Help with Overclocking

[Red_TC]

howdy all, im looking to get some help with an over clock on my system specs below. i know there's probably a billon guides and ways to learn but i know what im good at it and tbh scared to dive in to it and mess something up. ive built a car from the frame up but the numbers and ocs xmp jarggles my brain im more then willing to buy someone a coffee (or tea whatever the pref) for the help 

add my discord if youre willing to help a fellow techy out  Ȓed#6101

 

[RONOTHAN##]

Overclocking a 9900K is not really all that difficult, there are just two things that matter: voltage and clock speed. Your goal is to find the balance between clock speed, voltage, and temps to get the best performance. This is the method I'd go for personally:

1. Configure a half decent LLC setting. IIRC you find this in Tweakers Paradise, but set the LLC mode to something like level 2 or 3. 
2. Set some initial values. These will be wrong, but they're just to get you started. Set VCore to 1.3V, the core ratio to 45, and the uncore/cache/ring to 40 (all of those refer to the same thing, I just forget what ASUS calls it). 
3. Go into Windows and run a stress test for a few minutes. 
   1. If it's stable and temps are OK, increase the core ratio in the BIOS. 
   2. If it's not stable and temps are OK, increase the voltage by 0.025V. 
   3. If temps are not OK, decrease voltage by 0.025V. 
   4. If it's not stable and temps are not OK, decrease core ratio multiplier and retune the voltage. 
4. Repeat step 3 until you find the balance between core clock and voltage. Run the stress test for 30 minutes to make sure it's initially stable. 
5. Increase the ring ratio until it's unstable. 
6. Run a stress test for 2 hours to make sure it's fully stable, repeating step 3 if it's unstable. 

There is debate for what stress tests are the best for this. Linpack Xtreme is a big one, Prime95 Small FFTs is another one, OCCT is also a thing. 

[Dedayog]

On dime boards, the bios has an auto overclock menu.  You can select 9900k 5.0ghz for example.

 

May be a way to start slow and see what performance you can get.

[Mark Kaine]

6 hours ago, RONOTHAN## said:

Overclocking a 9900K is not really all that difficult, there are just two things that matter: voltage and clock speed. Your goal is to find the balance between clock speed, voltage, and temps to get the best performance. This is the method I'd go for personally:

1. Configure a half decent LLC setting. IIRC you find this in Tweakers Paradise, but set the LLC mode to something like level 2 or 3. 
2. Set some initial values. These will be wrong, but they're just to get you started. Set VCore to 1.3V, the core ratio to 45, and the uncore/cache/ring to 40 (all of those refer to the same thing, I just forget what ASUS calls it). 
3. Go into Windows and run a stress test for a few minutes. 
   1. If it's stable and temps are OK, increase the core ratio in the BIOS. 
   2. If it's not stable and temps are OK, increase the voltage by 0.025V. 
   3. If temps are not OK, decrease voltage by 0.025V. 
   4. If it's not stable and temps are not OK, decrease core ratio multiplier and retune the voltage. 
4. Repeat step 3 until you find the balance between core clock and voltage. Run the stress test for 30 minutes to make sure it's initially stable. 
5. Increase the ring ratio until it's unstable. 
6. Run a stress test for 2 hours to make sure it's fully stable, repeating step 3 if it's unstable. 

There is debate for what stress tests are the best for this. Linpack Xtreme is a big one, Prime95 Small FFTs is another one, OCCT is also a thing. 

tldr: this is why i dont overclock

 

i prefer undervolting honestly anyway (except that doesn't seem to work on intel either,  so only amd for me i guess)

[RONOTHAN##]

1 minute ago, Mark Kaine said:

tldr: this is why i dont overclock

 

i prefer undervolting honestly anyway (except that doesn't seem to work on intel either,  so only amd for me i guess)

I've had more issues undervolting on AMD than I have on Intel though. Undervolting on AMD causes either massive clock stretching (AKA clock speeds are high but performance is terrible) or if you use the curve optimizer crashes at idle that are next to impossible to diagnose. On Intel you just adjust one dial assuming you have a Z- series board and you're done (it is kinda broken on B- series boards though). 

 

Besides, it's not like it's that different to overclock than it is to undervolt. Only difference is you're trying to increase the multiplier at the same time. 

[Mark Kaine]

42 minutes ago, RONOTHAN## said:

Undervolting on AMD causes either massive clock stretching (AKA clock speeds are high but performance is terrible)

its what you're targeting too though,  to me its always temps and for example my 3600* at -200 voltage offset didn't have "clock stretching" it just boosted the same but longer so performance went up (since temps where lower) same for my 5800x3D,  gtx 1060, gtx 1070 and rtx 3070 (my intel i5U just crashes whatever offset i set though...)

 

 

*interesting: at stock it would use 65w just like advertised, with -200 voltage/+200 frequency offset it was off the rails at ~110w 

 

 

[RONOTHAN##]

39 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

its what you're targeting too though,  to me its always temps and for example my 3600 at -200 voltage offset didn't have "clock stretching" it just boosted the same but longer so performance went up (since temps where lower) same for my 5800x3D,  gtx 1060, gtx 1070 and rtx 3070 (my intel i5U just crashes whatever offset i set though...)

Where as this is what happens if I try to undervolt using offsets. 

 

No offset:

Spoiler

-200mV offset:

Spoiler

-300mV offset:

Spoiler

 

The core clocks keep going up, but the overall score goes down. I've seen it be a lot more extreme that this, maybe because the AGESA version I'm using isn't as bad for this or because I'm doing it in the OS with Gigabyte EasyTune (I'm lazy and this is my daily system after all), but the behavior is still there and noticeable. Heck, on one AGESA version I used the score would actually go up if I used a positive voltage offset. All the Intel chips I've used have kept their performance the same when doing this, and their stability is actually consistent unlike this 5900X where if I touch the curve optimizer I get random blue screens when watching YouTube even though it passes any stress test and game I throw at it. The Intel chips either work or they don't, not somewhat working or reducing performance if you don't have the voltages dialed in just right. 

[Mark Kaine]

43 minutes ago, RONOTHAN## said:

The core clocks keep going up, but the overall score goes down.

but thats what i said does not happen... it didn't go up, always 4.1/4.2, the difference is it boosted longer which you can only see due to benchmarks going up, cb23 like 500 points for example,  personally i find that laughably low, but its a difference others seem to be happy about  - i really only care about lower temps (overall) 

 

also, im sorry, just from voltage offset the clocks shouldn't go up cause its locked by multiplier,  42x (?) ... so there must be something else going on there