Cooling Configuration Inquiry for Mini-ITX Build

[RustyBl0ck]

Hi everyone,
 

I’m looking for some advice on whether my cooling setup will work effectively for my Mini-ITX build. I recently purchased the IS-67-XT cooler from ID-COOLING, and it’s now in my hands. My case is the NR200P V2 with tempered glass, which has limited space.
 

I’m currently deciding between two processors: the Ryzen 7 9700X and the Ryzen 9 9900X. I have a preference for the 9900X, but I’m concerned about whether the IS-67-XT will handle the cooling requirements adequately. If necessary, I’m willing to go with the 9700X instead.
 

Noise isn’t a concern for me, so I’m fine with ramping the fans up to 100% if that’s what it takes. Also, I plan to replace the default fan on the IS-67-XT with a Lian Li UNI FAN SL120 V2 for aesthetic reasons.
 

Any insights on whether this cooling setup will be sufficient for the 9900X, or if I should stick with the 9700X? Thanks!

[jaslion]

Return the id cooling and juat put a peerless assasin in it. That case is large for a itx case and fits that cooler.

[RustyBl0ck]

Well, if I'm completely honest, I picked the ID-COOLING cooler for aesthetic purposes. Also, since I live in another country than the one which I bought from, the product cannot be returned as it was sent using a freight forwarder (from Miami). The costs to return would outrun the cost of the product.

[RustyBl0ck]

On top of that, I was able to watch a YouTube video comparing different coolers (including the IS-55, predecesor to the IS-67-XT) with the Ryzen 9 7900X (higher TDP than it's 9000 equivalent). The performance coolingwise was 80°C running on Cinebench iirc and that was with fans at 50% (I don't mind running fans at 100%).

[Tridefender]

You will be fine, the 9700x had an official power limit of 88 watts, and after unlocking power limits, the gaming consumption is 89 watts. This is according to a tester.

 

I had been able to control approximately 100 watts on my 12600kf to around 90 degrees with a 47mm low profile cooler, so you should be safe.

[Tridefender]

Just now, Tridefender said:

You will be fine, the 9700x had an official power limit of 88 watts, and after unlocking power limits, the gaming consumption is 89 watts. This is according to a tester.

 

I had been able to control approximately 100 watts on my 12600kf to around 90 degrees with a 47mm low profile cooler, so you should be safe.

By the way it would be able to beat Intel ultra 7 in most gaming scenarios.

[RustyBl0ck]

Okie thanks! But what about the 9900X with a tdp of 120W?

[Tridefender]

45 minutes ago, RustyBl0ck said:

Okie thanks! But what about the 9900X with a tdp of 120W?

Do a bit undervolting, my 12600kf had tdp of 125w and it does just fine while gaming. Gaming won't take 100% tdp.

[RustyBl0ck]

Okay. The computer will not even be used for gaming though. It will be used for hosting a heavily modded Minecraft Server with around 150+ people. Since mc will only use at max 2 cores (+some other light services) and I just need raw clock speed, is there anyway that I can keep normal clock speed in the Minecraft cores (and make sure it uses the P cores) but keep power consumption low? Thanks!

[Spring1898]

Probably not my first choice for as big of a case as the NR200 is. But it sounds like it is a done deal.

 

9700x should be fine. 9900x maybe okay. Curve optimization, aka undervolting will be your best bet for the 9900k. 

 

That cooler doesn't have the mass or air volume to sustain prolonged and constant temp surges, so the CPU may throttle. But the 9000 series is like last gen 7000 non x anyway, so that works in your favour.

 

Long story short, should be fine for 9700x and Curve optimizer should keep your temps lower.

 

You could also try static overclock with under volt to get more performance 

 

Could also disable cores if you truly don't need them to reduce temp further. 

[Spring1898]

Actually just saw you don't need cores but clock speed. Don't get the 9900x. 

You will get more bang for your buck out of the 9700x and an overclock

[RustyBl0ck]

4 hours ago, Spring1898 said:

Actually just saw you don't need cores but clock speed. Don't get the 9900x. 

You will get more bang for your buck out of the 9700x and an overclock

I did consider that but I also saw that the 9900X has a higher clock speed. My question is: 

 

a) Does it matter that the 9900X have a higher clock speed?

b) Would I benefit from choosing an X3D variant for my use case (modded Minecraft server)?

c) If I overclock the 9700X, would I be at risk of my cooler not holding on? 
 

Thanks !

[Tridefender]

10 hours ago, RustyBl0ck said:

Does it matter that the 9900X have a higher clock speed?

Yes, but here we are talking about bang for the buck, aka performance gained per dollar spent

10 hours ago, RustyBl0ck said:

Would I benefit from choosing an X3D variant for my use case (modded Minecraft server)?

I don't think server applications are cache latency specific, generally x3d will benefit client performance. Moreover mc servers are notoriously reliant on single core performance.

10 hours ago, RustyBl0ck said:

If I overclock the 9700X, would I be at risk of my cooler not holding on? 

Again, it depends on how much you overclock it, test shown if you only unlock the power limiter, gaming consumption would be around 89 watts, but if you boost it all the way up it might eat more than 130w power. According to some tests ,the largest performance gain is 65w-pbo107w interval, going higher is somewhat meaningless. Under this mode you should check your heatsink if it can cope with at least 150w heat.

[Spring1898]

If you shut down the unneeded cores that will save your heat issue. 

 

But again modern chips reach thermal limit before power, and they are set to use more power than they need to ensure universal stability. 

 

Curve optimization or even static overclock with undervolting will result in lower temps and better performance.

 

Essentially performance is not power issue in this day and age

[RustyBl0ck]

7 hours ago, Spring1898 said:

If you shut down the unneeded cores that will save your heat issue. 

 

But again modern chips reach thermal limit before power, and they are set to use more power than they need to ensure universal stability. 

 

Curve optimization or even static overclock with undervolting will result in lower temps and better performance.

 

Essentially performance is not power issue in this day and age

Okay I appreciate your response! And to disable the unneeded cores, where in the bios can I do that? Since I will be using Debian, I don’t really want to have any other software on the server itself. Thanks!

[RustyBl0ck]

13 hours ago, Tridefender said:

Yes, but here we are talking about bang for the buck, aka performance gained per dollar spent

I don't think server applications are cache latency specific, generally x3d will benefit client performance. Moreover mc servers are notoriously reliant on single core performance.

Again, it depends on how much you overclock it, test shown if you only unlock the power limiter, gaming consumption would be around 89 watts, but if you boost it all the way up it might eat more than 130w power. According to some tests ,the largest performance gain is 65w-pbo107w interval, going higher is somewhat meaningless. Under this mode you should check your heatsink if it can cope with at least 150w heat.

I see what you mean by bang for the buck, but in my case (I personally) don’t see much wrong with spending only 70 bucks more for such a higher clock speed. I think I’m going to go for the 9900X and disable some of its cores. Also, is there anyway that I can GUARANTEE that the Minecraft processes all run in P cores? I obviously don’t want Minecraft to default to lower E cores, especially since it will be Debian and I am inexperienced with the field of Debian and fine tuned CPU control, thanks!

[Tridefender]

1 minute ago, RustyBl0ck said:

I see what you mean by bang for the buck, but in my case (I personally) don’t see much wrong with spending only 70 bucks more for such a higher clock speed. I think I’m going to go for the 9900X and disable some of its cores. Also, is there anyway that I can GUARANTEE that the Minecraft processes all run in P cores? I obviously don’t want Minecraft to default to lower E cores, especially since it will be Debian and I am inexperienced with the field of Debian and fine tuned CPU control, thanks!

9900x don't have difference between p and e right? They aren't Intel...

[Tridefender]

The problem of 9900X is that it has 2 CPU dies, and latency of inter die communication has always been a problem. But that is not P and E, they are all, P cores 

So you would want your programs to stay on the same die, instead of being split into two, this said, you can just disable the other ccd and act as a 9700X with higher clockspeeds and more L3 cache I assume.

[TatamiMatt]

44 minutes ago, Tridefender said:

The problem of 9900X is that it has 2 CPU dies, and latency of inter die communication has always been a problem. But that is not P and E, they are all, P cores 

So you would want your programs to stay on the same die, instead of being split into two, this said, you can just disable the other ccd and act as a 9700X with higher clockspeeds and more L3 cache I assume.

Its generally not a massive issue, its moreso an issue when it comes to the 3D-Vcache being on one CCD and not the other and the communication between those, ie, the problems that the 7900X3D faces. It is an issue correct, but not as large as on the X3D chips.

 

They are all "P-cores" as such, tis an intel term but basically applies here. And bang on with the rest too

 

However @RustyBl0ck, i believe there is only like 0.1GHz between the 2 cpus? Their single core performance is very close to each other

 

[RustyBl0ck]

Okay thanks for clarifying. Yea I used to be an intel fan boy (until of course they came tumbling with their stability issues…) and am not too sure about the P and E core thing with amd. Sry :c

[Spring1898]

7 hours ago, Tridefender said:

The problem of 9900X is that it has 2 CPU dies, and latency of inter die communication has always been a problem. But that is not P and E, they are all, P cores 

So you would want your programs to stay on the same die, instead of being split into two, this said, you can just disable the other ccd and act as a 9700X with higher clockspeeds and more L3 cache I assume.

Correct.

 

The point remains that the .1 ghz will make virtually no difference whatsoever. The 9900x is not likely to overclock higher than a 9700x, and since you would be disabling the other CCD, what is the point?

[RustyBl0ck]

Okay thanks! And since I've never, ever overclocked, can you point me to your recommended settings for the overclocking? I'm using a GIGABYTE AORUS B650I ULTRA (haven't bought the CPU yet but you've convinced me to consider the 9700X)

[Spring1898]

I haven't over clocked anything 9000 series yet, but the principles should be the same as 7000 series. 

 

I remember an Italian guy on youtube giving a very simplified explanation of overclocking and undervolting 7000 series that is fairly straight forward. There can be more to it, but for a plug and play approach he does it very well

 

I'm watering psus was his name, but a 80' thermal target at a level 2 were his setting off the top of my head. 

[TatamiMatt]

9 hours ago, RustyBl0ck said:

Okay thanks! And since I've never, ever overclocked, can you point me to your recommended settings for the overclocking? I'm using a GIGABYTE AORUS B650I ULTRA (haven't bought the CPU yet but you've convinced me to consider the 9700X)

I believe that tweaking PBO will actually give the same or better results than manually overclocking with AM5 chips and is a lot less complicated

[Spring1898]

I have heard mixed things. I think I have heard that curve optimization may favour single core, and static can benefit multicore. But then also that static can potentially drop wattage more if the chip can tolerate it.

 

But if that is the case than curve optimization is both easier and more effective for the need here.