[SOLVED] i7 9700K 5.1 GHZ 1.39V AVG. - Is it safe?

__blackha7__

Commendable
Nov 8, 2016
37
1
1,545
1
Hello!

I managed to get my 9700K to 5.1 GHZ Stable on 1.39 Volts average. Maximum peaks are up to 1.44V - those are only peaks, it doesn't stay there. Temperatures are good -> 68-74C when playing CPU intensive games.
Is it safe in the long term? Should I keep it like that?

Thanks!
 

CompuTronix

Judicious
Moderator
__blackha7__,

As you've been a Member since November 8th, 2016 but have 35 posts, we unfortunately don't see you here very often, so it's always interesting to correspond with someone of your caliber. Perhaps we can yet provide you with some acceptable insights and perspectives regarding your queries.

As you may know, Intel's Datasheets for the 22 nanometer i7-4790K state the maximum Core voltage is 1.86. See page 102, Section 7.8, Table 48, top row, 5th column - Desktop 4th Generation Intel® Core™ Processor Family, Datasheet, Volume 1. Regardless, since in reality we know the processor would quickly fail at that Vcore, the maximum practical Vcore is far lower.

A value of 1.360 is supported by Silicon Lottery, which is a company that tests, bins and sells professionally delidded and overclocked "K" CPUs. Please refer to the Devil's Canyon table in Historical Binning Statistics. However, for longevity we instead recommend a maximum Vcore of 1.300.

Similarly, as my esteemed colleague, Darkbreeze, has pointed out, Intel's Datasheets for your 14 nanometer i7-9700K state the maximum Core voltage is 1.52. See page 117, Section 7.2.1.1, Table 7-2, top row, 6th column - 8th and 9th Generation Intel® Core™ Processor Families Datasheet, Volume 1. Regardless, since in reality we know the processor may quickly degrade at that Vcore, the maximum practical Vcore is considerably lower.

A value of 1.450 is supported by Silicon Lottery. Please refer to the Coffee Lake table in Historical Binning Statistics. Yet once again for longevity, we instead recommend a maximum Vcore of 1.400.

As Darkbreeze has also pointed out, at 1.390 Vcore, you're within the safe range for long term use.

Just for the benefit of less informed users, if common sense prevails, then a one-size-fits-all approach to Vcore is a serious misconception. Here's the maximum recommended Core voltage per Microarchitecture from 14 to 65 nanometers since 2006:



Although these recommendations may seem a bit on the conservative side to certain users, out of respect for the hard earned parts and property of others, and the work many invest in their rigs, we do not condone higher Core voltages. Excessive Core temperature and voltage, electromigration and degradation curves aside, these recommendations reflect the general consensus typical among well informed and highly experienced system builders, reviewers and overclockers.

We hope this helps to ease your mind.

CT :sol:
 
Reactions: Darkbreeze

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
Stable? What does this mean to YOU?

Does it mean you are able to achieve THIS?

Does it have anything at ALL to do with also being able to maintain thermal compliance under full stress?

Because if either of those answers are no, then your overclock is not within desirable tolerances.


Quick and dirty overview of overclocking validation procedure.

Set CPU multiplier and voltage at desired settings in BIOS. Do not use presets or automatic utilities. These will overcompensate on core and other voltages. It is much better to configure most core settings manually, and leave anything left over on auto until a later point in time if wish to come back and tweak settings such as cache (Uncore) frequency, System agent voltage, VCCIO (Internal memory controller) and memory speeds or timings (RAM) AFTER the CPU overclock is fully stable.

Save bios settings (As a new BIOS profile if your bios supports multiple profiles) and exit bios.

Boot into the Windows desktop environment. Download and install Prime95 version 26.6.

Download and install either HWinfo or CoreTemp.

Open HWinfo and run "Sensors only" or open CoreTemp.

Run Prime95, either version 26.6 OR the latest version WITH the AVX and AVX2 options disabled in the settings menu that pops up when you start up Prime95, and choose the "Small FFT test option". Run this for 15 minutes while monitoring your core/package temperatures to verify that you do not exceed the thermal specifications of your CPU.

(This should be considered to be 80°C for most generations of Intel processor and for current Ryzen CPUs. For older AMD FX and Phenom series, you should use a thermal monitor that has options for "Distance to TJmax" and you want to NOT see distance to TJmax drop below 10°C distance to TJmax. Anything that is MORE than 10°C distance to TJmax is within the allowed thermal envelope.)

If your CPU passes the thermal compliance test, move on to stability.

Download and install Realbench. Run Realbench and choose the Stress test option. Choose a value from the available memory (RAM) options that is equal to approximately half of your installed memory capacity. If you have 16GB, choose 8GB. If you have 8GB, choose 4GB, etc. Click start and allow the stability test to run for 8 hours. Do not plan to use the system for ANYTHING else while it is running. It will run realistic AVX and handbrake workloads and if it passes 8 hours of testing it is probably about as stable as you can reasonably expect.

If you wish to check stability further you can run 12-24 hours of Prime95 Blend mode or Small FFT.

You do not need to simultaneously run HWinfo or CoreTemp while running Realbench as you should have already performed the thermal compliance test PLUS Realbench will show current CPU temperatures while it is running.

If you run the additional stability test using Prime95 Blend/Small FFT modes for 12-24 hours, you will WANT to also run HWinfo alongside it. Monitor HWinfo periodically to verify that no cores/threads are showing less than 100% usage. If it is, then that worker has errored out and the test should be stopped.


If you find there are errors on ANY of the stability tests including Realbench or Prime95, or any other stress testing utility, you need to make a change in the bios. This could be either dropping the multiplier to a lower factor or increasing the voltage while leaving the multiplier the same. If you change voltage or multiplier at ANY time, you need to start over again at the beginning and verify thermal compliance again.

A more in depth but general guide that is still intended for beginners or those who have had a small amount of experience overclocking can be found here:


*CPU overclocking guide for beginners


It would also be a very good idea to read and understand the information in the sections which are relevant to the recommendations regarding thermal compliance on Intel Core-i processors, here:

 
Last edited:

__blackha7__

Commendable
Nov 8, 2016
37
1
1,545
1
Stable? What does this mean to YOU?

Does it mean you are able to achieve THIS?

Does it have anything at ALL to do with also being able to maintain thermal compliance under full stress?

Because if either of those answers are no, then your overclock is not within desirable tolerances.


Quick and dirty overview of overclocking validation procedure.

Set CPU multiplier and voltage at desired settings in BIOS. Do not use presets or automatic utilities. These will overcompensate on core and other voltages. It is much better to configure most core settings manually, and leave anything left over on auto until a later point in time if wish to come back and tweak settings such as cache (Uncore) frequency, System agent voltage, VCCIO (Internal memory controller) and memory speeds or timings (RAM) AFTER the CPU overclock is fully stable.

Save bios settings (As a new BIOS profile if your bios supports multiple profiles) and exit bios.

Boot into the Windows desktop environment. Download and install Prime95 version 26.6.

Download and install either HWinfo or CoreTemp.

Open HWinfo and run "Sensors only" or open CoreTemp.

Run Prime95, either version 26.6 OR the latest version WITH the AVX and AVX2 options disabled in the settings menu that pops up when you start up Prime95, and choose the "Small FFT test option". Run this for 15 minutes while monitoring your core/package temperatures to verify that you do not exceed the thermal specifications of your CPU.

(This should be considered to be 80°C for most generations of Intel processor and for current Ryzen CPUs. For older AMD FX and Phenom series, you should use a thermal monitor that has options for "Distance to TJmax" and you want to NOT see distance to TJmax drop below 10°C distance to TJmax. Anything that is MORE than 10°C distance to TJmax is within the allowed thermal envelope.)

If your CPU passes the thermal compliance test, move on to stability.

Download and install Realbench. Run Realbench and choose the Stress test option. Choose a value from the available memory (RAM) options that is equal to approximately half of your installed memory capacity. If you have 16GB, choose 8GB. If you have 8GB, choose 4GB, etc. Click start and allow the stability test to run for 8 hours. Do not plan to use the system for ANYTHING else while it is running. It will run realistic AVX and handbrake workloads and if it passes 8 hours of testing it is probably about as stable as you can reasonably expect.

If you wish to check stability further you can run 12-24 hours of Prime95 Blend mode or Small FFT.

You do not need to simultaneously run HWinfo or CoreTemp while running Realbench as you should have already performed the thermal compliance test PLUS Realbench will show current CPU temperatures while it is running.

If you run the additional stability test using Prime95 Blend/Small FFT modes for 12-24 hours, you will WANT to also run HWinfo alongside it. Monitor HWinfo periodically to verify that no cores/threads are showing less than 100% usage. If it is, then that worker has errored out and the test should be stopped.


If you find there are errors on ANY of the stability tests including Realbench or Prime95, or any other stress testing utility, you need to make a change in the bios. This could be either dropping the multiplier to a lower factor or increasing the voltage while leaving the multiplier the same. If you change voltage or multiplier at ANY time, you need to start over again at the beginning and verify thermal compliance again.

A more in depth but general guide that is still intended for beginners or those who have had a small amount of experience overclocking can be found here:


*CPU overclocking guide for beginners
Hello, Dark, I am not a beginner, but thank you anyway for the detailed feedback. I was just wondering if it will be safe for the CPU to run on this average voltage without degrading too fast in the long term.
 

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
Ok, no offense to you blackha7, at all, but if you have to ask the question then the is clearly some information you are lacking that would be helpful to have. Not to fear, nobody knows it all and there is no harm in gaining additional knowledge by either revisiting some basics or adding to our knowledge by sourcing previously unconsumed information.

I'd suggest you read this:




And this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromigration


So that you will understand that ANY amount of increased voltage might contribute to an accelerated level of degradation, and the only question is whether it will be at a level which is acceptable to you or not. And, that is not a question that anybody else can answer or estimate, for you.
 

__blackha7__

Commendable
Nov 8, 2016
37
1
1,545
1
Ok, no offense to you blackha7, at all, but if you have to ask the question then the is clearly some information you are lacking that would be helpful to have. Not to fear, nobody knows it all and there is no harm in gaining additional knowledge by either revisiting some basics or adding to our knowledge by sourcing previously unconsumed information.

I'd suggest you read this:




And this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromigration


So that you will understand that ANY amount of increased voltage might contribute to an accelerated level of degradation, and the only question is whether it will be at a level which is acceptable to you or not. And, that is not a question that anybody else can answer or estimate, for you.
Maybe you got that wrong, but all the info you just copy-pasted, I've already read and know.
My question was to all the people who went for the maximum and have kept it this way. Apparently, you're not one of them? If you are - please share.
 

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
If you know all that information then you are probably far more knowledgeable than anybody on this or most other websites and have no need for assistance from anybody else, because you are already better informed than they are. That includes myself and the rest of the overclocking community as well as the author of the Intel temperature guide and probably our resident CPU expert reviewer Crashman too.

As seen in the Intel specification listed at the chart at the following link, 1.52v is the MAXIMUM safe voltage for 9th gen Core-i processors however 1.40-1.45v (Depending on WHO you ask. I'd lean more towards 1.4v, but there are some out there who insist 1.45v is fine for long term use) is the maximum RECOMMENDED voltage, so at 1.39v you are well within the safe range for long term use. Whether or not you are stable at that voltage, or thermally compliant, is obviously a different story but I assume you are able to discern that for yourself since you are an experienced overclocker.

https://www.tweaktown.com/guides/8481/coffee-lake-overclocking-guide/index5.html
 
Last edited:

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
Actually, it means everything. ESPECIALLY if you run games or applications that seriously load up your CPU. Games and applications that use AVX instructions aren't the only things that might cause a serious increase in thermals, although those are certainly a factor as well these days since there are an increasing number of games and applications that use them. It just makes sense to be sure that regardless of what you run, you are not toeing the line under normal circumstances so that you know you are not just blowing right past the line under the wrong conditions.

Looking to see game temps can mean a lot of things. Is it an AVX based game or application? I could go on, but I won't. I know you get the point and disagree most likely, but at least it's mentioned.

The bottom line is, anybody who is overclocking and isn't testing for thermal compliance under full load as well as including at least a moderate amount of stability testing, is just being foolish and is opening the door for instability and corruption issues whether immediately or after a period of time.
 
Reactions: CompuTronix

CompuTronix

Judicious
Moderator
__blackha7__,

As you've been a Member since November 8th, 2016 but have 35 posts, we unfortunately don't see you here very often, so it's always interesting to correspond with someone of your caliber. Perhaps we can yet provide you with some acceptable insights and perspectives regarding your queries.

As you may know, Intel's Datasheets for the 22 nanometer i7-4790K state the maximum Core voltage is 1.86. See page 102, Section 7.8, Table 48, top row, 5th column - Desktop 4th Generation Intel® Core™ Processor Family, Datasheet, Volume 1. Regardless, since in reality we know the processor would quickly fail at that Vcore, the maximum practical Vcore is far lower.

A value of 1.360 is supported by Silicon Lottery, which is a company that tests, bins and sells professionally delidded and overclocked "K" CPUs. Please refer to the Devil's Canyon table in Historical Binning Statistics. However, for longevity we instead recommend a maximum Vcore of 1.300.

Similarly, as my esteemed colleague, Darkbreeze, has pointed out, Intel's Datasheets for your 14 nanometer i7-9700K state the maximum Core voltage is 1.52. See page 117, Section 7.2.1.1, Table 7-2, top row, 6th column - 8th and 9th Generation Intel® Core™ Processor Families Datasheet, Volume 1. Regardless, since in reality we know the processor may quickly degrade at that Vcore, the maximum practical Vcore is considerably lower.

A value of 1.450 is supported by Silicon Lottery. Please refer to the Coffee Lake table in Historical Binning Statistics. Yet once again for longevity, we instead recommend a maximum Vcore of 1.400.

As Darkbreeze has also pointed out, at 1.390 Vcore, you're within the safe range for long term use.

Just for the benefit of less informed users, if common sense prevails, then a one-size-fits-all approach to Vcore is a serious misconception. Here's the maximum recommended Core voltage per Microarchitecture from 14 to 65 nanometers since 2006:



Although these recommendations may seem a bit on the conservative side to certain users, out of respect for the hard earned parts and property of others, and the work many invest in their rigs, we do not condone higher Core voltages. Excessive Core temperature and voltage, electromigration and degradation curves aside, these recommendations reflect the general consensus typical among well informed and highly experienced system builders, reviewers and overclockers.

We hope this helps to ease your mind.

CT :sol:
 
Reactions: Darkbreeze

__blackha7__

Commendable
Nov 8, 2016
37
1
1,545
1
Certainly 68-74C is not in itself a cause for concern...(

(What are the P95 /small FFTs, custom/AVX2 disabled temps after 15-20 minutes, which would be more indicative of a stable overclock test?
Hello, temps are good, 75-77 max after about two full tests on Prime95 26.6. In my experience, even if Prime 95 and highly CPU intensive games pass , sometimes just watching YouTube videos can cause a blue screen (WHEA errors mostly). I don't use an AVX offset, because I mostly play games using AVX instructions.
 

__blackha7__

Commendable
Nov 8, 2016
37
1
1,545
1
__blackha7__,

As you've been a Member since November 8th, 2016 but have 35 posts, we unfortunately don't see you here very often, so it's always interesting to correspond with someone of your caliber. Perhaps we can yet provide you with some acceptable insights and perspectives regarding your queries.

As you may know, Intel's Datasheets for the 22 nanometer i7-4790K state the maximum Core voltage is 1.86. See page 102, Section 7.8, Table 48, top row, 5th column - Desktop 4th Generation Intel® Core™ Processor Family, Datasheet, Volume 1. Regardless, since in reality we know the processor would quickly fail at that Vcore, the maximum practical Vcore is far lower.

A value of 1.360 is supported by Silicon Lottery, which is a company that tests, bins and sells professionally delidded and overclocked "K" CPUs. However, for longevity we instead recommend a maximum Vcore of 1.300. Refer to the Devil's Canyon table in Historical Binning Statistics.

Similarly, as my esteemed colleague, Darkbreeze, has pointed out, Intel's Datasheets for your 14 nanometer i7-9700K state the maximum Core voltage is 1.52. See page 117, Section 7.2.1.1, Table 7-2, top row, 6th column - 8th and 9th Generation Intel® Core™ Processor Families Datasheet, Volume 1. Regardless, since in reality we know the processor may quickly degrade at that Vcore, the maximum practical Vcore is considerably lower.

A value of 1.450 is supported by Silicon Lottery, but again for longevity, we instead recommend a maximum Vcore of 1.400. Refer to the Coffee Lake table in Historical Binning Statistics.

As Darkbreeze has also pointed out, at 1.390 Vcore, you're within the safe range for long term use.

Just for the benefit of less informed users, if common sense prevails, then one-size-Vcore-fits-all is a serious misconception. Here's the maximum recommended Core voltage per Microarchitecture from 14 to 65 nanometers since 2006:



Although these recommendations may seem a bit on the conservative side to certain users, out of respect for the hard earned parts and property of others, and the work many invest in their rigs, we do not condone higher Core voltages. Core temperatures, electromigration and degradation curves aside, these recommendations reflect the consensus typical among well informed and highly experienced system builders, reviewers and overclockers.

We hope this helps to ease your mind.

CT :sol:
CompuTronix

Thank you very much for the detailed feedback, putting your Ego aside, unlike some of your fellow Moderators ;)
 

Darkbreeze

Titan
Moderator
I'm not sure how pointing out facts or information that has been either misinterpreted or overlooked could be construed as ego, but whatever. At least you found what you were, apparently, looking for.

It never fails to amaze me how people ask for information, are given said information, and then not only refute the information but claim impropriety on the part of those who have offered them said information by providing it. I'll never understand some people.
 
Oct 19, 2019
17
4
15
0
no..........
your cpu so bad...
my 9700k oc 5g+4.4g ring 1.275v
5g+4.6g ring 1.296v
play game 60c +- 5c (cpu 70%)
FPU 74c and 77c (cpu 100%)
you can try <1.3v can run what frequency
best <1.35v is safe
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS