F5F Stay Refreshed Power Users Overclocking Is the voltage of your 10900k model suitable?

Is the voltage of your 10900k model suitable?

Is the voltage of your 10900k model suitable?

Pages (3): 1 2 3 Next
_
_Geqr_
Senior Member
554
02-29-2020, 12:25 AM
#1
I've been working on researching and adjusting my 10900k OC configurations to match what I've observed, but I'm seeking a second perspective on my settings.
Operating a 10900k at 5.1ghz across all cores.
Testing benchmarks with XTU runs that utilize all cores at a maximum of 1.39v. The peak temperature stays at 80°C. Voltage is configured at 1.35v with auto LLC enabled in the BIOS. Idle voltage ranges between 1.35 and 1.37v.
After some fine-tuning, pushing to 5.2ghz caused crashes, so I reduced it back to 5.1ghz to stay within the 1.35v limit in BIOS. During benchmarking at 5.1, I reached 1.39v, so I checked if lowering the voltage would help. Reading forum discussions suggested keeping idle voltages between 1.3 and 1.35 as safe. I struggled to maintain stability at 1.25v or 1.3v in BIOS—system would boot but crash with BSODs when trying to open XTU or MSI afterburner.
Currently, my setup is back at 5.1ghz with 1.35v in BIOS, though I'm concerned about the idle voltages of 1.39v and 1.3v. Could these levels affect CPU longevity if maintained this way?
_
_Geqr_
02-29-2020, 12:25 AM #1

I've been working on researching and adjusting my 10900k OC configurations to match what I've observed, but I'm seeking a second perspective on my settings.
Operating a 10900k at 5.1ghz across all cores.
Testing benchmarks with XTU runs that utilize all cores at a maximum of 1.39v. The peak temperature stays at 80°C. Voltage is configured at 1.35v with auto LLC enabled in the BIOS. Idle voltage ranges between 1.35 and 1.37v.
After some fine-tuning, pushing to 5.2ghz caused crashes, so I reduced it back to 5.1ghz to stay within the 1.35v limit in BIOS. During benchmarking at 5.1, I reached 1.39v, so I checked if lowering the voltage would help. Reading forum discussions suggested keeping idle voltages between 1.3 and 1.35 as safe. I struggled to maintain stability at 1.25v or 1.3v in BIOS—system would boot but crash with BSODs when trying to open XTU or MSI afterburner.
Currently, my setup is back at 5.1ghz with 1.35v in BIOS, though I'm concerned about the idle voltages of 1.39v and 1.3v. Could these levels affect CPU longevity if maintained this way?

E
EssieFlo
Member
174
02-29-2020, 08:41 AM
#2
Your temperatures are excellent, though it's quite high voltage. You didn't win the silicon lottery, but you're not required to since your temps are very good at 80°C. Most folks reach 90°C easily.
E
EssieFlo
02-29-2020, 08:41 AM #2

Your temperatures are excellent, though it's quite high voltage. You didn't win the silicon lottery, but you're not required to since your temps are very good at 80°C. Most folks reach 90°C easily.

_
_digiboy
Member
196
03-12-2020, 09:07 PM
#3
The observed range of 1.3-1.4V at 5.1GHz aligns with my previous observations.
_
_digiboy
03-12-2020, 09:07 PM #3

The observed range of 1.3-1.4V at 5.1GHz aligns with my previous observations.

M
Mod_masta
Member
191
03-12-2020, 09:56 PM
#4
Your temperatures are excellent, though it's quite high voltage. You didn't win the silicon lottery, but you're not required to—your temps are impressively stable at 80°C. Most others reach 90°C easily.
M
Mod_masta
03-12-2020, 09:56 PM #4

Your temperatures are excellent, though it's quite high voltage. You didn't win the silicon lottery, but you're not required to—your temps are impressively stable at 80°C. Most others reach 90°C easily.

P
Pechooki
Junior Member
2
03-12-2020, 11:19 PM
#5
The 10900K does reach that speed naturally due to its Thermal Velocity Boost feature.
P
Pechooki
03-12-2020, 11:19 PM #5

The 10900K does reach that speed naturally due to its Thermal Velocity Boost feature.

S
scoutnumber1
Junior Member
10
03-13-2020, 08:11 AM
#6
1.4v has worked well on older Intel processors. The main reason for quick degradation is exceeding the recommended IMC/VTT voltage, so I avoid going above 1.325v. I didn’t face issues running 1.4v Vcore on first-gen Intel chips for nearly ten years, except for the i7-860 where I increased the VTT to 1.4v.
S
scoutnumber1
03-13-2020, 08:11 AM #6

1.4v has worked well on older Intel processors. The main reason for quick degradation is exceeding the recommended IMC/VTT voltage, so I avoid going above 1.325v. I didn’t face issues running 1.4v Vcore on first-gen Intel chips for nearly ten years, except for the i7-860 where I increased the VTT to 1.4v.

U
Up2Date
Member
136
03-15-2020, 02:47 AM
#7
I adjusted the settings further, changed the core voltage to 1.325 in BIOS, which allowed opening up XTU, but when attempting the benchmark it crashed. I experimented with adjusting the RAM voltage to check for improvements, as they are currently running at 3600 MHz XMP. I also tried setting both RAM and CPU voltages to 1.325, but had no success. I reset the RAM voltage to 1.35 and adjusted the core voltage to 1.34, which worked well for the benchmark with a peak of 1.38. The maximum temperature reached was 78°C. Any suggestions on maintaining this frequency with lower voltage are unclear. It seems lowering the voltage might be necessary if I want to reduce the frequency.
U
Up2Date
03-15-2020, 02:47 AM #7

I adjusted the settings further, changed the core voltage to 1.325 in BIOS, which allowed opening up XTU, but when attempting the benchmark it crashed. I experimented with adjusting the RAM voltage to check for improvements, as they are currently running at 3600 MHz XMP. I also tried setting both RAM and CPU voltages to 1.325, but had no success. I reset the RAM voltage to 1.35 and adjusted the core voltage to 1.34, which worked well for the benchmark with a peak of 1.38. The maximum temperature reached was 78°C. Any suggestions on maintaining this frequency with lower voltage are unclear. It seems lowering the voltage might be necessary if I want to reduce the frequency.

M
51
03-19-2020, 08:37 AM
#8
4.8 all core boost. I really see no reason to try to get 0.3 overclock probably no noticeable difference.
M
Mushroombowl05
03-19-2020, 08:37 AM #8

4.8 all core boost. I really see no reason to try to get 0.3 overclock probably no noticeable difference.

N
59
03-19-2020, 04:42 PM
#9
Values differ individually.
Similar to manually adjusting an OC Ryzen 3000—rather than relying on the guaranteed approach, cooling and memory—for a comical improvement in performance at the expense of reliability...
N
Nickthegreat43
03-19-2020, 04:42 PM #9

Values differ individually.
Similar to manually adjusting an OC Ryzen 3000—rather than relying on the guaranteed approach, cooling and memory—for a comical improvement in performance at the expense of reliability...

D
domm0nkey
Member
154
03-19-2020, 08:40 PM
#10
Yes, it's better to reduce the 5.1 and use a lower voltage for safety.
D
domm0nkey
03-19-2020, 08:40 PM #10

Yes, it's better to reduce the 5.1 and use a lower voltage for safety.

Pages (3): 1 2 3 Next