Noctua vs i9-10900k

[europrodave 24]

On 3/10/2021 at 4:51 PM, TheFamilyMan said:

Obvious, the biggest factor on how high a CPU can be OC'ed under a NH-D15 is the CPU chip sample quality that's being OC'ed.  I think that's that only thing really hold back the OC of my 10700k, which is sitting under a NH-D15S.  To hit a higher OC would require voltages which I would not be comfortable using anyways, though custom closed-loop water, or a crazy huge (read: loud) AIO would likely handle it.

Thus my dilemma. My preference would be to stay with the Noctua D15S however, I’m thinking (and please correct me if I’m wrong) that just running the 10900k at stock would be at the upper limits temp wise. Where as, a very good friend of mine has been “plumbing” custom water cooling rigs for years assures be of loads of wiggle room temp wise should I OC this CPU. 
What to do?... what to do..?

David. 

[martin-w 3,235]

6 hours ago, europrodave said:

 I’m thinking (and please correct me if I’m wrong) that just running the 10900k at stock would be at the upper limits temp wise.

 

Depends how you define upper limits.

As confirmed already in this thread. Even all cores at 5 GHz would be only 67 to 77 according to reviews. Stock Turbo's lower on most of the cores so would be even lower temp.  Under 80 degrees is fine for everyday use. 

lxoye told us he sees 65 degrees running the sim. And that's with MSE on, so not stock. Obviously depends on your ambient temp too. 

Personally I have no interest in running the 10900K with an overclock. Intel pretty much pre overclocked it anyway to compete with AMD. I don't see any significant benefit from a few hundred megahertz more. 

So, you build a custom loop, and manage to clock all cores to 5.2... how much benefit to you think that will bring you? 

My intention is to set XMP, enable MCE and leave it at that. 

And the point is, you already have an NH-D15S anyway, which you can install and find out first hand. If its not the cooling you want you are then free to buy an AIO or go bonkers and build an expensive custom loop. I don't see that you have any dilemma at all. 

Edited March 14, 2021 by martin-w

[europrodave 24]

7 hours ago, martin-w said:

 

Depends how you define upper limits.

As confirmed already in this thread. Even all cores at 5 GHz would be only 67 to 77 according to reviews. Stock Turbo's lower on most of the cores so would be even lower temp.  Under 80 degrees is fine for everyday use. 

lxoye told us he sees 65 degrees running the sim. And that's with MSE on, so not stock. Obviously depends on your ambient temp too. 

Personally I have no interest in running the 10900K with an overclock. Intel pretty much pre overclocked it anyway to compete with AMD. I don't see any significant benefit from a few hundred megahertz more. 

So, you build a custom loop, and manage to clock all cores to 5.2... how much benefit to you think that will bring you? 

My intention is to set XMP, enable MCE and leave it at that. 

And the point is, you already have an NH-D15S anyway, which you can install and find out first hand. If its not the cooling you want you are then free to buy an AIO or go bonkers and build an expensive custom loop. I don't see that you have any dilemma at all. 

You’re right Martin. I actually have nothing to lose and +$1000.00 to save on a custom liquid loop. I agree with you at keeping the CPU stock also. 
Thanks for the adjustment. 

[Bob Scott 7,721]

19 hours ago, europrodave said:

You’re right Martin. I actually have nothing to lose and +$1000.00 to save on a custom liquid loop.

$1000?  You should be able to build a very good custom water loop for around a third of that.

[martin-w 3,235]

EK do some kits around £250. 

[europrodave 24]

4 hours ago, w6kd said:

$1000?  You should be able to build a very good custom water loop for around a third of that.

Sorry, that figure was included a GPU water block and loop as well.  All EK stuff.

[martin-w 3,235]

About 690 Euro I believe Dave. For an EK kit. £595. Still a lot of dosh of course. 

[TheFamilyMan 280]

On 3/14/2021 at 10:00 AM, martin-w said:

Personally I have no interest in running the 10900K with an overclock. Intel pretty much pre overclocked it anyway to compete with AMD. I don't see any significant benefit from a few hundred megahertz more.

Intel puts a time limit on how long a processor will run beyond the spec power 125W limit.  So even though all cores of a 10900k at stock will run at 4.9, that'll last for only about a minute usually.  After that the multiplier is lowered (41-43) until only 125W are being consumed.  MCE disables this behavior, though that setting alone without hand tweaking voltages, i.e. leaving them at default, may lead to unexpectedly high voltages.  Though technically not an OC in the sense of pushing up the clocks past turbo speeds, some hand tweaking, as is done when overclocking, is recommended.

Edited March 17, 2021 by TheFamilyMan

[martin-w 3,235]

7 hours ago, TheFamilyMan said:

Intel puts a time limit on how long a processor will run beyond the spec power 125W limit.  So even though all cores of a 10900k at stock will run at 4.9, that'll last for only about a minute usually.  

 

Yep, correct. Intel call it "Tau". I mention that earlier in the thread. 

[Bob Scott 7,721]

On 3/16/2021 at 6:59 PM, TheFamilyMan said:

Intel puts a time limit on how long a processor will run beyond the spec power 125W limit.  So even though all cores of a 10900k at stock will run at 4.9, that'll last for only about a minute usually.  After that the multiplier is lowered (41-43) until only 125W are being consumed.  MCE disables this behavior, though that setting alone without hand tweaking voltages, i.e. leaving them at default, may lead to unexpectedly high voltages.  Though technically not an OC in the sense of pushing up the clocks past turbo speeds, some hand tweaking, as is done when overclocking, is recommended.

Indeed.  And the follow-on point is that the work needed to pin up a 10900K at 5.2 GHz is worth doing--the performance gain is nothing to sneeze at.  It isn't just about getting a 6% bump from 4.9 to 5.2 GHz, it's really that 21% bump over the 4.3GHz steady-state clock you'd get on a 10900K running stock with all cores loaded and no O/C intervention.

[sho69607 29]

I found the i9-10900k to run hot, even under stock turbo settings. I had a noctua n15 that worked wonders with my last chip, but could not quite handle the 10900k. Temps under load were getting up into the upper 80's. Ended up getting a 240mm AIO and that made a huge difference in terms of cooling. Now I rarely hit the 70's under load.

Edited March 26, 2021 by sho69607

[martin-w 3,235]

On 3/26/2021 at 7:40 PM, sho69607 said:

I found the i9-10900k to run hot, even under stock turbo settings. I had a noctua n15 that worked wonders with my last chip, but could not quite handle the 10900k. Temps under load were getting up into the upper 80's. 

 

Others in this thread haven't had that experience. Stock settings if MCE is on, can increase temp. MCE is an overclock of sorts of course, and when boards first come out the auto voltage is often excessive. 

Upper 80's doing what? In a stress test not unusual, especially if running AVX. 

Edited March 28, 2021 by martin-w

[sho69607 29]

14 hours ago, martin-w said:

 

Others in this thread haven't had that experience. Stock settings if MCE is on, can increase temp. MCE is an overclock of sorts of course, and when boards first come out the auto voltage is often excessive. 

Upper 80's doing what? In a stress test not unusual, especially if running AVX. 

Stress test was hitting the 90’s for me. Using P3D was high 70’s-low 80’s. I also live in a warmer climate so I don’t know if that was the contributing factor here or not. That was actually one of the reasons I switched to an AIO. 

[martin-w 3,235]

If the stress test is running AVX, not unusual. 

Ambient temp definately makes a diference. Your 70's would have been 60's with an ambient 10 degrees lower.

Depends if overclocking too of course.

[europrodave 24]

3 hours ago, martin-w said:

If the stress test is running AVX, not unusual. 

Ambient temp definately makes a diference. Your 70's would have been 60's with an ambient 10 degrees lower.

Depends if overclocking too of course.

Happy Monday Martin. 
This question has nothing to do with cooling.
Thank you for all your guidance on the forum helping me with my new parts. 
I’m having a challenge getting a hold of a ASUS z490 Hero here in Canada. 
I can get the AORUS equivalent z490 Master but, don’t have any knowledge on it. 
Do you know of this board and did it would be a solid option for my build?

 Thanks in advance and enjoy your day. 
David.  

Edited March 29, 2021 by europrodave