*OFFICIAL* Alienware Area-51M R1 Owner's Lounge

Not a pep talk man I'm trying to save you 3500 on crippled stuff, you will see when you get it, @Lopt loved this thing to and now he say he Wil never buy aw again... But okay.

Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk

Well my KS runs at 4.8ghz all the time an di have it undervolted, a 9900k which I had for this thing to gets hot af at 4.7ghz.

Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk

 

High load is not essential / not the most important test, I think. But many everyday situations. The transition from high load to low load is often a problem. And higher temperatures. Just do everything with it for several days (if you have a new config), browse, mail, play different games etc.

 

Then your setting is not stable.

my 9900K can run games with 5.2ghz... You can have luck and bad luck with K and KS... but the chance of getting an good 9900KS is a bit better. The Problem is still that KS is Power limited.

 

Can you run a 3d Mark with 5.2ghz? I Wana see score unless you have one

Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk

 

I agree. 200 MHz more clock on all eight cores and -125mv UV simultaneously is also violent.

 

Initially I was running it @ -0.135 V then I had a couple of random crashes eventhough it passes CPU benches. I then pumped it by 10 mv and all BSOD is gone. I havent had one since.

I noticed one thing though, alienware doesnt allow you to run CPU at static voltage, and sometimes the default config voltage can go to 1.4V.
I bet we need a custom bios for CPU tweaking - under volting to say the least.

I guess I have to be satisfied with what I got.

BTW, I used intel XTU to for under volting since ThrottleStop voltage meter doesnt go below 125mv.

Thanks all.

 

@devilhunter
Test -100mv, is enough (in my opinion).
And with ThrottleStop you can set more than 125mv (you must change the "Range").
And yes, the A51m has not the best mainboard / bios to configured Overclocking optimal.
Here the desktop ATX-motherboards with appropriate chipsetsare unbeatable.

 

sure, i already did: https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/34584797?

Final Fantasy Bench @5.3ghz

UV value says nothing until we know the stock voltage at this clockspeed.

 

https://www.3dmark.com/fs/21181954 for being at 5.2 your score seems alittle low tbh on the cpu this is mine at 4.8

Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk

 

In my case i have been running a 9900K @ 5GHz with -100mV offset for months without problems

 

@captn.ko That's right, but no matter how good the stock voltage is, 200 MHz more clock on all eight cores and >100mv UV simultaneously is (for my experience - but I only had five 9900k) always violent.

 

its not

that ist a 5.2ghz score from an MSI Book 9900KS... same CPU score

 

that say nothing. Higher clock = higher VID. Without knowing the voltage the UV value says nothing

 

https://www.3dmark.com/fs/18934864

Here's a random score I found with a desktop using a 9900k at 5.1ghz and his scores are beating you. Yeah yours is low you should be beating him.

Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk

 

Faster Ram you compare apples and oranges...

 

@captn.ko Five 9900k tested... different VIDs.... always was +200 MHz and >100mv to violent... Yes, maybe not good chips. No matter (for me).
So we're both not wrong.

 

Bro faster ram not gonna make 3d mark go op on cpu score it tests everything individually.

Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk

 

I fear @captn.ko is right. But I'm going to stay out of here.

 

https://www.3dmark.com/fs/17253404

Look at this @5.3ghz? Score is trash to. Fast ram too

Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk

 

and in throttle stop bench I should select 1024mb 16 threads?

 

same i do not discuss about 1-2% Score difference. Have a nice evening

 

I saw that config on dell outlet for $2100 ... I didn’t have enough $$$ lol that was a good deal.

 

I mean I do hope you enjoy it lol

Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk

 

The sound boards can be wonky. Had to replace mine under warranty. Its easy to do...dont let dell do it.

 

I have a similar set up. I have gsync......its a good setup. And u got a great deal. I paid 600 more AFTER I used a ton of credits.

 

Cool I’ll keep an eye on it thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

My first board would not always pick up headphones and would only play one channel....unless i used a headphone with a built in Mike.

New one has been flawless.

 

I have found that when in full screen applications (games) the jack detection gets silenced. If you alt-tab to desktop, plug out and back in, it shows the prompt. I believe this is normal behavior unless you change the notification settings for that. I simply turned off automatic jack detection/reassignment and have them assigned permanently to what I used them most. If I ever change them, it’s as simple as opening the Realtek application and reassigning. Try that...

Also, my sound card has given me problems on newer (non-Dell) downloaded chipset drivers (from station-drivers), with sound completely going away from the speakers, and the only way to restore sound is to run a diagnostic, and run the sound test and when the sound ping comes through, reboot, and sound will be back. Just stick to Dell's published intel chipset software and you won’t have those issues.

I had suspected my sound card failed, and it was the above that caused it. I’m sure many have had the sound card replaced thinking it was dead, but it’s a driver issue FOR SURE. I’ve tested it multiple times because I couldn’t believe it.

 

Thanks very much for this!

 

Holy monkeys. Is that what they’re going for? Might have to keep an eye out.

 

Hi all here, my dad has gone overseas with the area51m i gave him, but i was wanting to put down some benchmark comparisons compared to area51m's with my g703gxr that i got

Here is the current results ive been getting with the asus, is anyone able to share their benchmarks as well so we can see how much the area51m's are gimped (if at all)

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/43554993?
(i only have 3dmark demo so i dont have access to anything other than timespy)

Maybe (and im having a big hope for this), dell knows something we dont and even with the 2080 tdp reduction it doesnt impact performance too much in gaming

 

In gaming or benching, the average Frequency is what matters, if you boost cuda cores , it would hit thermal limit whatever it is and then it goes back to the average frequency.

For example, GPU boost to 2100 Mhz, goes for 1 min, temp reaches 85, throttles back to 1850 average temperature 75 and stays this way. Occasionally, it can go high but again gaming session last for 30 mins to hours. One min isnt a big deal.

But, the question is everyone asking why Dell is limiting the temperatures to 78, why not 85? I believe shifting the average by 50 or 100 mhz at best isnt worth the thermal output and result in less machines sent to dell for repairs.

But if you undervolt you can get a theoretical 10% bonus IF temperature limits is 85C.

Would love if the upcoming bios fix things up.

 

This is what I use for gaming (2-3-4 hours sessions):
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/10422592
(Balanced or Performance FAN profile gives little difference, except noise. I haven't yet seen any real difference in temperatures in Performance vs Full Fan Profile, from all my tests
CPU: 69-71 Celsius, GPU with thermal throttle 75 Celsius, without thermal throttle 84-85 Celsius)
It's a +130Mhz overclock with a custom voltage/frequency curve. If I have the max temp to 75 Celsius it will reach it and then throttle at around 1900-1925Mhz on the RTX 2080 core.
This is on the latest Bios (1.8.1) with the 200W VBIOS (1.0.0.3). The 180W (1.0.05) VBIOS will give the same results, but it will not allow the card to draw more than 180W at any given time. It will make the card "heat-up slower", but if you plan on going above the 75 Celsius limit, you will not be able to as the power the card can draw will be capped.
If I set the temperature to 87 Celsius (with the same +130Mhz and custom voltage/frequency curve) I am capping at 82-85 Celsius with a Power Draw of 200W (hence the bios).

The CPU in the above benchmark is capped at 5.0Ghz on 6 Cores and 4.9Ghz on last cores, with a -100mV offset and a cache ratio of x47.
(This has been tested over the last 2 weeks, including Throttlestop's benchmark and it is stable).

The absolute max score I get constantly, on full fan profile with a GPU temperature set at 87 Celsius and 5.0Ghz on all cpu cores with cache x47 is this:
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/10420758
+ 135Mhz on core + 500Mhz on memory on a standard voltage/frequency curve.
(However, I cannot recommend this for long gaming sessions, as the CPU will run in games pretty hot around 75-80 Celsius compared to 69-71 Celsius @ 4.9Ghz and the GPU will thermal throttle even at 87 Celsius. Over long periods of time I don't like these temperatures, but they are considered safe).
In my case, the +135Mhz on the core works fine in some games but crashes in others after some time, I look at Control. (Hence, why I recommend +130Hz which is solid after lots of testing periods.)

Conclusion: I don't see the Area 51m gimped at all. Sure, there are the new BIOSes that are more protective of the hardware, but if you know what you are doing, you should be fine. This laptop was never meant to be a "plug&play" device like a regular laptop (since is using desktop components in a Laptop case. If anyone thought it would magically work with overclocks and throwing everything at it, than...) I know, I know... we all wanted it "hassle-free", but from my past experience with Alienware from 2011, to-date, it was never so


PS:
It was actually quite fun finding what works for the i9 9900k in a laptop, as I have the same CPU in my desktop, but is watercooled and clocked to 5.3Ghz.
The RTX 2080 is roughly 30% slower than the RTX 2080 Ti (which I have on my desktop), so most benchmarks are actually accurate on this regard.

PPS:
Since I forgot, the actual difference in FPS if the GPU throttles at 75 Celsius compared to 85 Celsius in my tested is around 2-3-4 FPS, depending on the game. In Metro Exodus (Ultra Graphics settings & Ultra RTX for example (which likes to play havoc with your GPU) the difference is 3 FPS at best.
If you want to sacrifice 3 FPS and get about 10 Celsius cooler with roughly the same performance, is a question you need to ask yourself (Raw numbers in the main menu - 2nd chapter 100-105 FPS no thermal throttle, 98-101 FPS with thermal throttle at 75/85 Celsius).

Hope this helps. If you have any questions about this, please let me know.

Cheers,
Helifax

 

People forget the R0 stepping on the KS chips. Less performance vs clock speed. Not nice needing 1 or even 2 bin higher clock speed to get same performance vs clock speed.

Don't compare the results from the MSIbook Gt76. The 3DM Firestrike physics score is heavly crippld. Even 2666MHz ram won't save it. 26500 in 3DM Fire Strike physics is more like from 4.8/4,9GHz.

Stock clocks (4.7GHz@2666MHz) from my 5 years old Clevo P870... 5.0GHz should be more in the 27,2/27.5K range. Then do the math for 5.2GHz and you see all the showed results fail...

 

Looks like the results youve gotten are quite good, relatively comparable to other similarly equipped laptops so dell doesnt seem to have overtly gimped performance all too much

 

Interesting I honestly never even tried setting the AWCC Thermal limit above 78c because I figured that it was hard coded in BIOS 1.8.1 to 75c what difference would it make ?

I am now back on BIOS 1.8.1 and VBIOS 200w

Well AWCC most be doing something I don't understand because all of the sudden after I set it to 87c Thermal I can now complete Timespy with +130 core and +200 Memory ( in the past almost ANY +memory would cause Timespy to crash out )

Not absolutely sure that's the reason but I can't think of anything else I changed lately that would account for the difference ( other then going back and forth a few times between BIOS 1.5.0 and 1.8.1 / VBIOS 180 and VBIOS 200 )

Best Timespy numbers I have gotten so far https://www.3dmark.com/spy/10443893

My Temps after Timespy in HWinfo are max CPU 72c and max GPU 75c GPU hit 2040mhz

Maybe I will see if I can push it up to +500 Memory in Afterburner

 

yes , it's good prices at the dell outlet. It's warranty is good as if buying new.

Usually the price in the outlet is up to 45% off plus the all time additional 12% off.

 

how significant is a hundred or so points in the timespy benchmark?

it seems like the results of the area51m is relatively comparable to other 9900k/2080 or 9980hk/2080 laptops

 

Diff between a couple/few hundred points in synthetic benchmarks for real world gaming performance is marginal. Sometimes not even measurable in FPS in real games.

Also, working on a bit of a different sample set right now. Will post it when it's finished.
edit: theyre ready.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Spoiler

I went ahead and did a test to determine the differences in thermals between various fan presets as well as the workaround HWinfo 'presets'. These results are for my machine alone, consider that your machine can deviate from these results depending on your thermal compound, thermal compound application, and environmental factors. Your undervolts are likely also going to be stronger than what I used to run these tests.

Specs:
i7 9700k @ 5GHz on all 8 cores; -85mV offset
RTX 2080 @ an average 1920MHz core 7500MHz memory; 950mV maximum voltage, often utilized lower than that (875 most common)

The tests:
Keep in mind these results are almost all within margin of error. The performance difference, especially real world performance, between these results will be minuscule and unnoticeable. The most noticeable detriment to an unstable undervolt/underclock/overclock manifests as worse 0.1% and 1% dips, stuttering, hitching, and microstuttering. This can and normally will be far more of a problem than losing 2-4 average FPS (which is on the high side, for these results it'd probably be less). I did not encounter these issues in my tests but ymmv depending on your settings.

What does matter in this case, and the main reason that I did these tests, will be thermals and ambient sound produced by the fans. Thermals and noise levels varied extraordinarily between test setups. Therefor, the purpose of these tests is to find a balance between temperature and sound that matches individual comfort and subjective interpretation. There is no objective answer to which of these results is superior to the other. Also keep in mind that these results are completely synthetic. Thermal performance in games will not ever be this relaxed. A majority of modern titles will push your temperatures higher than these benchmarks can, particularly on the GPU, oftentimes they won't push your CPU nearly as high as a synthetic load however.

But I digress, without further ado... the tests. Starting with vanilla AWCC profiles.

AWCC Profiles (77C Temp Limit)
These tests were all performed, as expected, with the built in fan profiles in AWCC. I set the temp limit to 77C via AWCC to prevent hard throttles to 500MHz on the GPU and turned off AWCC's CPU overclocking module, opting instead to use Throttlestop to control frequency and voltage. All other GPU related function was handled via MSI Afterburner.


Full Speed

Time Spy
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/10445773
Max CPU Temp: 85C
Max GPU Temp: 69C

Fire Strike Extreme
https://www.3dmark.com/fs/21702998
Max CPU Temp: 79C
Max GPU Temp: 66C

Port Royal
https://www.3dmark.com/pr/213466
Max CPU Temp: 67C
Max GPU Temp: 70C


Performance

Time Spy
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/10445899
Max CPU Temp: 85C
Max GPU Temp: 73C

Fire Strike Extreme
https://www.3dmark.com/fs/21703096
Max CPU Temp: 79C
Max GPU Temp: 67C

Port Royal
https://www.3dmark.com/pr/213472
Max CPU Temp: 72C
Max GPU Temp: 72C


Balanced

Time Spy
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/10446021
Max CPU Temp: 87C
Max GPU Temp: 76C Thermal limit.

Fire Strike Extreme
https://www.3dmark.com/fs/21703183
Max CPU Temp: 87C
Max GPU Temp: 75C

Port Royal
https://www.3dmark.com/pr/213476
Max CPU Temp: 85C
Max GPU Temp: 76C Thermal limit.


HWinfo64 Profiles (80C Temp Limit)
These tests used the recently discovered workaround to bypass Dell's hard temp limit via some kind of crossed wire tech wizardry related to fan profiles. Each of them was set according to the values that you're allowed to set; HWinfo64 is severely limited in scope when it comes to what you can set your fan RPMs to, presumably also thanks to Dell. As a result, these fan profiles sound extraordinarily jarring compared to the vanilla AWCC ones. Outside of the balanced profile, the fans are either off or running full tilt. This has a serious set of drawbacks that I'll touch on later. For now, the numbers.



Full Speed

Time Spy
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/10446789
Max CPU Temp: 84C
Max GPU Temp: 71C

Fire Strike Extreme
https://www.3dmark.com/fs/21703677
Max CPU Temp: 82C
Max GPU Temp: 66C

Port Royal
https://www.3dmark.com/pr/213505
Max CPU Temp: 78C
Max GPU Temp: 71C


Performance

Time Spy
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/10446673
Max CPU Temp: 88C
Max GPU Temp: 73C

Fire Strike Extreme
https://www.3dmark.com/fs/21703540
Max CPU Temp: 81C
Max GPU Temp: 69C

Port Royal
https://www.3dmark.com/pr/213499
Max CPU Temp: 73C
Max GPU Temp: 72C


Balanced

Time Spy
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/10446367
Max CPU Temp: 97C
Max GPU Temp: 76C

Fire Strike Extreme
https://www.3dmark.com/fs/21703391
Max CPU Temp: 90C
Max GPU Temp: 73C

Port Royal
https://www.3dmark.com/pr/213487
Max CPU Temp: 80C
Max GPU Temp: 76C


Summary
So what might we draw from these results?

First and foremost, the workaround introduces a significant increase in heat and/or noise. This is to be expected as the fans are not following a smooth curve, but rather a binary on or off. It is excessively jarring to go from 0 or 1300 RPM up to 2000, 3000, 3200, etc.. This leads in to my next point...

Idle temperatures with the workaround are going to go up by at least 33%. In my experience, my idles were going from 30-40C on the CPU and 30-35C on the GPU up to a pretty steady 50C-60C on both. The problem here is, you will either have your fans at 0RPM, causing the entire machine to be passively cooled by the heat pipe array until it hits your target thermal point (50C, 60C, 70C, etc.) and the fans kick on at full blast. This will happen over, and over, and over, and it's terrible. Therefor the only real solution is to have the fans running basically full time, which can be loud and obnoxious when you don't have the sound from a game to drown out the constant fwoosh of mid to high RPM fans. This is less severe on the Balanced mode, but I'll get to Balanced shortly. Alternatively you can cook your laptop and have the fans set to 0RPM up to 60 or 70C which is terrible for idle temperatures in any machine, but that's your decision.

As far as thermals themselves are concerned, once the fans are on and everything is running the difference between stock and workaround becomes less pronounced. You'll notice the noise less during gameplay, especially with a headset, but there are still some very notable differences. The Balanced fan profile in particular performed very poorly via HWinfo in some cases. This is unfortunate because Balanced is... well, the most balanced. it is the only (in my opinion) usable fan profile that offers 3 steps in HWinfo (0, 1300, and 2800). You can thus have the fans run at 1300RPM while idle, and 2800 under load... however I found 2800RPM to be inadequate in some tests, and it would be even worse in a lot of real world scenarios. But ymmv on this. Full Speed and Performance ended up being very close between AWCC and HWinfo, however there was the serious drawback of the fans turning themselves on and off constantly, which is very distracting in a quiet room, or running full blast at all times at a monstrous 3000/3200 RPM for Performance and 3600/3800RPM for Full Speed. Each side of this particular coin can be ugly and bad depending on your preferences. If you don't care about these problems though, we get on to the final part of my summary...

The entire reason that you would do this at all is to prevent thermal throttling from Dell's dumb BIOS. Unfortunately, these tests were incapable of representing this as none of them stressed the GPU hard enough for long enough to hit my 80C thermal limit, nor did we go above the original thermal limit to prevent throttling with a standard AWCC profile when using the HWinfo workaround. That said, when playing actual games, my temperatures can absolutely exceed 76C, and I do not experience the dreaded 500MHz emergency mode throttle that you normally would (as expected; it was never a question whether or not the workaround actually did what it was supposed to do as I trusted the original source already). So ultimately, you must choose between somewhat worse thermals and much worse sound management vs. a lower thermal limit for your GPU. Does this provide any actual benefit? Sort of. Being able to go higher than 78C on your GPU will allow you to have higher clocks for longer, but that doesn't necessarily mean you will get the highest clocks out of your GPU at all times.

GPU Boost 3.0 will still begin throttling your card well before you hit 87C, and there is no way to turn that off (nor would you ever want to). Are there gains? Sure. But they probably aren't worth the additional heat. At least not for me. The primary draw to the workaround for me, then, is the confidence in knowing that I won't randomly get blasted into chromebook territory for having the audacity to use my gaming desktop replacement notebook... for gaming. I don't know if this is for everyone, but for me, I sometimes experience thermal throttling before hitting that 78C mark. It is random and unpredictable, but it happens. Removing this issue is almost worth it for me, but ultimately the irregularity of the fans' noise level, and the higher idle temps, will force me back to running AWCC by itself at a lower thermal limit and crossing my fingers that I don't encounter any problems by doing so, or more realistically, back to 1.5.1 BIOS where I lose my coveted GSync functionality in exchange for the peace of mind that my machine won't become a glorified paperweight until it stops having its mood swing. $3,500 computer ladies and gentlemen.

As for that point, which fan profile is best? For me, I'll be sticking with Performance. Noise levels are completely managable, and there's a marked difference in thermal performance compared to Balanced. Full Speed does have the best thermals out of all three, but I'm not running my fans at 100% at all times to achieve that benefit. If I'm running something particularly demanding and notice that I'm hitting my thermal limit all the time, then I can always turn on Full Speed and then turn it off after.

Anyway, thanks for hopefully not reading my way too long and largely pointless post about fan profiles and temperature.

 

@Papusan i dont care what score your Clevo with heavily modified BIOS and OS can do i compare A51m to A51m...
Show me an A51m doing 27.5k @5.0 with Stock OS
Even iunlock was hovering at 27k @5.2ghz with tweaked OS. So yeah... Maybe A51m is Physics Score crippled too and Clevo is the holy CPU grail. I dont care ^^

The Point was: is 9900KS better than 9900k in an A51m?
The answer:
depends in your silicon lottery luck and do you need more than 120w CPU Power Limit.

An comparison between brands wasnt the question

 

Can you post your configuration? what vbios you using also how you managing to run 5 Ghz all cores ? What stress tool you using?

My 9900k runs @ 4,9 @ avg 120-125 W -0.125 V. Some fellas on NBR said I got a crappy chip others say its impressive

 

Why do you care about their opinion? If 4.9 ist stable, temps are ok and you are happy with it, then everything is ok

Have fun with your CPU

 

If you are looking for just an FPS bump in gaming, A Desktop CPU is not all to important. They shine more when it comes to virtual machines and complex computations.

Can also help in streaming and gaming at the same time with multiple monitor setups (but at that point it may also be advisable to have TI GPU and full desktop rig)

I would not recommend AW A51M or it's Clevo counterparts to anyone who either A) doesn't care about BGA designs taking over the laptop space; or B) doesn't need a desktop CPU.

I think you may fall in to both the A) and B) categories from your posts. You don't see BGA motherboards as a problem, and I don't think you need a Desktop CPU for anything in particular. And really, that is just fine

 

The ones telling you that you got a crappy chip are enthusiasts. They do everything possible to get the highest possible numbers. But these are also guys that will return a perfectly good cpu because it’s not in the top 10 spot on a benchmark.

Anyone telling 4.9 is good on a laptop((not a desktop)) knows that’s impressive. The 9900k is hard to tame on a desktop. So if you have it on 4.9 stable and it’s not running too hot then you have a good chip. Enjoy.

 

HeHe

It was you that brought up other brands into this thread I just replied on it.

And I replied on two of your posts. This one was for... "is 9900KS better than 9900k in an A51m?"

 

I really dont know why I do care, most of the times I get crappy silicon.

 

Bro this is true! My first 9900ks coild achieve a max of 4.7ghz and I was getting a 2022-2040 cb r5 score and I bought the 9900k instead thinking I will be able to go higher because of the higher power limit, 210w vs 130w and I was only able to get 4.7ghz aswell without the heat going op on the 9900k and scored less in cbr5 about a 1980-2000 max, I ended up getting 9900ks again because the Temps were much cooler, and this one managed to get 4.8ghz this time and I get a 2088+ in cb and I saw it doing better than 9900k again with same clock speed :3 I wish I could push this thing higher it would be amazing.

Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk

 

I think it’s just the limitations of the laptop. None of these desktop replacements can run 5.0 GHz out of the box. A lot of members have delidded CPU’s and probably liquid metal. Plus you’re not losing any noticeable performance. Even if you dropped to 4.6 GHz you’d still have great results for gaming. And probably a noticeable decrease in heat.

Something else to keep in mind most people don’t run their machines at 5GHz all the time. That’s just their benchmarking settings.

And I understand why you’d be into it. I did my first waterblock cooler on a Titan X. At first I had no idea why my results were so much worse than everyone else’s. Then I found out there was so much more to it than turning up the over clock. I had to flash a custom bios to the card that let me pump more voltage into it than what was permitted by the manufacturer. Then my numbers started to match the much higher ones on leaders boards. And believe me there are tricks to doing things like that on laptops too. It’s really fun, but I gave it up because a new next gen card smoked my scores at stock I just enjoy what they can do without extreme mods.

 

Overall 9900KS 130W will still perform better than ~160W/170W 9900K. Highly binned silicon, way better voltage curve, lower temps.

Even with the power limit, 9900KS will be beated by a overclocked 9900k ~170W+ (~4.85GHz all cores)

9900KS > 9900K so sad we don't have official support yet.

 

You would be 10000% correct :3 the KS is the best chip for the 51m it seems I'm glad I got mine before they sold out.

Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk