I9 9900K / I7 8700K ?

Okay, now I have to decide between Asus and Gigabyte - motherboard ( i don't need Wi-Fi )
For the DDR 4 RAM, 2666 is the maximum, compatible with the I7 9700k?
 
shadowj said:
Okay, now I have to decide between Asus and Gigabyte - motherboard ( i don't need Wi-Fi )
For the DDR 4 RAM, 2666 is the maximum, compatible with the I7 9700k?
Click to expand...

??? 3200mhz min. I run 4266mhz. Why build a fast rig and kill it with turtle ram?

Btw.. asus maximus hero is what I'd recommend.
 
shadowj said:
where did you see " 3200 Mhz"?
Click to expand...

Nowhere on the sheet does it say min or max for mem speed. Assuming that 2666mhz is the min.

3200mhz is what most review sites will tell you what you should be using for min.
 
Seems like the 9900k solder doesn't really perform much better than the 8700K TIM, it's generally only better than by a few degrees. So in effect, to get good temps you have to delid both chips either way, it's just delidding the 8700K is way easier because it doesn't involve tedious sanding down of the solder.
 
Last edited:
when new games come out down the road that require more cpu muscle the i9 9900k is going to take a bigger lead against the 2700x and 8770k that is not being shown at this moment.

I bought the 9900k so I don't have to upgrade down the road, it actually saves me money.

bf1 mp in a full server was unplayable for me with a 4 core cpu, with 40-50 fps drops within seconds, heavy movement, stutters, etc. with a 6 core cpu like the 8700 the game pretty much wakes up inside a full bf1 mp server.

so the 2 extra cores in bf1 mp full server makes a huge difference, in the future the same faith will come to 8700 cpu where 6 cores just wont be enough. as for the 2700x, it will fair better than than the 8700 in terms of stability of the game code, but the avg fps in games will drop considerably due to weaker cores and slower memory.

and I think this is where the investment in 9900k will pay off big time.
 
pippenainteasy said:
Seems like the 9900k solder doesn't really perform much better than the 8700K TIM, it's generally only better than by a few degrees. So in effect, to get good temps you have to delid both chips either way, it's just delidding the 8700K is way easier because it doesn't involve tedious sanding down of the solder.
Click to expand...

you are wrong about the solder, after the testing there was only 5c-6c difference between solder and delid with liquid metal.

you are forgetting that 9900k is a 8 core cpu, the 8700 is a 6 core cpu, you cant compare temps like that between two different cpu's.
 
Lastan010 said:
you are wrong about the solder, after the testing there was only 5c-6c difference between solder and delid with liquid metal.

you are forgetting that 9900k is a 8 core cpu, the 8700 is a 6 core cpu, you cant compare temps like that between two different cpu's.
Click to expand...

Right, the 8700k was actually 110w, while the 9900k exceed 150w (with full turbo boost unlimited power enabled).

https://www.techspot.com/review/1744-core-i9-9900k-round-two/

Power_Handbrake.png


Power_Handbrake.png


The 8700k does not require solder, while the 9900k definitely does. That's an impressive performance for this new heat-lamp of a core.
 
Lastan010 said:
you are wrong about the solder, after the testing there was only 5c-6c difference between solder and delid with liquid metal.

you are forgetting that 9900k is a 8 core cpu, the 8700 is a 6 core cpu, you cant compare temps like that between two different cpu's.
Click to expand...

Please provide some citations. Debauer already showed lapping the solder makes a huge difference. I have yet to see anyone debunk his claims, whereas everyone else on youtube like GN, J2C, etc, have all validated it. Could it be everyone is wrong and you are right? Sure. Let's see the evidence.

lOQvUOE.png
 
Last edited:
pippenainteasy said:
Please provide some citations. Debauer already showed lapping the solder makes a huge difference. I have yet to see anyone debunk his claims, whereas everyone else on youtube like GN, J2C, etc, have all validated it. Could it be everyone is wrong and you are right? Sure. Let's see the evidence.

View attachment 119129
Click to expand...

ok so I said difference is 6c and you post a screenshot of being 8c diiference, wow, I was so wrong.

when I delidded my 3770k the temps dropped by 25c in some tests.

the solder in 9900k is doing a wonderful job, I think that you should stop hating on Intel.
 
Lastan010 said:
ok so I said difference is 6c and you post a screenshot of being 8c diiference, wow, I was so wrong.

when I delidded my 3770k the temps dropped by 25c in some tests.

the solder in 9900k is doing a wonderful job, I think that you should stop hating on Intel.
Click to expand...

I talked about lapping 3 times now, there's a 13.5 degree difference once lapped. I think you have reading comprehension issues, or you are intentional pretending to be dumb.
 
heat spreader has to be glued to the CPU out of the box, lapping is stupid to even mention, unless you believe that Intel should ship out CPU's without the heatspreaders attached.

point here is that 9900k with solder is doing a great job out of the box when compared with intel CPU's that aren't using the solder.

micro nitpicking is very strong here,
 
Last edited:
Ah I see, just doubling down and tripling down on not reading. Figured as much. Gotcha. Thought you actually a point earlier; sorry for assuming.
 
I ordered I7 9700K, Asus Maximum XI and 32 GB DDR4 - 3200
I'll try first, the Turbo Boost, and maybe later, OC
Thank you to everyone
 
Oh my... I was holding for the next gen of 7-10nm but my motherboard got fried... so I will replaced my trustee 5930K by a shiny new 9700K
I will report my finding later this week!
 
shadowj said:
I thought, I7 9700k doesn't need thermal paste, that's why I asked
Thank you
Click to expand...

You still need thermal paste on the heat sink. He is just saying to use a better quality paste than the stuff included on the heat sink fan or water block.
 
5150Joker said:
Nope, my 9700k becomes a furnace at 1.3v
Click to expand...

My 9900k becomes a furnace above 1.3v too.

My chip is 4.9v stable, but I don't see me hitting 5.0 all core without major voltage increase. I already delidded, put conductonaut and a pure copper ihs on, and then put liquid metal from ihs to block. I gained 10c from all that. I don't think another 5c from lapping the die is going to make much difference hitting 5.0.

On the plus side, at 1.29v at 4.9, I am rock solid on multiple stress tests and gaming. prime95 small fft w/avx too.

For how little overclocking room is left, most people will be better off simply using xmp, and letting the motherboard do that all core overclock to 4.7. Asus calls it multi core enhancement, gigabyte something else, etc...

1 click for overclock and "if you use" 2666mhz ram, you keep your intel warranty.

On the plus side, I finally found a reason to do a delid. I have really been wanting to try that.
 
Off topic : i received the mainboard, CPU and RAM
I have 1 x 8 pin and 1 x 4 pin slots, on top of the mainboard, left.
But i have only one cable with 8 pin
I tried this way but I have no signal on the monitor
Do I need another modular cable, with 4 pin?
I attached a picture
Thank you
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20181123_202508.jpg
    IMG_20181123_202508.jpg
    581.8 KB · Views: 0
shadowj said:
Off topic : i received the mainboard, CPU and RAM
I have 1 x 8 pin and 1 x 4 pin slots, on top of the mainboard, left.
But i have only one cable with 8 pin
I tried this way but I have no signal on the monitor
Do I need another modular cable, with 4 pin?
I attached a picture
Thank you
Click to expand...

I would guess that you do, that is power for the cpu, and these are hungry beasts. If you can't find a modular cord for cheap, they make molex to 4 pin adapters that you can get for a few dollars.
 
shadowj said:
Off topic : i received the mainboard, CPU and RAM
I have 1 x 8 pin and 1 x 4 pin slots, on top of the mainboard, left.
But i have only one cable with 8 pin
I tried this way but I have no signal on the monitor
Do I need another modular cable, with 4 pin?
I attached a picture
Thank you
Click to expand...

Really.. what psu are you using? Psu's on sale at evga.com.
 
Corsair RM 750
Why?
I'm confused
Do I need this 4 pin slot, or not?
I will use the Turbo Boost
 
Last edited:
The XI hero does have a code display on it. If it is not powering on, I would refer to that. If it is powering on and booting. Maybe there is an issue with your graphics not displaying.
 
I found the culprit.
It was the RAM, i just replace the slot, and everything its working great ( without the 4 pins cable )
The only thing i don't like it , is the CPU cooler. It's a bit louder as before
I have only the web site open ( this forum ) and the cooler is pretty loud, the CPU temps are about 26- 28 C
Is there a way to modify something from the BIOS ?
Thank you
 
Last edited:
Naieve said:
My 9900k becomes a furnace above 1.3v too.

My chip is 4.9v stable, but I don't see me hitting 5.0 all core without major voltage increase. I already delidded, put conductonaut and a pure copper ihs on, and then put liquid metal from ihs to block. I gained 10c from all that. I don't think another 5c from lapping the die is going to make much difference hitting 5.0.

On the plus side, at 1.29v at 4.9, I am rock solid on multiple stress tests and gaming. prime95 small fft w/avx too.

For how little overclocking room is left, most people will be better off simply using xmp, and letting the motherboard do that all core overclock to 4.7. Asus calls it multi core enhancement, gigabyte something else, etc...

1 click for overclock and "if you use" 2666mhz ram, you keep your intel warranty.

On the plus side, I finally found a reason to do a delid. I have really been wanting to try that.
Click to expand...

Yeah the AVX is the real killer for these furnaces. If I take the 9700k to 50x/0avx it requires 1.35v to be stable but the problem is AVX takes it to 100C very very quickly although that is only using a Corsair H100i v2 AIO which is basically dog shit.

I've actually got a 9900K on the way and I'm returning the 9700k back to Amazon along with the ASUS Z390-E 4 phase piece of shit that I bought without researching. Decided to go with the Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Master (12 phases, much better but shit bios from what I hear) and a custom open loop setup (420mm EK rad, EK evo block, monsoon mmr res) so we'll see how the 9900k does with that. I suspect it'll still run hot like yours does but I'm hoping it can hold 50x/0avx on all cores for 24/7 use as I don't run AVX heavy programs very often.

Bottomline for anyone thinking of buying the 9900K: DON'T unless you have extra money to spend on a custom watercooling loop because it simply won't tolerate air cooling or even AIO very well. I mean if the 9700k is already a furnace on an AIO, then the 9900K is assuredly worse. The funny thing is I only expected to spend a small amount of money on a 9700K upgrade from my 7700K to hold me over until Ryzen 2 but I saw the 9900K on NewEgg and impulse bought it and then spiraled out of control into a custom WC setup that cost more than the 9900K itself.
 
Last edited:
5150Joker said:
Yeah the AVX is the real killer for these furnaces. If I take the 9700k to 50x/0avx it requires 1.35v to be stable but the problem is AVX takes it to 100C very very quickly although that is only using a Corsair H100i v2 AIO which is basically dog shit. I've actually got a 9900K on the way and I'm returning the 9700k back to Amazon along with the ASUS Z390-E 4 phase piece of shit that I bought without researching. Decided to go with the Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra (12 phases, much better but shit bios from what I hear) and a custom open loop setup (420mm EK rad, EK evo block, monsoon mmr res) so we'll see how the 9900k does with that. I suspect it'll still run hot like yours does but I'm hoping it can hold 50x/0avx on all cores for 24/7 use as I don't run AVX heavy programs very often.

Bottomline for anyone thinking of buying the 9900K: DON'T unless you have extra money to spend on a custom watercooling loop because it simply won't tolerate air cooling or even AIO very well. I mean if the 9700k is already a furnace on an AIO, then the 9900K is assuredly worse. The funny thing is I only expected to spend a small amount of money on a 9700K upgrade from my 7700K to hold me over until Ryzen 2 but I saw the 9900K on NewEgg and impulse bought it and then spiraled out of control into a custom WC setup that cost more than the 9900K itself.
Click to expand...
Yep - sounds about right. AVX has always been the killer. So many people run a -2 offset and think “what’s the problem?” Well, that’s easy. Syncing AVX with core multi @ 5.0 is tough.
My 8086K spoiled me with 5.0/5.0 @ 1.34v, decent temps. Rock solid.
I’m think I might have to back my 9900k down to 5.0/4.8 to get the voltage / temps where I want them.
 
5150Joker said:
Yeah the AVX is the real killer for these furnaces. If I take the 9700k to 50x/0avx it requires 1.35v to be stable but the problem is AVX takes it to 100C very very quickly although that is only using a Corsair H100i v2 AIO which is basically dog shit.

I've actually got a 9900K on the way and I'm returning the 9700k back to Amazon along with the ASUS Z390-E 4 phase piece of shit that I bought without researching. Decided to go with the Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Master (12 phases, much better but shit bios from what I hear) and a custom open loop setup (420mm EK rad, EK evo block, monsoon mmr res) so we'll see how the 9900k does with that. I suspect it'll still run hot like yours does but I'm hoping it can hold 50x/0avx on all cores for 24/7 use as I don't run AVX heavy programs very often.

Bottomline for anyone thinking of buying the 9900K: DON'T unless you have extra money to spend on a custom watercooling loop because it simply won't tolerate air cooling or even AIO very well. I mean if the 9700k is already a furnace on an AIO, then the 9900K is assuredly worse. The funny thing is I only expected to spend a small amount of money on a 9700K upgrade from my 7700K to hold me over until Ryzen 2 but I saw the 9900K on NewEgg and impulse bought it and then spiraled out of control into a custom WC setup that cost more than the 9900K itself.
Click to expand...

Just beware. I think Intel is letting any 9900k cpu that can hit their minimum requirements out the door. Der8auer only hit 4.8ghz with his, and he is one of the premier overclockers. Mine only hit 4.9ghz, and I honestly doubt I can get 5.0 avx stable without some extreme cooling. That is if I can even hit 5.0.

I think there is some serious binning taking place. And the dies that run too hot become 9700k's, the dies with bad cores become 9600ks. And anything that will pass the absolute minimum to be a 9900k get sent out the door.

Also, I have the Aorus Master. Bios definitely are nowhere close to Asus, but honestly the overclocking of a 9900k is really not that hard compared to older chips. Finding what you need on the Aorus master doesn't take too long. Though I wonder if there is something to the word that you won't clock as high on the gigabyte boards. I really think Asus does a better job with the overclock, but on the other hand you need to spend over $400 to get an Asus board with good VRMs. From the ~100mhz difference I remember seeing, you are talking $1.50 to $2 for every additional mhz. So the law of diminishing returns hits me right there.
 
Last edited:
shadowj said:
I found the culprit.
It was the RAM, i just replace the slot, and everything its working great ( without the 4 pins cable )
The only thing i don't like it , is the CPU cooler. It's a bit louder as before
I have only the web site open ( this forum ) and the cooler is pretty loud, the CPU temps are about 26- 28 C
Is there a way to modify something from the BIOS ?
Thank you
Click to expand...

There should be fan control in the Asus AI Suite and in the bios. For something like fans, you may find AI Suite a bit easier to work with on the desktop instead of having to open bios when you adjust it.
 
Naieve said:
Just beware. I think Intel is letting any 9900k cpu that can hit their minimum requirements out the door. Der8auer only hit 4.8ghz with his, and he is one of the premier overclockers. Mine only hit 4.9ghz, and I honestly doubt I can get 5.0 avx stable without some extreme cooling. That is if I can even hit 5.0.

I think there is some serious binning taking place. And the dies that run too hot become 9700k's, the dies with bad cores become 9600ks. And anything that will pass the absolute minimum to be a 9900k get sent out the door.

Also, I have the Aorus Master. Bios definitely are nowhere close to Asus, but honestly the overclocking of a 9900k is really not that hard compared to older chips. Finding what you need on the Aorus master doesn't take too long. Though I wonder if there is something to the word that you won't clock as high on the gigabyte boards. I really think Asus does a better job with the overclock, but on the other hand you need to spend over $400 to get an Asus board with good VRMs. From the ~100mhz difference I remember seeing, you are talking $1.50 to $2 for every additional mhz. So the law of diminishing returns hits me right there.
Click to expand...

Well I don't necessarily think it's low tier binning as much as it is a function of the 14nm++ process being stretched to it's very limits. These kinds of 8 core chips were probably meant for 10nm but Intel is taking an eternity with that and it's costing them big in the long term with AMD coming out with a 7nm chip soon which will probably run cooler and just as fast. Anyway, I hope I don't regret getting the Gigabyte board, I know they have a rep of being so-so, especially compared to Asus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top