Overclocking @ 5.0 GHz

[rezo]

I recently got a i5 9600kf, I have a Z390 Gaming X mobo and im trying to get a stable 5 GHz but im not sure what voltage to set it to.

On https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/intel-core-i5-9600k-processor-review,23.html they state you need between 1.3 and 1.35 volts to achieve 5.2 Ghz.

My chip does 4.8 at 1.29V, 4.9 at 1.34V and im trying 1.37V at 5.0Ghz and firestrike runs well but cinebench crashes and so does timespy. Also Ive set it to 1.37 on the mobo but acording to aida64 and coretemp the voltage peaks at 1.3V so im not sure what to make of this.

Any idea what voltage I should try? And why does cinebench and timespy crash whenever i try run it yet aida 64 stresstest and firestrike works fine

edit - My room is currently cold as its 5am and I have a 120mm aio so temps idle at like 25 degrees and peaks at 50 odd

https://imgur.com/lVLODV0 Heres hwmonitor.

[r.linder]

It's silicon lottery; not all 9600Ks can do even 5 GHz at 1.325~1.35v.

Your focus should be getting the highest stable clock you can get with 1.325v, because voltage above that isn't sustainable for a long-term OC that won't involve CPU lifespan degradation.

[rezo]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Escorve:

It's silicon lottery; not all 9600Ks can do even 5 GHz at 1.325~1.35v.

Your focus should be getting the highest stable clock you can get with 1.325v, because voltage above that isn't sustainable for a long-term OC that won't involve CPU lifespan degradation.

Why how long would a cpu last on average at 1.325v compared to 1.375. I dont have cooling issues nor do I think my cpu is actually running at that voltage despite me setting it to that on my bios. According to hwmonitor, coretemp and aida64 it says its 1.3v max idk why

[𝔇ave]

Oprindeligt skrevet af rezo:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Escorve:

It's silicon lottery; not all 9600Ks can do even 5 GHz at 1.325~1.35v.

Your focus should be getting the highest stable clock you can get with 1.325v, because voltage above that isn't sustainable for a long-term OC that won't involve CPU lifespan degradation.

Why how long would a cpu last on average at 1.325v compared to 1.375. I dont have cooling issues nor do I think my cpu is actually running at that voltage despite me setting it to that on my bios. According to hwmonitor, coretemp and aida64 it says its 1.3v max idk why

there's no telling how long it would last.. think of a cpu as a junkie and it's drug of choice is voltage.. the more you pump into it the more it will need over time to get the same result. maybe a year down the track you will need more voltage to get the same result and if you don't give it more it becomes unstable. but eventually you will hit a wall where the drug (voltage) required is just too much and you overdose (kill the cpu)..

silicon lottery is sorta like the human metabolism. it varies widely

[Vulkan]

Best case scenario you will only see a 5% difference between 4.7 Vs 5ghz if the game scales perfectly , worst case scenario the performance difference will be negligible. The increased temp, voltage and reduced life span of the CPU for a few more FPS really isn't worth it in my opinion, and by the looks of it you might need1.4v for 5ghz which absolutely isn't worth it. Btw use realbench stress test as it's the closest thing you will get to real world realistic load .

[r.linder]

Oprindeligt skrevet af 𝔇ave:

Oprindeligt skrevet af rezo:

Why how long would a cpu last on average at 1.325v compared to 1.375. I dont have cooling issues nor do I think my cpu is actually running at that voltage despite me setting it to that on my bios. According to hwmonitor, coretemp and aida64 it says its 1.3v max idk why

there's no telling how long it would last.. think of a cpu as a junkie and it's drug of choice is voltage.. the more you pump into it the more it will need over time to get the same result. maybe a year down the track you will need more voltage to get the same result and if you don't give it more it becomes unstable. but eventually you will hit a wall where the drug (voltage) required is just too much and you overdose (kill the cpu)..

silicon lottery is sorta like the human metabolism. it varies widely

This.

My 3900X can't maintain the CCX OC it once could at 1.37v, I have to increase it in order to run it, so I'm back at stock.

[🦜Cloud Boy🦜]

Forget about CPU lifespan. CPUs are very hardy in general.
Even if you overclock to the extreme, it will lasts easily 7-10 years, may be more.

[Autumn_]

Oprindeligt skrevet af ⎛⎝ Cloud Boy ⎠⎞:

Forget about CPU lifespan. CPUs are very hardy in general.
Even if you overclock to the extreme, it will lasts easily 7-10 years, may be more.

This, so long as you're not pumping 1.5v into it, it's gonna be fine.
I've seen (modern) CPUs use more than 1.6v, and still be fine, though, each CPU is different.

Don't worry about life span, since by the time it DOES die, it will be out dated.

[r.linder]

Oprindeligt skrevet af ⎛⎝ Cloud Boy ⎠⎞:

Forget about CPU lifespan. CPUs are very hardy in general.
Even if you overclock to the extreme, it will lasts easily 7-10 years, may be more.

Actually, higher voltages will wear down the CPU regardless, which means you'll have to increase voltage over time to maintain that frequency.

To say that it won't affect lifespan whatsoever even in the extreme is a stupid claim you should never make, because all it takes is a bad LLC setting on top of an already high voltage for a CPU to get slammed with fatal voltage, which will at the very least damage the CPU's ability to maintain a decent OC at a decent voltage.
For example, you start running a 5.3 GHz OC on a 9900K, at 1.4 volts. Over time, you might find that it becomes unstable and have to raise the voltage slightly to fix that. It only gets worse over time, this is why silicon lottery binning statistics for newer Intel CPUs rarely list anything over 1.325v.

The "5 GHz+ trend" is not worth it if it takes you more than that, not like it's going to make a big difference anyway. Ryzen's still right on Intel's heels without a heavy manual OC.

The maximum voltage most people recommend for a long term OC is between 1.3 to 1.35, but the most common is 1.325v.
LLC should always be set to a medium setting for the best results.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMIh8dTdJwI

[fishcandy]

I too have an i5 9600k and running stable 24/7 @ 4.8 GHz with 1.275v. Was able to reach a stable 5.0 GHz @ 1.385v but didn't want to play games @ 85+ C. With current settings, playing AAA games 1440p with temps around 70+. Saw minimal fps improvement between the two settings, maybe 2-3 fps depending on the game.

[Napoleonic S]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Escorve:

Oprindeligt skrevet af 𝔇ave:

there's no telling how long it would last.. think of a cpu as a junkie and it's drug of choice is voltage.. the more you pump into it the more it will need over time to get the same result. maybe a year down the track you will need more voltage to get the same result and if you don't give it more it becomes unstable. but eventually you will hit a wall where the drug (voltage) required is just too much and you overdose (kill the cpu)..

silicon lottery is sorta like the human metabolism. it varies widely

This.

My 3900X can't maintain the CCX OC it once could at 1.37v, I have to increase it in order to run it, so I'm back at stock.

Ouch, I never heard a cpu got degraded in just half a year, but then again don't ryzen 3000 famous for getting over voltage on stock? My 3900x is running with negative voltage offset to make it cooler a bit.

[r.linder]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Napoleonic S:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Escorve:

This.

My 3900X can't maintain the CCX OC it once could at 1.37v, I have to increase it in order to run it, so I'm back at stock.

Ouch, I never heard a cpu got degraded in just half a year, but then again don't ryzen 3000 famous for getting over voltage on stock? My 3900x is running with negative voltage offset to make it cooler a bit.

Ryzen is a different story, it's noticeably more sensitive than Intel, and that's another reason why it's ultimately best to stick to stock.

[rezo]

Im not planning on using 5ghz I just want to push my cpu and benchmark my pc at its max capability to hit the highest firestrike score I can. After id dial down the oc and play at stock gpu and 4.9ghz cpu at like 1.34v.
I was actually hoping to hit 5.1 or 5.2 but I tried 1.38v and it still crashed so I guess I got unlucky with silicon lottery.

https://www.3dmark.com/fs/22523422 I actually managed a few stable runs at 5 Ghz yet suddenly it would crash a few hours later when i ran cinebench or tried running timespy. I just run 4.9 now which I know is stable.

[𝔇ave]

Oprindeligt skrevet af rezo:

Im not planning on using 5ghz I just want to push my cpu and benchmark my pc at its max capability to hit the highest firestrike score I can. After id dial down the oc and play at stock gpu and 4.9ghz cpu at like 1.34v.
I was actually hoping to hit 5.1 or 5.2 but I tried 1.38v and it still crashed so I guess I got unlucky with silicon lottery.

https://www.3dmark.com/fs/22523422 I actually managed a few stable runs at 5 Ghz yet suddenly it would crash a few hours later when i ran cinebench or tried running timespy. I just run 4.9 now which I know is stable.

since you are only running a 590 gpu there is really no point in overclocking your cpu.. the gpu is the limiting factor in your case so running your cpu at anything higher than stock is only going to benefit you in benchmark software.. it will have little to no impact in games

[rezo]

Oprindeligt skrevet af 𝔇ave:

Oprindeligt skrevet af rezo:

Im not planning on using 5ghz I just want to push my cpu and benchmark my pc at its max capability to hit the highest firestrike score I can. After id dial down the oc and play at stock gpu and 4.9ghz cpu at like 1.34v.
I was actually hoping to hit 5.1 or 5.2 but I tried 1.38v and it still crashed so I guess I got unlucky with silicon lottery.

https://www.3dmark.com/fs/22523422 I actually managed a few stable runs at 5 Ghz yet suddenly it would crash a few hours later when i ran cinebench or tried running timespy. I just run 4.9 now which I know is stable.

since you are only running a 590 gpu there is really no point in overclocking your cpu.. the gpu is the limiting factor in your case so running your cpu at anything higher than stock is only going to benefit you in benchmark software.. it will have little to no impact in games

I am fully aware, I actually mainly play csgo and the difference between 4.6 and 4.9 does improve my fps because I play 1920x1440 lowest settings. Almost 80-90 fps difference which is greatly beneficial for me.

Im planning on upgrading to a 3xxx card whenever they come probably late this year.

[𝔇ave]

Oprindeligt skrevet af rezo:

Oprindeligt skrevet af 𝔇ave:

since you are only running a 590 gpu there is really no point in overclocking your cpu.. the gpu is the limiting factor in your case so running your cpu at anything higher than stock is only going to benefit you in benchmark software.. it will have little to no impact in games

I am fully aware, I actually mainly play csgo and the difference between 4.6 and 4.9 does improve my fps because I play 1920x1440 lowest settings. Almost 70 fps difference which is greatly beneficial for me.

Im planning on upgrading to a 3xxx card whenever they come probably late this year.

yea fair enough. csgo seems to be one of those games that does benefit from cpu overclocks. i guess i don't really consider it since i don't play it. it will be interesting to see what Nvidia does with the next generation and more importantly the price..