New and Future ITX build, CPU: i7, i9, or Ryzen 9?

[TrickEgo]

Hello,

 

Just made my ITX build (First PC Build Ever) in the Phanteks Evolv Shift Air with Ryzen 3900x and my experience is so so. Started paying Death Stranding and at first Temps shot up to over 80 degrees but when back down fairly quickly to around 68 degrees. GPU is fine at 64 to 68 average with the default fan curve, so 50 to 50% power, 60 at 60% power. It was odd to me that I had to set the on/auto with msi afterburner for the fans to turn ramp up, is this normal? CPU at full load is at 80 to 82 degrees in cinebench. I wanted a smaller case to take up less space and from watching a shit ton of Optimum Tech videos I copied one of his builds and thought it was gonna turn out great but meh its ok. I did eventually to get the CPU temps down by offsetting the voltage by .1 from learning it here from a individual on this form (Thank You). Im not happy with the CPU temps spikes so i just said screw it and decided to get a new case.

 

Current Build

Phanteks Evolv Shift Air

3900x

FE 2070 Super

MB: Asus Rog Stix x570i

EK 120mm RGB AIO

3 nf a12x15 all set to exhaust

 

 

New Build Coming Soon

Fractal Design Meshify C Mini 

3900x

FE 2070 Super

MB: Asus Rog Stix x570i

EK 240mm RGB AIO (what to do a push pull with EK two nf a12x15 and two nf a12x15 slim fans)

 2 or 3 exhaust fans

 

For the future I do still want to make an ITX mini build in a Ghost S1 but dont exactly know how to build it. I want a complete air cooled build and already have a NHL-12 Cooler Ghost S1 edition. Due to the weird temp spikes with the 3900x would intel ten gen i7 or i9 be better for an ITX build? From what I heard Ryzen runs cooler and at $410 price point I couldnt say no. Let me know your guys advice, still new to this PC so i dont understand much. Thanks in advance. 

 

 

 

[Origami Cactus]

Putting an modern i7 or i9 in an itx build is either asking for trouble, or very low clock speeds.

 

The temp spikes on the ryzen is completely normal, you just have to set the fan curve to not react that quickly.

 

[TrickEgo]

OK so wait for better intel and ryzen stuff LOL.

 

The exhaust fan next to the CPU is plugged in to the power supply as i did not have enough fan splitters. 

[5x5]

i7 and i9 in an ITX system is a recipe for a heatstroke. That's a 200-300W CPU in a tiny box. Not recommended.

 

I'd say Ryzen 7 3700X or Ryzen 9 3900X if you can't wait for Zen 3 in two months.

[5x5]

Just now, TrickEgo said:

OK so wait for better intel and ryzen stuff LOL.

 

The exhaust fan next to the CPU is plugged in to the power supply as i did not have enough fan splitters. 

Intel are on delay till 2022 for anything new soooo - either wait till Zen 3 or get Zen 2 now.

[TrickEgo]

Not building the ghost s1 for a while and i will wait for zen 3 in general. thanks

 

[Mateyyy]

Well you could cool a 10900K in the Meshify C Mini, but I wouldn't use it in a Ghost S1. I mean it'll run with a 120mm AIO or an NH-L12, but only with the default power limits enabled, and even then thermals would still be quite high.

My vote also goes towards the 3900X. With a slight undervolt as well it's easily manageable in a small ITX case, a lot more than a 10900K at least.

[TrickEgo]

Just now, Mateyyy said:

Well you could cool a 10900K in the Meshify C Mini, but I wouldn't use it in a Ghost S1. I mean it'll run with a 120mm AIO or an NH-L12, but only with the default power limits enabled, and even then thermals would still be quite high.

My vote also goes towards the 3900X.

thanks will wait to see what zen 3 brings

[The_russian]

8 minutes ago, 5x5 said:

i7 and i9 in an ITX system is a recipe for a heatstroke. That's a 200-300W CPU in a tiny box. 

I’m not saying your overall point is wrong, but where did you get those numbers from? The 10900k has a tdp of 125W.

[Korben]

A 3600 would have been enough for that GPU and for gaming,  and the 120mm AiO would have been a better fit for too, imo.

[5x5]

11 minutes ago, The_russian said:

I’m not saying your overall point is wrong, but where did you get those numbers from? The 10900k has a tdp of 125W.

Any review. The 10900K draws 331W under maximum load if you leave it to run at default. Once you enable the limits, it stops to 140W and also loses 15% of its performance since clocks drop rapidly. And yeah, TDP is a meaningless number that shouldn't be used at all for anything.

[TrickEgo]

2 minutes ago, Korben said:

A 3600 would have been enough for that GPU and for gaming,  and the 120mm AiO would have been a better fit for too, imo.

Thanks will think about it, but will like to keep it all air cooled as I do travel for work and would like to get it through TSA without a AIO.

[p swarup_india]

36 minutes ago, Origami Cactus said:

Putting an modern i7 or i9 in an itx build is either asking for trouble, or very low clock speeds.

 

The temp spikes on the ryzen is completely normal, you just have to set the fan curve to not react that quickly.

 

Agreed 

[Mateyyy]

35 minutes ago, 5x5 said:

Any review. The 10900K draws 331W under maximum load if you leave it to run at default. Once you enable the limits, it stops to 140W and also loses 15% of its performance since clocks drop rapidly. And yeah, TDP is a meaningless number that shouldn't be used at all for anything.

The 10900K pulls 200W with the power limits removed, not 300W. To get it to draw 325W+ you be looking at a 5.2GHz all-core overclock at least.

But yes, TDP is meaningless, unless you're fine with gimped performance which is what you get in long workloads with the power limits in place.

[5x5]

20 minutes ago, Mateyyy said:

The 10900K pulls 200W with the power limits removed, not 300W. To get it to draw 325W+ you be looking at a 5.2GHz all-core overclock at least.

But yes, TDP is meaningless, unless you're fine with gimped performance which is what you get in long workloads with the power limits in place.

Well if you remove all limits it will auto boost to 5.1 usually (assuming the cooler hasn't melted) and ours got to 294 sooo - 200W is very very conservative. Our brand new 10700K goes past 200W easily.

[Mateyyy]

Just now, 5x5 said:

Well if you remove all limits it will auto boost to 5.1 usually (assuming the cooler hasn't melted) and ours got to 294 sooo - 200W is very very conservative. Our brand new 10700K goes past 200W easily.

That's not removing the limits, that's overclocking. It's specced for 4.8GHz all-core.

[5x5]

3 minutes ago, Mateyyy said:

That's not removing the limits, that's overclocking. It's specced for 4.8GHz all-core.

Thermal Velocity Boost is in effect. And every board I've seen has MCE enabled by default so at default, it's at 300W. I'll see at 4.8 but 300MHz less won't make it drop 100W

[Mateyyy]

8 minutes ago, 5x5 said:

Thermal Velocity Boost is in effect. And every board I've seen has MCE enabled by default so at default, it's at 300W. I'll see at 4.8 but 300MHz less won't make it drop 100W

It's not the 300MHz, but rather the voltage. Even with the matured silicon, 5.1GHz+ on 10 cores simultaneously is no easy feat, whereas 4.8GHz is doable on any chip that passed validation. 

For those clock speeds, on the vast majority of chips you're looking at 1.3V+ on all cores which, on 14nm+++ cores, means a lot of excess power and heat. Granted at that point it's quite hard to cool if you've got anything under a big dual-tower or a 280mm AIO, so this is pretty irrelevant for an ITX build anyway.

 

I just checked GN's review of the 10900K, and they got 200W on the package without the power limits (so 4.8GHz most likely), and 307.2W at 5.2GHz 1.296V GET on the Vcore, for reference.

 

I'm going to be honest and say that I haven't actually looked into how TVB works too much as opposed to the regular TB 2.0, but I'll try and catch up on that soon.

[5x5]

6 minutes ago, Mateyyy said:

It's not the 300MHz, but rather the voltage. Even with the matured silicon, 5.1GHz+ on 10 cores simultaneously is no easy feat, whereas 4.8GHz is doable on any chip that passed validation. 

For those clock speeds, on the vast majority of chips you're looking at 1.3V+ on all cores which, on 14nm+++ cores, means a lot of excess power and heat. Granted at that point it's quite hard to cool if you've got anything under a big dual-tower or a 280mm AIO, so this is pretty irrelevant for an ITX build anyway.

 

I just checked GN's review of the 10900K, and they got 200W on the package without the power limits (so 4.8GHz most likely), and 307.2W at 5.2GHz 1.296V GET on the Vcore, for reference.

 

I'm going to be honest and say that I haven't actually looked into how TVB works too much as opposed to the regular TB 2.0, but I'll try and catch up on that soon.

Well, can only comment on my experience with a single one the boss allowed me to play with. It was the power of the sun at my fingertips (meaning I burned myself on the cooler)

[kewtz]

Most of the comments here are misleading.

 

You can run i9 or Ryzen 9 in an ITX form factor.

Does it have the potential to run warmer than ATX? Yes, so the builder needs to pay special attention to the AIO and getting proper fan configurations (Noctua NF-A12 is the go to fan)

 

CPU under-volting generally isn't required but GPU under-volting may be needed based on your sustained temps under load.

I would recommend watching Optimum Tech on YouTube and see his builds that are exclusively ITX with high-end CPU/GPU configurations.

He does a great job of discussing ITX cases, thermal performance, fans, AIOs and of course custom loops.

 

While I'm waiting for the next round of CPUs and GPUs - I had fully planned on doing a 3900x / 2080 Super in an ITX, it can be done with the right cooling setup.

[TrickEgo]

22 hours ago, Mateyyy said:

Well you could cool a 10900K in the Meshify C Mini, but I wouldn't use it in a Ghost S1. I mean it'll run with a 120mm AIO or an NH-L12, but only with the default power limits enabled, and even then thermals would still be quite high.

My vote also goes towards the 3900X. With a slight undervolt as well it's easily manageable in a small ITX case, a lot more than a 10900K at least.

In regards to undervolting. I tried to undervolt my 3900x to 4.3 and 4,1 at 1.33 volts and it worked but the temps didnt change. Was i doing it correctly, i did it in ryzen master and not in the bios because i heard there was something wrong with undervolting in the bios with ryzen stuff.  

[Mateyyy]

1 hour ago, TrickEgo said:

In regards to undervolting. I tried to undervolt my 3900x to 4.3 and 4,1 at 1.33 volts and it worked but the temps didnt change. Was i doing it correctly, i did it in ryzen master and not in the bios because i heard there was something wrong with undervolting in the bios with ryzen stuff.  

Hm, I undervolted a 3600X in the BIOS and it worked fine. Does it actually not work with the latest BIOS on your motherboard?

[TrickEgo]

Just now, Mateyyy said:

Hm, I undervolted a 3600X in the BIOS and it worked fine. Does it actually not work with the latest BIOS?

i saw a year ago that it didnt work but maybe they fixed it. Still new to this so i dont always know whats up updated. Ref below

 

[Mateyyy]

11 minutes ago, TrickEgo said:

i saw a year ago that it didnt work but maybe they fixed it. Still new to this so i dont always know whats up updated. Ref below

[...]

Oh yeah there were some issues with Zen 2 early at launch, but most major ones have been ironed out for a while now to my knowledge.

I got that 3600X earlier this year so by that time the platform was working fine. You can generally get away with a slight negative voltage offset (-0.025, -0.05, -0.075, -0.1) without losing performance and dropping a few degrees.

[TrickEgo]

i did a -0.1 and it worked over undervolting thanks for reconfirming.