Looking for guidance on boosting the i9-10900K's performance.
Looking for guidance on boosting the i9-10900K's performance.
I recently purchased a new computer and am attempting to push the i9-10900K to its limits, but I encountered an unusual problem that still eludes my understanding. I manage to achieve a stable 5.1GHz overclock without any problems. During stress tests (such as prime95, OCCT, Cinebench, etc.), temperatures remain in the mid-60s, which seems quite low. The challenge arises because I can't reach 5.2GHz; instead, it triggers a BSOD immediately after exiting BIOS, regardless of the voltage settings I apply—even when increasing them to 1.400V. I’m puzzled as to whether this issue is related to temperature limits or something else. Although I believe my temperatures are still within acceptable ranges, I’m uncertain if pushing voltages beyond 1.400 is safe. I haven’t tried higher frequencies because I don’t plan to use the system daily at those speeds. Additionally, with default BIOS settings, turbo mode can reach 5.3GHz without issues. I recall that when I overclocked a previous CPU (4790k), temperature was the main constraint. Perhaps I’ve misconfigured the BIOS settings, and I followed many OC tutorials online. I’m seeking clarity on what might be causing this problem and wondering if there’s a way to exceed 5.1GHz given my current thermal margin of around 10-20°C.
Respectfully, not quite so. When discussing Vcore, it's clear that a single size doesn't suit everyone. Boosting any processor is constrained by two main aspects: voltage and temperature. Each Microarchitecture has a specific "Maximum Recommended Vcore." It's worth noting that 22 nanometer 3rd and 4th Generation chips, like your 4790K, won't handle the higher...
I was suggesting that point earlier when I mentioned "All CPUs aren't created equal." I believe I got a decent one, but it's strange that the operating temperatures are so low at just 5.1ghz.
They mentioned a few tools like prime95, OCCT, Cinebench, etc., but it's unclear what actions were taken.
Running those stress tests/benchmarks would mean those are the programs that made my temps hit their limits, no question. Normal use never comes close to 80C except for AVX stuff...
As you mentioned though... it's just a silicon lottery. Nothing certain. I've heard folks grumbling about not going past 5.1 with a 10900k, but that's the reality.
I meant that Prime 95 with small FFT and all AVX options off is more challenging to run compared to similar modes like Blend mode. It also closely resembles what real-world AVX operations could achieve. It's interesting how the actual AVX settings are significantly more demanding for this application.
OCCT: I haven't used this one before, and it seemed unnecessary. According to Computronix's Intel Temp Guide, it applies harder loads than Prime, so I'll leave that one alone.
Cinebench R15: light performance, outdated.
Cinebench R20: although it was recently replaced by R23, it still holds some relevance.
5.1ghz 10900K: impressive!
This machine is already quite powerful right out of the box.
The following is just my take, but: up to 5.3ghz single, 4.9ghz multi... why would I bother with overclocking? Many people overlook that not all PC tasks benefit from multi-thread performance.
5.1ghz OC... I settle for 200mhz single instead of 200mhz multi... again, not everything we do takes full advantage of extra multi-thread capabilities.
With Thermal Velocity Boost on this CPU, it becomes even less useful. A better setup would include a larger cooler + TVB + optional Intel Performance Maximizer = Win.
It's simpler than ever. Also, it's a strong reminder to those who do 'sacrificial overclocking' - the single/multi tradeoff I mentioned earlier is clearly not worth it.
I'm in agreement about P95 and Cinebench... and Handbrake definitely increases the load, which is why I use the -2 offset for all my encodings.
Regarding being a power user... I share that view completely. Absolutely. Concerning overclocking and why you'd do it... it's interesting you bring it up since I'm thinking about reverting to stock speeds for all those reasons. I saw something similar a few weeks back (maybe your post?) but honestly, I feel the urge to reduce the core overclocks to stock levels because I don't really see much benefit from them anymore.
I've been away from work for two weeks and my PC has been in sleep mode... I came back last night and plan to make some adjustments next week during my break. I'm pretty sure you're reading my thoughts because I'm considering dialing back the overclock to stock speeds.
The benchmarks are finished... and I mentioned being a "set it and forget it" kind of person before, probably just joking around... I didn't do it again after that.
Cheers.