I9-9900K - single/dual core overclocking

[clausm]

Hello

I have recently bought this CPU and honestly I use it primarily for games that do not leverage multiple cores. (BF-V and racing simulators).

 

Whenever I read about overclocking, it seems that the target is to overclock the overall frequency at which all cores are active.

 

Is there a way to overclock while maintaining the normal profile of frequency dropping as more cores are activated? I have more interest in e.g. 5,5 Ghz single or dual-core performance than anything beyond standard on more cores.

 

Thanks,

Claus

[ir_cow]

Your CPU already does that. I think the 9900K Turbos to 5ghz one 1 core. In some motherboards BIOS you can control each cores multiplier. Usually people just leave it at "All Cores" for overclocking. BTW its very unlikely you will get 5.5ghz without some serious voltage, 5ghz is kinda the soft limit, though you are only trying to do this on one core.

[SkyWarrior]

Good luck cooling that :C

[wevsspot]

Your CPU already does that. I think the 9900K Turbos to 5ghz one 1 core. In some motherboards BIOS you can control each cores multiplier. Usually people just leave it at "All Cores" for overclocking. BTW its very unlikely you will get 5.5ghz without some serious voltage, 5ghz is kinda the soft limit, though you are only trying to do this on one core.

 

Hey buddy, I'm diving into some 8th or possibly 9th generation Intel overclocking as well over the holiday break.  Couldn't the OP use some combination of uncore multiplier and AVX offset to achieve the desire results?  Depending on the motherboard of course.  I've been focusing on the Gigabte Z370/Z390 boards specifically, but after reading a lot (and I mean a ton) it appears that users shooting for high end overclocks are running their uncore at 42 - 45 and using an AVX offset of -2 or thereabouts.

[wevsspot]

Good luck cooling that :C

 

Yes, and good luck cooling that

 

8c / 12t at 5Ghz stock Turbo boost.................  That's got to get pretty toasty even with the new soldered heat sink design.

[ir_cow]

 

Your CPU already does that. I think the 9900K Turbos to 5ghz one 1 core. In some motherboards BIOS you can control each cores multiplier. Usually people just leave it at "All Cores" for overclocking. BTW its very unlikely you will get 5.5ghz without some serious voltage, 5ghz is kinda the soft limit, though you are only trying to do this on one core.

 

Hey buddy, I'm diving into some 8th or possibly 9th generation Intel overclocking as well over the holiday break.  Couldn't the OP use some combination of uncore multiplier and AVX offset to achieve the desire results?  Depending on the motherboard of course.  I've been focusing on the Gigabte Z370/Z390 boards specifically, but after reading a lot (and I mean a ton) it appears that users shooting for high end overclocks are running their uncore at 42 - 45 and using an AVX offset of -2 or thereabouts.

 

With any overclocking for Intel I think its good to keep the Uncore in mind. Most overclockers don't even know it exists and leaves it at stock. You can keep it asynchronous or Synchornous. Usually the Uncore (Ring Cache) tops out well before the CPU Ratio, but it cant be like 10x lower 5x lower or high, or it will just crash the computer. I sure some things have changed since the Haswell days when I did a OC guide on it. Like BLCK is not longer tied to the PCIe, so that is a option now for overclocking.

[wevsspot]

 

 

Your CPU already does that. I think the 9900K Turbos to 5ghz one 1 core. In some motherboards BIOS you can control each cores multiplier. Usually people just leave it at "All Cores" for overclocking. BTW its very unlikely you will get 5.5ghz without some serious voltage, 5ghz is kinda the soft limit, though you are only trying to do this on one core.

 

Hey buddy, I'm diving into some 8th or possibly 9th generation Intel overclocking as well over the holiday break.  Couldn't the OP use some combination of uncore multiplier and AVX offset to achieve the desire results?  Depending on the motherboard of course.  I've been focusing on the Gigabte Z370/Z390 boards specifically, but after reading a lot (and I mean a ton) it appears that users shooting for high end overclocks are running their uncore at 42 - 45 and using an AVX offset of -2 or thereabouts.

 

With any overclocking for Intel I think its good to keep the Uncore in mind. Most overclockers don't even know it exists and leaves it at stock. You can keep it asynchronous or Synchornous. Usually the Uncore (Ring Cache) tops out well before the CPU Ratio, but it cant be like 10x lower 5x lower or high, or it will just crash the computer. I sure some things have changed since the Haswell days when I did a OC guide on it. Like BLCK is not longer tied to the PCIe, so that is a option now for overclocking.

 

TY

 

[Boinker]

Hey Wev, hello IR_cow

 

We going all the way back to uncore? Shoot That's like 1366 Bloomfield stuff there. Run it as high as possible for best results unti unstable. ;-) 

 

And with that I am done derailing this topic. 

 

But as for the OP: What cooling solution do you intend to use for this venture? 

[Braegnok]

My i7-9700K will do 5.1 GHz stable across all cores @ 1.345V with H115i cooler,.. passing Prime95, Realbench under 90c,.. OP ain't gonna get 5.5 GHz with an AIO cooler running the i9-9900K.  

 

He might have a shot delidding/liquid metal and running a custom loop or chiller for 5.5 GHz stable, I'm guessing the 9900K would need more than 1.5V,.. and to be honest, that is a bit much for the chip.

 

For gaming 5.0 to 5.1 GHz is more than enough horsepower to run any modern game today with Coffee Lake.

Edited December 20, 2018 by Braegnok

[ir_cow]

Uncore is ReaL!!!

 

I guess its not as bad anymore eh?

[Braegnok]

Uncore is ReaL!!!

 

I guess its not as bad anymore eh?

 

With Coffee Lake, the CPU cache, ring, and uncore all change the same setting in the CPU. The ratio mainly changes the cache speed, and some vendors have this turned up to 4.4GHz by default. While you won't be able to match the CPU core multiplier most of the time, you should be able to stay 4-6 multipliers below the CPU core multiplier without requiring too much extra voltage. I always overclock the CPU up to it's maximum and then go back and find a cache multiplier that doesn't require more VCore to stay stable. And with Coffee Lake the VCore also provides power to the cache region and isn't a separate voltage rail like it was in the past.

 

As for OP's question,.. depends on your cooling solution, motherboard vendor. Some vendors allow you to choose the core setting mode, such as the ability to sync all cores or set the cores individually,.. I prefer using the sync all cores setting,.. on Asus, the board will auto-change to sync all cores if you set XMP to enable as it's enabling multi-core enhancement all the way. 

Edited December 20, 2018 by Braegnok

[ccokeman]

The problem with high core clock speeds is heat when you start pushing 8c 16t. You can find the best core and push the limits with by core overclocking but 5.5Ghz is most likely not going to happen unless you are planning sub zero cooling. You are running 8 cores in a package that originally was running 4 and trying to push that thermal load through the same surface area. You just cannot dump enough of the thermals through the IHS and into a cooling solution fast enough to stay out of trouble. 

 

Running AVX offsets are great but the end result is that core clock speed drops putting you in the same performance boat you started with. If anything push for 5.2Ghz on the best core and run the other cores at a lower multiplier.