Trouble overclocking i7 9700k

[Bolide]

I7 9700k with an Asus Maximus XI Hero Z390 motherboard.

System runs rock solid with stock configs, but when I try to raise to any decent overclock (started with 5) I have to raise my voltages to pretty high levels to keep it stable, higher than i should have to. 5 ghz only runs stable when I raise the core voltage to 1.385v and then I run into thermal throttling issues. According to this

https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/intel-core-i7-9700k-processor-review,23.html

It should be easy to get this all the way to 5.2 on 1.30-1.35v.

I also found this saying something similar
https://www.techpowerup.com/247337/intel-core-i7-9700k-all-core-overclocked-to-5-30-ghz-on-air

Any thoughts on why I wouldnt be able to get a decent overclock going? I feel like I have some pretty solid hardware here so I'm not too sure what gives. I'm on my phone posting this and away from my pc currently but if anyone needs more info I can get to it early tomorrow.

Thanks all

 

[drea.drechsler]

MERGED QUESTION
Question from Bolide : "Did I Get a Lemon Motherboard?"

A little while back I posted about having issues getting my new i7 over 5ghz at a reasonable voltage, but I am beginning to wonder I'd perhaps I got a lemon motherboard from the bin they shipped from. A few days ago I got the following Asus Maximus XI Hero Z390

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B07HCXT591?psc=1&ref=yo_pop_mb_pd

I am using a brand new i7 9700k. I can get it running mainly stable (can run intel burn for 3 hours at under 80 C) at the advertised "safe" overclock of 4.9 ghz on Auto voltage (although I did have a couple of game crashes last night that seemed to stop when I set my ratio back to auto from 49).

As soon as I set my ratio from 49 to 50, any stability intelburn was showing disappears until I bump my core voltage all the way up to 1.385 (at auto voltage under load at 4.9 ghz CPUZ showed 1.215v if memory serves correctly, not in front of my pc but can check tonight) and at 1.385 and 5ghz it actually hurts my performance because thermal throttling kicks in and I see noticable output drops. I have read that I should be able to go all the way to 5.2 ghz on a fairly lower voltage than that so I am scratching my head.

Additionally, my memory seems to be suffering from something similar. There is a write up on my exact memory on an Asus chipset here

https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?93722-Flare-X-3200MHZ-16GB-2x8-F4-3200C14D-16GFX-Performance-amp-Guide

According to the above, I should be able to achieve a memory frequency of 3600 mhz on 1.4v, but when I try that (with advertised timings as well) it fails to boot and falls back to 3500 mhz. If I set the frequency back to 3600 mhz and look at the built in prediction function on my mobo, it predicts that I'd need to up the voltage up to 1.45v which I feel is excessive.

All of this has me wondering if perhaps i got a bad board out of the batch? Before anyone asks, I have ensured that I am on the most recent BIOS revision for my board. Windows is up to date as well.

If someone else has had similar experiences or recommendations it would be very welcome. Thanks everyone!

Place your processor at stock speeds and settings. Install OS, run all the benchmarks and stress tests you can. If it passes all stresses and benches comparable to what the processor is supposed to bench (in the neighborhood is good enough) at stock settings you most definitely do not have a lemon.


All any manufacturer guarantees is functionality at stock settings. Functioning beyond stock is always a gift from the silicon Gods.

 

[bignastyid]

It's called the silicon lottery and like any lottery there are winners and losers.

 

[Bolide]

To be direct, is it more likely that I lost the lottery, or likely that I'm doing something wrong here? I'm the kind of person that I I will be bothered if I know I got something on the lower end here, but it might still not be worth all of the work.

If I do decide on an exchange, should I do cpu and mobo, or is it more likely one over the other? I spent extra money on a setup that I'd be able to push a little higher, especially because of all of the advertising and price premiums Asus (and realistically other manufacturers too) puts on being able to overclock their gaming lines.

Thanks all!

 

[bignastyid]

Exchange what? Parts that are working just fine at the settings they were designed to run at? If they even except it you'll be paying restocking fees.

If you want a cpu that is guaranteed to go higher than stock buy one that has already been binned. There are sites that test them and sell them at a premium.
Here's one such site.
https://siliconlottery.com/

 

[Bolide]

I somewhat disagree. Intel advertises the i7 as "up to 4.9 ghz turbo" and I am seeing application crashes at those speeds so that's not what I'd call working as advertised. If it's the mobo, it is advertised as a high end gaming motherboard with significant overclocking ability designed into it. So if that's what's holding me back and other people are seeing greater success (and asus has put out videos on overclocking up to the point I want to be on my cpu) then I would say the board is not working as advertised. I understand what binning is and I'd be ok without getting an ultra perfect chip/board combo, but if I'm not even able to get advertised functionality while still paying significantly extra for it, I'd say that's a problem.

Am I wrong to feel this way? This is an honest question, I'm not being sarcastic or anything, I really do want to know if I'm looking at that the wrong way.

 

[bignastyid]

The advertised 4.9Ghz turbo boost is for 1 core not all of them. The max turbo boost for all 8 cores is 4.6.
https://images.anandtech.com/doci/13400/9thGenTurbos2.png

 

[Bolide]

Well that's certainly disappointing, I wish that was more clear. I'm going to leave this up to the seller. I will call and explain my case and see if they charge a restocking fee given my experience. If I have to pay a fee I'm going to drop it, if not then I will probably do an exchange.

Thanks for your time, it really helped

 

[Bolide]

Wanted to provide an update here to both the people who answered me here and anyone who may ever end up with the same issue as me.

Basically, none of the articles I read on overclocking (my knowledge is over 5 years old so I needed a refresher) went into much detail on what AVX or an AVX offset is. Without writing a book on it (writing this for anyone who was in my boat and didnt know this) AVX is a technology that certain workloads in your computer can take advantage of but they are more intensive on the CPU and requires more voltage to run stable.

What I did was set the AVX offset, which is a setting that lowers your core ratio by whatever the offset is, to 1. This effectively lowered my clock speed for avx workloads but also lowered my voltage requirements as well. I am sitting at a 5ghz overclock at a far lower voltage running stable (so far) on my stress tests.

Thanks all and hopefully this helps someone. I tried to simplify it as much as possible, if you want to know more there's plenty on Google about it

 

[drea.drechsler]

Wanted to provide an update here to both the people who answered me here and anyone who may ever end up with the same issue as me.

Basically, none of the articles I read on overclocking (my knowledge is over 5 years old so I needed a refresher) went into much detail on what AVX or an AVX offset is. Without writing a book on it (writing this for anyone who was in my boat and didnt know this) AVX is a technology that certain workloads in your computer can take advantage of but they are more intensive on the CPU and requires more voltage to run stable.

What I did was set the AVX offset, which is a setting that lowers your core ratio by whatever the offset is, to 1. This effectively lowered my clock speed for avx workloads but also lowered my voltage requirements as well. I am sitting at a 5ghz overclock at a far lower voltage running stable (so far) on my stress tests.

Thanks all and hopefully this helps someone. I tried to simplify it as much as possible, if you want to know more there's plenty on Google about it

Hey that is informative. I know AVX instruction set is powerful but is also extremely power hungry and heats up the processor running highly optimized AVX calculations. But that only happens, for most people, when they're stress testing an overclock. Not very many 'real world' applications use AVX instructions intensely enough to come close to what stress tests do. So it makes sense to slow the clock speed down during that time if it means you can safely use a higher clock the rest of the time.