Will anyone figure out CPU overclocking? A look at TPUs 10900k review

[Nightfire]

Alright, hear me out. I know this is [H] and many of you are die hard overclockers. I just think motherboard manufactures could do so much better.

Take for example TPUs latest review of the 10900k:
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-10900k/
Since when did we start accepting lower performance when overclocking? I know that there is some impressive algorithms for things like Velocity Boost, XFR, Precision boost, etc.
However, when I overclock something like the 10900k to 5.1 ghz, would it be too much to ask to at least MATCH stock performance on thread limited scenarios. Ideally, if I add 0.1v and 300 mhz, it should at least try and increase those ST workloads or allow a few more cores to run at that speed.

Then there is the idle power consumption. Using double the idle watts just seems unacceptable in 2020.

So anyone else think this is motherboard manufactures being lazy or am I just being too picky?

 

[oldmanbal]

I just find the max all core, and start stepping back voltage till I'm prime stable overnight. I could care less about the pennies in power that are to be saved, although an unreasonably high number of people look at power as an important stat.

Mobo vendors are going to just ensure the processor is running at spec to the best of their ability and then tap out. The premium boards on the market may offer deeper customization, often enabling higher 'auto' settings by simply allowing the cpu not to throttle/volt down from various limiting factors in the algorithms they use to adjust clocks and power.

I'd honestly say that I'm pretty impressed by the number of features in the bios on a mid tier x570 mobo I got a few months back to build a 3600 rig on. Literally sipping power at 4.5ghz all core, which cost/watt wise i don't care about, but heat wise it gives me a chub.

 

[kirbyrj]

I just find the max all core, and start stepping back voltage till I'm prime stable overnight. I could care less about the pennies in power that are to be saved, although an unreasonably high number of people look at power as an important stat.

Mobo vendors are going to just ensure the processor is running at spec to the best of their ability and then tap out. The premium boards on the market may offer deeper customization, often enabling higher 'auto' settings by simply allowing the cpu not to throttle/volt down from various limiting factors in the algorithms they use to adjust clocks and power.

I'd honestly say that I'm pretty impressed by the number of features in the bios on a mid tier x570 mobo I got a few months back to build a 3600 rig on. Literally sipping power at 4.5ghz all core, which cost/watt wise i don't care about, but heat wise it gives me a chub.

It really depends on what you're doing. Right now I'm running a batch Handbrake conversion of 270 files from H264 to H265. The difference between my AMD system and my Intel system is more than just pennies running that hard for that long. On my Intel system, it's 140-175W, on my AMD system it's 80-90W. If I did this regularly, I could see there being a somewhat significant power savings not only with the CPU, but with cooling the room in the summer (although conversely, I'd save money by not having to heat the room in the winter).

Generally, for gaming or everyday tasks, you're right. Probably pennies at best.

 

[NattyKathy]

I think we're just going to see lesser and lesser benefit from overclocking due to the state of the CPU market. AMD and Intel are both pushing their stock clocks as high as they can go to compete with each other, and these days market segmentation is done more by core count instead of clock speed. And like OP said, boost behavior has gotten advanced to the point where stock chips are pushing out every last Mhz they can automatically. It's not like the good old days where cheaper chips left a lot of speed on the table for the sake of binning, that could be picked up by overclockers.

 

[Keljian]

I think we're just going to see lesser and lesser benefit from overclocking due to the state of the CPU market. AMD and Intel are both pushing their stock clocks as high as they can go to compete with each other

Counterpoint:
I have a 9900k, stock clocks are 5.0 turbo for 2 cores, 4.7 all core, with an AVX offset of -3 (4.4 for all cores)

I am running 5.0 for 1-7 cores and 4.8ghz for 8 cores with no AVX offset. This is 400mhz faster at 8 cores, or 600 MHz faster at 1-7, with continuous boost as opposed to short period boost (tau/56 seconds). I run a voltage offset of -55mV.

In order to get plenty of power savings I have all of the power saving features turned on (including hardware duty cycling, speed shift, core parking and ring down bin) which makes idle for the processor about 1.5-3.5W. This has no appreciable effect on responsiveness or performance.

While this isn’t an enormous overclock, it is significantly faster than stock, and the setup is considerably more frugal, power wise, than stock.