Hello, 

I assembled my new PC using an MSI MPG Z390 Gaming AC w/ an AMI BIOS.  It runs beautifully and cool at P3D's version of full load at 4.8Ghz at 1.15v, fixed.  I'm sure it would go higher but I'm happy here for now.  I'd like to change to Adaptive and use an offset to bring down the VID as conditions warrant.   I noticed using Core Temp VID is reported to be 1.2349v no matter what the load as expected in fixed mode, w/ Core Voltage set to 1.15v in the bios and this also is reported as 1.15v by CPU-Z.   I don't know what VID is, but I've guessed it might be what the voltage is the core, versus what is delivered to it, but that makes me think VID reporting in Core Temp might be inaccurate.

Anyway, thoughts on where to go to get lowest effective lower demand core voltage and of course sufficient higher demand voltage when overclocked.  I can do trial an error but if you have any insights to add that might help.

Thanks in advance!

Is 4.8 worth the bother Noel? When the all core Turbo is 4.7. You are getting barely anything. 🙂 

VID is the voltage identification definition. It determines how much voltage is needed to stay stable at at stock clock speeds. If I remember correctly, the VID is what Intel know will ensure stability on all the CPU's of that model. So it doesn't surprise me that your specific CPU is capable of being stable at a lower CPU frequency.

I'm not an expert regarding this though. So bear that in mind. 

 

 

Edited March 12, 20206 yr by martin-w

4 hours ago, martin-w said:

Is 4.8 worth the bother Noel? When the all core Turbo is 4.7. You are getting barely anything. 🙂 

VID is the voltage identification definition. It determines how much voltage is needed to stay stable at at stock clock speeds. If I remember correctly, the VID is what Intel know will ensure stability on all the CPU's of that model. So it doesn't surprise me that your specific CPU is capable of being stable at a lower CPU frequency.

I'm not an expert regarding this though. So bear that in mind. 

 

 

I don't appear to need anything more than 4.8 at the moment but as I say I'm ok with that for now because I'm definitely getting the kind of improvement I was hoping for over the old build and my goal is longevity way more than getting to the bleeding edge of inefficiency and heat for a few % more.  Oh I'll undoubtedly try for more but I'm just learning about this so it's all good!

Thanks for that explanation of VID.  Since VID seems always to be reported, but stability doesn't always happen, how does VID reflect how much voltage to stay stable?  I guess I've been thinking throttling would potentially happen w/ Turbo versus when Vcore is set manually but that conflicts with what you're saying so I will research it some more.

 

Edited March 12, 20206 yr by Noel

39 minutes ago, Noel said:

I don't appear to need anything more than 4.8 at the moment

 

 

Exactly. And at stock settings with no attempt at overclocking you will get 4.7 GHz on all cores anyway. So no point even bothering with overclocking. Rather than making adjustments for nothing, I would say you are better off leaving it at stock settings. 🙂 

 

Quote

Thanks for that explanation of VID.  Since VID seems always to be reported, but stability doesn't always happen, how does VID reflect how much voltage to stay stable? 

 

Stability should always happen at stock settings because VID is the voltage Intel have decided is stable for all 9900K chips at stock settings. Loss of stability in terms of voltage, is down to our own failed overclocking endeavours. As I say, VID is merely what Intel rate your chip at for stock clock speeds. 

VID will vary though in regard to power saving modes. Unless you happen to disable those power saving modes, and then VID will be set to the max VID for the chip at stock speeds. 🙂 

You don't need to worry about VID. 

As I say though, I'm no overclocking expert, so if someone like Max or Hasse (Westman) see this they can elaborate more.

 

Quote

 I guess I've been thinking throttling would potentially happen w/ Turbo versus when Vcore is set manually but that conflicts with what you're saying so I will research it some more.

 

Turbo varies frequency dependant on how many cores are active. And of course adjusts voltage automatically in accordance with the boards auto rules. Turbo frequencies for your chip are as follows...

1 core active = 5 GHz

2 cores active =  5 GHz

3 cores active  = 4.8 GHz

4 cores active  = 4.8 GHz

5 cores active  = 4.7 GHz

6 cores active  = 4,7 GHz

7 cores active =  4.7 GHz

8 cores active = 4.7 GHz

 

 

 

Edited March 12, 20206 yr by martin-w

4 minutes ago, martin-w said:

VID will vary though in regard to power saving modes. Unless you happen to disable those power saving mode, and then VID will be set to the max VID for the chip at stock speeds. 🙂 

With my 3930K it used negative core voltage offset and VID would drop down to 0.95v at idle and up to 1.25 at peak use, but as I say now VID displays at 1.23v all the time.  I'll restore stock settings and see how it goes, and it should be fine if indeed it will maintain 4.7Ghz at full load w/o throttling.  Is the throttling secondary to heat presumably?

Undoubtedly after I get familiar I will try to find the sweetest spot for longevity and performance which very likely will be a few Ghz more than 4.7.  What I'd like to do is have the main core do what it can do at reasonable voltage, but leave the terrain loaders at a lower clock speed and voltage since the demand there is generally much lower.

Thanks Martin

11 minutes ago, Noel said:

Is the throttling secondary to heat presumably?

 

 

 

I don't know what TJ Max is for the 9900K but its usually around 100 degrees. If the CPU temp approaches that temp it will first begin to throttle back to avoid damage, If it hits TJ Max the CPU will shut down. 

 

Edited March 12, 20206 yr by martin-w

Martin I'm not 'worried' just trying to understand its role because...I never have!  This thing is so dang cool I can't believe it!  I was flying last night to Jackson Hole from KBJC (close to my post-Camp Fire home) and the dang thing barely hit 44C! So this means we will see no throttling.

44 is VERY cool when running the sim. Impressive. Whats that temp measured with Noel? Temp will be lower iof its CPU temp, and higher if its core temp, measured with RealTemp, CoreTemp, Hardware Monitor etc. 

Edited March 12, 20206 yr by martin-w

MSI's Dragon App, Hardware monitor, and also Core Temp all reporting the same.  Quite frankly I don't get it!  My old box off the a/c unit would hit 64 on occasion w/ similar ambient.

1 hour ago, Noel said:

MSI's Dragon App, Hardware monitor, and also Core Temp all reporting the same.  Quite frankly I don't get it!  My old box off the a/c unit would hit 64 on occasion w/ similar ambient.

 

I've just read that it can run 18 degrees cooler than my 8700k, so seems the soldered TIM is working well. And would confirm your results.

Edited March 12, 20206 yr by martin-w

Went back to mostly standard settings, disabled Enhanced Turbo after confirming indeed she goes over 5Ghz, but that is at 1.32v (VID), which seems a bit high to me for a lousy couple of Ghz.  4.8Gz set up w/ fixed v was set at 1.15v (VID reported as 1.23v but didn't down step under low load.  Ideally I'd like to dial in 4.8 or 4.9, but have v step back and that should be easy to do so I will continue playing with it.  But you're right 4,700 is going to work quite well overall, and at idle core volts get very low which I'd like for longevity.  OTOH, I'm almost always flying when using, so have a very low idle voltage might be something w/ little to no value anyway.  I could use a better GPU though!

36 minutes ago, martin-w said:

 

I've just read that it can run 18 degrees cooler than my 8700k, so seems the soldered TIM is working well. And would confirm your results.

I was going to say...that's about 15-20 C cooler than my 8700K running the sim (!).   I'm impressed and didn't realize the 9900K's were doing that.  Wow.

@Noel what is your cooler?  Hyperthreading on or off for those temps?

26 minutes ago, Noel said:

Went back to mostly standard settings, disabled Enhanced Turbo after confirming indeed she goes over 5Ghz, but that is at 1.32v (VID), which seems a bit high to me for a lousy couple of Ghz. 

 

Noel... as I said... forget about VID. Its Vcore sometimes referred to as CPU Voltage that we change when we overclock. Ignore VID. 

VID is not relevant when we overclock. Don't consider VID for a second. Only concern yourself with Vcore (CPU voltage). Not once have I EVER paid any attention to VID. 

6 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

VID is not useful for overclocking ... it's a "request" voltage for a given power state.  Vcore is where you see actual CPU voltage.

 

5 hours ago, martin-w said:

 

Noel... as I said... forget about VID. Its Vcore sometimes referred to as CPU Voltage that we change when we overclock. Ignore VID. 

VID is not relevant when we overclock. Don't consider VID for a second. Only concern yourself with Vcore (CPU voltage). Not once have I EVER paid any attention to VID. 

Thanks, both of you.  Having successfully overclocked several processors over the years I always knew what role vCore played no mystery there, but my fantasy was that what was set as vCore was, literally the voltage supplied to the front door of the CPU, and that VID perhaps reflected how much the CPU was actually needing/using in realtime.  I guess it was seeing VID in a prominent location displayed in Core Temp over these many years and having success at overclocking I just assumed that was what was happening.   

My two goals are:  #1:  system longevity.  #2:  fastest clock speed attainable JUST BEFORE the upsweep in inefficiency that accompanies higher voltages and heat, which of course supports goal #1.

I do have an interesting finding perhaps you can comment on:

Here is the difference in reported VID in these two scenarios on my new rig:

Normal, non-manually o/c, with standard turbo mode enabled, at 4700mHz: VID at full load (100% CPU)=1.23v

Manually set vCore to 1.14v, SpeedStep enabled, offset -0.08, standard turbo mode enabled, at 4800mHz:  VID at full load=1.14-1.15v.

You can see why this seems like a better method to get the same clock speed if VID meant what I thought it meant.  But I think you're saying VID, for whatever reason it's displayed, has no role because it does not reliably mirror stress on the CPU, so should be ignored, at least as far as maximum clock speed goes.  I wonder if that is because the folks who emphasize this just aren't looking at longevity, or because VID is just completely invalid for anything.  Why then do apps like Core Temp bother displaying it?

To translate all of that to what I think you are both hinting at:  just trial and error it to get the best clock speed at a vCore I feel good about, because whatever vCore is set to is what the CPU is exposed to, yes?  This is what I've always done but I did consider VID in the process.   Can using an offset help with either goal?

 

Edited March 12, 20206 yr by Noel

Quote

but my fantasy was that what was set as vCore was, literally the voltage supplied to the front door of the CPU, and that VID perhaps reflected how much the CPU was actually needing/using in realtime.

 

Its the other way around. VID is the request, Vcore is what it gets. But don't forget Vdroop comes into play too.

Recapping and adding a bit more info...

VID is a CPU binary code rather than a specific voltage. The motherboard voltage regulator uses it to set the right voltage at stock frequencies. For your CPU it goes from something like 800 MHz to 5 GHz in 100 MHz increments in response to power saving features.

If we overclock and set voltage to manual and just type in the voltage, we dispense with VID. Only issue there is no power saving features. The frequency and voltage wont drop under lighter loads.

The way to retain those power saving features is with offset mode. Many will just estimate the offset voltage, by simply guessing a starting point, or using a recommended offset voltage and tweaking up or down. The offset voltage is actually the VID plus or minus the offset. In this respect, setting offset mode somewhat more skilfully, knowing the VID is useful. 

But as I said, I have never found the need to consider VID. On the occasions I have used offset mode, it has been after researching and using suggested offsets, then tweaking from there. But then I'm not a pro overclocker. 🙂 

 

 

Edited March 13, 20206 yr by martin-w