Skip to main content

Intel's Core i9-12900K Just Hit 8 GHz Along With DDR5-8300

LN2 Overclock
(Image credit: Shutterstock)

Overclocking maestro HiCookie (courtesy of Aorus Spain's Twitter) has overclocked Intel's flagship Core i9-12900K Alder Lake to an impressive 8 GHz with liquid nitrogen (LN2). And not only that, but he also pushed his DDR5 memory from 4,800 MHz to 8,300 MHz.

The Core i9-12900K seems to be a very competent overclocking chip, considering its predecessors, such as the Core i9-11900K (7.3 GHz) and Core i9-10900K (7.7 GHz), were nowhere near the 8 GHz barrier. The Core i9-12900K has already set a few world records, and we can expect to see more when the embargo for Alder Lake lifts tomorrow.

Since the overclocker was backed by Gigabyte, it wasn't a surprise that HiCookie used the manufacturer's hardware to achieve the feat. On the motherboard end, the overclocker employed the Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Tachyon, which is tailored to hardcore overclocking. The motherboard boasts a power delivery subsystem with a 15+1+2-phase design with 105A power stages and tantalum polymer capacitors. With only two DDR5 memory slots and shorter traces, the Z690 Aorus Tachyon is a popular choice for memory overclocking.

Image 1 of 2

Intel Core i9-12900K at 8 GHz

Intel Core i9-12900K at 8 GHz (Image credit: Aorus Spain)
Image 2 of 2

Intel Core i9-12900K at 8 GHz

Intel Core i9-12900K at 8 GHz (Image credit: Aorus Spain)

For the memory, HiCookie utilized a single stick of Gigabyte DDR5-4800 (GP-ARS32G62D5). We've previously seen the same memory hit DDR5-8000, but on this occasion, HiCookie managed to push it to DDR5-8300. Obviously, the timings are a mess. The overclocker had to relax them to 52-52-52-100 to achieve DDR5-8300.

Intel's Alder Lake processors have been available for preorder since a week ago. Orders should start shipping out tomorrow unless you're one of those fortunate Newegg buyers that got yours ahead of everyone else. If not, don't forget to check back to see our review of the Core i9-12900K and whether it should be your next processor upgrade.

  • waltc3
    These LN articles are highly amusing...;) Keep it up...;)
    Reply
  • Dantte
    Awesome!

    Curious, I follow these overclocking events close enough to be dangerous, but I've always had a (maybe dumb) question?
    These boards/processors are overclocked in open air, you always see paper towels and stuff covering the board to prevent moisture from condensation. So instead of open air overclocking, why not submerge the board in a fluid, such as ULT-170, but leave the top of the LN tower exposed for filling. ULT-170 can remain pumpable down to -112C, has a dielectric constant of 2.3 (rubber) and you'd gain the advantage of cooling all electronics on the board while protecting the entire system from condensation? Also, it would also stabilize the board temperatures across the entire platform so you dont have a massive difference between the processor temp and rest of the board which creates a lot of physical stress between components; ie. if the CPU half of the board is -196C and the other half is air temperature, this would cause a ton of compression and expansion between connected components (stress). Yeah, yeah, I know the cost of a fluid such as ULT-170 is stupid level expensive, but given what they are doing, that would be a drop in the bucket.
    Reply
  • TerryLaze
    Dantte said:
    Awesome!

    Curious, I follow these overclocking events close enough to be dangerous, but I've always had a (maybe dumb) question?
    These boards/processors are overclocked in open air, you always see paper towels and stuff covering the board to prevent moisture from condensation. So instead of open air overclocking, why not submerge the board in a fluid, such as ULT-170, but leave the top of the LN tower exposed for filling. ULT-170 can remain pumpable down to -112C, has a dielectric constant of 2.3 (rubber) and you'd gain the advantage of cooling all electronics on the board while protecting the entire system from condensation? Also, it would also stabilize the board temperatures across the entire platform so you dont have a massive difference between the processor temp and rest of the board which creates a lot of physical stress between components; ie. if the CPU half of the board is -196C and the other half is air temperature, this would cause a ton of compression and expansion between connected components (stress). Yeah, yeah, I know the cost of a fluid such as ULT-170 is stupid level expensive, but given what they are doing, that would be a drop in the bucket.
    So they would need to have a big tank that can take the mobo? What would they have to do every time they forgot to plug something in or anything unexpected happens that needs fondling the mobo?
    What if that tank ruptures because of the pressure of the fluid plus the extreme temp fluctuations?

    Also if it would equalize the temps between cpu part and rest of the board, wouldn't that mean that the CPU part would lose the low temps much faster? Would it even still be able to hit the same low temps?
    Reply
  • craigss
    meanwhile nobody has gotten near the 8.7 ghz of the FX series AMD of many years ago with a modern CPU
    Reply
  • Geef
    Dantte said:
    Awesome!

    So instead of open air overclocking, why not submerge the board in a fluid, such as ULT-170, but leave the top of the LN tower exposed for filling.

    Part of that besides the costs might be that certain pieces of electronics don't like it being TOO cold. If you ever watch Gamers Nexus when they liquid cool to overclock they don't do it constantly to the memory chips because if they get too cold they error out and the system crashes.

    I have a feeling the same thing might happen to other chips on the motherboard so things might not go well with a full immersion. (Just a guess there)
    Reply
  • hotaru251
    considering its predecessors, such as the Core i9-11900K (7.3 GHz) and Core i9-10900K (7.7 GHz), were nowhere near the 8 GHz barrier.

    not to be mean but.....it was a ++++++ architech and had no more room to go <_<....props to them for actually improving it liek they did for as many yrs as they did.
    Reply
  • SkyBill40
    I'm going to take, "Things that don't really matter much in the world outside of a few people and even then that's saying more than is really necessary" for $500, Alex.
    Reply
  • 10tacle
    craigss said:
    meanwhile nobody has gotten near the 8.7 ghz of the FX series AMD of many years ago with a modern CPU

    I take it that you do not understand that the GHz speeds of AMD and Intel CPUs are not comparable directly as both processor manufacturers have different architecture designs. I hit 5.2GHz on an Intel Sandy Bridge i5 2500k back in 2011 where the current AMD 5 5600X overclocks on similar high end air (Noctua NH-D15) at a "slower" 4.7GHz. Guess which chip smokes the other in the real world? Now let's do the same and put that ancient AMD FX chip at 8.7GHz against this i9 at 8GHz and see what happens in the real world benchmarks. That's just one example of countless on your straw man point.
    Reply
  • SkyBill40
    10tacle said:
    I take it that you do not understand that the GHz speeds of AMD and Intel CPUs are not comparable directly as both processor manufacturers have different architecture designs. I hit 5.2GHz on an Intel Sandy Bridge i5 2500k back in 2011 just as one example.

    Doesn't really matter. The AMD chip is the record holder. Don't try to move the goalposts to fit your narrative. Just accept it as what it is and until another chip beats it, well, it's on top. 🤷‍♂️
    Reply
  • 10tacle
    SkyBill40 said:
    Doesn't really matter. The AMD chip is the record holder. Don't try to move the goalposts to fit your narrative. Just accept it as what it is and until another chip beats it, well, it's on top. 🤷‍♂️

    It's the record holder for AMD. Nothing more, and nothing less in the real world as you yourself stated above being useless. If there were real goal posts to even move, there would be world records for CPUs broken down by manufacturers just like we have in different types of Olympic sports games. Breaking a world record in swimming is a little different than doing so in running.
    Reply