• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

[OC Beginner] 10850k + Msi z490 Unify

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

shiftyfx

New Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2020
Build:
i9-10850k
EK-AIO 360 Elite Rgb (the brand new one that uses a push-pull config on a 360 rad - i believe its aluminum, 30mm thick, with 18fpi)
- set up as intake
MSI MEG z490 Unify
- 16+1 power stages (90A rating)
G Skill Trident Z Neo - 64gb, 3600mhz, CL16 (pretty sure it's b-dye)
- (XMP is enabled on all tests, plan to OC later once I get the cpu to where i want it)
2tb Samsung 970 evo plus
1000W EVGA Supernova
GeForce gtx 1080 ti (yeah I know it doesn't quite fit in with the rest of the build lol, its a relic from the previous one, planning to replace this in the spring time with a 3080/3090)

Built this computer a couple of weeks ago and finally got the AIO in the mail yesterday; put it together last night and was finally ready to start overclocking it. Not knowing a whole lot about what I was doing, I decided to give Intel Extreme Tuning Utility a try with some numbers that I knew worked in a youtube video I saw with identical everything, except with a 10900k .
[test#1] 5.1ghz on all cores, 4.7ghz cache, with 1.4v vcore with Intel Extreme Tuning Utility.
- LinpackExtreme - 10gb. Ran it 15 times and it was stable. It was running hot, as expected, but it was stable. 95c max with each taking about 62 seconds to complete.
- Prime95 with 32K FFT's (what I'd seen buildzoid run alot of tests on) - Ran this for 20 mins and I got the same results as Linpack. About 95c max.
- Monitored it with cpu-z and hwinfo. What was alarming to me about using Intel extreme tuning was that that it was letting the vcore go well above 1.4v, sometimes over 1.5v
- I ran cyberpunk for 2 hours and it was sitting around 70c, hitting a peak of 85c.

I was quite pleased with the results but I didn't like how high the vcore was going and I wanted to push it further. Given the results that I'd gotten, I came up with my goal for this overclocking venture:
1) Figure out how to do it all manually through the bios and figure out the voltage issue
2) Hopefully try to push the cpu to 5.2 ghz. I want to get it as close to a 10900k as I can in terms of performance.
3) Once I figure out what the limit of this bin is, drop it down to a solid 4.9/5.0ghz, figure out how to undervolt it as much as possible and hope that would be enough to get the thermals below 90c on stress tests for daily usage.

So, I set out and watched a bunch of videos online and tried some settings in the bios.
[test#2] 5.1ghz on all cores, 4.7ghz cache, 1.4vcore, mode 4 llc (first one i've tried, before this, when I was using extreme tuning, this was set to whatever it as at default - auto, i think), left the rest of the voltage settings on auto, foolishly set avx offset to 0. This test failed. CPU temps spiked to 100c and the system crashed :( . I figured it was because I changed the avx from auto to 0 but I was wrong about that.
[test#3] Changed avx offset from 0 to -3, temps spiked to 100c, it didn't crash immediately but I didn't want to wait to find out if it would, and i ended the stress test and reset.
[test#4] Set avx offset from -3 back to auto, lowered vcore to 1.37, lowered the frequency to 5.0ghz on all cores, 4.6ghz on cache and and tried again. I can get Linpack to pass but barely, it will still hit 100c on 2 of the cores and that's just not gonna be stable.

Andd that's as far as I've gotten. It's idling around 33c with these settings. I can't figure out what the difference is between what Intel's extreme tuning utility was doing for me and what I did. And that's the main reason I came here. Why can I get 5.1ghz to work on extreme tuning utility and can't even get a stable 5.0ghz stable manually in bios?? The biggest difference I can notice is that the voltage isn't spiking high like it was before but that wouldn't make sense to me; less voltage should equate to less wattage and lower thermals, right? The only other difference I can spot is that Linpack did complete significantly faster in test#4 than in #1 - it took 54 seconds to complete as opposed to 62 seconds in test#1 - so, I'm clearly getting more performance for the increased thermals but I have no clue why the lower clock speed in bios is performing better and creating so much heat.

tl;dr, to summarize what I'm asking:
I'm hoping you guys can help shed some light on the differences between extreme tuning utility's settings and setting them manually, why I can get a stable overclock with 1 and not the other. Or rather, what did I do wrong? As well as maybe some help in achieving the 3 goals listed in the 3rd paragraph. Thank you all for your time and sorry this thing turned out so long, I just like to try to be thorough.
 
Last edited:

Johan45

Benching Team Leader Super Moderator
Joined
Dec 19, 2012
Your best bet is to start at a lower speed and leave the cache on auto. It can help a bit but core speed offers more performance than cache speed.
Watch the CPU voltage and speed under load at stock and start there. Then gradually increase speed and voltage to compensate for stability.
If you're mostly gaming taking advantage of the single-core boost is likely going to perform better than setting an all-core overclock. These high core count CPUs get quite hot and power-hungry when overclocking but I did put together a guide here
https://www.overclockers.com/how-to-overclock-the-i9-10900k-a-guide-for-taming-the-beast/
 

baris_

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2010
If you're mostly gaming taking advantage of the single-core boost is likely going to perform better than setting an all-core overclock. These high core count CPUs get quite hot and power-hungry when overclocking but I did put together a guide here
https://www.overclockers.com/how-to-overclock-the-i9-10900k-a-guide-for-taming-the-beast/

If I understand you correctly, if one could achieve an all-core overclock that is equal to or higher than the highest turbo boost on a single core then that would be better right? But if you're not able to achieve that then leaving everything on stock is fine?