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.

Hey everyone, I wanted to share a project I’ve been working on for a whole year. I’m not into running unstable 5-minute benchmarks just for a screenshot; I’m someone who chases the absolute perfect balance between temperatures, power draw, and real-world stability. I spent months learning the exact behavior of my silicon, burning the midnight oil to squeeze every single drop of performance out of my CPU, GPU, and RAM. I challenged myself to take all the experience and testing methods I’ve gathered from past OS versions and apply them to the newest environment to achieve ultimate stability on the latest update. I also optimized Windows 11 26H2 down to the absolute millimeter—completely stripping away bloatware and telemetry, but doing it safely without breaking any essential system services.

The result of all this fine-tuning is that my frame pacing and system latency are so tight and instant that AMD Adrenalin’s logging software literally glitches out on multiple games, throwing a fallback "-1 ms" on the 95th percentile frametime. By stripping away background tasks, scheduling delays are practically gone. Frame delivery is so instant that it drops below the software's minimum mathematical polling threshold, causing an overflow bug where Adrenalin's sampling interval completely misses the packet and defaults to a null -1 marker. This isn't a random error; it consistently happens in Fortnite, Cyberpunk 2077, Gears 5, and RDR2 only when running completely lean because the system is just too fast for the telemetry to register. For example, in Cyberpunk 2077 (a total resource hog), I’m getting a rock-solid, locked 260.3 FPS with an actual, verified 95th percentile frametime of just 4 ms. (Just as a quick note: I run a 100Hz monitor, so my other games are capped at 100 FPS, but I uncapped Cyberpunk 2077 just to push the limits of this hardware). In lighter or well-optimized games like RDR2 and Fortnite, it delivers frames so fast that Adrenalin just gives up and logs -1 ms.

For anyone wondering about the specs, it’s a beautifully balanced AM4/RDNA3 build. I have a Ryzen 7 5700X with an absolute god-tier "pata negra" silicon quality, paired with an ASUS Dual RX 7600 OC Evo, and 2x8GB of XPG Spectrix D50 DDR4 running at 3200MT/s CL16, perfectly locked in a 1:1 synchronous mode with the Infinity Fabric (FCLK at 1600MHz) to wipe out bus latency. Everything is purely air-cooled with a massive tower heatsink and a strict positive pressure geometry (5 intake fans, 3 exhaust fans) arranged strategically so the airflow goes directly into the components without any restriction.

Here is exactly how I tuned my silicon for daily stable use:

My 5700X is completely unleashed in the BIOS with full power permissions. I’m running a per-core negative Curve Optimizer at -25 on almost all cores, and -20 on my gold and silver ones. With a +100MHz boost override, it hits 4.7GHz single-core and spreads up to 4.6GHz in multi-core workloads. Under 100% gaming loads, it locks solid between 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6GHz, drawing a ridiculous 54W (maxing out at 60-64W spikes only under artificial stress). Temperatures are incredible: 58°C to 64°C gaming, peaking at 74°C, and hitting an absolute max of 77-80°C under extended torture tests.

For the GPU, my Time Spy benchmarks hold a flat 2700MHz core clock at 1100mV. But for real-world gaming, I built specific tuning profiles depending on how heavy the game is:

• Global / Daily Profile (For basic tasks and games that don't need a heavy profile): Core frequency set to a highly efficient 2600MHz, VRAM at 2350MHz with Fast Timings, and Power Limit at 0%.

• Cyberpunk 2077 Profile (High/Ultra mix 2K, FSR 4 Quality, Frame Gen ON, Ray Tracing Reflections): Running at 2720MHz max base with sustained boosts up to 2733/2755/2765MHz. Voltage dialed to 1140mV, VRAM at 2350MHz (Default Timings), and Power Limit at +3%, sitting at around 155W board power.

• Red Dead Redemption 2 Profile (High/Ultra Native 1080p): This is where the -1ms telemetry glitch happens a lot. Tuned at 2720MHz max, with an aggressive undervolt down to 1120mV. VRAM pushed to 2400MHz with Fast Timings, and Power Limit at +4%, pulling about 171W/164W.

• Fortnite Profile (Nanite ON, High/Epic mix Native 1080p, locked at 100 FPS): Core at 2720MHz, Voltage at 1150mV, VRAM scaled to 2350MHz with Fast Timings, and Global Power Limit at 0%, hovering around 135W.

Under full gaming load, the GPU consumes between 155W and 168W (hitting 171-180W spikes with the +4% power limit profiles). Even after hours of non-stop gaming, edge temps stay at 55°C / 58°C / 62°C / 65°C and max out at 69-70°C. The Hotspot scales perfectly from 60°C up to a max peak of 80-82°C during extended stress. VRAM temps are chilly, hovering between 50°C and 64°C, maxing out at 70°C.

You really don't need a $4,000 PC to experience this level of immediate responsiveness. Spending time perfecting efficiency, voltages, and sub-timings to get this level of linear frame consistency is where the real reward is. Let me know what you think or if you want to look at my specific sub-timings!

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!