A messy kitchen, 9900K UK edition, 85F but chilly inside

[martin-w 3,235]

1 hour ago, LRW said:

 

Martin,

I tried AI overclocking briefly, but abandoned it after it set my TridentZ's to 1.6V for 3600MHz.  I went back to manual mode (No AI and MCE off).  I'm currently testing P3D with all cores synced to 5.0GHz, HT off.

 

With the old five way optimisation you could let it do its thing and then tweak whatever you liked. Should be the same with this guy.

Fair enough though if you think you prefer the manual approach.

[BrettT 63]

CPU peaked at 47 C?  Either way interested to see how the tests progress and the performance within P3D

[LRW 42]

My max Cinebench R15 8C/16T was 2168.  8C/8T was 1653.

2 minutes ago, martin-w said:

 

With the old five way optimisation you could let it do its thing and then tweak whatever you liked. Should be the same with this guy.

Fair enough though if you think you prefer the manual approach.

I'm more of control freak, even when I don't know what I'm doing.

[martin-w 3,235]

😁

[Guest]

After a day of stress testing with Time Spy oddly being the benchmark app that seemed to be the most difficult to pass without errors when running it’s CPU test  ... I seemed to hit a wall:

5.4 GHz all core HT ON 4000Mhz 1.525v but CPU temps were tooooo high with short spikes hitting 100C and AVG around 55C cache at Auto, AVX drop 2

Oddly HT OFF didn’t make much difference to stability but Temps were considerably lower peak at 79C with AVG around 42C ... best I could do with HT OFF was 5.5 core 0, 1, and 5.3 cores 2-7.

Couldn’t get 5.6 to work.  Maybe a few more UEFI rounds to get XMP memory profile working correctly.

Now onto P3D install and more testing.

Cheers Rob.

[Chandler 13]

This setting doesn't seems to work on my pc, if I set core 1 and 2 higher then the other, it only shows the lower speeds on all cores. The bios however shows core 1 and 2 set higher, weird...

Edited November 21, 2018 by Chandler

[martin-w 3,235]

48 minutes ago, Chandler said:

This setting doesn't seems to work on my pc, if I set core 1 and 2 higher then the other, it only shows the lower speeds on all cores. The bios however shows core 1 and 2 set higher, weird...

 

Per core works the same way as turbo though. You'll find it says in the bios "active cores" not core one or two etc. If all cores are active frequency will drop to the lowest set. 

 

[Guest]

Hmmm... turn speed step off and it should be by core ... at least that’s how it worked in my 7900X ... what would the point be in per core setting in 9900K then?

I’ll have to check with HWINFO64 because that just seems silly?  Not saying your wrong, just can’t believe it would be that lame.

Cheers, Rob

[KL Oo 700]

I am having the same issue over locking my new 8086. I was keen to try and clock cores 0 and 1 up to 5.3 but couldn’t get the per core assignments to work - the same thing would happen, all cores automatically synced to the lowest core value I entered. I’m sure I’ve disabled speed step but I’ll check tonight.

 

As it transpires, I was able to get it stable at 5.2 with no AVX offset at 1.35v on all cores with RAM timings of 3700 CL 15. My RAM is supposed to be rated up to 4500 but I had no luck getting it much above 3800 even by slowing the timings down to 18 or 19. I’m not sure there would be any tangible value in trying to raise the MHz at the cost of timings anyway. It’s not getting above 80 degrees with my Corsair H150 AIO under load with Prime and sits around 27 idle. Pretty happy with that.

 

Now im trying to workout if I should install version 4.3. I have a gut feel that there is a new version close and I always to a clean/full install. I’d hate to spend 3 days installing everything and setting it all up just have to wipe and start again! That’s the price you pay for my crazy Clean Install OCD I guess 🙂

[fghdgdfdfgfgf 111]

Have you guys read this post? Re i9xxx and the z390

https://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?106375-MCE-explanations-and-others

Edited November 21, 2018 by FunknNasty

[Guest]

I've read the thread, interesting and appreciate the link ... MCE (Multi-Core Enhancement) enabled for me produces much better CPU performance but does introduce stability issues ... TVB isn't used when ratios are above 50 (but pretty sure I have it disabled). 

Didn't know about the ACDC loadline ... I'll take a look at that.

Also need to test with Min/Max cache ratios.

Might drop AVX to 4 (I think that's where Time Spy tripping up at).

But I still think out of box my XMP should have worked without any other changes, it did not ... dropping to 4000 resolved the page faults at CL18.

I'll keep testing with it, but have moved on to getting my 7900X back up and running.

Cheers, Rob.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, KL Oo said:

Now im trying to workout if I should install version 4.3.

I'm not.

Cheers, Rob.

[KL Oo 700]

11 minutes ago, Rob Ainscough said:

I'm not.

Cheers, Rob.

 

Haha, you’re not installing 4.3 or your not wondering if you should? 🙂

 

[fghdgdfdfgfgf 111]

1 hour ago, Rob Ainscough said:

But I still think out of box my XMP should have worked without any other changes, it did not ... dropping to 4000 resolved the page faults at CL18.

 

Cheers, Rob.

So I'm guessing that memory isn't on the qvl list, the ROG z390's are supposed come with a XMP "2". I take it you don't have that, right?

Please, keep chipping away at it.  .

p.s. What can that memory do in your 8700K build?  .....And, you know where you can send that mem if you decided to abandon the 9900 -I'm 40 miles south of you (will pay face value).

[martin-w 3,235]

13 hours ago, Rob Ainscough said:

Hmmm... turn speed step off and it should be by core ... at least that’s how it worked in my 7900X ... what would the point be in per core setting in 9900K then?

I’ll have to check with HWINFO64 because that just seems silly?  Not saying your wrong, just can’t believe it would be that lame.

Cheers, Rob

 

 

Speedstep off will only prevent it from droping frequency and voltage when not under load. 

Both Bob and me independently cane to the conclusion that per core now works like Turbo. Bob looked at the Intel tech documents re this I believe. 

 

Quote

what would the point be in per core setting

 

it enables you to overclock the cores to the frequency you desire in terms of active cores. So if you wish one core, "when one core is active"  to be at 5.3 you can do that. If you wish four cores active to be at 4.6 you can do that. If you want all cores active to be a 4.0 you can do that. But you cant overclock a particular core to a particular frequency. Like core number ONE to 5 GHz and the rest to 4.6 when all cores are active, for example. If you try to do that it will drop to the all cores active frequency you have set. 

Edited November 22, 2018 by martin-w