Question Safe Overclock For i9-10900k

Sep 4, 2021
48
5
35
0
I have a MSI Z490 Tomahawk with a Corsair H100x AIO Liquid Cooler. I put 51x Core Ratio and Disabled C-States and Enhanced Turbo and Let CPU Auto Voltage on Auto. I tested with Cinebench for 10 Minutes and was getting 85c - 90c Roughly. Voltage during test was 1.33v Is this safe?? When i tried to overclock before i was getting random reboots during gaming but ive applied these Overclock Settings and seems pretty stable.
 

Darkbreeze

Retired Mod
There is no "seems pretty stable". You either have stability or you don't.

90°C is much too high, especially if all you were running was Cinebench. Core temperatures above 85°C are not recommended. Obviously there are as many opinions out there on this subject as there are CPU models, however these two resources are probably your safest bet if you want factual information and procedures based on significant time investment in testing.




I have outlined my preferred overclocking validation and thermal compliance testing procedures in the guide at the second link. You SHOULD read the entire article "The Intel temperature guide" before doing anything else so that, even if you don't fully understand all of it (Mostly, Computronix has written this in a way that even the least experienced layman can understand) you will at least take away a good basic understanding of the Intel architectural expectations.
 
Sep 4, 2021
48
5
35
0
There is no "seems pretty stable". You either have stability or you don't.

90°C is much too high, especially if all you were running was Cinebench. Core temperatures above 85°C are not recommended. Obviously there are as many opinions out there on this subject as there are CPU models, however these two resources are probably your safest bet if you want factual information and procedures based on significant time investment in testing.




I have outlined my preferred overclocking validation and thermal compliance testing procedures in the guide at the second link. You SHOULD read the entire article "The Intel temperature guide" before doing anything else so that, even if you don't fully understand all of it (Mostly, Computronix has written this in a way that even the least experienced layman can understand) you will at least take away a good basic understanding of the Intel architectural expectations.

i literally read through your overclock guide. and i also watched a video from MSI on how to Overclocked the 10900k to 5.1ghz. I followed that and they suggested 1.320v on the VCore and the LLC set to 2. The issue im having here is when i play certain games my PC Shuts off and reboots itself which i know is the CPU Overclock thats causing it because if i reset the bios to defaults i can play for hours without issue. So what do you suggest i should try. Bumping the Voltage Up More and the Load Line Calibration?
 

Phaaze88

Titan
Ambassador
Did you work your way up to this?
That cpu already does 4.8ghz all cores, and clock speed scales up from there depending on how many cores are active at a time.
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-10900k/20.html
IF temperatures are kept under 70C, Thermal Velocity Boost raises it 100mhz regardless of how many cores are active at a time.
So, continuing the first question - did you work your way up from 4.9ghz?


4.9ghz is guaranteed across all cores on this cpu. Higher than that isn't, and is at the mercy of silicon lottery.
Besides the really good bins, some 10900Ks are not physically capable of 5.1ghz on every core.
There are some not-so-good bins that can, but require high levels of voltage to do it.
 
Sep 4, 2021
48
5
35
0
Did you work your way up to this?
That cpu already does 4.8ghz all cores, and clock speed scales up from there depending on how many cores are active at a time.
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-10900k/20.html
IF temperatures are kept under 70C, Thermal Velocity Boost raises it 100mhz regardless of how many cores are active at a time.
So, continuing the first question - did you work your way up from 4.9ghz?


4.9ghz is guaranteed across all cores on this cpu. Higher than that isn't, and is at the mercy of silicon lottery.
Besides the really good bins, some 10900Ks are not physically capable of 5.1ghz on every core.
There are some not-so-good bins that can, but require high levels of voltage to do it.

I worked up from 4.9ghz to 5.1 i put the vcore to 1.320v And LLC to Level 2. Another question do i have to set the Short and Long Power Duration Limits for Overclocking?
 

geofelt

Titan
Overclocking is good when you have an app that can use all threads fully.
In games, it is the single thread performance of one or two threads that matters more.
Save yourself some trouble and just enable the maximum turbo boost.
That should boost a couple of threads past what an all core oc can do when conditions permit.

Now if you are just a fiddler, by all means go to it.
To keep from damaging your cpu, do not let the voltage go wild.
It may not be doing what you think your settings are doing.
 

Darkbreeze

Retired Mod
Right. With this CPU, and a lot of CPUs from this generation, there are very diminishing returns from overclocking and in fact in some cases, as mentioned, potentially a LOSS of performance versus the default boost behavior which has been pretty well tuned by Intel.

Thermally there just really isn't much headroom for overclocking on this and the last Gen unless you have a golden sample, which most don't.
 
Sep 4, 2021
48
5
35
0
Right. With this CPU, and a lot of CPUs from this generation, there are very diminishing returns from overclocking and in fact in some cases, as mentioned, potentially a LOSS of performance versus the default boost behavior which has been pretty well tuned by Intel.

Thermally there just really isn't much headroom for overclocking on this and the last Gen unless you have a golden sample, which most don't.

You saying its not worth overclocking it then? I just tested done a cinebench earlier and played some Cyberpunk for 2 hours and i havent had a reboot since i put 1.32v and LLC on Level 2. Still doing some stress tests to make sure.
 
Sep 4, 2021
48
5
35
0
Can you tell the difference without a benchmark playing overclocked or not?

i did notice My CPU Score on 3DMark went from 12,700 to 13,000 i compared it side by side one without just stock with turbo to 4.8ghz the other with 5.1ghz OC. things do feel a little bit snappier opening programs etc. would running 1.32v to 1.35v under load while gaming damage the CPU? otherwise ill just put it back to default stock with turbo clocks.
 

Phaaze88

Titan
Ambassador
One question hasn't been asked yet - or I don't think it's been asked yet?
@ohgoditschris1
Are you:
A)Doing this to sate your curiosity? If so, I respect that - carry on in your endeavor... but you probably need to backtrack a bit.
Adding to that, the current cooler doesn't give much thermal headroom to push the cpu either. The 9900K is capable of overwhelming a 240mm AIO, and it has 2 fewer cores.

B)Doing this because it's supposed to be better performance? If so, you're sort of wasting your time with this.
This cpu is already blazing fast. If there's anything that gets in the way of the recent Intel cpus, it's their Power Limit 1(PL1) setting, with how low it can be.
Raise that, apply a negative Vcore offset of -0.050v, and call it a day.
 
Sep 4, 2021
48
5
35
0
One question hasn't been asked yet - or I don't think it's been asked yet?
@ohgoditschris1
Are you:
A)Doing this to sate your curiosity? If so, I respect that - carry on in your endeavor... but you probably need to backtrack a bit.
Adding to that, the current cooler doesn't give much thermal headroom to push the cpu either. The 9900K is capable of overwhelming a 240mm AIO, and it has 2 fewer cores.

B)Doing this because it's supposed to be better performance? If so, you're sort of wasting your time with this.
This cpu is already blazing fast. If there's anything that gets in the way of the recent Intel cpus, it's their Power Limit 1(PL1) setting, with how low it can be.
Raise that, apply a negative Vcore offset of -0.050v, and call it a day.

im here because i was having some issues with my overclock causing reboot while gaming. which im still experimenting with it. Im just trying to get a stable 5.1ghz All Core Overclock that is all.
 
Last edited:

Phaaze88

Titan
Ambassador
It seems pointless in buying a Z490 Board if im not gonna ever overclock it.
Yeah... well, blame Intel for that one. They set the bar higher for newbies by already pushing it pretty far out of box while still trying to keep power efficiency in check.

i was having some issues with my overclock causing reboot while gaming
You've disabled automatic restart in Windows? Otherwise, it may look like you're not working with enough voltage.
It could be that the current limit is being tripped, if you never raised that value. The default of 100% works fine, except when it doesn't.
My X299 board only has 3 - THREE - current limit settings: 100%(default), 140, and 200%.
When I was screwing around with static OC - trying to test 4.5ghz on a 7820X - I had to use 200%, because motherboard over-current would trip under some tests at 140%.
 

Bob.B

Respectable
im here because i was having some issues with my overclock causing reboot while gaming. which im still experimenting with it. Im just trying to get a stable 5.1ghz All Core Overclock that is all.
Same question again.....why?
Why are you doing this?
Is it to get a couple of extra fps in some game or maybe to have bragging rights?

Find some other place to get a perf bump without the risk of smoking something.
 
Sep 4, 2021
48
5
35
0
Same question again.....why?
Why are you doing this?
Is it to get a couple of extra fps in some game or maybe to have bragging rights?

Find some other place to get a perf bump without the risk of smoking something.

Im not bragging about anything i just want the most out of this chip. Pointless buying a Z490 Board and a "K" CPU if you aint gonna overclock it of course its for a bit more performance is that to hard for you to understand? Its impossible to smoke something especially if you know what your doing. Lol at you thinking its for bragging rights. Get over yourself
 
Sep 4, 2021
48
5
35
0
Yeah... well, blame Intel for that one. They set the bar higher for newbies by already pushing it pretty far out of box while still trying to keep power efficiency in check.


You've disabled automatic restart in Windows? Otherwise, it may look like you're not working with enough voltage.
It could be that the current limit is being tripped, if you never raised that value. The default of 100% works fine, except when it doesn't.
My X299 board only has 3 - THREE - current limit settings: 100%(default), 140, and 200%.
When I was screwing around with static OC - trying to test 4.5ghz on a 7820X - I had to use 200%, because motherboard over-current would trip under some tests at 140%.


i raised the vcore manually to 1.320v and put the Load Line Calibration to 2 i could put it to 4 since MSI Recommends that for OC Stability. But im still testing as i go along, And yeah well thats how Intel have always worked you want to Overclock your CPU? Buy a Z Board. dont really care about AMD they arnt fast enough for my needs
 

Darkbreeze

Retired Mod
Im not bragging about anything i just want the most out of this chip. Pointless buying a Z490 Board and a "K" CPU if you aint gonna overclock it of course its for a bit more performance is that to hard for you to understand?
This kind of response is unwarranted, and further, we simply don't allow it. Nobody is trying to be a-holish to you, these are valid questions and the REASONS for why a given person decides or chooses to overclock are often NOT the same as for everybody else. There are a variety of reasons why somebody might do it. Some do it for fun/hobby. Some do it because if you can get an extra 3% performance for free, or relatively free, then they choose to do so if they can do it in a way that doesn't require investing a stupid amount of money to do so. Others DO do it simply for bragging rights. Still others might be doing it for testing and investigative purposes, much like Computronix who authors the Intel temperature guide does, or those who are reviewers, or aspiring reviewers, looking to get their feet wet.

So, many reasons, and being asked what YOUR reason is, is no reason to have that kind of reaction.

Furthermore, there are also MANY reasons to purchase a K SKU processor and a Z board, even if you don't plan to overclock.

For one thing, the quality and extensive design of the VRM configurations on most Z boards, alone, is enough to justify buying one for many people as it's likely just doing that might offer some performance advantages over lower end chipset boards that can't maintain the stock boost and power levels as well as a mid grade or high end Z board can, even without any overclocking.

Plus, generally the Z boards have features, like additional M.2 slots, more SATA ports, additional USB ports, and so on, that might make even a lower end Z board appealing versus even some of the better boards using the lower end chipsets.

Looks might be another reason. Aesthetics might only be achievable if a certain look is desired by using a particular Z board as the color or design of others might not be desirable for a given build.

And again, certainly "these are my specs" bragging rights often play a role, especially for folks who sometimes have more money than common sense or understanding of what they actually need.

All that being said, this is why we generally recommend doing your homework, extensively, before buying parts for ANY build, whether there is an intention to overclock or not. And the bottom line is, overclocking is, if not dead, certainly on life support and being handed it's hat. Manufacturers have had a VERY hard time achieving generational gains the last few generations and in order to do so have basically had to resort to factory overclocking and tuning the boost profiles to the point where there is little to no headroom for further overclocking unless you have no intention of the parts having to last for any length of time, such as for competitive overclocking, reviews, research or when a given person intends to upgrade every generation so they have no need for it to be a daily driver that lasts a few years.

IMO, on the last two generations of i7 and i9, and the upcoming generation with performance and efficient core architecture, especially the upcoming architecture, overclocking is either pointless or not achievable without being extremely fortunate in getting a golden sample which is almost impossible these days because just for it to become an i9 it probably already HAD TO BE a golden sample just to make the grade, or something along those lines. Even the premiere delidding company, Silicon lottery, is calling it quits because there is simply little to be gained and almost no demand for it now due to there being little to gain.

Plus, going from 4.9Ghz to 5.1Ghz is only a 4% increase in performance, and it's unlikely you'll see that translate into ACTUAL performance gains in a lot of areas. You'd see more gains in most modern software and games by allowing more cores to maintain their stock boost for LONGER periods of time than for a few (Now very hot due to the frequency and voltage increases) cores to realize a 4% gain that in all probability might actually be taking your into throttle territory.

If you can actually get it within thermal tolerance AND stable, and 5.1Ghz, and validate it, then I'd back it back off to 5Ghz and call it a day at the end of it all just for a little stability insurance, a little less heat and probably a lot more longevity.
 

ex_bubblehead

Champion
Moderator
Im not bragging about anything i just want the most out of this chip. Pointless buying a Z490 Board and a "K" CPU if you aint gonna overclock it of course its for a bit more performance is that to hard for you to understand? Its impossible to smoke something especially if you know what your doing. Lol at you thinking its for bragging rights. Get over yourself
Alright, let's reign it in. Keep the personal attacks out of here. The only acceptable response to this warning is "I understand and will comply"
 

Phaaze88

Titan
Ambassador
@ohgoditschris1
I would like to suggest going back down to 4.9ghz and finding the lowest possible vcore for it. Forget the Msi OC guide for now.
Once you've found it, go up to 5.0ghz and increase Vcore by 0.050v. Test:
-if it passes, then good. Go up another 100mhz and 0.050v, and test some more. Rinse and repeat until the following:
-if it doesn't pass, then you've likely reached the reasonable limit of what the cpu can do; it requires too much extra voltage for the next step up, or it isn't physically capable of it.

Oops - almost forgot - don't forget about raising the motherboard current limit.
 
Sep 4, 2021
48
5
35
0
@ohgoditschris1
I would like to suggest going back down to 4.9ghz and finding the lowest possible vcore for it. Forget the Msi OC guide for now.
Once you've found it, go up to 5.0ghz and increase Vcore by 0.050v. Test:
-if it passes, then good. Go up another 100mhz and 0.050v, and test some more. Rinse and repeat until the following:
-if it doesn't pass, then you've likely reached the reasonable limit of what the cpu can do; it requires too much extra voltage for the next step up, or it isn't physically capable of it.

Oops - almost forgot - don't forget about raising the motherboard current limit.


Thats what im curretly doing going small steps at a time manually adjusting the Vcore. See your answering my question that i wanted to hear. thank you
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS