First Time Overclocking - Messed Up My BIOS

[foogison]

Looking for some help here >.>

 

Rig: i5-9600k, Aorus Z390 I pro wifi

 

About a year ago, first time attempting overclocking, I did tons of research and thought i was legit but ended up making the rookie mistake of misreading how the multiplier works, and set my CPU to run at 45 GHz instead of 4.5...

Since making this grave error, whenever my PC is unplugged and plugged back into power, the fans will spin for a couple of seconds, then it shuts off, turns back on, fans spin for a couple seconds, and then it posts.

I think that my motherboard must have some dual bios functionality, where the first bios settings fail it just reverts to the second one?

 

For the last year or so i have just been running the cpu at standard clock speeds having given up on overclocking. Now, I am looking at upgrading my cpu to an i9-9900k as I am starting to work in the engineering space where i am running large finite element models, and the i5 just isnt cutting it for me anymore.

Before I upgrade, i would like to flash the bios to a newer version as i believe there was some security vulnerability issues with these 9th gen intel CPUS:

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/security-center/advisory/intel-sa-00233.html

As well, it appears that aorus has completely refreshed its UEFI bios structure in a later version, and added stability improvements for i9 cpus.

 

So backstory out of the way, i am wondering if i flash the bios if it will update both, or if it will only flash the version that is currently posting? I am wondering how i can fix this issue to restore full functionality to my motherboard? Is this even possible or have i totally screwed myself here? Should i be worried about upgrading the CPU with this loss of functionality? Is the initial attempt to post at 45Ghz potentially damaging any of my components whenever my PC temporarily loses power for whatever reason (power outage, moving, etc.)?

 

Thanks in advance !!

[-rascal-]

12 minutes ago, foogison said:

Looking for some help here >.>

 

Rig: i5-9600k,

 

About a year ago, first time attempting overclocking, I did tons of research and thought i was legit but ended up making the rookie mistake of misreading how the multiplier works, and set my CPU to run at 45 GHz instead of 4.5...

Since making this grave error, whenever my PC is unplugged and plugged back into power, the fans will spin for a couple of seconds, then it shuts off, turns back on, fans spin for a couple seconds, and then it posts.

I think that my motherboard must have some dual bios functionality, where the first bios settings fail it just reverts to the second one?

 

For the last year or so i have just been running the cpu at standard clock speeds having given up on overclocking. Now, I am looking at upgrading my cpu to an i9-9900k as I am starting to work in the engineering space where i am running large finite element models, and the i5 just isnt cutting it for me anymore.

Before I upgrade, i would like to flash the bios to a newer version as i believe there was some security vulnerability issues with these 9th gen intel CPUS:

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/security-center/advisory/intel-sa-00233.html

As well, it appears that aorus has completely refreshed its UEFI bios structure in a later version, and added stability improvements for i9 cpus.

 

So backstory out of the way, i am wondering if i flash the bios if it will update both, or if it will only flash the version that is currently posting? I am wondering how i can fix this issue to restore full functionality to my motherboard? Is this even possible or have i totally screwed myself here? Should i be worried about upgrading the CPU with this loss of functionality? Is the initial attempt to post at 45Ghz potentially damaging any of my components whenever my PC temporarily loses power for whatever reason (power outage, moving, etc.)?

 

Thanks in advance !!

 

How did you manage to set a CPU multiplier ratio to ... 450?

Does the BIOS even let you go up that high?

 

You ran into an unstable overclock.

What you could have just done was clear / reset the CMOS, and it would bring all your BIOS setting back to default.

Unplug the computer from the PSU / wall socket, and remove the button cell battery for ~5 minutes.

 

Updating the BIOS to the latest will already have the vulnerability patches included.

The newer BIOS will have the fixes / improvements of the previous BIOS versions, so no need to flash up, one by one.

 

If you are going to put a i9-9900K into the ITX Z390 Aorus Pro WiFi board, AND try to give it an overclock... don't.

That board's VRM will struggle (e.g. might toast itself) if you are plan to push that i9-9900K to 5.0+ GHz.

 

[LIGISTX]

29 minutes ago, foogison said:

Looking for some help here >.>

 

Rig: i5-9600k, Aorus Z390 I pro wifi

 

About a year ago, first time attempting overclocking, I did tons of research and thought i was legit but ended up making the rookie mistake of misreading how the multiplier works, and set my CPU to run at 45 GHz instead of 4.5...

Since making this grave error, whenever my PC is unplugged and plugged back into power, the fans will spin for a couple of seconds, then it shuts off, turns back on, fans spin for a couple seconds, and then it posts.

I think that my motherboard must have some dual bios functionality, where the first bios settings fail it just reverts to the second one?

 

For the last year or so i have just been running the cpu at standard clock speeds having given up on overclocking. Now, I am looking at upgrading my cpu to an i9-9900k as I am starting to work in the engineering space where i am running large finite element models, and the i5 just isnt cutting it for me anymore.

Before I upgrade, i would like to flash the bios to a newer version as i believe there was some security vulnerability issues with these 9th gen intel CPUS:

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/security-center/advisory/intel-sa-00233.html

As well, it appears that aorus has completely refreshed its UEFI bios structure in a later version, and added stability improvements for i9 cpus.

 

So backstory out of the way, i am wondering if i flash the bios if it will update both, or if it will only flash the version that is currently posting? I am wondering how i can fix this issue to restore full functionality to my motherboard? Is this even possible or have i totally screwed myself here? Should i be worried about upgrading the CPU with this loss of functionality? Is the initial attempt to post at 45Ghz potentially damaging any of my components whenever my PC temporarily loses power for whatever reason (power outage, moving, etc.)?

 

Thanks in advance !!

As stated, reset your CMOS. Google your mobo and “reset CMOS”, you will find the jumper needed to be jumped which resets the cmos (or pulling the battery and unplugging from wall works as well).

 

I would be weary of the board you use for a 9900k. It can pull A LOT of power, and the mobo VRM may not be up to it. A quick google seems to look like it may be ok, but I’d do more detailed research. Also, don’t plan on overclocking it much. A 9900k, especially now that 9900ks’s started to exist and be binned for, are really hard to push higher than stock, and a 4.7 all core turbo ain’t half bad anyways.

 

TLDR; if you plan to push high CPU loads for extended times, make sure your mobo VRM is up for it, and make sure your Cpu cooling is decent at best for stock speeds, and very good for any amount of overclock. 

[foogison]

14 minutes ago, LIGISTX said:

As stated, reset your CMOS. Google your mobo and “reset CMOS”, you will find the jumper needed to be jumped which resets the cmos (or pulling the battery and unplugging from wall works as well).

 

I would be weary of the board you use for a 9900k. It can pull A LOT of power, and the mobo VRM may not be up to it. A quick google seems to look like it may be ok, but I’d do more detailed research. Also, don’t plan on overclocking it much. A 9900k, especially now that 9900ks’s started to exist and be binned for, are really hard to push higher than stock, and a 4.7 all core turbo ain’t half bad anyways.

 

TLDR; if you plan to push high CPU loads for extended times, make sure your mobo VRM is up for it, and make sure your Cpu cooling is decent at best for stock speeds, and very good for any amount of overclock. 

 

38 minutes ago, -rascal- said:

 

How did you manage to set a CPU multiplier ratio to ... 450?

Does the BIOS even let you go up that high?

 

You ran into an unstable overclock.

What you could have just done was clear / reset the CMOS, and it would bring all your BIOS setting back to default.

Unplug the computer from the PSU / wall socket, and remove the button cell battery for ~5 minutes.

 

Updating the BIOS to the latest will already have the vulnerability patches included.

The newer BIOS will have the fixes / improvements of the previous BIOS versions, so no need to flash up, one by one.

 

If you are going to put a i9-9900K into the ITX Z390 Aorus Pro WiFi board, AND try to give it an overclock... don't.

That board's VRM will struggle (e.g. might toast itself) if you are plan to push that i9-9900K to 5.0+ GHz.

 

 

Thanks to both for the advice!! I will look up how to reset the CMOS for my board.

I have an H80i V2 currently cooling the i5-9600k. I was going to upgrade the fans on it to ML120s for the 9900k and i dont intend on overclocking it. Worst case scenario i might try and go for the 5.0Ghz mark.

 

I would like to stick with the ITX form factor as i have to move a lot for work, and having a PC that i can bring in a duffel bag on the plane is ideal.

However, given mentioned VRM concerns, am i better off looking into a different board? Potential switch to AMD or 10th gen i7 / i9?

Im trying to weight the relative cost of sticking with i've got and just upgrading to the i9 or going with a new mobo + cpu.

[-rascal-]

20 minutes ago, foogison said:

 

 

Thanks to both for the advice!! I will look up how to reset the CMOS for my board.

I have an H80i V2 currently cooling the i5-9600k. I was going to upgrade the fans on it to ML120s for the 9900k and i dont intend on overclocking it. Worst case scenario i might try and go for the 5.0Ghz mark.

 

I would like to stick with the ITX form factor as i have to move a lot for work, and having a PC that i can bring in a duffel bag on the plane is ideal.

However, given mentioned VRM concerns, am i better off looking into a different board? Potential switch to AMD or 10th gen i7 / i9?

Im trying to weight the relative cost of sticking with i've got and just upgrading to the i9 or going with a new mobo + cpu.

 

H80i V2 is a thick radiator 120mm AIO.

It should be fine for the i9-9900K?

Only questionable doubt is surface area of the radiator, and able to dissipate the heat quick enough.

 

What case are you housing this system in?

 

As for the VRMs, if the i9-9900K is Turbo Boosting in short bursts to 5.0 GHz it is fine.

Even doing a 4.4 ~ 4.6 (?) GHz all-core overclock will be fine...? ... don't quote me on this, though.

Once you start pushing the frequency + voltage up, the 6-phase 40A VRMs, how close together they are, and the heatsink that is one there, will have a hard time.

 

Referencing Buildzoid:

Mild all-core overclock on the i9-9900K, you are pushing 150A of current, and the VRMs are going to be generating about 21.5W of heat...

Starting to push the limit of the heatsink.

Push for a even higher all-core overclock on the i9-9900K, and you are pushing 180A of current, and the VRMs will be generating ~30W of heat.

That VRM heatsink won't be able to handle that find out heat output, not without active cooling / airflow.

 

A 10th Gen i9 will generate even more heat from the CPU and VRM.

The 10th Gen compatible motherboards are EVEN more beefed up this time around.

Some of the budget Z490 boards can't even handle a 10th Gen i9 at STOCK; the CPU will throttle frequency.

 

If you need the high per-core frequency, Intel is still the way to go.

If the workloads you do favors high core / thread count, AMD Ryzen is the way to go.

[foogison]

6 minutes ago, -rascal- said:

 

H80i V2 is a thick radiator 120mm AIO.

It should be fine for the i9-9900K?

Only questionable doubt is surface area of the radiator..

 

What case are you house this system in?

 

As for the VRMs, if the i9-9900K is Turbo Boosting in short bursts to 5.0 GHz is fine.

Even doing a 4.6 ~ 4.8 (?) GHz all-core overclock will be fine.

Once you start pushing the frequency + voltage up, the 6-phase 40A VRMs, how close together they are, and the heatsink that is one there, will have a hard time.

 

Referencing Buildzoid:

Mild all-core overclock on the i9-9900K, you are pushing 150A of current, and the VRMs are going to be generating about 21.5W of heat...

Starting to push the limit of the heatsink.

Push for a even higher all-core overclock on the i9-9900K, and you are pushing 180A of current, and the VRMs will be generating ~30W of heat.

That VRM heatsink won't be able to handle that find out heat output, not without active cooling / airflow.

 

The case is a cooler master elite 130. The PSU is upside down sitting directly over the board and acts as an exhaust fan, so there is marginal airflow over the VRM currently.

As i sort of alluded to before, i am going to be running some optimization procedures for finite element models on this machine and they can take 6+ hours to complete sometimes. So the cpu is intended to be able to run at all core boost for extended periods of time. It seems to me like any overclocking of the i9 would be out of the question.

 

I guess the debate now would be whether or not the i9 would be thermally limited and if i should just try the i7 instead. In that case im not sure if im going to get the kind of performance jump that I'm looking for here.

[-rascal-]

25 minutes ago, foogison said:

The case is a cooler master elite 130. The PSU is upside down sitting directly over the board and acts as an exhaust fan, so there is marginal airflow over the VRM currently.

As i sort of alluded to before, i am going to be running some optimization procedures for finite element models on this machine and they can take 6+ hours to complete sometimes. So the cpu is intended to be able to run at all core boost for extended periods of time. It seems to me like any overclocking of the i9 would be out of the question.

 

I guess the debate now would be whether or not the i9 would be thermally limited and if i should just try the i7 instead. In that case im not sure if im going to get the kind of performance jump that I'm looking for here.

 

Would you consider a different ITX computer case?

The Cooler Master Elite 130 is more of a "cube" chassis.

Switching over to something like a Fractal Design Nano S gives you a more "traditional" chassis, but provides MORE cooling options.

 

Dimensions of the Cooler Master Elite 130

(H x W x D) = 8.2" x 9.4" x 15.7"

 

Dimensions of the Fractal Design Nano S

(H x W x D) = 12.99" x 7.99" x 15.75"

 

 

Can you give examples if some of the program(s) you will be using?

Are all 6-cores on your i5-9600K pegged at 100%?

 

But from the sounds of it, your scenario seems to favor higher core + threads counts, which leans to the AMD Ryzen CPUs more.

• Ryzen 3600X = 6-cores / 12-threads
• Ryzen 3700X / 3800X = 8-cores / 16-threads
• Ryzen 3900X / 3950X = 12-cores / 24-threads

 

The i7-9700K goes up in core count, by 2+, but same as the i5-9600K, no extra threads.

9th Gen was a weird one for Intel...dropping Hyperthreading on the i7 CPUs...

(They learned that mistake and back-tracked on the 10th Gen CPUs)

 

If your current i5-9600K is at stock, and all 6-cores / 6-threads are running full load 100% for 6+ hours, it is NOT running a 4.6 GHz all-core.

That would violate Intel's 95W spec.

It would be either running at Base 3.7 GHz or up to 4.3 GHz across all cores, as the stock boost table for the i5-9600K is as follows:

• Up to 4.3 GHz when 5 or 6 cores are active
• Up to 4.4 GHz when 3 or 4 cores are active
• Up to 4.5 GHz when 2 cores active
• Up to 4.6 GHz when 1 core active

 

[foogison]

1 hour ago, -rascal- said:

 

Would you consider a different ITX computer case?

The Cooler Master Elite 130 is more of a "cube" chassis.

Switching over to something like a Fractal Design Nano S gives you a more "traditional" chassis, but provides MORE cooling options.

 

Dimensions of the Cooler Master Elite 130

(H x W x D) = 8.2" x 9.4" x 15.7"

 

Dimensions of the Fractal Design Nano S

(H x W x D) = 12.99" x 7.99" x 15.75"

 

 

Can you give examples if some of the program(s) you will be using?

Are all 6-cores on your i5-9600K pegged at 100%?

 

But from the sounds of it, your scenario seems to favor higher core + threads counts, which leans to the AMD Ryzen CPUs more.

• Ryzen 3600X = 6-cores / 12-threads
• Ryzen 3700X / 3800X = 8-cores / 16-threads
• Ryzen 3900X / 3950X = 12-cores / 24-threads

 

The i7-9700K goes up in core count, by 2+, but same as the i5-9600K, no extra threads.

9th Gen was a weird one for Intel...dropping Hyperthreading on the i7 CPUs...

(They learned that mistake and back-tracked on the 10th Gen CPUs)

 

If your current i5-9600K is at stock, and all 6-cores / 6-threads are running full load 100% for 6+ hours, it is NOT running a 4.6 GHz all-core.

That would violate Intel's 95W spec.

It would be either running at Base 3.7 GHz or up to 4.3 GHz across all cores, as the stock boost table for the i5-9600K is as follows:

• Up to 4.3 GHz when 5 or 6 cores are active
• Up to 4.4 GHz when 3 or 4 cores are active
• Up to 4.5 GHz when 2 cores active
• Up to 4.6 GHz when 1 core active

 

I had put a lot of debate into initially choosing this case, i had actually wanted an SG13 but it was out of stock when i went to purchase my parts a year or so ago.

I really like to form factor of this case and would be hesitant to switch to something bigger at the moment.

 

I attached a screenshot of what the core usage looks like after a couple minutes of running an optimization procedure. It is Rhino 6 / Grasshopper running the galapagos evolutionary solver, this is about the heaviest workload i envision. I will also be using other structural analysis software like SAP2000 on large scale models, as well as working with large files in Revit.

You are correct, it is going to 4.29GHz all core max under turbo.

 

Without hyperthreading on the i7 it seems like the i9 is the better choice in upgrade if i want to stick with my current platform. Question still standing will the thermals be "good" without any overclocking (or minimal overclocking).

 

Cost of the i9 is about $700.

Cost of a new am4 x570 itx board and the comparable 3800X is going to be closer to $850. Not sure what the new B550s look like for the itx space?

 

Maybe it would be a better idea here to consider changing platform.. Just seems silly to me because i just got this board a year ago and intel had to go and change the socket!

Should i just wait for Zen3?

[LIGISTX]

7 hours ago, foogison said:

 

 

Thanks to both for the advice!! I will look up how to reset the CMOS for my board.

I have an H80i V2 currently cooling the i5-9600k. I was going to upgrade the fans on it to ML120s for the 9900k and i dont intend on overclocking it. Worst case scenario i might try and go for the 5.0Ghz mark.

Without reading the rest to see if somewhere someone chimed in, that radiator won't be enough for a 9900k, even at stock 4.7 GHz turbo. It may, and i mean just maybe might, allow it to hit its 4.7 all core turbo, but I would anticipate the temps to be in the mid to high 90's...

[foogison]

18 hours ago, LIGISTX said:

Without reading the rest to see if somewhere someone chimed in, that radiator won't be enough for a 9900k, even at stock 4.7 GHz turbo. It may, and i mean just maybe might, allow it to hit its 4.7 all core turbo, but I would anticipate the temps to be in the mid to high 90's...

What is the viability like of the non k version i9-9900?

[-rascal-]

6 minutes ago, foogison said:

What is the viability like of the non k version i9-9900?

 

The i9-9900 might be a viable option, given it has a 65W TDP rating, and the Base Clock frequency is lower (3.1 GHz vs 3.6 GHz).

 

It seems like the programs you are running do favor more cores and threads.

Without a platform change (from Intel to AMD), I think the i9-9900 might be a viable option.

[foogison]

34 minutes ago, -rascal- said:

 

The i9-9900 might be a viable option, given it has a 65W TDP rating, and the Base Clock frequency is lower (3.1 GHz vs 3.6 GHz).

 

It seems like the programs you are running do favor more cores and threads.

Without a platform change (from Intel to AMD), I think the i9-9900 might be a viable option.

 

19 hours ago, LIGISTX said:

Without reading the rest to see if somewhere someone chimed in, that radiator won't be enough for a 9900k, even at stock 4.7 GHz turbo. It may, and i mean just maybe might, allow it to hit its 4.7 all core turbo, but I would anticipate the temps to be in the mid to high 90's...

 

Wondering if you guys might be able to explain something to me here. My current i5-9600k has a 95W TDP; same as the i9-9900k. I have never had any thermal issues with my current chip running at 100% without overclocking. Im wondering why then the i9-9900k would be generating significantly more heat at the same TDP? What am i missing?

[-rascal-]

2 hours ago, foogison said:

 

 

Wondering if you guys might be able to explain something to me here. My current i5-9600k has a 95W TDP; same as the i9-9900k. I have never had any thermal issues with my current chip running at 100% without overclocking. Im wondering why then the i9-9900k would be generating significantly more heat at the same TDP? What am i missing?

 

The TDP is more or less the heat it generates under nominal conditions...and how Intel generates their TDP rating is different from how AMD does it.

It does not indicate how much power it actually draws.

The i9-9900K is power hungry chip if you push all 8-cores to 100% -- even more when overclocked.

Overclocking exceeds the TDP and power consumption ratings, for obvious reasons.

 

One test result, but JUST as an example.

When all 8-cores are running full 100%, the CPU can draw 165W+ at stock.

The i7-9700K is ~124W; meaning the i5-9600K would be less than that.

 

Tom's Hardware was able to push their i9-9900K to EVEN higher power consumption, running AVX instruction sets via Prime95.

[foogison]

16 hours ago, -rascal- said:

 

The TDP is more or less the heat it generates under nominal conditions...and how Intel generates their TDP rating is different from how AMD does it.

It does not indicate how much power it actually draws.

The i9-9900K is power hungry chip if you push all 8-cores to 100% -- even more when overclocked.

Overclocking exceeds the TDP and power consumption ratings, for obvious reasons.

 

One test result, but JUST as an example.

When all 8-cores are running full 100%, the CPU can draw 165W+ at stock.

The i7-9700K is ~124W; meaning the i5-9600K would be less than that.

[PICTURE]

 

Tom's Hardware was able to push their i9-9900K to EVEN higher power consumption, running AVX instruction sets via Prime95.

[PICTURE]

Very informative thank you - Trust the electrical engineer!

It seems to me like the i9-9900 is probably my best bet here.