for the board and BIOS you have. If you enable XMP to get the memory running at speed (though technically this is overclocking the IMC)... again... do not enable MCE when it asks and that should do it.



Have you bothered to confirm vcore in other apps yet by chance? Confirms this is helpful knowing you are starting in the right place for stock or whatever you are going to do.


----------



## Xzibit (Jul 5, 2019)

This thread reminded me of Bitwits: Don't let Intel overclock your processor


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 5, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Have you bothered to confirm vcore in other apps yet by chance? Confirms this is helpful knowing you are starting in the right place for stock or whatever you are going to do.



Yep... was waiting for that hwmonitor or Occt graph... what do we get? Bloody furmark


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 5, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> Yep... was waiting for that hwmonitor or Occt graph... what do we get? Bloody furmark


which was different from handbrake where we started.

Like I said... good cop/bad cop's dad, yo! Its uncanny. (2 mins in if you want to jump to the good part)


----------



## freeagent (Jul 5, 2019)

I am surprised your cooler is having a hard time even @ stock. Maybe try to remount using a bit more tim? And maybe case flow has something to do with it? Maybe flip one of your top fans around to feed your cpu? full auto is stock, no manipulation. Clear cmos for stock results


----------



## Final_Fighter (Jul 5, 2019)

check to make sure the bottom of your cooler is flat. those are some crazy temps. im sure in gaming the temps are lower but i would think 4.7ghz while stress testing should be maintainable heat wise.


----------



## trog100 (Jul 6, 2019)

the best i can manage.. definite not stock.. stock puts the core voltage way too high for this chip not to thermal throttle..

take a look where my core voltage is now.. i am running stock with a 0.100 minus offset.. i am kind of surprised i dont get an instant crash but it seems at least short term stable.. i can always go up a tad if i have to..







trog

ps.. running the AOS benchmark on crazy settings i am seeing max cpu temps of 55 C with a room ambient of 26 C.. this thing re-writes my core voltage beliefs.. he he..


----------



## RealNeil (Jul 6, 2019)

trog100 said:


> already owning a nice 8700K chip running nice and cool at 4.9 g


I have one too and it runs fast (4.9GHz.) and cool.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 6, 2019)

trog100 said:


> the best i can manage.. definite not stock.. stock puts the core voltage way too high for this chip not to thermal throttle..
> 
> take a look where my core voltage is now.. i am running stock with a 0.100 minus offset.. i am kind of surprised i dont get an instant crash but it seems at least short term stable.. i can always go up a tad if i have to..
> 
> ...



You should really take some advice to heart and start logging the actual core counts and voltages. And running a decent bench instead of this Furmark nonsense. I'm out until you do, this is just random. You use RealTempGT showing 6/8 cores...  I mean come on, its not that hard is it?

... and @RealNeil  Fire Strike results showing low CPU temps... ehhh? What is this, the neighbourhood computer club? Funny detail, you also used RealTemp which doesn't go over 4 core display while you run a 6 core CPU.


----------



## trog100 (Jul 6, 2019)

vaya86 and others..

i use the furmark cpu burner because its neat.. it produces similar results to realbench which uses handbrake..

i use cpu-z for showing clock speeds and core voltages.. again its pretty well used and it does what i want it to.. the real temp gt i have only seems to show 6 cores  max the none gt version only shows 4.. but its what i have always used to measure temps.. it works

i am happy with my results even if a little surprised at some of them.. nuff said on this..

my conclusion.. being as the 9900k is pretty much a 8700k with 33% more heat generating cores stuck on it i am seeing what i should expect to see.. a lot of f-cking heat.. 

i am surprised by how low the core voltage will go on the chip i have.. this of course helps combat the heat when all cores are working hard.. but it does have to be manually figured out and set.. my asus motherboard (very recent bios) dosint seem to have much of a clue how to handle this chip.. 

how my chip compares with others i dont know.. i also dont see many other 9900K owners  making comment either.. 

i think the 8700K is a nice chip.. with the 9900k i think intel have tried to push things a little too far.. i think they have failed.. the chip runs too hot and the soldered on heat spreader has not helped by anything more than a tiny amount.. if any..

my advice is dont buy this chip its not as good a gaming chip as the 8700K or the 9700K.. for content creation (all cores in use) it runs too hot so it isnt much use for that ether..

trog


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 6, 2019)

I know you're stubborn like that. Still, this topic has not managed to evolve to anything new from the TS to page 5.

Well played... the only interesting post was a 100C 'stock' attempt and it lacked data that was asked for repeatedly.

Neighbourhood computer club, yep.


----------



## Vlada011 (Jul 6, 2019)

Desperate try of Intel to push 1151 in moments when they need new stuff.
From period of i7-6700K Intel change nothing, only add more cores and increase frequency.


----------



## freeagent (Jul 6, 2019)

Wow. RealBench doesn’t get my system hot at all. It’s very light weight. And it brings your system to it’s knees is crazy man.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 6, 2019)

freeagent said:


> Wow. RealBench doesn’t get my system hot at all. It’s very light weight. And it brings your system to it’s knees is crazy man.



If you monitor your voltages with CPU Z and go by trial and error I'm not surprised


----------



## freeagent (Jul 6, 2019)

Okay, I think I see the problem. Its 27-30c ambient temperature. Hot as balls. (Maybe hotter than balls.) You probably don't have much airflow in your case, since most popular fans are a tad on the pitiful side, and your choice of coolers is more show then go. Still, that CPU should run without throttling at stock clocks. But its not. Do you have a pic of your system posted somewhere? I would like to see how you have it set up.


----------



## xtreemchaos (Jul 6, 2019)

you may want to check this out


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 6, 2019)

Trog mentioned airflow a couple of times.. something about a 2 side fans blowing in, as well as others.




trog100 said:


> vaya86 and others..
> 
> i use the furmark cpu burner because its neat.. it produces similar results to realbench which uses handbrake..
> 
> ...


1. That isn't the point (why). You started off about handbrake and testing there, and moved on to Furmark, something different. That something different could have AVX instructions which changes the voltage when running (something mentioned earlier).

2. Again, why is not the point. It was simply requested to confirm the voltage in a different application or two. Sometimes its wrong and in cases where temps are high, like this, it is good to confirm.

3. Realtemp has stopped being updated a while ago and only goes up to 6 cores, yes. The GT in the .exe stands for Gulftown (X58 hex core from several years back). It is still an accurate program. If you want to see all cores and threads in a temp only app, use Coretemp. It also shows voltages (though can be inaccurate). The other monitoring apps we listed for voltage also show temps (and a shedload of other things).

4. Glad you are happy, but you shouldn't be surprised. This was mentioned to you in passing when you brought it up...

5. Hey, good conclusion. That is what reviewers came up with one day one!

6. Very recent or the latest BIOS? May want to make sure its the latest one just in case they worked some magic.

7. They are both nice chips and both serve the same purpose in fact. They didn't fail. At stock speeds, the CPU works just fine and within the parameters they set. What you are upset about is how quickly it the power and heat scale when overclocking. The key word is OVERCLOCKING.

8. Its as good or better than the 8700K and 9700K for gaming. When run at stock speeds, its still faster (the main point) than both of those CPUs and has more cores and threads (whenever those can be used). Again you are upset about OVERCLOCKING the CPU which the overwhelming majority doesn't do, or does it right (there is still so much advice you glossed over here going your own way) not 'brute' forcing their way into an overclock and blaming the CPU. You haven't confirmed the mount and thermal paste application, voltage, secondary voltages, etc, throwing in the towel and blaming everything except what is around you and what you can change and see.

Enjoy your chip man... this has been an experience, lol!


----------



## freeagent (Jul 6, 2019)

Well, that clears things up a bit, I feel a bit silly now because I had no idea.

Thanks for posting that video.


----------



## trog100 (Jul 6, 2019)

the furmark cpu burner dosnt use avx instructions dog which is one reason i use it.. plus i have a minus 3 avx set.. its pretty obvious when something does use avx.. the frequency drops accordingly..

i now have one simple oppinion question.. for anyone that cares to offer an oppinion..

for gaming which is best.. 6 core 12 threads at 5.1 g

or 8 core 16 threads at 4.7 g...

i currently have this 9900k running 5.1 g with  6 core 12 threads active at about 75 C all configured cores running.. the core voltage is around 1.220 my room ambient is quite high around 26 C.. its a hot summers day here in the UK..

for gaming which of the two options would be best.. for the dog i know turning an 9900K into a rather good 8700K might not make sense but it is an option for me..

the ashes benchmark runs under 65 C.. it quite clearly isnt maxing out an 8700K never mind a 9900k..

trog


----------



## londiste (Jul 6, 2019)

8c8t?


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 6, 2019)

trog100 said:


> for gaming which is best.. 6 core 12 threads at 5.1 g
> 
> or 8 core 16 threads at 4.7 g...


I don't want to answer... here is why....

Because it doesn't matter. You limit your FPS anyway through the GPUs, right? So why would it even matter to you since you lopped off the ceiling? CPU doesn't really matter for you since you have castrated your 2080Ti performance.




Random question, trog... did you read a review or two on the 9900k before you went and bought it? If so which ones cause they blow. You seem blind sided that this was hot running and takes a bit more effort to get the most out of it.


----------



## trog100 (Jul 6, 2019)

a random silly question dog.. i read many of them i also thought long and hard about buying 9900K.. common sense told me not to but whatever it is that makes me buy new stuff won the day in the end.. he he

you my friend are are condescensionally  insulting.. please have less of it.. i know you love playing this game but it aint one i which i want to play at the moment.. answer my simple question else button up..

and yep creating a pretend 9700K would be another option.. i just prefer the pretend 8700k option.. both would be very similar.. 

trog


----------



## sneekypeet (Jul 6, 2019)

Now that OP is throwing insults, time to close up shop!


----------

