Best odds reaching a stable 5+ GHz overclock on all cores

[WebMaximus]

As the topic suggests, what CPU would give me the best odds reaching a stable 5+ GHz overclock on all cores?

The CPUs I'm considering are:

8086K
9700K
9900K

The 8086K is a good contender I guess since it's a "factory binned" 8700K out of the box.

The 9700K is not as power hungry as the 9900K and thus would produce less heat meaning better chances to reach a stable and high overclock without the temps going through the roof.

The 9900K is more power hungry vs both the 9700K and the 8086K but since I won't need the HT meaning I can disable it, maybe that would increase my chances reaching a high and stable overclock while at the same time keeping the temps healthy.

I'm also wondering if the 9900K in fact might be a 9700K binned by Intel to make sure it will be able to reach its listed clocks with HT added and then get the 9900K label rather than the 9700K label? However, since it also comes with more cache I guess they indeed are two completely different CPUs?

As for motherboards, I'm an MSI guy and have been looking at the MEG Z390 Ace or the MPG Z390 Gaming Pro Carbon. Not sure if the latter would do the job just fine or if the Ace would increase my odds reaching a stable 5+ GHz overclock?

Many thanks for any tips and input!

 

[grec]

HyperThreading won't have any real impact on power consumption (Outside of idle) unless you're like fully loading 12-16 threads with very specific workloads, any difference in real world power consumption would have to come from the clock speeds or binning, but from what I can tell only difference beyond HT between the 9700K and 9900K is a 100Mhz Boost clock difference and the former has 4MB of cache disabled (Every chip in the 8 core Coffee Lake line-up is derived from the same silicon design), gaming benchmarks put the differences between the 9700K & 9900K at about 3-4%.

The 9000 chips main advtanage over the 8086K besides their 2 extra cores is the improved TIM/solder allowing better thermals & overclocking, though you have a better chance to hit a stable all-core 5Ghz+ on 6 cores rather than 8.

 

[WebMaximus]

Thanks for the info even when it didn't really make the decision any easier

 

[looz]

Well since you don't seem to care much about expense, silicon lottery sells binned CPUs.


But I don't see the point in chasing 5GHz. Didn't you also just buy a 8086k?

 

[WebMaximus]

I've heard of Silicon Lottery and checked them out. If it wasn't for the added cost in form of shipping, import duties etc since I'm in Sweden potentially making it one very expensive CPU, that would certainly be an ioption!

I don't mind spending money on hardware I will truly enjoy. Spending money on different kind of import duties etc etc, that I don't like so much.

The reason I'm chasing 5+ GHz is I primarily use my PC to simulate flying aircraft using X-Plane which unfortunately utilizes today's hardware very poorly relying heavily on the CPU speed. This might change down the road when X-Plane will switch from OpenGL to Vulkan.

However, at this time it's all about CPU speed how smooth your experience will be and no one knows how far off the switch to Vulkan is. Other than Laminar Research who like many other developers say "It will be released when it's ready..."

Up until recently, I've been fine using my current 6700K @ 4.5 GHz but since I got myself a pair of Samsung Odyssey Plus VR glasses, I'm struggling to have a smooth experience which is even more important in VR vs running on a 2D display.

I'm not that far off though using my current CPU which is why I'm hoping increasing the CPU speed with realistically 500-800 MHz (with some luck) could give me those extra FPS I need to enjoy X-Plane using my new VR glasses.

And you're correct, I just got an 8086K and since then I got a 9700K and a 9900K as well. Obviously I will only keep one of them once I've decided which of them it will be.

Finally to comment a bit further on my HT question in my initial post. Main reason I was thinking a 9900K with HT disabled might be a very good 5+ GHz candidate was how I remember how disabling HT on my current 6700K made it both cooler, requiring less voltage and at the same time more willing to run faster.

So...my thinking was that when Intel designed the 9900K to be able to run at it's full potential with HT enabled, chances it could run even faster and more stable with HT disabled should increase just like with my 6700K?

Sorry for the wall of text. Just felt I wanted to give a bit more insight into what I'm after and why.

 

[Dawelio]

After have doing some extensive research on the 9900K and my own 8700K, primarly from overclocker der8auer as such, the 9900K actually runs quite hot, despite of being soldered.

Apparently it's not really soldered either, since der8auer mentioned that if it were truly soldered and when he delidded it, it would get destroyed due to damaging the node when deliddding. Although this wasn't the case of the 9900K. The node itself is quite much larger and thicker than the 8700K for example and this is due to the STIM they use.

I ended up not going for the 9900K after watching his video on it and realising it all. He even didn't recommend the 9900K, due to it running quite hot, even while being "soldered".

 

[WebMaximus]

Yeah, I actually came across that video myself last night.

I also read a review where it was said that you shouldn't expect being able to run a 9900K at 5+ GHz unless you have a custom loop.

Would be interesting to know what the difference in temp would be with HT disabled or maybe even if you disable 2 cores running at 6 cores instead.

Since the price difference between the CPU models isn't that big and if you're just after the highest clock speed, maybe a 9900K with HT disabled running on 6 cores would be the key to success!