i7 9700k Temperatures and what cooler are you using?

[Alpha]

I got a 9700k running stock speeds with an EVGA CLC 240mm AIO. My temperatures reached 67c all stock after an hour and a half of Battlefield 4.

What is everyone's temps on the 9700k stock or overlcock and what Cooler are you using?

[LowMax]

72c after 3 hours of playing Subnautica @ 5.2GHz with Corsair H100i 240mm, case is a Meshify-C so plenty of airflow.

[Alpha]

Originally posted by LowMax:

72c after 3 hours of playing Subnautica @ 5.2GHz with Corsair H100i 240mm, case is a Meshify-C so plenty of airflow.

That is insane bro! How am I at 67c at Stock speeds? Even got a replacement and same temperature. Makes no sense

[r.linder]

Originally posted by Onion:

Originally posted by LowMax:

72c after 3 hours of playing Subnautica @ 5.2GHz with Corsair H100i 240mm, case is a Meshify-C so plenty of airflow.

That is insane bro! How am I at 67c at Stock speeds? Even got a replacement and same temperature. Makes no sense

1. His voltage is controlled, you're running at stock so the voltage is automatic, correct? This ties into #2.

2. His LLC is also probably set to a medium range setting instead of left on auto, so LLC isn't overshooting. When left on auto, LLC can overshoot on stock and cause higher temperatures than when LLC is controlled. More on that here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMIh8dTdJwI&t=1s Controlling voltage and LLC can improve temperatures, but you have to find a voltage where it isn't too little that the CPU won't boost but also not too much that it creates more heat.

3. Different games have different loads and are not a good overall representation of temperature. You can't compare temperatures in one game to temperatures in another, that's not a proper and fair comparison. If you want to compare temperatures under load, you'd do it with the same games and programs like Prime95 stress testing, Cinebench R15/R20, etc.

[Alpha]

Okay fair enough. I ran Realbench 2.56 for 30 minutes and it maxed at 76c stock. Which I assume is decent.

[Nepgear]

I have same cooler (but switched the paste for thermal grizzly kryonaut) and run 5.1GHz all cores (1.39V, turbo LLC) and get ~91°C for prime95 without AVX.

[r.linder]

Originally posted by Nepgear:

I have same cooler (but switched the paste for thermal grizzly kryonaut) and run 5.1GHz all cores (1.39V, turbo LLC) and get ~91°C for prime95 without AVX.

LLC should always be a medium setting and never a high or low setting to prevent undershooting and especially overshooting. If it overshoots too much it can damage or even kill the CPU.

91 C is also toaster than people here would recommend, even in Prime95. Your goal should be in the 80s, so is it really worth an extra 100~200 MHz? (Rhetorical, it isn't worth it)

[Nepgear]

Originally posted by Escorve:

Originally posted by Nepgear:

I have same cooler (but switched the paste for thermal grizzly kryonaut) and run 5.1GHz all cores (1.39V, turbo LLC) and get ~91°C for prime95 without AVX.

LLC should always be a medium setting and never a high or low setting to prevent undershooting and especially overshooting. If it overshoots too much it can damage or even kill the CPU.

91 C is also toaster than people here would recommend, even in Prime95. Your goal should be in the 80s, so is it really worth an extra 100~200 MHz? (Rhetorical, it isn't worth it)

I turned the LLC down to turbo because it was overshooting (turbo doesn't overshoot on my board), and lower than turbo requires a voltage higher than spec for my chip at this frequency.

My last CPU ran ~97°C in prime95 and never showed any degradation in the 5 years I had it. Sure it's toasty, but does it realistically matter as long as it's within spec? Why waste that 100-200MHz when it'll stay below your arbitrary 80°C for any realistic load (besides electricity cost of course)?

[r.linder]

Originally posted by Nepgear:

Originally posted by Escorve:

LLC should always be a medium setting and never a high or low setting to prevent undershooting and especially overshooting. If it overshoots too much it can damage or even kill the CPU.

91 C is also toaster than people here would recommend, even in Prime95. Your goal should be in the 80s, so is it really worth an extra 100~200 MHz? (Rhetorical, it isn't worth it)

I turned the LLC down to turbo because it was overshooting (turbo doesn't overshoot on my board), and lower than turbo requires a voltage higher than spec for my chip at this frequency.

My last CPU ran ~97°C in prime95 and never showed any degradation in the 5 years I had it. Sure it's toasty, but does it realistically matter as long as it's within spec? Why waste that 100-200MHz when it'll stay below your arbitrary 80°C for any realistic load (besides electricity cost of course)?

Because anything above 1.35v for a long-term OC will degrade the CPU, you won't be able to sustain that clock for as long as you think, and every time it becomes unstable you have to increase voltage to maintain the same clock. You should be going for whatever it can manage at 1.35v for the sake of being able to actually maintain the OC for years.

The extra ~200 MHz isn't going to make a big difference in most games anyway, it's not worth it. People have a bad habit of doing ridiculous overclocks for a mere few percent, not realising that they won't be able to sustain it. It damages the CPU when you use enough voltage.

[Alpha]

Originally posted by Nepgear:

I have same cooler (but switched the paste for thermal grizzly kryonaut) and run 5.1GHz all cores (1.39V, turbo LLC) and get ~91°C for prime95 without AVX.

Mine or the Corsair one?

[Nepgear]

Originally posted by Onion:

Originally posted by Nepgear:

I have same cooler (but switched the paste for thermal grizzly kryonaut) and run 5.1GHz all cores (1.39V, turbo LLC) and get ~91°C for prime95 without AVX.

Mine or the Corsair one?

EVGA CLC 240mm AIO. For a game temperature I get 4x-5x°C in CoD BO3.

[Alpha]

Originally posted by Nepgear:

Originally posted by Onion:

Mine or the Corsair one?

EVGA CLC 240mm AIO. For a game temperature I get 4x-5x°C in CoD BO3.

Haven't tried BO3 (Stopped playing it a while back) but Battlefield 4 I get 67c.

[LowMax]

Originally posted by Onion:

Originally posted by LowMax:

72c after 3 hours of playing Subnautica @ 5.2GHz with Corsair H100i 240mm, case is a Meshify-C so plenty of airflow.

That is insane bro! How am I at 67c at Stock speeds? Even got a replacement and same temperature. Makes no sense

Subnautica isn't that CPU intensive to be fair. If I was playing something heavy I'd expect more like 78-80. My rig is in another room so as soon a anything gets hit with a load the fans ramp up to max (seeing as I don''t have to deal with the noise =)

[r.linder]

Originally posted by LowMax:

Originally posted by Onion:

That is insane bro! How am I at 67c at Stock speeds? Even got a replacement and same temperature. Makes no sense

Subnautica isn't that CPU intensive to be fair. If I was playing something heavy I'd expect more like 78-80. My rig is in another room so as soon a anything gets hit with a load the fans ramp up to max (seeing as I don''t have to deal with the noise =)

That's pretty bad for a gaming temp, considering my 3900X doesn't go above the 50s while gaming with a 360mm Deepcool Castle V2, and that's a 12-core 24-thread behemoth. Just goes to show that Intel's power efficiency has gone down the crapper in the past few years because the 3900X and 9700K stock have nearly identical gaming performance but the 3900X actually uses less power despite having 4 more cores and 8 more threads.

Under heavier multi-threaded loads my 3900X hardly approaches the 80s.

[LowMax]

Originally posted by Escorve:

Originally posted by LowMax:

Subnautica isn't that CPU intensive to be fair. If I was playing something heavy I'd expect more like 78-80. My rig is in another room so as soon a anything gets hit with a load the fans ramp up to max (seeing as I don''t have to deal with the noise =)

That's pretty bad for a gaming temp, considering my 3900X doesn't go above the 50s while gaming with a 360mm Deepcool Castle V2, and that's a 12-core 24-thread behemoth. Just goes to show that Intel's power efficiency has gone down the crapper in the past few years because the 3900X and 9700K stock have nearly identical gaming performance but the 3900X actually uses less power despite having 4 more cores and 8 more threads.

Under heavier multi-threaded loads my 3900X hardly approaches the 80s.

Yup, my old 4770 used to sit at 61c all day at 4.3GHz. I think 13nm has had everything possible squeezed out of it.

[r.linder]

Originally posted by LowMax:

Originally posted by Escorve:

That's pretty bad for a gaming temp, considering my 3900X doesn't go above the 50s while gaming with a 360mm Deepcool Castle V2, and that's a 12-core 24-thread behemoth. Just goes to show that Intel's power efficiency has gone down the crapper in the past few years because the 3900X and 9700K stock have nearly identical gaming performance but the 3900X actually uses less power despite having 4 more cores and 8 more threads.

Under heavier multi-threaded loads my 3900X hardly approaches the 80s.

Yup, my old 4770 used to sit at 61c all day at 4.3GHz. I think 13nm has had everything possible squeezed out of it.

Intel's 14nm is refined enough that their experimental 10nm allegedly was worse. It's basically 14nm++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++.