Issue with SkylakeX 1 Core Not Overclocking
Issue with SkylakeX 1 Core Not Overclocking
I have an Asrock X299 Extreme4 + SkylakeX 10-core i9-9820x.
Setting the ALL CORE multi settings in bios changes all cores but one, which sticks at 4.2 as long as hyperthreading is enabled. If disable HT, all cores hit the set speed.
I've tried:
1. bios update even though it's not on the known issues
2. full cmos reset
3. setting the per core / all core / specific per core options
4. I've enabled all power options to auto as well as removed all power restrictions for the cpu, both same result on the one core.
5. Tested with MSI afterburner, HWInfo, Steam In-Game overlay and CPU-Z
I can run a full Time Spy Extreme CPU test @ 4.6ghz @ 1.265v with HT off and it's rock solid so I don't think it's a problem with the core. I also game at 4.6 with HT off and the unCore at 3.1ghz as it's usually much quicker.
I'm totally accepting this is a possible sensor bug and the core is actually running at it's stated speed...however I don't have a similar system to compare to at higher than base clocks..I could try another app but if HWInfo, CPU'z, Aida, and MSI all report it then I don't know what else to try.
Also tried at lower multipliers and it remains stuck at 42 multi as long as HT is enabled.
It's showing the multiplier as 42 in the CBO/Core section, indicating it's not due to a sensor or software issue.
I've searched extensively on Google but haven't found anything similar.
The search is difficult because of all the related content.
Do you currently have XTU set up?
I experienced some odd problems with my BDW-E systems where the BIOS OC settings kept malfunctioning, even though I had XTU installed throughout the process. Eventually, I had to use XTU to apply the OC settings so it functioned correctly. I didn’t reinstall Windows without it to really investigate the issue.
If you don’t have XTU installed, you might still try it, assuming the legacy version hasn’t been removed by Intel.
hey thanks for the reply. I ended up getting XTU installed and working somehow. It reports the core as 42, let's me change it in windows successfully however at reboot the core goes right back to 42 while the other 9 are at whatever multiplier I set.
I tried manually setting the specific per core setting to match the CPU specs but no dice.
Maybe if I can get this watchdog driver thing working, I'd be OK just having XTU apply at startup but I'm really curious as to what is causing this.
The only alternative I considered would be using a portable operating system or performing another installation just to determine if the problem persists. It seems like it might be an OS-related issue rather than a BIOS bug, and practically you can only address the former. In my situation, I'm pretty sure it was an OS problem because I never reinstalled Windows specifically for this. With your concern about the issue affecting just one core, I'm less certain it's related to OS.
Thanks again for the guidance.
I've already eliminated the OS as the cause. I believe it's just a BIOS issue related to AsRock CBO settings—even though I've turned off CBO on all cores, the behavior remains consistent.
Regardless of what I adjust or modify, I'm certain I've altered the BIOS settings completely. It still boots with the single core at 42 multi-threaded if hyper-threading is enabled and I don't select any other CPU configuration.
I only changed four parameters: FSB, CPU, voltage, and memory ratio.
I don’t mind the intricacy or customization of modern CPUs, but honestly... AsRock motherboard descriptions are really confusing.
The CPU seemed to have issues or the board wasn't set up properly for that microcode. I installed a 10900x from eBay for $100, and all cores now work correctly in BIOS. I also managed XMP 4000 settings without the memory training errors or stability problems I faced with the 9820x. Running at 3800 with strict timings was possible, achieving 4.6 GHz with just a small offset and under 270 watts for the 3000 MHz uncores. The 10900x didn’t reach 4.6 GHz stably below 300 watts. It’s the same CPU and architecture, but with more cache and features—why isn’t it more efficient? Probably user error, I know. LOL what happened to Intel after the 8th-9th generation CPUs?