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

Incognito Clown

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


This user doesn't have any awards

About Incognito Clown

  • Title


  • CPU
    Intel Core i5-6600K 4.5GHz@1.26v
  • Motherboard
    MSI Z170A SLI Plus
  • RAM
    Corsair Vengeance LED 2x8GB 3000MHz@1.35v
  • GPU
    Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1070 G1 Gaming 8GB 2050MHz
  • Case
    NZXT H440 New Edition
  • Storage
    Samsung 850 EVO 250GB, Samsung 850 EVO 500GB, WD Green SATA 3 Gb/s 1TB
  • PSU
    Corsair RM750i
  • Display(s)
    3x Dell Ultrasharp UP2516D
  • Cooling
    Corsair Hydro H100i v2
  • Keyboard
    Corsair Gaming Strafe RGB
  • Mouse
    Corsair Gaming M65 RGB
  • Sound
    Massdrop x Sennheiser PC37X Gaming Headset
  • Operating System
    Windows 10 Pro x64

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I recently bought a i9 9900k cpu which should according to Intel's spec run at 1.39 volt. This is therefor also the core voltage (vCore) that was set by default, in the bios of my Gigabyte Aorus z390 Ultra motherboard. Like pretty much every chip, my i9 can actually run stock speeds at much less voltage. I've set the vCore in my bios to 1.26 volts, which seems stable (no hard or soft WHEA errors yet). Although the VRM does supply 1.25 volts when idle, it only supplies 1.14 to 1.17 volts under full synthetic load (for example during an AIDA64 system stability test). At first I thought my VRM was misbehaving, but I quickly found out that this is expected behavior and is called Vdroop. It seems to be a feature that lowers the average core voltage during load, to reduce voltages spikes when switching between idle and load which could otherwise damage the CPU. (correct me if I'm wrong) However, dropping over 0.1 volt (idle -> load) seems huge to me. Is it? I've also seen people talking about Load Line Calibration, or LLC for short. This is a feature most motherboards support, which can reduce the just mentioned Vdroop. What is usually better: Higher Vcore setting without touching the LLC, or a lower Vcore setting and an increased LLC level? And if I'm seeing 0.1V differences between idle and load scenario's, would it then be recommended to increase the LLC level? Also a little side question; if (professional) overclockers are talking about "we did x ghz at x volt" do they usually talk at the actual voltage during loads? Or the voltage that is applied in the bios? I did see a video of someone from Optimum Tech who said that probably every i9 could run stocks between 1.15 and 1.25 volts. I did have to enter 1.26 volts in the bios, but it actually runs at 1.55 on average during loads. Am I having a good or a bad silicon chip here?
  2. Incognito Clown

    i9 9900k stock voltage seems high

    Today I checked my build and also tightened the screws further Each screw could still be tightened once or twice. Oh ye it does But after just one cinebench run the liquid temperature barely increased. After playing a game for an hour or two today, or the aida64 stress test yesterday, the liquid temp settled at around 40 indeed. According to some reviews (e.g. Buildzoid), the VRMS on my Gigabyte Aorus Ultra board should be quite good, so I'm guessing there should be some kind of this setting somewhere in the BIOS. What is the point of increasing the LLC though? If I understand it correctly: - I increase the LLC till the idle voltage matches the vcore voltage under load. - Then I set the core voltage in the bios to somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.175v (since this was the "actual" voltage during the stress test). Does this have any benefits? The voltage during load will stay the same, so the temperature output will also remain the same right?
  3. Incognito Clown

    i9 9900k stock voltage seems high

    I've tried out some different "Core Voltage" settings. I tested using Aida64 System Stress Test (CPU, FPU, cache and system memory) and at least 5 cinebench runs. 1.260v seems stable, no WHEA errors after 1 hour stress test + 5 cinebench runs. 1.250v does throw WHEA errors during Aida64. 1.260v test results (boot up, 1 hour aida 64, 5x cinebench, shutdown): Note: I've used HWI to read out all of the above values, except the "Vcore (V) Bios" According to a video that Optimum Tech did, he expected pretty much every i9 to do stock settings between 1.150v and 1.250v. So I guess I've been unlucky when it comes to the silicon lottery Or are there other (voltage) settings I should thinker around with as well? Btw, temperatures are totally not an issue anymore . During stress testing it did not even go above 81.
  4. Incognito Clown

    i9 9900k stock voltage seems high

    Oohh I did not know that! Thanks man! I'll go lower the voltage after I've cleaned up my cable mess. That will presumably also help with keeping temps in check. What are your thoughts about the immediate jump to 90+ degrees, and then back to 30 degrees when the test is done? The liquid cooler I'm using doesn't give a kick, it says the liquid temperature is about 30 degrees. The fans spin up, but it seems the temperatures are "trapped" in the cpu or between the cpu heatsink and the liquid cooler..? I've not tested games yet, but I guess I'll see lower and maybe more consistent temps there. Oh and also thanks for helping me in that other thread where I was still choosing a cpu
  5. Incognito Clown

    Low gpu usage

    What cpu do you have? And can you see its usage during these scenes? City scenes in GTA V seem really cpu intensive which might be causing a bottleneck. You could (possibly) reduce this effect by turning down the render distance and density in the Advanced Graphics, and the Graphics settings.
  6. Hey everyone, I just bought myself a i9 9900k and installed it together with an also new Gigabyte z390 Aorus Ultra in my pc. I installed Windows, and installed HWI and Cinebench r15 just to quickly see if everything was working fine. Package temps were idling around 29 degrees, but during the Cinebench test temps went to 95-101 degrees almost instantly. After the test it dropped to 31 pretty much instantly again. The test completed with a score of 1989 (first run), 2004 (2nd run), 2022 (3rd run). I also noticed the Vcore was at 1.380V during the benchmark run (and 0.684 after the test). The temps are higher then I thought they would be. Also, a voltage of 1.380 seems very high to me. And note that I did NOT overclock the cpu. It runs stock; hwi reported all (8) cores running 4,7GHz during the cinebench test. Do I need to adjust the voltage in the bios or is this as expected? I heard people having overclocked all cores to 5GHz with voltages like these.... And what about the temps? Are these temps expected using an i9 9900k, Hydro H110i (noctua fans) and Thermal Grizzly' Kryonaut? Did I do something wrong applying the thermal paste maybe, or is the high(?) voltage causing this?
  7. Incognito Clown

    Best cpu for a fluid gaming experience

    Oh did you return the 8700k, or what happened?
  8. Incognito Clown

    Best cpu for a fluid gaming experience

    Thanks for your reply Mick What cpu did you have before you upgraded to the 8700k?
  9. Incognito Clown

    Best cpu for a fluid gaming experience

    I believed I read somewhere that the current socket is only supported up till 2020 (they are gonna change to another socket at some point). So I'm not sure how much of a benefit that still is. Hmm if basically none of them are able to make good software, I might be better off going for a semi-flagship MSI, Gigabyte or Asrock board for the same price as Asus' entry ROG board (the Hero). I can of course just don't install any motherboard software at all. I don't care much about the bios btw. I did mention it cause I knew they have (subjectively) the best (read: most intuitive) bios, but I'm not gonna try to break world records or anything. Only thing I'm gonna use the bios for is to enable XMP, change the fan speeds and maybe apply a slight overclock if I feel like it.
  10. Incognito Clown

    Best cpu for a fluid gaming experience

    It still retails for €300 new, though there might be some used available for less. However, I do prefer to just go with a new platform. This does mean I have to upgrade my motherboard as well, but since my current motherboard was really on the budget side of things (less than 100 euros/dollars), thats not a big deal. Thanks for the suggestion though!
  11. Incognito Clown

    Best cpu for a fluid gaming experience

    Thanks for your reply @bruny06! I did see a lot of benchmarks showing that the intel cpu's did out perform the AMD a little, when it comes to AVG fps. I've not seen much info about which one is more consistent. Do you know if there is a difference here and which one would then be the winner? Would it be as simple as "the i9 has the highest clockspeed and (together with the 2700x) the highest core+thread count and delivers therefor the most consistent framerate"?
  12. Hey everyone, I'm looking to upgrade my i5 6600k for something more powerful, with more headroom. My i5 (which is overclocked to 4.5GHz btw) did the job fine for my first build, but since I upgraded to a GTX 1080Ti (came from a GTX 1070), I do notice the cpu bottlenecking the gpu. This is especially noticeable in the form of frame stutters (1% and .1% lows) when the cpu is at 100%. I'm also having input stutters: I'm normally able to do a 360 in-game, swiping the mouse from the left to the right on my mouse mat, but if the cpu is at 100%, this can go as low as to only turn 180 degrees in some games (r6 siege for example). Closing down all background applications and processes does reduce these a little, but I kinda just want to be done with all this hassle. So I'm looking for a cpu that allows me to game with as less hick-ups and stutters; as fluid of an experience as I can get. I also want more cores or threads than I have now (4c4t) so I'm able to game while Chrome, Discord and some game clients are still running. Currently I even have to close down Corsairs iCUE if I want less stutters I've initially looked at an i7 8700k or 9700k, i9 9900k or an AMD 2700x. I more or less want to avoid the 9700k since it does not have hyper threading, like my i5 lacks right now. Maybe (most) games can not take advantage of them (right now), but background processes can, so I'm hoping that having more threads does reduce the influence background processes have on in-game performance. I think the other 3 named processors are all great options. I don't care about their cost much. I just want to go for the one that can deliver the most fluid experience (less and less extreme frame dips). I do realise the AMD is cheaper, but on a €2500-ish build the €200 difference is negligible in my opinion (€349 for the 2700x, €449 for the 8700k, €549 for the 9900k). What cpu would you recommend me and why? I'm btw looking at combining the cpu with a ASUS ROG Maximus or Crosshair Hero. Don't have much experience with motherboards but I know their BIOS is amazing and their software seems the most intuitive and least bloatware like. The bios of my current MSI motherboard is fine, but the software for controlling stuff in Windows is slow, full of bugs (sometimes it doesnt want to start) and uses much cpu. What is your take on ASUS software? i5 6600k @4.5GHz with Corsair Hydro H110i 16GB DDR4-3000 GTX1080Ti Lightning X 3x 25" 60Hz 1440p IPS monitor 750W Corsair PSU
  13. So if I have or get the latest one, it should run with stock settings?
  14. But the default settings do not "get it running" since it will cause bsods almost immediately on "optimized defaults" bios settings and default windows settings (= balanced power scheme). Then it should still be able to run at JDEC speed of 2133 with default voltages and timings without causing BSODs
  15. Shouldnt it be like that? You buy a motherboard, you install your cpu and youre ready to rock? I believe adaptive is the default, so it should not cause bsods then?