Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
westman

9900k on Z370 nice combo

Recommended Posts

If you for some reason want to uppgrade to 8cores from a 6core cpu 8700k to 9900K.
you have a good Z370 Mobo with external usb 3.1 gen2 controller and not use wifi.
If you read the specs the only big difference is onboard Wifi and usb 3.1 gen2

I read in some treads here at Avsim that Z390 should OC better then the Z370 true?
or is it rumors that popped up on the net without any source.

Have start Overclocking a 9900k on my Z370 Apex MoBo .

Get the CPU stable with  5.4ghz HT-on and 5.5ghz   HT-off , cooling customloop 360 rad and D5 pump.
I write in a tread here at avsim that i pass the 9900k if i not find a really GOOD cpu, get lucky to find one.

The ASUS Z370 APEX Overclock as the Top of the line Z390 boards can even be sligtly better .

Funky Nasty if you find a good  9700k-9900k CPU , its the only you need.

here is a CB15 test run, no tweaks mems 4133 c17  no tweaking a std asus mem profile.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ibiovy3e17s50sl/snaphsot0091.png?dl=0

Edited by westman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Daft question....  is it really worth the extra stress / instability / reduced life expectancy / expensive cooling etc etc..... for a 10 percent boost in clock speed ?

If you are getting 60 fps, we are talking 5 or 6 fps between 4.5 and 5 Ghz.

At a more common 30 fps target.... we are literally talking 3 ..... yes, THREE FPS.

Why do people push there systems so high for 3 to 6 fps benefit ? 

I can understand faster RAM and NvMe drives, as the synergy of these components leads to a much smoother experience.

......But ..... I have never understood why people will push their CPU an extra 100 to 200 Mhz, in turn raising the temperatures from 60 to over 80 degrees C, just for a few FPS.... ESPECIALLY, when turning down 1 or 2 sliders - just 1 notch - will probably DOUBLE that FPS gain !

 

Edited by Gabe777
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Gabe777 said:

Daft question....  is it really worth the extra stress / instability / reduced life expectancy / expensive cooling etc etc..... for a 10 percent boost in clock speed ?

If you are getting 60 fps, we are talking 5 or 6 fps between 4.5 and 5 Ghz.

At a more common 30 fps target.... we are literally talking 3 ..... yes, THREE FPS.

Why do people push there systems so high for 3 to 6 fps benefit ? 

I can understand faster RAM and NvMe drives, as the synergy of these components leads to a much smoother experience.

......But ..... I have never un.derstood why people will push their CPU an extra 100 to 200 Mhz, in turn raising the temperatures from 60 to over 80 degrees C, just for a few FPS.... ESPECIALLY, when turning down 1 or 2 sliders - just 1 notch - will probably DOUBLE that FPS gain !

 

Well stated. Apt points.👍


Rick Almeida

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, westman said:

If you for some reason want to uppgrade to 8cores from a 6core cpu 8700k to 9900K.
you have a good Z370 Mobo with external usb 3.1 gen2 controller and not use wifi.
If you read the specs the only big difference is onboard Wifi and usb 3.1 gen2

I read in some treads here at Avsim that Z390 should OC better then the Z370 true?
or is it rumors that popped up on the net without any source.

Have start Overclocking a 9900k on my Z370 Apex MoBo .

Get the CPU stable with  5.4ghz HT-on and 5.5ghz   HT-off , cooling customloop 360 rad and D5 pump.
I write in a tread here at avsim that i pass the 9900k if i not find a really GOOD cpu, get lucky to find one.

The ASUS Z370 APEX Overclock as the Top of the line Z390 boards can even be sligtly better .

 

Thanks for the report!

Rob A. reports at another forum that he's running 5.5 (assume he's still on the z390 Fomrula), but seems to require a 2 stage boot up process that is not unlike the start up sequence for a Saturn V rocket.

18 hours ago, westman said:

Funky Nasty if you find a good  9700k-9900k CPU , its the only you need.

here is a CB15 test run, no tweaks mems 4133 c17  no tweaking a std asus mem profile.

But that's just it ....what are the odds of me finding a "good" 9900 or 9700.

Yes! Nice Cinebench score  ....and I like those voltages.  WTG, man.

 

If given the chance, post some other performance screen shots.

Thanks!


    ROG Maximus X Apex Z370 -- 8086 @ 5.3 / NB 5.0 -- GSkill  @ 4133 c17-17-32~Cr1 1.42v  -- EVGA 1080Ti 6393 -- ROG PG279Q 1440P 150hz -- Corsair H100i V2 --Samsung EVO 850(s) -- Windows7 Pro 64 --Corsair 750X

Ken C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gabe777 said:

Daft question....  is it really worth the extra stress / instability / reduced life expectancy / expensive cooling etc etc..... for a 10 percent boost in clock speed ?

If you are getting 60 fps, we are talking 5 or 6 fps between 4.5 and 5 Ghz.

At a more common 30 fps target.... we are literally talking 3 ..... yes, THREE FPS.

Why do people push there systems so high for 3 to 6 fps benefit ? 

I can understand faster RAM and NvMe drives, as the synergy of these components leads to a much smoother experience.

......But ..... I have never understood why people will push their CPU an extra 100 to 200 Mhz, in turn raising the temperatures from 60 to over 80 degrees C, just for a few FPS.... ESPECIALLY, when turning down 1 or 2 sliders - just 1 notch - will probably DOUBLE that FPS gain !

 

I take it you didn't fly into LAX this morning.  Off the charts beautiful -the broken clouds, city lights and lightning over the San Gabriel's  ....totally worth the price of admission.


    ROG Maximus X Apex Z370 -- 8086 @ 5.3 / NB 5.0 -- GSkill  @ 4133 c17-17-32~Cr1 1.42v  -- EVGA 1080Ti 6393 -- ROG PG279Q 1440P 150hz -- Corsair H100i V2 --Samsung EVO 850(s) -- Windows7 Pro 64 --Corsair 750X

Ken C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FunknNasty said:

Thanks for the report!

Rob A. reports at another forum that he's running 5.5 (assume he's still on the z390 Fomrula), but seems to require a 2 stage boot up process that is not unlike the start up sequence for a Saturn V rocket.

But that's just it ....what are the odds of me finding a "good" 9900 or 9700.

Yes! Nice Cinebench score  ....and I like those voltages.  WTG, man.

 

If given the chance, post some other performance screen shots.

Thanks!

The 9900k have problems with Older B-die that ones for Z370 and Z270 on Z390 mems that do 4133-4266 with cr1 cant make that on Z390  about 100 mhz less, on the other hand the new kits is dont like cr1 you ar often stuck at cr2.

run P3D at 5.5ghz avx0 HT-off ,here a CB15 HT-off with little bclk, its very good cpu not need much vcore thats the key to have decent temps, 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hy8b9rzl4kopf8w/snaphsot0100.png?dl=0

Edited by westman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, westman said:

The 9900k have problems with Older B-die that ones for Z370 and Z270 on Z390 mems that do 4133-4266 with cr1 cant make that on Z390  about 100 mhz less, on the other hand the new kits is dont like cr1 you ar often stuck at cr2.

run P3D at 5.5ghz avx0 HT-off ,here a CB15 HT-off with little bclk, its very good cpu not need much vcore thats the key to have decent temps, 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hy8b9rzl4kopf8w/snaphsot0100.png?dl=0

Glad you mentioned the memory ....my memory does not like bios 1801, which I assume is geared up for the 9xxx coffee lakes. It runs about 5 to 7% slower than bios 1401. One of the reasons I went with the 8086. Well, that and I was pretty much guaranteed a 5.3 clock at voltages under 1.4.


    ROG Maximus X Apex Z370 -- 8086 @ 5.3 / NB 5.0 -- GSkill  @ 4133 c17-17-32~Cr1 1.42v  -- EVGA 1080Ti 6393 -- ROG PG279Q 1440P 150hz -- Corsair H100i V2 --Samsung EVO 850(s) -- Windows7 Pro 64 --Corsair 750X

Ken C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, FunknNasty said:

Glad you mentioned the memory ....my memory does not like bios 1801, which I assume is geared up for the 9xxx coffee lakes. It runs about 5 to 7% slower than bios 1401. One of the reasons I went with the 8086. Well, that and I was pretty much guaranteed a 5.3 clock at voltages under 1.4.

seen the same but the z390 is worse, did a aida not bad much work to explore.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ss2qs4t5fw4ngxz/cachemem.png?dl=0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, westman said:

seen the same but the z390 is worse, did a aida not bad much work to explore.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ss2qs4t5fw4ngxz/cachemem.png?dl=0

Well, I’m bummed now. I had a 4400 c18 kit that I tested with the 8600 and 8086 on the 1401 bios but NOT the 1801 .... wonder if the 4400 kit would have worked as advertised on the newer bios , they were horrible on the 1401.

....kicking myself for NOT trying the 4400 kit on the 1801 .....was going to do it but got lazy about it and then was up against the rma date.

edit: nice Aida score ....real nice

Edited by FunknNasty

    ROG Maximus X Apex Z370 -- 8086 @ 5.3 / NB 5.0 -- GSkill  @ 4133 c17-17-32~Cr1 1.42v  -- EVGA 1080Ti 6393 -- ROG PG279Q 1440P 150hz -- Corsair H100i V2 --Samsung EVO 850(s) -- Windows7 Pro 64 --Corsair 750X

Ken C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, FunknNasty said:

Well, I’m bummed now. I had a 4400 c18 kit that I tested with the 8600 and 8086 on the 1401 bios but NOT the 1801 .... wonder if the 4400 kit would have worked as advertised on the newer bios , they were horrible on the 1401.

....kicking myself for trying the 4400 kit on the 1801 .....was going to do it but got lazy about it and then was up against the rma date.

no my 4600 kit dont like cr1 with 1801, i run my old galaxy 4000 think they work better for now , my 4600 worked better on older bios but stuck at cr2.

my 9900k was a spare cpu this is how a real golden one performs on a nzkt 280 AIO 1.27v llc6 5.4ghz my do with the same cooling 1.34v (lovest vcore to pass CB15 not highest points) this is a ES chip my is retail

https://www.dropbox.com/s/f2y2ytblkis7fjv/golden binned.jpg?dl=0

Edited by westman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, westman said:

 

my 9900k was a spare cpu this is how a real golden one performs on a nzkt 280 AIO 1.27v llc6 5.4ghz

https://www.dropbox.com/s/f2y2ytblkis7fjv/golden binned.jpg?dl=0

LOL 1.27!


    ROG Maximus X Apex Z370 -- 8086 @ 5.3 / NB 5.0 -- GSkill  @ 4133 c17-17-32~Cr1 1.42v  -- EVGA 1080Ti 6393 -- ROG PG279Q 1440P 150hz -- Corsair H100i V2 --Samsung EVO 850(s) -- Windows7 Pro 64 --Corsair 750X

Ken C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, FunknNasty said:

I take it you didn't fly into LAX this morning.  Off the charts beautiful -the broken clouds, city lights and lightning over the San Gabriel's  ....totally worth the price of admission.

No I didn't. But I know for a fact, that it would look just as good with 10 percent less autogen , or a little less anti aliasing, or shadow quality reduced a notch etc etc etc., to compensate for the 10 percent lower CPU power.

MOREOVER, I'll be able to do that flight every day for the next 5 years, while a PC running at 90 degrees, will be dead, long before then.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a short video aida64 stress test, the 9900k run with fractal AIO 360 and 1080TI cooled with a NZXT X42-G12.

the temps is stabilisized i max temp less then 80C in P3D not over 70C.

Its to much know how and nonsens clames like the 90c guy , and is it 10% with fast mems i dont think he knows what he talks about, my two cents.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@westman

Yup, that's golden  ....wtg!

p.s. on the Apex z370?


    ROG Maximus X Apex Z370 -- 8086 @ 5.3 / NB 5.0 -- GSkill  @ 4133 c17-17-32~Cr1 1.42v  -- EVGA 1080Ti 6393 -- ROG PG279Q 1440P 150hz -- Corsair H100i V2 --Samsung EVO 850(s) -- Windows7 Pro 64 --Corsair 750X

Ken C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with @Gabe777 that pushing the CPU to its absolute limits is unwise with the benefits being so small. I have my i7-8086K set at 4.6Ghz now and I'm more than happy. If I need a few more fps at busy airports like EGLL or KLAX I just reduce UT Live from 100% down to a lower level. Removing 50+ Ai will have a significant impact on performance.

The worst performance I've had was on approach to Aerosoft Heathrow Xtended 09L with 230+ Ai and the fps hovered around 20. Still more than acceptable for a good landing. And that's running at UHD!

I accept there are people who want the maximum performance from their systems but don't understand their logic. Each to their own I suppose.

Edited by Ray Proudfoot

Ray (Cheshire, England).
System: P3D v4.5, Intel i7-8086K o/c to 4.6Ghz, Nvidia GTX 1080 Ti 11Gb, Samsung 970 EVO M.2 SSD, 1Tb Samsung 860 EVO SSD, Asus Prime Z370-A mobo, 32Gb G.Skill DDR4 3000Mhz RAM, Win 10 Pro 64-bit, BenQ PD3200U 32” UHD monitor, Fulcrum One yoke.
Cheadle Hulme Weather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
  • Donation Goals

    AVSIM's 2020 Fundraising Goal

    Donate to our annual general fundraising goal. This donation keeps our doors open and providing you service 24 x 7 x 365. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. We reset this goal every new year for the following year's goal.


    34%
    $8,560.00 of $25,000.00 Donate Now
×
×
  • Create New...