[SOLVED] i5 11600k get to 100 degree after OC to 4.5Ghz

[benroz]

I just did a OC on bios
I got the CPU from 3.9Ghz to 4.5

And ring to 4.2

I left the V on auto

And now I run the OCCT test
Before on test cpu get to 75c
Now it gets to 100c and going up and down between 85 c to 100c
What is the problem?

 

[rgd1101]

sound like oc is the problem

 

[Phaaze88]

Never run Vcore on auto when doing this.
Leave ring alone until you become more familiar with this.
This cpu already does 4.6ghz all core by default.


How high was the Load Line Calibration raised? It should not be higher than whatever the motherboard considers the medium setting if the VRM is air cooled.
What is the cooler? This is a ~230w cpu under heavy load.
What were the OCCT test settings?

 

[benroz]

Never run Vcore on auto when doing this.
Leave ring alone until you become more familiar with this.
This cpu already does 4.6ghz all core by default.


How high was the Load Line Calibration raised? It should not be higher than whatever the motherboard considers the medium setting if the VRM is air cooled.
What is the cooler? This is a ~230w cpu under heavy load.
What were the OCCT test settings?

 

[benroz]

Never run Vcore on auto when doing this.
Leave ring alone until you become more familiar with this.
This cpu already does 4.6ghz all core by default.


How high was the Load Line Calibration raised? It should not be higher than whatever the motherboard considers the medium setting if the VRM is air cooled.
What is the cooler? This is a ~230w cpu under heavy load.
What were the OCCT test settings?

Enermax ETS-T40fit CPU Read more: https://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/7436/ener
max-ets-t40fit-cpu-coolers-review/index.html

This is my cooler ^
I just changed it from the thermaltake UX100 (the cpu got to 100 c with no OC with this cooler
I'm start thinking the CPU is the problem)

I haven't changed anything on OCCT so it's the regular setting I'm not sure what they are

 

[benroz]

Never run Vcore on auto when doing this.
Leave ring alone until you become more familiar with this.
This cpu already does 4.6ghz all core by default.


How high was the Load Line Calibration raised? It should not be higher than whatever the motherboard considers the medium setting if the VRM is air cooled.
What is the cooler? This is a ~230w cpu under heavy load.
What were the OCCT test settings?

When I'm saying V I mean voltage, someone recommended to put it on 1.32 V , but I left it on outo

 

[TommyTwoTone66]

The Thermaltake UX 100 is designed for low-wattage chips like a Celeron or something, I'm not surprised you started thermal throttling at stock on that. Are you crazy? The Intel retail cooler would have been better than that piece of junk.

The Enermax ETS-T40 is a decent, mid-tier air cooler with one fan. Ideal for your CPU to run at stock speed, but you should not really be overclocking on that.

You said that at stock settings, no overclock, you reached 75C on the OCCT test? That's perfect for stock speed, but way too high if you plan to overclock. You should really be looking at peak temps of 40-50C at stock before you start applying any overclock. You simply don't have the thermal headroom with that cooler to go any higher.

Change to a much bigger CPU cooler, ideally an AIO watercooler with a 240mm radiator.

 

[Phaaze88]

1)You don't have the cooling to be messing with this; you didn't go big enough.
-Large single tower, like Thermalright's Le Grand Macho RT
-Dual tower, like Deepcool's Assassin III
-280mm hybrid, like Arctic Liquid Freezer II 280
Leave the overclocking alone until you can acquire one of the above, or similar.

2)OCCT has multiple settings, a combination of which can run various loads across the cpu, memory, gpu, or Vram.
OCCT has 2 cpu tests: Cpu and Linpack. I assume you ran the Cpu one.
Data set: Small.
Mode: Normal.
Load type: Variable, for testing Cpu Vcore stability. Steady, for testing cpu cooler strength.
Instruction set: SSE.
Threads: Auto.

When I'm saying V I mean voltage, someone recommended to put it on 1.32 V , but I left it on outo

Although that sounds a little high for the underclock you were doing - yes, 4.5ghz is under the 4.6ghz it already does out of the box - it was probably better than leaving it at auto.

 

[TommyTwoTone66]

-Large single tower, like Thermalright's Le Grand Macho RT
-Dual tower, like Deepcool's Assassin III
-280mm hybrid, like Arctic Liquid Freezer II 280
Leave the overclocking alone until you can acquire one of the above, or similar.

Or you could take the $100 or so it would take to buy that cooler, sell the 11600K and buy an 11900 (non-K) and run it at stock on an air cooler, and you'd get the same performance and gain an extra couple of CPU cores into the bargain.

 

[Fatalzo]

I just did a OC on bios
I got the CPU from 3.9Ghz to 4.5

And ring to 4.2

I left the V on auto

And now I run the OCCT test
Before on test cpu get to 75c
Now it gets to 100c and going up and down between 85 c to 100c
What is the problem?

I mean, you literally just said that you overclocked it from 3.9 to 4.5.

Overclocking heats up the processor more and also shortens its lifespan.;

 

[Phaaze88]

Or you could take the $100 or so it would take to buy that cooler, sell the 11600K and buy an 11900 (non-K) and run it at stock on an air cooler, and you'd get the same performance and gain an extra couple of CPU cores into the bargain.

?
Both of these cpus are rated for ~230w on PL2. The ETS-40 Fit does not appear to be adequate for either of them if a heavy load were to be applied across all cores.
I know the TDP thing is BS... but what to do? Enermax says 200w(whatever that means) for this cooler, and the 11600K and 11900 can both exceed that under the right loads.

 

[Zerk2012]

I just did a OC on bios
I got the CPU from 3.9Ghz to 4.5

And ring to 4.2

I left the V on auto

And now I run the OCCT test
Before on test cpu get to 75c
Now it gets to 100c and going up and down between 85 c to 100c
What is the problem?

Reset CMOS, enable XMP for the memory and leave it alone..

 

[TommyTwoTone66]

Enermax says 200w(whatever that means) for this cooler, and the 11600K and 11900 can both exceed that under the right loads.

Only just, and I think 200W is a lowball figure, since he can run OCCT at stock speeds on the 11600K and it peaks at 75C, which sounds perfect to me. I imagine it would be equally good on the 11900.

Certainly no game is going to max 6 or 8 cores for any amount of time so it should never really be an issue.

 

[Phaaze88]

Only just, and I think 200W is a lowball figure, since he can run OCCT at stock speeds on the 11600K and it peaks at 75C, which sounds perfect to me. I imagine it would be equally good on the 11900.

Certainly no game is going to max 6 or 8 cores for any amount of time so it should never really be an issue.

The OCCT settings matter just as much when using Prime95; the user can unwittingly run a 'light' load across their cpu if they're not aware of what they're doing.
Especially those who ran Prime95 Blend mode for 10mins, not realizing what it does...


I'm considering the gradually wider adoption of AVX/AVX2. The higher power/heat loads from those have been a wake up call of sorts to some users.
Some applications see it in small bursts, others run it for extended periods.
"My 10900K runs pretty cool in most games, but when I play this one(CoD: Cold War), it runs like 10C hotter. It has liquid cooling."
I've seen a number of posts that look similar to this. AVX swoops in and pushes those power limits more easily. It also 'breaks' newbie overclocking.

Intel systems give users the option to try and control temperatures with the AVX offset, which is usually 0 by default.
At the same frequencies, AVX is faster, so a little offset shouldn't hurt any... but not everyone's comfortable with the idea of clocking anything down.
Ryzen systems don't even have AVX offset as an option, and maybe they're a little better for it...

 

[TommyTwoTone66]

I'm considering the gradually wider adoption of AVX/AVX2. The higher power/heat loads from those have been a wake up call of sorts to some users.
Some applications see it in small bursts, others run it for extended periods.
"My 10900K runs pretty cool in most games, but when I play this one(CoD: Cold War), it runs like 10C hotter. It has liquid cooling."
I've seen a number of posts that look similar to this. AVX swoops in and pushes those power limits more easily. It also 'breaks' newbie overclocking.

Interesting. I must admit I hadn't really considered that extended features like AVX coming into play would do anything to temperatures. I guess Sandy Bridge is "mature" enough by now for game engines to start to leverage those extended features.

Just another reason to stay at stock and get the biggest CPU cooler you can fit into your case IMO.

Overclocking seems like more of a fool's errand than ever these days, since CPUs will attempt to "intelligently" use boost clocks where they can and already run pretty close to the ragged edge from the factory as it is. Back in the day I could clock my Q6600 to 4Ghz from 2.4Ghz without even much of a specialist motherboard and on a basic air cooler, and it really seemed worth doing. It seems like you need an electronics degree, liquid nitrogen cooling and a nuclear power plant as a PSU just to get a 10% overclock these days.

OP has probably run to hide his face in shame by now and likely won't return to this thread, but to be under the mistaken impression that you're "overclocking", and you actually increase your temps by so much that you start thermal throttling on idle, and actually all you've done is REDUCE your max speed by 100Mhz, is just... wow.