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

[dorsetknob]

trog100
Advice from over the water

@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

DARK ROCK TF silent high-end Air coolers from be quiet!

be quiet!

www.bequiet.com

 

[HD64G]

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

 

[EarthDog]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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

I believe stock utilizes a -2 AVX offset too.

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[trog100]

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

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]

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]

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]

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.