NH-D15 can't handle an i9-10850k? What am I doing wrong?

M Diddy

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
189
Just finished building my new rig. Specs below:

i9-10850K
NH-D15 Chroma Black
Giga Aorus Ultra Z940
Crucial DDR4
Meshify S2 Case (3x140 intakes, 140 Exhaust rear and 140 Exhaust Top)

According to Core Temp, the CPU (clocked at 5 Ghz) idles between 25-30 C, which is normal. When I run Prime95 (either small or large FFts) the temp immediately shoots up to the high 80's on a few cores in about 5 seconds. The rest soon follow. In about 45 seconds, I have cores that are hitting 100C and throttling. No bueno.

When I first put the cooler on, I used some old PK-3 that I have for the TIM. Thinking maybe the stuff was bad (it's about 8 years old), I removed the D15, and used the Noctua TIM that came with the cooler. Re-installed. Same result.

My old build was a i-4770k and a Thermalright U-120Extreme. I ran Prime on that last week to see if my system was still stable. After an hour of running large FFTs, my 4770k OC'd to 4.3 Ghz never went above 75C, and that's after the cooler being mounted for 8 years.

From everything I've read, the NH-D15 is pretty much the pinnacle of air cooling. I know the i9's run hot, but, I would think this cooler should be able to handle an OC to 5Ghz at least. Not sure what could be wrong here, but curious if others are seeing the same results.
 
Mate, at least? Not even all chips reach that, mate.
From everything I've read/seen, the 10900 and 10850 (same chip with a worse bin) should have no problems hitting 5Ghz at all. The default Turbo OC on my board was 4.8 Ghz.
 
Sounds like you solved it, and you have a good cooling system setup. 👍

Keep in mind coolers can only cool as well as temp of air flowing into them. Ideal is for air entering cooler to be only 2-3c warmer than room, 5c max. That is with both CPU and GPU under full load. Their max stable temp should be reached in 3-5 minutes from idle temp, and when load drops back to idle temps stabilize in same 3-5 minutes. Key is good case airflow and yours seems to be good. Basic guide to airflow and how to optimize case airflow in link below might be of interest:
https://hardforum.com/threads/basic-guide-to-improving-case-airflow.1987938/
 
Are you talking all core 5ghz or just single core stuff, mate? Anyways, glad it worked our😊

Sounds like you solved it, and you have a good cooling system setup. 👍

Keep in mind coolers can only cool as well as temp of air flowing into them. Ideal is for air entering cooler to be only 2-3c warmer than room, 5c max. That is with both CPU and GPU under full load. Their max stable temp should be reached in 3-5 minutes from idle temp, and when load drops back to idle temps stabilize in same 3-5 minutes. Key is good case airflow and yours seems to be good. Basic guide to airflow and how to optimize case airflow in link below might be of interest:
https://hardforum.com/threads/basic-guide-to-improving-case-airflow.1987938/
It was the AVX settings for sure. I ran for 1 1/2 hours without them and temps on all cores were around 75-78C which is what I was expecting to see. Have been overclocking since my Q6600, so I knew what I was seeing wasn't correct.
 
You need to set an AVX offset as a safety measure.
Hammering with prime isn't the same as finding the mean voltages btw synthetics and your real world workloads.
Getting your voltages down might get you thermal headroom so your baked in boost curves actually matter bc your Noctua has a chance to push off thermal soak.

I'm a huge fan of adaptive voltage after finding my limits when air cooling.
 
That's cheating :D

If you have to use an AVX offset to run a certain clock means you cant cool it and shouldn't be running it there. Gimping it to run a faster clock to me is just wrong and in my eyes is a fake overclock 😎
 
  • Like
Reactions: spine
like this
That's cheating :D

If you have to use an AVX offset to run a certain clock means you cant cool it and shouldn't be running it there. Gimping it to run a faster clock to me is just wrong and in my eyes is a fake overclock 😎
If the workload doesnt use AVX he can keep the higher overclock.
If it does use AVX, the clock is reduced appropriately.
This is THE POINT of AVX offset, and it prevents you needing a theology of overclocking ;)
What you think about it is not relevant.
 
Last edited:
TIL: What AVX and AVX offset were.

That great to know. It may not be TRUE over clocking but I ran a i7 920 for 10 years oc WITH speedstep enabled. Do you know how much money I saved by doing that? Lol
 
TIL: What AVX and AVX offset were.

That great to know. It may not be TRUE over clocking but I ran a i7 920 for 10 years oc WITH speedstep enabled. Do you know how much money I saved by doing that? Lol

Probably not as much as you think unless you were using the computer 24/7/365.
 
Well I never turned it off. When I wasn’t using it basically sat idle generating very little heat using very little energy. Trust me I tested electric usage with and without. And the heat generation alone is huge.
 
Well I never turned it off. When I wasn’t using it basically sat idle generating very little heat using very little energy. Trust me I tested electric usage with and without. And the heat generation alone is huge.

Did it ever "sleep" when you weren't using it?

In order to OC those old LGA1366 CPU's the BCLK had to be pushed pretty high. You weren't downclocking as much as with newer CPUs, and Speedstep wasn't downclocking the voltage as much either. I had a X5660 that would downclock to 2.4Ghz because the multiplier was low and BCLK was high. That's a far cry from the 800Mhz, 20W or less generated by newer Intel CPUs.
 
I've never been able to get windows to sleep and wake up properly or consistently. Also, I dont know about you but when i'm using my pc, 90% of the time i'm not gaming, thread crunching ect. I'm mostly surfing the web.
 
The D15 copes fine up until it surpasses 165W continuously, once it goes above that temperatures can go sky high. The best way to manage this is to set PL1 and PL2 in the bios (PL2 = 165~ for the D15).

On my D15 I've set 180W for PL1 and a time of 80 seconds for the short duration/96 seconds for the long which is the thermal saturation point of the cooler according to gamernexus.

Let the processor down clock when it is pushing those limits

I've done an extensive writeup here: https://hardforum.com/threads/quick...6xxx-7xxx-8xxx-9xxx-10xxx-processors.1996926/
 
Last edited:
Is your system silent? Silence mean no air is moving, move more air, that will help. D15 can take more than 165w for sure. You only have one of the hottest CPUs ever to be unleashed to the masses. At the point you are at right now I would gamble the 50 bucks on a True Spirit 140 Power and see if those 6x 8mm pipes can do a better job than 6x 6mm pipes.
 
That's cheating :D

If you have to use an AVX offset to run a certain clock means you cant cool it and shouldn't be running it there. Gimping it to run a faster clock to me is just wrong and in my eyes is a fake overclock 😎
Not quite accurate. AVX offsets are for when you're doing something not-normal = like running AVX on all cores, all segments, like PRIME or AI/ML HPC bits. At stock speeds, doing a workload like that is 130% TDP, never mind overclocked. That's why the offset exists - the CPU wasn't designed to see that kind of stuff, because nothing in the real world outside of edge cases will ever DO that (even transcoding doesn't use the entire AVX set all the time). Read the toms link - the intel guys go into it there. That's why we test with either 80% load (sane AVX submissions), use an offset (downclock if you're doing something nuts), or disable AVX for the test (since unless you're doing HPC work or stress testing, it will never see this ~right now~ in the real world).

We're in a weird spot where a capability has been added to the CPU but it's not really designed to FULLY use it yet, because nothing will fully use it yet... circular logic there that might bite someone in the ass eventually, but ... it's how the chip was designed.
Even better if you just continue downgrade he can test with 2 opened notepad and the temp is a lot lower
What is the point of a stress test if you dont actual stress test the system.
see above. AVX tests aren't stress testing - they're overload, by design - blame intel if you want, but... it wasn't built for that (haven't bothered looking up to see if the Xeon line was designed for it or not, but consumer definitely wasn't, and neither is the HEDT line).
 
D15 can take more than 165w for sure.

In my testing, if you want reasonably quiet, then 165W is the limit. It can go up to 175W if you don’t mind fans going fast.

Obviously I am talking about continuous load, not spiky/peaky load.

Peak loads of 250w would be ok for short spaces of time, which is what these processors are designed for (56 sec PL2)

Going back to the thermal saturation point, if you keep the D15 below that point, it stands to reason that there is some headroom still left.

This is another reason to enable speedshift and offsets
 
Last edited:
Not quite accurate. AVX offsets are for when you're doing something not-normal = like running AVX on all cores, all segments, like PRIME or AI/ML HPC bits. At stock speeds, doing a workload like that is 130% TDP, never mind overclocked. That's why the offset exists - the CPU wasn't designed to see that kind of stuff, because nothing in the real world outside of edge cases will ever DO that (even transcoding doesn't use the entire AVX set all the time). Read the toms link - the intel guys go into it there. That's why we test with either 80% load (sane AVX submissions), use an offset (downclock if you're doing something nuts), or disable AVX for the test (since unless you're doing HPC work or stress testing, it will never see this ~right now~ in the real world).

We're in a weird spot where a capability has been added to the CPU but it's not really designed to FULLY use it yet, because nothing will fully use it yet... circular logic there that might bite someone in the ass eventually, but ... it's how the chip was designed.

see above. AVX tests aren't stress testing - they're overload, by design - blame intel if you want, but... it wasn't built for that (haven't bothered looking up to see if the Xeon line was designed for it or not, but consumer definitely wasn't, and neither is the HEDT line).
AVX is a set if instructions
it not built for overloading. not sure why you would think Intel would just make an entire vector based instruction set just for overloading,
it take more power because it handles more instructions parameters at at a time and its execution take more calculating power than just adding 2 values together

Stress testing purpose is to test things enough so that you are sure whatever you toss at it in the future is not going to create a problem
closing you eyes for a set of instructions because it hurts you pride that you number cant go bigger does not make the computer stable.

We are not in a weird spot. it IS fully designed to use it fully there is if not we would return CPU for unable to work at stock speed. if it works at stock speed and not during overclocking. your overclocking impacted you stability negatively

Prime95 is NOT synthetic it is a real-world application it its just heavily optimized for optimal performance and CPU sub resources usage because any gains has a big impact on the speed of the product/outcome.

There is more in this world than just games
and making up fantasy reasons does not make it real either
 
Last edited:
Please show me a real world application that uses prime95 style calculations..

Blender on the other hand...
 
Please show me a real world application that uses prime95 style calculations..

Math is real. It's an integral part of Engineering and Physics. You have it to thank for everything electronic, including the computer you are on now. I would assume by your response that you are not part of the engineering or scientific community. Therefore, I understand you have never see or heard of such application(s). It may not be your world - but it is part of a world that works hard to make your world better. Most Engineers, Mathematical Scientists and Physicists write their own programs to calculate through known models. This is commonly known as "Number Crunching" and probably why you haven't seen the latest "Scientific Number Crunching Program" on the shelf of Best Buy next to "Animal Crossings". Prime95 one benchmark that can be used to quantify a CPUs "Number Crunching" capability. Also, btw - the study of Mersenne Prime numbers is valuable to mathematics and we really don't know much about them still.

Finding Mersenne primes by distributed computing

 
Math is real. It's an integral part of Engineering and Physics. You have it to thank for everything electronic, including the computer you are on now. I would assume by your response that you are not part of the engineering or scientific community. Therefore, I understand you have never see or heard of such application(s). It may not be your world - but it is part of a world that works hard to make your world better. Most Engineers, Mathematical Scientists and Physicists write their own programs to calculate through known models. This is commonly known as "Number Crunching" and probably why you haven't seen the latest "Scientific Number Crunching Program" on the shelf of Best Buy next to "Animal Crossings". Prime95 one benchmark that can be used to quantify a CPUs "Number Crunching" capability. Also, btw - the study of Mersenne Prime numbers is valuable to mathematics and we really don't know much about them still.

Finding Mersenne primes by distributed computing

Oh I don’t doubt math is real, but I wonder how many applications actually use the subset of functions that prime95 uses the way it uses them. It’s a curiosity, more that “most people” don’t do serious scientific number crunching.
 
Oh I don’t doubt math is real, but I wonder how many applications actually use the subset of functions that prime95 uses the way it uses them. It’s a curiosity, more that “most people” don’t do serious scientific number crunching.
You're missing the point. "most people" is irrelevant as ALL programs use math and Prime95 is targeting that funcitoning very specifically.
 
AVX is a set if instructions
it not built for overloading. not sure why you would think Intel would just make an entire vector based instruction set just for overloading,
it take more power because it handles more instructions parameters at at a time and its execution take more calculating power than just adding 2 values together

Stress testing purpose is to test things enough so that you are sure whatever you toss at it in the future is not going to create a problem
closing you eyes for a set of instructions because it hurts you pride that you number cant go bigger does not make the computer stable.

We are not in a weird spot. it IS fully designed to use it fully there is if not we would return CPU for unable to work at stock speed. if it works at stock speed and not during overclocking. your overclocking impacted you stability negatively

Prime95 is NOT synthetic it is a real-world application it its just heavily optimized for optimal performance and CPU sub resources usage because any gains has a big impact on the speed of the product/outcome.

There is more in this world than just games
and making up fantasy reasons does not make it real either
Clearly didn’t read the notes from Intel on their own CPU. Prime95 stress tests are not real world, and searching for new Merseene numbers doesn’t normally use AVX. Hell, bloody Linus Torvalds bitches that AVX doesn’t have a real world application right now.

I’m not worried about my CPU; I’m at stock speeds on a full loop. But when stock configurations will hit nearly 90c sustained loads, you look up why- and AVX being beyond the TDP design of the chip is why. At stock speeds.
 
You're missing the point. "most people" is irrelevant as ALL programs use math and Prime95 is targeting that funcitoning very specifically.
And in a way that will never be asked for right now in the real world, so Intel is designing the chip to be able to do that specific math- but not on every core at the same time fully loaded.
 
Math is real. It's an integral part of Engineering and Physics. You have it to thank for everything electronic, including the computer you are on now. I would assume by your response that you are not part of the engineering or scientific community. Therefore, I understand you have never see or heard of such application(s). It may not be your world - but it is part of a world that works hard to make your world better. Most Engineers, Mathematical Scientists and Physicists write their own programs to calculate through known models. This is commonly known as "Number Crunching" and probably why you haven't seen the latest "Scientific Number Crunching Program" on the shelf of Best Buy next to "Animal Crossings". Prime95 one benchmark that can be used to quantify a CPUs "Number Crunching" capability. Also, btw - the study of Mersenne Prime numbers is valuable to mathematics and we really don't know much about them still.

Finding Mersenne primes by distributed computing

As SvenBent pointed out - AVX is a vector accelerator. Primary uses right now are in small parts of transcode/encode processes (small bits here and there), and AI/ML workloads (some graph theory stuff too). Outside of that AI/ML space, those functions see very limited use. They’re not common mathematical operations that you perform regularly, nor are they core functions of day to day operations on the finite state machine that your computer is.

Because of that, you don’t see AVX triggered all that often, and when you do, you don’t see the pipelines on every core filled with AVX operations - unless you’re intentionally doing that, which is beyond the design limit of the chip at stock speeds. That’s my point- since Intel did not expect to ever see a purely AVX based workload, they didn’t design for that. Much like one designs an airliner to handle rain, but does not design it to operate underwater.
 
Urr..

AVX/2 is used in a lot more than what you’re suggesting. It is not niche anymore.
Games typically make good use of AVX, as does office software and browsers.

One very common use is decompressing things into memory, or doing large memory fills from disk.

Most things can be trivially compiled to support it.

Many for loops and while loops can be vectorised with a little tinkering or just setting the compiler appropriately.

Thing is, AVX on intel is fast, faster clock for clock than AMD (at least on 3xxx silicon, not sure about 5xxx).

Here is a very simple example of where AVX can be used if the compiler flag is set:
printf("--- Average Map --- \n");
for (rowIndex = 0; rowIndex < ARRAYLEN(averageMap[0]); rowIndex++) {
for (columnIndex = 0; columnIndex < ARRAYLEN(averageMap); columnIndex++) {
// Get total for surrounding cells
// Always reset so we do not carry over a previous calculation, use 3 variables so we can calculate concurrently (after compilation) using fewer instructions
// The code below is very fast when compiled with /O2 /arch:AVX2 in Visual Studio, this is because modern processors can handle multiple instructions per clockcycle
tempFloat0 = 0.0F;
tempFloat1 = 0.0F;
tempFloat2 = 0.0F;

// Top row
tempFloat0 += roundedData[rowIndex][columnIndex];
tempFloat0 += roundedData[rowIndex][columnIndex + 1];
tempFloat0 += roundedData[rowIndex][columnIndex + 2];
// Middle row
tempFloat1 += roundedData[rowIndex + 1][columnIndex];
tempFloat1 += roundedData[rowIndex + 1][columnIndex + 1];
tempFloat1 += roundedData[rowIndex + 1][columnIndex + 2];
// Bottom row
tempFloat2 += roundedData[rowIndex + 2][columnIndex];
tempFloat2 += roundedData[rowIndex + 2][columnIndex + 1];
tempFloat2 += roundedData[rowIndex + 2][columnIndex + 2];

// Calculate and store the average
averageMap[rowIndex][columnIndex] = (tempFloat0 + (tempFloat1 + tempFloat2)) / AVERAGE_COUNT;
averageMap[rowIndex][columnIndex] = RoundDown(averageMap[rowIndex][columnIndex], DECIMAL_PLACES);
printf("%.*f ", DECIMAL_PLACES, averageMap[rowIndex][columnIndex]);
}
Pnl(1);
}
Pnl(2);
}



Torvalds reckons NVidia is rubbish too.. thing is AVX can do a whole lot of calcs or compares at once. It is fast cause it is local in the core you are working with.

My next chip will have avx512 provided it is supported in a few generations.

The key thing is that the benefit of AVX is more significant than the offset difference in speed most of the time.

I run my 9900k at 5ghz without AVX offset, but those PL settings will rein it in and keep it quiet if it has a prolonged load. I lose 100-200mhz (varies depending on core) at most in those circumstances, while not thermally throttling and not running at stock (4.3-4.4ghz).

In light to medium AVX loads, there is no throttling, it’s 5ghz AVX all the way. I do have core parking and other power saving stuff enabled so if I’m only running on 4-6 cores those cores can sing...
 
Last edited:
None of those submit effectively only AVX loads though, and not on all cores at the same time- that’s the point I’m making. Solely AVX loads are weird and unusual; most things have a little AVX (if any), unlike Prime.
 
I just had a little fun with AVX and power limits this afternoon. I built a new machine for my dad as a Christmas present and fired up Prime95 on it to make sure temps were ok and figure out how to set pwm fan ramps. All is well for a few minutes though I'm wondering why this 10700 non-k (supposed to be a fairly compact, silent build, so 65W CPU... or so I thought) is running at 4.6GHz on all cores. A few minutes in it suddenly shoots up to 100C, thermal throttles and settles in at bit over 4GHz and 100C. After messing with Prime95 a bit I'm pretty sure what happened is it did a "large" test first that tends to be memory limited then started a small test. I had it set to the default mixed tests. Just running a small test causes immediate high temps. MSI disabled the power limits by default and the "65W" CPU is sucking down who knows how much power. If I set the long term power limit to 65W in the BIOS it won't go over 55C with the fans at 500rpm or so, which is how I had intended it to work. I'll probably mess with it a bit more and see what kind of power limit settings it can manage without turning up the fan speed too much.
 
I just had a little fun with AVX and power limits this afternoon. I built a new machine for my dad as a Christmas present and fired up Prime95 on it to make sure temps were ok and figure out how to set pwm fan ramps. All is well for a few minutes though I'm wondering why this 10700 non-k (supposed to be a fairly compact, silent build, so 65W CPU... or so I thought) is running at 4.6GHz on all cores. A few minutes in it suddenly shoots up to 100C, thermal throttles and settles in at bit over 4GHz and 100C. After messing with Prime95 a bit I'm pretty sure what happened is it did a "large" test first that tends to be memory limited then started a small test. I had it set to the default mixed tests. Just running a small test causes immediate high temps. MSI disabled the power limits by default and the "65W" CPU is sucking down who knows how much power. If I set the long term power limit to 65W in the BIOS it won't go over 55C with the fans at 500rpm or so, which is how I had intended it to work. I'll probably mess with it a bit more and see what kind of power limit settings it can manage without turning up the fan speed too much.
Yep. Most of them do that (boards) now. Which is good and bad. Free easy OC, but... gotta pay attention to what you're doing. And you're right - Prime does a different test first, second test is AVX heavy.
 
Clearly didn’t read the notes from Intel on their own CPU. Prime95 stress tests are not real world, and searching for new Merseene numbers doesn’t normally use AVX. Hell, bloody Linus Torvalds bitches that AVX doesn’t have a real world application right now.

I’m not worried about my CPU; I’m at stock speeds on a full loop. But when stock configurations will hit nearly 90c sustained loads, you look up why- and AVX being beyond the TDP design of the chip is why. At stock speeds.

Please show me notes that says AVs is not fully ready.
also how in the world is PRime95 not real world is what built with a real purpose that is still doing and have been doing great. ther eas an entire episode on numberphile about its progess with finding primes.if you are actualy into math
Prime95 is using avx for trial factorisation which is part of its normal task.

also that one guy says it has not real wordl application when its used in realwordl application show how stupid that argument us. don confusse opions with facts.
please show me where he says it has not real world application also.

becaue so far all I've heard i make believe with not external support on your claims

the rest of you post has nothing to do with the validicy of testing the cpu's full instructions set or just lowering you stress test to pass a fake test
 
Please show me notes that says AVs is not fully ready.
also how in the world is PRime95 not real world is what built with a real purpose that is still doing and have been doing great. ther eas an entire episode on numberphile about its progess with finding primes.if you are actualy into math
Prime95 is using avx for trial factorisation which is part of its normal task.

also that one guy says it has not real wordl application when its used in realwordl application show how stupid that argument us. don confusse opions with facts.
please show me where he says it has not real world application also.

becaue so far all I've heard i make believe with not external support on your claims

the rest of you post has nothing to do with the validicy of testing the cpu's full instructions set or just lowering you stress test to pass a fake test
And I quote, WITH the intel data sheet source:

The issue with Prime95 you "heard about" specifically refers to processors with "AVX" Instruction Sets, such as your 8700K. When any version of Prime95 with AVX code runs on AVX capable processors, it can impose an unrealistic 130% workload, which can adversely affect stability and severely overload your processor.

This is why BIOS has an "AVX Offset" (downclock) adjustment to compensate for the exceedingly high Core temperatures which are caused whenever the CPU encounters brutal AVX workloads imposed by certain utilities and scientific computational apps. Real-world software that uses AVX code, such as for rendering and transcoding, or some of the most recent games. do not impose extreme workloads.

Accordingly, as per Intel’s Datasheets, TDP and Thermal Specifications are validated “without AVX.

See page 87, Section 5.1.1, Thermal Considerations: 8th and 9th Generation Intel® Core™ Processor Families Datasheet, Volume 1 - https://www.intel.com/content/www/u...core/8th-gen-core-family-datasheet-vol-1.html


Note please the TDP and Thermal Specifications are validated without AVX portion.

I have an almost minor (dropped it my last semester years ago 2 credits short) in abstract mathematics, that at one point specialized in weather algorithms, chaotic dynamics, and HPC workloads for a major national scientific institution, before moving into a field that actually has money in it (my main degree is computer science, and I'm a systems architect). Bit rusty, but very familiar with what Prime and those guys do - the stress test is not necessarily the real-world workload, it's a stress test, and it's one that the processor was NOT designed for as per Intel.

This is all from the link in the second post.
 
Yep. Most of them do that (boards) now. Which is good and bad. Free easy OC, but... gotta pay attention to what you're doing. And you're right - Prime does a different test first, second test is AVX heavy.

As much as I like being able to adjust it, I don't think I like the power limit being off by default. I'm just thinking about what would happen if dad upgraded his board, proc and ram himself. He'd use the stock cooler and stuff it into the ancient case he's using, probably wouldn't check the temps and his CPU would end up bouncing off of thermal limits occasionally.

Naturally I messed around with dad's Christmas present a bit just to see how different power limit settings affected speed and temps running small FFTs in Prime95 with 16 threads on an i7-10700. Note that I did not change or turn off the PWM ramps for this, so the fans were pretty much dead silent until I got to 155W. At 80C+ they run full speed. i7-10700 (non-k), MSI MAG Mortar WIFI board, Cooler Master Silencio S400 mATX case with the solid top on, Corsair H60 120mm AIO mounted as rear exhaust, 2 front 140mm intakes. All fans are ~1500rpm Noctua pwm fans. I also have a Radeon and an M.2 drive in there that aren't doing anything during these tests. Speeds tended to bounce up and down by ~100MHz during testing. The listed one is the lower of the two.

i7-10700 (non-k, "65W") Prime95 Small FFTs
Long Term Power LimitSpeed No AVXTemp No AVXSpeed AVX2Temp AVX2
65W3.3GHz54C2.7GHz53C
95W3.8GHz61C3.4GHz60C
125W4.2GHz65C3.8GHz65C
155W4.5GHz76C4.1GHz74C
170W4.6GHz81C4.2GHz80C
185W4.6GHz81C4.3GHz85C
No Limit4.6GHz81C4.4GHz100C (thermal throttle)

Now that I'm basically done playing with it it's set back to stock. 65W TDP. I'll tell dad about the power limits but I bet he won't adjust them.

If Intel is going to keep doing stuff like this I want my turbo button back, like we had in the 286/386/486 days except this time it would switch between stock and whatever you set up in your turbo profile in the bios. OC if you have an unlocked chip, different pwm ramps, change the power limit, etc.
 
It's not intel. There's a thread buried somewhere in the intel motherboard forum - it's the motherboard makers trying to make the review benchies look good, by being "faster" than the others.

IIRC, Asus doesn't do this - but everyone else does. Gigabyte and MSI pushed it the most, I think - playing with voltages and the like. My z490 Master had all-core max boost set from the factory. Have it off right now so I can sanity check a weird crash (bad driver from windows update, I think).
 
It's not intel. There's a thread buried somewhere in the intel motherboard forum - it's the motherboard makers trying to make the review benchies look good, by being "faster" than the others.

IIRC, Asus doesn't do this - but everyone else does. Gigabyte and MSI pushed it the most, I think - playing with voltages and the like. My z490 Master had all-core max boost set from the factory. Have it off right now so I can sanity check a weird crash (bad driver from windows update, I think).

Asrock is pretty stable when you turn off the out of the box auto boost also.
 
Asrock is pretty stable when you turn off the out of the box auto boost also.
All of them can be - it's just who's more aggressive :p That's partially why I bought the gigabyte though - less time to fiddle right now, and I'm open loop, so... not so worried about heat. ASRock is a bit more conservative though than the others.
 
Back
Top