D
Deleted member 72990
Guest
Putting mine together now and curious what the current consensus is. Any snags to keep an eye out for?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Loving my 7820x. Upgraded from a 2600k. Getting more cores, higher clocks, and better IPC. Seemed like the best balance between more cores and good clocks+IPC vs. going 7700K or 1800X. You pay a bit more for that sweet spot, but it was worth it to me as I plan on keeping this system for 5-6 years, like I did my last system. Built for the long run. In time, 8 cores will be the baseline for game engines, as that's where the consoles are at now.
Overclocks like mad, too.
I'm running my mesh at 3.0Ghz. I tried 3.2Ghz, but even applying more voltage it was unstable under heavy load. Also, in my benchmarking I found the mesh overclock from 2.4 to 3.0 to provide very little bump, only 0.5% - 2.0% in game benchmarks, so I'm not sweating it pushing it higher. Plus, pushing the mesh and voltage means blowing through more thermal budget you could potentially be applying to core multipliers, where it's better spent.I'm trying to get the memory up to the rated 4000 MHz but it looks to be a bit stressful on the memory controller. 3800 boots but is a little unstable and 4000 bricks the system and requires me to remove CMOS battery to reset BIOS. I may try to push my mesh a little more as well - what do you have yours set to?
Any recommendations on what I need to tweak to get memory more stable?
I'm running my mesh at 3.0Ghz. I tried 3.2Ghz, but even applying more voltage it was unstable under heavy load. Also, in my benchmarking I found the mesh overclock from 2.4 to 3.0 to provide very little bump, only 0.5% - 2.0% in game benchmarks, so I'm not sweating it pushing it higher. Plus, pushing the mesh and voltage means blowing through more thermal budget you could potentially be applying to core multipliers, where it's better spent.
For RAM, I bought a quad set of G.Skill DDR4-3200 CL14 sticks and just set XMP and left it. Haven't tried overclocking them yet. What sort of improvement are you seeing bumping up to 3800, given you also have to be relaxing timings?
How high of voltage did you try for the 3.2 mesh?I'm running my mesh at 3.0Ghz. I tried 3.2Ghz, but even applying more voltage it was unstable under heavy load.
I am experimenting with that right now...Great input and thanks for letting me know about the mesh and "thermal budget". Since I have CPU and mesh where I wanted them, it will be nice if I can back off of voltage a touch to reduce heat.
You know, this is strange. I had tried it before at 3.2 with auto voltage, wasn't stable, tried applying I think upwards of an additional +0.100V offset, still wasn't stable. But I just went to try it now and I'll be darned if it's not working totally stable at 3.2 with auto voltage, which is showing as 1.177V under load. At 3.0 and auto voltage, it was showing 1.090V.How high of voltage did you try for the 3.2 mesh?
What clocks are you running for the core, and what voltage? AVX offset?You know, this is strange. I had tried it before at 3.2 with auto voltage, wasn't stable, tried applying I think upwards of an additional +0.100V offset, still wasn't stable. But I just went to try it now and I'll be darned if it's not working totally stable at 3.2 with auto voltage, which is showing as 1.177V under load. At 3.0 and auto voltage, it was showing 1.090V.
I've updated the BIOS a few times since, and might also not have had LLC set before (I do now), so that might explain it. Heat is definitely up over 3.0 though. Prime95 is banging against thermal throttling now, where before it was right at 95C max.
You know, this is strange. I had tried it before at 3.2 with auto voltage, wasn't stable, tried applying I think upwards of an additional +0.100V offset, still wasn't stable. But I just went to try it now and I'll be darned if it's not working totally stable at 3.2 with auto voltage, which is showing as 1.177V under load. At 3.0 and auto voltage, it was showing 1.090V.
I've updated the BIOS a few times since, and might also not have had LLC set before (I do now), so that might explain it. Heat is definitely up over 3.0 though. Prime95 is banging against thermal throttling now, where before it was right at 95C max.
just make sure you're using the old version of prime95, not the one that uses avx otherwise you'll just bounce off the thermal limit no matter what you do.
Never mind. 3.2 mesh wasn't stable after 20 mins of BF1. Back to 3.0 on mesh for me. Just did 2 hours at 3.0 on mesh in BF1 and was fine.You know, this is strange. I had tried it before at 3.2 with auto voltage, wasn't stable, tried applying I think upwards of an additional +0.100V offset, still wasn't stable. But I just went to try it now and I'll be darned if it's not working totally stable at 3.2 with auto voltage, which is showing as 1.177V under load. At 3.0 and auto voltage, it was showing 1.090V.
I've updated the BIOS a few times since, and might also not have had LLC set before (I do now), so that might explain it. Heat is definitely up over 3.0 though. Prime95 is banging against thermal throttling now, where before it was right at 95C max.
4.6/4.7/4.8 (8c/4c/2c) for core. 1.200V. AVX offset is -3. AVX512 offset is -5.What clocks are you running for the core, and what voltage? AVX offset?
I take it 3.2 mesh did not give anything worthwhile anyway?Never mind. 3.2 mesh wasn't stable after 20 mins of BF1. Back to 3.0 on mesh for me. Just did 2 hours at 3.0 on mesh in BF1 and was fine.
Moving from 2.4 to 3.0 on the mesh I saw a 0.5% to 2.0% increase in benchmarks (Cinebench, 3DMark Firestrike, Time Spy, Haven Superposition). So, extrapolating from there, by not pushing it farther to 3.2 I'm leaving an additional 0.17% to 0.66% on the table. That's fine by me.I take it 3.2 mesh did not give anything worthwhile anyway?
Does not seem much of a loss to me from what I am reading from you guys.
Cheers
Anyone with a good suggestion for a cooler for the 7900x?
Anyone with a good suggestion for a cooler for the 7900x?
I am finding out that my 7900X is actually throttling at 4.6GHz although it is not showing it happening. Still trying to get a handle on this. Where I am now is finding benchmark metrics to show it happening over long periods of usage.Put the PC in a freezer.
My delidded overclocked 7800x is pretty much at the thermal capacity of my H100iV2 with 3000 rpm Noctua fans. 7900X at stock would probably be okay, but if you're overcloking at all you will need to figure something else out.
VRM problems that are talked about lately?
Why?Thinking about selling off my 5820k and going with a 7820x myself.
No, I do not think so at all. Not sure on cure yet as I cannot document exactly what is happening. Working on it.VRM problems that are talked about lately?
I do not have board on the bench right now. I am trying to find a way to document what I am seeing happen under loads still.Raise the package power limit from 140 Watts to 400 Watts. What motherboard you using?
I am trying to figure a way to document the symptom. This is what I have seen at 4.6GHz. At higher levels of CPULLC, the CPU will throttle due to VCCIN. This does not happen at lower levels of CPULLC. (at least on this particular board) So when this throttling is happening, the only way to tell is through a benchmark score. CPU loads/HWBot do not report this throttling in any way. If you look at all the load levels and multipliers, you would think the system is operating as it should. Now my issue here is for long term loading under high overclocks, how do I tell if it is throttling? I do not have any, let's say any 3 hour long benchmark to compare to. So I can easily remedy the issue, but I am having troubles proving that the throttling is not occurring over longer periods of time after the system has been loaded. None of the manufacturers I have talked to on this have been able to give me a solid solution on this.Maybe you should try the solutions posted in this thread before attempting to document an issue that has already been studied and solved.
Can't wait! Super excited. Also have 3 EKBW NVMe heatsinks on the way for my nvme SSD's.
I have a new build in transit consisting of 7820X, Gigabyte Ultra Gaming MB, Samsung 960 EVO, Quad channel Gskill DDR 4 3200 RAM. So will be joining this club this week.
I won't say it's a value option, but at 4.6GHz it's a better processor than the 6950X was. We never saw anything better than 4.3GHz on 6950X's and that was the absolute edge of what those CPU's could do. The previous CPU king, the 5960X clocked higher at 4.5GHz and though it lacked two cores, it was much cheaper and faster in games. Outside of gaming it may be harder to justify the 7900X to someone who already has a 6950X as the IPC improvement and clock increases may not make enough of a difference to justify the cost of it. This is especially true given that you have to replace your motherboard, although you might be able to reuse your memory modules. The motherboard platform offers little to nothing beyond DMI 3.0, which you won't notice outside of storage benchmarks.
As a gamer, I'm considering the 7900X because it offers a slight IPC advantage and the potential for a clock speed increase over my 4.5GHz Core i7 6950X along with two additional CPU cores. I can leverage the X299 platform for faster storage as well. Again, not a value proposition by any means, but something I'm considering. The 6950X was a non-starter for me because, athough it was a drop in upgrade, the stupid thing clocked worse and offered next to no IPC improvement. It didn't make sense since games couldn't leverage the additional cores. At $1,699, it was a pointless expense. The Core i9 7900X is $1,000 or around there at Microcenter so it's more attractive an upgrade path for me.
I won't say it's a value option, but at 4.6GHz it's a better processor than the 6950X was. We never saw anything better than 4.3GHz on 6950X's and that was the absolute edge of what those CPU's could do. The previous CPU king, the 5960X clocked higher at 4.5GHz and though it lacked two cores, it was much cheaper and faster in games. Outside of gaming it may be harder to justify the 7900X to someone who already has a 6950X as the IPC improvement and clock increases may not make enough of a difference to justify the cost of it. This is especially true given that you have to replace your motherboard, although you might be able to reuse your memory modules. The motherboard platform offers little to nothing beyond DMI 3.0, which you won't notice outside of storage benchmarks.
As a gamer, I'm considering the 7900X because it offers a slight IPC advantage and the potential for a clock speed increase over my 4.5GHz Core i7 6950X along with two additional CPU cores. I can leverage the X299 platform for faster storage as well. Again, not a value proposition by any means, but something I'm considering. The 6950X was a non-starter for me because, athough it was a drop in upgrade, the stupid thing clocked worse and offered next to no IPC improvement. It didn't make sense since games couldn't leverage the additional cores. At $1,699, it was a pointless expense. The Core i9 7900X is $1,000 or around there at Microcenter so it's more attractive an upgrade path for me.