Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Melodist

Member
  • Content Count

    375
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Awards


This user doesn't have any awards

About Melodist

  • Title
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I feel like a lot of your projects are baseless without actual wattage information, given air coolers dissipate heat a lot more efficiently until they can't dissipate the heat fast enough anymore which leads to a loop of increasing temperature. Like.... what was the CPU used... at which wattage did it run... I am really not trying to be offensive but the quality of your reviews has become very mediocre. But you're not the only ones, considering many other "professional" outlets testing these coolers with their 4 year old CPU instead of picking something like an LGA2066 7980x or 9900K. I guess this makes a lot more sense to me That's a 7600k, not drawing much power and dissipating a moderate amount of heat. The 12A has more heat-pipes and therefore dissipates the heat better than it's bigger brother but you probably hadn't reached it's cooling potential. 7980x...
  2. I feel like you can get better OC results with the 7820x than with the 9800x, even though it comes with a higher clock out of the box. Not to mention it gets hot as hell. If you think the 9900k is hot, then forget about the x299 platform my friend. If you really need more horse power than the 9900k, then Ryzen is for you, don't go with x299, it is terrible and was from the getgo. The only fine "enthusiast" platform was / is x99. If you want all the lanes then go with the 6950x and x99. I've actually just switched from my 6900k on x99 to the 9900k on z390, was a very good choice. The reason I did this is because I need for audio applications better single core performance, even though my 6900k was beating all the x299 processors in single core performance at 4 GHz funnily (Ring mesh).
  3. It does make a difference when I put it to 1344 obviously, which is still lots of load.
  4. But then again, is maybe my stress testing too tough? I'm doing 12k small ffts in Prime 95 and I saw der b8uer testing his CPUs on 1344?
  5. I saw a delidded 9900k with custom IHS going under 1.2v so yeah But I'm wondering whether i'm stressing my CPU too much with Prime 95 FFT 12 because der b8uer is running 1344 and I only benched my 6900k back in the day with 1344 either. Maybe I should test it with 1344?
  6. Yeah but going from 4.8 at 1.225 to 4.9 at 1.29 is huge? Like, it's not worth putting that much voltage on it for mere a 100 MHz merit and having to deal with high temps. With 4.8 at 1.225, it runs 80 degrees package temp Prime 95 AVX full load on a Noctua NH-U12A.
  7. Hello there, I've been overclocking my 9900k and realized it's running with 1.225 volts at 4.8 GHz but only starts to be stable with 4.9 starting at 1.29 volts, is that normal or may I have to tweak something because the gap here from one to another speed is huge in terms of what voltage I have to add.
  8. Okay so I realized, the computer crashed because the CPU VID peaked over 1.35 and then it shut down.
  9. I used to have long duration and short duration power limit, does anybody know which these parameters are on gigabyte boards? Are they the two package power limits? Package power limit 1 tdp watts and package power limit 2 watts translating to short and long duration power limit?
  10. But oddly enough, the higher I go, the harder it crashes, does the motherboard have a powerlimit which throws me out? There are 3 power limits in the bios and one is with TDP. I remember when I ocd my 6900k, I set it to max and there are very low values behind them on auto. Should I increase the power limits? I think these throw me out. *Edit* Found the section in a video, can't take a picture right now myself.
  11. Z390 Designare by Gigabyte with Turbo (I've read its level 6). Temps are 90 package with Prime 95 small fft 12.
  12. I've just tested my 9900k and I can run it at 4.9 GHz with 1.27 volts, is that good? Going beyond 4.9 is not doable, I mean, there is no merit, if I push 5 GHz, then not even 1.3 will be stable so apparently the chip's sweetspot is 4.9 GHz at 1.27 volts.
  13. Yeah but lower resistance means more voltage is passing through, it is all relative. Have I written overvolting anywhere above? Anyways that's what I wanted to see because apparently, with less LLC, he got away with lower voltage. Anything written above wasn't wrong, it was just a false assumption of the LLC at a higher level being more beneficial, thanks for the info. Now I know I have to try running it at the lowest LLC possible for the OC to be stable without loosing too much voltage.
  14. But you get what I mean? Having a lower core voltage let's the Chip Run more stable and cooler, which also translates to better stability, running a high LLC to keep it tight at the low voltage? People just always dial in high voltages at low LLC, which is why their overclocks with high core CPUs barely work. Because it is a very unstable high voltage where the high voltage by itself also destabilizes the chip.
  15. So I guess undervolting and running a higher LLC is better than running a higher voltage and lower LLC? Because I always see people dialing in a high voltage with a low LLC which just makes the chip run hot and unstable from the getgo, making overshoots even worse, which would explain why people struggle so much with the 9900k because their conventional way of overclockling by dialing in a high voltage at low LLC level doesn't work?
×