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

-rascal-

Member
  • Content Count

    7,769
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Agree
    -rascal- got a reaction from Hold-Ma-Beer in pc booted for not even half a second and now isnt booting up after installing aio   
    Make sure the CPU block on the AIO is properly mounted.
    Double check all your cables, etc.
     
    If the CPU overheats, then safety shutdown will kick in.
    You'll need to wait for the CPU to cool all the way down...may need to clear the CMOS too, before you can fire it up again.
  2. Informative
    -rascal- got a reaction from FED in Should I just liquid cool my 5900X?   
    Sitting at 75*C, and PBO2 boosting the cores as high as possible is fine.
    You can get a 280mm / 360mm AIO if you want, and you can drop the temperatures down a little bit, while keeping the fan RPMs low.
    Temperatures, how it stands now is pretty good, IMO.
     
    I'm not running a Ryzen 5900X, but a 5800X + B550 Aorus Pro AC, paired with an Ekwb 360mm AIO.
    Personally went with that specific AIO due to the mounting method (4x screw X-pattern), and according to Gamers' Nexus' review, really good CPU block contact.
    https://www.ekwb.com/shop/ek-aio-360-d-rgb
     
    https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3596-ek-aio-drgb-360-240-review-liquid-coolers
     
     
     
  3. Agree
    -rascal- got a reaction from RONOTHAN## in Good idling temps for i7-10700k?   
    What is your typical ambient / room temperature?
    Idle temperatures will vary depending on your ambient.
    As long as it is not abnormally high (i.e. 60*C+), then it should be fine.
     
    Instead, you want to make sure the load / all-core CPU load temperatures is not not 90*C+.
  4. Agree
    -rascal- reacted to Alex Atkin UK in PC won't boot after enabling XMP profile   
    Do bear in mind that just because it "supports" faster than 3200Mhz, doesn't guarantee it.  Exactly what speed works can depend on quality of the CPU, its possible to get one that just wont handle beyond a certain speed.

    Also make sure the RAM is in the correct slots and the voltage has been set correctly, I believe XMP should do that but worth double checking.
  5. Like
    -rascal- got a reaction from Cyracus in Changing ram speeds need some advice... would you kindly   
    Your RAM is running at the correct frequency.
    The EFFECTIVE memory speed is DDR4-2666 (2666 MHz), while the ACTUAL operating frequency is ~1333.333.. MHz.
     
    This is because RAM is Double Data Rate (DDR), and it operates on BOTH the rising and falling edge of each clock cycle.
     

     
     
    Command Rate is the delay in clock cycles.
    Nothing to do with the frequency of RAM.
    1T = 1 full clock cycle delay
    2T = 2 full clock cycle delays
     
    "Command rate - is the delay (in clock cycles) between when chip select is asserted (i.e. the RAM is selected) and commands (i.e. Activate Row) can be issued to the RAM. Typical values are 1T (one clock cycle) and 2T (two clock cycles)."
  6. Informative
    -rascal- reacted to YoungBlade in possible leaked new gen intel CPU performance   
    If we assume an equivalent uplift for the 5990X over the 3990X compared to the 5950X over the 3950X and 5900X over the 3900X, then it should have around a 10-20% improvement in multi-core performance. So a Cinebench R23 score somewhere between 81,800 and 89,300. For reference, the 5950X scores about 28,600. If the 12900K truly does perform 10% better than the 5950X, as the R20 numbers in the leak from late July suggested, then it would score about 31,500.
     
    However, I have a suspicion that the leaked result was of an "overclocked" 12900K, not a stock one. I know the leaker said it was stock, but Intel boards have been known to do things like enable MCE out-of-the-box, which is technically an overclock, or to remove power limits by default, which is a pseudo-overclock, even if nothing manually was done in BIOS. If that's the case, the 5950X might still win, because when overclocked to 4.7GHz all core, the 5950X gains about 20% in Cinebench R23, giving it a score of around 34,300.
     
    All of this is speculation until actual reviews come out, of course. We shall soon know how this all plays out.
  7. Agree
    -rascal- reacted to GeorgeMKane in Which NVMe SSD to pick for a Z390 board?   
    WD SN750 or Crucial P2.
     
    I would recommend the SN750 though (chip swap was only done on the SN550 AFAIK), as I have personally used them before. Definitely keep the sata ssd. Just backup your data, reformat your pc, make the m.2 your primary ssd, and then connect and format your sata ssd as a new drive. Store your games or whatever on the sata ssd, and use the m.2 for windows and all that.
     
    EDIT: You can get the SN750 regular or with a heatsink, if your motherboard doesn't come with one.
    sn750 | sn750 with heatsink
  8. Agree
    -rascal- reacted to jaslion in Sapphire Toxic R9 280X Tri-X and dual PSU "setup"   
    You just ordered a terrible psu. It's probably worse than doing that dual psu thing.
     
    Cancel the order and get a A or B tier unit from the psu tier list.
     
    https://linustechtips.com/topic/1116640-psu-tier-list/
  9. Agree
    -rascal- got a reaction from illoCharles in I have a 400 watt power supply is it dangerous to run a 385 watt rig?   
    You need to look at the spec of the power supply.
    Even though it says "400W", it might not necessarily BE a true 400W.
    The "400W" rating, depend on the quality of the units, is the OVERALL rating.
    That includes the +12v rails, the +5v, and +3.3v, etc.
     
    Where are you calculating 385W?
    What are the parts you are trying to run?
     
    Because, if you are using a online calculator, it might not take into account the EXTRA power spikes, and extra power used during 'Boost' states.
    Example, the Intel i9-9900K is rated as "95W".
    When that damn chip is under 'Turbo Boost', or when Multi-Core Enhancement (MCE) is enabled in the BIOS settings, it can exceed that "95W" rating.
    It can jump all the way up to 150W+.
    15W headroom is NOT going to be enough.
  10. Agree
    -rascal- got a reaction from TheCoder2019 in I have a 400 watt power supply is it dangerous to run a 385 watt rig?   
    You need to look at the spec of the power supply.
    Even though it says "400W", it might not necessarily BE a true 400W.
    The "400W" rating, depend on the quality of the units, is the OVERALL rating.
    That includes the +12v rails, the +5v, and +3.3v, etc.
     
    Where are you calculating 385W?
    What are the parts you are trying to run?
     
    Because, if you are using a online calculator, it might not take into account the EXTRA power spikes, and extra power used during 'Boost' states.
    Example, the Intel i9-9900K is rated as "95W".
    When that damn chip is under 'Turbo Boost', or when Multi-Core Enhancement (MCE) is enabled in the BIOS settings, it can exceed that "95W" rating.
    It can jump all the way up to 150W+.
    15W headroom is NOT going to be enough.
  11. Like
    -rascal- got a reaction from Electronics Wizardy in I have a 400 watt power supply is it dangerous to run a 385 watt rig?   
    You need to look at the spec of the power supply.
    Even though it says "400W", it might not necessarily BE a true 400W.
    The "400W" rating, depend on the quality of the units, is the OVERALL rating.
    That includes the +12v rails, the +5v, and +3.3v, etc.
     
    Where are you calculating 385W?
    What are the parts you are trying to run?
     
    Because, if you are using a online calculator, it might not take into account the EXTRA power spikes, and extra power used during 'Boost' states.
    Example, the Intel i9-9900K is rated as "95W".
    When that damn chip is under 'Turbo Boost', or when Multi-Core Enhancement (MCE) is enabled in the BIOS settings, it can exceed that "95W" rating.
    It can jump all the way up to 150W+.
    15W headroom is NOT going to be enough.
  12. Agree
    -rascal- got a reaction from Fasauceome in I have a 400 watt power supply is it dangerous to run a 385 watt rig?   
    You need to look at the spec of the power supply.
    Even though it says "400W", it might not necessarily BE a true 400W.
    The "400W" rating, depend on the quality of the units, is the OVERALL rating.
    That includes the +12v rails, the +5v, and +3.3v, etc.
     
    Where are you calculating 385W?
    What are the parts you are trying to run?
     
    Because, if you are using a online calculator, it might not take into account the EXTRA power spikes, and extra power used during 'Boost' states.
    Example, the Intel i9-9900K is rated as "95W".
    When that damn chip is under 'Turbo Boost', or when Multi-Core Enhancement (MCE) is enabled in the BIOS settings, it can exceed that "95W" rating.
    It can jump all the way up to 150W+.
    15W headroom is NOT going to be enough.
  13. Agree
    -rascal- reacted to HairlessMonkeyBoy in Is this build good for under $2k   
    Over spending on the motherboard, and you should go with 3600Mhz CL16 RAM. Otherwise mostly fine.
  14. Agree
    -rascal- reacted to --SID-- in I have a 400 watt power supply is it dangerous to run a 385 watt rig?   
    What rig? Specs please includes the make and model of the PSU.
  15. Agree
    -rascal- got a reaction from HairlessMonkeyBoy in I have a 400 watt power supply is it dangerous to run a 385 watt rig?   
    You need to look at the spec of the power supply.
    Even though it says "400W", it might not necessarily BE a true 400W.
    The "400W" rating, depend on the quality of the units, is the OVERALL rating.
    That includes the +12v rails, the +5v, and +3.3v, etc.
     
    Where are you calculating 385W?
    What are the parts you are trying to run?
     
    Because, if you are using a online calculator, it might not take into account the EXTRA power spikes, and extra power used during 'Boost' states.
    Example, the Intel i9-9900K is rated as "95W".
    When that damn chip is under 'Turbo Boost', or when Multi-Core Enhancement (MCE) is enabled in the BIOS settings, it can exceed that "95W" rating.
    It can jump all the way up to 150W+.
    15W headroom is NOT going to be enough.
  16. Agree
    -rascal- got a reaction from jaslion in I have a 400 watt power supply is it dangerous to run a 385 watt rig?   
    You need to look at the spec of the power supply.
    Even though it says "400W", it might not necessarily BE a true 400W.
    The "400W" rating, depend on the quality of the units, is the OVERALL rating.
    That includes the +12v rails, the +5v, and +3.3v, etc.
     
    Where are you calculating 385W?
    What are the parts you are trying to run?
     
    Because, if you are using a online calculator, it might not take into account the EXTRA power spikes, and extra power used during 'Boost' states.
    Example, the Intel i9-9900K is rated as "95W".
    When that damn chip is under 'Turbo Boost', or when Multi-Core Enhancement (MCE) is enabled in the BIOS settings, it can exceed that "95W" rating.
    It can jump all the way up to 150W+.
    15W headroom is NOT going to be enough.
  17. Like
    -rascal- got a reaction from Filingo in Laptop with Intel i5-6200u and no DisplayPort - how to get 4K@60Hz?   
    The Lenovo IdeadPad's HDMI port is limited to 1920x1080 @ 60Hz

     
    https://psref.lenovo.com/syspool/Sys/PDF/Lenovo_Laptops/ideapad_110_15_110_Touch_15/ideapad_110_15_110_Touch_15_Spec.PDF
    https://www.lenovo.com/ca/en/laptops/ideapad/ideapad-100-series/Ideapad-110-15-Intel/p/88IP1000743
  18. Agree
    -rascal- got a reaction from IkeaGnome in Memory speed limited by CPU?   
    There's your problem.
     
    B365 chipset based motherboards does not support DRAM overclocking.
    You have a K-series CPU, but your motherboard is limiting you.
    You need a Z370 or Z390 motherboard.
     
    Intel changed their XMP / DRAM overclocking policy with 10th / 11th Gen CPUs with non-Z chipset based motherboards.
    For any of the older generations, 9th Gen and older, you MUST use a Z chipset-based motherboard.
     

     

  19. Like
    -rascal- got a reaction from Filingo in Laptop with Intel i5-6200u and no DisplayPort - how to get 4K@60Hz?   
    What is the make and model of the laptop?
    The Intel HD 520 Graphics may support 4K @ 60Hz ... BUT if the laptop manufacturer designed the laptop / picked the components so it DOES NOT support it.
    Then there is not much you can do.
  20. Agree
    -rascal- got a reaction from jaslion in Laptop with Intel i5-6200u and no DisplayPort - how to get 4K@60Hz?   
    What is the make and model of the laptop?
    The Intel HD 520 Graphics may support 4K @ 60Hz ... BUT if the laptop manufacturer designed the laptop / picked the components so it DOES NOT support it.
    Then there is not much you can do.
  21. Like
    -rascal- got a reaction from FakeKGB in 450 watt psu with gtx 960 and an i9 10900x???   
    Are you using a i9-9900KF or i9-10900X?
    Those are VERY different CPUs, even if they are both listed as i9 tier.
     
    The i9-9900KF is listed as a "95W" chip, and the i9-10900X is "165W"
    HOWEVER, if you read / watch ACTUAL reviews, they can draw WAY more than that.
    For example, the 9900K can actually spike up to 200W. Because of Multi-Core Enhancement (MCE), and motherboards violating Intel specs / guidelines.
    Boost the CPU higher, and for longer.
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVLuKqfyVyw

  22. Like
    -rascal- got a reaction from Mister Woof in Z590 with i9-11900K - Frequent freezes/blue screens - bug in Intel?   
    @unclewebb @iransofaraway
     
    Is VCCIO/VCCSA different/higher on 11th Gen Intel?
    Because from what I know, for 8th/9th (and 10th) Gen Intel, VCCIO/VCCSA shouldn't be so high...like should not exceed ~1.30V.
     
    I'm running a manual CPU and DRAM OC, with my i7-8086K, with VCCIO/VCCSA at .. 1.15V?
    If you you run too high of a voltage, you risk degrading the CPU silicon reeeaaal fast.

  23. Informative
    -rascal- reacted to Clausewitz in Z590 with i9-11900K - Frequent freezes/blue screens - bug in Intel?   
    Hello, I am the author of the thread referenced here on overclock.net: https://www.overclock.net/threads/a-possible-defect-in-11th-gen-cpus-i-just-got-done-speaking-to-intel.1792599/page-3#post-28855260

    I wanted to state that this issue is not uncommon across the Z590 platform with the 11900K/KF CPUs.

    https://www.sweclockers.com/forum/trad/1631356-ny-dator-intel-11900k-samt-asus-prime-z590-a-bsod-hela-tiden
    https://linustechtips.com/topic/1330614-11900k-asus-z590-a-crashing/

    After countless hours trouble shooting this on multiple CPUs and motherboards I can offer a glimpse into what I believe the problem is and perhaps a temporary fix for you for the time being. 

    In general, when the C-states are disabled the CPU will not cause BSODs and will be stable. Several things are happening when the C-states are disabled. The core temperature no longer shows 0c as a "minimum temperature" and additionally the CPU will not BOOST beyond 5.1 if in ABT. 

    The theory here is that something is wrong in the ucode(microcode) that is causing the C-states to behave improperly causing the temperature readings to hit 0c. I am unsure why this ALSO fixes the CPU crashing/BSODing on multiple platforms. I believe the CPUs are boosting to 5300 too much or on too many cores that are not strong enough to handle that frequency. Only two cores on an 11900k are rated to hit 5300. When ABT is enabled it allows the cpu to raise the frequency on the cores as it pleases. This could also be a fault of the motherboard manufacturers applying Multicore enhancement in conjunction with ABT. 

    Intel specifies that in order for ABT to function properly that the power limits must be observed. 



    I am not sure what the ASROCK equivalent of disabling MCE is but you will need to do it if you want to keep ABT enabled.

    As it sits ABT will sometimes STILL cause issues. It was added to the platform very late after announcement and the original ucode did NOT have ABT nor did the original ucode observe the cores showing 0c at minimum temperatures.

    First, we need to make sure your CPU is not faulty.
     
    Load the defaults on your motherboard Do not enable XMP Do not enable ABT DISABLE the C-states Run benchmarks/play games and report back. 
  24. Agree
    -rascal- reacted to unclewebb in Z590 with i9-11900K - Frequent freezes/blue screens - bug in Intel?   
    I agree. It looks like 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th Gen are all similar. 
     
    I always agree with that advice. 
     
    His board on auto settings was setting SA voltage to 0.832 which I think is too low. This could be the root cause of the stability issues he was having. Enabling XMP automatically jacked the SA voltage up to 1.456 V which I think is too high and probably not necessary. Too high is a common issue with many motherboards. A stable computer results in less complaints. Long term CPU survival is probably not as important to motherboard manufacturers. 
     
    Here is the mid point.
     
    1.144 V = (1.456 V + 0.832 V) / 2
     
    If I was going to set the SA voltage manually, I would probably start testing somewhere around here and adjust the SA voltage accordingly. I have DDR-4000 memory so for me, setting SA to 1.25 V works well. I might be stable at 1.20 V but I prefer 100% stable. I do not think a little bit of extra SA voltage is going to kill a chip anytime soon. 
     
    Some users on OCN seemed to be running their 11th Gen with the VCCIO set to the Intel spec, 1.05 V. This one does not seem as important as SA. Thanks for posting the IMC info. 
  25. Informative
    -rascal- got a reaction from unclewebb in Z590 with i9-11900K - Frequent freezes/blue screens - bug in Intel?   
    @unclewebb @iransofaraway
     
    Is VCCIO/VCCSA different/higher on 11th Gen Intel?
    Because from what I know, for 8th/9th (and 10th) Gen Intel, VCCIO/VCCSA shouldn't be so high...like should not exceed ~1.30V.
     
    I'm running a manual CPU and DRAM OC, with my i7-8086K, with VCCIO/VCCSA at .. 1.15V?
    If you you run too high of a voltage, you risk degrading the CPU silicon reeeaaal fast.

×