He doesnt have at least a 5ghz overclock

lmao you little lying fuck, 28c/4 = 7 which still REQUIRE a 1/4th HP refrigerant water chiller @ 5.0 GHz.

You're doing 5.1GHz on all 8 cores.

>my son is special

THIS

>he doesn't have a REAL overclock.

Get bent, fucking grannyclocker.

Attached: file.png (401x373, 126K)

>le bulldozer ln2

stock 9700k is still faster than that hunk of garbage

it wasn't ln2.

Attached: grannyclocking.gif (480x260, 870K)

Not him but the i9-9900K dissipates about 300W of heat at 5.0 GHz on all cores. At 5.1 GHz on all cores that can climb to 400-500W depending on voltage. Your i7-9700K still has those same 8 cores except without HT so heat dissipation will be almost identical.

A standard air cooler like a hyper 212 can only effectively dissipate about 120W of heat before cpu temps near tjunction point. H150 has about 200W and maybe 250W with a shitload of push-pull fan configs.

>tl;dr
you're a lying faggot and you know it

>you're a lying faggot

Really doesn't shock me how little Jow Forums actually knows. its just as bad as r/pcmr

Feel free to try again tho

Attached: Screenshot_8.png (1312x928, 1.27M)

Based fx8120

Look man we get it, showing what what refrigerant water chiller you're using will hurt your fee fees and intel pride but I was only asking because I too am interested in what I need to buy to achieve a 5.1 GHz on an intel processor since amd ryzen can't OC for shit.

you Jow Forumsoofs are as bad as flat earthers

delided? ambient temp?

nvm just read posts above.

21c, not delided. 1.34v

I might delid it

Most likely used some kind of water chiller. See that 32C idle temps in despite 5.1GHz being maintained across all cores?

That's literally impossible without C-states lowering clocks when idle and we don't see that.

so its not running at full capacity and you think youve got a golden chip?
I guess this truly is the crowd with more money than sense

5ghz on 8xxx and 9xxx generally seems pretty standard(atleast compared to OCN results)

>you think youve got a golden chip

Never said that, my volts are alittle high to be considered golden.

>he literally has no idea what hes talking about.

yikes

>cant respond to the correct post
figures

C'mom OP, stop being such a massive wanker and tell us. I used a HC-100A to OC my i7-7700K to 5.2 GHz and that was with just 4 cores.

dude its like 2am here i'm tired fuck you.

is that supposed to be an excuse for redditspacing?

>randomly bringing up reddit.
>redditspacing

you mean just having some kind of structure? alrighty.

if I flew you into space you'd probably think the earth was a hologram

Attached: ISr7S2Q.jpg (4032x3024, 3.38M)

>only 8 cores

>being this much of a virgin

zambezi

Attached: 1536153057662.png (375x500, 197K)

>28-core intel cpu requires a 1 HP 2kW chiller just to maintain 5GHz
>8-core i9-9900K 5.0GHz OC fails on most water coolers as temps skyrocket past 100C
>somehow OP gets max temps in the 70s at fucking 5.1 GHz on essentially an i9-9900K chip with HT disabled
Yeah something doesn't add up.

>he keeps posting it

Not the same guy but I'm skeptical nonetheless desu. Unless disabling HT cuts power consumption in half OP is doing something to get those temps. Maybe not a water chiller but something. I've heard stories of people using car radiators to cool their i9-9900Ks and some DIYs of connecting 2 triple fan radiators to the same waterblock as well.

sub 1.3v and 5ghz on a 9900k with d15/280mm aio is like sub 80c with prime small ffts non avx
if u get more than this u using some mobo fuckery which overvolts

but yes op is a faggot

>you now need a fucking car radiator from the junk yard to cool down an intel processor if you can't afford a high end water chiller
lmfao

Lmao. The results speak for themselves. Keep grasping for straws

How the FUCK does a desktop processor generate the same heat as a car engine?

>
why did u highlight me i made an informative post mong. go to bed

any specific reason you used reddit-spacing again here?

>he keeps bringing up reddit

Rent free my dude

Sorry. The retarded people here are wearing me out

>5ghz overclock
Impossible for Ryzen

>Rent free my dude
and it even quacks like a duck too

>that's a bad thing

what is, user?
tell us

Doesn't need it, it has 5% higher IPC than coffinlake so it has 4.5GHz performance with an actual frequency of just 4.3 GHz. That means it's only 10% slower than a 5.1GHz i9-9900K on STOCK settings.

However the catch is it needs fast CL14 RAM because both affect performance of infinity fabric which affect core latency which affects single threaded performance. 3200 CL14 seems to be the sweet spot where using faster CL14 RAM (if even possible) only bets like 3% better performance.

youtube.com/watch?v=PHBsR1Y68G8

Really interesting what AMD was able to make. I say this as an intelfag.

>Doesn't need it
For you.

5Ghz was not invented back then.

Attached: welcome to 2009.jpg (674x532, 74K)

I mean it closes that 10% gap further with a 5.1 GHz i9-9900K but it's such a small gap to close I feel like i'd be a waste imho. Can't wait for what ryzen 2 brings to the table. Even with just 10% higher IPC than zen+ it will match an i9-9900K at 5 GHz.

>just wait
OK.

wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-3000-zen-2-desktop-am4-processors-launching-mid-2019/

Also you don't have to wait, if you're okay with 90% the performance of an i9-9900K OC'd @ 5.1 GHz the 2700X with 3200MHz CL14 RAM is a pretty good option right now and you can upgrade to zen 2 when it comes out this summer anyway.

>90% the performance of an i9-9900K OC'd @ 5.1 GHz the 2700X with 3200MHz CL14 RAM
Source?

I don't have the money for an industrial chiller

Attached: 1487574394963.jpg (177x172, 5K)

see It's an i7-7700K but the jump from kaby lake to coffee lake only added more cores so it paints an accurate picture especially since 90% of games can only efficiently utilize 2-4 cpu cores.

Where is the 9900K in that video?

I don't like to burn up my processors just for internet points and validation by other losers

I'm having trouble finding benchmarks where at least 3200MHz CL14 RAM is used on the 2700X when compared to the i9-9900K.

Best I could find was this:
techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i9_9900K/13.html

However nowhere in the test does it specify the 2700X using 3200MHz CL14 RAM or better.

and all you do with that is shitposting

whoops, nevermind

also this proves me 100% right about most games only using 2-4 cores efficiently when the i7-7700K is ~95% as fast as the i9-9900K lmao.

>i5-8400 is 2.4% better than 2700X
Wow?

I'm not sure what could explain this anomaly but on tests done where 3466 MHz with tightened timings are used the 2700X is only about 3% slower than an i7-8700K despite the 2700X having 10% lower clocks affirming the 5% IPC advantage of zen+ over coffee lake.

More info on this:
digiworthy.com/2018/04/28/ryzen-7-2700x-memory-opt-benches/

I'm impressed by AMD desu. I was half expecting zen to barely be on par with haswell. Glad I didn't fall for the coffin lake meme. Still rocking an i3-7100 eager to jump on zen 2.

I tried so hard, it was hard to even keep it stable enough to run this test. It's either something to do with dual cpus or something fucky with the ram or power supply.
It also pulls 700 fucking watts at 4.51

Attached: cinebench451.png (316x1301, 37K)

bump

Anything over 5GHz has the tendency to not get through Prime95 for very long since the voltage required is way too high. You also need a high-end motherboard or you'll have trouble with VRM temperatures.

My G3258 is at 5GHz, what now faggot.