[UPDATED] Der8auer States Some X299 Low End boards Have Bad VRM Coolers

[PCGuy_5960]

2 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

Or you could just keep your overclocks reasonable and inline with the ability of the lower end board.  How about just running it at 4.2 to 4.4 GHz instead of thinking a $300 x299 board should be able to do everything a $600 x299 board can do?

100% agree. I don't believe that $300 X399 boards will be any better than $300 X299 boards. I really want to see how people will react when $300 X399 boards overheat if you use them to overclock the 16 core Threadripper

[done12many2]

6 hours ago, tom_w141 said:

Sorry I first saw this thread right before going to bed and missed any response.

 

No worries man.  You're quite a few hours ahead of me.  

 

6 hours ago, tom_w141 said:

I agree Ryzen was also rushed but because TR was planned and not brought forward and is Ryzen based (literally) it shouldn't have launch issues similar to Ryzen. Hence my original post.

 

Agreed, I don't suspect that TR is going to see nearly as many issues as it's little, but older brother.  I for one will be tolerant when they do pop up as I expect that from new platforms.  

[Brainless906]

7 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

 

You don't even need to remove the heatsink.  The make very small blower style fans that I've used for this purpose on x99 boards when pushing high overclocks.  Plug the fan in and set it up at the right angle and turn it on and off via the MB's fan controller within Windows. Easy fix for cheap boards. 

 

 

Or you could just keep your overclocks reasonable and inline with the ability of the lower end board.  How about just running it at 4.2 to 4.4 GHz instead of thinking a $300 x299 board should be able to do everything a $600 x299 board can do?

lol the x7900 comes with a stock turbo of 4.3ghz, I'll assume this was a mistake and you're not actually telling folks to force CPUS to stay lower than max boost on a 300 dollar board.
 

I can see where everyone is coming from but its just proving to me over and over again that intel just isnt for me, i'm far to value oriented. If i buy a 1k processor and a 300+ mobo i dont want my max OC to be .1ghz

 

 

The intel way i guess, throw money at it.

EDIT: Give me my 4.5ghz 8350 on a 120 dollar board back.
 

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, Brainless906 said:

I can see where everyone is coming from but its just proving to me over and over again that intel just isnt for me, i'm far to value oriented. 

LOL, did it seriously take you that long to realize that you aren't the target audience for X299? If you want value, get a 1700 with a B350 board and a Cryorig H7 and you have a PC that performs similarly to the 7820X for less than the 7820X on its own

[Brainless906]

11 minutes ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

LOL, did it seriously take you that long to realize that you aren't the target audience for X299? If you want value, get a 1700 with a B350 board and a Cryorig H7 and you have a PC that performs similarly to the 7820X for less than the 7820X on its own

 

 

I always knew i wasn't the target audience but that doesn't mean i cant question it.

 

a 300+ dollar Motherboard with a 1k CPU that will overheat with a .2ghz overclock (over max boost) will never make sense to me and i struggle to comprehend any response that is "well give them more money"

 

Even if I'm not the target audience i feel like i can sit on the sidelines and poke at the fact that this seems to be an extremely rushed launch that both intel and board manufacturers were completely unprepared for and its hurting customers.

When somebody says "hey this is a problem" the answer of "ignore this, just spend more money and its fine" will never make a ton of sense to me. Just like the argument of  "you're not gonna buy this so you shouldnt discuss it" will never make sense to me.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[SpaceGhostC2C]

2 hours ago, porina said:

I'm not seeing a major problem here. Generally you're offered products that are expected to operate at stock. If you overclock, you are responsible for taking appropriate measures including selecting suitable components for the level of overclock targeted. That lower end X299 boards might hit some limit and not overclock as well as higher end ones? Is that really a surprise to anyone? If you said running it at stock was potentially dangerous, that's another matter

I think that's the bit of information we are missing, basically because not all 2066 CPUs are out yet. Therefore, we don't know yet if the higher core count CPUs will be fine in these boards at stock clocks, or if they'll run into power delivery problems. They can always come with low enough clocks and voltages to fit in the same power draw as stock, low core-count models, but we yet have to see the full specs of the upcoming chips.

 

Bottom line: yes, we can end up with expensive motherboards that can't overclock to save their lives, but they may still be good enough, even if barely good enough, to run 2066 CPUs within specs, so they comply with their claimed support list. But there is a chance that these non-overclocking boards may not really be good enough for any CPU in the lineup, and perhaps the CPU support list may need to be updated in the future (as we have seen in AM3+, with motherboard manufacturers that had to take back their FX-9xxx support claims). That is something we'll find out once all CPUs are out.

[porina]

9 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

I think that's the bit of information we are missing, basically because not all 206 CPUs are out yet. Therefore, we don't know yet if the higher core count CPUs will be fine in these boards at stock clocks, or if they'll run into power delivery problems. They can always come with low enough clocks and voltages to fit in the same power draw as stock, low core-count models, but we yet have to see the full specs of the upcoming chips.

Good point. In a quick look, announced LCC Skylake-X parts are rated 140W, so at the least I'd expect existing mobos to cope with that without problem, with varying degrees of headroom for overclockers.

 

Without specifics so far, as a general trend, HCC parts will trade lower running clocks to enable the extra cores, so you still get a throughput improvement within a given power budget compared to fewer core processors. The potential risk here is for extreme overclockers. There's no getting away that if you run 18 cores like you do 8 or 10 cores (in terms of clock and voltage), you going to be running around double the power. If these were Xeons, I think it fairly safe to assume stock HCC parts would come in a similar power budget. As consumer CPUs though, that doesn't rule out the possibility of throwing more power at it if they think they need to in order to dominate ThreadRipper.

[Carclis]

I'm genuinely shocked that most X299 boards have only 8-pin power for the CPU since it's difficult enough to find any that is cheaper than my own Z170 board which also happens to have 8+4 pins for CPU power. Furthermore those cables are hitting temperatures that are not far off breaching their rated limits in a test bench scenario. It's not hard to imagine that they would be a good 10C higher inside a case. I'll bet that we see recalls coming soon.

[cj09beira]

is anyone else having 9590 flashbacks?

[cj09beira]

6 minutes ago, Carclis said:

I'm genuinely shocked that most X299 boards have only 8-pin power for the CPU since it's difficult enough to find any that is cheaper than my own Z170 board which also happens to have 8+4 pins for CPU power. Furthermore those cables are hitting temperatures that are not far off breaching their rated limits in a test bench scenario. It's not hard to imagine that they would be a good 10C higher inside a case. I'll bet that we see recalls coming soon.

plus we are measuring the outside temp, the copper it self is probably warmer 

[PCGuy_5960]

1 minute ago, cj09beira said:

is anyone else having 9590 flashbacks?

Nah, X299 is probably more power hungry than the 9590  But it performs 2+x better

[cj09beira]

Just now, PCGuy_5960 said:

Nah, X299 is probably more power hungry than the 9590  But it performs 2+x better

i mean the part were you have to be careful what board you buy because of the vrms 

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, cj09beira said:

i mean the part were you have to be careful what board you buy because of the vrms 

Well, the VRM itself is fine, VRM cooling isn't very good, but you can just replace the heatsink with a fan and cooling will become a non issue

[cj09beira]

Just now, PCGuy_5960 said:

Well, the VRM itself is fine, VRM cooling isn't very good, but you can just replace the heatsink with a fan and cooling will become a non issue

if the vrm temp is 100º c no the vrm is not fine, and buying vrm heatsinks is something you shouldn't have to do on a 300+ dollars board

[79wjd]

1 hour ago, Brainless906 said:

lol the x7900 comes with a stock turbo of 4.3ghz, I'll assume this was a mistake and you're not actually telling folks to force CPUS to stay lower than max boost on a 300 dollar board.

Don't forget that it doesn't boost anywhere remotely close to 4.3ghz on all ten cores.

Quote

 

EDIT: Give me my 4.5ghz 8350 on a 120 dollar board back.
 

and that performs like an i5 at 3ghz on a $50 board. Woohoo! 

[PCGuy_5960]

Just now, cj09beira said:

if the vrm temp is 100º c no the vrm is not fine, and buying vrm heatsinks is something you shouldn't have to do on a 300+ dollars board

Watch the video, if you remove the heatsink and place a fan over the VRM, temps don't go higher than 80C

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

15 hours ago, PCGuy_5960 said:

Watch the video, if you remove the heatsink and place a fan over the VRM, temps don't go higher than 80C

 

I'd imagine most don't want to ruin the look of their pretty expensive boards. 

 

But then again, someone buying a 10core+ isn't gonna settle for a lowly 8 phase board

[Lord Nicoll]

2 minutes ago, Pohernori said:

 

I'd imagine most don't want to ruin the look of their pretty expensive boards. 

 

But then again, someone buying a 10core+ isn't gonna settle for a lowly 8 phase board

The "look of their pretty expensive boards"  is why the heatsinks don't work and are overheating, looks is one thing but when it causes your board to overheat and die prematurely or your OC to be unstable, you might as well have bought an Apple product. 

edit: Also the thermal pads are probably rubbish too

[PCGuy_5960]

9 minutes ago, Pohernori said:

I'd imagine most don't want to ruin the look of their pretty expensive boards. 

Function>Form, IMO anyways

[PCGuy_5960]

9 minutes ago, Lord Nicoll said:

The "look of their pretty expensive boards"  is why the heatsinks don't work and are overheating,

If you can even call them heatsinks, they are aluminum blocks with LEDs

[SpaceGhostC2C]

10 minutes ago, Lord Nicoll said:

The "look of their pretty expensive boards"  is why the heatsinks don't work and are overheating, looks is one thing but when it causes your board to overheat and die prematurely or your OC to be unstable, you might as well have bought an Apple product. 

edit: Also the thermal pads are probably rubbish too

To be fair, he tried heatsink vs. fan, but didn't try heatsink vs. heatsink+fan.

I have a 970 board that officially supports 220W CPUs, but would have similar VRM temp problems with a stock FX-9370 as we are seeing in this video (I measure temps the same way he does). However, placing a fan directly blowing to the VRM heatsink (without removing it) lower the temps enough that I can even overclock.

 

So, maybe the heatsink/pads are counterproductive, but maybe they are fine and you just need more airflow near the VRMs, with or without heatsinks.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

On 6/29/2017 at 8:08 AM, Lord Nicoll said:

The "look of their pretty expensive boards"  is why the heatsinks don't work and are overheating, looks is one thing but when it causes your board to overheat and die prematurely or your OC to be unstable, you might as well have bought an Apple product. 

edit: Also the thermal pads are probably rubbish too

 

That's when you slap a CPU that's tough to power.

When X99 had the 5960X, it wasn't really fond of lower end boards as well. 

 

Its an issue don't get me wrong, but it isn't a really "oh no intel has fallen" one.

 

On 6/29/2017 at 8:16 AM, PCGuy_5960 said:

Function>Form, IMO anyways

 

That would mean the motherboard has failed its function

[LukaH]

Did anybody else thought that Intel had an ace up their sleeve and were just waiting for AMD to do something? In the sense that they were sandbagging. And is now completely surprised by the way things have turned out?

[Jahramika]

17 hours ago, Hunter259 said:

And threadripper will likely have the same issues at launch. Great job all around.

Why do you include Thread ripper in this? The Thread ripper boards I seen by Linus and others have dual 8 pin on the motherboard, BTW.

[pas008]

on another forum there is talk of the psu in hand could be possible issue considering what jonnyguru stated in his review of the psu used in video

 

not sure but at work and limited to sites I can access