20 hours ago, Papusan said:

What a nightmare. Bling bling is here to stay. Only 100$. Are you kidding? Bro Fox.... You really need swap out that ugly and tacky waterblock, LOOL

 

How it performs doesn't matter. What's matter nowadays is new fancy features. The more  eye candy, the better. 

 

 

CORSAIR iCUE ELITE CPU Cooler LCD Display Upgrade Kit Review

Others/Miscelleneous by stefan @ 2022-04-25 read/post comments(0)

The iCUE ELITE CAPELLIX LCD Display Upgrade Kit does really add quite a bit of eye candy to your current setup, while doubling up as a monitoring tool for the internal components. It comes with an IPS panel with a 480x480 resolution and renders video effects at 30FPS, for very fluent animations. The frame of the display is also RGB enabled in order to sync different effects with other iCUE-enabled hardware you may have installed, while the installation can be done by anyone with the help of four mounting magnets so no need of removing the pump from the CPU! 

 

 

Her's the latest version I know about TurboV_Core_1.10.19

If it has rather useful and pretty accurate information (Kingpin 3090 Display), then I'm onboard, but sure as hell wont be posting no stupid cats! That's 100% a no. Now a nice German Shepard, Malamute, Husky or Lab, sure.😂

On 4/25/2022 at 12:56 PM, Mr. Fox said:

 

I changed my mind. I have had the fans randomly not work until opening the software and manually changing something with the sensor to make them restart, so I am going to remove it and go back to using the BIOS only. Reminds me of years ago using HWiNFO64 for Alienware laptop fan controls... which worked great except for when it randomly did not work.

Okay, going to have to retract. Software seems flakey after all.

2 hours ago, Mr. Fox said:

 

I changed my mind. I have had the fans randomly not work until opening the software and manually changing something with the sensor to make them restart, so I am going to remove it and go back to using the BIOS only. Reminds me of years ago using HWiNFO64 for Alienware laptop fan controls... which worked great except for when it randomly did not work.

I do remember those days!

I got rid of the board so wont have a chance to revisit that situation....

And as far as I saw it seem better to use fan curve because using manual could do as hwinfo did in the early days. When it surpassed the max limit it would basically cut power to the fans. (Alienware)

1 hour ago, Papusan said:

 

What a e-waste! Damn the customers that let them continue with this.

 

Just fine....

 

Now why he using one or Mr. Fox's disses. Don't he know that @Mr. Fox has these diss words and phrases trademarked!😂

24 minutes ago, Clamibot said:

 

Wait, you can do that with Z490 boards? How would I set the TjMax temperature to over 100°C?

 

I want to see how far I can push my 10900K in my Clevo X170SM-G with that extra thermal headroom. Yeah yeah I know, not a good idea for prolonged use, but I don't plan to subject my CPU to temperatures over 100°C for an extended period of time. Even if I did, the CPU would still outlive it's useful lifespan for me since electronics are really robust.

Depends on your bios. If it was unlocked by Prema then chances are fair he may have unlocked that option in the advanced CPU menu. Not sure what your bios looks like though....

6 hours ago, electrosoft said:

 

I did and I agree with you 100% but there is no logical reason to raise temp caps in my setup. It will just heat up higher and pull more power and either throttle at a different point or crash. If I can't keep it under 100c, I won't keep it under 115c with the resulting scaling in heat and pull. If the objective is to pull even more (heat:power curve) for demonstration sure but outside of that? My golden rule is 100c cap (or lower even depending on purpose) because at that point I need to address my cooling, delid my chip , adjust my expectations based on silicon or all of thee above.

 

As for my previous 12900ks vs 12900k, setting 100c as the default cap, conditions being equal, you can see both chips bouncing off of the threshold and still see the 12900ks is superior not just in Vcore (1.421 vs. 1.465) but as a result in score as the 12900k bounces off of it much more frequently than the 12900ks.

 

Based on early data of dying AMD processors and AMD curtailing their boost options from 500mhz to 200mhz along with PBO overall I agree with your speculation.

 

Whew, that is a beefy, impressive run on the 12900ks.

 

 

 

 

Short answer.

It was to answer your own question, considering you were already 10C over on the KS.....So....You would need to go back and retest my friend.🙂

My answer was only to see where it bottomed out and using 115C for that particular test would have answered that ceiling question you had.

1 hour ago, Papusan said:

Intel have reduces Tjunction temp for KS chips down to 90C (100C for the K chips) and added in Intel® Thermal Velocity Boost Temperature who kick in at 50C. Higher boost clocks = Higher voltage. But this was needed for the KS chips to try counter the new locked down v-cashe chips from AMD to stay pretty alone on top as the gaming king. Yep, Intel don't want you to run high voltage paired with high temps over prolonged time, hence they dropped the ball on the Tjunction for the KS chps who have higher boost clocks. 

 

From Intel's engineers at their OC lab...

 

As Ragland explained, the amount of time a processor stays in elevated temperature and voltage states has the biggest impact on lifespan. You can control the temperature of your chip with better cooling, which then increases lifespan (assuming the voltage is kept constant). Assuming voltage remains constant, each successive drop in temperature results in a non-linear increase in life expectancy, so the 'first drop' in temps from 90C to 80C yields a huge increase in chip longevity. In turn, colder chips run faster at lower voltages, so dropping the temperature significantly by using a beefier cooling solution also allows you to drop the voltage further, which then helps control the voltage axis. All is about the voltage. 

https://www.tomshardware.com/uk/features/inside-intels-secret-overclocking-lab/7

 

Yep, the OEM have added 115C as an option in the firmware, but I don't think that temp is good over time if paired with higher voltage due you oc' your chips. Probably not as dangerous if you run your chips at stock clocks with default voltege (Dell is the bellsheep for 100C but you don't get much overclock features from Dell. They don’t let you  increase the voltage out of the chips range). High temps = No problem if the voltage stay within the default target for the chips. Dell do a lot weird things but they are correct in this one.

Yes, this is true. KS=90C and K=100C.

OEM added after Intel opened their mouth when at that time it was 105C up from either 90C/95C or 100C. Then it went to 110C, 112C (Speculations on the 110/112 ranges) then 115C depending on manufacture and chip over the years.

The higher setting is not for you to run it at that, but to cover the spikes. Example. If you run Cinebench R23 it will spike really high temp, but as the benchmark runs the temps start to fall. (For a bencher that can make or break a run. That spike temp hits the wall and). Ergo we try to have proper cooling in place as to not even bring that into play.🙂

Also well known is that intel CPU's have an internal temp monitoring system that will not all the chip to run faster than that temp will allow it. I had tried explaining that along time ago but was met with resistance. And the ranges I was talking about started at 50C and below under load. And when you go subzero brings in another set of bins....

I have to also say, not really caring about chip degradation as I wont have this chip that long and it's under warranty. lol

3 hours ago, electrosoft said:

 

Wow, the package drop is insane with that temp difference. I didn't know it was that extreme. Amazing.

 

The jump to 385w from 5.4 -> 5.5 was at 14c too?

 

 

 

~100c is where I end my playtime adventures but you're right.

 

 

Yes. 385W at 14C water.

And you didn't get the Intel memo when they were the ones that came out and said it was fine to run up to 115C like since what, the 10900K days? Also in the grand scheme of things....it's not temps killing Intel cpus, it's the voltage. Now temps might kill an AMD CPU though, but then that is speculations on my part as I would never let an AMD CPU over heat, but an intel cpu, sure, no problem. as they dial back when they reach the set max temp, not just get hotter and hotter. This comes from past experiments and just plain user error when I found these things out. So no reviewer or surfing the net to get the answers. 🙂

edit:

Also that 385W run was with 5.5Ghz/43 E core/45 cache/LLC8/1.4V/Load 1.288V

14C Water vs 28.4C Water

2 hours ago, electrosoft said:

 

What does it pull @ 5.4? Trying to see when (or if) it falls off the rails.

 

My 12900ks pulled ~334w

 

And in the shocker of them all, got my SP91 12900k to run 5.4 all core and it pulled ~330w (!).

 

Both thermal throttling of course....

 

 12900ks SP94 "falls of the rails" at 5.4 and is basically equal to my 12900k SP91 with regard to pull and temps. 12900ks had 4 cores throttling vs 2 on the 12900k but the 12900k kept touching the sun more frequent with those two cores though on those (hence the lower CB23).

 

12900k needed 1.465 under load vs the 12900k 1.421 (pure Auto)

 

12900ks:

 

 

12900k SP91:

 

 

 

You thermal throttled because you did not change your max from 100C to 115C....

So that also means you would have pulled more watts...

Not sure on the 5.4, but i'll check it in a few.

20 minutes ago, Mr. Fox said:

Neither the lighting nor the fan apps work with the Z490 Dark. The fan app detects the sensors, but there are no software controls available for the fan headers.

 

The lighting app doesn't detect anything at all.

 

So, both are utterly worthless on EVGA. But, the cool part is I don't really need the lighting app on the system with the Z490 Dark because the EVGA app isn't UWP feces. It would be nice to have a way to control the fans connected to the motherboard headers without having to go into the BIOS to change things.

On the Hero it picks up at least 7 of the 8 fan headers. And it picks up 2 fan headers for the KPE.

RGB Software seems to not work as intended.... I'll have to revisit if I have time left.

55 minutes ago, Papusan said:

 

Found this one a couple of months ago. An Ok software (better than any OEM filhty but I will most likly go for an HW fan control). 

 

Gone is the days you could use an air cooler for your K chips. I remember hmscott on NBR said he never would touch an water cooled setup again. But hey, he was an AMD fan and most likely had to change mind about water cooling if he nowadays went for an unlocked Ryzen chips from latest gen. Also bro Robbo swor about having an air cooler over an AIO. Back in the days, 150W was usual for an 4 core Cpu and an good air cooler could handle that load

Yes, I do remember them being very adamant about air cooling and ac was for the birds and blah blah blah. I also remember a lot of this stuff that is now common practice I was doing way back in the day and was considered "wasting money" "I don't have the time for that" "No way my other half was going for that" "What sane person does this and that." "Who stands out side to bench a computer or use free cold air from a window to cool your pc" "or Mr Moo and his portable freezer." And the list goes on..... 😂Yet, I have seen that line of thinking completely change over the years. Where reviewers now act like that is the norm, when they were talking smack about it when they first came out with tech stuff.

But.....as they say, the world is changing.... You either change with it or get run over..... So maybe they now use AIO cooling.😂

Also been using my Lamptron's 20Wx4 purchased in April of 2017 and 60Wx5 purchased in April of 2018. Right now it's only controlling the memory fan, but it's usually on my SS with 4X5200 RPM 30W fans attached. It use to control my fans for my laptop fan setup as well. Very good controllers.

But when I'm not benching, I don't need everything to run redline. It just only needs to work as a normal functioning machine. And using easy to use software without having to change a bunch of things I'm cool with. My car does 156MPH, doesn't mean I'm going to be doing that every day from light to light.

On 4/22/2022 at 10:35 AM, electrosoft said:

 

Exactly. It happens to be an exceptionally cooler running, less hungry 12900k that only >=5.2 does the 12900ks show why it is a good binned 12900ks.

 

Still, too rich for my blood since I'll never delid or WC it this time around. So back it goes to Best Buy.

 

If anyone is interested in it since it is a pretty decent SP94, my exact price paid was 831.66 ($779.99 + tax). So $855 shipped non-cc CONUS. I'll be returning it Monday if no one wants it. In other words, it's out of here Monday one way or the other.

 

 

Just did a 5.5Ghz test on the KS and it ran 385 watts.

1 hour ago, Mr. Fox said:

This could be useful info. Sacrificial Celeron idea actually worked.

 

This is a good find as well. MUCH NEEDED to avoid the OEM motherboard software filth.

 

That fan controller looks real promising.

And already the replacement caps on a 7980XE, but those were from a cracked die 7980XE though.

Didn't pass brother @Papusan , but still a decent run though.

15 hours ago, Papusan said:

I used Kapton tape. And always nice have something lying in the drawer. Useful for many things. Kapton tape is easier to cut down in correct size.

 

 

Can't come so much higher up. I'm in phase change cooler territory with my AIO

https://hwbot.org/submission/4976565_papusan_aquamark_geforce_gtx_760_(256bit)_531489_marks?recalculate=true

 

https://hwbot.org/submission/4976542_papusan_pifast_core_i9_12900k_10sec_0ms?recalculate=true

 

Guess what?

What are the odds?

😂

11 hours ago, Papusan said:

I used Kapton tape. And always nice have something lying in the drawer. Useful for many things. Kapton tape is easier to cut down in correct size.

 

 

Can't come so much higher up. I'm in phase change cooler territory with my AIO

https://hwbot.org/submission/4976565_papusan_aquamark_geforce_gtx_760_(256bit)_531489_marks?recalculate=true

 

https://hwbot.org/submission/4976542_papusan_pifast_core_i9_12900k_10sec_0ms?recalculate=true

 

This benchmark is a cpu benchmark so the higher the speed the faster it runs.

These are the gpus that finally made it off the ship from being stuck at sea for like over a year. 

And they threw in a few 3090 TI's for good measure.😂

25 minutes ago, Mr. Fox said:

I don't have anything I can use on the GPU that I can think of. I could use the pump/block from the KPE AIO if you are finished using it, but I do not have a spare GPU water block and do not know how I could cool the GPU without the Hydro Copper block on it at the moment.

 

Or, did you mean leave only the GPU in the current loop and remove the CPU from the loop? I may have misunderstood what you meant. I had a CPU AIO as a spare part, but I used it in a PC build for one of my sons so I don't have that available. And, I no longer have a CPU air cooler. I got rid of the one I had when I sold off some stuff that was just taking up space in my crowded little office.

And... not only performance deficits to contend with, but also a general lack of stability and reliability that needs to be fixed. The WHEA errors and USB drop-out issue are not things I am likely to forgive and forget for a very long time. A system that produces nice benchmarks scores loses a lot of its sparkle when it is unreliable and frustrating to deal with for normal everyday use. The 5950X and Crosshair experience was my "21st Century Edsel" in the digital realm. 

I mean you are removing the CPU from the loop. Using just a heat sink or aio so the gpu can run free.

And if testing just the CPU then just slap on a basic GPU with no water block. Best to keep one of those laying around for trouble shooting. Once the problem is solved then you can put it back to looking all nice and cute. lol

Also to add...the scaling is different for CPU than it is for GPU. the CPU can run a lot hotter and keep the same clocks....Not so much for GPU.

And if the water is 20C and your gpu is not about the same or lower (at idle)by a few degrees... You may need to take the block apart and check the tim spread and the thermal pads.

3 minutes ago, Mr. Fox said:

That's a good idea, but I don't think I have the parts I would need to test that.

You don't have a normal heat sink laying around? I keep a AIO and a heat sink just incase for stuff like this. Or something you can remove the screws from or has open holes so it just sits on the mounting bracket and you just tighten it down.

2 minutes ago, Mr. Fox said:

What is puzzling about it is everything is freshly cleaned (filters, blocks, etc.) and now the temps are higher, particularly on the GPU. I can't really say for sure on the CPU because that is new and I have very little to compare with before/after. And, the loop flow rate is higher because of everything being fresly cleaned and because I reduced the QDC fittings restrictions when I redid the loop structure. It is about 70 L/H higher than it was before, yet it did not help anything that I can tell. But, the temps went the other direction coincidental to cleaning the Hydro Cooper block. That happened before I restructured the loop and I think that is where I need to start the investigation. My guess is something with the mounting of the block to the GPU might not be ideal. That is only a guess right now though. There should not be a huge delta between the water temperatures and core temperatures if my logic is correct. If that is an accurate statement, it seems to point to mounting of the GPU block.

You could also try just cooling the gpu by itself and see what happens.....

Then comeback around and remount the block on it.

Also to add...I have to check my filter regularly. When my flow drops to 3.4 I clean my filter. Those filter slow the rate of flow by like .5 to 1 per filter on the system.

4 minutes ago, electrosoft said:

Hardware Numb3rs is finally back and did an in depth test of 12900k vs 5000 vs 11th vs 10th for WoW.

 

Conclusions?

 

12900k is a God chip for WoW and smashes every other chip badly including the 10900k

10900k is better overall than 5000 and 11th for WoW but nothing that is a game changer. Only upgrade path is to 12900k.

E-Cores hurt performance greatly even in W11 for WoW as the schedule (hot garbage) can't prevent the main thread from drifting to e-cores

Memory tuning results in massive gains using DDR5 (he is going to test DDR5 vs DDR4 soon)

Coupled with the 12900k, 3090 beats the 6900xt at every resolution massively even with SAM enabled.

 

I'll be passing on the 6900xt now as the 3000 series is the clear winner and I can't see a scenario where the 5800X3D can catch up with that massive gap in performance with its extra cache but you never know.

 

12900k vs all others:

 

 

E-Cores off vs on:

 

 

12900k + 6900xt:

 

 

12900k + 3090:

 

 

 

It sure would suk if the guy with the 95 fps average was knocking the stuffing out of everyone else with a 100+ better average. All while the other guys are yelling hey look at me at a 135 fps, but my KD is .47.😂😂

11 minutes ago, Mr. Fox said:

Maybe I said something in a way that was unclear, but I have not noticed any difference in flow rate based on temperature. It does not seem to vary by a lot. By that I mean it is not different today than yesterday, only that watching the meter over the course of a minute it will change up and down every few seconds and somewhere in the middle is the average and there isn't a big difference between the high/low/average. It is maybe just a little bit lower using anti-freeze than just straight distilled water, but not enough that I could quantify it with a number. I think that is due to the water being lower viscosity.

 

One thing I am going to experiment with (haven't had time) is how using the EK manifold might improve flow rate through the GPU so it is not dependent on the volume of water that can move through the CPU. They could function independently and not have one affect the other. It won't change the flow rate of the loop necessarily, but if it is harder to move water through the CPU block, the GPU won't be starved because it can flow through both of them independently and simultaneously. I hope that makes sense. I don't have the manifold set up that way at the moment, but I plan to test the theory and compare both ways.

I totally understand. Not a problem there.

But going by your higher over all temps. CPU and GPU...From my experience means the water is not flowing fast enough through the system. Causes range from filters being clogged. CPU and or GPU blocks are blocked internally slowing down the flow of water.

I thought about the manifold idea as well and was going to grab a y adapter version of a manifold to test the theory, but did not get around to doing it yet.

1 hour ago, Mr. Fox said:

Yes, but that was before I took it apart and cleaned the trash out of the Hydro Copper. GPU core is almost always above 40°C under load now. I have even seen it get into the high 50s, but usually in the low to mid 40s under load, in the low to mid 10s at idle. It used to drop into the single digits and stayed in the teens under load.

 

The loop shows water temperate between 14-20°C and a flow rate between 190-220 L/H. The temperature and flow rate measurements are taken at the return line side of the loop, after having already passed through the CPU and GPU. Looking at it right now, without the chiller being used since last night, it is hovering around 30-31°C and 200-205 L/H flow rate.

So that we are on the same page about flow rate...What does that 205 L/H translate to?

On my screen it shows flow rate of 3.7 LPM to 4.7 LPM on a good day and warmer water. If I remove filters and the gpu something like 5.3 to 5.7 LPM.

So right now about 4.3 LPM/1.1 GPM

A while back my gpu temps stayed hot no matter what. I found that my LPM rate was .09 to 1.2 LPM. Once I fixed that no more really hot gpu temps.

Edit:

Had to find a converter...

205 L/H = 3.42 LPM

190 L/H = 3.17 LPM

4.3 LPM = 258 L/H

3.7 LPM = 222 L/H

And the flow rate slows down when getting colder not go faster... Not sure how yours is working in reverse?

Or

I could be totally wrong and totally disregard. 😂

33 minutes ago, Mr. Fox said:

I've given up on Port Royal for the time being. Things seem back to normal now. I can't get the clocks to hold, but they are at least holding steady again. Most of the time, 2175 is the highest clock I can get under load. It doesn't matter how high it starts, within a few seconds it is at 2175 and staying there through the end. I did get my best ever Time Spy and Fire Strike runs in last night, but Port Royal stays in the 15.5K range due to the limited core clock max.

 

I am pretty sure the reduction in clock speed is temperature related. You seem to be able to keep your GPU 20-25°C colder than I can get mine and that is more than enough temperature difference to be an impediment to GPU benchmark scores. The water in my loop is staying cold enough (if the digital meter is accurate) but the core is getting between 40-50°C. I may try different thermal pads and liquid metal to see if that helps. I used KPX at the last GPU repaste. The issues I had with leaking after cleaning the block and having the o-ring slipping out of place required that I take it apart three times before I could get the o-ring to seal again, so I could also have a pad out of place that is interfering with contact. But, I have noticed my CPU temps are also higher using KPX than they are using Phobya, Cryo or MX4. I like how easy KPX is to use, but so far it doesn't seem to be as effective at transferring the heat. Everything I have used it on (both desktops and laptop) have higher temperatures using KPX. It may be ideal for sub-zero cooling because it doesn't harden and crack.

I have purchased them a number of places, including eBay. I have purchased more from Kinguin.net than anywhere else. Sometimes a few bucks more than eBay, but always reliable (so far) for me.

 

https://www.kinguin.net/listing?active=0&hideUnavailable=0&phrase=windows&page=0&size=25&sort=bestseller.total,DESC

13 minutes ago, Mr. Fox said:

Brother @johnksss it looks like the temperature readings from 3DMark are a LOT lower on your GPU than mine are. It doesn't take more than 5-10°C to cause a pretty big drop in GPU core clocks, as we both know. I really hate that about modern GPUs. I wish they would hold their core max clock until 80°C like the did when things were still done right.

 

https://hwbot.org/submission/4972225_mr._fox_3dmark___time_spy_geforce_rtx_3090_23047_marks/

https://hwbot.org/submission/4972233_mr._fox_3dmark___fire_strike_geforce_rtx_3090_43920_marks/

Short answer....your loop.

Didn't you get like 55K gpu score with your 5950X?

28 minutes ago, Talon said:

 

 

Run for the night. Unfortunately it's not cool outside so cracking the window isn't going to help. 

 

Decided to hold this one back for the leaderboard until I need to use it. 🙂 

Yes, until you need it....I did that and forgot I had benchmarks saved. lol