Previous thread for reference:

https://www.reddit.com/r/overclocking/comments/1ot2y6k/9800x3d_vs_14900ks_benchmarks_in_high_cpuusage/

All RT/PT settings were enabled at 4k w/ DLSS Ultra Performance on a 5090.

Results : Similar to previous, 14900KS being faster overall, with better 1% lows even if the averages matched. Only Outer Worlds 2 that started this, was better on 9800X3D.

Oblivion and Stalker2 were quite better on intel. Cyberpunk is close despite the 9800X3D winning the benchmark by a big margin and the 1% is again better on KS.

Details :

9800X3D w/ 6000C28-36-36-64 2x32GB on Aorus X870E Pro

By default SMT is enabled

PBO set to auto

14900KS w/ 8400MT/s C38-49-49-69 2x24GB on Asrock Z790I Lightning

HT off, only 8E cores enabled

59/42/50 for P-cores, E-cores and Ring respectively

AC/DC loadlines set to 0.40/0.74

Disabled overlays, power monitoring, HwInfo64 for these tests. I have included the 0.1%tile FPS this time, but it is not as reliable as the avg. and 1%tile scores.

Of all the posts I've made on here, 98% of the people commenting on my threads down vote my topics because they get butt-hurt when I explain they are wrong. Most of you are nothing but a bunch of smooth-brained cucks that get your "overclocking" info from Linus Tech Tips, or Hardware Unboxed. This is supposed to be a community that brings us all together, not some elitist, cult. FOR further reference, when someone proves your wrong dont put your feelings into the situation.. Step back and learn something to help further the community into a better place. I know this will be down-voted and fall on deaf ears but this place used to be halfway usable for information and knowledge.. Now its just a cock-fighting ring of who has the faster system, and who can run their mouths the most. Fuck this.

I posted yesterday about my 9800X3D and why I don’t see the point of PBO.
At 5.5GHz all core, 1.23v fixed, my 1% lows went up by about +50 FPS compared to PBO. Temps sit in the 50s to 60s, package power tops out around 65w, and I’ve been running this for weeks without a single crash. Two BIOS settings, ratio + fixed vcore. That’s it.

The post blew up and the comments basically split into two groups:

1. People saying it’s not stable unless it passes Prime95, y-cruncher, OCCT etc

2. People saying if it runs my workloads without issue then it’s stable

Some of the replies got pretty wild. I’ve had people tell me I’m corrupting my OS, ask for “OCCT certificates,” or insist I’m just reporting idle voltage. All because I don’t define stable the same way they do.

Here’s what I see happening:

• Benchmark guys think stable = surviving torture tests with AVX for hours on end

• Practical guys think stable = runs your actual workloads for weeks without crashing

Both definitions can make sense depending on what you’re doing. But a lot of people here act like if you’re not running small FFTs until your CPU cries, then your system is basically a time bomb.

Why the freakout?

• Some people delid, run direct die, custom loops, and still can’t hit 5.5. So when someone else does it with just ratio and volts, the easy answer is “you’re wrong”

• There’s a gatekeeping culture in overclocking where “real stability” means hours of synthetic loads nobody actually uses

• Different goals. I built this machine for gaming. I don’t care if it passes 24 hours of AVX2. I care if it never crashes in games, and it doesn’t

I also don’t buy the “you’re silently corrupting files” argument. If my CPU was unstable enough to be flipping bits during writes, I’d be seeing BSODs, freezes, crashes, graphical glitches. That stuff shows up long before the OS somehow gets corrupted in the background.

So here’s my question for the sub:
Why does stable have to be one size fits all? Why can’t we admit it means different things depending on the workload?

image is from ASUS ROG Crosshair X870E Extreme review

you either agree that overclocking can void warranty or can't use it, and this on >1,000$ motherboard retail price, an motherboard "x" and "e" and "extreme" in name.

you pay top dollar for an overclocking product and marketing, and you are getting instead a warring and and agreement that overclocking can void warranty, even on AI designed by themselves, leading imho, to a terrible value for money.

and this for a company spending gazillion dollar$ to promote overclocking and Ai since socket 939

r/FuckASUS wants to know your location /s

Snagged a 5090 gamerock by Palit but damn it's ugly, apparently thermals aren't the best and İm contemplating installing a Kryonaut Phasesheet PTM and thermal putty to make it run cooler perhaps without worrying about pump out , also have an mx6 and kryonaut extreme i can use either one as well if i fuck it up, But tricky part is avoiding the warranty sticker

Image 1: "theswiftfox" took MY #1 place on Port Royal benchmark for Intel Core Ultra 265K and Intel ARC B580. I want it back, I was so proud of being #1 and I will do anything to take back my place.

Image 2: My OC settings which took HOURS to tweak, turning up the voltage or frequency by a couple digits makes the system unstable. I found an equilibrium between voltage/frequency that gave the GPU the most performance. 20Gbps memory speed as well with aggressive fan curve (max Temps 68c)

Image 3: MY attempt at cooling the GPU for more performance. BUT IT ONLY WENT DOWN BY 1 DEGREE (image 4). I had to ask my mom if I could use her peas from the freezer just for 1 degree difference and theswiftfox still having #1 place. When I was putting peas and meat in my computer I thought I had THE eureka moment that will embarrass theswiftfox forever and make him know his place!!!

Image 5: New Intel drivers made my score go down. Still if it was as up as it was before it would of not have helped.

Guys do you know how I can beat theswiftfox? Any ideas? Any settings I should change? Any help is appreciated!!!

Each CCD sharesone voltage rail for all the cores within that ccd. Most people assume that since curve optimizer allows per core offsets then each core has its own dedicated voltage rail for each specific core however this is NOT the case. If 1 or more cores are active (not parked) and they have a different offsets then the SMU will pick the lowest offset of the group and that’s what you will run at. It doesn’t care that every other core is at -60, if you have one core at -5 and all cores are active then the cpu will effectively run as a -5 offset cpu.

Per-core CO helps single/light-thread boost. (Think single core benchmarks, marketing) no modern AAA game runs on 1 or 2 cores, the year is not 1999)

TL/DR: Worst core dominates anything beyond ideal single threaded conditions.

A short case study on a laptop GPU that looked “power-limited” beyond what core temperature alone suggested.

System: HP Victus 16 (Ryzen 7 7840HS / RTX 4060 Laptop GPU 8GB, AD107M). Test: Unigine Superposition 1.1, 1080p Extreme (same preset each run).

Baseline: score 5346, FPS min/avg/max 30.10 / 39.99 / 50.32, max GPU temp 89°C, VRAM memory junction 87°C max, GPU power 73.3W max.

Two-stage TIM approach to separate “fresh material” from “coverage/contact”:
Stage 1 intentionally used a center “pea” deposit for the putty (a method that is common for die paste, but not reliable for putty coverage). Result: score 5711, FPS 33.32 / 42.72 / 54.53, max GPU temp 74°C, VRAM junction 82°C max, GPU power 89.7W max.
Stage 2 used UV-assisted coverage mapping plus targeted top-up until contact/coverage was continuous. Final: score 6176 (+15.5%), FPS 36.21 / 46.20 / 58.51, max GPU temp 73°C, VRAM junction 78°C, GPU power 90.8W.

Why this matters (and why “poor contact vs full coverage” changes temps): heat is conducted through real contact. Thermal paste/putty is a gap-filler that displaces air. Any unfilled spot behaves like a trapped air pocket (high thermal resistance), creating local hotspots that can clamp sustained power even when average core temps look acceptable.

On gaming laptops, pads are often a poor substitute for OEM putty/gel because the heatsink has multiple interfaces with different Z-heights (GPU die vs GDDR6 VRAM vs VRM). Fixed-thickness pads can leave voids or lift the coldplate and reduce die pressure.

Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAPGy63kgmE

So i finally upgraded from my old Ryzen 5 3600 to an way better Ryzen 9 5900X, so i am using an CoolerMaster MasterLiquid ML240 Illusion AIO, my CPU is drawing 130W in Games with 20-30% Utilization, Temps are at 78 Degrees, in Idle its between 50-70 Degrees which is WAY too much, PBO is active, i cant really figure out how to DRASTICALLY reduce these temperatures, i don't really want to play with voltages or offset stuff unless i get a good "How To" for Dummies, cause i don't wanna fck up my CPU and i don't wanna turn PBO off to loose performance. My full Specs are:

MSI MPG B550 Gaming Plus
MSI GeForce RTX 3080 Suprim X
Kingston Fury Beast DDR4 3200MT/s 64GB
and my AIO which i mentioned above.

What in gods sake can i do to reduce these temps? My AIO is crying like crazy and my whole PC is insanely loud, also my 3080 suffers from INSANE LOUD Coil Whining.

UPDATE: After playing around with Voltages and Settings in BIOS my Temps are good now and the PC is extremely quite in Idle and Gaming, thanks to everyone who really helped me.

I wanted to OC my RAM on 200S for slightly better gaming performance (5%-10%) while also looking more cool for having faster RAM. I was tweaking so hard at pressing the 7200MT/s button. I clicked save and was like "yep I fucked something up" but the pc turned back on fine. Phew. OC'ing RAM was the easiest thing in my life, just 1 button click.

edit: thanks yall for the comments, just was excited to see 7200MT/s in the task manager. Ill run some stability tests and also check if I can run it higher. Learnt some new stuff.

Is it possible to have consistently full cpu speed only while you game.

And then low speed while you browsing, watching movie etc.??

A lot of users including myself undervolted the 3070 ti making it from 330 watt (gamerock oc) to 220 watt without any performance decrease is that a joke? Why nvidia didn't undervolted it in the first place? Dumb decision or something else?

Edit : It was working well now its unstable

Hi. Im new. And my graphicscard is second Hand. I just wanna know everything is okay. Thanks in advanced.

I downloaded msi afterburner and I mistakenly overclocked my gpu 0 - 600ish and it didnt kill my pc but I feel it saturated my screen a bit and even after I deleted the software, I’m still overclocking like crazy and my pc sounds like a hurricane. Help, is my gpu damaged forever? Idk shit about oc either.

I posted here a while back when I was about to buy a 14900k but decided to wait until the Arrow Lake 285 released, hoping it'd be better and without the risk of degradation/oxidization.

However after seeing the poor 285k benchmarks/performance I've decided to reconsider the 14900k as they have now dropped in price due to the 285k release.

My question is whether a 14900k throttled using "Intel Defaults" and other tweaks/limits to keep it from killing itself would just become equivalent performance-wise to a stock 285k which doesn't have those issues?

I saw some videos where applying the "Intel Defaults" dropped 5000-6000pts in Cinebench.

The 14900k generally tops the 285k in all the benchmarks/reviews I've seen, but I've seen a lot of advice to undervolt and use "Intel Defaults" to reduce power/performance and then it basically becomes a 285k for less money but more worry, so I guess the premium on price would be for the peace of mind of the 285k not being at risk of degrading and the advantages of the z890 chipset?

The 14900k is the last chip for LGA1700 (maybe Bartlett after?) and the LGA1851 is rumoured to possibly be a 1 chip generation/socket, so there doesn't seem to be much difference in risk there either.

I know the new Ryzen chips release Nov 7th, but with the low memory speed (5600?) and historically lower productivity benchmarks compared to Intel I don't think it's for me, though I'm no expert and haven't had an AMD system since a K6-2-500 back in the day - been Intel ever since - so am happy to hear suggestions for AMD with regards to it's performance for what I'll be using it for compared to Intel.

The system would be used primarily for Unreal Engine 5 development and gaming.

What would you do?

Advice appreciated, thanks in advance!

After spending some time going over Y-Cruncher VT3 test results, 2 days ago after speaking to a few people over on OCN about test sizes, i began using different size tests to see how it effects VT3 result.

and iv'e cracked it after spending 12 hours straight then left PC on overnight downloading a game i'd not installed yet, then yesterday morning 8 am began testing different sizes again.

if you look at each test size then check HWInfo Virtual Memory usage as well as page file it increases when i increase the test size, also if you notice as the test size goes up the score drastically reduces, and its nothing to do with not being stable or clock speed, L3 Cache speed. test size must be kept below that WALL or you'll get 1.05-08 every time and you cant measure that. its not an official reading.

its simply VT3 running out of ram (Headroom) and dives into page filing, when it does this your score will be 1.05-1.08 maybe 1.1, this is just how fast information moves from your hard drive, as it the slowest speed, that's what you're seeing. Background tasks, open apps, windows itself, if test size is say 20gb or you use AUTO and get 1.05 you seeing that WALL, reduce test size

Every system will have a WALL if it hits that wall its using PAGE FILE, rinse and repeat until your score goes up, iv'e found on my system 16-18.5gb test size gives best results before diminishing returns and page file dips in. these are all shown in screenshots

On top of that i'd got a message from a dear redditor just after i'd done 22+ hours of Y-Cruncher over 48 hours on the same boot, saying this 8500 profile WOULD NOT PASS P95 LARGE for longer than 20 mins, unfortunately i had already closed HWInfo down but believe me this is still on the same boot

1st pics 6600-2200 CL26 1.225Vsoc stress tests

2nd pics 8500-2200 CL32 1.15Vsoc stress tests

3rd lot all Y-cruncher tests 10 hours straight

4th lot pics 8600 trial 2 hours TM5 Anta EXTREME !!

Last pic, 7 hours P95 LARGE FFT's just for good measure, after 22+ hours Y-cruncher testing and to the person that messaged, you know, you now.

MAYBE FOR SALE !!!!!