Did I just lose the silicon lottery?...again

[radmanhs]

I just got my 9900k set up, but no matter what I do I can't get decent overclocks with it. The temps are fine, I can run my system pretty much silent at 1.34v from the motherboard with 1.38 on cpuz. But there's the problem, to get a measly 4.9ghz across all cores I need about 1.33ish volts. I am messing with the LLC right now to see if that will let me get a bit more stable, but it just takes a while.  Is there some secret setting that just came out in the past couple generations or something that I'm forgetting that will help boost my success? Or am I just doomed?

 

Specs

9900k

Msi z390m edge

Seasonic 790 Plat

Corsair vengeance 32gb 3200mhz

Gtx 1080

 

[JohnDongus]

What more did you expect 4.9 is very respectable for what I'm guessing is a aio cooler  what speed did you expect?

[Spotty]

4.9GHz across all cores on an 8c/16t CPU is pretty respectable...

[aisle9]

Speaking generally here because I don't have a 9900K to compare against, but it's always seemed to me that mATX boards don't overclock quite as well as their ATX cousins. Playing with LLC will help, and you might benefit from per-core overclocking. Wild nonspecific example: once you're stable at 4.9 across all cores and comfortable with temps and voltages, go back in and set your single and dual core turbo to 5.1GHz, your four-core turbo to 5.0GHz and leave everything else at 4.9GHz. Might help you milk out a tiny bit more juice during gaming sessions.

[radmanhs]

1 minute ago, JohnDongus said:

What more did you expect 4.9 is very respectable for what I'm guessing is a aio cooler  what speed did you expect?

Dual 360 rad custom loop. I guess I was hoping for at least a satisfying 5.0. Maybe with a little more tweaking I can pull it off. 

 

I did notice though during stressing, the CPU core almost never runs at max frequency, on real bench and prime 95. Which I thought was odd. 

[JohnDongus]

1 minute ago, radmanhs said:

Dual 360 rad custom loop. I guess I was hoping for at least a satisfying 5.0. Maybe with a little more tweaking I can pull it off. 

 

I did notice though during stressing, the CPU core almost never runs at max frequency, on real bench and prime 95. Which I thought was odd. 

I like to use cinebench when overclockng. Just keep playing with it and ram timings and you might get lucky. Took me a while to get my 1600x over 4.2ghz

[Cereal5]

10 minutes ago, aisle9 said:

Speaking generally here because I don't have a 9900K to compare against, but it's always seemed to me that mATX boards don't overclock quite as well as their ATX cousins. Playing with LLC will help, and you might benefit from per-core overclocking. Wild nonspecific example: once you're stable at 4.9 across all cores and comfortable with temps and voltages, go back in and set your single and dual core turbo to 5.1GHz, your four-core turbo to 5.0GHz and leave everything else at 4.9GHz. Might help you milk out a tiny bit more juice during gaming sessions.

Yes this is almost always true. Obviously an expensive mATX board will out perform a cheap ATX board, but similarly priced and optioned boards usually favor full size.

[radmanhs]

For some reason my core multiplier is locked at 36 when stress testing. I have the multipliers for every core at 49 or  50, but it won't boost any higher.  Temps are fine. 

 

Anyone know why?

[xg32]

2 hours ago, radmanhs said:

.

you got a good roll, just check siliconlottery.com's 9700k results, the range is 4.7-4.9 all cores imho