Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Intel Processors' started by ng4ever, Nov 21, 2018.
From i7 7700k ?
Let me put it this way.....I just ran this with a 1080ti.
For what purpose? Gaming? Productivity? I love mine but I use it for many different things.
Let me put it this way. About a month ago, my overclock on my 5930k went out. The IMC is burning out.
So I bought a 9900k. I had a monoblock on my rve, so I got an EK velocity to cool the 9900k after the kryos next failed to ship from Amazon.
On stock, with 3000mhz ram and the stock gigabyte overclock to 4700mhz (They overclock it without any changes from me other than xmp.). With 3 360mm radiators.
96 degrees on Prime 95 small fft.
On a massive over built water loop. I reseated numerous times with kryonaut...... Still 96 degrees. The block just can't pull the heat from the cpu fast enough.
I want 5ghz.
So I just bough the rockit cool delidding tool and the copper ihs they sell, along with conductonaut liquid metal.
I am now at 86c.
14c to see if I can get 5ghz. After that I pull it and start sanding the die like der8auer.
Fuck it. You only live once. I want 5ghz.
And may I mention, with a Mountain Mods ascension from my days with 3 gtx 480's and more rads than I use now. I thought the 480's were hot.
The 9900k is a furnace. Hottest CPU I have ever owned.
Let me put it this way...I barely get into low 80s when benchmarking on my lowly Thermaltake floe riing 360 in my hafx case and running 5ghz all cores. Something is very wrong with your results. Plus delidding should get you between 4 to 8c gain at best.
If you are running latest prime with avx then surely is going to get hot.
For the REAL things i use it for, it doesn't get near those temps anyway so I couldn't be happier with the 9900k.
Just don't want people to get the impression they need to go crazy with cooling setups because is not true.
Delidding + copper ihs + liquid metal from die to ihs to block -10c change
Also, as I mentioned. The problem isn't the size of the radiator, the problem is heat transfer from the die to the cpu block.
I am 4.9ghz stable all day on it, which I will have to be happy with. And can run Prime95 24/7 w/avx. Which is where my temps come from.
I guess I am old school in wanting my overclock to be completely stable.
>Just don't want people to get the impression they need to go crazy with cooling setups because is not true.
You have a nice chip. I don't. Silicon Lottery...
If I wanted to pawn my chip off and try again, i have the money to do so. On the other hand. I like to tinker with things. So....
Super hot chip, never delidded. Guess what this guy wanted to do....
And actually youre 1080ti is lacking also might want to look at that...First
Actually no it's not. I googled it and it performs higher than most out there.
If you're that crazy about 5ghz you shoulda just paid the SL premium.
My point is that your CPU is not behaving normally because if the problem was heat transfer to the CPU block in all of them, mine wouldnt be doing any good with my AIO which is not the case.
I dont think my chip is golden like some others I have seen but my goal was 5Ghz stable with AVX no offset so in that regards I guess I do have a pretty good one.
Good luck with your hunt for a better chip..Ive been there and is not fun for sure playing that lottery, or at least not for me lol
Lol at the thread hijack.
OP, you have to be more specific about what you're doing with the computer. It could be a big upgrade or a money pit depending on what you're doing with it.
Something is seriously wrong with your loop.
Like I said just ran cinebench with my 1070 and get better than youre 1080ti by 20fps
You know you can just get bulldozer eh? It was doing this years ago lol, save you a lot of hassle and heat.
Don’t know what to tell you. I googled it and my number was higher than most.
Naieve, not sure what board you're running, but if you are overclocking a 9900k at all, then it matters a lot. The long and the short is, is that most of the board partners have chosen to strip down the VRM phases and amperages a lot (even when compared to Z370). A lot of them are running 4 phases, which if you're running stock is "passable", but if you're trying to overclock at all is going to create a massive amount of heat and a lot of stability problems.
If you want a crash course, then GamersNexus via BuildZoid breaks down what are the top Z390 motherboards for the purpose of overclocking, even getting into cheaper boards and why they are better are are "more passable" than others.
The long and the short is: The 9900k is a very inefficient, power hunger, hot-chip. And the only way to keep up with it is to have a whole lot of high amperage phases and cooling on not just your processor, but also on the VRMs.
It may not fix your problems in terms of whether you have a golden chip or not, but it will probably bring your temps down a whole lot and help with things like stability.
That video is the main reason I switched away from Asus and went to the Gigabyte Aorus Master. The bigger problem for me is the fact that when I set my vcore above 1.3v, I have 2 cores that start burning up. They are 10c higher than the other cores initially. Though a few close the gap to 5c or so after stress testing for 20 minutes or so. Even an after into small fft, they are 10c higher than the lowest core. After the delid.
The #2 and #4 cores stay hot after multiple reseatings and a full delid with copper ihs and liquid metal everywhere. They are still 10c higher. Before and after the delid. The delid just gave me the room to make my 4.9ghz able to take small fft.
I am rock steady at 4.9 at 1.29v, but even after the delid, I am still roasting those 2 cores at 94c on prime95 small fft w/avx. After a 10c drop.
Basically, it all comes down to the fact I don't have a great chip.
5150, the problem isn't the loop. When I started giving my processor vcore to push to 5.0 before the delid. The #2 and #4 core overheated in seconds. It is the chip. I have been watercooling for many years. I would recommend looking at Der8auers video on his 9900k delid to see what has changed since the 8700k. The solder wasn't used to increase overclocking potential, the solder was used because they had no choice.
That literally isn't possible unless you went shopping today and then somehow managed to do all your testing within 12 hours. That video was published today.
Still, that said: I feel for you. Definitely feels bad to get a so-so chip.
As for responding to the OP: buy the 9900k if you have a specific reason to buy it. It's right on the edge of being a workstation chip, only hamstrung by its lack of PCI-E lanes (except on the only 2 boards that have a PLX chip). So if you have use for a workstation, then it's a decent buy. If all you do is game, then this chip is unnecessary and you won't see really any FPS gains. At that point it probably makes more sense to buy a 9700k or 9600k or last years 8600k or even 8400k.
If you'd like to save some money, then buying a 2700x Ryzen will net you near the same performance as the 9900k for far less. And its boards are more plentiful as it doesn't have this VRM problem like the z390's.
You are right, here is the video I watched.
Near the same performance for what? 4k gaming? Cause for other things like Photoshop, premiere, etc the 9900k is easily superior. Sure is more expensive but is a do it all monster chip.. like Gamers Nexus recognized
I wouldn't go as far as to use the word "vastly". There is a lot that went on with Z370 and Z390 and how that affected the processors. The long and the short is, every single board partner was overclocking the processors to some extent. And when the board is actually forced to conform to Intel's actual specifications for the processor, the results are incredibly close. This was uncovered after it was obvious that the processors were taking up far more TDP than the rated spec. If you'd like to see what the 9900k looks like when operating as it should, then you can watch these videos, which also covers the TDP "conspiracy".
So, yes, the 9900k is "a lot faster" when considering it as a more or less pre-overclocked chip. If wattage matters and if you're trying to avoid overclocking then the 2700x does nearly the same in every benchmark when actually comparing apples to apples. It also does this at a $230 price difference with a cooler. Which isn't insignificant. It's also not experiencing a CPU shortage, so if you can't afford to tap your foot and wait for it to show up at your door, it's available now.
To be crystal, yes the 9900k is faster. That isn't the question. It's a matter of how much faster and for how much more money. And at over 1/3rd more it's hard to justify as its is nowhere close to 1/3rd faster. Maybe 5%. Unless you have very specific usage cases that benefit from single threaded workloads with extremely high clock-speeds or need Intel specific features like quick sync, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Even more so that if you are truly interested in workstation class parts, Intels own 9800x is roughly the same cost as the 9900k and has way more PCI-E lanes, 4-channel DDR 4, and is generally way more robust. AMD's offerings also at the same price point will offer more threads than the 9900k. Does the 9900k have a place? Sure, but it's a much smaller window than a general consumer chip would suggest. Without a PLX chip board it doesn't quite fit into most people's production environments and it isn't costed the way most would be happy with when compared to Skylake-X Workstation parts.
This is much in the same vein with AMD's Threadripper. You can buy a 1950x today for $550 which has double the cores and 4x as many threads. So my point still stands. Just recommending the 9900k to everyone doesn't make sense, and for most there are far better options either in price point or performance based upon application. And still again, if you're a gamer, you won't benefit from the amount of threads in the 9900k which was my point in the post you quoted. You're far better served by a 9700k, 9500k, 8600k, or 8400k.
Oh when I look at how much faster it performs (both using only their "default" mobo OC) in Photoshop, Premiere (even without using the iGPU and much more when using it) and blender, I can surely call that vastly superior. So as an overall performer, it easily beats the 2700x which explains the big price difference.
I dont care about so many "conspiracy" videos, I care about performance and that is what the 9900k gives me and I dont need exotic cooling as so many claim (mostly red fans do). Are you really claiming that overclocking both CPUs will deliver similar performance????
Come on now. Its wildly known that the 2700x tops around 4.2 to 4.3 at best while the 9900x does 5Ghz for most users. That fight is not even close. So sure, the price is lower with the 2700x but so is the performance and you dont have to pick your poison between multi core apps, or apps that use less cores and benefit from faster clock speeds which was my dilema picking between the 2700x and the 8700k. With the 9900k I get the best of both worlds and more.
Your problem is your are claiming ridiculously low advantage of the 9900k over the 2700x to validate you claims and that is not how it goes. REAL world performance is clearly superior and not your 5% claims. Come on man, dont let fanboysim cloud your judgement!
And I see this new "tactic" from amd guys about calling the 9900 a workstation cpu and that there are better options for that. This is a DO IT ALL CPU. I do gaming, I do photoshop, I do premiere...this CPU gives me the best of all those worlds. I dont need to pick gaming over production because this one is top on all those areas basically. THAT is its true value which amd guys seem to ignore. Even your TR example falls short because the 9900k beats it on all those apps I mentioned as well not to mention gaming. TR was my first choice to upgrade from the X58 system I had...then the 2700x and 8700k were my options until the 9900k came out. It was an easy decision for my needs at that point.
Go and ahead and fine ONE just ONE single time when I recommended the 9900k for every user! I will save you some time...you wont find it because I am not a blind fanboy. I buy whatever works for my needs. Did you see my question for the OP even? I ask what he wanted it for because if its for high FPS gaming only I would say the 8700k, if its 4 gaming I would say 2700x is another option as well. I recommend the 9900k for users like me that use their computer for gaming and productivity and want top performance in all those areas. Doesnt make the 2700x incompetent of course, but the 9900k is simply better and that cannot be argued unless fanaticism comes into play.
There is no one product that fits all which is the great thing about choices.
Anyways, I got nothing else to say to you or reply on this thread.
The fight is really close. There are only a very few instance cases that Intel has a greater than 5% advantage, and those are like I listed: things that benefit from single-threaded, high clock-speed. And that isn't most productivity apps, save perhaps the Adobe suite which is mostly unoptimized to use more system resources (such as more threads).
If all you do is Adobe and game then yeah, buy a 9900k.
When losing an argument, the best way to prove the opposing point is to use insults.
1.) I own zero shares of AMD stock.
2.) I own zero AMD computers.
3.) My suggestion if you want a workstation CPU is to buy a workstation part. In fact if you actually read what I wrote, I talked about how the 9900k is a bad CPU for workstation work for 2 reasons: 1.) it is extremely gimped when coming to PCI-E lanes. and 2.) even when comparing price Intel's own 9800x is a much better buy. So I'm an AMD fanboy because I'm recommending another Intel part?
Know your workload. Intel's 9900k half-measure isn't a serious workstation park. If you want a workstation you should buy a workstation part. Especially when you can buy one for literally the same price.
You cannot tell me that any workstation CPU is incapable of gaming on in any real meaningful way. But I can 100% for sure tell you that a workstation CPU will be far better at every productivity app. So yeah, in that sense we are talking about "do it all CPUs". If you really think the 9900k can "do it all" you are the one whom you should be using your choice insults on.
This thread. The OP is more than likely asking for gaming applications. I noted that for gaming he wouldn't see the benefit for a 9900k and recommended basically any of the CPUs in the $300 or less category. You'll also note that EVERY ONE OF THOSE CPUS WAS INTEL. So if you're going to argue with me about fanboism and also argue with me about CPU recommendations actually read what is written.
But if you're actually serious about productivity and you have a budget 2700x is better. As much as you're complaining at me, you still haven't "saved" $230 by buying a 9900k, and there is zero argument you can make about why that processor is better if it's too expensive. Especially considering at 1/3rd extra cost it better be 1/3rd extra performance in every application. And it's not. I'd love you to show me that it is.
If you want to get the maximum amount of cores to do real productivity than clearly Threadripper is better. The 9900k has a VERY small segment. Which is you do some productivity sometimes, you don't need PCI-E lanes. And all your important apps are single threaded. And then and only then this only matters if you're going to OC on top of it (something most serious workstation users aren't doing).
As far as I can tell, you're calling people fanboys and fanatics, but you're the only one behaving as such. Right now you're clogging up this thread with justifications why you bought your CPU.
my 4790k ran hotter than the 9900k I have now running FT stress tests.
in gaming the temps never go above 60c at 5.1ghz on all 8 cores, did you really buy the i9 to just run Prime 95? if so then you should of just bought a new cell phone instead.
biggest difference between the intel and amd cpus in terms of performance is in online games with a lot of players, AMD just chokes in this department.
those static with nothing going on game benchmarks is pointless to compare the cpu's, that is good for benchmarking GPU's.
I hit 71c during an easy gaming session. After a delid, with a custom loop, at 4.9ghz 1.29v.
Congratulations on getting a better chip than me.
I was able to get mine perfectly stable at 4.8ghz with just 1.150v under heavy load.
My Asus motherboard was showing 117% silicon quality, so yea, I got a good one, thx.
what motherboard are you using? that is a lot of volts for just 4.9ghz
And the problem for me is that I have 2 really crappy cores, which are the cause for my super high temperature. And I am not the only one with problems like this. Look at the der8auer video. He needed 1.28v i think it was to hit 4.8ghz. Needless to say, when one of the worlds foremost overclockers has the same issue, the problem might be variability in the 9900k due to the fact that these chips are being pushed to the very edge of their capability, stock.
Considering the 9600k and 9700k use the same chip, and the abundance of those 2 chips on market compared to the 9900k. I am going to assume they are having yield issues hitting 5ghz with the 9900k. And are letting any chip that hits minimum standards go out hte door.
that sucks, and I agree with the yield issues.
I was curious at 4.9ghz with my chip, 11 min in and so far its holding up https://gyazo.com/72f999337f810042bc7ea857b6939273
BF5 after 30min of gaming: https://gyazo.com/d8440c5a5947debcabe6fefaa838aaef
AT Bench, 7700K vs. 9900K (stock)
Bonus: 7700K vs. 9700K (stock)
The results from Silicon Lottery are not very encouraging either - very low % (I think 14) can hit 5.0Ghz all cores stable from what I read although it is still early. However, user reports are not that encouraging either.
I wanted to get an 9900K mostly for gaming use by my kids and to serve as a backup machine to my workstation but I am really not sure if it is worth it after seeing those results. The new machine will be on a custom loop but still I don't want to delid with the TIM on it. I am going with direct die cooling on my i9-7940X and that upgrade costs a lot (LM, Skylak-X direct frame, delid tool, scrap the monoblock and get VRM + CPU Block, redo the loop) but it is worth it and there is a big performance advantage to be gained by doing so. With the 9900K I don't see the same big difference and although I thought this would be a 5.0Ghz all cores chip it is nowhere near guaranteed to achieve this no matter the cooling. Yet, it costs the same as entry level 9800X HEDT with full 44 PCI-E lanes but the new X299 SKUs also suck with the new STIM.
So right now I am down to 3 options regarding this new build.
A) Scrap the idea of 9900K and get a 8086/8700K delid and overclock to the max but still get a good Z390 motherboard (Gigabyte Extreme or Master)
B) Get an Socket 2066 chip like 9800X or 7900X (easier delid)
C) Wait for new Ryzens since the purchase of CPU/Motherboard won't happen before March - I got the case and will get everything else first (water loop, SSDs, PSU, GPU I have) so I might as well wait a bit longer - no rush anyway.
Do you mind some questions regarding the Gigabyte? I am exclusively Asus for many years but the Z390 Series on Gigabyte is clearly the better hardware.
1) How is the Gigabyte BIOS so far? What about memory XMP profiles and Samsung B-Die chips? I read that memory overclocking is not as good as in Asus.
2) How is their software suite? I am hearing it is as crappy as Asus (windows apps)
3) How are the watercooling features vs Asus. I mean PUMP/PWM fan control based on temp sensors (making curves etc)?
BTW I might even get the Aorus Extreme because of the extras (10Gbit LAN, Extra Fan Controllers + Addressable RGB Hub that Asus charges $100 for, + Thunderbolt 3) but need to seriously examine if they will be used or get the Master instead.
I was looking at the 9900K (even had a pre-order that I cancelled) but I ended up sticking w/ my 8700K and overclocking.
So I got an AIO water cooler and was able to reach 5.0GHz solid on all cores. Really just wanted the 5.0GHz and I'm happy with the performance.
First no, the 14% from SL was about hitting 5.1 . For 5GHz it was around 46% last time I checked.
If its solely for gaming, I would go with an 8700k, 8086 or even a 2700x if its 4k gaming.
Once again I dont see any point on deliding a 9900k unless you got some really bad one.
Anyways regarading your questions:
1) I find the BIOS to be just fine. XMP is working perfect with my GSkill 3200 C14 (2x16) kit. I havent played much with OCing memory cause really its mostly for benching which I am not big into. But comments from Buildzoid were positive about OCing memory with these boards.
2) I find it a bit boring and limited but really I mostly OC from BIOS anyways so maybe not the best person to ask.
3) I only do AIO so cant offer advice on this, sorry.
You are absolutely right, my mistake with the overclocking stats but still 5GHz is a bet nonetheless.
Regarding the 9900K delidding I really don't want to get into this since it's more complex than the 8700K with the STIM.
Thanks for the Gigabyte info - I am really leaning towards the Extreme for the Z390 vs the Asus but need to seriously think whether the Extreme extra features are going to be utilized or not. Yet, the Extreme has such great cooling that will be of great value in the Phanteks Evolv-X I am going to put it in. Anyway it is this or the Master.
Just so you know the Master is on sale on NewEgg right now with a $20 mail in rebate too. With the rebate added it's $240 shipped (unless you're in CA and pay tax like me) which is pretty great considering it started off originally at $290-300. I ended up grabbing a Master from there yesterday because of the price.
Agreed. I have a AIO on my 9900k at 4.7, and my temps are mid/upper 80's on prime, upper 70's running BONIC for a week. That or the MB is jacking up the voltages way up there. But custom loop with triple 360's and seeing worse? Something wrong for sure.
I just changed from a 1950X to the 9900K and even at stock clocks the 9900K feels much faster and smoother. I also notice smoother framerates even at 4K which I can only guess must be due to improve frametimes. Just for reference, my 1950X @ 4.0ghz had a Passmark of 7155 and the 9900K at stock with the same components hit 8326.
Edit: Forgot to run Passmark with 2080ti OC'ed on new system. Score updated for 9900K.
Multiple reviews showing how Intel is letting any 9900k that can hit the clocks out into the wild. Obviously due to yield issues as they use the same die for the 9600k, 9700k, and 9900k.
Well, my i9-9900k died today. Was typing an email and boom, that was it. Wasn't Overclocked or anything. Newegg is taking it back thankfully.
I agree. Coming from my 5930k I can definitely tell things are smoother than they were in gaming. I play a lot of COH2, and honestly there is a night and day difference.