9900k Lottery Winner?

Jan 21, 2019
5
0
10
0
Hello.

I just managed to get my 9900k to 4.2ghz while UNDERVOLTING it to 1.100v (Default 1.200v), and it runs perfectly stable. LLC is On set to "turbo"
Air Cooler is this one: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO
Idle temps: 40
Gaming temps: 70
Stress test temps: 80
The reason for my undervolt is that running on 1.2v or more would progressively increase my tems up to 85c in games and wooping 100c in CINEBENCH stress tests.

TL/dr : 4.2ghz / 1.100v was the sweet spot I found to have some overclock, and safe temperatures.


Did I just win the lottery, or that's not as impressive as I think?
I know its not anywhere near 5.0ghz but I still think it's looking good.
 

Supahos

Polypheme
Herald
The Evo 212 isn't even close to good enough for that chip even at stock speeds. The cheapest air cooler that might let it reach max boost at extended times is a cyroig h5ultimate. A noctua dh15 is better. If you actually want to make a run at 5.0 GHz 360mm rad aio is probably required if you plan to run it max speed for extended periods of time
 

Barty1884

Titan
Moderator
1100W? 1200W? Where are those numbers coming from? A 9900K draws neither wattage....

What kind of voltage did you manage to apply for 4.2GHz? That's going to be where success/failure can be measured. If you've only managed a slight voltage reduction, while dropping ~500MHz vs what should be attainable on all cores then no, I wouldn't say you won the lottery.

Even assuming a substantial voltage saving vs stock, it does beg the question: Why?
Buying a 9900K and crippling it, unless you run specific workloads that benefit from more cores/threads opposed to frequency, makes no sense.
Give you're quoting gaming temps, I don't expect cores/threads to be of the utmost importance. Disabling cores, or simply opting for a lower core/thread count chip (like an 8700K) seems like it would've made more sense to me.

While those seem to be somewhat decent temps, what cooler are you running?
 

TJ Hooker

Illustrious
Herald
As said above, default turbo boost behaviour will have it running higher than 4.2 GHz on all cores under load.

Also, the values you're referring to are mV, not W. Hard to say how that compares to other chips, as most people are posting their overclocking results, not underclocking/undervolting results. I don't think your results are anything too special, I think I have my undervolted 6700K running at 4 GHz with a little over 1000 mV.

What is your actual Vcore measured under load? What did you use to stress/stability test?
 
Jan 21, 2019
5
0
10
0
Sorry for my low knowledge, its my first CPU overclock ever. Edited my post for better understanding and answering for the questions.
 

Supahos

Polypheme
Herald
Any value below the all core turbo isn't an overclock or I wouldn't consider it one. It's running 500mhz (all cores active and 800mhz single core) below what it would run at if you left it at stock speeds.
 
Jan 21, 2019
5
0
10
0
I'm starting to think that I have a bad cooler. I even reapplied the processor with a better thermal paste (Artic Silver) but anything I do to try reaching higher clocks will severally impact my temperatures.

Any tips/configs etc for me to get a higher speed without going over 80c?
 

Supahos

Polypheme
Herald
The Evo 212 isn't even close to good enough for that chip even at stock speeds. The cheapest air cooler that might let it reach max boost at extended times is a cyroig h5ultimate. A noctua dh15 is better. If you actually want to make a run at 5.0 GHz 360mm rad aio is probably required if you plan to run it max speed for extended periods of time
 
Jan 21, 2019
5
0
10
0




As I thought, I chose my cooler badly. I think you answered all my questions, thank you for your support.
 

Supahos

Polypheme
Herald
No worries the 212 used to be a solid value option back when chips weren't stupidly overclocked coming from the box. Now Intel and AMD both basically take all oc headroom out of the chips by ocing themselves. A good 9900k will do 5.1 all cores. Meaning a whole 400mhz above stock all core turbo and only 100 above single core.

Many 2600x chips will do 4.2 GHz single core stock, but most won't do 4.3 all core even oced
 

jankerson

Illustrious
BANNED


I am running a 9900K at 5 GHz all cores and using a NH D15 ands it easily cools it even stress testing it.



 

jankerson

Illustrious
BANNED


That's stress testing, not realistic use.

I never gets much over 70C in use and or gaming.

Normally stays in the low 30C to 40C or so in day to day use.
 
Jun 4, 2019
3
0
10
0
Hello.

I just managed to get my 9900k to 4.2ghz while UNDERVOLTING it to 1.100v (Default 1.200v), and it runs perfectly stable. LLC is On set to "turbo"
Air Cooler is this one: Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO
Idle temps: 40
Gaming temps: 70
Stress test temps: 80
The reason for my undervolt is that running on 1.2v or more would progressively increase my tems up to 85c in games and wooping 100c in CINEBENCH stress tests.

TL/dr : 4.2ghz / 1.100v was the sweet spot I found to have some overclock, and safe temperatures.


Did I just win the lottery, or that's not as impressive as I think?
I know its not anywhere near 5.0ghz but I still think it's looking good.
amazing
 

fishburger

Commendable
Feb 11, 2017
80
2
1,645
4
If you want to "overeclock" you need watercooling,I am running my 9900k at 5.2 ghz using asus AI suite 3 playing bf 5 in 3440/1440 higest temp I saw in live dash 72 c,I took it down to running 5 ghz and the temp dropped to 49-50 c
420 rad with 6 fans in push/pull, D5 pump, fans running at 1100-1200 rpm. At 5.2ghz the fans and pump made to much noise for my liking.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS