[SOLVED] z490 motherboard for 10600k overclock

[thomas123321]

There are 3 options,
MSI MPG Z490 Gaming Edge WIFI
MSI MPG Z490 Gaming Plus
Gigabyte Z490 VISION G

I saw the gamer nexus video on the z490 motherboard about the vrms and all, i want to know is there a difference between the gaming plus and gaming edge wifi in its power delivery, vrms etc and wether should I go with the Vision G instead for the true 12 phase?

Edit: Also will I be able to overclock the 10600k on just the 8pin or will i have to plug in both the 4 pin with the 8pin

 

[fraybentos]

I wouldn't bother with any of those. I'd get the MSI Z490 Pro-A, comparing the manuals of the boards reveals that all of the the BIOS settings and features are the same as the gaming boards; it has the same power delivery and VRMs, but is a lot cheaper (minus wifi and silly LEDS). All the gaming boards are just gimmicky marketting and accordingly overpriced. I'm using the Pro-A myself. It has lovely solid metal VRM coolers (no plastic). I have my 10600K overclocked 4.9 GHz on all cores at 1.28V (or 5.0 GHz at 1.36V). I installed 16GB of G Skill 3600 CL15 RAM and have been able to overclock it to 4000 MHz CL14 (1.45 Vdimm, 1.2 V VCCSA and 1.2 V VCCIO). Essentially, I've reproduced what was obtained in the GamersNexus video where the 10600K beats a 10900K. Albeit, I prefer to run cooler and quieter at 4.9 GHz all core (160 Watts under load) as 5.0 GHz pulls 180 Watts, which is too much for my cooler to handle. I haven't tried to hit 5.1 GHz except on a few individual cores.

I plugged in both an 8 pin and 4 pin to the motherboard (but only running from a single cable, came with my EVGA G2 650). I have seen others using a single 8 pin only, but I have not tried myself. Just consider that my 4.9 GHz all core overclock is pulling upto 160 Watts off a single rail under AVX load in Cinebench R20.

Budget Z490s are reviewed here and the MSI Pro-A is one of the two that is actually decent (as noted above, the guts of this board are the same as the gaming branded ones!)

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdgNEXpBrfg

 

[thomas123321]

I wouldn't bother with any of those. I'd get the MSI Z490 Pro-A, comparing the manuals of the boards reveals that all of the the BIOS settings and features are the same as the gaming boards; it has the same power delivery and VRMs, but is a lot cheaper (minus wifi and silly LEDS). All the gaming boards are just gimmicky marketting and accordingly overpriced. I'm using the Pro-A myself. It has lovely solid metal VRM coolers (no plastic). I have my 10600K overclocked 4.9 GHz on all cores at 1.28V (or 5.0 GHz at 1.36V). I installed 16GB of G Skill 3600 CL15 RAM and have been able to overclock it to 4000 MHz CL14 (1.45 Vdimm, 1.2 V VCCSA and 1.2 V VCCIO). Essentially, I've reproduced what was obtained in the GamersNexus video where the 10600K beats a 10900K. Albeit, I prefer to run cooler and quieter at 4.9 GHz all core (160 Watts under load) as 5.0 GHz pulls 180 Watts, which is too much for my cooler to handle. I haven't tried to hit 5.1 GHz except on a few individual cores.

I plugged in both an 8 pin and 4 pin to the motherboard (but only running from a single cable, came with my EVGA G2 650). I have seen others using a single 8 pin only, but I have not tried myself. Just consider that my 4.9 GHz all core overclock is pulling upto 160 Watts off a single rail under AVX load in Cinebench R20.

Budget Z490s are reviewed here and the MSI Pro-A is one of the two that is actually decent (as noted above, the guts of this board are the same as the gaming branded ones!)

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdgNEXpBrfg

Thank you for clearing that up, cheers

 

[MrBigPete]

I wouldn't bother with any of those. I'd get the MSI Z490 Pro-A, comparing the manuals of the boards reveals that all of the the BIOS settings and features are the same as the gaming boards; it has the same power delivery and VRMs, but is a lot cheaper (minus wifi and silly LEDS). All the gaming boards are just gimmicky marketting and accordingly overpriced. I'm using the Pro-A myself. It has lovely solid metal VRM coolers (no plastic). I have my 10600K overclocked 4.9 GHz on all cores at 1.28V (or 5.0 GHz at 1.36V). I installed 16GB of G Skill 3600 CL15 RAM and have been able to overclock it to 4000 MHz CL14 (1.45 Vdimm, 1.2 V VCCSA and 1.2 V VCCIO). Essentially, I've reproduced what was obtained in the GamersNexus video where the 10600K beats a 10900K. Albeit, I prefer to run cooler and quieter at 4.9 GHz all core (160 Watts under load) as 5.0 GHz pulls 180 Watts, which is too much for my cooler to handle. I haven't tried to hit 5.1 GHz except on a few individual cores.

I plugged in both an 8 pin and 4 pin to the motherboard (but only running from a single cable, came with my EVGA G2 650). I have seen others using a single 8 pin only, but I have not tried myself. Just consider that my 4.9 GHz all core overclock is pulling upto 160 Watts off a single rail under AVX load in Cinebench R20.

Budget Z490s are reviewed here and the MSI Pro-A is one of the two that is actually decent (as noted above, the guts of this board are the same as the gaming branded ones!)

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdgNEXpBrfg

Hi there!

I literally created this account just to kindly ask you for some advices since we share the same motherboard and cpu.. I'm having trouble overclocking the cpu , even to 4.9ghz, maybe because it's the first time I'm doing this 😅

Can you help me with the bios settings?

My cooler is a noctua nh-u12s chromax black with one fan only.

Thanks in advance!

 

[fraybentos]

I literally created this account just to kindly ask you for some advices since we share the same motherboard and cpu.. I'm having trouble overclocking the cpu , even to 4.9ghz, maybe because it's the first time I'm doing this 😅

Can you help me with the bios settings?

Perhaps best to read through and post in the thread entitled "10600K OC Results" at overclock dot net. I'm also there, with a full list of my settings, while others have posted their own. So far not seen anyone not able to get 4.9 GHz all core, so hopefully just a matter of changing a few things.

 

[MrBigPete]

Perhaps best to read through and post in the thread entitled "10600K OC Results" at overclock dot net. I'm also there, with a full list of my settings, while others have posted their own. So far not seen anyone not able to get 4.9 GHz all core, so hopefully just a matter of changing a few things.

I just noticed I'm only using 8 pin cpu connector cable ( the only one that comes with my PSU, it being a Hummer 650W 80+ bronze ) instead of the 8+4 pin connector that my motherboad comes with... can it be the reason why I'm having such a hard time?

Thanks for the attention!

 

[fraybentos]

I'm honestly not sure. I have both power connectors plugged in. I think power problems would just make the PC reboot rather than bluescreen, but you haven't fully described your issue here or on the other thread.

 

[MrBigPete]

I'm honestly not sure. I have both power connectors plugged in. I think power problems would just make the PC reboot rather than bluescreen, but you haven't fully described your issue here or on the other thread.

I literally can't even OC it to 4.9Ghz, I tried messing with LLC, Override, adaptive + offset, XMP off / on , enhanced turbo OFF, C-state on/off , Cache ratio Auto/44-46 manual, maybe some more settings but none was stable enough to not BSOD

I mean, does it need the other +4 pin connector for the OC?

Other thing is that, with my Noctua NH u12s im getting 35 idle and 68-70 full load on stock config, but when I bump it up to 4.9 it skyrockets to 88 max 90 under AVX full load but keeps on 70 if AVX off, so I used -2 AVX offset and it was cool, either way it makes me doubt my cooler application but... I dunno, it's another concern apart from not being able to OC to 4.9Ghz...

 

[fraybentos]

That sounds about right, I have a better cooler than yours and mine becomes close to heat saturated ~86 C at 4.9 GHz all core under heavy AVX. Just run at 4.8 GHz; 100 MHz isn't going to be that different, or buy a bigger, better cooler. Looking at reviews of your cooler, in comparison a high-end air cooler or AIO (240 -280 mm) would drop your load temps by 10 -15C. The NH-U12S struggles to keep an OC'd 4-core processor under control, never mind a 6-core OC in a situation where Intel has thrown energy efficiency to the wind.

You also haven't stated what voltages/clock speed/LLC combinations you have tried. Secondly, this is someone else's thread.

 

[MrBigPete]

That sounds about right, I have a better cooler than yours and mine becomes close to heat saturated ~86 C at 4.9 GHz all core under heavy AVX. Just run at 4.8 GHz; 100 MHz isn't going to be that different, or buy a bigger, better cooler. Looking at reviews of your cooler, in comparison a high-end air cooler or AIO (240 -280 mm) would drop your load temps by 10 -15C. The NH-U12S struggles to keep an OC'd 4-core processor under control, never mind a 6-core OC in a situation where Intel has thrown energy efficiency to the wind.

You also haven't stated what voltages/clock speed/LLC combinations you have tried. Secondly, this is someone else's thread.

So I have:

CPU ratio 4.9Ghz
AVX Offset -2
Ring Ratio 46
Vcore Adaptive + Offset -> ( 1.275 - 0.010 V)

C-State/EIST ON
Enhanced Turbo OFF
LCC mode 3

I've been getting BSOD since Vcore 2.240, so I've been increasing it in small steps, so now I'm standing at 1.275 V ...

Does RAM take any important factor in OC? Because I use 16 GB G.Skill 2400Mhz ( Dual Channel ) and I see people increasing memory voltage as well...

Anyway, can't achieve anything stable
Should I keep on increasing Vcore?

EDIT: ups, I should have created my own thread before this reply but I will create one after

 

[fraybentos]

So I have:

CPU ratio 4.9Ghz
AVX Offset -2
Ring Ratio 46
Vcore Adaptive + Offset -> ( 1.275 - 0.010 V)

C-State/EIST ON
Enhanced Turbo OFF
LCC mode 3

I've been getting BSOD since Vcore 2.240, so I've been increasing it in small steps, so now I'm standing at 1.275 V ...

Does RAM take any important factor in OC? Because I use 16 GB G.Skill 2400Mhz ( Dual Channel ) and I see people increasing memory voltage as well...

Anyway, can't achieve anything stable
Should I keep on increasing Vcore?

EDIT: ups, I should have created my own thread before this reply but I will create one after

The settings all look about right, and increasing Vcore is the right thing to do if you get BSODs, but you should take a note of the errors noted in case this points to other issues on the build.

For 2400 MHz RAM you don't need to change RAM voltage. However, I would check your CPU SA and CPU IO voltages, as auto on the motherboard can set these higher than needed and contribute to CPU heat. For 2400 MHz, you shouldn't need more than about 1.1 V or 1.15 V max on either, possibly 1.05 V for SA.

You are leaving a lot of performance on the table by using 2400 MHz RAM. RAM is at close to record low prices right now, and you would get more bump to performance by getting some faster 3600 MHz CL16 or CL15 RAM compared to increasing the CPU clock by a measly 100 MHz (plus associated heat and instability). Upgrading the RAM would likely be cheaper than upgrading your cooler. For example, I bought some G Skill 3600 MHz CL15 and got 4000 MHz CL15 running stable (though not that cheap) with 1.45 V on RAM and 1.2 V on both IO and SA. Gamers Nexus showed that running a 10600K with 4000 MHz CL15 RAM can outperform a 10900K, so it is well worth investing in good RAM while prices are low.

 

[MrBigPete]

The settings all look about right, and increasing Vcore is the right thing to do if you get BSODs, but you should take a note of the errors noted in case this points to other issues on the build.

For 2400 MHz RAM you don't need to change RAM voltage. However, I would check your CPU SA and CPU IO voltages, as auto on the motherboard can set these higher than needed and contribute to CPU heat. For 2400 MHz, you shouldn't need more than about 1.1 V or 1.15 V max on either, possibly 1.05 V for SA.

You are leaving a lot of performance on the table by using 2400 MHz RAM. RAM is at close to record low prices right now, and you would get more bump to performance by getting some faster 3600 MHz CL16 or CL15 RAM compared to increasing the CPU clock by a measly 100 MHz (plus associated heat and instability). Upgrading the RAM would likely be cheaper than upgrading your cooler. For example, I bought some G Skill 3600 MHz CL15 and got 4000 MHz CL15 running stable (though not that cheap) with 1.45 V on RAM and 1.2 V on both IO and SA. Gamers Nexus showed that running a 10600K with 4000 MHz CL15 RAM can outperform a 10900K, so it is well worth investing in good RAM while prices are low.

Okay, I will take the RAM advice in consideration, did some research and it makes sense, will get it whenever I can, probably the Trident oneZ!

Either way, can you tell me your Prime95 temps ? Small FFts with AVX on/off , because I'm getting 80 degrees max with AVX off after stabilizing . With AVX ON it was slowly increasing and I stopped the test after reaching 88C... Still normal for this Noctua cooler? I mean, it's Prime95, but it is with stock config CPU, so I'm worried :/

 

[fraybentos]

Okay, I will take the RAM advice in consideration, did some research and it makes sense, will get it whenever I can, probably the Trident oneZ!

Either way, can you tell me your Prime95 temps ? Small FFts with AVX on/off , because I'm getting 80 degrees max with AVX off after stabilizing . With AVX ON it was slowly increasing and I stopped the test after reaching 88C... Still normal for this Noctua cooler? I mean, it's Prime95, but it is with stock config CPU, so I'm worried :/

Yeah, I got the Trident Zs CL15s, not cheap, but worth it. If you do get some (3600 MHz, CL15 variants), let me know and I will share all of my timings with you (which you'll need to enter manually), that should save you much time.

Again, I think what you have reported is also probably within the realm of normal. Though 88 C is a lot for stock (4.5 GHz all core), that is a heavy load and your cooler isn't very big. Are you certain that you are running at 4.5 GHz "stock"? Stock has a power limit of 125 W. What are your clock speeds and package power under load?

I don't run Prime95 (or believe in running it for most people), because it is not reflective of my normal peak CPU usage. The hardest my PC gets pushed is repeated runs of Cinebench R20 (86 C max, 175 W), which still pushes harder than me running hours of quantum chemical calculations on all cores (78 C, 140 W), or for example, 10 minutes of AVX shader compilation in Horizon Zero Dawn (80 C, 150 W), gaming normally pulls about 110 W with unlocked framerates at 1440p on a 1080Ti. I haven't had a BSOD in 2 months, so for my present usage, I am "stable". If I get a BSOD at any point in the future, I will simply bump Vcore up by another 0.050 V, just as you have been doing. I don't see the point in adding extra voltage to be stable in loads that my PC might never experience, because that contributes to heat and potential CPU degradation. Perhaps my setup will be stable in Prime 95, but perhaps not. What is important to me is that my PC currently is stable for my current usage and I have no concerns about data loss. People have their own definitions of what constitutes stability, but stability is more a probability for a given usage than a binary true or false situation.

 

[MrBigPete]

Yeah, I got the Trident Zs CL15s, not cheap, but worth it. If you do get some (3600 MHz, CL15 variants), let me know and I will share all of my timings with you (which you'll need to enter manually), that should save you much time.

Again, I think what you have reported is also probably within the realm of normal. Though 88 C is a lot for stock (4.5 GHz all core), that is a heavy load and your cooler isn't very big. Are you certain that you are running at 4.5 GHz "stock"? Stock has a power limit of 125 W. What are your clock speeds and package power under load?

I don't run Prime95 (or believe in running it for most people), because it is not reflective of my normal peak CPU usage. The hardest my PC gets pushed is repeated runs of Cinebench R20 (86 C max, 175 W), which still pushes harder than me running hours of quantum chemical calculations on all cores (78 C, 140 W), or for example, 10 minutes of AVX shader compilation in Horizon Zero Dawn (80 C, 150 W), gaming normally pulls about 110 W with unlocked framerates at 1440p on a 1080Ti. I haven't had a BSOD in 2 months, so for my present usage, I am "stable". If I get a BSOD at any point in the future, I will simply bump Vcore up by another 0.050 V, just as you have been doing. I don't see the point in adding extra voltage to be stable in loads that my PC might never experience, because that contributes to heat and potential CPU degradation. Perhaps my setup will be stable in Prime 95, but perhaps not. What is important to me is that my PC currently is stable for my current usage and I have no concerns about data loss. People have their own definitions of what constitutes stability, but stability is more a probability for a given usage than a binary true or false situation.

Can't find 3600Mhz TridentZ CL15 RAM here in Portugal, only 3000Mhz...

So I used Aida64 with FPU only and got max 82C with 126W package power. Afyer that I ran AIDA without FPU and got mid 60's with only 86W CPU package power.
Then I also ran Cinebench R20 once and got max 78C with 126W cpu package power as well. This is all with full stock CPU config.

With Prime95 it goes to 170W on 90C with AVX and 126W on 80'ish degrees without AVX... Strange that it passes the 125W mark with AVX ON.

I agree with your opinion, no need to be stable at higher demands than those that we are acquainted to, unless there's insecurity about on what tasks could push the cpu out of the boundaries which we assume as the peak usage boundaries.

 

[fraybentos]

Can't find 3600Mhz TridentZ CL15 RAM here in Portugal, only 3000Mhz...

So I used Aida64 with FPU only and got max 82C with 126W package power. Afyer that I ran AIDA without FPU and got mid 60's with only 86W CPU package power.
Then I also ran Cinebench R20 once and got max 78C with 126W cpu package power as well. This is all with full stock CPU config.

With Prime95 it goes to 170W on 90C with AVX and 126W on 80'ish degrees without AVX... Strange that it passes the 125W mark with AVX ON.

I agree with your opinion, no need to be stable at higher demands than those that we are acquainted to, unless there's insecurity about on what tasks could push the cpu out of the boundaries which we assume as the peak usage boundaries.

Also what clock speeds did you see during those benchmarks? True stock wouldn't be over 4.5 GHz all core.

Based on your readings during Prime, it looks like you are not running true stock. To go fully stock you have to set the short power limit to 185 W for 56 seconds and long limit 125 W. These limits are disabled by default on MSI boards and you have to enter them manually for "true" stock. Personally, I've set a short power limit of 185 W for only 3 seconds, and 175 W long on mine as that works well for my cooling.

Also Amazon.co.uk and .de deliver to Portugal.

 

[MrBigPete]

It was true 4.5 Ghz all cores.

Either way, I just reinstalled my cooler, watching better temps... Gonna post my OC config and my temperatures in some programs ( apart from Prime95 I know i would easily get 90C most probably with AVX ).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OC config:

Base Clock: 100 Mhz
CPU ratio : 48
AVX offset : -1
Ring Ratio : 46
XMP : disabled (don't know if I should enable yet)
DRAM frequency: 2400 MHz
CPU Core Voltage Mode: Adaptive + Offset Mode
Offset : AUTO
Intel VT-D Tech : Enabled
C-State : Enabled
EIST: Enabled
C1E : Disabled
Enhanced Turbo: Enabled
TVB Ratio Clipping : Disabled
TVB Voltage Optimizations : Disabled
Intel Speed Shift Technology : Enabled
CPU LCC : Mode 3

--------------------------------------
CPU Temperature
--------------------------------------

AIDA AVX ON- 85 to 89 | 148W package Power
AIDA AVX OFF- 65 to 75 | 100W package Power

CPU-Z - 79 to 82 | 130W package power

INTEL XTU - 85 | 137W package power

CINEBENCH R20 - 82 to 84.5 | 149W package power

 

[fraybentos]

It was true 4.5 Ghz all cores.

Either way, I just reinstalled my cooler, watching better temps... Gonna post my OC config and my temperatures in some programs ( apart from Prime95 I know i would easily get 90C most probably with AVX ).
--

Great news!

 

[MrBigPete]

Great news!

Played Borderlands 1 yesterday for 2 hours no problem... Playing Witcher 3 today and it crashes, like it freezes and does nothing, so I have to manually turn off my PC. GPU was on full load and CPU on 50% max sometimes, don't know why it would crash... maybe because the voltage on all components are set to Auto? I tried stressing both the CPU and the GPU at the same time and nothing happened.

Apart from that, just bought a pair of sticks RAM like yours, should arrive by the end of this month (25-30)!
Pretty excited to OC it as well like you said !

Should I set the voltages manually and test if it crashes on Witcher 3?

 

[fraybentos]

Oh, don't ever use auto voltages for Vcore for overclocking. No wonder you are having issues. I'll post my RAM timings here.

 

[MrBigPete]

Oh, don't ever use auto voltages for Vcore for overclocking. No wonder you are having issues. I'll post my RAM timings here.

Thanks a lot! I'll be dying to try it!
Can you also tell me if I should use adaptive + offset or override?