Contribute
Register

pastrychef's Asus ROG Strix Z370-G Gaming (WI-FI AC) build w/ i9-9900K + AMD 6600 XT

I don't know. It lists a lot of stuff. Are you using SSDT for USB? If not, I suggest starting there. Also, did you rename your dGPU to GFX0?
First impressions, system did a sleep wake cycle. Waking from sleep now is about 5 seconds instead of 22 seconds. Big improvement.
 
It looks like something is wrong with your NVMe SSD.

Shouldn't be. Usually I get this error:

panic(cpu 2 caller 0xffffff7f8f72eb1e): "DSMOS: SMC read error K0: 132"@/BuildRoot/Library/Caches/com.apple.xbs/Sources/DontStealMacOS/DontStealMacOS-27.200.2/Dont_Steal_MacOS.cpp:191
Backtrace (CPU 2), Frame : Return Address
0xffffff81f0acb360 : 0xffffff800c7aca9d mach_kernel : _handle_debugger_trap + 0x48d
0xffffff81f0acb3b0 : 0xffffff800c8e6893 mach_kernel : _kdp_i386_trap + 0x153
 
First impressions, system did a sleep wake cycle. Waking from sleep now is about 5 seconds instead of 22 seconds. Big improvement.
No sleep after that one. :(
 
Shouldn't be. Usually I get this error:

panic(cpu 2 caller 0xffffff7f8f72eb1e): "DSMOS: SMC read error K0: 132"@/BuildRoot/Library/Caches/com.apple.xbs/Sources/DontStealMacOS/DontStealMacOS-27.200.2/Dont_Steal_MacOS.cpp:191
Backtrace (CPU 2), Frame : Return Address
0xffffff81f0acb360 : 0xffffff800c7aca9d mach_kernel : _handle_debugger_trap + 0x48d
0xffffff81f0acb3b0 : 0xffffff800c8e6893 mach_kernel : _kdp_i386_trap + 0x153

I don't know what this error is.
 
@elfcake and @Sofronis :

I spent all night messing with the Fujipoly and came to the conclusion that whatever Asus is using is much, much better than the Fujipoly.

With the Fujipoly, the CPU was throttling immediately after starting Prime95 and even caused a few sudden reboots.

After putting the stock Asus thermal pads back on, Prime95 ran fine again.

So, stay away from Fujipoly for VRM mosfets.

Ouch, all night?! I'm very sorry that the pads gave you so much trouble, but that definitely doesn't sound right and contradicts my experience and the reports I've read online from others. In my Asus board, the VRMs would throttle with the stock pads, but not after replacing them with the Fujipoly Extreme Plus pads. Fujipoly pads are pretty expensive and have 2-3 times (depending on type) better thermal conductivity than any other pads on the market that I'm aware of (unless the manufacturer is insincere). I highly suspect that something else is at play here.
  1. Make sure that you also have the VRM controller covered (on the right edge of the top heatsink). It's easy to miss. In total, there are 21 packages under the heatsinks that need to be covered.
  2. Maybe the pad thickness wasn't the appropriate one (too thick or too thin).
All cores 5GHz @ 1.310v
I assume this is the voltage setting in the BIOS. If yes, then with LLC -> 6, this should be ~1.26V vcore under load @5Ghz (you can verify with CPU-Z under Windows). If that's the case, then this is a good cpu sample.

Also, seeing how many iStat readings are incorrect, you could verify clocks/temps/power using Intel's power gadget, just to make sure that the clocks stay stable under load. It also displays an accurate power consumption for the CPU (make sure you have SVID support to "enabled" in the BIOS for that).
Max CPU Temp: 86C (Prime95)
That's not too bad and I wouldn't worry about it, although I expected a bit lower considering the low voltage/LM/IHS.
the fans in my system run about 200-300rpm higher at full load. Fortunately, even with the increase in RPM, noise is still very manageable.
If it bothers you, you can always set the fan speed profiles from the BIOS (QFAN(F6)) to something a bit lower, by directly adjusting the speed/temp graph (Q-Fan is awesome!).
Seeing as how almost all of the new Z390 motherboards have added power connectors for CPU power, I was a bit concerned that the Z370 would not be capable of delivering sufficient power to the i9-9900K. I'm sure that having a delidded CPU helps, but in my personal situation, power delivery to the CPU does not appear to be an issue at all. By the time I push my overclock to the point where power delivery is a concern, I would probably need a far more elaborate cooling system for the CPU.
A single EPS12V 8pin has 4 +12V rails and with 18AWG wires (like most good PSUs have) you can very safely pull 7A from each rail. This means 4 x 7A x 12V = 336W from a single 8pin. A good PSU and M/B should have no problem supplying that. Even if you subtract 20-30W for the VRM switching losses, it should leave 300+W available for the CPU, which is much more than enough for any 9900K overclock (barring extreme OCing with dry ice or LN2).

The second 8pin is simply not necessary, but many manufactures often do things that might not make much sense, but they consider that will help them with sales. Like putting overclocking knobs that go to 11 (ramping vcore dangerously high) or adding VRM "heatsinks" that are more design pieces than actual finned heatsinks and on top of that, cover them with flashy plastic shrouds, reducing their cooling efficiency even further.
I'm positive that my particular CPU has much more headroom for overclocking, I just have to find a good balance between power consumption, heat, noise, and stability that I'm comfortable with. I will mess around some more with this in the coming days, but, for now, I just want to enjoy the two extra cores. So far, I'm extremely happy with the upgrade!!
I'm very happy that everything turn out great for you! Like I mentioned previously, you can always try increasing the per core frequency (instead of syncing all cores to 5Ghz). That should give higher single thread performance (7000+ in geekbench). Leaving everything else as you have it now, I think that you could push 5.2-5.3Ghz for 1-2 cores without problem.

After that you can try increasing the cache frequency, again without doing any other changes. Default is 4.3Ghz, but you should be able to get it somewhere closer to 5Ghz (you might need to disable "ring down bin" first). That should give another small performance boost.
 
Ouch, all night?! I'm very sorry that the pads gave you so much trouble, but that definitely doesn't sound right and contradicts my experience and the reports I've read online from others. In my Asus board, the VRMs would throttle with the stock pads, but not after replacing them with the Fujipoly Extreme Plus pads. Fujipoly pads are pretty expensive and have 2-3 times (depending on type) better thermal conductivity than any other pads on the market that I'm aware of (unless the manufacturer is insincere). I highly suspect that something else is at play here.
  1. Make sure that you also have the VRM controller covered (on the right edge of the top heatsink). It's easy to miss. In total, there are 21 packages under the heatsinks that need to be covered.
  2. Maybe the pad thickness wasn't the appropriate one (too thick or too thin).

I assume this is the voltage setting in the BIOS. If yes, then with LLC -> 6, this should be ~1.26V vcore under load @5Ghz (you can verify with CPU-Z under Windows). If that's the case, then this is a good cpu sample.

Also, seeing how many iStat readings are incorrect, you could verify clocks/temps/power using Intel's power gadget, just to make sure that the clocks stay stable under load. It also displays an accurate power consumption for the CPU (make sure you have SVID support to "enabled" in the BIOS for that).

That's not too bad and I wouldn't worry about it, although I expected a bit lower considering the low voltage/LM/IHS.

If it bothers you, you can always set the fan speed profiles from the BIOS (QFAN(F6)) to something a bit lower, by directly adjusting the speed/temp graph (Q-Fan is awesome!).

A single EPS12V 8pin has 4 +12V rails and with 18AWG wires (like most good PSUs have) you can very safely pull 7A from each rail. This means 4 x 7A x 12V = 336W from a single 8pin. A good PSU and M/B should have no problem supplying that. Even if you subtract 20-30W for the VRM switching losses, it should leave 300+W available for the CPU, which is much more than enough for any 9900K overclock (barring extreme OCing with dry ice or LN2).

The second 8pin is simply not necessary, but many manufactures often do things that might not make much sense, but they consider that will help them with sales. Like putting overclocking knobs that go to 11 (ramping vcore dangerously high) or adding VRM "heatsinks" that are more design pieces than actual finned heatsinks and on top of that, cover them with flashy plastic shrouds, reducing their cooling efficiency even further.

I'm very happy that everything turn out great for you! Like I mentioned previously, you can always try increasing the per core frequency (instead of syncing all cores to 5Ghz). That should give higher single thread performance (7000+ in geekbench). Leaving everything else as you have it now, I think that you could push 5.2-5.3Ghz for 1-2 cores without problem.

After that you can try increasing the cache frequency, again without doing any other changes. Default is 4.3Ghz, but you should be able to get it somewhere closer to 5Ghz (you might need to disable "ring down bin" first). That should give another small performance boost.

No prob. Lol. Not your fault. I had read all positive things about Fujipoly myself in the past. I just never tried them. The 1mm thickness seemed correct to the naked eye... Yes, I made sure all the mosfets were covered as well as the Digi+VR chip. But whatever Asus is using on the Z370-G is simply much better...

I'm currently using LLC 5. Not sure if LLC 6 would be better, I'll give it a shot later and check in CPU-Z as well. I've alway found iStat Menus to be pretty accurate.

At about 3C higher than my i7-8700K, I think it's fine. Compared to what I'd seen from the Gamers Nexus and Der Bauer videos with their delidded i9-9900Ks, I'm extremely happy with my results. I think to get any more improvements, I would have to lap the die.

I've always just left the fans at the default settings. Even now, I don't find the fans offensive.

Since this CPU is pulling almost the same amount of power as my previous CPU, I don't think power delivery will be a problem. My best guess is that I have approx another 30-50W to work with but I would want to avoid going to such limits. The heat and noise would make using the computer an unpleasant experience.

Yes, I do intend to try pushing 2-3 cores to 5.2 or 5.3GHz with the current voltage. I was a just getting to sleepy to do any more testing last night. Lol. But 2-3 cores at 5.2-5.3GHz and maybe 2-3 at 5.1GHz should be fun.

I've never tried overclocking the cache. I'll mess around with it a bit once I have the core clocks stable.

Thanks for the tips!! :thumbup:
 
No prob. Lol. Not your fault. I had read all positive things about Fujipoly myself in the past. I just never tried them. The 1mm thickness seemed correct to the naked eye... Yes, I made sure all the mosfets were covered as well as the Digi+VR chip. But whatever Asus is using on the Z370-G is simply much better...

I'm currently using LLC 5. Not sure if LLC 6 would be better, I'll give it a shot later and check in CPU-Z as well. I've alway found iStat Menus to be pretty accurate.

At about 3C higher than my i7-8700K, I think it's fine. Compared to what I'd seen from the Gamers Nexus and Der Bauer videos with their delidded i9-9900Ks, I'm extremely happy with my results. I think to get any more improvements, I would have to lap the die.

I've always just left the fans at the default settings. Even now, I don't find the fans offensive.

Since this CPU is pulling almost the same amount of power as my previous CPU, I don't think power delivery will be a problem. My best guess is that I have approx another 30-50W to work with but I would want to avoid going to such limits. The heat and noise would make using the computer an unpleasant experience.

Yes, I do intend to try pushing 2-3 cores to 5.2 or 5.3GHz with the current voltage. I was a just getting to sleepy to do any more testing last night. Lol. But 2-3 cores at 5.2-5.3GHz and maybe 2-3 at 5.1GHz should be fun.

I've never tried overclocking the cache. I'll mess around with it a bit once I have the core clocks stable.

Thanks for the tips!! :thumbup:
I still have my doubts as to whether Asus uses better pads by stock. Even if a single MOSFET didn't make good contact with the pad/heatsink, for whatever reason, it would cause a cascade failure. The VRM controller would switch the load from the overheating MOSFET to the other MOSFETs, causing them in turn to overheat and eventually everything would fail. In any case, I'm glad you worked everything out and you can always use the pads on a future 7nm Vega 20 ;).

I prefer lower LLC values (I have mine at 4) to prevent any auto voltage overshoots and simply adjust the voltage a bit higher manually. After you fine-tune and stabilize everything, you can switch from manual to adaptive voltage, to lower your idle temps. You set the turbo voltage to be the same with what you had in manual, but the M/B would automatically drop it when down-clocking, instead of keeping the same high voltage across all the frequency range.
 
I still have my doubts as to whether Asus uses better pads by stock. Even if a single MOSFET didn't make good contact with the pad/heatsink, for whatever reason, it would cause a cascade failure. The VRM controller would switch the load from the overheating MOSFET to the other MOSFETs, causing them in turn to overheat and eventually everything would fail. In any case, I'm glad you worked everything out and you can always use the pads on a future 7nm Vega 20 ;).

I prefer lower LLC values (I have mine at 4) to prevent any auto voltage overshoots and simply adjust the voltage a bit higher manually. After you fine-tune and stabilize everything, you can switch from manual to adaptive voltage, to lower your idle temps. You set the turbo voltage to be the same with what you had in manual, but the M/B would automatically drop it when down-clocking, instead of keeping the same high voltage across all the frequency range.

I tried adaptive voltage with my i7-8700K and ended up with more heat and power consumption. Lol. Eventually, I just went back to manual
 
I tried adaptive voltage with my i7-8700K and ended up with more heat and power consumption. Lol. Eventually, I just went back to manual
:D that shouldn't be right.
Try setting the SVID behavior to "best-case scenario" and in "Internal CPU Power Management" the two IA AC/DC Load Line values to 0.01.
 
Back
Top