Question i9 10900k 8 Vs 10 cores.

[Inver_ShaRingan]

To lower temps I thought that, I could turn off 2 cores, as first of all, for only gaming I think there is not much of the difference between 8 and 10 cores, especially when GPU is a bottleneck. 5700XT, can't say a bad word about it, cuz run well enough for my needs even at 1440p with FSR in some games. And that's over 80-100fps wich is great.

My current CPU cooler is Artcic Freezer 50 ARGB (looks awesome, with 250W TDP.

Sometimes my CPU hit 81 while gaming (depends from the game) but mostly staying at 65-69 in average (which is good I think) but...

Do I lost much performance in games like AAA when turn off 2 cores ? And run with 8c/16t something like i7 10700k but slightly OCeed with 8x4.9ghz 🙈

I know I can test it by myself, but it will need some tests and better to ask someone who did that or have experience with that 🙈

Undervolt by -0.050 causes some micro stuttering and even sometimes just stuttering, and it's not a big difference.

 

[Gam3r01]

Its going to be hard to find any reasonably relevant information given your hardware setup.
You are going to need to test it yourself (and share the results here, in case anyone else stumbles across it).
Pick your favorite games, compare FPS in the same area doing the same things, and see the difference. Keep an eye on usage and temps each time.

That said, I would imagine you are not going to see any substantial difference in temps without a drop in performance.
Situation 1) Your processor is not using all 10 cores, so some are idle anyway (and using very little extra power/producing very little heat).
Situation 2) Your processor is using all 10 cores, and you now suffer a performance hit.

 

[uWebb429]

Sometimes my CPU hit 81 while gaming

That is a normal operating temperature for an Intel CPU. There is no reason to disable 2 cores to make your CPU run cooler.

Disabling cores will probably not make any noticeable difference to performance or to temperatures. Most games are not fully using 8 cores so in either situation, there are always going to be at least 2 cores that are idle. Unused cores are already disabled so there is nothing to gain.

A better idea would be to disable hyper threading in the BIOS so you have 10 cores and 10 threads. Having 10 real cores might help game performance more compared to disabling 2 cores. This might make things worse so do some testing.

I know I can test it by myself

That would be best.

micro stuttering

Try disabling the core C states in the BIOS. Disable C1E, C3, C6 and C7. That might help reduce latency. Also use the Windows High Performance power plan. Most micro stutter issues are driver related. AMD used to have problems with writing GPU drivers. Try a few different versions and you might get lucky and find a driver that has less stutter issues. Changing the CPU voltage should not make any difference to stutter issues.

Try using LatencyMon. It is a useful tool when hunting down poorly written driver issues.

https://www.resplendence.com/latencymon

 

[jnjnilson6]

To lower temps I thought that, I could turn off 2 cores, as first of all, for only gaming I think there is not much of the difference between 8 and 10 cores, especially when GPU is a bottleneck. 5700XT, can't say a bad word about it, cuz run well enough for my needs even at 1440p with FSR in some games. And that's over 80-100fps wich is great.

My current CPU cooler is Artcic Freezer 50 ARGB (looks awesome, with 250W TDP.

Sometimes my CPU hit 81 while gaming (depends from the game) but mostly staying at 65-69 in average (which is good I think) but...

Do I lost much performance in games like AAA when turn off 2 cores ? And run with 8c/16t something like i7 10700k but slightly OCeed with 8x4.9ghz 🙈

I know I can test it by myself, but it will need some tests and better to ask someone who did that or have experience with that 🙈

Undervolt by -0.050 causes some micro stuttering and even sometimes just stuttering, and it's not a big difference.

When I overclocked my i7-3770K to 5 GHz using Cosair H110 water cooling back in the day, I used to get about 99 C frequently and yet the machine worked nicely for many hours under high pressure without any issues. And even that temperature was unproblematic.

81 C is by no means a temperature you should at all worry about. It is a very good temperature keeping in mind you're gaming while at it and I think there's no need to decrease voltage or speed or remove hyperthreading or limit the number of cores available at that. Even if the temperature was 91 C, I would still advise you to touch nothing. Say you had a constant 91 C temperature and spikes up to 96-97 C the most, the CPU would be able to endure normally and you would not be facing serious problems throughout the time you'll be using it (say 6-7 years). 81 C on the other hand is much lower and seriously and absolutely out of the danger zone so do not worry about running your CPU at default settings; 81 C is a very safe temperature all things considered.

 

[geofelt]

What is the problem you are trying to solve?

It is normal for some cores to be boosted high enough to reach 100c.
Automatic turbo boost seems to be a more effective approach for gamers than all core overclocks.
If you have task manager open to the performance tab and select the logical processor view, you get some idea as to how windows does things.
You should see, for example which are P cores and which are E cores.
You should see half of the P cores get much more activity than the others.
I think this is windows recognizing which are hyperthreads and optimizing to the stronger cores.

Ultimately, it is probably not effective to second guess windows.

 

[Tac 25]

Sometimes my CPU hit 81 while gaming (depends from the game) but mostly staying at 65-69 in average (which is good I think) but...

echoing what has already been said by two other people in this thread. Those are normal temps.

you're undervolting and disabling cores just to lower temps? Or is there some other reason?

 

[Inver_ShaRingan]

echoing what has already been said by two other people in this thread. Those are normal temps.

you're undervolting and disabling cores just to lower temps? Or is there some other reason?

Actually yes, that was my ment, just to lower the temps, but I can rest in temps, cuz is just feeling better with lower temps 🙈

 

[Inver_ShaRingan]

Its going to be hard to find any reasonably relevant information given your hardware setup.
You are going to need to test it yourself (and share the results here, in case anyone else stumbles across it).
Pick your favorite games, compare FPS in the same area doing the same things, and see the difference. Keep an eye on usage and temps each time.

That said, I would imagine you are not going to see any substantial difference in temps without a drop in performance.
Situation 1) Your processor is not using all 10 cores, so some are idle anyway (and using very little extra power/producing very little heat).
Situation 2) Your processor is using all 10 cores, and you now suffer a performance hit.

Well, i tested it, with 2 cores of and without turning off.

And the only visible difference in terms of performance is Cinebench, which goes down to 12530pkt comparing to 16350pkt with all cores on. But in games I never saw any difference, especially because my 5700XT isn't the most powerful, so even 8Cores won't bottleneck it. And in fact, I using 165hz monitor with freesync, so no changes in games performance.

With 8C/16T max 75C with 55-60 avg, while gaming Warzone 2, and 89C on 10 mins throttling loop test.

With 10C/20T max 87 with 64-69 avg (longer session) while gaming Warzone 2, and 96-98 with same test as above.

All of those max and avg temps lowered, with Adaptive mode + Offset at -0.050V on CPU, for around 5C.
(But I'm not sure if [readed on Reddit] Adaptive mode is safe for unmonitored Voltage spikes which can be harmful for CPU)

I'm not doing any video editing or YouTube content, so I should be alright with temps while gaming, especially that i9 10900K is quite hot anyway.

And also I can easily turn off 2 cores and get lower temps, without loosing much of the performance, as long as you're not a competitive gamer with some more powerful GPUs, on 250hz or more monitors, because then, 2 extra cores would help to squeeze out max FPS of the better GPU.

So I guess and hope that this can be helpful for some people in same situation as me, or with smaller cases with worse cooling systems.

 

[Gam3r01]

You need to redo your tests with the same tests.
Playing sessions of warzone is not the same, each time you play its going to be different (different potions of the map, player density, playstyle, etc), plus you ran the tests over a different time period, which makes the average skew towards higher temps.
Play a single player game/mission, follow the same path through both tests. Turn off the system between tests to let components return to cold boot temps.

Benchmark test temps are to be expected, since those cores would actually be used.