i still manage to get better score everywhere with new microcode 0x12b With i7 14700k on MSI MPG Z690 doing these steps cpu load lite mode 3 , voltage calibration mode 3 , -0.100v on cpu core voltage offset , thermal velocity boost disable , Core iccmax 307a , both 253watt turbo boost short and long while keeping low temp pcore at 5.7ghz ecore at 4.5ghz. i score over 37k point on cinebench R23 , im running 64gb ddr5 at 6000mhz cl36-36-36-77-113
I just built my first Intel machine ever and I think I have it figured out but it’s hard to tell because these chips don’t undervolt and overclock at all like amd chips. I simply want to set it to run at 6.0ghz while I’m actually gaming it as close to it as possible while still being stable. I’ve gotten it to outperform the 7950x in single core by 21% at the most but the better configuration seems to hit about 18% single core gains but far less losses in multi core like the first that it’s almost equal to the 7950x in every way cpuz can see in threaded work loads and about 20% better for single core workloads. Things is most games now are dual and quad core work loads and they don’t really seem to have a way to configure a proper 6ghz OC with an undervolt for anything that uses more cores than a typical game. Is this somehow possible on intel with the V/F shift? Also why does the shift ignore the fact I’m not running it at the speed it says? I don’t understand these v e and o cores. What happened to cores and threads? I have a great chip with new silicone and it’s never seen a bad microcode boot.. I want to get the most out of it and don’t know where to start without using shitty ai Oc bc not many ppl are bios OC new Intel raptor lake chips… fewer making tutorials…
@ Unfortunately 6ghz boost is the reason for instability with these chips, even with an Undervolt applied you won’t get it outside of throttle if it boosts for any sustained amount of time. I have a future video on a tune at 58 all core in the next couple of weeks, but have never been able to get any stability beyond that, and even so if you want the processor to last you are far better sync’ing to 5500 as per the guide. 6ghz is designed only to be attained in short duration boosts when the processor environmental conditions allow, check this video about why 55 is the optimal frequency Undervolting and Tuning Guide Intel i9 14900k - Core Sync 5500 to 5800 mhz & Performance Benchmarks ua-cam.com/video/hh3FIN1c_ZQ/v-deo.html
@@ander8329 You will gain improved performance as lower temperatures, and preventing the boost will prevent throttling. Interestingly, I am presently doing a part 2 to this video that gives some examples to exactly that 🙂
FYI, I was using Intel ETU to undervolt my 13900K by -0.110v from the start (but that is all I did). (Cinebench R23 = ~38,800). HOWEVER, I still experienced the damage. Approximately 1 year after purchase all my Handbrake started failing. I'm now on 0x129 microcode update. R23 = 33,600 now. :( With these recommendations (values appropriate for 13900K) I'm back up to 35,800. * Changed all P Cores to 55x (was 58x for core 0 & 1) * Disabled Overclocking Thermal Velocity Boost * Undervolt by -0.110v thanks!
There are a few variables at play unfortunately, in the early batches of 13th and 14th Gen processors there was a known manufacturing issue of Oxidization which could have affected your processor, the later issues are believed to relate to VID requests being too high, the microcode updates are designed to have fixed this. Undervolting and reducing core speed is another good measure. as outlined in the video, however no warranty is implied, and any user making any modifications to their configuration does so at their own risk.
@@nextlevelsimgaming Understood. My point was to warn folks that merely undervolting didn't help me (note: I didn't undervolt to rescue my chip, I just hated the needless high temps.)
@@windfire5380 I think the situation is far from resolved unfortunately, but all we can do as enthusiasts is to keep temperatures as low as possible and voltages as low as possible. See the Wukong Benchmark I just uploaded as an example of the effectiveness of both using the Custom settings, the Benchmark has been causing failures during shader compilation and running for many, even those running the Intel Defaults. I have been stress testing and benchmarking much of yesterday so am pleased the custom profile is running both stable, and with excellent performance, and low temperatures and voltages 🤘🏻
I don't understand why I gotta change the cores and why disable overclocking thermal velocity boost? idk so much about undervolting, but all I did and I've been running the same setting for 11 months is just use a negative offset - 0.050v and adaptive mode and my cinerbench r23 score on the i9 13900k is 36,666 but now after the bios update I heard I can push my voltage even further?
So intel instead of telling all the modern cpu users to set a limit to their cpu they are telling you to use their shitty bios update to solve the problem they made.And it doesn't solve the problem just lowers the voltage intel doens't give a crap about the users especialy the problem is with the high end cpu's that cost around 800 dollars they should solve the problem in an instant but that's just my opinion.
@@nexivis4life Intel are facing a wave of issues with these processors, and I agree entirely, we are not getting the product we paid for unfortunately and there are a number of class action lawsuits in the news in motion taking up this issue. In the meantime to mitigate the performance loss from the BIOS update, this is a good way to maintain stability. I would recommend checking out the @GamersNexus channel who covers the issues in much more detail. The guide is intended on users who want an easy way tweaking settings, in no way am I affiliated or sponsored by Intel.
The problem seems to be the ring bus using the same voltage rail, and TVB itself is responsible for accelerated degradation due to the crazy volts needed for 6Ghz boosts. It was bad enough that AIB’s were essentially undervolting via AC_LL out of the box to begin with. Probably so R23 scores looks better in reviews. I manually set p-core limits to 5.7Ghz, then set IA VR voltage of 1.4v. No more TVB boosts for me, and no more vcore spikes. Not that I had any issues anyway, but better safe than sorry.
@@MhillPlays Exactly, the 6ghz boost does absolutely nothing for performance on a normal users system, unfortunately for Intel it was the headline feature that they can’t undo, its now a case of make do with lower core performance or face certain premature failure.
Here's what I did for my 14900K: - PL1: 150 - PL2: 175 - AMP: 307 - Windows power plan: Balanced These changes significantly reduced power consumption, thermal throttling, TjMAX, and over-temp issues. I got excellent results in 3DMark Steel Nomad, Heaven, Furmark, and Cinebench R15. The only issue was a brief 1-second spike right before the 3DMark Steel Nomad test started, but my machine recovered quickly, and there were no issues during the actual test. I'm chalking it up to a bit of lag between the CPU sensors and HWINFO64.
Apparently UA-cam deletes comments with link. But you should it them in your email as a reply. I included screenshots of Video and Graphic settings plus HWINFO64.
I've never has a worse CPU experience in my life. Had to RMA my first 14900K in May. The new one, with latest bios and 0X129 and Intel defaults is giving me heat spikes. R23 was at 37.2K. Trying to undervolt as per this video's instruction knocked it down to 21K. I just want the cpu to work.
@@devans83 Have you set the BIOS to Asus OC and not the Intel Baseline Profile?, the Intel Default combined with this fix will ‘reduce’ performance not improve it, the microcode instruction to reduce VID below 1.4 remains. You need to have the Asus OC (standard) BIOS profile active. Reboot your PC and set BIOS to ‘Load Optimised Defaults’ Change these two settings - Undervolt Protection - Disabled Intel Virtulization Technology - Disabled Save and apply settings Reboot and go into BIOS again Set your RAM XMP to the rated speed i.e 5600mt Save settings Then follow the guide and ensure that the power settings are correct ICCMAX - 400A PL1 - 253 PL2 - 253 You should achieve over 39k and also run stability testing. The lock all cores and undervolt have achieved me complete stability and temps below 75 degrees Celsius Hope this helps 🙂
@@nextlevelsimgaming Yes, the Intel Base profile was loaded in. I'll change it to the Asus profile and the recommended settings and report back. Thanks.
@@devans83 No problem, also ensure all running applications are closed in the tray on the task bar before running Cinebench R23 (before and after) such as Chrome/RGB software etc) the application does advise this but to obtain an accurate score having a browser open alone can impact the score by around 2000.
@@nextlevelsimgaming changes applied. Voltage Offset is set to -0.050 V. Getting thermal throttles and occasional R23 crashes. Score is at 38305. XTU stress test passes.
@@devans83 Ok, are the temperatures good?, and are all other applications closed in the desktop tray?, if R23 is crashing reduce the offset to -0.045v and also in BIOS select ‘Sync All Cores’ and save and try again. Is XMP enabled on your RAM?, and if so what speed?, you may or may not achieve over 40k given the RAM speed, however remember this is an improvement over the Intel Baseline Profile, and more importantly the temperatures will be lower, and it is still working within Intel guidelines on Power and short and long duration settings. 👌🏻
Most of the settings worked for me except the Global. First I tried -0.070 and kept working my way down by increments of -0.005 until I reached -0.030. I ran OCCT's linpack stress test and kept getting the BSOD. I eventually set the Global on Auto and things are stable without any errors or crashes.
Thats good, except you’re overvolting not undervolting, you would start at -0.05000 then in .5 increments dial the other way so -0.05500 then -0.06000 etc, try it going the opposite way 😉
A realy good and informative video, but I have to add one thing. I personally think that a little more intonation in your voice would make this 30 minute video come to life and more easier to keep concentrated to all the information.
I agree, the editing process of having to watch it repeatedly certainly highlighted that 🤣 will certainly try but had also worked on call that particular week in the day job, but thanks for the feedback 😉
I truly appreciate your video,but with the latest events of Intel denying RMAs, oxidation risk and then on the top of it all not been able to "get the bangs for the money", I am going with the red side this time, despite the fact that I have been building PCs since 1994 almost always bought and build my rigs with Intel CPUs. I've only bought AMD once(Pentium IV vs Athlon XP). But after Intel sold me a CPU (i7 6700K) with a built in Operative System WITHOUT my knowledge(Intel ME), without the possibility to disable it, I will be refusing to install and buy Intel in my rigs. it has nothing to do with the been AMD fan or Intel fan but Intel has been really stable from the day one. I truly hope AMD will be a good decision this time. On the other hand both Intel and AMD might keep their eyes open as a new player is in the market (ARM). It has taken the handheld market with a storm. Makes one wonder if they will have the same success on the PC market. I truly honestly hope that your PC does not fail. Thank you for the video. I have watched it until the end.
@@Nick-L4D2-Z3n I can completely appreciate your comments and agree with you, not what users should have to endure, but we try to deal with the challenges the best we can, lets hope Intel can regain the lost confidence in the users, and enjoy the new CPU 👌🏻
lol dont be funny... another brand another problems to deal with... it is just to you to act in time and make their mistakes in your favor :) if Im were asked if I would buy i9 again I would without thinking coz all this fuss is here because of a few bad batches...
Only updated to 0x125 and still havent update 0x129 for my 14700k I Just set the limit of IA Limit to 1.400 V. I cant get the maximum advertised speed but it should be safer now. Might change it into 1.375 I hope it will solve the degredation problem by not reaching 1.54V again. Because I'm planning to use this cpu for around 5 years++ before upgrading.
The lower the power running through the CPU’s the better, if you imagine a modified engine in a car, that has been remapped to achieve higher performance, you wouldn’t drive it round at the redline constantly. Unfortunately the behaviour of many of these processors has been exactly that way, with some even boosting to 6ghz at idle! Better to be safe, thank you for your channel view and hope the guide was of some help to you 🙂
Personally I think voltages is the main issue but intel cant fix it because if they reduce the voltage , then they wont get the advertised speed. But I think downgrading my 14700 and make it into 12700 spec is far better than letting it kill itself in 2 or 3 years. 😭😭 And undervolting is also a good option. As long its not too extreme.
@@AdeHcs Exactly,, this would throw them into extremely muddy water when they are already facing various class action lawsuits. The enthusiasts have been aware for some time that they have to take remedial steps to under-volt and downclock to lower the temperatures and in many cases improve performance, but Intel would never be able to tell us this directly for that very reason.
@@nextlevelsimgaming I really hope your video will give more awareness to people who bought the 13 and 14th gen intel CPU. And they will at least try to solve the problems , before the problems shows itself. They need to do something themself , and not only depending on the latest microcode . Because those microcode will become microheadache in the next 1 or 2 year.
if u are limiting processor not undervolting it and setting loadlines as you should then u are making that you CPU asking for 1.55v and u are giving it 1.4 coz u limit the current it needs to get... the whole point was to sync asking amount and giving amount and to make that amounts lower :D how to do that with degraded CPU? u cant! so u do this tutorial. but if ur CPU is new u do 0x129 update and make other things... my mbo is Gigabyte and my landline go on high and AC/DC 55 after that I set undervolt to -100 and everything works well.. my CPU don't go over 72-3 degrees and benchmarks are just as they advertise in multi core and single core ... but it is natural that when u have "k" version to overclock it :D this is pathetic that we need to set settings under out of box ... coz out of box it is overclocked bad with possibility to degrade....
@@j_shelby_damnwird I can only comment on the i9 14900k unfortunately, I don’t have other processors to test, however the principle is the same for undervolting, if you adjust the various power limits based on your CPU
my 14700k is running fine has not giving me 1 problem ran it clocked and stress tests and it was stable have it under volted now and it ran 96 fps avg on black myth wukong on cinematic pre set
@@JamesCobb-x4p Great news, I fortunately haven’t had any problems, with the right protective maintenance, they will hopefully operate correctly. Hope the guide was of help to you 🙂
@@delanescott7872 I do not have a 14700k to test unfortunately but looking at the specifications the Max ICC should be the default settings, and base frequency locked to all cores, with PL1 and PL2 at the Intel Default settings, you can run an AI tune on Intel XTU to determine these and then sync all cores accordingly
Good video showing how effective 0x129 is, and how easy it is to get back to previous performance values. I don't imagine it will stop the Intel haters, especially GN, but the new microcode and extended warranty seem a perfectly functional and acceptable solution in my book! I don't even have the warranty option as I'm running a delidded 14900KS on a MoRa 420. Lower temps and same performance, and should alleviate the possible voltage related degradation so I'm happy!
Same case , 420 x 2 rad 46mm Direct die setting TVB is going crazy to boost 6.2 voltage , ASUS sync IA DC , IA vr 1.430 Just give up the 6.2 joking at 1.55V Leave it . I have 2 chips K and KS tested KS just is a better K. same other model they passed the high boost over voltage that kill itself and this problem issue to user get a better selling price . However GOBAL overshooting . Yes , in past ,any user buy K series ,they have to take the risk . However , while you take this to a selling point ,not especially 14th 13 gen, at least, make sure the quality. I know the will pass the contract vendor to this QC. Staff Asked : we should test it how long ? Boss: 5 mins? Well , this patch cpu is urgent to ship out! So this may be run 2 months works .half year still works or no one know it.🎉
@@lawrenceonface Just limit the clock to 59X max on all cores (or 60X for benchmarking). I can't think of any real world usage that ever hit 6.2GHz on my KS except at idle on the preferred cores where current is low.
if you praise intel for selling you a poorly designed cpu that was capable of burn itself and intel refusing to accept rmas blaming everyone and not accepting they did things wrong, you are part of the problem, intel lied and delivered less and you accepted that reality never blame a gamers nexus for presenting reality, open your eyes, not your wallet to save intel in their sinking process
I RMA my 13900K and got in return from Intel a 14900k. With the new microcode installed and following your video I cant get it to pass 37654pts. I'm lost here
Don’t get too hung up on the Cinebench score, it depends on a lot of factors. However applying further increments of undervolt for example - 0.05000 To begin then retest, then add a further increment of 0.00500 So then - 0.055000 Etc in my final section you will see I tweaked my undervolt to - 0.065000 To achieve the final result, this is a pretty safe undervolt however this depends on silicon quality and a number of other factors. The main purpose of this is to sync the cores, and maintain stability, and prevent boost, which lead to voltage spikes, and consequently game crashes. Intel in their latest Default Settings have gone very extreme with this. Rewatch section 3 of the video and hope this helps 🙂 Remember undervolting improves temperatures and efficiency of the processor which will in turn improve the score, however do not go to far with it as it may result in crashes in itself and therefore like any modification is done at users own risk.
@@nextlevelsimgaming What I ended up doing was to disable intel default settings, as in my motherboard (Gigabyte Aorus Master z790), even when I disabled Virtualization and Undervolt Protection I couldn't tweak the voltage in Intel XPU. So I disabled Intel defaults, locked the cores to 5.7 and applied -0.045 undervolt.
@nextlevelsimgaming I have an i9 13900k the only thing I did was put a negative offset and that was about it. Does your way by syncing all cores and so on use more resources than it should and shortens the lifespan of my components or is it the same thing?
@ No, the cores behave independently so some boost, some idle, the fluctuations in these causes instabilities if the voltage regulation is incorrect, hence the crashes prior to the microcode revision. By syncing the cores they will work in unification, and more consistent, they will still idle, they only go to 5500 when required
@@nextlevelsimgaming Well, my i9 13900k never had any crashing does this still apply to me? also that 5.8 isn't that something I will see in my games if I still keep it?
The chip is not one affected by the current issues, so there is no microcode fix available, however remove Virtualization and undervolt protection and if the processor is compatible with XTU then you can undervolt to improve efficiency
What you mean by remove virtualization,you mean vmx in BIOS? O dont have undervolt option in bios O have gigabyte MB I dont get it@@nextlevelsimgaming
@nextlevelsimgaming, how do you recommend that the tweaks we do in XTU are applied on every reboot? Do you have a recommended approach? P.S.: I realized I may have had an assumption that was wrong all along. Using Intel XTU to do an undervolt and your other recommendations, I thought these settings were used on reboots until/if a non-standard shutdown occurred then it reverted. I'm seeing now that the settings ARE NOT automatically applied by XTU unless you re-run the app.
@@windfire5380 The settings are set as soon as you click ‘apply’, you can then close the application in the tray to avoid the process running and using system resources, you don’t need to reboot.
@@nextlevelsimgaming I get that. But on reboot, can I be confident they are still applied? In settings "Advanced tab" there is a "restore tuning after reboot" . Does this ensure they are re-applied each reboot? (unless I have an abnormal system shutdown which resets)?
@@windfire5380 Yes, the settings are saved after reboot as long as the Watchdog service shows False to quote - Under Intel® XTU System Information, find Watchdog section and confirm Watchdog Present shows False. False means the Watchdog is not detected within the system, and the Intel® XTU user will have to manually restore settings/profiles after reboot.
@@nextlevelsimgaming. That quote is so confusing to me. It reads like you want Watchdog Present False if you want to have to manually restore settings. To get the settings to load every reboot, do I want Watchdog Present False or True? I ASSUME "TRUE" to get it to work with reboots, but that Intel write-up is insanely poor written. My checkbox is not greyed out, and I've got it checked. Currently, I have status : Watchdog Present True Failed False Having these two sentences woudl really help: If you want XTU to apply settings on reboot, ensure "Watchdog Present True". If "False" see this link to fix. If you do NOT want XTU to apply settings on reboot, simply uncheck the box for restoring tuning in Settings.
@@windfire5380 That was a quick consultation with the Intel site, I have checked my configuration and it is the same as yours so I can confirm the settings will be retained after reboot, I am presently benchmarking for an upcoming video so know that the settings are retained.
Had my Intel i9-14900K fail in April and having got it replaced under warranty have not yet put the new one back in my system. I did the Latest Bios update on my PC the other week and since then I’ve been experiencing issues with the i7-14700kf that is in the system currently and been getting application and program crashes in use and even had the entire system crash and restart with an error about Kernel something or other. I’m wondering if I need to re-run and play with the Intel XTU Program to maybe try and restabalise my CPU since that bios update has messed around with it?
@@Cwattyeso I would certainly recommend syncing cores, and undervolting, a safe undervolt is considered to be negative offset - 0.0500 so begin with this and sync the cores to I would say 5.3 looking at the specs of your processor.
Sure...run the bios update Asus says on their Rog Strix Z790-H"The new BIOS includes Intel microcode 0x129 and adjusts the factory default settings for the non-K processors, enhancing the stability of Intel Core 13th and 14th gen desktop processors." so yer on yer own no K processor default settings. by definition they're not stable try to find this video. Burn out your cpu running cinabench or some other grinder benchmarker thermal limiting cooler tester guaranteed to load everything past normal use limits
@@bloviatormaximus1766 It does apply the update to the K processor, what it is saying is the none K processors get the default settings change only as they are not affected by the microcode issue, the K processor gets both
@@Marko19959 Set all to 54ghz on XTU and power settings as above, I have seen users on 13,900k with good results at 53 across the board, remember the purpose is to keep the cores in sync and avoid boost
i have 14900k gigabyte mbo z790 ud and i have set my loadlines to high then ac/dc to 55 and i kick -0.09v and it is kicking max to 1.395 ... my temps dont pass 72degrees in any benchmark ( in thisone like ur the score is same 40k)coz i have custom loop.. now im asking u ... did i do something wrong coz u are telling us to turn off boost and i didnt... also can i undervolt just like u and to sync all cores but to overclock all for 100hz up ? my pc is for work and i didnt have much space for experimenting so i must be shure before i fuckup :D
@@CodeNameTech Its pretty common advice to sync all cores, remove boost, and undervolt, a good channel to look up is @FrameChasers who goes in to much more depth on the subject. Many users don’t want to play around at BIOS level too much, which is understandable, my guide is aimed at users who want to be able to achieve the same results with an easy UI. Intel XTU is far from perfect, the Overclocking aspect is nonsense as said on my video, but as an easy method with some basic BIOS steps it achieves the same outcome.
No, the processor uses a much lower power profile, you should certainly update your BIOS regulary anyway, however the i5 will not be suffering the same issues.
@@sananda_music1 I have noticed that it seems to take lomger to get into BIOS since the BIOS update interestingly, however make sure you enable ‘Fast Boot’ in BIOS which should resolve this.
@@nextlevelsimgaming cheers anyways my i7 still jumps some high voltage with the new patch and yea i been getting those mouse locks once and awhile.. ill end up offsetting voltage -.050 to keep below 1.45 but yea there not really fixing there problem.
👍 & Subbed.
Very structured video. Covered everything for me. Thank you for making this
@@Chris-di3us Excellent, glad it was of help to you, thanks for the subscribe 👌🏻
Another excellent one keep them going ❤🎉🎉🎉
@@MeMe-w3y Thank you 🙂
i still manage to get better score everywhere with new microcode 0x12b With i7 14700k on MSI MPG Z690 doing these steps cpu load lite mode 3 , voltage calibration mode 3 , -0.100v on cpu core voltage offset , thermal velocity boost disable , Core iccmax 307a , both 253watt turbo boost short and long while keeping low temp pcore at 5.7ghz ecore at 4.5ghz. i score over 37k point on cinebench R23 , im running 64gb ddr5 at 6000mhz cl36-36-36-77-113
Thats a good score for an i7 14700k 😎
I just built my first Intel machine ever and I think I have it figured out but it’s hard to tell because these chips don’t undervolt and overclock at all like amd chips.
I simply want to set it to run at 6.0ghz while I’m actually gaming it as close to it as possible while still being stable. I’ve gotten it to outperform the 7950x in single core by 21% at the most but the better configuration seems to hit about 18% single core gains but far less losses in multi core like the first that it’s almost equal to the 7950x in every way cpuz can see in threaded work loads and about 20% better for single core workloads.
Things is most games now are dual and quad core work loads and they don’t really seem to have a way to configure a proper 6ghz OC with an undervolt for anything that uses more cores than a typical game.
Is this somehow possible on intel with the V/F shift? Also why does the shift ignore the fact I’m not running it at the speed it says? I don’t understand these v e and o cores. What happened to cores and threads?
I have a great chip with new silicone and it’s never seen a bad microcode boot.. I want to get the most out of it and don’t know where to start without using shitty ai Oc bc not many ppl are bios OC new Intel raptor lake chips… fewer making tutorials…
@ Unfortunately 6ghz boost is the reason for instability with these chips, even with an Undervolt applied you won’t get it outside of throttle if it boosts for any sustained amount of time.
I have a future video on a tune at 58 all core in the next couple of weeks, but have never been able to get any stability beyond that, and even so if you want the processor to last you are far better sync’ing to 5500 as per the guide.
6ghz is designed only to be attained in short duration boosts when the processor environmental conditions allow, check this video about why 55 is the optimal frequency
Undervolting and Tuning Guide Intel i9 14900k - Core Sync 5500 to 5800 mhz & Performance Benchmarks
ua-cam.com/video/hh3FIN1c_ZQ/v-deo.html
Here watching this video multiple time with same set as you but what I’m looking for is really performance and not lose a lot of fps
@@ander8329 You will gain improved performance as lower temperatures, and preventing the boost will prevent throttling.
Interestingly, I am presently doing a part 2 to this video that gives some examples to exactly that 🙂
@@nextlevelsimgaming amazing I will try that when I get home I have a i9 14900k with a 4090 let’s see how it
Works
FYI, I was using Intel ETU to undervolt my 13900K by -0.110v from the start (but that is all I did). (Cinebench R23 = ~38,800). HOWEVER, I still experienced the damage. Approximately 1 year after purchase all my Handbrake started failing.
I'm now on 0x129 microcode update. R23 = 33,600 now. :(
With these recommendations (values appropriate for 13900K) I'm back up to 35,800.
* Changed all P Cores to 55x (was 58x for core 0 & 1)
* Disabled Overclocking Thermal Velocity Boost
* Undervolt by -0.110v
thanks!
There are a few variables at play unfortunately, in the early batches of 13th and 14th Gen processors there was a known manufacturing issue of Oxidization which could have affected your processor, the later issues are believed to relate to VID requests being too high, the microcode updates are designed to have fixed this. Undervolting and reducing core speed is another good measure. as outlined in the video, however no warranty is implied, and any user making any modifications to their configuration does so at their own risk.
@@nextlevelsimgaming Understood. My point was to warn folks that merely undervolting didn't help me (note: I didn't undervolt to rescue my chip, I just hated the needless high temps.)
@@windfire5380 I think the situation is far from resolved unfortunately, but all we can do as enthusiasts is to keep temperatures as low as possible and voltages as low as possible. See the Wukong Benchmark I just uploaded as an example of the effectiveness of both using the Custom settings, the Benchmark has been causing failures during shader compilation and running for many, even those running the Intel Defaults. I have been stress testing and benchmarking much of yesterday so am pleased the custom profile is running both stable, and with excellent performance, and low temperatures and voltages 🤘🏻
I don't understand why I gotta change the cores and why disable overclocking thermal velocity boost? idk so much about undervolting, but all I did and I've been running the same setting for 11 months is just use a negative offset - 0.050v and adaptive mode and my cinerbench r23 score on the i9 13900k is 36,666 but now after the bios update I heard I can push my voltage even further?
So intel instead of telling all the modern cpu users to set a limit to their cpu they are telling you to use their shitty bios update to solve the problem they made.And it doesn't solve the problem just lowers the voltage intel doens't give a crap about the users especialy the problem is with the high end cpu's that cost around 800 dollars they should solve the problem in an instant but that's just my opinion.
@@nexivis4life Intel are facing a wave of issues with these processors, and I agree entirely, we are not getting the product we paid for unfortunately and there are a number of class action lawsuits in the news in motion taking up this issue.
In the meantime to mitigate the performance loss from the BIOS update, this is a good way to maintain stability.
I would recommend checking out the @GamersNexus channel who covers the issues in much more detail.
The guide is intended on users who want an easy way tweaking settings, in no way am I affiliated or sponsored by Intel.
The problem seems to be the ring bus using the same voltage rail, and TVB itself is responsible for accelerated degradation due to the crazy volts needed for 6Ghz boosts. It was bad enough that AIB’s were essentially undervolting via AC_LL out of the box to begin with. Probably so R23 scores looks better in reviews. I manually set p-core limits to 5.7Ghz, then set IA VR voltage of 1.4v. No more TVB boosts for me, and no more vcore spikes. Not that I had any issues anyway, but better safe than sorry.
And reapply thermal paste liberally & often with these. They will run qt 99c without a thermal limit set, which dries out the thermal paste
@@acheleg Agreed, I have actually repasted my processor 3 times using Thermal Grizzly, Noctua and eventually finding Arctic MX-4 to be the best.
@@MhillPlays Exactly, the 6ghz boost does absolutely nothing for performance on a normal users system, unfortunately for Intel it was the headline feature that they can’t undo, its now a case of make do with lower core performance or face certain premature failure.
Here's what I did for my 14900K:
- PL1: 150
- PL2: 175
- AMP: 307
- Windows power plan: Balanced
These changes significantly reduced power consumption, thermal throttling, TjMAX, and over-temp issues. I got excellent results in 3DMark Steel Nomad, Heaven, Furmark, and Cinebench R15.
The only issue was a brief 1-second spike right before the 3DMark Steel Nomad test started, but my machine recovered quickly, and there were no issues during the actual test. I'm chalking it up to a bit of lag between the CPU sensors and HWINFO64.
Interesting, and great to hear you’ve got it working well,, I will have a play around with your power settings thanks for sharing 👌🏻
Apparently UA-cam deletes comments with link. But you should it them in your email as a reply. I included screenshots of Video and Graphic settings plus HWINFO64.
what processor u have if i may ask :D
@@kxmode You can DM me on ‘X’ @nextlevelsim thanks for the information 👌🏻
@@CodeNameTech 14900K
I've never has a worse CPU experience in my life. Had to RMA my first 14900K in May. The new one, with latest bios and 0X129 and Intel defaults is giving me heat spikes. R23 was at 37.2K. Trying to undervolt as per this video's instruction knocked it down to 21K. I just want the cpu to work.
@@devans83 Have you set the BIOS to Asus OC and not the Intel Baseline Profile?, the Intel Default combined with this fix will ‘reduce’ performance not improve it, the microcode instruction to reduce VID below 1.4 remains.
You need to have the Asus OC (standard) BIOS profile active.
Reboot your PC and set BIOS to ‘Load Optimised Defaults’
Change these two settings -
Undervolt Protection - Disabled
Intel Virtulization Technology - Disabled
Save and apply settings
Reboot and go into BIOS again
Set your RAM XMP to the rated speed i.e 5600mt
Save settings
Then follow the guide and ensure that the power settings are correct
ICCMAX - 400A
PL1 - 253
PL2 - 253
You should achieve over 39k and also run stability testing.
The lock all cores and undervolt have achieved me complete stability and temps below 75 degrees Celsius
Hope this helps 🙂
@@nextlevelsimgaming Yes, the Intel Base profile was loaded in. I'll change it to the Asus profile and the recommended settings and report back. Thanks.
@@devans83 No problem, also ensure all running applications are closed in the tray on the task bar before running Cinebench R23 (before and after) such as Chrome/RGB software etc) the application does advise this but to obtain an accurate score having a browser open alone can impact the score by around 2000.
@@nextlevelsimgaming changes applied. Voltage Offset is set to -0.050 V. Getting thermal throttles and occasional R23 crashes. Score is at 38305. XTU stress test passes.
@@devans83 Ok, are the temperatures good?, and are all other applications closed in the desktop tray?, if R23 is crashing reduce the offset to -0.045v and also in BIOS select ‘Sync All Cores’ and save and try again.
Is XMP enabled on your RAM?, and if so what speed?, you may or may not achieve over 40k given the RAM speed, however remember this is an improvement over the Intel Baseline Profile, and more importantly the temperatures will be lower, and it is still working within Intel guidelines on Power and short and long duration settings. 👌🏻
Most of the settings worked for me except the Global. First I tried -0.070 and kept working my way down by increments of -0.005 until I reached -0.030. I ran OCCT's linpack stress test and kept getting the BSOD. I eventually set the Global on Auto and things are stable without any errors or crashes.
Thats good, except you’re overvolting not undervolting, you would start at -0.05000 then in .5 increments dial the other way so -0.05500 then -0.06000 etc, try it going the opposite way 😉
A realy good and informative video, but I have to add one thing. I personally think that a little more intonation in your voice would make this 30 minute video come to life and more easier to keep concentrated to all the information.
I agree, the editing process of having to watch it repeatedly certainly highlighted that 🤣 will certainly try but had also worked on call that particular week in the day job, but thanks for the feedback 😉
@@nextlevelsimgaming and thank you!! You helped me and are helping a lot of people during this Intel crisis 😅
I truly appreciate your video,but with the latest events of Intel denying RMAs, oxidation risk and then on the top of it all not been able to "get the bangs for the money", I am going with the red side this time, despite the fact that I have been building PCs since 1994 almost always bought and build my rigs with Intel CPUs. I've only bought AMD once(Pentium IV vs Athlon XP). But after Intel sold me a CPU (i7 6700K) with a built in Operative System WITHOUT my knowledge(Intel ME), without the possibility to disable it, I will be refusing to install and buy Intel in my rigs. it has nothing to do with the been AMD fan or Intel fan but Intel has been really stable from the day one. I truly hope AMD will be a good decision this time. On the other hand both Intel and AMD might keep their eyes open as a new player is in the market (ARM). It has taken the handheld market with a storm. Makes one wonder if they will have the same success on the PC market. I truly honestly hope that your PC does not fail. Thank you for the video. I have watched it until the end.
@@Nick-L4D2-Z3n I can completely appreciate your comments and agree with you, not what users should have to endure, but we try to deal with the challenges the best we can, lets hope Intel can regain the lost confidence in the users, and enjoy the new CPU 👌🏻
lol dont be funny... another brand another problems to deal with... it is just to you to act in time and make their mistakes in your favor :) if Im were asked if I would buy i9 again I would without thinking coz all this fuss is here because of a few bad batches...
Only updated to 0x125 and still havent update 0x129 for my 14700k
I Just set the limit of IA Limit to 1.400 V. I cant get the maximum advertised speed but it should be safer now. Might change it into 1.375
I hope it will solve the degredation problem by not reaching 1.54V again. Because I'm planning to use this cpu for around 5 years++ before upgrading.
The lower the power running through the CPU’s the better, if you imagine a modified engine in a car, that has been remapped to achieve higher performance, you wouldn’t drive it round at the redline constantly. Unfortunately the behaviour of many of these processors has been exactly that way, with some even boosting to 6ghz at idle!
Better to be safe, thank you for your channel view and hope the guide was of some help to you 🙂
Personally I think voltages is the main issue but intel cant fix it because if they reduce the voltage , then they wont get the advertised speed.
But I think downgrading my 14700 and make it into 12700 spec is far better than letting it kill itself in 2 or 3 years. 😭😭
And undervolting is also a good option. As long its not too extreme.
@@AdeHcs Exactly,, this would throw them into extremely muddy water when they are already facing various class action lawsuits. The enthusiasts have been aware for some time that they have to take remedial steps to under-volt and downclock to lower the temperatures and in many cases improve performance, but Intel would never be able to tell us this directly for that very reason.
@@nextlevelsimgaming I really hope your video will give more awareness to people who bought the 13 and 14th gen intel CPU. And they will at least try to solve the problems , before the problems shows itself.
They need to do something themself , and not only depending on the latest microcode . Because those microcode will become microheadache in the next 1 or 2 year.
if u are limiting processor not undervolting it and setting loadlines as you should then u are making that you CPU asking for 1.55v and u are giving it 1.4 coz u limit the current it needs to get... the whole point was to sync asking amount and giving amount and to make that amounts lower :D how to do that with degraded CPU? u cant! so u do this tutorial. but if ur CPU is new u do 0x129 update and make other things... my mbo is Gigabyte and my landline go on high and AC/DC 55 after that I set undervolt to -100 and everything works well.. my CPU don't go over 72-3 degrees and benchmarks are just as they advertise in multi core and single core ... but it is natural that when u have "k" version to overclock it :D this is pathetic that we need to set settings under out of box ... coz out of box it is overclocked bad with possibility to degrade....
Any recommendations for a 13700K? I just updated to the latest Asrock BIOS with the 0x12B mc.
@@j_shelby_damnwird I can only comment on the i9 14900k unfortunately, I don’t have other processors to test, however the principle is the same for undervolting, if you adjust the various power limits based on your CPU
my 14700k is running fine has not giving me 1 problem ran it clocked and stress tests and it was stable have it under volted now and it ran 96 fps avg on black myth wukong on cinematic pre set
@@JamesCobb-x4p Great news, I fortunately haven’t had any problems, with the right protective maintenance, they will hopefully operate correctly. Hope the guide was of help to you 🙂
hi, Have you installed the microcode 0x129 update, which still says it is for non-K processors?
@@JHAMS38 Unfortunately I haven’t been able to test them, but the principles should be the same
i just bought a 14700k do you mind sharing your setting? power/voltage limits?
@@delanescott7872 I do not have a 14700k to test unfortunately but looking at the specifications the Max ICC should be the default settings, and base frequency locked to all cores, with PL1 and PL2 at the Intel Default settings, you can run an AI tune on Intel XTU to determine these and then sync all cores accordingly
Good video showing how effective 0x129 is, and how easy it is to get back to previous performance values. I don't imagine it will stop the Intel haters, especially GN, but the new microcode and extended warranty seem a perfectly functional and acceptable solution in my book! I don't even have the warranty option as I'm running a delidded 14900KS on a MoRa 420. Lower temps and same performance, and should alleviate the possible voltage related degradation so I'm happy!
@@ColinDyckes Thank you for the positive comments Colin, will be doing another video this weekend covering the BIOS aspects
Same case , 420 x 2 rad 46mm
Direct die setting
TVB is going crazy to boost 6.2 voltage ,
ASUS sync IA DC , IA vr 1.430
Just give up the 6.2 joking at 1.55V
Leave it .
I have 2 chips K and KS tested
KS just is a better K. same other model
they passed the high boost over voltage that kill itself and this problem issue to user get a better selling price . However GOBAL overshooting .
Yes , in past ,any user buy K series ,they have to take the risk .
However , while you take this to a selling point ,not especially 14th 13 gen, at least, make sure the quality.
I know the will pass the contract vendor to this QC.
Staff Asked : we should test it how long ?
Boss: 5 mins? Well , this patch cpu is urgent to ship out!
So this may be run 2 months works .half year still works or no one know it.🎉
@@lawrenceonface Just limit the clock to 59X max on all cores (or 60X for benchmarking). I can't think of any real world usage that ever hit 6.2GHz on my KS except at idle on the preferred cores where current is low.
if you praise intel for selling you a poorly designed cpu that was capable of burn itself and intel refusing to accept rmas blaming everyone and not accepting they did things wrong, you are part of the problem, intel lied and delivered less and you accepted that reality
never blame a gamers nexus for presenting reality, open your eyes, not your wallet to save intel in their sinking process
@@ColinDyckes only possible with nitrogen, isn’t ideal😂
I RMA my 13900K and got in return from Intel a 14900k. With the new microcode installed and following your video I cant get it to pass 37654pts. I'm lost here
Don’t get too hung up on the Cinebench score, it depends on a lot of factors. However applying further increments of undervolt for example
- 0.05000
To begin then retest, then add a further increment of 0.00500
So then
- 0.055000
Etc in my final section you will see I tweaked my undervolt to
- 0.065000
To achieve the final result, this is a pretty safe undervolt however this depends on silicon quality and a number of other factors.
The main purpose of this is to sync the cores, and maintain stability, and prevent boost, which lead to voltage spikes, and consequently game crashes.
Intel in their latest Default Settings have gone very extreme with this.
Rewatch section 3 of the video and hope this helps 🙂
Remember undervolting improves temperatures and efficiency of the processor which will in turn improve the score, however do not go to far with it as it may result in crashes in itself and therefore like any modification is done at users own risk.
@@nextlevelsimgaming What I ended up doing was to disable intel default settings, as in my motherboard (Gigabyte Aorus Master z790), even when I disabled Virtualization and Undervolt Protection I couldn't tweak the voltage in Intel XPU. So I disabled Intel defaults, locked the cores to 5.7 and applied -0.045 undervolt.
@@franciscopitschieller7115 Works pretty much the same way mate, that method is covered in my other video 👌🏻
@@nextlevelsimgaming thanks a lot. I'll take a look,
aren't you losing perfomance removing the 58x cores and disabling tbv?
@@yuetel7790 No, the reduction in temperature provides more efficiency and improves performance
@nextlevelsimgaming I have an i9 13900k the only thing I did was put a negative offset and that was about it. Does your way by syncing all cores and so on use more resources than it should and shortens the lifespan of my components or is it the same thing?
@ No, the cores behave independently so some boost, some idle, the fluctuations in these causes instabilities if the voltage regulation is incorrect, hence the crashes prior to the microcode revision.
By syncing the cores they will work in unification, and more consistent, they will still idle, they only go to 5500 when required
@@nextlevelsimgaming Well, my i9 13900k never had any crashing does this still apply to me? also that 5.8 isn't that something I will see in my games if I still keep it?
@@yuetel7790 The video is for an i9 14900k so the cores wont sync that high on a 13900k
I have i5 14400f co (Alder lake chip) Thats work for me too? I mean microcode and virtualization part
The chip is not one affected by the current issues, so there is no microcode fix available, however remove Virtualization and undervolt protection and if the processor is compatible with XTU then you can undervolt to improve efficiency
What you mean by remove virtualization,you mean vmx in BIOS? O dont have undervolt option in bios O have gigabyte MB I dont get it@@nextlevelsimgaming
@@arch4916 In BIOS search for ‘Intel Virtulization’ it needs to be disabled for XTU to run
@@nextlevelsimgamingIt says o need disable undervolt protection in xtu ,but o dont have It in bios
@@arch4916 Is your PC a pre built, i.e Dell/Lenovo/Alienware etc?, or custom, i.e did you build it yourself or had a custom built for you?
@nextlevelsimgaming, how do you recommend that the tweaks we do in XTU are applied on every reboot? Do you have a recommended approach?
P.S.: I realized I may have had an assumption that was wrong all along. Using Intel XTU to do an undervolt and your other recommendations, I thought these settings were used on reboots until/if a non-standard shutdown occurred then it reverted. I'm seeing now that the settings ARE NOT automatically applied by XTU unless you re-run the app.
@@windfire5380 The settings are set as soon as you click ‘apply’, you can then close the application in the tray to avoid the process running and using system resources, you don’t need to reboot.
@@nextlevelsimgaming I get that. But on reboot, can I be confident they are still applied?
In settings "Advanced tab" there is a "restore tuning after reboot" . Does this ensure they are re-applied each reboot? (unless I have an abnormal system shutdown which resets)?
@@windfire5380 Yes, the settings are saved after reboot as long as the Watchdog service shows False to quote -
Under Intel® XTU System Information, find Watchdog section and confirm Watchdog Present shows False. False means the Watchdog is not detected within the system, and the Intel® XTU user will have to manually restore settings/profiles after reboot.
@@nextlevelsimgaming. That quote is so confusing to me. It reads like you want Watchdog Present False if you want to have to manually restore settings.
To get the settings to load every reboot, do I want Watchdog Present False or True? I ASSUME "TRUE" to get it to work with reboots, but that Intel write-up is insanely poor written.
My checkbox is not greyed out, and I've got it checked.
Currently, I have status :
Watchdog Present True
Failed False
Having these two sentences woudl really help:
If you want XTU to apply settings on reboot, ensure "Watchdog Present True". If "False" see this link to fix.
If you do NOT want XTU to apply settings on reboot, simply uncheck the box for restoring tuning in Settings.
@@windfire5380 That was a quick consultation with the Intel site, I have checked my configuration and it is the same as yours so I can confirm the settings will be retained after reboot, I am presently benchmarking for an upcoming video so know that the settings are retained.
Had my Intel i9-14900K fail in April and having got it replaced under warranty have not yet put the new one back in my system.
I did the Latest Bios update on my PC the other week and since then I’ve been experiencing issues with the i7-14700kf that is in the system currently and been getting application and program crashes in use and even had the entire system crash and restart with an error about Kernel something or other. I’m wondering if I need to re-run and play with the Intel XTU Program to maybe try and restabalise my CPU since that bios update has messed around with it?
@@Cwattyeso I would certainly recommend syncing cores, and undervolting, a safe undervolt is considered to be negative offset - 0.0500 so begin with this and sync the cores to I would say 5.3 looking at the specs of your processor.
Sure...run the bios update Asus says on their Rog Strix Z790-H"The new BIOS includes Intel microcode 0x129 and adjusts the factory default settings for the non-K processors, enhancing the stability of Intel Core 13th and 14th gen desktop processors." so yer on yer own no K processor default settings. by definition they're not stable try to find this video. Burn out your cpu running cinabench or some other grinder benchmarker thermal limiting cooler tester guaranteed to load everything past normal use limits
@@bloviatormaximus1766 It does apply the update to the K processor, what it is saying is the none K processors get the default settings change only as they are not affected by the microcode issue, the K processor gets both
Pleasse with i9 13900K
@@miguelj.cardenas4841 Same principle applies, follow same guide and set all cores to 5.4, iccmax 307a, PL1 = 253 PL2 = 253
That s for intel xtu or set in bios for power limit, I have 13900kf .. and after update the microcode I have 5.5 ghz no 5.8 ! 😓
@@Marko19959 Set all to 54ghz on XTU and power settings as above, I have seen users on 13,900k with good results at 53 across the board, remember the purpose is to keep the cores in sync and avoid boost
@@nextlevelsimgaming That settings , again stay with 5.5ghz freq, no max p.core 5.8 ..I see in your video.
i have 14900k gigabyte mbo z790 ud and i have set my loadlines to high then ac/dc to 55 and i kick -0.09v and it is kicking max to 1.395 ... my temps dont pass 72degrees in any benchmark ( in thisone like ur the score is same 40k)coz i have custom loop.. now im asking u ... did i do something wrong coz u are telling us to turn off boost and i didnt... also can i undervolt just like u and to sync all cores but to overclock all for 100hz up ? my pc is for work and i didnt have much space for experimenting so i must be shure before i fuckup :D
@@CodeNameTech Its pretty common advice to sync all cores, remove boost, and undervolt, a good channel to look up is @FrameChasers who goes in to much more depth on the subject. Many users don’t want to play around at BIOS level too much, which is understandable, my guide is aimed at users who want to be able to achieve the same results with an easy UI. Intel XTU is far from perfect, the Overclocking aspect is nonsense as said on my video, but as an easy method with some basic BIOS steps it achieves the same outcome.
@@nextlevelsimgaming Don't give anyone money for advice/settings. Everything you need to know is on the Net.
@@JDD_Tech_MODS why deleted my comment?
@@CodeNameTech I cannot delete comments on this channel. Only channel owner or youtube can.
Should the i5 processor also do this microcode and bios update?
No, the processor uses a much lower power profile, you should certainly update your BIOS regulary anyway, however the i5 will not be suffering the same issues.
@@nextlevelsimgaming Do you have a hard time getting into BIOS? The latest macros are installed (0×129)
Model CPU
cpu 13600kf i5
@@sananda_music1 I have noticed that it seems to take lomger to get into BIOS since the BIOS update interestingly, however make sure you enable ‘Fast Boot’ in BIOS which should resolve this.
is there 1 For i7 14700kf ?
@@unitofmadness5770 Unfortunately not, I don’t have a 14700kf to test.
@@nextlevelsimgaming cheers anyways my i7 still jumps some high voltage with the new patch and yea i been getting those mouse locks once and awhile.. ill end up offsetting voltage -.050 to keep below 1.45 but yea there not really fixing there problem.