Another i9-9900k build

[G-YMML1 582]

2 hours ago, martin-w said:

 

That's Vdroop. Why you have LLC. (Load Line Calibration). There's an explanation in the video I posted. 

You can increase LLC in an attempt to achieve the same voltage as yous set, or work with the droop, accept a small degree of droop. Either way, it's stability that counts. 

Martin, thanks again.

What is the rule of thumb in the OC? If I have BSOD with acceptable temps, I should increase a voltage. If I have BSOD with high temps I should either decrease a frequency OR/AND a voltage. Is that correct?

[martin-w 3,235]

55 minutes ago, G-YMML1 said:

Martin, thanks again.

What is the rule of thumb in the OC? If I have BSOD with acceptable temps, I should increase a voltage.

 

If your temps are okay then yes, you have the thermal headroom to increase the voltage and stabilise the overclock.

 

Quote

If I have BSOD with high temps I should either decrease a frequency OR/AND a voltage. Is that correct?

 

If you have high temps and instability, voltage needs to be lower to reduce heat, and a lower voltage obviously equates to stability at a lower frequency. 

Before starting any overclocking endeavour, my strategy is to first determine what I regard as an acceptable max temp under load in the applications I generally run (this is not necessarily the same as a stress test). I base that on an acceptable safe temperature to avoid premature degradation of the CPU, my ambient temp at the height of the summer and any increase in temperature I would anticipate as a result of radiators or heat sinks being clogged with dust. 

Once you have the temperature above in mind, stick to it and accept the overclock that the silicon lottery deals you. 

 

Quote

I'm considering doing my first custom loop to see how much I could lower temps from the AIO and possibly go to 5.2 or 5.3 GHz.

 

Why? A mere 200 MHz will give you 1.2 frames per second at 30 frames per second! Not worth the extra strain on the CPU or the effort, or the extreme cost of a custom loop.

However... if you are a competitive overclocker, or just curious as to what your CPU can do, or have an abundance of funds then fair enough.

 

 

 

Edited December 19, 2018 by martin-w

[G-YMML1 582]

34 minutes ago, martin-w said:

 

Why? A mere 200 MHz will give you 1.2 frames per second at 30 frames per second! Not worth the extra strain on the CPU or the effort, or the extreme cost of a custom loop.

However... if you are a competitive overclocker, or just curious as to what your CPU can do, or have an abundance of funds then fair enough.

 

 

 

Interesting....

Perhaps I should test two different settings for P3D and see FPS difference. If it's truly 1.2 FPS, then perhaps I would stick with the former. This however, undermines the whole idea behind purchasing 9900k 😞

1) 4.8 OC with HT ON

2) 5.0 OC with HT OFF. 

The benefits of having HT OFF are quite clear - low temps. The detriments are still unknown, but some folks including myself have noticing slow terrain loads with HT off in P3D4.X and above. Perhaps LM slowly works on multicore and HT utilization from one update to another without providing more information to their customers.  
 

[LRW 42]

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

 

Quote

I'm considering doing my first custom loop to see how much I could lower temps from the AIO and possibly go to 5.2 or 5.3 GHz.

 

Why? A mere 200 MHz will give you 1.2 frames per second at 30 frames per second! Not worth the extra strain on the CPU or the effort, or the extreme cost of a custom loop.

However... if you are a competitive overclocker, or just curious as to what your CPU can do, or have an abundance of funds then fair enough.

 

If I was on a budget I'd have gone with an 8086K.  This is more in the category of trying something new for the fun of it.

[martin-w 3,235]

 

1 hour ago, G-YMML1 said:

 This however, undermines the whole idea behind purchasing 9900k 😞

 

 

What did you upgrade from? 

[LRW 42]

1 hour ago, G-YMML1 said:

Interesting....

Perhaps I should test two different settings for P3D and see FPS difference. If it's truly 1.2 FPS, then perhaps I would stick with the former. This however, undermines the whole idea behind purchasing 9900k 😞

1) 4.8 OC with HT ON

2) 5.0 OC with HT OFF. 

The benefits of having HT OFF are quite clear - low temps. The detriments are still unknown, but some folks including myself have noticing slow terrain loads with HT off in P3D4.X and above. Perhaps LM slowly works on multicore and HT utilization from one update to another without providing more information to their customers.  
  

Did you add the settings that Rob described in the v4.4 thread?  That made a big difference for me.

MAX_TEXTURE_REQUEST_DISTANCE=320000

ENABLE_MEMORY_OPTIMIZATION=0

[G-YMML1 582]

12 minutes ago, martin-w said:

 

 

What did you upgrade from? 

6700k @4.6OC, I had this system since December 2015. 3 years straight.

[G-YMML1 582]

1 minute ago, LRW said:

Did you add the settings that Rob described in the v4.4 thread?  That made a big difference for me.

MAX_TEXTURE_REQUEST_DISTANCE=320000

ENABLE_MEMORY_OPTIMIZATION=0

No i did not, but thanks for the hint.

[LRW 42]

34 minutes ago, G-YMML1 said:

No i did not, but thanks for the hint.

It didn't eliminate 100% of autogen popping and also some black textures when I look perpendicular to the direction of flight, but it is a significant improvement for me.

[martin-w 3,235]

4 hours ago, G-YMML1 said:

6700k @4.6OC, I had this system since December 2015. 3 years straight.

 

 

 

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-9900K-vs-Intel-Core-i7-6700K/4028vs3502

[flytrumpet767 68]

10 hours ago, LRW said:

Did you add the settings that Rob described in the v4.4 thread?  That made a big difference for me.

MAX_TEXTURE_REQUEST_DISTANCE=320000

ENABLE_MEMORY_OPTIMIZATION=0

Under what section do you place those entries?

Thanks

[lownslo 592]

Both go in the "GRAPHICS" section.

HTH,

Greg

[David Roch 1,982]

Wait, it's not 320000 but 32000.0000. 😉

 

Edited December 20, 2018 by David Roch

[LRW 42]

2 hours ago, David Roch said:

Wait, it's not 320000 but 32000.0000. 😉

 

Rob initially wrote 32000 and later corrected it to 320000.  I don't think the decimals matter.

[LRW 42]

On 11/29/2018 at 10:55 PM, Rob Ainscough said:

320000 is the value I've been using, sorry for any typo's.  But per LM's information, you can set this to 1000000, there is no limit.  I have no idea what the units of measure are for MAX_TEXTURE_REQUEST_DISTANCE ... here is Beau's (LM) exact words:

There's no cap on this value itself because it's intended as a limit. If you want textures requesting aggressively, you can set it something very high like 1000000. There are two other checks that must pass before textures are requested:
1) Object is within the far clip distance. This varies by altitude.
2) Object pixel size at a given distance passes min radius check. This we made configurable in 4.3 using RS_MIN_OBJECT_PIXEL_RADIUS. (default is 2.0px)

Cheers, Rob.