Question Is overclocking i9 10900k to 5.1 Ghz on all cores worthwhile? (regarding video games performance)

XCUT

Prominent
Jul 20, 2019
36
1
535
0
I've seen several comparisons on the Internet, and some tests show that the difference is merely a few fps, whilst others show that it goes over 10 fps when overclocked.

Anyone have had any experience with overclocked 10900k?
 

WildCard999

Titan
Moderator
Are there any game(s) that your system is struggling to run? If the answer is no then there's little reason to overclock now unless you're bored enough to find out how far it can be safely pushed. As for the possible gains from overclocking it depends on the game as some may show higher improvements then others.

If you do decide to pursue overclocking I would highly recommend reading through the Intel Temperature Guide by CompuTronix as it has everything you need to know before starting and includes the software needed.
 
Reactions: Phaaze88

XCUT

Prominent
Jul 20, 2019
36
1
535
0
As for now, I'm building my PC (only bought that processor so far). I'm going to purchase rtx 3080 (when it will be available) , and later on play on 1440p resolution.

So, I'm asking about the performance gain because I need to evaluate if a standard motherboard will suffice or if I will need some MOBO that is better for OC. It's not that "if some game struggles". I'm just calculating if overclocking 10900k is going to yield a substantial performance boost or only a negligent one.
 

hotaru.hino

Respectable
Sep 1, 2020
1,687
516
2,290
51
I've seen several comparisons on the Internet, and some tests show that the difference is merely a few fps, whilst others show that it goes over 10 fps when overclocked.
If this is starting from something like 100+ FPS, then I'd argue it doesn't really matter. That 10 extra FPS isn't going to save you. If it's something more like < 50 FPS, then maybe.
 

XCUT

Prominent
Jul 20, 2019
36
1
535
0
If this is starting from something like 100+ FPS, then I'd argue it doesn't really matter. That 10 extra FPS isn't going to save you. If it's something more like < 50 FPS, then maybe.
Well, that's why I'm asking what is the performance gain when 10900k is overclocked to 5.1 Ghz on all cores. And, since I use 144hz monitor, I'd appreciate a boost from 100 fps to 144 fps (although such an increase is very unlikely).
 

hotaru.hino

Respectable
Sep 1, 2020
1,687
516
2,290
51
Well, that's why I'm asking what is the performance gain when 10900k is overclocked to 5.1 Ghz on all cores. And, since I use 144hz monitor, I'd appreciate a boost from 100 fps to 144 fps (although such an increase is very unlikely).
The problem with answering this question is it depends on what application you throw at it. Most games aren't capable of issuing enough work to come close to saturating the i9-10900K, so setting an all-core boost wouldn't be worthwhile.

There's also the cooling situation and whether or not your motherboard has a beefy enough VRM to handle the extra power load.
 

XCUT

Prominent
Jul 20, 2019
36
1
535
0
The problem with answering this question is it depends on what application you throw at it. Most games aren't capable of issuing enough work to come close to saturating the i9-10900K, so setting an all-core boost wouldn't be worthwhile.

There's also the cooling situation and whether or not your motherboard has a beefy enough VRM to handle the extra power load.
Latest games are capable of fully using 10900k, but my question is probably to people who own this processor and overclocked it. And I'd just like to know an "average" of the performance boost, since benchmarks on the Internet differ + they are done on full hd resolution.
When it comes to the motherboard... That's why I'm asking about all this stuff -- to choose a proper MOBO.
 

Zerk2012

Titan
Ambassador
I've seen several comparisons on the Internet, and some tests show that the difference is merely a few fps, whilst others show that it goes over 10 fps when overclocked.

Anyone have had any experience with overclocked 10900k?
That's only about a 5% boost in speed so in a perfect world you would go from 100FPS to 105 FPS.

And yes you still need to buy a good board and cooler for that processor
 

Phaaze88

Polypheme
Ambassador
And I really want to know how big is the difference in that overclock.
You can easily find that out on your own...
-Cpu at stock settings, run benchmarks/games, record results
-Cpu at the OC settings, run benchmarks/games, record results
-Compare, and then you know the percentage difference.

There won't be much input from 10900K owners due to how accessible the 10850K is, but that one's clocked down a whopping 100mhz across the board, so I guess you can't use that as an example...
 
Reactions: WildCard999

XCUT

Prominent
Jul 20, 2019
36
1
535
0
You can easily find that out on your own...
-Cpu at stock settings, run benchmarks/games, record results
-Cpu at the OC settings, run benchmarks/games, record results
-Compare, and then you know the percentage difference.

There won't be much input from 10900K owners due to how accessible the 10850K is, but that one's clocked down a whopping 100mhz across the board, so I guess you can't use that as an example...
If I had 10900k already installed in my PC I surely would test it myself.
 
I've seen several comparisons on the Internet, and some tests show that the difference is merely a few fps, whilst others show that it goes over 10 fps when overclocked.

Anyone have had any experience with overclocked 10900k?
The human eye can't much see past 100fps.

So, if you're saying a 10fps increase in some games, I'm guessing that the FPS rate is starting well past 100 in order to get a 10fps increase.

Look at it this way: The all-core boost of the 10900k is 4.8GHz. You're asking if it's worth pushing an all-core boost to 5.1GHz. Leaving aside the point correctly made earlier that no game is saturating all 20 threads available, just do the math.

  • 5.1GHz is 6.25% higher than 4.8GHz.
  • Therefore, 6.25% more than 50fps is 53.125fps. 6.25% more than 100fps is 106.25fps, and at this point you're already past what the human eye can discern..... 6.25% more than 150fps is 159.375%.
  • You will get LESS than those amounts I just mentioned because you will not get a direct, 100% scaling of FPS with CPU speed, because RAM, GPU, and other components also have an effect.
  • And even less than that because the 10900k has a 5.1GHz single core boost, and 5.2GHz to its two fastest cores, and one of those two fastest can hit 5.3GHz. See: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-10900k-cpu-review in the section that describes what Turbo Boost 2.0 and Turbo Boost 3.0 do.
  • You will also have a disproportionate amount of extra heat to contend with.
Frankly, I would be surprised if you saw even half of what I estimated with that 6.25% number, compared to if you let the CPU just boost on its own when it can.

TL;DR: Absolutely not worth it.
 

XCUT

Prominent
Jul 20, 2019
36
1
535
0
The human eye can't much see past 100fps.

So, if you're saying a 10fps increase in some games, I'm guessing that the FPS rate is starting well past 100 in order to get a 10fps increase.

Look at it this way: The all-core boost of the 10900k is 4.8GHz. You're asking if it's worth pushing an all-core boost to 5.1GHz. Leaving aside the point correctly made earlier that no game is saturating all 20 threads available, just do the math.

  • 5.1GHz is 6.25% higher than 4.8GHz.
  • Therefore, 6.25% more than 50fps is 53.125fps. 6.25% more than 100fps is 106.25fps, and at this point you're already past what the human eye can discern..... 6.25% more than 150fps is 159.375%.
  • You will get LESS than those amounts I just mentioned because you will not get a direct, 100% scaling of FPS with CPU speed, because RAM, GPU, and other components also have an effect.
  • And even less than that because the 10900k has a 5.1GHz single core boost, and 5.2GHz to its two fastest cores, and one of those two fastest can hit 5.3GHz. See: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-10900k-cpu-review in the section that describes what Turbo Boost 2.0 and Turbo Boost 3.0 do.
  • You will also have a disproportionate amount of extra heat to contend with.
Frankly, I would be surprised if you saw even half of what I estimated with that 6.25% number, compared to if you let the CPU just boost on its own when it can.

TL;DR: Absolutely not worth it.
Max boost for all cores is actually 4.9 Ghz (thermal boost thingy).

If you read the review by Tom's Hardware, then you surely saw gaming benchmarks where the increase, for example in GTA V, was almost 18 fps (between minimal values). However, on some other website, I saw the performance boost the way you described: 2-5 fps at best. That's why I'm a bit confused. (both tests were made at 1080p)

PS: Some claim that human eye can't see past 30 fps, so I won't comment on that part.
 
Last edited:

TravisPNW

Upstanding
Aug 26, 2020
359
131
360
0
The human eye can't much see past 100fps.

TL;DR: Absolutely not worth it.
Geez... I might just have to dial back my OC then!

Your numbers are pretty close to what I saw at stock vs 5.2 all core speeds... basically a few extra FPS here and there but nothing mind blowing. I honestly only did it for benchmark scores anyway... and left it there. This was a month ago.

My system hasn’t had any issues and the cooler keeps up just fine so haven’t really considered going back to stock. My gaming is 4K ultra setting titles and some can push the system... like MSFS2020.
 
Max boost for all cores is actually 4.9 Ghz (thermal boost thingy).

If you read the review by Tom's Hardware, then you surely saw gaming benchmarks where the increase, for example in GTA V, was almost 18 fps (between minimal values). However, on some other website, I saw the performance boost the way you described: 2-5 fps at best. That's why I'm a bit confused. (both tests were made at 1080p)

PS: Some claim that human eye can't see past 30 fps, so I won't comment on that part.
There's a difference between the minimum FPS difference (13.5 fps difference, by the way, much less than 18), and the average. That minimum number is not something you typically see.

As for the "some claim" . . not so. I did quite a bit of digging on this some time back. The fastest human response to visual stimulus that they could physically respond to was something like 12.5ms. That comes to about 80fps. I figure that there might be some wiggle room, so give a generous padding to that when I say about 100fps.
 

Danra

Distinguished
May 25, 2005
524
19
19,365
115
I've seen several comparisons on the Internet, and some tests show that the difference is merely a few fps, whilst others show that it goes over 10 fps when overclocked.

Anyone have had any experience with overclocked 10900k?
To answer your question, no, it is not worth overclocking.
 
As for the "some claim" . . not so. I did quite a bit of digging on this some time back. The fastest human response to visual stimulus that they could physically respond to was something like 12.5ms. That comes to about 80fps. I figure that there might be some wiggle room, so give a generous padding to that when I say about 100fps.
That's a much different thing from just looking at your game while running around in it.
He doesn't want more FPS because he things that it will make him better at twitch shooters.
 

DSzymborski

Polypheme
Moderator
Latest games are capable of fully using 10900k, but my question is probably to people who own this processor and overclocked it. And I'd just like to know an "average" of the performance boost, since benchmarks on the Internet differ + they are done on full hd resolution.
The reason you're unsatisfied with the responses is that there's no real way to answer this question. There are an immense number of variables involved that change things. It's like a stranger going up to you and asking "on-average, how much do I enjoy lunch?"
 
Reactions: Phaaze88

XCUT

Prominent
Jul 20, 2019
36
1
535
0
There's a difference between the minimum FPS difference (13.5 fps difference, by the way, much less than 18), and the average. That minimum number is not something you typically see.
I'm afraid I didn't get it. What 13.5 fps?
The minimum number is not typically seen, but those are fps drops I presume, so you want to avoid them.
 

logainofhades

Titan
Moderator
1440p, with a 3080, you should be fine with just doing the all core boost. Higher the resolution, more the load gets shifted to the GPU. I would not recommend a 10900k though. If wanting intel, I wouldn't go beyond a 10700k. Amd's 5000 series are the gaming kings, for now. That will quite possibly change, in the not too distant future.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY