5.2GHz on i7-9700k Safe?

[TouchOfThorn]

I got my i7-9700k on my pc to run stable at 5.2GHz but it runs at 75-80C under load, is that temperature safe to run?

[LIGISTX]

What cooling solution are you using, how many volts, and how are your testing stability? @TouchOfThorn

[TouchOfThorn]

Just now, LIGISTX said:

What cooling solution are you using, how many volts, and how are your testing stability?

I am using Intel XTU to run stress tests running with a Dark Rock Pro 4 and I have a voltage offset of +0.1V

[Otto_iii]

Define "under load"

75-80C under maximum load is perfectly safe.

[LIGISTX]

1 minute ago, TouchOfThorn said:

I am using Intel XTU to run stress tests running with a Dark Rock Pro 4 and I have a voltage offset of +0.1V

+.1v? That seems incredibly low. What vots is it actually reporting using during the stress test? I use CPUZ for that. The BIOS, depending on settings, may be shoving all sorts of volts down the CPU. Load Line calibration can do some hilariously jacked up things if you don't check what its really doing.

 

Also, I have never used XTU, but I would also test it with AIDA64 for at least 16 hours, I always do a final 24 hour test myself. AIDA64 will test all of the CPU components as well as load up the RAM to stress the RAM controller on the CPU as well.

 

Step 1, figure out what volts its actually running at under load with CPUZ, second I would test with Aida64.

[Enderman]

Less than 85C is perfectly safe.

[TouchOfThorn]

1 minute ago, LIGISTX said:

+.1v? That seems incredibly low. What vots is it actually reporting using during the stress test? I use CPUZ for that. The BIOS, depending on settings, may be shoving all sorts of volts down the CPU. Load Line calibration can do some hilariously jacked up things if you don't check what its really doing.

 

Also, I have never used XTU, but I would also test it with AIDA64 for at least 16 hours, I always do a final 24 hour test myself. AIDA64 will test all of the CPU components as well as load up the RAM to stress the RAM controller on the CPU as well.

 

Step 1, figure out what volts its actually running at under load with CPUZ, second I would test with Aida64.

OK can you provide a link to download CPU-Z?

[Shahnewaz]

Quote

5.2GHz on i7-9700k Safe?

No.

11 minutes ago, TouchOfThorn said:

I got my i7-9700k on my pc to run stable at 5.2GHz but it runs at 75-80C under load, is that temperature safe to run?

Yes.

[Otto_iii]

Just now, Shahnewaz said:

No.

There are plenty of people running 5.2ghz on it, just have to be lucky with silicon lottery 

[LIGISTX]

1 minute ago, Enderman said:

Less than 85C is perfectly safe.

This is true, lets just make sure his stress test is thorough and see what volts its actually using under a load.

 

Just now, TouchOfThorn said:

OK can you provide a link to download CPU-Z?

https://www.cpuid.com/softwares/cpu-z.html

 

The "ZIP - English" version doesn't actually install the software, it just runs the .exe. I personally typically use that version. You can use that, or the "Setup - English" version.

[Zando_]

1 minute ago, LIGISTX said:

see what volts its actually using under a load.

^^^ This. So long as it's within 1.3-1.4v it should be fine (1.35v is the max spec from Intel, AFAIK these chips have no issues with 1.4 or even up to 1.42v so long as you can keep them cool enough). 

[LIGISTX]

Just now, Otto_iii said:

There are plenty of people running 5.2ghz on it, just have to be lucky with silicon lottery 

This is exactly right. Its all about luck of the draw, literally.

 

My 8700k is a great chip, it does 5.0 GHZ on 1.300v, if I delid it and actually cared for higher, I could do more as well. But it all comes down to running a proper stress test and insuring it is actually stable. OP may have got a lucky chip!

[Kilrah]

Max rated temp is 100°C, so as long as you don't exceed that it's safe.

[TouchOfThorn]

1 minute ago, LIGISTX said:

This is exactly right. Its all about luck of the draw, literally.

 

My 8700k is a great chip, it does 5.0 GHZ on 1.300v, if I delid it and actually cared for higher, I could do more as well. But it all comes down to running a proper stress test and insuring it is actually stable. OP may have got a lucky chip!

Ok i have aida-64 and CPUZ up how do i start a benchmark or stress test to check the voltage?

[Shahnewaz]

2 minutes ago, Otto_iii said:

There are plenty of people running 5.2ghz on it, just have to be lucky with silicon lottery 

Is it unequivocally safe? No, you're running it out of spec and voiding warranty.

That being said, given OP's conditions, it sounds safe as long as he's not pushing too high voltages and does proper testing.

I did say yes.

[LIGISTX]

1 minute ago, TouchOfThorn said:

Ok i have aida-64 and CPUZ up how do i start a benchmark or stress test to check the voltage?

Um, I am on my mac at the moment so I can't try and run one right now, but im sure if you looked at youtube someone will be able to show you. 

[LIGISTX]

@TouchOfThorn tools > stability test > start. Then in CPUz, it will have a VID section, lets see what it says while its under load. Also, like I said, to test true ability I would let AIDA64 run for ~24 hours.

 

How long did you test with XTU?

[TouchOfThorn]

Just now, LIGISTX said:

@TouchOfThorn tools > stability test > start. Then in CPUz, it will have a VID section, lets see what it says while its under load. Also, like I said, to test true ability I would let AIDA64 run for ~24 hours.

 

How long did you test with XTU?

yep just found it thank you

I didnt test it for too long only about an hour

[TouchOfThorn]

But i cranked back the voltage offset back to default and the cpu in aida-64 is running at 4.95ghz and sometimes 5.0ghz, and its only running at 60C

[TouchOfThorn]

Ok now im running at a consistent 5.00ghz at 1.33-1.35V at 70-75C under aida-64 load

 

[LIGISTX]

1 minute ago, TouchOfThorn said:

But i cranked back the voltage offset back to default and the cpu in aida-64 is running at 4.95ghz and sometimes 5.0ghz, and its only running at 60C

Is that with default everything? Just trying to help you get an idea of what is going on.

 

I would test it at default just to see what volts it uses with the CPU 100% stock, or I suppose with XMP enabled so at least your RAM is running as its rated speed.

 

Then you can try and work on the OC. If it passed XTU for an hour, see if it passes AIDA64 for say 8 hours. If it does, back the volts off a bit, rinse and repeat until it fails Aida64, usually it will fail within 20 minutes if its not stable. Once you get to that point where its clearly not stable, add a little bit (maybe .05v), and test again. This time test is for 24 hours. If it fails at any point, add another .05v, and do that until it passes a full 24 hours. 

2 minutes ago, TouchOfThorn said:

Ok now im running at a consistent 5.00ghz at 1.33-1.35V at 70-75C under aida-64 load

 

Ok, good to know. Is that an all core overclock to 5.0GHz? 1.35 isn't bad. But, just test one thing at a time. Within he past few mins of this thread lots of things have changed. Overclocking is a slow methodical process. It takes a lot of time and patience to get it right. Don't change to many variables at once or you won't know what actually causes instability.

[TouchOfThorn]

5 minutes ago, LIGISTX said:

Is that with default everything? Just trying to help you get an idea of what is going on.

 

I would test it at default just to see what volts it uses with the CPU 100% stock, or I suppose with XMP enabled so at least your RAM is running as its rated speed.

 

Then you can try and work on the OC. If it passed XTU for an hour, see if it passes AIDA64 for say 8 hours. If it does, back the volts off a bit, rinse and repeat until it fails Aida64, usually it will fail within 20 minutes if its not stable. Once you get to that point where its clearly not stable, add a little bit (maybe .05v), and test again. This time test is for 24 hours. If it fails at any point, add another .05v, and do that until it passes a full 24 hours. 

Ok, good to know. Is that an all core overclock to 5.0GHz? 1.35 isn't bad. But, just test one thing at a time. Within he past few mins of this thread lots of things have changed. Overclocking is a slow methodical process. It takes a lot of time and patience to get it right. Don't change to many variables at once or you won't know what actually causes instability.

Ok thank you for all the help ill be sure to run some more tests and take a little more time with it and yes thats an all core 5.0GHz

[LIGISTX]

1 minute ago, TouchOfThorn said:

Ok thank you for all the help ill be sure to run some more tests and take a little more time with it and yes thats an all core 5.0GHz

No problem. Feel free to post back and tag me if you need any more help. Overclocking can be very fun, but people tend to get annoyed by the time it takes and don't actually test things properly... I have been overclocking for over a decade at this point, and it still takes me about 3-4 days to dial in a new PC's overclock. Lots of googling to see what the best BIOS settings are for my mobo, understand how the load line calibration works for my mobo, what volts are considered safe and good, what a normal chip can do and where mine seems to stack up (which can help you get your bearings on what sort of OC to expect), and then testing, lots, and lots, and then more, stress testing. Sometimes I even bust out a pencil and paper and write down for example for my chip which did 5ghz at 1.300v:

 

4.9ghz - 1.300v 8 hours pass

5.0ghz - 1.300v 8 hours pass

5.1ghz - 1.3000 failed after 2 hours

(at this point based on the CPU temps I was seeing and wanting my PC to remain dead silent at all times, I decided not to push volts and settle in at 5 ghz.)

5.0ghz - 1.3000v 24 hours passed

 

then I am done. I don't think it went quite like that as I doubt I landed on 1.300v right away. But that is how I document what is going on, and how I dial it in. It can take days to do it well, or it can take about 10 mins to do it shitty and end up hurting your chip.