... i9-10900K ... 240mm AIO ... temps when stress testing (prime95, OCCT, Cinebench, etc) are in the mid-60s ... no way I can get 5.2GHz ... even if I up the voltages to 1.400 ... don't think it would be ok to go above 1.400 with voltages or am I wrong ... my old CPU (4790k) a few years ago only the temps were the limiting factor ...
Respectfully, not quite so. Concerning Vcore, one size does not
fit all. Overclocking any processor is always limited by two factors; voltage and temperature. Each Microarchitecture has a “Maximum Recommended Vcore”. For example, it’s important to point out that 22 nanometer 3rd and 4th Generation processors, such as your 4790K, will not
tolerate the higher Core voltages of other Microarchitectures.
Here's the Maximum Recommended Vcore per Microarchitecture from 14 to 65 nanometers since 2006:
Each Microarchitecture also has a "Degradation Curve
". Here's how the Degradation Curves correspond to Maximum Recommended Vcore for 22 nanometer 3rd and 4th Generation, which differs from 14 nanometer 5th through 10th Generation:
Degradation Curves are relative to the term “Vt (Voltage threshold) Shift
” which is expressed in millivolts (mv). Users can not monitor Vt Shift. Vt Shift basically represents the potential for permanent
loss of normal transistor performance.
There's more detailed explanations in the Intel CPU Temperature Guide 2021
, Section 8 - Overclocking and Voltage
. I suggest that you check out the entire guide, especially Section 11 - Thermal Test Basics
They didn't specify exactly what they did, so there's not that much for us to go on.
"prime95, OCCT, Cinebench, etc", what does that mean?
... Prime 95: Small FFT, All 3 AVX options off ... comparatively close to what a real world AVX load could do. ...
OCCT: I've never used this one ... just gonna leave that one alone ... Cinebench ... R23, I think it's still somewhat relevant ...
I agree about P95 and Cinebench... and Handbrake does crank up the heat which is why I run the -2 offset for all my encoding ...
We need more info from you in regards to the settings you used in those stress tests.
... was doing Large data set tests. I switched to small and temps went into 90s and pretty quickly it just BSOD'ed ...
Here's the nominal operating range for Core temperature:
Core temperatures above 85°C are not recommended.
Core temperatures below 80°C are ideal
... The current cooler isn't adequate for testing all core overclocks on that cpu ... 1.40v is also too much Vcore.
has pointed out, a 240mm AIO is inadequate for cooling a 10 Core 20 Thread high-end "K" processor which can consume over 250 Watts, especially when overclocked at high Core voltage. If you intend to overclock, the 10900K demands a 360mm AIO or a custom loop in order to keep it cool. Silicon Lottery
can professionally delid your processor, which can drop temperatures by 5 to 12°C. They can also "bin" your processor so you'll know its overclocking capability and the settings needed.
Voltage and temperature numbers get flung around forums like gorilla poo in a cage. For example, users will often say "I ran AIDA64" ... yes ??? ... and ... ??? what exactly did you run ??? AIDA64 has 4 CPU related stress test selections (CPU, FPU, Cache, Memory) which have 15 possible combinations
that yield 15 different
workloads and 15 different
Core temperature possibilities. When ambient (room) temperature isn't mentioned, and load test conditions aren't defined, the Core temperatures you see on various websites and forums can be highly misleading. Therefore, several points need to be clarified and emphasized.
, in order to provide any meaningful apples-to-apples comparisons, as Phaaze88
alluded to in his 1st and 3rd posts, it's important to be VERY specific
, otherwise, all we have is apples-to-oranges thermal fruit salad in a blender. When discussing thermal performance, there are 3 major variables; environment
. By taking a methodical approach, variables in environment
can be accounted for, which then leaves differences in hardware
to sort out. This reduces the major variables to their lowest common denominators, so test results make sense, are repeatable and easier to compare.
There's been no mention of ambient (room) temperature (environment
), for which the International Standard for "normal" is 22°C or 72°F. Ambient can be a HUGE variable. Users write into our forums who live anywhere from the Arctic Circle to the Equator, so air temperature at the computer's intake might be anywhere from 10°C (50°F) to 40°C (104°F). If you don't say, and we don't ask, then we're blundering blindly forward based on an unknown major variable.
In your 2nd post you provided very limited specifics. It's always critical to define your exact software load conditions. Most users don't realize how much
“stress” tests vary
, which can be characterized into two categories; stability
tests which are fluctuating
workloads, and thermal
tests which are steady
workloads. Prime95 Small FFTs (AVX disabled) is ideally suited for testing thermal performance
, because it conforms to Intel's Datasheets as a steady-state
100% workload with steady
Core temperatures. As per Intel’s Datasheets, TDP and Thermal Specifications are validated “without AVX”
With respect to the %TDP scale shown below, when heavy "real-world" AVX workloads are at "peak" load, such as video transcoding apps like HandBrake (which are fluctuating workloads), the workload will typically approach, but not exceed
P95 Small FFTs without
AVX. The CineBench R23 CPU Render Test shown below is a good example of a utility which replicates real-world AVX transcoding workloads. Prime95 Small FFTs (all AVX test selections enabled
) is nearly a 130% workload, which is unrealistically higher than real-world AVX workloads. This is why an AVX "Offset" is used to keep Core temperatures in check, just as TravisPNW
Utilities that don't overload
your processor will give you a valid thermal baseline. Here’s a comparison of utilities grouped as thermal
tests according to % of TDP, averaged across six processor Generations at stock settings rounded to the nearest 5%:
Although these tests range from 70% to 130% TDP workload
, Windows Task Manager interprets every test as 100% CPU Utilization
, which is processor resource activity, not
actual workload. Core temperatures respond directly to Power consumption (Watts), which is driven by Vcore and workload
. Prime95 Small FFTs (AVX disabled)
provides the correct workload for testing thermal performance.
When running heavy utility tests or AVX apps, in addition to Core temperatures, always keep an eye on Package Power consumption (Watts). Download the "Portable" version of HWiNFO
and run "Sensors Only". However, numbers alone can't reveal the big picture. The best way to visualize thermal performance is to observe how your hardware responds to software workloads on a graph
. In addition to a few other select utilities, HWiNFO also has graphs. Just right-click for "Show Graph" on the parameters you want to see.
The "Charts" in SpeedFan span 13 minutes, and show how each test creates distinct thermal signatures.
Shown above from left to right: Small FFTs, Blend, Linpack and IntelBurn Test.
Note the steady
thermal signature of Small FFTs, which allows accurate measurements of Core temperatures. A steady 100% workload is key for thermal testing
so the CPU, cooler, socket, motherboard and voltage regulator modules (VRM
) can thermally stabilize.
, in OCCT 7.3.2, if the first test, called "CPU", is configured for Small Data Set, Steady Load, SSE Instruction Set, then it's very nearly identical to Prime95's Small FFTs without AVX. When CineBench R23 is configured for MultiCore, Test Duration 10 minutes or more, although it uses AVX and is a somewhat fluctuating workload and pauses between renders, if you observe CPU thermal behavior on any utility that can display a temperature graph, you'll see that (when configured as described) P95, OCCT and CineBench R23 all provide workloads within a degree or so from one another.