Yes, 4.9GHz at 1.34V is a typical stable setting.
Yes, 4.9GHz at 1.34V is a typical stable setting.
New CPU model. I switched from 9700k to 9900k for hyper threading. The 9700k ran at 5.1 around the same temps and voltage (1.35) while the new one hits 5.0 with the same medium 3 LLC, AVX offset of 4 4.5 uncore and other settings. 5.0 wasn’t stable at that temperature, so I went for 4.9. I gave up on 5.0 unless I want a lower uncore or try different LLC settings later. 4.9 seems reasonable, though. Since I’m using a standard 360 AIO and not a custom loop, 4.9 per core might be realistic. I’m losing stability but gaining temperature benefits, which isn’t worth it for now. I’d probably bring it back by 0.1 either way. Curious if I missed the silicone lottery or got a regular CPU—heard a lot about underclocking. Is this what they mean? The 5.0 isn’t all cores at default settings.
I've noticed folks achieving 5GHz at 1.18v while others hit 4.9GHz at 1.35v. It seems like the silicone lottery plays a big role. I believe 1.35v is a bit too high for 4.9GHz, but it's the current situation. I tried 4.9GHz at 1.28v with my own 9900k and found the gap between 4.9GHz and 5GHz minimal. If you can reliably get 4.9GHz at 1.35v with stable temps, I'd feel comfortable.