I lost the silicon lottery? Non-ideal 9900k OC

[Zberg]

Unfortunately not getting the experience many others have posted in terms of their 9900k OC.  Stepped up my voltage consistently, kept getting crashes (no high temps, low 80's max).

 

Ended up getting my 9900k up to 5.0 GHz...but had to keep VCore at 1.39 to keep it from crashing.  At 1.37 CB will run like 1/4 the time to completion.  1.38 1/2 the time.  1.39, then 1.395, I thought I was good and ran it a bunch, let it rest a little, did some light work, closed most things down (not every program, but not a lot actually "active")...Started up CB,run, and crash.  Looks like I am still getting occasional spikes of 1.392 and 1.396.  Bumped it up to 1.4 and now it seems like nothing will crash it.  Still getting max spikes of 1.396.  

 

I'm a little bummed after seeing so many people posting with 5.0-5.1 GHz at easily less than 1.3.  Hopefully 1.4 will not be a problem.  I am very safely in a good temp range (most CB runs put me in high 70's, if I do a few back to back I can get up to mid 80's).  Gaming has put me into the 70's, looks like utilization for that is of course not near CB. 

 

I guess at least it doesn't run hot?  CB scores in the 2180's-2205max, temps never above mid 80's.  1.4 shouldn't hurt it if i'm not technically every running hot? I hope?

 

 

[orbitalbuzzsaw]

5Ghz on 8 cores is pretty good either way.

[Jurrunio]

what kind of cooling is that?

[Zberg]

8 minutes ago, OrbitalBuzzsaw said:

5Ghz on 8 cores is pretty good either way.

I suppose that is true, it is clearly a huge speed upgrade.  Just a bummer I will be a bit hesitant to push it any further in the future.  Hopefully it'll be a long time before I need to tune it up

[LogicWeasel]

12 minutes ago, Zberg said:

Unfortunately not getting the experience many others have posted in terms of their 9900k OC

 

One way you could try to see what percentile you're in (roughly) is run the UserBenchmark hardware speed test on it.  https://www.userbenchmark.com/ 

It should give you some idea how it performs against other users who likely overclocked theirs (considering the cross-over of people who would both run a UserBenchmark scan and own a 9900k).  For example, I have an i5-2500k and when I first ran it stock, it said my CPU was in the lower 42% - percentile bracket, and once I put a mild overclock on it to 3.8Ghz boost and it went to higher 59% percentile, so you can tell the 2500k results curve is heavily skewed by people who knew to overclock the snot out of it  (the motherboard I have is non-OC H67 motherboard and that prevents me from doing multiplier control, it maxes out my mild overclock at 3.7Ghz base... I know it's a travesty for that CPU and it can do so much more, but oh well it's old and needs an upgrade anyway).

[Zberg]

1 minute ago, Jurrunio said:

what kind of cooling is that?

Just the 3 case fans from the Define R6 and a Noctua D15

[Jurrunio]

2 minutes ago, Zberg said:

Just the 3 case fans from the Define R6 and a Noctua D15

so you live in the poles? Because that's very far from what reviewers found out (NZXT X62 on 9900k? Yup 1.35V and the thing's nearing Tjmax)

[aisle9]

5 minutes ago, Zberg said:

Just the 3 case fans from the Define R6 and a Noctua D15

Which motherboard are you running?

[Zberg]

8 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

so you live in the poles? Because that's very far from what reviewers found out (NZXT X62 on 9900k? Yup 1.35V and the thing's nearing Tjmax)

Nah I am in the south, but its cool right now.  Outside is like 60, house it like 70.  I figured 1.4 would be getting me screaming high temps.  Got lucky there I guess?

[Zberg]

5 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

Which motherboard are you running?

Aorus Master

[Zberg]

14 minutes ago, LogicWeasel said:

One way you could try to see what percentile you're in (roughly) is run the UserBenchmark hardware speed test on it.  https://www.userbenchmark.com/ 

It should give you some idea how it performs against other users who likely overclocked theirs (considering the cross-over of people who would both run a UserBenchmark scan and own a 9900k).  For example, I have an i5-2500k and when I first ran it stock, it said my CPU was in the lower 42% - percentile bracket, and once I put a mild overclock on it to 3.8Ghz boost and it went to higher 59% percentile, so you can tell the 2500k results curve is heavily skewed by people who knew to overclock the snot out of it  (the motherboard I have is non-OC H67 motherboard and that prevents me from doing multiplier control, it maxes out my mild overclock at 3.7Ghz base... I know it's a travesty for that CPU and it can do so much more, but oh well it's old and needs an upgrade anyway).

Thanks for the tip Ill run this now

[xg32]

42 minutes ago, Zberg said:

.

the current alone on 1.4 might be a problem long term, but nobody knows for sure atm, just keep in mind that most of the 5ghz you see is with an avx offset, and 5.0 avx at 1.4v is right about average.

[Zberg]

2 hours ago, LogicWeasel said:

One way you could try to see what percentile you're in (roughly) is run the UserBenchmark hardware speed test on it.  https://www.userbenchmark.com/ 

It should give you some idea how it performs against other users who likely overclocked theirs (considering the cross-over of people who would both run a UserBenchmark scan and own a 9900k).  For example, I have an i5-2500k and when I first ran it stock, it said my CPU was in the lower 42% - percentile bracket, and once I put a mild overclock on it to 3.8Ghz boost and it went to higher 59% percentile, so you can tell the 2500k results curve is heavily skewed by people who knew to overclock the snot out of it  (the motherboard I have is non-OC H67 motherboard and that prevents me from doing multiplier control, it maxes out my mild overclock at 3.7Ghz base... I know it's a travesty for that CPU and it can do so much more, but oh well it's old and needs an upgrade anyway).

Appreciate the link!  I tried it out and...

 

Intel Core i9-9900K-$520

9,294 User benchmarks, average bench 121%

U3E1, 1 CPU, 8 cores, 16 threads

Base clock 3.6 GHz, turbo 4.95 GHz (avg)

 

 Performing way above expectations (96^th percentile)

 

I guess even though I'm requiring somewhat higher voltage i'll take it.  Seems like it is doing some beastly work.