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

Sharing is caring - 10980xe Overclock

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

Brutal-Force

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
So, I recently picked up a 10980xe for $520 on Mercari. I can boot into 5.0Ghz, but I am stable at 4.7Ghz (on 4 cores) and 4.6Ghz on the rest @1.1445V with temps below 90C.

View attachment 213282

Sharing my Cinebench R20 Score. :)
 
OP
Brutal-Force

Brutal-Force

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
This is what I have so far. I use a Noctua NH-D15S. If I had water cooling I think it would do much better. I am confined to a HAF XB until I decide to upgrade my case. So its air cooling for me. :/
 
OP
Brutal-Force

Brutal-Force

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
I get mid-70s under normal stress (Prime Blend) and mid 90s for high AVX workloads.
 
OP
Brutal-Force

Brutal-Force

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
https://valid.x86.fr/4b382j

My final settings. Turns out, with my low voltage I was not stable. Ultimately for a stable 5.0 on two cores I needed 1.365V.

I really do not like AVX workloads, this thing gets 100 degrees, but otherwise I run about 74 degrees under normal load.

I can get a better score if I lower the voltage below 1.2V, but it really isn't stable. I also thermal throttle still when running high AVX loads, but I guess that is to be expected, I set a +3 offset, so that helps. I left OCCT to run for two hours and had highs of about 74-81 degrees across all 16 cores. I can live with that. This drops my Cinebench score by about 200 points.
 

MonsterMaxx

Registered
Joined
May 26, 2005
Location
Simpsonville, SC
100°C is too hot. Stabile & on the throttle shouldn't go above 85°C, 90°C at the very most.

Artificial AVX stress tests are just that, artificial. Get your real world app running and see how it does.
 

EarthDog

Gulper Nozzle Co-Owner
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Location
Buckeyes!
100C is the thermal throttling point, indeed. Running these CPUs at 90C (or really, anything below that 100C value) is fine according to Intel. Think about it. If damage could be done at 90C... or even 85C as you've alluded to, don't you think they would have protections at or before that point? Now, cooler is always better, we all certainly subscribe to that notion, but let's not put a glass ceiling on it either. :)
 
OP
Brutal-Force

Brutal-Force

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Exactly ED. I will never be running my CPU at 90c. I should have clarified, 100 degree spikes. It can only spike there while running high AVX workloads and only during P95 Small FFT. Even then, there is thermal throttling. I set up my CPU so that I no longer get thermal throttling and am able to run OCCT for 1 hour. During that run my temps hover at 74ish and highs of maybe 80-82 degrees. I have set AVX to +3 +3 to underclock when running.

It took a lot of tests to get to this point. My wife thinks I am crazy with my computer rebooting over and over. Making miniscule changes of .05v here and there.

ED, a question from your experience? With multicore settings, my highest core can reach x53 in bios setting, but watching it during benching, it never goes to 5300Mhz, the highest it goes is to 5000Mhz. Would you say leave it on x53, or just lower it to x50?
 

EarthDog

Gulper Nozzle Co-Owner
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Location
Buckeyes!
Odd it isn't hitting that. I've only pushed mine to 5 Ghz... never tried for more or to set a cascading overclock.
 
OP
Brutal-Force

Brutal-Force

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Well, I have tried to overclock both ways. Per core and Core ratio. If I clock all together, I get to about 1.25V and 4.6Ghz with minor throttling during benchmarks like Cinebench R20. If I clock individual cores, they vary from 4.3-5.3, but the voltage is a little higher and also with minor throttling.

My performance differences are like R20 - 10132 with per core overclocking with cores between 4.3 and 5.3, and R20 - 9447 with Core Ratio overclocking at 4.6Ghz on all cores. If I go up to 4.7Ghz, it throttles to the point that my scores drop down to the 7000-8000s, so performance is decreased.

This stays pretty consistent through all benchmarks I have used to test performance.

As for stability, 4.6Ghz Core Ratio overclock is stable at roughly the same temps as my Per Core overclocking. If I raise the Core ratio to 4.7, it will spit out Linpack errors, so I wouldn't call it either stable, or provide increased performance.

IMO, per core is stable enough for 24/7, temps are low enough and it has the most performance.

In the past only dealing with 4 cores, no AVX, no Per Core overclocking and a myriad of other settings, it was much easier to overclock. These days it takes sooo long to do it right. I can see why people want to use the Overclock Robot with EVGA. That's my 2 cents.
 

EarthDog

Gulper Nozzle Co-Owner
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Location
Buckeyes!
I think I have an above average overclocker. That plus the 3x120mm aio... I can run cinebench and my stress test (aida64, fpu/cpu/cache) without throttling luckily. :)

But yeah, I'm 4.7ghz straight... never tried for higher than 5 ghz.
 

Voodoo Rufus

Powder Junkie Moderator
Joined
Sep 20, 2001
Just for curiosity, and I think I know the answer to this.

X299X is pretty much a dead platform going forward. Are these chips worth a darn if you're not a creator or renderer?

I just ask because I've historically had a liking for Intel EE chips.
 
OP
Brutal-Force

Brutal-Force

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Just for curiosity, and I think I know the answer to this.

X299X is pretty much a dead platform going forward. Are these chips worth a darn if you're not a creator or renderer?

I just ask because I've historically had a liking for Intel EE chips.

VR, while it is a dead platform, I think you could say that about almost any intel platform. Sometimes its only one socket, in this case, its getting old.

That being said, It is a solid overclocker, but it gets hot. I only dabble in CAD which is about the hardest I push it other than benchmarking. I do a lot of excel spreadsheets and there is a big difference from my work computer to this one. It really is just a matter of the 132 background running processes and being able to watch videos while rendering things, or running antivirus software or downloading. For the average person 18 cores is overkill, but I think 8 is about average these days.

In the case of my processor, I was able to pick up a used one which is a decent overclocker for $500. I can't upgrade a socket and a CPU for that price. Plus, I didn't have to deal with new windows installs and such.

My next upgrade probably won't be for 5 or 6 more years, by then we will see a new era of processing. :)
 

Woomack

Benching Team Leader
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Buying a whole PC with an X299 mobo is right now a waste of money but upgrades are not a bad idea because these CPUs are really hard to sell and their prices are going down fast.
Everything for the X299 heats up a lot but it's still better to have hot 18 cores than almost as hot 8 cores from the new generation ;) Especially when you have a good motherboard and already signed licenses then it's better to keep it for some longer.
I still have 3x X299 mobos and 7800X+7900X CPUs (both delidded). One set is in a PC that I'm not using for longer and maybe I will try to sell one motherboard but it's weird to sell it cheap considering how well equipped it is. I will keep ASRock X299 ITX and I think I will build something based on that mobo soon, maybe with 7900X. I just hate to see it collecting dust for longer and I have a set of good 4x8GB SODIMM for this mobo.
 

Voodoo Rufus

Powder Junkie Moderator
Joined
Sep 20, 2001
$500 mainboard, $1k chip, another $400 or so for ram. Costs a chunk to set up into one. For 1440p or 4k gaming it's no better than my current 9900KS. With the demise of SLI there's less incentive to get more PCIE lanes, too.

That Asrock ITX X299 sure is a neat little board. Did you get the monoblock to keep the VRMs from going supernova?
 

EarthDog

Gulper Nozzle Co-Owner
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Location
Buckeyes!
I jumped a generation or two to the 10980XE (7900X to 7960x to this). Totally worth it. I won't have to touch this CPU for years. Hell, most of the time HT is disabled and I run the clocks higher than 4.6 GHz. I won't run short on cores/threads soon, that's for sure.

You can get a plenty capable X299 board for 200-300. The 10980XE new is $750, used for $500 or so. RAM may be $400 depending on the board.
 

EarthDog

Gulper Nozzle Co-Owner
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Location
Buckeyes!
Dave linked it last time, but I thought it was B&H? Not sure. But I paid $750 for this beast in October 2020.... it was used, I just saw.

EDIT: I don't see it anywhere for that. Ebay has some for 700-800... I'm considering selling mine and down grading, lol. I'll let you know if that happens. :thup:

EDIT2: YHPM....