[SOLVED] i9 9900ks and 9900kf overheating problems

Feb 10, 2020
7
1
10
0
Ok.. Be me:

* I have an Asus ROG Strix z370-f / i7-8700k / Corsair H115i 280mm AIO...working fine.

  • Upgrade to i9-9900ks. Immediately hit 100 degrees whenever my computer does anything. Latest BIOS etc etc
  • Buy Thermaltake Floe DX 360mm RAD.. It blows up (power cable melts into fan controller that is supplied). No dramas. Return to shop (RMA)
  • Buy Asus ROG Strix z390-e thinking the interwebs might be right.. But alas, still have heat issues..
(AVX to 5, turn off boosting, set ratio to 42. Manage heat but now we're getting down to i7-8700k levels.)
  • Return i9-9900ks (RMA)
  • In the meantime, buy i9-9900kf. Buy new platinum 750w powersupply to boot.
  • STILL HEAT PROBLEMS.
  • Tried disabling MCE, no dice.
Please.. Someone.. Anyone.. Help me.
 
Reactions: david slayer

chrysalis

Distinguished
Aug 15, 2003
120
1
18,710
6
I recently upgraded form an 8600k to a 9900k.

If your cpu is at stock or even underclocked as you seemed t have stated, those temps are not normal.

Here is what I observed on my chip and board.

I flashed the bios, installed cpu and cooler, my cooler is an air cooler the noctua nh-d15s in single fan configuration, fan speed set to performance in bios (still dynamic speed but more aggressive ramp up.

Observation immediately was the very high voltage, vid was 1.52v simply running bench in cpuz, and vcore was around 1.36v. Even in this configuration the temperatures were slightly better than my 8600k. After a little research I figured out that the board vendors are massively overvolting these chips, and reduced it to a fixed 1.25 vcore. This reduced temperatures depending on load around 15C which is pretty significant, I them bumped the clocks to an all core 4.8 which it can still handle at 1.25v so I probably could have reduced voltage even more in stock configuration.

The cpu is now one of the coolest cpu's I have owned, I was playing FF13-2 yesterday and during the game with my heating on the cpu temp was average 40-43C which is really really nice. Running at 4.8ghz all cores.

During a stress test such as XTU benchmark which is a very demanding AVX test, the cpu peaks in the high 60s, which is for me a very good temperature for a modern cpu, realbench starts out in the low to mid 60, but it creeps up during the run, and ends up in the mid to high 60s, that suggests to me I have a air circulation issue in my case, so thats my problem to fix, but still massively better than my 8600k, which averaged 60 or so in games and 80-90 in tress tests.

This is the same case, same psu, same ram, same board, same OS, as my 8600k, I did a cpu swap basically, cpu cooler was swapped tho from a cryorig R5 to the noctua which no doubt has helped, but the 9900k is performing well for me without any kind of water or AIO cooling.

So my first suggestion would be to look at those voltages, and not just vcore, I also reduced VCCPLL, VCCIO, and VCCSA, all 3 get pumped too high by the board vendors, especially if you enabling XMP for the ram.

Also adaptive voltage has issues with going too high under load, it has advantages when idle, but those advantages are not that big anymore, with adaptive my 9900k sat idle on the desktop at around 24-26C, on fixed vcore its now 28-30C, and it uses 17-20w idle instead of 10-15w idle. This is also with cstates 3,6,7 off, only 1E enabled.

Dont fully disable cstates, is a bad idea, 1E will give you most of power/heat gains, with pretty much no latency cost, I am able to run at 1.1v VCCIO and 1.15v VCCSA with "4" dimms, with 2 it should be extremely easy to reduce these. The bios had set them both to 1.25+ which was insane.

Bear in mind reports of these cpus been ovens, a lot of people aggressively overclock, 5ghz can require some quite high voltage but people will dial in as 5ghz is like a status symbol, instead I set the low voltage and then took the chip as far as it would go on that voltage, keeping it power and heat efficient.
 
Reactions: david slayer
How do you test the max. temperature?

Which tool are you using to read the temperature? Is it up to date?

Check the installation of the CPU cooler again. Is the pump and are the fans running? Did you reapply new thermal paste to the new CPU?

Did you update the BIOS of the new motherboard ? Reset the BIOS by jumper.
 

alceryes

Distinguished
Set your BIOS to default everything with regards to multipliers, voltages, timings, etc. It's okay to leave on Intel Boost but turn off any board/mfg specific boost settings. Their names will change according to the mfg (MSI calls it Enhanced Boost). What is your XMP at normally? Maybe turn that off as well for baseline. Please check what @helpstar mentions. (What are you using to monitor temps? Is your cooler working?)

I have the i9-9900k and it's definitely a TDP beast. I'm cooling it with the H80i V2 but I don't let it get to 5GHz. My chip is happiest locked at about 4.8Ghz (4.6GHz uncore). https://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/22952275

With the i9-9900k install you should consider this a new system. Baseline info is super important and should be gathered BEFORE any overclocking is done.

Edit - I'm running my chip at about 1.23v (gets up to 1.25v with LLC).
 
Last edited:
If one were to run all-core 5 GHz, you will need some serious radiator action.....

Intel's XTU should allow you to incrementally dial in 'normal' 9900k levels of performance, i.e., 1-2 cores at 5 GHz, 3-4 cores at 4.9 GHz, down to all cores at 4.7 GHz or so...

Unless your cooling capacity can sustain this load, there is little reason to attempt to go further. The 'all cores at 5 GHz' fantasy can easily bump dissipation to 135-160 watts....or more. Those last few hundred MHz often require a core voltage bump with even most K-series CPUs....

Certainly, not every AIO is up to the task...
 

falcon291

Prominent
Jul 17, 2019
310
42
790
27
I have 9700K. It heats a lot. But unless gaming and it is BFV gaming, it never reaches 80 Celcius now, but BFV uses 8 cores very much, and it can then heat up to 85 Celcius. These numbers are after adding the second fan to my Cooler Master MA410P air cooler. I will upgrade the cooler sometime.

The thing is 100 degrees is too high with a 9900 and I believe something is wrong with your cooler. Maybe if you are overclocking, you should not go that extreme. I cannot overclock with this CPU cooler I know that and I don't have anything to do to but buying a better cooler: Noctua NH-D15.
 
Feb 10, 2020
7
1
10
0
How do you test the max. temperature?

Which tool are you using to read the temperature? Is it up to date?

Check the installation of the CPU cooler again. Is the pump and are the fans running? Did you reapply new thermal paste to the new CPU?

Did you update the BIOS of the new motherboard ? Reset the BIOS by jumper.
Hey - based on Intel XTU and HWMonitor. Both give same result.

Have triple checked cooler. Pump and fans are running strong. New thermal paste.

Latest bios. Have reset and tried various settings.
 
Feb 10, 2020
7
1
10
0
Set your BIOS to default everything with regards to multipliers, voltages, timings, etc. It's okay to leave on Intel Boost but turn off any board/mfg specific boost settings. Their names will change according to the mfg (MSI calls it Enhanced Boost). What is your XMP at normally? Maybe turn that off as well for baseline. Please check what @helpstar mentions. (What are you using to monitor temps? Is your cooler working?)

I have the i9-9900k and it's definitely a TDP beast. I'm cooling it with the H80i V2 but I don't let it get to 5GHz. My chip is happiest locked at about 4.8Ghz (4.6GHz uncore). https://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/22952275

With the i9-9900k install you should consider this a new system. Baseline info is super important and should be gathered BEFORE any overclocking is done.

Edit - I'm running my chip at about 1.23v (gets up to 1.25v with LLC).
Will try what you said. XMP for my ram is 3200mhz but aside from that, does it do anything?
 
Feb 10, 2020
7
1
10
0
I have 9700K. It heats a lot. But unless gaming and it is BFV gaming, it never reaches 80 Celcius now, but BFV uses 8 cores very much, and it can then heat up to 85 Celcius. These numbers are after adding the second fan to my Cooler Master MA410P air cooler. I will upgrade the cooler sometime.

The thing is 100 degrees is too high with a 9900 and I believe something is wrong with your cooler. Maybe if you are overclocking, you should not go that extreme. I cannot overclock with this CPU cooler I know that and I don't have anything to do to but buying a better cooler: Noctua NH-D15.
That's my thoughts, especially after having 2 CPUs, 2 mobos and 2 different coolers.
 

MadsModsat

Commendable
...I would have thought 280mm rad would be enough, but no?
A 280 cooler is plenty. I have an NZXT Kraken x62 and I run the fans around 600 rpm in idle, and the radiator is even top mounted as exhaust, so the temperatures are affected a little by the GPU (it only added a couple of degress compared to it mounted as intake)

My i9 9900K @ stock settings, except BIOS is set to allow extra power draw, and it idles at 29 - 31'c, Battlefield V, which is the game that pushes the maximum temperatures the most in my case, I've never see temperatures above 69'c (the peak temperature occurs only when loading maps between rounds, temperature while playing multiplayer is around 58 - 60'c, still at fairly low fan RPM on the radiator (~800 rpm and the pump speed profile on silent). I have tried running the radiator fans all the way up to 1100 rpm, and it improves the temperatures a bit, but the noise is too much to bear.

Of course stress tests with AVX and so on results in a slight increase in peak temperatures, but it is easily managed by increasing the pump and fans speeds a little.

But in short - in my experience, a 280 mm AiO should be plenty, and I have seen a lot of other people succesfully cooling an i9 9900K with an AiO of that size (and less)
 
Last edited:
Reactions: falcon291

alceryes

Distinguished
IntelBurnTest is pretty old and doesn't do as good a job as some of the newer stress testers. I've also come to realize that Prime95 with AVX is just unrealistic if you want a 'real world' stress test example (Prime95 is too much).
RealBench is very good as putting your whole system (not just CPU) through a plausible 'real word' stress example. A 15 min stress test run with half your RAM selected is a good starting point. Since it stresses your CPU, RAM, and GPU, it also stresses your PSU - a good one stop shop for stress/stability testing.
 
Reactions: MadsModsat

chrysalis

Distinguished
Aug 15, 2003
120
1
18,710
6
I recently upgraded form an 8600k to a 9900k.

If your cpu is at stock or even underclocked as you seemed t have stated, those temps are not normal.

Here is what I observed on my chip and board.

I flashed the bios, installed cpu and cooler, my cooler is an air cooler the noctua nh-d15s in single fan configuration, fan speed set to performance in bios (still dynamic speed but more aggressive ramp up.

Observation immediately was the very high voltage, vid was 1.52v simply running bench in cpuz, and vcore was around 1.36v. Even in this configuration the temperatures were slightly better than my 8600k. After a little research I figured out that the board vendors are massively overvolting these chips, and reduced it to a fixed 1.25 vcore. This reduced temperatures depending on load around 15C which is pretty significant, I them bumped the clocks to an all core 4.8 which it can still handle at 1.25v so I probably could have reduced voltage even more in stock configuration.

The cpu is now one of the coolest cpu's I have owned, I was playing FF13-2 yesterday and during the game with my heating on the cpu temp was average 40-43C which is really really nice. Running at 4.8ghz all cores.

During a stress test such as XTU benchmark which is a very demanding AVX test, the cpu peaks in the high 60s, which is for me a very good temperature for a modern cpu, realbench starts out in the low to mid 60, but it creeps up during the run, and ends up in the mid to high 60s, that suggests to me I have a air circulation issue in my case, so thats my problem to fix, but still massively better than my 8600k, which averaged 60 or so in games and 80-90 in tress tests.

This is the same case, same psu, same ram, same board, same OS, as my 8600k, I did a cpu swap basically, cpu cooler was swapped tho from a cryorig R5 to the noctua which no doubt has helped, but the 9900k is performing well for me without any kind of water or AIO cooling.

So my first suggestion would be to look at those voltages, and not just vcore, I also reduced VCCPLL, VCCIO, and VCCSA, all 3 get pumped too high by the board vendors, especially if you enabling XMP for the ram.

Also adaptive voltage has issues with going too high under load, it has advantages when idle, but those advantages are not that big anymore, with adaptive my 9900k sat idle on the desktop at around 24-26C, on fixed vcore its now 28-30C, and it uses 17-20w idle instead of 10-15w idle. This is also with cstates 3,6,7 off, only 1E enabled.

Dont fully disable cstates, is a bad idea, 1E will give you most of power/heat gains, with pretty much no latency cost, I am able to run at 1.1v VCCIO and 1.15v VCCSA with "4" dimms, with 2 it should be extremely easy to reduce these. The bios had set them both to 1.25+ which was insane.

Bear in mind reports of these cpus been ovens, a lot of people aggressively overclock, 5ghz can require some quite high voltage but people will dial in as 5ghz is like a status symbol, instead I set the low voltage and then took the chip as far as it would go on that voltage, keeping it power and heat efficient.
 
Reactions: david slayer

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS