Adventure: Running 8/9th gen Coffee Lake CPUs on Z170 motherboard (ASUS Maximus VIII Ranger)

[itsakjt]

MVP ???

Most valuable person with regards to this.

 

[BobbyBoyGaming]

Hi there,

Please find the pinout comparison between Kaby Lake and Coffee Lake:

View attachment 234950

I have marked the corresponding pins on the socket to test with multimeter. I am not sure about the automatic mode but continuity or diode mode should work.
Please find the pins marked in yellow under Coffee Lake.

Please note the following:

RSVD = Reserved
Vcc = Vcore
Vss= Ground

The pins which are reserved in Coffee Lake do not need to be checked as those pins are not used by the CPU at all.
The Vcc pins do need to be checked. Because ideally on your board, these Vcc pins are reserved (see Kaby Lake photo). But some boards have these pins grounded or connected somewhere (unlikely in case of ASUS/AsRock). To test - Place one probe of multimeter to any of the IO shield port covers and the other probe to each of these pins very carefully. If it beeps or shows some value, it needs to be isolated. If it is infinite resistance, no need to isolate.
The Vss pins do need to be checked. Place one probe of multimeter to any of the IO shield port covers and the other probe to each of these pins very carefully. If it shows some value except 0 (no resistance, continuous), it needs to be isolated. If it beeps (continuous) or shows infinite resistance, no need to isolate as these are ground pins anyway on Coffee Lake so should be fine.

Once tested, make modification accordingly. It is very likely you won't need any kind of mod to the CPU socket at all except for connecting SKT_OCC pin. For testing that, try powering on board without CPU installed. If it powers on (fans spin), no need to do SKT_OCC mod.

As for ground points on motherboard, here is an example:

View attachment 234952

This post was very helpful,

I will do all the tests this weekend and will report back.
For now I just wanted to share a photo i took with my new digital microscope of my current pin mod.

The reason I was worried that I had damaged the cpu is because I made some damage to the green part of the chip with the blade i used to cut the capton tape, but it did boot to windows before it would freeze (for which I will try increasing the vcore and all that, as you had suggested), so hopefully those scratches are not too bad.
Also see how the capton tape on one of the pictures is covering the edge of the adjacent lga pins, is this okay? or should it be perfect like the other one

 

[itsakjt]

The 3rd photo does look scary. But as long as the traces are not broken, it is fine and possibly just cosmetic damage.
Do check out the socket pins with multimeter and if not required, you can skip it.

As for the kapton tape covering the edge of the adjacent pins, it is fine and pins should still make proper contact.

Do let us know how it goes and all the best.

 

[Arctucas]

Wish I could find info on modding eVGA Z170 Classified K motherboard ...

Not interested in modding CPU.

 

[BobbyBoyGaming]

The 3rd photo does look scary. But as long as the traces are not broken, it is fine and possibly just cosmetic damage.
Do check out the socket pins with multimeter and if not required, you can skip it.

As for the kapton tape covering the edge of the adjacent pins, it is fine and pins should still make proper contact.

Do let us know how it goes and all the best.

I tried my best to do these motherboard pin tests with my microscope and multimeter, these are the results I got.

First of all, the socket occupied pin is implemented in my board, the fans wont spin without a cpu. Nothing will power on without a cpu.

As for the pin tests.

I tried doing the tests by manually setting my multimeter to continuity mode, and nothing would happen. I thought I was not setting a proper range in the multimeter, but I looked at the manual and it doesnt say anything about a ohms range setting for continuity. Then I also tried doing the tests in automatic mode, and it will automatically try to do a continuity test.

so i did the tests in both manual mode and automatic mode and these are the results I think I got.

After I tested my motherboard pins, I reinstalled my older 6700K and the computer booted into Windows 10 without any problems at all. So this means I did not damage the socket pins during my testing.

Do my results make sense? does it look Like I did something wrong from looking at my results?

can you help me conclude what these results mean? Thanks

 

[itsakjt]

I tried my best to do these motherboard pin tests with my microscope and multimeter, these are the results I got.

First of all, the socket occupied pin is implemented in my board, the fans wont spin without a cpu. Nothing will power on without a cpu.

As for the pin tests.

I tried doing the tests by manually setting my multimeter to continuity mode, and nothing would happen. I thought I was not setting a proper range in the multimeter, but I looked at the manual and it doesnt say anything about a ohms range setting for continuity. Then I also tried doing the tests in automatic mode, and it will automatically try to do a continuity test.

so i did the tests in both manual mode and automatic mode and these are the results I think I got.
View attachment 235329

After I tested my motherboard pins, I reinstalled my older 6700K and the computer booted into Windows 10 without any problems at all. So this means I did not damage the socket pins during my testing.

Do my results make sense? does it look Like I did something wrong from looking at my results?

can you help me conclude what these results mean? Thanks

Hello. The places where you got no beep, did you get any value other than 0?

 

[BobbyBoyGaming]

Hello. The places where you got no beep, did you get any value other than 0?

I think when it doesnt beep it is the same thing as "open loop" which you call "infinite resistance" but my multimeter does not show "infinite resistance" it can show "OL = open loop", 0.00, or a resistance value

 

[itsakjt]

A

I think when it doesnt beep it is the same thing as "open loop" which you call "infinite resistance" but my multimeter does not show "infinite resistance" it can show "OL = open loop", 0.00, or a resistance value

Awesome. That totally makes sense.
In that case, you don't need any modifications to CPU except connecting the copper tape for SKT_OCC which you have already done properly. No need to isolate any pin. The place where you are getting 0.00, that is fine since it is a ground pin anyway.
With that noted, check out at what voltage the CPU is running at. Since the BIOS is not aware of that CPU, voltages might need manual tweaking. Also, it is a good practice to clear CMOS after replacing the CPU.
All the best and keep us posted.

 

[BobbyBoyGaming]

bleh... the computer powers up the fans, but the monitor does not show any image anymore with the 9900K inserted... I think I killed my cpu... . I cleared the bios as well. I always clear bios after cpu swap.

 

[itsakjt]

bleh... the computer powers up the fans, but the monitor does not show any image anymore with the 9900K inserted... I think I killed my cpu... . I cleared the bios as well. I always clear bios after cpu swap.

Honestly, it is not that easy to kill a CPU. Try with basic troubleshooting like try with 1 stick of RAM, remove unnecessary components etc.

 

[BobbyBoyGaming]

I think my multimeter measurements were shit. because I removed all the kapton tape and booted up with the 9900K, and this is when i was not getting any POST tests.

I took the cpu out and I noticed small burn marks only on the two pins that the original instructions indicate to isolate for asrock. The motherboard also showed a little bit of blueish color on those pins (they got very hot). But I reinsterted the 6700K and luckily it did boot into Windows again. So my motherboard is somehow still alive... got lucky.

I have a wd40 contact cleaner and I cleaned the pins that had burn marks and the burn mark came off completely. it is possible that maybe it still works xD i can try one more time with the kapton tape on.

photos before cleaning (after booting without kapton tape)

photos after cleaning contacts with wd40 (after burn marks were created by booting without kapton tape)

the contacts now look clean but it does look like a nasty piece of green plastic came off or something. like a trace may have been burned partially

 

[itsakjt]

I think my multimeter measurements were shit. because I removed all the kapton tape and booted up with the 9900K, and this is when i was not getting any POST tests.

I took the cpu out and I noticed small burn marks only on the two pins that the original instructions indicate to isolate for asrock. The motherboard also showed a little bit of blueish color on those pins (they got very hot). But I reinsterted the 6700K and luckily it did boot into Windows again. So my motherboard is somehow still alive... got lucky.

I have a wd40 contact cleaner and I cleaned the pins that had burn marks and the burn mark came off completely. it is possible that maybe it still works xD i can try one more time with the kapton tape on.

photos before cleaning (after booting without kapton tape)

View attachment 235352
View attachment 235353

I see. Yeah, then definitely isolate these pads with Kapton tape. Based on information I had, even if those pins completely burn out or the pads completely burn out, it is not going to affect performance of the board or the CPU. Some people have even went ahead and chopped those pins off.

 

[BobbyBoyGaming]

ok I will attempt to isolate them again very very very very carefully

I was able to get into the bios again!!

will try to set voltages higher and all that

It worked!

I set the current limits to 255.75 because I remember this was a overclocking profile for the 6700K, I also increased the vcore with an offset of +25 milivolts, and I increased both the VCCIO and the VCCSA to 1.18volts

The i set all cores to a target speed of 4.6 Ghz (multiplier 46) and the cpu cache ratio to 4.3ghz (multiplier 43).

I am not sure if it is safe for me to achieve 5 gigahertz. Do you know what the normal cache ratio is supposed to be set to?

the default settings were core speed of 3.6 and cache ratio of 4.3, but I think I remember seeing somewhere that the cache ratio is supposed to be a bit lower than the core frequency. do you know anything about this? my motherboard doesnt seem to be able to set the correct cpu speeds

 

[itsakjt]

ok I will attempt to isolate them again very very very very carefully

I was able to get into the bios again!!

will try to set voltages higher and all that

It worked!

I set the current limits to 255.75 because I remember this was a overclocking profile for the 6700K, I also increased the vcore with an offset of +25 milivolts, and I increased both the VCCIO and the VCCSA to 1.18volts

The i set all cores to a target speed of 4.6 Ghz (multiplier 46) and the cpu cache ratio to 4.3ghz (multiplier 43).

I am not sure if it is safe for me to achieve 5 gigahertz. Do you know what the normal cache ratio is supposed to be set to?

the default settings were core speed of 3.6 and cache ratio of 4.3, but I think I remember seeing somewhere that the cache ratio is supposed to be a bit lower than the core frequency. do you know anything about this? my motherboard doesnt seem to be able to set the correct cpu speeds

Amazing news. I think you should be able to do 4.8 to 5 GHz assuming you have a good cooler. Once done, do what you normally do with the PC and run some basic stress tests for sometime to check if it is stable.

 

[BobbyBoyGaming]

do you happen to know what the cache ratio speed is supposed to be? I will set cpu to 5.0. I dont want to overclock though, I just want it to run like it is supposed to run on a normal 300 series motherboard

I brought the clockspeed up to 5 ghz, and the computer froze so then I changed the vccio and vccsa from 1.18 to 1.22, and it it has not crashed yet. it seems stable now
My cache ratio speed is still 4300, is that the correct speed? 4.3ghz?

 

[BobbyBoyGaming]

Amazing news. I think you should be able to do 4.8 to 5 GHz assuming you have a good cooler. Once done, do what you normally do with the PC and run some basic stress tests for sometime to check if it is stable.

Do you happen to know what the cache ratio speed is supposed to be? I will set cpu to 5.0. I dont want to overclock though, I just want it to run like it is supposed to run on a normal 300 series motherboard

I brought the clockspeed up to 5 ghz, and the computer froze so then I changed the vccio and vccsa from 1.18 to 1.22, and it it has not crashed yet. it seems stable now
My cache ratio speed is still 4300, is that the correct speed? 4.3ghz?

I got BSOD (IRQL NOT LESS OR EQUAL), it does not happen frequently, it has only happened once
It seems pretty stable overall, but it does get some BSOD every once in a while I think I got another one at some point (CRITICAL PROCESS DIED), but I did not take a photo of it, I will try to be better about recording my errors

I remember this patch installed when I had the 6700K installed. I am wondering if I should find an equivalent patch like this one but for the 9900K or if I should remove this patch while the 9900K is installed

I also have an extra BIOS chip, I was thinking of making the same BIOS but with the Intel ME Corporate Cut 11.8 and with ME HAP bit disabled and then just using an external TPM 2.0 module. I was wondering if doing this may increase system stability.

Any thoughts??

 

[itsakjt]

Do you happen to know what the cache ratio speed is supposed to be? I will set cpu to 5.0. I dont want to overclock though, I just want it to run like it is supposed to run on a normal 300 series motherboard

I brought the clockspeed up to 5 ghz, and the computer froze so then I changed the vccio and vccsa from 1.18 to 1.22, and it it has not crashed yet. it seems stable now
My cache ratio speed is still 4300, is that the correct speed? 4.3ghz?

I got BSOD (IRQL NOT LESS OR EQUAL), it does not happen frequently, it has only happened once
It seems pretty stable overall, but it does get some BSOD every once in a while I think I got another one at some point (CRITICAL PROCESS DIED), but I did not take a photo of it, I will try to be better about recording my errors

I remember this patch installed when I had the 6700K installed. I am wondering if I should find an equivalent patch like this one but for the 9900K or if I should remove this patch while the 9900K is installed
View attachment 235449

I also have an extra BIOS chip, I was thinking of making the same BIOS but with the Intel ME Corporate Cut 11.8 and with ME HAP bit disabled and then just using an external TPM 2.0 module. I was wondering if doing this may increase system stability.

Any thoughts??

Hi, for your questions:

5 GHz might need a lot of extra voltage because while 5 GHz is the max turbo frequency, it is the single core turbo speed i.e. when only one core is loaded to 100 percent. I would say, try 4.7 to 4.9 with cache ratio to 4.3 (should be default). A 4.5 GHz cache speed should be easily achievable at the stock voltage. I recommend you set that.

As for ME, it should not affect system stability in any way and I would suggest to keep it enabled. Also, some Z170 motherboards and all Z270 motherboards have TPM 2.0. Z170 boards might require a modded BIOS to make it enabled. Let me know if you are up for that adventure. The only way it is not possible is if it is disabled in the chipset via FPF (Field Programmable Fuses - basically a one shot fuse). There are ways to check that. But even if it is disabled through FPF, you can always use a TPM 2.0 module like I did.

VCCSA is mostly required for the System Agent and iGPU and VCCIO is required for the memory controller. So if you are running RAMs at higher frequency, you will need extra voltage for VCCIO. These voltages have a safe limit for 24x7 use and that is 1.35V.
Please note that since the motherboard officially does not "know" this CPU, it might not be able to set proper voltages and hence manual tweaking might be required.

Overall, I am glad that you finally got it working. For the instabilities, try manually tuning the clocks and voltages and eventually you will find a sweet spot. All the best.

To summarize,

5.0 GHz all core frequency is an overclock for the i9 9900K. 4.7 GHz is the stock all core boost frequency for i9 9900K. If you have a good cooler, you can do 5 GHz at around 1.35V (check Load Line Calibration settings also) and thus won't lose single core performance also. You might not be able to do per core frequency adjustments since motherboard BIOS is programmed to show only up to 4 cores and provide adjustments for that. Hence you need to sync all the cores.
Default cache frequency is 4.3 GHz (based on info I could find). Try increasing this till you are unstable. It is very difficult to test stability of cache frequency. For example, I can successfully set cache frequency to 4.9 GHz. It can work great for days. But to my observation, I will get a crash at some point of time. For my i5 9600KF, 4.8 GHz is rock stable at the voltage I am using (1.35V). It has been more than 6 months without a single crash.
VCCIO = Memory controller voltage. I have this set to 1.18V for 4*8 GB Kingston HyperX Fury dual rank RAM kit overclocked to 3100 MHz CL14
VCCSA = Set to a near about value or the same value as the VCCIO. I have this set at 1.175V.

CPU standby voltage - Default is 0.95-1.00V. I have this set to 1.05V. I have not seen this affect anything but higher voltages can cause BD_PROCHOT signal to malfunction when CPU is cold and cause frequency throttling to 800 MHz. Refer my thread here for issues I faced and the last few posts for the solution. https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/system-boots-slow-when-left-powered-off-for-long.247375/

All the best.

 

[eidairaman1]

I noticed the pins in the upper left corner are different from each other

 

[itsakjt]

I noticed the pins in the upper left corner are different from each other

I just noticed too. However they are reference/test points for Sky Lake/Kaby Lake and ground pins for Coffee Lake and hence no board have them connected anywhere. dsanke has done extensive research regarding various board makers and hence his pin connect/isolate guide is fool proof. True it is very much possible you might not need them for a particular board like in my case but doing the isolation/connection won't do any harm at all.

 

[DR4G00N]

I see. Yeah, then definitely isolate these pads with Kapton tape. Based on information I had, even if those pins completely burn out or the pads completely burn out, it is not going to affect performance of the board or the CPU. Some people have even went ahead and chopped those pins off.

Yeah, those pins aren't needed at all (though obviously it's better to insulate them).
I did the coffee mod when the 8700K was still new so the ones in my Z170M OCF got vaporized a long while ago but it doesn't effect anything.

 

[BobbyBoyGaming]

So 1.22 volts is definitely safe for everyday use as vccio and vccsa? How do you know these max voltages? I couldnt find this information on my own.
My motherboard, which is not originally designed for a 9900k, shows the 1.22 setting in red font (which is a warning that means dangerous or at maximum limit)


When I was getting the crashes I also had the memory overclocked to 3200 CL15 1.35V, and the memory originally had an XMP profile of 3000 CL15 1.35V (automatic voltage), so it is very possible that my system crashes were a result of the voltage being too low on the memory.

So for now, I just let the motherboard determin safe memory settings, and I brought down my CPU from 5.0 ghz to 4.9, and I increased my cache frequency from 4.3 to 4.6

My vccio and vccsa are still both 1.22, and my vcore is still offset to +35 millivolts, my iGPU is at stock clocks (I hope these are safe settings)

My CPU load-line calibration is set to Level 2 out of 5 levels, which means that the motherboard is supposed to try to keep the voltage more constant (closer to my manually set value) when the CPU is under load. This is my understanding of it. Is this correct? The correct CPU load-line-calibration setting for this mod should be closer to the flat graph setting (level 1), rather that further away from it towards the level 5, which has a steep downward slope on the graph (meaning that as cpu load goes up the motherboard will decrease the cpu voltage)

Level 5 would be bad for the 9900K stability, correct? correct me if I am wrong. I didnt set it to Level 1 because I know it requires a very very very good PSU and it can stress out the components more or something like that.

----UPDATE---
I was able to do one pass of cinebench R23 without crashing the score was 12925. I dont have a very good cooler and the test reaches 99-100C towards the end so I only did one pass. I also dont think this 100 percent CPU usage is representative of my daily use at all so one pass seemed fine... If I put a better cooler on it eventually I could try 3 passes or whatever everybody does.
It seems like my crashes were indeed due to the shitty RAM I have. I put on this system some RAM from 2015 which is not as efficient/fast as the more recent DDR4. I am waiting for some new DDR4 by TeamGroup called Creator Expert DDR4 3600 to arrive. I will finish the build once my new RAM arrives and I will turn this little computer into a dedicated server.

 

[itsakjt]

So 1.22 volts is definitely safe for everyday use as vccio and vccsa? How do you know these max voltages? I couldnt find this information on my own.
My motherboard, which is not originally designed for a 9900k, shows the 1.22 setting in red font (which is a warning that means dangerous or at maximum limit)


When I was getting the crashes I also had the memory overclocked to 3200 CL15 1.35V, and the memory originally had an XMP profile of 3000 CL15 1.35V (automatic voltage), so it is very possible that my system crashes were a result of the voltage being too low on the memory.

So for now, I just let the motherboard determin safe memory settings, and I brought down my CPU from 5.0 ghz to 4.9, and I increased my cache frequency from 4.3 to 4.6

My vccio and vccsa are still both 1.22, and my vcore is still offset to +35 millivolts, my iGPU is at stock clocks (I hope these are safe settings)

My CPU load-line calibration is set to Level 2 out of 5 levels, which means that the motherboard is supposed to try to keep the voltage more constant (closer to my manually set value) when the CPU is under load. This is my understanding of it. Is this correct? The correct CPU load-line-calibration setting for this mod should be closer to the flat graph setting (level 1), rather that further away from it towards the level 5, which has a steep downward slope on the graph (meaning that as cpu load goes up the motherboard will decrease the cpu voltage)

Level 5 would be bad for the 9900K stability, correct? correct me if I am wrong. I didnt set it to Level 1 because I know it requires a very very very good PSU and it can stress out the components more or something like that.

Hi there.
1.22V is absolutely safe for 24x7 use. I got to know the 1.35V limit from various sources (Google Coffee Lake OC guide) and all of those articles mentioned that.

As for your load line calibration, I am sorry but can't help you that much without physically inspecting the behavior of the system. It depends on a lot of factors like how well binned the CPU is, the way the motherboard adjusts voltage and so on. A better binned CPU for example might be able to do 5 GHz at stock voltage and LLC, another unit of the same model of that CPU might require more voltage.
In short, try to achieve and balance clock speeds and voltage. Do stress tests and use the system like you normally do.

For stress tests, Cinebench R20, R23, AIDA 64 and OCCT are great tools.
As for your memory, I would recommend to leave it at the XMP for now and once you are absolutely sure the CPU side of things are rock stable, you can fine tune the memory to your liking. Always overclock one thing at a time because that will help you figure out which settings to tweak.

 

[BobbyBoyGaming]

Just out of curiosity, I am only asking this in because I am trying to understand VRM power phases in regards to motherboard quality.

So first of all, according to this mod's instructions in gigabyte boards, a larger number of pins must be isolated relative to the asus/asrock boards (for the 9900K to work on z170)

So my first question is, if I were to (hypothetically) put a 9900K on a gigabyte board, then, and increase the vccio/vccsa and vcore; would this mean that more power would be going into the processor over a smaller amount of pins (potentially producing heat problems?) or reducing stability?
Does this mean that doing thte mod on asrock/asus is better because they allocated more pins for power as seen in the 300 series boards?

gigabyte example

asrock example

- - - - - - -
On a separate topic:

I was watching some videos about VRMs on youtube, and I see that sometimes boards can use the cylindrical electrolytic capacitor or the flat SMD solid polymer capacitors, and according to some youtuber, it seems like the SMD ones produce "better results"

So my second question, is: Is it really possible that this z170 fatal1ty itx/ac board by AsRock has a superior VRM than the subsequently released z390 phantom gaming itx/ac?!?!

If this is true, that would be very unfortunate to know that the newer stuff a downgrade... LOL... In addition, it it is also possible that the z170 fatality itx/ac has more power phases than the new z390 phantom gaming itx/ac?!!? lol?!

Asrock z170 fatal1ty itx/ac power phases have the flat polymer solid capacitor types (4 of them on top + 2 on the back of the board = 6 total)

asrock z390 phantom gaming itx/ac instead has cylindrical electrolytic capacitors (6 of them all on top it seems)

- - - - - -
Separate topic:
As for those pins that I left "extra crispy" (see photos from previous post)

You mentioned that they are not needed and that some people cut them off. I wanted to clarify,
Are these pins also not needed for the 6700K?
I dont plan on cutting them off but I was wondering. If I were to cut them off (hypothetically), would I lose the ability to use my old 6700K with this motherboard??

Thanks

 

[itsakjt]

Just out of curiosity, I am only asking this in because I am trying to understand VRM power phases in regards to motherboard quality.

So first of all, according to this mod's instructions in gigabyte boards, a larger number of pins must be isolated relative to the asus/asrock boards (for the 9900K to work on z170)

So my first question is, if I were to (hypothetically) put a 9900K on a gigabyte board, then, and increase the vccio/vccsa and vcore; would this mean that more power would be going into the processor over a smaller amount of pins (potentially producing heat problems?) or reducing stability?
Does this mean that doing thte mod on asrock/asus is better because they allocated more pins for power as seen in the 300 series boards?

gigabyte example
View attachment 235594View attachment 235595

asrock example
View attachment 235600View attachment 235596


- - - - - - -
On a separate topic:

I was watching some videos about VRMs on youtube, and I see that sometimes boards can use the cylindrical electrolytic capacitor or the flat SMD solid polymer capacitors, and according to some youtuber, it seems like the SMD ones produce "better results"

So my second question, is: Is it really possible that this z170 fatal1ty itx/ac board by AsRock has a superior VRM than the subsequently released z390 phantom gaming itx/ac?!?!

If this is true, that would be very unfortunate to know that the newer stuff a downgrade... LOL... In addition, it it is also possible that the z170 fatality itx/ac has more power phases than the new z390 phantom gaming itx/ac?!!? lol?!

Asrock z170 fatal1ty itx/ac power phases have the flat polymer solid capacitor types (4 of them on top + 2 on the back of the board = 6 total)
View attachment 235597
View attachment 235599


asrock z390 phantom gaming itx/ac instead has cylindrical electrolytic capacitors (6 of them all on top it seems)
View attachment 235598

- - - - - -
Separate topic:
As for those pins that I left "extra crispy" (see photos from previous post)
View attachment 235607
You mentioned that they are not needed and that some people cut them off. I wanted to clarify,
Are these pins also not needed for the 6700K?
I dont plan on cutting them off but I was wondering. If I were to cut them off (hypothetically), would I lose the ability to use my old 6700K with this motherboard??

Thanks

Hi @BobbyBoyGaming,

1. The extra set of pins which are to be isolated for GIGABYTE boards are ideally reference pins in 6th/7th gen. So no Z170/Z270 motherboard should ideally have them connected anywhere. And based on research, except GIGABYTE, no other motherboard have these pins connected anywhere and they are just left floating, soldered to dummy pads on the board. In case of GIGABYTE, these pins are very likely connected to something (very likely grounded) in some way and hence requires to be isolated to prevent damage. And since no Z170/Z270 motherboard is designed to make these pins VCC pins, the CPUs get the same power through almost equal number of pins. So all capable boards should be able to run them just fine.

2. To my knowledge, cylindrical solid state caps produce the best result but are bulky and in boards with smaller footprint are not used much to save space. The next best are the SMD MLCC (Multilayer Ceramic Capacitor) followed by POSCAPs (Conductive Polymer Tantalum Solid Capacitors). All of them have their advantages and trade-offs.
a. Cylindrical solid state caps - Best choice for performance, higher thermal tolerance, higher lifespan, easy to identify without datasheet, expensive. Cons - Bulky and hence consumes space.
b. MLCC SMD caps - Better choice for performance, ultra small component, fairly cheap. Cons - Lower thermal tolerance, can go full short when failed damaging other components.
c. POSCAPs - Good choice for performance, small component, cheapest solution. Cons - Lower thermal tolerance, can go full short when failed damaging other components, life drastically decreases at higher temperatures.

The PlayStation 3 FAT and Slim models were equipped with POSCAPs and the Yellow Light of Death (YLOD) failure they had were due to weakened POSCAPs. You might be aware that heating the board with a hairdryer temporarily fixed them and that is because higher temps allowed these caps to reach within spec again. The PS3 Super Slim had all MLCC caps in the VRM filter and hence the failure rate was much less with respect to YLOD.
The RTX 3080 series capacitor issue is also a demonstration of the above points with regards to MLCC and POSCAPs. Refer to this link - https://www.techspot.com/news/86916... that the,been rebutted by most manufacturers.

3. Those pins are reserved for 6th/7th gen and hence chopping off those pins would not make any difference with any of those chips. In 8th/9th gen, these pins are ground pins and hence don't affect anything noticeable either.
Ideally, if motherboard manufacturers followed Intel's spec and pinout, we would not need to isolate any pin since all pins required to be isolated are reference pins and are not to be connected. But motherboard manufacturers sometime try to implement their own design and that's when these things become heterogenous. Don't worry, you can chop off those pins.

Hope this helps.

 

[BobbyBoyGaming]

This guy on this video timestamp

talks about the capacitors but he is not good at explaining anything concisely, and unfortunately comes off as pretentious in his videos (it is very tedious for me to listen to him talk ). It is actually not clear to me whether he actually knows what he is talking about. He appears to call these flat capacitors "SMD aluminum polymer capacitors", but I think the correct name is actually more along the lines of POSCAP (electrolytic) (with aluminum instead of tantalum perhaps?), as you suggest (not sure). The guy in this video appears to suggest that the POSCAPs are better which is why I had this question. Anyway thanks for the info I will try to look into this on Wikipedia maybe or something, next weekend.

I found this explanation https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-differences-between-electrolytic-tantalum-and-ceramic-capacitors, which appears to be more reliable information. As of now, I am just learning here and there, and hoping for the best. Perhaps it is best to take some type of electrical engineering online course or something.

Yeah, I remember both the PS3 and the Xbox 360 had some ring of death issues, albeit due to different reasons, and I also remember the heat-gun fix (from watching videos, as I never owned either of those consoles). Good to know thanks for the explanation/example.

Thanks for answering the other questions!