kevinj93

Will give it a try, thanks

Updated BIOS, enforced thermal limit to 90c in BIOS, no performance loss during stress tests. 

Sadly artifacting is most often hardware.  One could always just roll back the driver to check, but I suspect bad things.  It sounds like the thing is in spec but only barely and has always been that way.

I think the VID is programmed into the chip for stock clocks and their corresponding voltages, and vcore is what it is actually getting. I haven’t looked at a new Intel system for eons so that could have changed.
 
Showing how long it’s been.. this is just and example. My x5690 had a vid ( voltage identification range) of up to 1.35v. That is the supposed max the board can give the cpu for its max clock. 1.35v gave me 4200MHz so I was able to run the clock at “stock” volts.

VCore is the one that matters. 
 
The difference between them is relatively simple: VID is what the CPU requests the voltage to be, VCore is what the VRM actually delivers to the CPU. VID only really matters when doing stock settings or messing around with boost algs like TVB (Intel) or PBO (AMD). When doing static all core overclocks with static voltage values, VID isn't used anymore, and VCore is what actually exists. 

Does Intel still rate max vcore at 1.55v? Been awhile since I looked 😄
 
1.55v on my 3770K was mighty intense 😄
 
It did not like it. Actually it was 1.525 because anything more and the board would tell me all about OVP.

Of course not, I'm just asking if it is ok and after reading the comments, I decided to revert back to stock turbo speed (5.4 Ghz @ 1.36v). I don't think the 5% performance increase is worth it if it's going to shorten the CPU's lifespan that much.

Disabling the E cores does lower the heat inside the chips and can make P core overclocks a bit more stable. Not a ton more stable, it's the difference between 5.6GHz and 5.7GHz at most, but it's more stable nonetheless since the CPU is drawing closer to 250-300W rather than 350-400W in an all core stress test. If you do multithreaded stuff though, the loss of the E Cores is gonna do more harm than good to the overall score (for R23 numbers, the P cores alone at 5.7GHz should do ~24000 while the P+E cores at 5.6/4.5 should do ~32000, so you lose 25% of your performance to gain 2% single thread performance). 

To me it seems a good way to double your electricity bills at 200W+ for a time then get a fried chip (or worse) in a few months... 😮 
Max OC is good for fun, but gaining less than +5% perf for +40% power is a waste, do you really bother if a 1 hour task is 2min30 shorter or if you have 103 fps to 101 on a "normal" OC ?

You did. My 13700K on water does Linpack (an actual stress test unlike Cinebench) at 5.72GHz (E cores disabled, it's stuck at 5.6GHz/4.5GHz with them enabled) with 1.36V running in the OS (1.46V set in the BIOS with Mode 6 LLC on a Unify-X). 1.55V is just way too much voltage for one of those chips if that's actually the running voltage, if you're running a setup with a massive amount of VDroop then it would still likely be high, I'm not really aware of a board with 200mV of VDroop in a Cinebench run, but it's likely something a bit more reasonable, and given that you aren't well over 100C I'd assume you're actually running in Windows with a voltage closer to 1.4V. That's still really high for one of those chips, I'd want something a little lower, but it's not suicidal like 1.55V is. 
 
Still though, I wouldn't keep pushing for 5.7GHz on that chip, it doesn't sound like your chip can do it, and if you pull out any number of more aggressive stress tests (Linpack, Y cruncher, god forbid Prime95 Small FFTs) it would likely instacrash, or instantly overheat. Given it's struggling this hard to do 5.7GHz in Cinebench (good chips can do 6GHz in there on the P cores, at least for 1 run), I doubt you'd be able to get 5.6GHz to be stable in anything super intensive, and at that point if you have to drop down to 5.5GHz youmight as well stick to stock settings, not gonna be noticeably better. 

The idea of a 1.55v daily sounds fucking terrifying. 
 
If you need the clock that badly just get a 13900K. Unless you're on the very cutting edge of the highest possible refresh rates and struggling to meet them though, you don't, so I'd revert the OC and keep stock turbo. 

Offset, run r23 and see what ur voltage is at load then work out how much to take off to get it to 1.2v the. Test for stability and continue to reduce till u fail then put it back up a little 

If u still have high CPU temp u can switch front to intake, and see if the GPU is fine.
If u've got stock 140mm on the bottom, getting higher performing fans would be a bigger benefit than an additional exhaust

Not really, except for more PCIe4 lanes and better RAM XMP speed and stability on DDR5 setups from what I've read/watched

For 550 you can literly pick and choose. There are plenty good boards that support the features you've listed for way under 550 euros.

550EUR budget for a board, with a CPU worth the same ? You could (should) use a much cheaper one, here are some recommendations
 

More I/O. There is zero performance difference. 
 
https://www.anandtech.com/show/17601/intel-core-i9-13900k-and-i5-13600k-review/3
 
I'm really not sure where @dr23is getting their claims.

It doesnt matter.
 
It doesnt matter a single bit if you pick z690 or z790. Not a single bit of performance gained or lost in gaming.
 
Also just get ddr4 to save money. Currenr gen ddr5 is basically like earlt ddr4 at 2133+2666 speeds not something youd reuse in a new pc so not worth to pay early adopters tax on it.
 

yes don't go for the Z690, the Z790 is designed for the new architecture and is therefore a much better choice. If you were planning on getting the 12th gen, then i'd say go for the 690 but not if you want to use the newest generation (which is a great choice). Spend a little more, you will have a more durable system

Stress tests push the components to unrealistic limits that will never be reached while gaming or even rendering. You should be fine.

Stress tests push the components to unrealistic limits that will never be reached while gaming or even rendering. You should be fine.

Yeah should work just fine I'd trust the gskill qvl. Probably Gigabyte just hasn't tested that specific kit.

6400 seems to be doable for all cpus and some mobos atm, anything higher is not at all guaranteed oc or not

It can stress the imc but that doesnt matter till youve reached max safe imc voltage for a ram overclock
 
Anything over 4800 is considered an oc but if you are running rams that pitifully slow then youre either an idiot or looking for tight timings cause slow ddr5 will get obliterated by ddr4

Official support and what the CPU is capable of are two different things. As for stress on the memory controller, that's not something you typically have to worry about, because xmp typically changes ram voltage settings and not soc voltage settings