9700k owners - What are your OC/Power Silicon Lottery results? (High Heat?)

[Jelly Donut]

So earlier this year I made a thread asking about the experience from 9900K/9900KF owners. As I was skeptical about heat since I am OC'ing and the country I live in is pretty warm all year round (Singapore) and considering I don't multitask heavily, I saved some money and went for a 9700k.

My 9700k had a pretty good silicon. Was able to hit 5.1Ghz, 4.9Ghz (AVX) @ 1.35V, LLC4 (I was able to do 5.2 and 5.0 @1.365V, but it was really difficult to cool). However, it consumes power like a 9900k. While doing an AVX workload, it consumes nearly 200W of package power as reported from the motherboard as well as got pretty toasty (hitting 90C during an AVX workload on prime 95 for e.g.). I use a Side mounted Corsair H150i Pro Liquid Cooler.

For those who overclock their 9700k here.. Is this normal heat and package power consumption? Because, I feel that 9700Ks are like 9900Ks tested by Intel that didn't qualify for the 9900K's specs, so they just disable the HT and sell as a 9700k (and it looks like a more inefficient silicon compared to the 9900K, let alone the 9900K Special Edition)

Let me know what are your experiences with this chip!

Specs, Motherboard and OC settings:

Motherboard: ASUS Maximus XI Gene
PSU: Cooler Master V750 (750W 80 Plus GOLD)
Cooler: Corsair H150i Pro (360mm AIO) w 6 fans: 3 Noctua NF-F12 iPPCs for Push and 3 Cooler Master RGB Fans for Pull

OC Settings:
Ai Overclock Tuner: XMP II
BCLK Frequency 100.0000
ASUS Multicore enhancement: Disabled
SVID Behaviour: Intel's Fail Safe
AVX Instruction Core Ratio Negative Offset: 2
CPU Core Ratio: Sync All Cores, 51
DRAM Frequency DDR4-3200Mhz
Xtreme Tweaking: Enabled
CPU SVID Support: Disabled

CPU Core/Cache Current Limit Max: 255.75 (MAX)
BCLK Aware Adaptive Voltage: Enabled
CPU Core/Cache Voltage: Manual Mode
CPU Core Voltage Override: 1.350
CPU Cache Ratio Min and Max: 43

-External Digi+ Power Control
CPU Load-Line Calibration: Level 4
CPU Current Capability: 140%

-Internal CPU Power Management: Turbo Mode Parameters-
Long Duration Package Power Limit: 4095 (MAX)
Package Power Time Windows: 127
Short Duration Package Power Limit: 4095 (MAX)

*All other settings not listed are set to their default settings, being it Auto or any other assigned by XMP II.

[Veni vidi vici]

Really dont know much about overclocking my 9700k/gigabyte 390 board yet. i dont have the right case fans or a gpu and haven't had time to work on it.
but i did press the oc button on the mobo and it now says im at 4.9ghz

[Jelly Donut]

Veni vidi vici の投稿を引用：

Really dont know much about overclocking my 9700k/gigabyte 390 board yet. i dont have the right case fans or a gpu and haven't had time to work on it.
but i did press the oc button on the mobo and it now says im at 4.9ghz

Did you try do any self binning or manual OC?

Truth being told, auto OC sucks since they are just pumping more voltage to "assure" a better OC depending on your silicon quality.

[tacoshy]

Yes, but not everybody has the knowledge to OC correctly or frankly the time to test the optimal settings.

Also only few really useful guides for best overclock on gigabyte motherboards.

Different manufacturer have other names for their settings and also need to do other things to make it run at best.

[Snow]

Cheezy Potatoes! の投稿を引用：

Because, I feel that 9700Ks are like 9900Ks tested by Intel that didn't qualify for the 9900K's specs, so they just disable the HT and sell as a 9700k (and it looks like a more inefficient silicon compared to the 9900K, let alone the 9900K Special Edition)

That is literally how modern CPUs are made. Unless there's high demand for specific model, every CPU that is not the top of the line one is going to be broken/limited top of the line one.

[Jelly Donut]

Snow の投稿を引用：

Cheezy Potatoes! の投稿を引用：

Because, I feel that 9700Ks are like 9900Ks tested by Intel that didn't qualify for the 9900K's specs, so they just disable the HT and sell as a 9700k (and it looks like a more inefficient silicon compared to the 9900K, let alone the 9900K Special Edition)

That is literally how modern CPUs are made. Unless there's high demand for specific model, every CPU that is not the top of the line one is going to be broken/limited top of the line one.

Dang, so 9700k is just an inefficient 9900k?

[DeadPhoenix]

It depends on the silicon Lottery. You get a good chip or a not so good one. My i7 8700K can only hit 4.7 Ghz, anything higher i need to put 1.4v+ voltage on it.

[Snow]

Cheezy Potatoes! の投稿を引用：

Snow の投稿を引用：

That is literally how modern CPUs are made. Unless there's high demand for specific model, every CPU that is not the top of the line one is going to be broken/limited top of the line one.

Dang, so 9700k is just an inefficient 9900k?

With a very high probability - yes. Inefficient, or broken, or something else. Back in the day you could've bought 2-core Athlon and turn in into 4-core Phenom, if it wasn't too damaged. This explains their products lineups, like you've noticed - 9700k is literally 9900k with SMT disabled, 9700KF is the same thing but with malfunctioning iGPU as a bonus, 9700 without any letters didn't qualify for OC due to stability or temp issues, you got the idea. This is also why you can see weird stuff, i.e. few models with slightly various clocks (i5-9400, i5-9500, i5-9600), or i3-9350K which barely holds up in modern AAA games due to being 4c/4t, yet still lets you overclock as those cores and registers that do work looked solid enough to Intel. Some CPUs will fail this way or that way during manufacturing, and making this insane variety of CPUs might be really expensive. But making a number high-end ones, and then selling broken/ineffective ones reduces the manufacturing cost. This is also how AMD managed to make cheap yet powerful high-end CPUs lately - instead of making CPU as a whole, they make chiplets, and them combine then on one die. This is yet another awesome idea for saving some money - say, if they made top of the line CPU as a whole, and some part of it failed, they'd have to either sell it as a a weaker one or throw it away. But if, in example, instead of 2 high-end CPUs they make 4 chiplets, and two of those fail - they still can combine working ones into a high-end CPU.

[LowMax]

Haven't OC'd mine yet, I'm new to overclocking so not that confident at the moment.
I've learned a lot from this thread though so thanks everyone :-)

[Jelly Donut]

DeadPhoenix の投稿を引用：

It depends on the silicon Lottery. You get a good chip or a not so good one. My i7 8700K can only hit 4.7 Ghz, anything higher i need to put 1.4v+ voltage on it.

Oh man.. :(

Snow の投稿を引用：

Cheezy Potatoes! の投稿を引用：

Dang, so 9700k is just an inefficient 9900k?

With a very high probability - yes. Inefficient, or broken, or something else. Back in the day you could've bought 2-core Athlon and turn in into 4-core Phenom, if it wasn't too damaged. This explains their products lineups, like you've noticed - 9700k is literally 9900k with SMT disabled, 9700KF is the same thing but with malfunctioning iGPU as a bonus, 9700 without any letters didn't qualify for OC due to stability or temp issues, you got the idea. This is also why you can see weird stuff, i.e. few models with slightly various clocks (i5-9400, i5-9500, i5-9600), or i3-9350K which barely holds up in modern AAA games due to being 4c/4t, yet still lets you overclock as those cores and registers that do work looked solid enough to Intel. Some CPUs will fail this way or that way during manufacturing, and making this insane variety of CPUs might be really expensive. But making a number high-end ones, and then selling broken/ineffective ones reduces the manufacturing cost. This is also how AMD managed to make cheap yet powerful high-end CPUs lately - instead of making CPU as a whole, they make chiplets, and them combine then on one die. This is yet another awesome idea for saving some money - say, if they made top of the line CPU as a whole, and some part of it failed, they'd have to either sell it as a a weaker one or throw it away. But if, in example, instead of 2 high-end CPUs they make 4 chiplets, and two of those fail - they still can combine working ones into a high-end CPU.

I suppose. But then, these Coffee Lake CPUs are built on an architecture designed for 4 Cores, so dunno why Intel's having a hard time transitioning to 10nm.

LowMax の投稿を引用：

Haven't OC'd mine yet, I'm new to overclocking so not that confident at the moment.
I've learned a lot from this thread though so thanks everyone :-)

You should be able to overclock with confidence (given ur board has a decent power delivery and u know what to do.)

[LowMax]

Cheezy Potatoes! の投稿を引用：

LowMax の投稿を引用：

Haven't OC'd mine yet, I'm new to overclocking so not that confident at the moment.
I've learned a lot from this thread though so thanks everyone :-)

You should be able to overclock with confidence (given ur board has a decent power delivery and u know what to do.)

My Motherboard is a Gigabyte Aorus Z390 Pro WiFi.

[tacoshy]

LowMax の投稿を引用：

Cheezy Potatoes! の投稿を引用：

You should be able to overclock with confidence (given ur board has a decent power delivery and u know what to do.)

My Motherboard is a Gigabyte Aorus Z390 Pro WiFi.

https://www.gigabyte.com/FileUpload/Global/multimedia/2/file/525/946.pdf

Gigabytes own overclockign guide. Not to hard to do. The CPu is fine and specced for 1.52V. For starters unless you know what you do, I would stay below 1.42V.
However I have a 7700K that runs fine @5.5GHz after years with 1.465V with an Aorus Z270X-Gaming 9. Was the ebst motherboard ever released for Z270.

[LowMax]

tacoshy の投稿を引用：

LowMax の投稿を引用：

My Motherboard is a Gigabyte Aorus Z390 Pro WiFi.

https://www.gigabyte.com/FileUpload/Global/multimedia/2/file/525/946.pdf

Gigabytes own overclockign guide. Not to hard to do. The CPu is fine and specced for 1.52V. For starters unless you know what you do, I would stay below 1.42V.
However I have a 7700K that runs fine @5.5GHz after years with 1.465V with an Aorus Z270X-Gaming 9. Was the ebst motherboard ever released for Z270.

Many thanks :-)

[Snow]

Cheezy Potatoes! の投稿を引用：

dunno why Intel's having a hard time transitioning to 10nm.

That's because Intel have to research, develop and maintain their own CPU manufacturing lines, while companies like AMD, NVidia, Apple, Qualcomm, MediaTek all use TSMC. Now, if you talk desktop PCs - you can pretty much expect amount of graphics cards sold per year to be on par with amount of CPUs sold per year, big part of which are not Intel anymore. Then amount of iPhones sold per year can also beat amount of Intel desktop CPUs sold, and Android market is even bigger than that. And so on.
My point is - thanks to enormous amounts of parts TSMC sell per year, should they invest into research and development of 7nm - they will likely cover that and start making 7nm profits in like year or two. Should Intel try to go 10nm or 7nm or whatever - it might take like 10 or even 20 years to cover the cost of research and development. And with AMD being such a big deal these days, which keeps reducing the amount of desktop CPUs Intel sell every day now - risky investments might potentially make Intel "Oh, right, there was such a company back in the day, I guess". Think Cyrix.

[tacoshy]

Snow の投稿を引用：

Cheezy Potatoes! の投稿を引用：

dunno why Intel's having a hard time transitioning to 10nm.

That's because Intel have to research, develop and maintain their own CPU manufacturing lines, while companies like AMD, NVidia, Apple, Qualcomm, MediaTek all use TSMC. Now, if you talk desktop PCs - you can pretty much expect amount of graphics cards sold per year to be on par with amount of CPUs sold per year, big part of which are not Intel anymore. Then amount of iPhones sold per year can also beat amount of Intel desktop CPUs sold, and Android market is even bigger than that. And so on.
My point is - thanks to enormous amounts of parts TSMC sell per year, should they invest into research and development of 7nm - they will likely cover that and start making 7nm profits in like year or two. Should Intel try to go 10nm or 7nm or whatever - it might take like 10 or even 20 years to cover the cost of research and development. And with AMD being such a big deal these days, which keeps reducing the amount of desktop CPUs Intel sell every day now - risky investments might potentially make Intel "Oh, right, there was such a company back in the day, I guess". Think Cyrix.

besides the fact that 7nm, 10nm or 14nm are all amrektign gimmicks. Intels 10nm (actually 38nm fin pitch) is smaller then TSMC (AMD) 7nm (40nm fin pitch), the difference to 14nm pretty small.

[Snow]

tacoshy の投稿を引用：

besides the fact that 7nm, 10nm or 14nm are all amrektign gimmicks. Intels 10nm (actually 38nm fin pitch) is smaller then TSMC (AMD) 7nm (40nm fin pitch), the difference to 14nm pretty small.

Yeah, I've also heard companies measure those things in really different ways, pretty much like one company can write TDP based on recommended cooler, and other can write TDP based on the visible angle between Jupiter and Saturn.
Either way Intel can't easily do stuff what TSMC can, that's for sure. Basically, if some new CPU design fails for Intel - it's gonna be a financial disaster, but if the same happens to TSMC - they'll just have an angry customer. I wonder if those "Mac going AMD" rumour is true, as if it is - it's yet another huge market lost for Intel, and without Intel around we'll have Zen2 refreshes for next 10 years lol.