Intel Core i9-9900KS Review
| Category | Desktop | ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
|---|---|---|
| Target | enthusiast | ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
| Socket Compatibility | LGA1151 | ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
| Integrated Graphics | Intel UHD Graphics 630 | ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
| Cooler Included | No | ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
| Overclock Potential | 0 % | ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
| Year | 2019 Model | ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ |
| Price | 1499 USD | ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
| Number of Cores | 8 Cores | ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ |
| Number of Threads | 16 Threads | ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ |
| Core Frequency | 4 GHz | ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ |
| Boost Frequency | 5 GHz | ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ |
| Max Stable Overclock | 5 GHz | ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ |
| Power Consumption | 127 W | ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
| Manufacturing Process | 14 nm | ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ |
| L3 Cache | 16 MB | ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ |
| Maximum Supported Memory | 128 GB | ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ |
| Price-Value Score | 55 % | ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
| Speed Score | 77 % | ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ |
| Productivity Score | 54 % | ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ |
| Gaming Score | 94 % | ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ |
| Max 1080p Bottleneck | 8.9 % | ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ |
| Max 1440p Bottleneck | 4.4 % | ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ |
| Max 4K Bottleneck | 2.2 % | ★ ★ ★ ★ ☆ |
| Overall Score | 53/100 | ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆ |
The Core i9-9900KS is one of Intel's enthusiast Desktop processors. It was released in 2019 with 8 cores and 16 threads. With base clock at 4GHz, max speed at 5GHz, and a 127W power rating. The Core i9-9900KS is based on the Coffee Lake Refresh 14nm family and is part of the Core i9 series.
Core i9-9900KS is also the successor of Intel's last gen Core i9-9800X processor that was based on the Skylake and 14nm process and was released in 2018.
The Intel Core i9-9900KS is an absolute behemoth of a processor, as it absolutely should be with its 8 cores, 16 threads and high price tag. If you’re looking for the absolute best processor money can buy on a mainstream processor, then look no further. Whether you’re playing PC games or even doing hardcore video and 3D work, the Intel Core i9-9900KS can handle them with ease.
What this all means is that the Intel Core i9-9900KS is an absolute beast when it comes to multi-threaded workloads, especially at this price point. If you're counting on doing some video editing or compiling one hell of an Excel spreadsheet, you're going to see firsthand a performance boost with the Core i9-9900KS.
Bear in mind, however, that if you already have something like the Core i9-9800X, this generation doesn't offer the biggest boost in performance. You might want to wait another year or so before dropping a few hundred bucks, or even opt to splurge on a higher-end but pricier chip.
When it comes to gaming it’s fair to say there’s no wrong option here and the Ryzen 9 3950X and Core i9-9900KS are evenly matched. The Core i9-9900KS is at times faster thanks to better game support and lower latencies, but the Ryzen 9 3950X is often able to ensure smoother frame rates thanks to its support for twice as many threads.
For general computing the Ryzen 9 3950X can take advantage of multi-threading capabilities and will be considerably faster than the Core i9-9900KS on heavy application workloads. Remember the Core i9-9900KS is only marginally faster than the Core i9-9800X, so you can safely use the older model as a measuring stick. For rendering and encoding workloads the Ryzen 9 3950X can up to 77% faster.
If you're mostly playing games on your PC, you will be happy buying either processor. Both proved to be solid options and are evenly matched with a slight advantage to the AMD chip if you don't tune up the Ryzen 9 processor. The base performance we showed for the Core i9-9900KS can be achieved with $90 memory, while the Ryzen 9 3950X will require $110 - $120 memory in order to enable the frame rates shown here. It’s not a big cost difference and right now with anything less than an RTX 2070 or Vega 64 you’ll more than likely become GPU limited.
Moving beyond games, it’s an easy win for the Ryzen 9 3950X. The Ryzen 9 upgrade path on A320, B350, B450, X370, X470, X570 motherboards, all support upcoming Zen 2 processors. So if you buy a nice A320, B350, B450, X370, X470, X570 board now with the Ryzen 9 3950X, you’ll be able to slap a Coffee Lake Refresh processor on there later in the year, or whenever you deem it necessary.
Now the biggest question is can Intel’s Core i9 processor play games? The answer is simply yes as it got a respectable gaming score of 94% in our benchmarks.
Regardless of those external factors, the Core i9-9900KS proves it has the chops to be your main gaming system and a just as effective media creation platform – two things that are becoming intrinsically connected in this age of live-streaming, eSports and uploading gameplay videos.
That said, to squeeze out all the potential of this surprisingly potent enthusiast chip, you’ll want (and need) to splurge on an enthusiast-grade Z270, Z370, Z390 motherboard.
Fresh from a successful roll-out of mainstream Core i9 CPUs, Intel's attack on AMD now extends down into the enthusiast with its Core i9-9900KS processors, which the company is making available as of Oct 2019.
Which GPU to Pick for Intel Core i9-9900KS
Below is a comparison of all graphics cards average FPS performance (using an average of 80+ games at ultra quality settings), combined with the Intel Core i9-9900KS.
| Graphics Card | Price | Cost Per Frame | Avg 1080p | Avg 1440p | Avg 4K |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 24GB | $ 1,599 | $ 4.4 | 360.5 FPS
|
289.5 FPS
|
187.7 FPS
|
| NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Ti 20GB | $ 799 | $ 2.4 | 336.4 FPS
|
270.1 FPS
|
175.2 FPS
|
| AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX 24GB | $ 999 | $ 3.1 | 325.3 FPS
|
256.4 FPS
|
151.4 FPS
|
| NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 16GB | $ 1,199 | $ 3.8 | 312.4 FPS
|
250.7 FPS
|
162.6 FPS
|
| NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti 12GB | $ 799 | $ 2.7 | 300.1 FPS
|
240.8 FPS
|
156 FPS
|
| AMD Radeon RX 7900 XT 20GB | $ 899 | $ 3 | 295.8 FPS
|
233.2 FPS
|
137.5 FPS
|
| NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 24GB | $ 1,499 | $ 5.3 | 280.8 FPS
|
217.4 FPS
|
132.7 FPS
|
| AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT 16GB | $ 1,099 | $ 4.1 | 268.7 FPS
|
211.9 FPS
|
125 FPS
|
| NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti 24GB | $ 1,999 | $ 7.6 | 264.3 FPS
|
212.1 FPS
|
137.6 FPS
|
| AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT 16GB | $ 999 | $ 3.8 | 263.2 FPS
|
205 FPS
|
123 FPS
|
| AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT 16GB | $ 649 | $ 2.6 | 247.8 FPS
|
193 FPS
|
115.8 FPS
|
| NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti 20GB | $ 799 | $ 3.3 | 244.8 FPS
|
193.3 FPS
|
122.4 FPS
|
| NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 10GB | $ 699 | $ 2.9 | 244.7 FPS
|
189.5 FPS
|
115.6 FPS
|
| NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 12GB | $ 599 | $ 2.5 | 236.3 FPS
|
184.9 FPS
|
118.4 FPS
|
| NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti 10GB | $ 599 | $ 2.9 | 209.9 FPS
|
163.9 FPS
|
101.8 FPS
|
| AMD Radeon RX 6800 16GB | $ 579 | $ 2.9 | 196.3 FPS
|
152.9 FPS
|
91.7 FPS
|
| NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 8GB | $ 499 | $ 2.7 | 187.2 FPS
|
145 FPS
|
88.5 FPS
|
| NVIDIA TITAN RTX 24GB | $ 2,499 | $ 14.5 | 171.9 FPS
|
137.5 FPS
|
84.4 FPS
|
| NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti 11GB | $ 1,299 | $ 7.8 | 167.3 FPS
|
133.8 FPS
|
82.2 FPS
|
| AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT 12GB | $ 479 | $ 2.9 | 165.2 FPS
|
129.6 FPS
|
76.7 FPS
|
| NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB 8GB | $ 399 | $ 2.5 | 162.5 FPS
|
128.8 FPS
|
81.1 FPS
|
| NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti 8GB | $ 399 | $ 2.6 | 153.4 FPS
|
121.9 FPS
|
75.8 FPS
|
| NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER 8GB | $ 699 | $ 4.6 | 151.8 FPS
|
120.2 FPS
|
73.5 FPS
|
| AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT 8GB | $ 399 | $ 2.7 | 146.5 FPS
|
115.5 FPS
|
69.7 FPS
|
| NVIDIA TITAN V 12GB | $ 2,999 | $ 20.6 | 145.6 FPS
|
116.4 FPS
|
72.9 FPS
|
| NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 8GB | $ 299 | $ 2.1 | 145.5 FPS
|
116 FPS
|
72.9 FPS
|
| AMD Radeon RX 7600 8GB | $ 269 | $ 1.9 | 145.4 FPS
|
114.7 FPS
|
69 FPS
|
| NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 8GB | $ 699 | $ 4.9 | 143.5 FPS
|
112.5 FPS
|
68.1 FPS
|
| AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT 8GB | $ 379 | $ 2.8 | 137.5 FPS
|
107.8 FPS
|
64.7 FPS
|
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti 11GB | $ 759 | $ 5.6 | 134.5 FPS
|
107.3 FPS
|
65.5 FPS
|
| NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER 8GB | $ 499 | $ 3.7 | 133.7 FPS
|
103.6 FPS
|
63.1 FPS
|
| NVIDIA TITAN Xp 12GB | $ 1,199 | $ 9.1 | 131.9 FPS
|
103.6 FPS
|
64.7 FPS
|
| AMD Radeon VII 16GB | $ 699 | $ 5.3 | 131.9 FPS
|
102.8 FPS
|
61.7 FPS
|
| AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 8GB | $ 399 | $ 3.1 | 128.5 FPS
|
100.1 FPS
|
60 FPS
|
| NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 8GB | $ 499 | $ 3.9 | 126.7 FPS
|
96.8 FPS
|
59.8 FPS
|
| NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4050 8GB | $ 200 | $ 1.6 | 126.7 FPS
|
100.1 FPS
|
62.9 FPS
|
| NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 12GB | $ 329 | $ 2.6 | 125.8 FPS
|
97.7 FPS
|
60.2 FPS
|
| NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER 8GB | $ 400 | $ 3.3 | 119.9 FPS
|
90.1 FPS
|
54.7 FPS
|
| AMD Radeon RX 5700 8GB | $ 349 | $ 3 | 117.7 FPS
|
91.8 FPS
|
55 FPS
|
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 8GB | $ 499 | $ 4.4 | 114.3 FPS
|
87.7 FPS
|
52.7 FPS
|
| NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 6GB | $ 350 | $ 3.1 | 112.9 FPS
|
82.9 FPS
|
49.3 FPS
|
| AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT 6GB | $ 279 | $ 2.5 | 111 FPS
|
85.8 FPS
|
51.3 FPS
|
| AMD Radeon R9 295X2 4GB | $ 1,499 | $ 14 | 107.1 FPS
|
81 FPS
|
51.8 FPS
|
| AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 8GB | $ 499 | $ 4.7 | 106.8 FPS
|
83.3 FPS
|
49.8 FPS
|
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti 8GB | $ 409 | $ 3.9 | 105.9 FPS
|
81.3 FPS
|
48.7 FPS
|
| NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Ti 6GB | $ 249 | $ 2.4 | 103.6 FPS
|
78.9 FPS
|
48.1 FPS
|
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X 12GB | $ 999 | $ 9.7 | 102.9 FPS
|
78.1 FPS
|
46.8 FPS
|
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti 6GB | $ 279 | $ 2.8 | 100.7 FPS
|
77.3 FPS
|
46.3 FPS
|
| AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 8GB | $ 399 | $ 4 | 100.1 FPS
|
77.9 FPS
|
46.6 FPS
|
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 8GB | $ 399 | $ 4.1 | 97.5 FPS
|
74.1 FPS
|
44.1 FPS
|
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 SUPER 6GB | $ 229 | $ 2.4 | 94.9 FPS
|
73 FPS
|
43.8 FPS
|
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti 6GB | $ 649 | $ 7.2 | 89.6 FPS
|
68.4 FPS
|
41 FPS
|
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 6GB | $ 220 | $ 2.5 | 89.4 FPS
|
68.6 FPS
|
41.1 FPS
|
| AMD Radeon RX 590 8GB | $ 279 | $ 3.3 | 84.8 FPS
|
63.2 FPS
|
37.1 FPS
|
| AMD Radeon R9 FURY X 4GB | $ 649 | $ 8 | 81.4 FPS
|
65 FPS
|
40 FPS
|
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER 4GB | $ 160 | $ 2.1 | 77.8 FPS
|
59.6 FPS
|
35.6 FPS
|
| AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT 8GB 8GB | $ 199 | $ 2.6 | 77.1 FPS
|
57.5 FPS
|
33.6 FPS
|
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 4GB | $ 549 | $ 7.1 | 76.8 FPS
|
58 FPS
|
35 FPS
|
| AMD Radeon RX 580 8GB | $ 229 | $ 3 | 75.2 FPS
|
56 FPS
|
32.6 FPS
|
| AMD Radeon R9 Nano 4GB | $ 649 | $ 8.8 | 74 FPS
|
58.1 FPS
|
35.5 FPS
|
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK 6GB | $ 999 | $ 13.9 | 71.8 FPS
|
53.7 FPS
|
33.8 FPS
|
| AMD Radeon R9 FURY 4GB | $ 549 | $ 7.9 | 69.9 FPS
|
54.7 FPS
|
33 FPS
|
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6GB 6GB | $ 254 | $ 3.6 | 69.7 FPS
|
52.4 FPS
|
31.4 FPS
|
| AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT 4GB 4GB | $ 169 | $ 2.4 | 69.1 FPS
|
51.6 FPS
|
30.1 FPS
|
| AMD Radeon R9 390X 8GB | $ 429 | $ 6.4 | 67.3 FPS
|
52.5 FPS
|
31.8 FPS
|
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 3GB 3GB | $ 170 | $ 2.6 | 66.2 FPS
|
49.8 FPS
|
29.9 FPS
|
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 4GB | $ 329 | $ 5.1 | 65.1 FPS
|
48.4 FPS
|
30.2 FPS
|
| AMD Radeon RX 480 8GB | $ 400 | $ 6.3 | 63.3 FPS
|
48.9 FPS
|
30 FPS
|
| AMD Radeon R9 390 8GB | $ 329 | $ 5.2 | 62.9 FPS
|
47.9 FPS
|
27.4 FPS
|
| AMD Radeon RX 570 4GB | $ 169 | $ 2.7 | 62 FPS
|
47.3 FPS
|
27.7 FPS
|
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 4GB | $ 149 | $ 2.5 | 59.3 FPS
|
45.1 FPS
|
26.9 FPS
|
| AMD Radeon RX 470 4GB | $ 179 | $ 3.2 | 55.4 FPS
|
42.4 FPS
|
25.3 FPS
|
| AMD Radeon R9 380X 4GB | $ 229 | $ 4.9 | 46.6 FPS
|
35.3 FPS
|
21.5 FPS
|
| AMD Radeon R9 285 2GB | $ 249 | $ 6 | 41.8 FPS
|
31.8 FPS
|
18.3 FPS
|
| AMD Radeon R9 380 2GB | $ 199 | $ 4.8 | 41.5 FPS
|
31.4 FPS
|
18.3 FPS
|
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti 4GB | $ 169 | $ 4.1 | 40.9 FPS
|
31.1 FPS
|
18.6 FPS
|
| AMD Radeon R9 280 3GB | $ 279 | $ 6.9 | 40.5 FPS
|
31 FPS
|
17.5 FPS
|
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 2GB | $ 199 | $ 5 | 40 FPS
|
30.2 FPS
|
17.8 FPS
|
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 3GB | $ 169 | $ 4.9 | 34.8 FPS
|
26.2 FPS
|
15.4 FPS
|
| AMD Radeon RX 560 4GB | $ 99 | $ 3.1 | 32.2 FPS
|
24 FPS
|
14.1 FPS
|
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 2GB | $ 159 | $ 5 | 31.6 FPS
|
23.5 FPS
|
14.3 FPS
|
| AMD Radeon R7 370 2GB | $ 149 | $ 4.8 | 31 FPS
|
22.1 FPS
|
13.6 FPS
|
| AMD Radeon R7 265 2GB | $ 149 | $ 4.8 | 30.8 FPS
|
21.4 FPS
|
13.1 FPS
|
| AMD Radeon RX 460 4GB | $ 140 | $ 4.9 | 28.4 FPS
|
21.2 FPS
|
12.6 FPS
|
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti 2GB | $ 149 | $ 5.4 | 27.4 FPS
|
18.3 FPS
|
11.3 FPS
|
| AMD Radeon RX 550 2GB | $ 79 | $ 3.5 | 22.5 FPS
|
16.9 FPS
|
9.9 FPS
|
| NVIDIA GeForce GT 1030 2GB | $ 79 | $ 3.7 | 21.5 FPS
|
16 FPS
|
9.1 FPS
|
Related Discussions and Issues
There is a flowchart with most of the stuff.
https://images.tweaktown.com/content/9/2/9225_02_intel-core-i9-9900k-kf-overclocking-guide.png
The really relevant thing is the CPU speed and voltage. If you want 5.1GHz all core set multiplier to 51 for all cores and then look for the lowest core voltage that works (start from ~1.35V).
my 6th 9900 ks ( keeper ) i bought does 5.0 ghz @ 1.23v bios load line level 6 asus
passes prime 95 small ftts @ 1.23 v bios / 4.7 cache vdrop = 1.18 v
you guys being big boys and using prime 95 small ffts 29.8 avx 2 off ( avx on ) ?
5.1 ghz needs 1.28v
5.2 gzh needs 1.31 v
8 gb x 4 = 32 gb ram @ 4200 mhz cl17
first 9900 ks i got needed 1.32v for 5 ghz to pass prime 95 small ffts it went back
I guess I just got a really bad cpu then... Trying to go LLC 6 , multiplier 51 and everything else auto and it crashes on prime95 no avx after about 5-10 seconds. When I set LLC to auto and only have multiplier 51 going it runs fine, but the vcore starts at 1.376 and climbs steadily the first minute up to 1.4-1.41 and stays there at 231 W power usage. Under auto and x51 I idle at 1.31v
My problem with this is the shitty VRM on my mobo overheats after 15-20minutes at 100C. I just keeps climbing from idle 40c ish slowly until my pc shuts down. Only during stresstest ofc, works fine in everyday use (gaming etc). My cpu (5.1ghz) is steady at 82-85c after 20min of full prime95 no avx load so that is not a problem.
Guess I'll just have to pay someone who knows how to oc, cuz my cpu can't be that bad, I must be doing something wrong? Some asus settings in bios or something? under the parameter thing in AI tweak that ppl say is scoring cpus it says 166, but hey
Not much point in using someone elses values, even as a guide. Any two chips can be very different.
Your best bet is to pick a medium level of LLC so you have some nice healthy droop to give you good transients and then start either working up from a voltage or working down from one till you find stability.
If you really want some numbers you can see two different 5.1Ghz KS overclocks in my submitted but it's best to figure it out for yourself. :)
My 9900KS 5.1 Ghz all cores takes 1.33 High LLC or 1.355 Medium LLC to be stable. Which options do you think better in the long term?
I see gaming temp range during 65-73
Here's a guide from an ASUS engineer that goes through the important parts of ASUS BIOS.
https://youtu.be/jOXH2YIMi2Y
And here's the guide that the previously posted flowchart is from. https://www.tweaktown.com/guides/9225/intel-core-i9-9900k-kf-overclocking-guide/index.html
Intel XTU is real user friendly tool for noobs and has a nice GUI with the important variables for overclocking.
I am really inexperienced and don't want to fry my CPU
step 1: the ks is already really well overclocked from the factory.
step 2: you don't have any idea how to overclock, so don't do it.
step 3: intel provides an automatic overclocking tool which will do the work for you and keep it stable, so use that if you must do anything.
step 4: you won't notice a difference between overclocked and not-overclocked, so don't waste your time.
I do not agree very much, it shows it shows! It is little but it shows.
Need help\advice on 9900KS
Greetings. Sorry in advance for the long story and maybe wrong sub to get such piece of advice, but I thought that's the exact place I can get help with my CPU, since I seem to locate a problem.
I built 9900KS gaming PC during mid November 2019 with specs as follows:
9900KS + Maximus XI Hero mobo + 2x HyperX Predator 16gb each + 2080TI
Didn't plan to OC at all, 5GHz on all cores during turbo is more than OK for me. So I am air-cooled by Noctua, temperatures do not go above 75C during heavy load.
Stock settings (defaults in BIOS) except I turned off RGBs in powerstates and switched to shutdown state when everything is off, so no RGBs or USBs working, don't remember how it is correctly called, but anyway. HWInfo says it always stays in 5022-5027 range, VCORE fluctuates a ton, runs ok, no problems in idle.
Everything went smooth for the 2-3 months, then I encountered random BSODs during playing one game. Got suspicious cause I saw in Windows event log, that sometimes rarely WHEA-correctable errors occur (cache hierarchy errors with different process IDs) right before BSODs, all of BSODs were different, no specific time interval of occurrences (could play that game for a month and no BSODs), nothing to get a clue from, except that the majority of them (not all) had those WHEA-logger errors before bugcheck. Asked for help on Sysnative forums, so they could have analyzed my dumps and said maybe it is driver\software related problem. During that time I have run memtests with full OK passes (note: I couldn't swap sticks and test them 1 by 1 for clearer results, cause Noctua is huge and blocking free access to them); spent countless of hours with driver-verifier running - still to no avail, could not catch or provoke a BSOD, to get a clue what's wrong.
Dropped that game. Picked up another (old good modded skyrim), during modding I needed to run some tools to generate distant objects in high quality - resource demanding process that goes heavy on CPU during generation process (all of the cores go up to 90-100% utilization in HWInfo, temps are ok.) And can you guess? Now I can almost stably BSOD it (tried 4 times, only 1 of passes was successful). All of the times it ran, it generated a lot of those whea-correctable cache hierarchy errors and bugchecked. 2 bugchecks were with driver irql not less or equal - seen before, 1 of them was with corrupted dump, but from 0x101 code (assuming it was correct, and not random whatever was on top of memory stack) I read it is clock watchdog timeout, basicaly a deadlock or non-responsive core.
Anyway, after reading all the above you may ask, why I came here with this, and not back to troubleshooting forums? So the answer is, after googling what might be the cause of whea-errors, every time I saw that it is due to insufficient VCORE, I tried after troubleshooting to set VCORE in Bios to manual mode (went with 1.265), but since the crashes were random, I could not confirm that it helped (didn't test if it had any effect), so rolled back to auto every time just in case. Now when I got the way to stably crash my system, I went ahead and again set VCORE to manual mode with 1.265 - and as you can expect, I am no longer BSODing during that generation process, and still at same default 5022-5027 range.
Well my newbie question is - is it the right way for stabilizing VCORE with just manually setting it in BIOS and leaving everything else on default auto (Maximus XI Hero defaults, bios updated just in case), or is there a better way to achieve 5k on all cores with stable VCORE? I read that I can tweak LLC and bunch of other settings, but I am really lost and have a fear that I can mess something up. My simple goal is to stabilize VCORE (my guess is: defaults with this mobo, cause it to fluctuate down sometimes under heavy load, and then I get a bunch of wheas and a usually a BSOD) with maintaining 5GHz on cores. I don't know if Noctua could handle some basic OC, never planned to touch anything, but if better results are possible within same 75C temp range - I would gladly listen to such pieces of advice. Thx for reading.
tl;dr: For some reason 9900ks with default settings in Maximus XI mobo, spits out whea errors and sometimes bsods when under stress. Setting VCORE from auto to manual fixes it, but as someone who never planned or overclocked before, I am unsure that it is the right way to stabilize it. What can I do besides just changing 1 thing in BIOS to maintain 5GHz or maybe tweak it to more potential with respect to my air-cooler? Thx.
Sometimes you need to take manual control. The auto settings are not always geared for your CPU sample. I also do not have an Asus board so I have no idea what auto LLC is. On Gigabyte, Auto is "Intel spec defaults"-max vdroop, unless MCE is enabled, where Auto becomes the same vdroop as "Turbo" LLC. I have no idea what Asus sets. But in their UEFI Bios, they should tell you what they are setting.
Can you play with 1.30v vcore Bios set, with LLC=5 ? Is this still stable? This is a very good setting for a 9900KS. If this is 100% fully stable, you can try lowering it slowly, 10mv at a time, until you reach 1.250v bios set.
Also set system agent voltage (VCCSA) to 1.20v and VCCIO to 1.15v if your memory XMP is below 4000 mhz. This can help a bit also.
Thx for the reply. Will try to play around. I don’t have xmp enabled, I believe it runs at default 2.400 (or whatever is non-xmp), will check that as well.
Do you have the latest bios? Because I have seen this before where the bios wasn’t updated for the ks and it was crashing because of voltage. But during manual settings it wouldn’t crash. Update bios and if it doesn’t fix it then just do everything manual.
Updating BIOS is the first thing I have done when I suspected it has something to do with CPU, it didn’t help. No updates on Asus website ever since. Thx for reply, I currently set Vcore back to auto, but changed LLC to level 5 (auto was 6), so far so good, I will be actually surprised if it fixes it for good.
Intel Vs AMD: Which CPU is Best?
Jul 12, 2020 - A rivalry for the ages, and a question often asked and wondered about. Whenever you want to build or upgrade your PC, you have to make a decision: Buy an Intel or AMD processor?
Impact of RAM Size and Speed on Gaming Benchmarks
Jul 5, 2020 - Does RAM size and speed affect your gaming performance? should you invest in a high performance RAM kit? Find out here.
Who Is Lilith and What Terrifies Us About This Diablo Demon?
Jul 24, 2023 No evil entity is more scary than Lilith herself, shrouded in darkness.
Why You Should Always Buy a Mid-to-High-Range Gaming PC?
Jun 23, 2020 - Mid- and high-range builds perform very well for their price, and are better than the entry-level in terms of power, longevity, and reliability, and they offer more bang for your buck especially when looking at their price-by-year advantage.
Should you buy a Pre-Built PC or a Custom PC?
Jun 11, 2020 - Pre-built systems are an attractive option for those who are less concerned with the minute details of every component in their build. Building your own PC is the best solution for those who want full control over every aspect of their build. It provides the most thorough customization options, from the CPU to the fans and lighting.
How to use CPUAgent To Find The Right CPU
Jun 2, 2020 - How to find the Right CPU? Whether you’re building or upgrading a PC, the processor matters a lot. CPUAgent is the right tool to help you find and choose the right CPU for your needs.
RTX 3070 with 10600k vs 3700x Bottleneck Comparison
Sep 03, 2020 - Save your CPU money and invest it in a powerful GPU instead. So, which affordable yet powerfulrt CPU strikes the best performance-price balance with the NVIDIA RTX 3070?
10600K vs 3600X: Battle of the mid-range CPUs
May 23, 2020 - The best performance to price value mid-range cpus are here. Find out more in this comprehensive review and summary of the Core i5-10600K vs Ryzen 5 3600X's capabilities.
10700K vs 3700X: Specs, 80+ Game Benchmarks, Bottleneck, and Streaming Analysis
May 22, 2020 - Which one is worth it, Core i7-10700K or Ryzen 7 3700X? Find out in this comprehensive review and summary of the Core i7-10700K vs Ryzen 7 3700X's capabilities.
13900K vs 3900X: Specs, 80+ Game Benchmarks, Bottleneck, and Streaming Analysis
May 21, 2020 - 10 cores vs 12 cores. Top-of-the-line very high-end cpus duke it out.
2500K vs 3570K vs 4670K vs 6600K vs 7600K vs 8600K vs 9600K vs 10600K: Should you consider upgrading?
May 21, 2020 - In this massive comparison across 8 generations of Intel Core i5 series CPUs, we explore the performance improvements by generation and whether it is reasonable or not to upgrade to Intel's latest.
Critics Reviews
The Intel Core i9-9900KS is a processor that takes the chance out of the lottery, and instead just hands you the winning numbers for a slightly higher cost. The standard Intel Core i9-9900K still ...
The Core i9-9900KS has an tray price of $513 (when purchased in 1000 unit bulk), which means we’re likely to see an on-shelf price of $529-$549, depending on if it gets packaged in its dodecanal ...
The Intel Core i9-9900KS arrives in an odd time for Intel: its latest desktop platform is a year older, and it continues to lose market share to a rival that it was handily defeating just a few ...
The Core i9-9900KS’s main features are unchanged from the Core i9-9900K. As we’ve mentioned, the Core i9-9900KS is designed for Intel’s socket 1151, just like 8th Gen parts, and it will work ...
The Intel Core i9-9900KS is a processor that takes the chance out of the lottery, and instead just hands you the winning numbers for a slightly higher cost. The standard Intel Core i9-9900K still ...
While the 8-core Core i9-9900K had an official base clock of 3.6GHz and officially would push one or two two cores to 5GHz on Turbo Boost, the 8-core Core i9-9900KS Special Edition can push all ...
Higher clock speeds are the Core i9-9900KS's real attraction. The -9900KS's premium silicon supports a 4 GHz base clock, which is a 400 MHz improvement over the -9900K that leads to a beastly 127W ...
Intel launched today the "new" Core i9-9900KS processor which appears to be a pointless release, similar to the Core i7-8086K that we never bothered to look at. Intel says this new processor ...
Core i9-9900KS is a stopgap solution to ensure Intel can lay claim to the fastest gaming performance, but AMD is almost certainly going to come out on top in any multithreaded testing—if not ...
Core i9-9900K stretches up to 5.0 GHz when two cores are active, outstripping the Core i7-8086K and its ability to hit 5.0 GHz on one core. As you can see in the chart above, Intel is pushing the ...
Help overclocking i9-9900KS
I can't seem to find any videos or texts revealing which values people are using when overclocking the i9-9900KS to say 5.1. Are there anyone on here that have overclocked one and could give me some reference values/pointers?
I am really inexperienced and don't want to fry my CPU, but at the same time I don't want to sit here with a KS and not try to at least push it to 5.1 to get some of its extra potential.
asus z390-f gaming kraken x72 gskill trident z 3200 c14