Intel X6 i5-9600KF based system (5.00Ghz project)

[Fast_N_Curious]

First of all, sorry about the extensive writing of a book here for my first post.. I just need to lay down the facts so you can follow along with me as this build progresses. 

Hello team LLT! Since this is basically my first post on this forum I just wanted to say hi and provide a little background information relative to my hobby of overclocking.

My uncle, who works for IBM, got me into computers back in the early 90s... My first PC was a Pentium 133, and it was off to the races at that point. I am specifically keen on the hardware aspects of computers, a hardware enthusiast and I follow more of a retro curve than most. For example, the Lenovo T61 was my daily driver laptop for the past few years. So what I usually do is buy old equipment and seek out the best possible upgrade route whether that be CPU, memory or SSD. That usually involves a check to identify the fastest CPU in the bunch --- that will run in that particular socket. I'm also into collecting rare or old CPUs. It's like a coin collection, only far superior, because a CPU is far more interactive that an inanimate coin. 

 

The time has finally come to retire the venerable Phenom II 1600T X6 rig and upgrade to something a little more powerful. Long overdue. This will be the build log for my new system, and I can't wait to get started! First off, this will be my main machine, not just a benching setup. So in my parts selection I have tried to blend performance with good looks, and doing all this while keeping the system running whisper quiet if at all possible. I want to focus on single-thread OR per core performance vs brute force and pure number crunching power. This lead me to the Intel Core i5-9600KF, a 9th gen unlocked 6 core CPU that boosts to 4.6Ghz. The price/performance ratio of this CPU is excellent (almost supreme, in fact), as they go for only $200 shipped. Seeing as how single-thread performance (and even up to four cores) is nearly on par with the 9900k or the 8086k, I realized I likely won't notice any difference in day to day usage (short of synthetic benchmarking). My target goal is 5.0Ghz all cores with the 9600KF. I'm pretty sure the CPU should be capable of this speed, now it is just a matter of keeping thermals under control. I chose the MSI Core Frozr XL primarily for aesthetics (I love the look) but also because it will just fit in my relatively "slim" case, a Cooler Master Sileo 500. According to my calculations, I will have about 2mm between the top of the CPU cooler and the side of the case. 

 

To be honest, I really do not like the look of most modern gaming cases. In some cases, it almost seems like they were designed by aliens on some far away, distant planet. They've done away with 5.25" drive bays all together and they seem larger than life, like skyscrapers that loom overhead, complete and total overkill for my purposes, not to mention the ones that have 20lb of tempered glass hanging off either side. I prefer the business look, and since I've used this same case in the past (main selling point is it's quiet), I thought I would go retro here instead of conforming to one of the popular trends we are seeing today in the world of technology. That being said, I also want to point out that I WILL NEVER GO RBG! Period. So this mandate also effected my parts and build plan to an extent. I also want people to know that I chose some parts here for aesthetics, and I fully understand I may sacrifice some performance as a result. And I am okay with that. For example. The MSI Core Frozr XL may not be the "best" air cooler on the market, but it's pretty damn good lookin if I don't say so myself! 

 

Another thing to keep in mind: this was NOT an economical build, I spent the money to get a "numbers matching" PC (MSI themed video card, motherboard and CPU cooler) and I wanted parts that would sync up with this black / red theme. Here is what I've come up so far. So expect pictures and updates later this evening. We will very much be pushing the OC limits to see what this board and CPU can do. If you look at the totality of the components I'm using, you can clearly see it's going to be a blistering fast sleeper. Just the way I like it!

 

Build specs:

Motherboard = MSI MEG Z390 ACE (13 phase power delivery)

Memory = G.SKILL TridentZ Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 4000 (PC4 32000) Model F4-4000C18D-16GTZ

CPU = Intel Core i5-9600KF 9th Gen Coffee Lake 6-Core 3.7 GHz (4.6 GHz Turbo) LGA 1151 95W 

CPU Cooler = MSI Core Frozr XL (twin 120mm fans in push - pull configuration) 

SSD = Samsung 970 Pro M.2 2280 512GB PCIe Gen3. X4, NVMe 1.3 64L V-NAND 2-bit MLC Internal Solid State Drive (SSD) MZ-V7P512BW

PSU = Antec NeoPower 650W Blue

 

GPU = MSI Radeon RX 580 Gaming X 8GB GDDR5 

CASE: Cooler Master Sileo 500, completely sound proofed from top to bottom (Everyone loves a quiet PC, right?) with just enough room to make everything fit. It has one 120mm fan in the lower front and one 120mm fan behind the CPU cooler. Cooling is going to be a challenge, but I'm confident I'll still be able to hit my target goal of 5.00GHz on all cores. I have already purchased two Noctua fans to replace the existing case fans. These will be run to a 5.25" fan controller, which doubles as a temp monitoring display and card reader. I figured I would go for broke with the m.2 NVMe SSD, so this one ranks pretty high up in the speed department and seems to get rave reviews, with one user even claiming a 5 second boot time (seems dubious but at the very least I am future proofing this build)

Cooling will be a major concern as I begin to turn up the wick.

So, I'll be back later with some updates

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

[m777y]

@5.5 GHz is can real?!?!

hope so. good luck my friend

[nox_]

Kinda doubtful you will reach your goal,but good luck. Oh, and what made you pick Intel over Ryzen? What's the reasoning?

[Fast_N_Curious]

4 hours ago, noxdeouroboros said:

Kinda doubtful you will reach your goal,but good luck. Oh, and what made you pick Intel over Ryzen? What's the reasoning?

Because 9th gen Intel processors destroy Ryzen CPUs in both memory and cache latency. Although, in all likelihood there would likely be no noticeable difference in terms of real world performance. Still, I like the lower numbers you get from Intel.

 

I'm going for maximum responsiveness with this build. I'm targeting per core performance and I am confident this CPU will not disappoint. 

[Meganter]

I don't get why you overspend on everything and get a 9600KF and not a 9900K.

 

Also as far as I can tell, the lack of airflow will heat everything inside the case.

[Fast_N_Curious]

Will try to update with pictures going forward as the build progresses...

 

[Fast_N_Curious]

Just now, Plouffe said:

I don't get why you overspend on everything and get a 9600KF and not a 9900K.

 

Also as far as I can tell, the lack of airflow will heat everything inside the case.

 

Because the 9600KF is basically the same processor up to 6 cores. And the probability of loading up more that six cores in my work scenario, at the same time, is low. Essentially, I am getting the same real world performance as a 9900K up to six cores, with less heat, for the cost of $200 (vs the $520 for the 9900K). Not to mention, the cost to performance ratio of the 9600KF eclipses the 9900K by a wide margin. In fact, the 9600KF has the BEST cost / performance ratio of any intel chip on the market at this point in time.  

 

Core monsters - you know who you are. But the vast majority of computing needs, even now in 2020, can be handled with six cores or less. And that includes games as well - very rarely will you find a game that can utilize 8 cores at a given time. IMO the 9900K is overkill and has a lower clock speed to boot (for my scenario and my vision for this build) Additionally, all CPUs ending with the suffix 'KF' feature a soldered TIM, so there is no need to delid and have the added benefit of a soldered chip, which results in more efficient heat transfer, meaning better thermals and potentially superior overclock ability. 

[Meganter]

5 minutes ago, Storm-Chaser said:

 

I agree but I don't have the knowledge to contradict or not what you say I just know that for Adobe, iGPU is a must and HT is not required but I don't know what your work is. For rendering, even a 3600 is better as it needs HT.

 

But I still stand by my point that the lack of airflow will be a major issue soon enough even with a soldered chip since Intel and overclock produce a lot of heat.

 

Edit : But as long as your happy with it, enjoy using it

[Kilrah]

9900K doesn't have "lower clock speeds" as long as your cooling solution is up to par. Unless you have particularly bad luck with the silicon lottery just flipping MCE on gives you 5GHz all cores as well. 

 

Both my machines are 8-core now, and the number of times every day where all 8 cores are used is surprisingly high. Maybe not for a long time, but while it happens it boosts responsiveness massively.

 

My previous SFF build was a 7700K running at 4.8GHz, so essentially the same as the new 9900K minus 4 cores, and the new machine is whole a different world in everyday use. When under high load from the 4-core system becomes unbearably sluggish trying to do something else at the same time, while with 8 cores there's always enough usable clock cycles free somewhere to keep the system responsive.

 

So if system responsiveness is a major concern I wouldn't recommend less than 8 cores in any circumstance. 

[Fast_N_Curious]

2 minutes ago, Plouffe said:

I agree but I don't have the knowledge to contradict or not what you say I just know that for Adobe, iGPU is a must and HT is not required but I don't know what your work is. For rendering, even a 3600 is better as it needs HT.

 

But I still stand by my point that the lack of airflow will be a major issue soon enough even with a soldered chip since Intel and overclock produce a lot of heat.

Oh yes, I am well aware of the cooling issues with this case. (I leave the side panel off when overclocking)….They are my main concern as well, but we will figure out a way to keep this puppy cool. I've already ordered two extra 120mm fans, and they will be linked to a fan controller (see below) that I can use to effectively manage and monitor temps. The key here is my 5.0GHz goal. It's going to be a challenge to get the cooling dialed in . I will essentially have multiple bios profiles = one for benchmarking / competitions and one for stable daily driver mode, because there are times when my machine will need to be online 24/7 and we cannot afford to have any reliability concerns.

 

I didn't want a machine to just throw together, I wanted something a little bit different that offers a bit more of a challenge.

[Fast_N_Curious]

3 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

9900K doesn't have "lower clock speeds" as long as your cooling solution is up to par. Unless you have particularly bad luck with the silicon lottery just flipping MCE on gives you 5GHz all cores as well. 

 

Both my machines are 8-core now, and the number of times every day where all 8 cores are used is surprisingly high. Maybe not for a long time, but while it happens it boosts responsiveness massively.

 

My previous SFF build was a 7700K running at 4.8GHz, so essentially the same as the new 9900K minus 4 cores, and the new machine is whole a different world in everyday use. When under high load from the 4-core system becomes unbearably sluggish trying to do something else at the same time, while with 8 cores there's always enough usable clock cycles free somewhere to keep the system responsive.

 

So if system responsiveness is a major concern I wouldn't recommend less than 8 cores in any circumstance. 

I see you've fallen for the core count craze that's taken the CPU market by storm over the past couple of years (mostly thanks to AMD) The reality is that 8 cores is no faster than six unless you have something that can load up the two extra cores, and most people don't. And the 9900K does in fact have a lower base clock (3.6ghz vs 3.7ghz), it does, however, have slightly more cache and a higher turbo clocking of 5.0Ghz (but you can do the same with the 9600K because it's unlocked). but no TIM and more heat to dissipate due to two extra cores. I have very specific requirements for this build and the 9900K was simply not in the cards for this usage case. 

 

People seem to believe the fallacy that the more cores you have the "faster" the CPU is, but this is not the case. Best way I can describe it is like this:

 

You have two school buses

One long (9900K), one short (9600KF)

Sure, the long one can carry more people and has higher capacity. (8 cores)

But they both accelerate, drive and stop identically. (measurable performance in contrasting benchmarks up to 4-6 cores is nearly identical)

This is the same exact parallel between the 9600KF and the 9900K chips. 

 

People seem to be forgetting about per core performance these days and instead are too focused on core count to see the forest for the trees. 

[Fast_N_Curious]

22 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

9900K doesn't have "lower clock speeds" as long as your cooling solution is up to par. Unless you have particularly bad luck with the silicon lottery just flipping MCE on gives you 5GHz all cores as well. 

 

So if system responsiveness is a major concern I wouldn't recommend less than 8 cores in any circumstance. 

What kind of things are you doing that is causing your system to load up 8 cores at the same time?

 

You do realize that there is zero difference in boot time between a 9900K and a 9600K rig, right? 

And that almost ZERO percent of games need 8 cores "just to function" or demand 8 cores as a minimum system requirement?

And that most users will never utilize the two outermost cores?

So why should I pay $540 for a CPU when I can get the same REAL WORLD performance from one that costs only $200? 

You are forgetting, the 9600KF is a beast of a processor and can demolish most current games with all settings on ULTRA.

 

And technically, the 9900K does have a lower base speed (3.6 vs 3.7) but a higher turbo speed (4.6 vs 5.0) the 9900k has more cache but also generates more heat due to the two additional cores.

 

 

[Fast_N_Curious]

2 hours ago, Kilrah said:

When under high load from the 4-core system becomes unbearably sluggish trying to do something else at the same time, while with 8 cores there's always enough usable clock cycles free somewhere to keep the system responsive.

Really? What kind of work were you doing that pegged all four cores at 100%? I find it's rather difficult to make a high performance CPU perform sluggishly. Heck, when I pegged my Phenom II with a torture test I could still easily browse the web and perform basic user functions, with minimal delay. Granted, there are people that have work that requires more than four cores, but there are far less of those people out in the wild than you might think. 

 

Updates: (sorry about picture quality, it's the best I could do with this tablet)

 

 

[Fast_N_Curious]

Computer is up and running! It posted first go around no problem. Always a good feeling when that happens. 

 

I will have baseline and overclocking results for you guys a little later this morning. 

 

And yes I know, cable management needs to happen before I start overclocking. It's in a mess right now because I just wanted to test power on and confirm operational status.

 

 

 

[Fast_N_Curious]

Cable management is done for now. I wasn't able to use the cool carbon fiber wiring sheath as I had hoped, so instead, I tucked everything away as best I could to improve air flow. I can put a 120mm fan above the card reader, in the empty 5.25" drive bays. I am also going to remove the hard drive housing in the lower right front of the case so that front 120mm fan can breathe a little better as well. 

 

[Kilrah]

2 hours ago, Storm-Chaser said:

Really? What kind of work were you doing that pegged all four cores at 100%?

Photo editing (Lightroom), video rendering, compiling the software projects I participate in, running the occasional VM or 2... and in general multitasking heavily.

 

4 hours ago, Storm-Chaser said:

You do realize that there is zero difference in boot time between a 9900K and a 9600K rig, right? 

Why would I care about boot times? I care about the 8 hours I spend using the machine, not the 30 seconds it takes for it to boot.

 

4 hours ago, Storm-Chaser said:

And that almost ZERO percent of games need 8 cores "just to function" or demand 8 cores as a minimum system requirement?

No, but now for example on the 5GHz all core 9900K MW uses 45% average, with spikes at 65ish. With 2 cores less it would reach close to 100% peak use, and while it's OK right now it probably won't in games that come out in a year or 2, so not future-proof. 

 

Also I don't get buying a KF either - the only reason I went with Intel is because I wanted the integrated graphics since Adobe programs make use of it and I may want to run my SFF rig without a GPU occasionally to be able to put another card in e.g. for video capture, otherwise I'd have gone AMD. When caring about price to performance Intel isn't anywhere near interesting even with their best offering...

[Shooterdude34]

this is a very interesting thread, as im quite into computers and am always willing to learn more. i personally use ryzen because at the time i could get a 2700x for cheaper than a similarly performing intel cpu. My use cases might be a  bit light but i do some video editing, stream, and play some games that are more cpu bound, like arma 3, escape from tarkov, and rainbow six siege.

[Fast_N_Curious]

"Kindergarden" overclock just to test the waters... and familiarize myself with the Z390 platform. 

 

4000MHz

 

4500MHz

 

4.7GHz and first AIDA64 run... still need to dial in the memory 

[GDRRiley]

I'll add something on, if you were after the highest clocks a 9990k or ks will likely OC better, they are the top silicon Intel can make.

if you are after looks spend a bit of time and tuck all the unneeded or too long cables into the 5.25in bays.

[Fast_N_Curious]

52 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

I'll add something on, if you were after the highest clocks a 9990k or ks will likely OC better, they are the top silicon Intel can make.

if you are after looks spend a bit of time and tuck all the unneeded or too long cables into the 5.25in bays.

Highest clocks? Well my friend, you have clearly not been introduced properly to the 9600KF, so allow me to do the honors

 

Spoiler

 

[GDRRiley]

4 minutes ago, Storm-Chaser said:

Highest clocks? Well my friend, you have clearly not been introduced properly to the 9600KF, so allow me to do the honors

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

4% of 9900ks can do 5.2 at 1.325. that was data from 4 months ago based on silicon lottery's testing.

I'd expect somewhere around 5-10% of 9900ks would be able to do that.

[Fast_N_Curious]

7 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

4% of 9900ks can do 5.2 at 1.325. that was data from 4 months ago based on silicon lottery's testing.

I'd expect somewhere around 5-10% of 9900ks would be able to do that.

You reminded me to go ahead and run my new system through userbenchmark.com... an excellent resource for the technically minded, by the way. Great way to compare and contrast CPUs, especially if you are on the fence about something, really, lots of good overclocking data and averages and other CPU benchmarks from single core all the way up to 8 core. One advantage the 9600KF has over it's big brother 9900K is a soldiered IHS... so it likely runs a little cooler and you don't need to delid it. Which tanks the resale value of your CPU by the way. 

 

Well would you just look at this... Yes, I still have the magic touch

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[GDRRiley]

1 minute ago, Storm-Chaser said:

You reminded me to go ahead and run my new system through userbenchmark.com... an excellent resource for the technically minded, by the way. Great way to compare and contrast CPUs, especially if you are on the fence about something, really, lots of good overclocking data and averages and other CPU benchmarks from single core all the way up to 8 core. One advantage the 9600KF has over it's big brother 9900K is a soldiered IHS... so it likely runs a little cooler and you don't need to delid it. Which tanks the resale value of your CPU by the way.

its a horrible site that has been know to favors intel especially after they changed how the CPU score was calculated.

the 9900k is soldiered.

[Fast_N_Curious]

1 minute ago, GDRRiley said:

its a horrible site that has been know to favors intel especially after they changed how the CPU score was calculated.

the 9900k is soldiered.

I've heard this from other people as well... but don't they run all CPUs through the same benchmark? What exactly is the deal?

 

Because from what I am seeing is that they have really good CPU stats that make it very easy to compare and contrast processors and assess system components. And you can do all this without running the benchmarks.

[GDRRiley]

2 minutes ago, Storm-Chaser said:

I've heard this from other people as well... but don't they run all CPUs through the same benchmark? What exactly is the deal?

 

Because from what I am seeing is that they have really good CPU stats that make it very easy to compare and contrast processors and assess system components. And you can do all this without running the benchmarks.

no they weight the score based on certain parts of the score. basically it isn't' balanced well for current workloads. games are become more threaded.

 

Previously, UserBenchmark apportioned the average score as 30% of the single-threaded performance, 60% of the quad-core performance, and 10% of the multi-core performance. Now, the weighted average is 40% single-core, 58% quad-core, and only 2% multi-core.

https://www.overclock3d.net/news/software/userbenchmark_calls_media_incompetent_smearers_in_the_face_of_cpu-weighting_criticisms/1

 

go do a better CPU test like cinebench, real bench or a 3d mark physics test.