Rambling about why some intel 13th/14th gen i9s and i7s aren't stable.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 жов 2024
- My Patreon: / buildzoid
Teespring: teespring.com/...
Bandcamp: machineforscre...
Twitch: / buildzoid
Twitter: / buildzoid1
Facebook: / actuallyhardcoreovercl...
#overclocking #intel #Z790 #14900K #13900k #14700K
Interesting how we went from "But can it run Crysis?" to "But can it run Cinebench?"
My friends complained that I'm "Gimping" my cpu by setting a lower temperature target. (AMD) But MAD and intel have lost respect for Physics. Running a CPU at 80 c is much better for reliability compared to 95C . And Throwing voltage at the problem is scary as well.
It runs R23 and r15 same time…
Braethorn complain four me India make this. This no kindness this no convenience. My colour good colour. All colour amazing amazing colour
That’s because all of the techtubers being fanboys for AMD. At least crysis was an actual game and represented a real world use case for the audience. Cinebench is pointless and only became relevant became it was fun seeing AMD crush Intel. But it has basically 0 real world value. But you can thank LTT, GN, JAYZ2DENTS, HBU for trafficking in mediocre clickbait content
@@a36538 You totally missed the Joke did you? Synthetic tests where also a thing when Intel dominated the market and AMD was still scratching their last cents together to get a decent architecture out
Intel has changed the class of these cpu's to "I-nein"
So basically these CPUs are not 14900K/13900K but actually 14850K, 13850K. If I'm not mistaken, intel used to label unstable-at-900K-specs CPUs as 850K
That's one way to look at it.
Exactly! Intel should just bring back the xx850k labels since they don't waste silicon and selling everything regardless of quality.
Except instead of only 100mhz drop, it sometimes needs 500mhz to be stable vs the 10850k etc
@@WayStedYou 500mhz? hahahahah u crazy
@@WayStedYou Lol no probably only a 200mhz difference on average.
The thing is, Intel doesn't just allow them to ignore the power limits. They encourage it. The last time I saw a board follow Intel spec out of the box, it was a cheap ASRock board that would throttle if you went any higher, and every reviewer said to ignore that board because it was scoring a good 10% lower than all the others.
Well, it's never really been an issue before this point - I can't recall a time in the past that a power limit had been necessary for an Intel chip I bought. They've just pushed things way too far.
Kelt from Falcon Northwest specifically said that some of his customers' CPUs were no longer stable at the Intel recommended settings. Degraded.
Apparently, motherboard manufacturers’ve got some golden samples, the same ones they use to showcase memory QVL support.
No probably different samples. In my experience most god bin chips have mediocre to bad IMCs lol.
@@mylittlepwny3447 yep, my i9 has SP of 115 P-Core, but a trash MC.
I LMAO when he totally flipped "How did they let this get out of the Factory, how did they not notice, did they not test anything. . . . . ." 🤣😂🤣
If you're lucky it crashes ... far worse is if data is corrupted.
Every Zen CPU I've had allows an under volt in curve optimiser, but sometimes the fastest cores become reliably unstable in ST mode until the under volt is reduced so they handle the max boost frequency. That way the CPUs run above claimed performance and are easy to keep cool enough under heavy all core continuous load.
The Intel behaviour really sucks as new software or updates could trigger it (or summer) and the mobo defaults don't fail safe.
at an unnamed si I work for, not all crash, but ALL of them segfault when compiling llvm under linux.
The memory controller is also partly to blame here for the crashes, especially in games. DDR5 @7,000Mhz and above even with Intel limits cause soft crashes and blue screens. That is with Hynix A die TeamGroup 2x16GB 7,200Mhz. I couldn't get the 14900k stable unless I manually enforced all Intel limits at setting XMP at 6800Mhz. It's been over a month now with zero issues anywhere and in any game or test. So, yes, CPU is the culprit but it's more than just motherboard vendors abusing power limits, it's also an issue with DDR5. We shouldn't have to roll the dice on silicon lottery for a stable out of box experience.
I cant run my trident z @6400 Xmp with my 13700
That's soo bad.
I am going for 6600 CL30 with dual rank (2x32 GiB A-die) and got it close to completely stable already (should get there later).
@@SultanOfAwesomethat's actually sad. Even my 7600x can run my g.skill 6000 cl30 oced to 6400 cl30
@@НААТwhat’s your SoC voltage?
@@luvingyouu 2133mhz fclk using 1,235v. 1.35v on vddio and vddq and 1.45v on the memory itself. Asus b650e-f.
If I recall right, the last of the original Intel Atom server CPUs had a degradation issues, and after 18 months they started to fail. CISCO SYSTEMS was not happy.
Yup, wouldn't be the first time certain chips have a degradation issue.
Yeaaaah. I started work at a bank in 2015 and my first project was working on prepping/coordinating replacing ~1500 routers/switches across the country. By the time the project was wrapping up the first devices we replaced started dying. Had to replace them all again, first in/first out. Cisco footed some heavy managed service fees on that one to get people dispatched to all sites, again. Tough to coordinate that many sites/devices/personnel for after-hours work. Ahhh… ☠️
Yep my 3700X never hit the advertised speed, after a week I never cared. If I was crashing id care a lot more about it, that's a pain I dont want to deal with.
Get that thing some better cooling
@@mddunlap03 I got a 5800X3D.
The 3700X problem was not cooling, it's just that gen of CPU.
Many lower SKU Zen 2 didn't make the "up to" boost speed. AMD changed their advertising strategy with Zen 3 because of how much better it feels to reach what they put on the box.
5800x3d would be the exception, it does not readily reach 5.55ghz for even a second.
@@randomguydoes2901 lol yep, starting to wonder if we need to ignore clock speed and move to benchmark scores.
Now the CPU/GPU lie about there speeds, use clock stretching etc. Benchmarks are the only real way to measure the performance of the part, well and power use.
@@liaminwales There is already a shift on the clock speeds being less important with marketing, only thing I don't get is the base clock being somewhat arbitrary. Haven't had a CPU that couldn't boost all day. That and TDP which barely means anything now.
35:32 since it’s limited by the cooling solution it’s producing the same amount of heat in both 1.2 or 1.3 volts, with P = IV you’ll be drawing more current with less voltage.
yes that's the point I was trying to make.
I had this issue in a 13900K bought from Newegg to Saudi Arabia and it made me investigate for a week. I reduced the CPU Freq. and did everything until I found the CPU was the culprit where CB gives error instantly when running or COD MW3 crashes when going into the lobby. And the main issue is that the RMA is kinda hard in my country :).
14700K runs fine on the same motherboard. tested the RAM with memtest86 and passed. replaced the PSU to 1500w just in case. removed all enhancements and enforced stock settings.
Specs: 13900K - 4090 TUF - 64GB DDR5 6000 M/Ts - Z790-E - HX1500i CORSAIR.
BTW electron migration is kinda complex thing, as well as the power is. If something drastic doesn't kill a semiconductor at the end electron migration will. There is no one thing that is directly responsible for stuff happening. Electron migration happens in the semi conductors always. It gets worse with frequency, voltage, amperage and operating temperature. Any of this things gets higher it will shorten the life of the silicon.
Regarding the power, current VRM's and application scenario is giving us situation where you can get to same power numbers with different ratio of voltage and amperage. Frequency and cooling solution will change the formula. If the cooling allows it CPU will keep on pulling more power even at lower-ish core voltage. But that Voltage might not be enough for some frequency numbers even if the cooling is good enough. So changing any of the parameters will influence every other aspect. Core voltage will rise power usage almost exponentially at some moment. That will possibly overpower the cooling. We are at the stage where we companies are practically selling their products pre over clocked. More Hz does not even mean more performance any more in some scenarios. If the cooling and power deliver are not up to it thermal throttling and dirty and bad power will make things slow and unstable under the load even if it is super stable under some lighter loads. So yeah power is damn complex thing in CPU technology. It is not just P=U x I. It depends on stability and voltage and cooling. Because of different boost technologies and solutions it is dynamic thing. Only solution that works for me is overkill.
It is pretty obvious QA does not exist any more in this industry.
Boeing: "I feel personally attacked."
2 Boeing Whistleblowers: "I feel personally attacked."
*Microsoft enters the room*
-Yep kiddo, you home users are the beta testers now.
Intel pushing high clocks to keep up with AMD, this gives me 478 P4 memories...
They ended up shitcanning that and going back to evolve P3 into Core with a side order of Itanic.
When I worked in a pc system assembly factory, we stress tested everything for 24 hours, there were Always some systems that failed, Always. They would be looked at and then stress tested for 48 hours if they failed the first 24 hours. With all this self assembly, they are trusting consumers to do this and many just won't.. They expect to plug it in and it works. Its a case of a little knowledge is dangerous. Talking power limits... The power limit on my old Z97 board by Asus is 4095W !!!!!!! Think that might be too much.
And I bet your factory wasn't even enabling XMP like /r/buildapc tells everyone to do (and votes into the negatives anyone reminding people that overclocked memory needs to be stress tested).
I'm very glad I found your channel, I own an i9-13900K and had similar issues, both OCCT and Cinebench crashing seemingly randomly after 5-60 min of runtime. More demanding games like Diablo IV were crashing as well, with Chrome throwing an error here and there while the game was running. I don't fully understand low level hardware stuff, so I just started replacing parts haphazardly, bought a MOBO from ASRock, where I had a Gigabyte before, that helped a little bit, got some new RAM and that did nothing, but now after altering my settings as stated in that Oodle document things seem to be stable for now. I don't know how much life my CPU has left in it, but at least it's working. I'm very disappointed in Intel and huge thanks to you for summarizing the entire situation so clearly.
It gets even weirder though. I’ve heard from more than one person that some of these samples will begin to develop instability in just video games over time. Of course, that assumes the person isn’t lying about what they were using their PC for, but I find that the most interesting. I think a part of the issue is that vendors don’t obey Intel’s maximum all P-core load frequency with the 13900K and 14900K. For some reason, they target 5.5 and 5.7 respectively, whereas Intel spec is a full boost bin lower on each.
Curiously, the Intel site specifies 5.1P/3.9E for the 12900K, but in practice, heavy loads yielded 4.9P/3.7E on those chips, so it’s almost as though vendors decided the 13/14th gen bins were good enough to where they could use higher V/F targets. I guess they also had to stay on par with their competitors.
I almost want to say that that explains a lot of it, because hypothetically, if one’s 13900K/14900K is trying to initially clock up to a boost bin that Intel didn’t validate it at, doesn’t that just exacerbate the issue? I’ve checked the 12900K/13900K/14900K pages multiple times to make sure that I’m not crazy.
I wasn't lying, dont worry :p
Same for me, my system will be fine, then an hour or two into playing Halo Infinite, I'll either crash to desktop or get a BSOD and reboot. My 5800X3D never did this, starting to regret selling it and buying my 14900K.
@@MadClowdzSame thing happens to my friend with a 14900k, bsod after hours of gaming. He went intel because he was worried about 7800x3d stability. Meanwhile I have the 7800x3d and haven’t had any issues.
It might also… be in Intel’s spec.
Intel’s spec is hilariously vague and this behavior is almost certainly in spec.
@@JensenHuangTensorEnthusiast If the clock speed targets are actually spec, then why does the Intel site even exist? It basically just gives you inaccurate info on their products then. That would be like me going to Rolex’s website and seeing an incorrect power reserve rating on their current Submariner. It just doesn’t make sense.
To me this seems like Intel doesn't *want* to know about problems with stability. As long as reviewers get good benchmark scores at motherboard default settings, Intel can pretend the "recommendations" are fine, sell premium CPUs and go "lalalala" with fingers in ears. No need to test motherboards, because that would destroy plausible deniability.
I have an Intel 12900k on a 360 aio using a contact frame, and I honestly feel performance is shite. It is fine with 4.9ghz and can boost to 5/5.1, but to actually run it at an all core at the same frequency constantly seems impossible. Also general desktop use feels less responsive than 10th gen. Idk why it's so bad, other channels have also talked about the issue with desktop lagginess on 12th and 13th gen.
Even though both my i9 13900k builds got through R23 at stock setting on my AORUS Master boards my i7 14700k build on a AORUS Pro board did not. This is the first Intel CPU that I have owned that has crashed with stock(out of the box) settings running a standard bench. In the past I would have to overclock to get a crash.
After I set the i7 to the Intel limits and reran a few 3DMark benches and game benches the performance was about the same so I am not unhappy with the result.
I'm running a launch 12700K with E-cores off and AVX-512 enabled. If somebody gave me a 14900KS for free, I wouldn't use it. I can't stand what Intel has done with this platform. Cram in more E-cores for cinebench and push the P-core clocks to the ragged edge of stability for 10% better performance in a best case scenario. I think this slipped through the cracks because Intel doesn't care at all about Raptor Lake. They're all in on Core Ultra and Arrow Lake.
Arrow lake is going to be a shit show lol. i think Intel hasnt done a properly good CPU since Core 2 Duo.
I think it's not a coincidence this happens when Intel is under heavy competitive pressure from AMD. They realize they don't have a good product right now, so they started cutting too many corners in a desperate attempt to stay in the race.
Meteor Lake doesn't look good at all. If Arrow Lake fail...😖
I mean, they also put in 2 MiB L2 cache.
@@mercurio822...what about sandy bridge? that one was really good imo
intel doesnt care about limits because it makes their cpus faster. i dont have one of these cpu to test, but i bet with these new limits their cpus are 5-10% slower.
(Not joking) Would RAD Oodle decompression be a useful stress/stability testing tool? Or do these same errors show up in any stress tester?
My 14900k passed every single stress test without any errors. OCCT, Prime95, Aida64, cinebench 24 and 23, intel xtu stress test, intels processor verification tool stress test and probably many others.
Load up any UE5 game and it'd instantly crash with a) out of vram error or b) shut down the entire system.
I lost faith in stress testing.
@@ml-wl4xlbro, same. Luckily I've yet to actually hard crash from the system entirely, but say, DBD after they changed to ue5? unplayable.
I don't think the motherboards are the issue here, this system was power limited the day I got it last February.
14900K owner here, my cpu day 1 was insanely unstable crashing at 100% load. Did an RMA and this new one works fine now. Though worried these are affected also on the new cpu batch I got..
wdym "these are affected"?
If the new RMA one I got will have this issue close to warranty ending or ending…
Wow, Rad/Bink sure is a blast from the past. Had no idea they were still around.
For UK buyers, if it's faulty send it back. Hope you bought it on a credit card for section 75 protection if the retail isn't playing ball!
Intel already has poor power scaling, so you kind of need high PL to be competitive, so it is clear how desperate they are. Gamers are better off with 7800X3D anyway, which uses only a fraction of the power. Too bad AMD joined the juicer camp, but at least their limit is a bit lower, and more importantly, stable.
Can you elaborate on juicer camp?
@@puffyipspretty sure he just means for Zen4 AMD adopted Intel’s strategy of less power limits and allowing thermal limiting near 100C to get the best benchmarks out of their chips in competitive reviews. It’s not as extreme a degree as what Intel’s been doing but it did raise eyebrows at the time.
Can confirm i had absolutely no issues with an ASRock Z790-C. I recently upgraded to an Apex Encore and it's been hell... alot of crashes and oddly enough poor ram stability. My 7200 G.Skill Hynix A die kit will be fine one day and the next its spitting 10+ errors in the first minute of TM5 1mus. I can stop the crashing with newest bios but the ram situation is beyond frustrating
Then it means your ram is unstable..
DDR5 is unique, it doesn't matter how many hours you throw at it on a stable boot, and BZ's videos on it and frustrations are a good example of not understanding DDR5 stability.
you can do 20 hours across of various testing on ddr5 and pass on a stable boot, then you restart your pc whether for a minute an hour a night or even drop the power completely, and then when you boot up the signal integrity has changed because the voltages aren't correct and the retrain becomes unstable.
If you can't stablilize 7200mhz on an APEX ENCORE, that is literally YOUR problem.
@@ashryver3605 The apex should be able to run a 7200 binned A die kit without hours/days of tuning. My ASRock board never had an issue. I'm new to this and dont claim to be an expert by any means. Lots of variables too beyond the MB so its hard to say what is actually going on but I have noticed that when PL limits and
ICCMax are set to Intel spec my system runs fine on the Apex, this seems to be directly related to my issues. My ASRock mb could run unlimited without problems. I just got done playing Warzone for 6+ hours running at 7600MHz with Intel PL/ICCMax set to Intel spec and had no problems at all except the fact that my 13900KF has to be neutered in order to gain stability. I don't think my RAM is the issue here....
@@RuiN4265 with that information then, if your system no longer crashes after setting an Amp & Wattage limit, then yes it means your p/e/r values (clock/voltage) are unstable.
if your ring and e cores are clocked too high, they can also manifest as ram related BSOD's (ie. bad_pool) when it's not the ram. if your system locks up (freeze with system display) entering or exiting load state, or idling, that's ram or ring too.
@ashryver3605 mostly will just crash my game and occasionally hard freeze my OS, i have had bsod but very rare. I run my cpu at stock clock speeds, ring is on auto, ends up being 55x P core and 43x E core, no undervolt etc...as far as I know this is normal behavior. Would be extremely disappointing to find out that i am now unstable at the advertised clocks. Also just successfully completed delid and liquid metal application yesterday and was hoping to push as close to 6GHz as possible but it seems pointless now if I have to run such strict current and wattage limits. I'm assuming it will just result in lower clock speeds under load hence making an OC irrelevant and keeping in mind that my stock speeds are potentially unstable now. Would you think degradation of my CPU is a possibility? I've never ran high Vcore on it but I have ran PL1, PL2, ICCMax on unlimited for majority of its life
Contact frame was causing the poor ram stability, put the stock ILM back on and already have 8200MHz running error free. I was very careful and marked my bolts/ frame trying to get the perfect amount of torque but it's too difficult without a dedicated tool. Might try it again with proper equipment but it seems to cause more problems than it's worth
Heard that Intel is taking longer and longer to process these RMAs becaise they are running out of these highly binned CPUS. So if you need one replaced, it might be a while before you get a new one.
So you think INTEL dont now this problem?!..Is like on others industries they GAMBLING with consumers because almost 80% dont use no benchmark or go to there BIOS.This problem got huge because many games today use huge cpu power and this go to Nvidia because people think this is in gpu error but whem Nvidia make this posts FANBOYS get on there wheels..so in the END the problem is on consumers because they dont go to Courts to sue this BRANDS.
You had me but then you LOST ME
@@puffyips You lost where?
My gf's pc has the issue with a 12600KF
I was considering one of those CPU's cause of the price .... What was the settings in the BIOS ?
Der8auer talked to an Intel Engineer about the 100° Celsius thing.
He said its not possible to control and regulate Temp and Voltage on 100% of the Die Space at 100% of the Time.
So Intel puts Tolerances for Temp and Volt in it. Pretty sure MoBo Manufacturers overrun some of theme because PowerStages cant control Power exactly enough.
Degredation would be a heavy Problem but atm there is no other explanation why the chips dont fail immeditaly but months later.
What should happen in this time that 10 people a week RMA their High End K cpus ??
Yes, the possibility of degradation shouldn't be dismissed. There are many reports of chips working fine for several months, then all the sudden they begin throwing errors regularly. This indicates degradation, so I'm not sure why Buildzoid wants to dismiss it. He says other overclockers have pushed chips well beyond 100 C before, so that automatically means it's not degradation? Doesn't make sense. Different architectures have different tolerances, and even CPUs of the exact same architecture have different tolerances. To give another example, many ICs such as microcontrollers are available in different grades such as commercial, industrial, automotive and military. These different grades are all exactly the same for a specific IC, the only difference is the maximum temperature they can handle. A commercial grade IC might be rated for up to 70 C while the industrial grade might be rated for up to 85 C, and so on with the higher grades. Again, they're the exact same chip, but the higher grades have better silicon quality and can withstand higher temps.
@@PhazerTech I think the answer is in the Middle. The Intel Engineer also said with 100°C the possible Lifetime of the Die should be 10years+.
So the most possible could be that maybe Intel has a bad Batch of Chips that are now in RMA Process.
And the other possibility like Buildzoid says is to "low" vcore ore in my opinion "not stable enough" vcore .
Maybe they MoBo Manufacturers lowered the vcore with Bios Updates to get higher clocks and higher performance.
@@residentCJ It could be a number of things. In the end what degradation does is just raise the vcore curve, meaning the chip needs slightly more voltage than it used to for a given frequency. So there's a definite relationship between degradation and voltage curve.
I've never had a cpu degrade, even running higher voltages and clocks for years 10+.
Having owned a 12900KS and 13900KS they both were stable with a bit too much voltage stock.
Under voting and tuning both, I've had it become unstable in R23 after months, once when ambient temperatures dropped from 30C to 20C, which I found surprising as usually cooler temps = less volts.
What I think may be a common issue is that 12th to 14th gen are sensitive to temperature and if you have a boarderline stable voltage to clock it will be unstable when seasons change.
I think the automatic voltage and temperature scale offset configured for my 13900KS is off slightly, same settings 95C load at 1.248V pc unstable, however in summer when testing at 105C, it was pumping 1.272V on the same settings and you can smash r23 no problem.
5mv extra fixed the stability over 60 mins R23, was just weird I had to add voltage in winter.
I agree with the point that Intel didn't quite get the temperature offset and VID table 100%, and this problem is then compounded when board vendors pump the chips over sepc.
Pentium 3 1.13Ghz all over again.
Except they made it past launch and into sales before it not being a proper product was revealed.
I have no proof what so ever, but it feels like Intel does know about all this but might have trouble competing with AMD, so they chose to push ahead and took a chance of all this either not turning into an issue or be such a low number issue it wouldn't raise awareness... From whatever angle you look at it, it's either too convenient, or sus, not to be so.
On another note; having a smaller node now and slapping e-cores on is fine and all, but again it feels like they are somehow stuck on the 14nm design principles, hence the lack power efficiency at the high end of their CPUs. Maybe someone with more knowledge could back this up, or completely refute it ? I'm really interested if this holds any truth.
I seriously think some of these problems are bent CPUs thanks to the intel locking mechanism.
man intel is basically pushing its cpu's too hard to just be that 5% better than amd ... pointless
and they still can't beat the 7800x3d
Increasing the voltage will degrate the CPU in long term even more than it already does, so it will crash even more in the future. This is not an option for theis CPUs!
The voltage is high enough to degrate the CPU out of the box. they run at 1.4+V!
You need to return the CPU and gat a new one from Intel or Amazon or whatever. You have warrianty.
Wasn't it with Ryzen 3000 that motherboard vendors cheated the PPT limits by offsetting the VRMs power reporting, HWinfo even implemented a "power reporting deviation" to their monitoring suite.
Been telling these Intel users their CPUs are unstable for over a year now, basically ever since UE5 game started appearing on scene they started reporting rashes with Oddle as well as Out of Video Memory instances on rigs which should not run out by any means.
No idea why Intel took so long to do anything at all when this was closed case from the get go..
With the new data emerging, i.e. companies disclosing their issues with 14th/13th gen a revisit would be greatly appreciated
It seems like Intel is really just a poor choice for any build at this point. An argument could definitely be made that Intel chips are superior to AMD in productivity work but now if stock intel chips aren’t even stable out of the box, why risk it ? AMD has its share of issues too, especially in the memory department but nothing like this. Intel feels like it has to release a “new” generation every year. If they took 2-3 year cycles instead I would bet these sorts of issues would be greatly diminished.
I have an affected 14900k. It crashes at random. But i can tell its pulling around 290 watts when it happens. If i lock it at 253 watts its perfect... I think it just is power targets being basically unlimited
Appreciate your analysis on things like this as it gives good insight that generally isn't covered by most tech journalism. Given what a low volume retail sales are I wouldn't be surprised if Intel just doesn't test retail motherboards. They probably rely on board partners to actually do their jobs and report back issues which isn't happening. This of course falls back on Intel for not caring about motherboard manufacturer shenanigans for over a decade.
edit: MSI put in the ability to raise TjMax to 115C on Z790 which I think reforces your degradation isn't happening stance.
I think it's more than that, because I'm specifically having issues with UE5 and dx12 now when I didn't have it like a month ago, and the system's a year old. The power limitations were kicked into gear on day one, so it can't be that.
Did you do any BIOS updates that could have messed with AC/DC LL? BuildZoid has spotted Gigabyte lowering these settings that can reduce stability.
2 months late but same here, UE5 issues like crazy and haven't changed anything in 7-8 months... just slowly started getting more and more unstable then the memory errors started. Now I can barely run stock settings on my 13900k with a Hero z790.
For years Intel and the mobo manufacturers have been inching closer to redlining the designs. Something had to give (or break) at some point.
cant wait for the new gen amd stuff, my 14900k doesnt really crash but the fact that so many do means i just got lucky
they kinda had 3 gens to get this right and it's still fucked
i think its time for people and intel to start sueing motherboard companies for willfully damaging customers cpus
In what world is it a smart idea to ship a motherboard that overclocks out of the box? I mean did they not take liability into consideration at all?
You would think something like that would happen right
One of the reasons why I went to for a bog standard 13900 - no overclocking ability - don't care - stability matters more to me.
I see the i7/i9 chips TDP at 253W for boost and just nope the fuck out at that point.
They make the processors and let the MB vendors do the damage. Now they probably wont be able to do that any longer.
13700k users have been having problems as well, I've been kind of sort of keeping my eye on this since I built my 13700k and had to dig around my bios to get it running to spec and noticed quite a few mentions of crashes with out of the box settings and a few mentions of RMA's back in 2022.
That's interesting, and have experienced the same with my 13900K when tuning for lower end cooling solutions in regarding Cinebench vs. YCRUNCHER at high temps
jays2cents noticed asus mobo would have the default settings for these cpu just be over 500 amps and no locks on how high it could go only thing holding back was temp
Those white paper power envelopes are insane. Unless Intel was testing everything with sub-ambient cooling and forgot to tell us they surely don't make sense.
the funny thing is that people rationalize buying Intel over the superior gaming chip with Intel having a better reputation for stability and quality control
I had a 7950x that couldn’t run 6000 ddr5 also and a 7950x3d that bricked itself in an hour. If you get really unlucky in the silicon lottery it happens
@@fhpchris Exactly. I have had an 2400g that died after 30min of heavy load. It just happens.
@@fhpchris there's a huge difference between occasionally stuff not working or breaking early, and a large portion of chip-motherboard combinations not being stable as set out of the box.
"It works on my machine." - kinda of moment from Intel.
I'm slightly relieved. This means I might not be the world's worst overclocker.
So how to fix the 13th and 14th gen issues…. Buy AMD.
Or go back to 12th 🫤🤷🏻♂️
* From what I'm reading though, seems it's also an issue there .... AMD it is then I suppose 🤔*
...and idle at 55w. Just enable Intel power limits and disable mce and you won't have any issues.
had unstable system with 14700k. on auto gigabyte aorus pro mobo set loadline to normal or so and system couldn't get through single cb r23 multicore run. setting loadline to medium fixed most of the problems, but occasionally it will still crush at idle or in ue5 games. seems to be stable after setting core current limit to 320 amps, power limit to 280 watts and downclocking slightly to 5.5/4.2 GHz
Seems pretty decent, considering the max I could push my 13700K to stability is quite similar.
This is super important, I typically buy motherboards based on VRM cooling, as some have literally no cooling on power delivery. So if you end up with a overclocked motherboard, you'll only know when you check the BIOS settings... and your expecting that some youtubers/websites are gunna know to baseline BIOS figures. More importantly, what will intel do if you overclock and burn the CPU without knowing the current limits are not enforced by ASUS? Free replacement? I doubt it.
I have tested 2 new 13900s from costumer that can’t even enter windows or even install it. It just bluescreens right after the loading screen.
Nice BIOS upgrade by Asus.
I have 13900K.
I flashed 2202 and now with my custom settings, which were stable on 2102, CB20 dropped 2000 points and CB23 dropped 5000 points. The max performance core frequency on CB is 4800 when before it was 5500.
FML.
I feel you brother... 😢
I used to run disable - enforce all limits. It now believes differently for me. I had to change it to enable. 😕
ya 1202 update fucked my Z790 Formula. my chip was shit anyways, might as well RMA it.
@@Ravenx217 There's something with the BIOS settings behavior that was changed. If enable Asus multicore enhancements the system will run full out. If I disable it (enforce all limits) the CPU runs at a much lower clock speed. I previously had it set to the latter and my custom settings for performance and efficiency cores was observed.
@@Ravenx217 Have you tried to flash the older BIOS?
Funny how the Asus MCE setting of "disabled - enforce all limits" drops all P core frequency to 4.8Ghz when before it would pretty much follow what the override setting was (in my case 5.4hz). What's the use of having an override setting for frequencies of 1 to 8 cores if it isn't being used. So now MCE set to auto goes 5.4Ghz all P core load.
5:50 until it's so far gone that the cpu bsods and errors purely from temperature being too much to control fast enough
The current gen high end CPUs on both sides suck. Both platforms have problems. Even QVL isn't reliable. I will stick with 10850k until new platforms
10th & 11th gen are stable strong in stock settings for years thankfully I still use them
As someone who's had system's of questionable stability on default settings (due to memory having crap defaults, using a xeon in a motherboard that wasn't made for one, due to BSEL modding the CPU, etc) this is not a great place to be. Maybe you can get it stable by adjusting voltage/clock in BIOS now, but what about after years of use? The stability won't get better with age, and if it ever gets to place it has trouble POSTing on defaults then the CPU is essentially dead if it ever needs a BIOS reset (or won't POST with the settings configured), because you wont be able to get into the BIOS to fix it.
This is weird. Ever since I have i9-13900k I've had stability issues with it. I even replaced my z690 ROG MAXIMUS motherboard to z790 Aorus Master believing it was the motherboard issue. The default profile is "optimized" which is not stable. I found that best thing to my CPU is to use it with Intel XTU which indeed overclocks the CPU to higher voltage and power draw but overall it works better.
My biggest issue is I believe the CPU causes often stutters in my games (with 4090). It's terrible at times.
Try to enable Gsync/Freesync (ofc both on monitor and your windows graphics card global settings), and also activate global vsync. If vsync is globally activated, you can even use it together with DLSS3 frame generation (for instance, Diablo 4 disables Vsync in the settings if frame generation is enabled, but a global vsync-on setting overrides that). I've also limited global maximum frame rate on graphics card settings to the maximum refresh rate of my monitor. Also, latency is surprisingly not worse than without vsync enabled, in fact, might get a little better. Worked for me (4070ti super), but I also had screen tearing on some games besides stutters. Worth a shot anyway if you haven't tried it, though. Good luck.
Just configure it manually the oldschool method with fixed voltage. This is what i did to my unstable i7 12700KF. It otherwise isn't stable with 4x8gb memory.
I have a suspicion we'll see a return to cooler cpus and architectures in the next 5-10 years. I use linux/mac and pc. I will say that the Mac m-series are quite nice. I' m not saying i love apple, but i do like quiet/ cool computer that can yet have decent perf. Don't you think some of this is just related to we've gotten to the point where we 've not left enough margins. It would be nice if desk pcs could get some of the cooler and quieter hardware. I don't really need it to be 20 watts, but it would be great if we could get back to something that's a little easier to deal with. We've gotten to the point where a high end pc is pushing the power of a microwave.
we're honestly already there. these big multicore CPUs like the 14700 and 14900 are still very very fast when limited to under 100w. you can easily cool them with a small 120mm or even 90mm heatsink at that point, which you'd never have to hear. the issue is that larger cooling solutions have opened the gateway to higher power limits to edge out the competition with 5% more performance, not that the hardware itself is inefficient. GPUs on the other hand.. well, the sky seems to be the limit for nvidia.
just return it. why keep using a faulty product
Glad I went with the i5 14600k for my SFF mini-ITX build. I get 5.5ghz that never downclocks at 75C max and it runs silently. I can jam more voltage into it and it will even boot at 6ghz, but every 100mhz extra creates a more voltage hungry heat producing monster.
well people with 14900k could also disable 2 cores to be more stabke but yeah silicon quality still a problen
12900 (K/KF) Also have an issue but its Far less noticeable. The lagg/delay issue people on 12th gen is likely confused for Ram/GPU/Ethernet issues because it doesn't crash. Temp fixes work to the point you can now use Unreal Engine 5.4 which frankly is still causing issues even after fixes.
lol and I heard so many peeps say intel would have better stability than my 78x3d glad I didn’t listen or want intel
I'll add that 12th is also affected, I thought I was stable, but Cinebench 2024's Stability Test showed me the light, After a year of use I disabled MSI's Enhanced CPU and stopped doing all core 5.1GHz & 3.9GHz P/E on my 12600K.
Shite I was for picking one up as it sounds like 12600k would be grand 😅
All Core clocks for a 12600K is 4.5 GHz... not sure why your cpu is running 5.1 GHz but that isn't remotely close to stock. Even single core boost on that chip is only 4.9 GHz.
@@mylittlepwny3447 I was overclocking since Intel boards allow you to do with ease, but I'll admit I was doing it a bit sloppy, I shouldn't have gone on top of the OC with MSI's Enhanced Turbo which added too much voltage.
Now I'm OC'ing with the Boost Ratio option, seems a lot more efficient than simply flat out all course. Right now, I'm CB2024 Stability tested with a Boost Ratio OC of P1 at 51, P2 at 51, P3 at 49, P4 at 49, P5 at 47, and P6 at 47.
I'm going to change P5 and P6 to 49, and do another CB2024 Stability test run.
@@fracturedlife1393 If you find it for a good deal get it, the CPU is still great. The stability issues are easily fixable. Some are caused by the auto-OC board manufacturers have enabled, and others causes are just users with crazy tuning. Intel CPUs really let you have fun with the manual OCs if you have good cooling with them.
Do you think that intel not testing every CPU thing applies to earlier generations eg 10th gen as well?
I bet they intentional "under-quality" they own validation test just to get more cpu's out, but now its backfiring on them.
So i7 also not stable, wow intel mess up
Some, jeez I’m on ryzen for life and even I don’t spread misinformation like this.
i power limited my 7900x, it performs the same in games as unlimited.
What to?
85w?
@@puffyips about 95w
my first 14900k was a 102 P-Core 80 E-Core, barely runs windows. RAD should make a benchmark
Thank you for your sharing the info! I'm running a 13900K for 16 months with no stability problems (touching wood). Did also maybe 200 hours of rendering always leaving 2 cores out of work. Hope it will last for few years now.
I have owned at least one 12900k, 12900ks, 13900k, 13900ks, 14900k and 14900ks. Some have had issues - the worst was the 14900ks I had 2 and both had to go back - real bad crashes/weirdness in Windows. A 13900ks would error bad on a mixed Prime 95 run so sold that as-is. The 12th gens were both fine. I now have 2 systems with a 13900k in and one system with a 14900k. Both running stable and well although I have done all sorts of changes in BIOS to under clock / volt the chips to keep them from damage from ambitious stock settings.
why in the fuck would you support intel at all let alone that much? delulu mf right here.
my gosh. What board are you running? I've had a 12900, 12700k, 13900k, two 14900k CPUs, and I haven't really had any trouble with any of these. Except the 13900k was a bit stiff and it could not stand being undervolted, and it would run every bit as hot as my two 14900k CPUs.
@@m8x425 Aorus Elite DDR4 z690 and z790. Most are fine but I am applying some preventative settings until something official comes out from Intel/Gigabyte.
Stockholm syndrome
@@tommihommi1 HAHA
Doing a 307A limit like in those specs for something like the 14900k really reduces performance, like down to 5.2ghz during certain games. That seems crazy to me, that people are gimping their processors that much. Is this really what Intel intends?
Oddly enough the first 14700k I got was dead on arrival, 2nd copy has been fine. I’d bet the issues are more common than we think.
1.72v??? That sounds insane.
it is, anything over 1.4v is dangerous and 1.5 and above is guaranteed to degrade your CPU early. fine if you just want to use it for a year and swap it to the next year's model but a bit wasteful imo
@@puffman06 1.5 is pretty typical for the 6GHz and 6.2GHz VID values on 14900K and KS chips.
@@ActuallyHardcoreOverclocking For short bursty single threaded loads 1.5 or 1.6 fine. But for all core Nah.
I ran 1.72v and 1.76v on my 13900KS and its still fine. This is on AIO with no load on the CPU, just for a few minutes and its still stable at the same frequencies as before.
@@ActuallyHardcoreOverclocking that's crazy to me
Intel fail safe 1.7v 😂😂😂😂😂😂 it's a no from me
The Intel provided solutions are too much complicated for 99% of usual population...
My sad little 12900k didn't get to join the club
Funnily enough, vendors used lower-than-Intel spec for those. They only do 4.9P/3.7E under an all-core load. Conservative approach worked out that time.
With small coolers, it has the same issues. Stock settings will allow 300Watt power easy.
Same for my 12900k, moreover mine also has some mental retardation (69 sp) that can barely run 5 ghz with uncommon voltage which is 1.380 XD
Also am in the 12900KF club, it's sibling. I was thinking to upgrade some of the 12th gens around the house (12400F, 12700KF & 12900KF) to 13/14th but then this all happened.
@dianaalyssa8726 I have upgraded my 12900K to 14900K and Z790 and G.Skill Trident Z5 DDR5 6400 CL32. Work great. But I have a stupendous huge water cooling setup. It is way faster but uses more power when watching media on my PC. So idle is higher. Plus unlimited it will pull 400 Watt. Anyhow it is what it is. Value is up to you only.
I work in enterprise infrastructure hardware deployment and validation, but not data center, so I can't specifically comment on CPU vendors, but other vendors in other spaces are hyper-siloed. I would bet good money the Engineers were ringing all kinds of alarm bells about this long ago, but sales and marketing shut the right the fuck up when they saw literally out-of-spec power limits lead to high benchmark scores in reviews.
Back in the day I had a K6-2 450 that I went to overclock. It was about us unstable as these 13900K/14900Ks by 500mhz. At 475mhz, it APPEARED stable until I went to run a long compile, at which point it would still spontaneously crash. Now (unlike Intel's current loose specs), there was no question I was running out of specs. I did end up running at 4x112mhz instead of 4.5x100mhz, that 12% overclock on the rest of the motherboard must have knocked off some wait states or something because I got a nice 15-20% boost from that. Decent!
Great video!
But im not sure if i agree about the degradation part
I had 13900KF (SP 86, very low) with asus motherboard
For the first year, i had no issues at all (uaing asus default, which had 0 limits), i did play a bit with AI overlooking (asus) but it was quite lame so i ditched that and used only the 0 limits default
(prime95 was running fine)
After 1 year, i started having random crahes, mainly in Call of Duty Game, and when using 3D printers slicer programs, this kept going worse and worse in time until the point i wasn't able to use the 3d printer slicers at all!
Then i started digging in the BIOS, i carefully read the Intel docs and decided to set:
P1 and P2 to 253
SVID to intel fail safe
Disabled memory XMP at all
Disabled asus core enchantment
Disable TVB OC(although im sure it was disabled in auto mode)
Disable TVB voltage enchantment
Set AC load line to 2
Set DC load line to 4
Set IccMax to 307 (from intel docs)
and it solved the issue (for now)
The voltage was way higher and could reach 1.68v
Also, the temp was higher and less performance
But i was ok with it, i just wanted a stable system at that point!
Sadly, after around 2 months, the system was crashing again
again, colud not ran slicers, and games kept gave me errors and crash, prime95 gave errors immediately on lowest
I then tried disabling the 4 and 5 cores (preferred)
It reduced the prime95 errors a lot, but slicers kept crashing
The only solution was to stick all cores at 3.2ghz (i think), which is a joke, and i did not accept that
I then opened a ticket in intel support. They wanted some qr codes and then told me my CPU is tray edition and not a box edition and will not waranty
I now have an SP98 14900k that i keep at P1 P2 253w
307amps, SVID at typical scenario, and TVB voltage enchantment enabled that keeps voltage much lower 1.488 max very rarely
That i got from work and working on same PC
So i would wait a bit more about the degradation part.
Thanks for reading that long story.
I loved your older vids about the 7800x3d. thanks
Are you planning on doing any testing with the newest micro-code 0x12B?
The good news about all of this is hopefully Intel stops the nonsense and makes the power limits strict and not recommended.
Even better would be NOT shipping factory overclocked CPUs to begin with.
But they gotta do everything they can to get bigger bars on a chart, who cares that they're pushing their chips to the tip of stability and running on a very top of the VF curve.
Der8auer made an intel CPU factory tour video. They have their own testing software for setting the V/FR curve.
evidently it's not very good.
Maybe they should make use of it
@@ActuallyHardcoreOverclocking or they should set it to the crazy settings used by motherboards vendors, you know... test the CPUs in real world conditions lol
.. or enforce limits on them as you said a hundred times.
Haven't seen the video but maybe they are testing less diverse samples. Diversity wrt the bin or SP score if that makes sense
Did anyone report crashes with DDR4? Thanks,
What's the point of buying expensive motherboard if they don't show stability under stress. Returning to Intel baseline is like returning to H610 motherboard...
I've had these issues and i thought i just got a bad chip and lost the silicon lottery.
But really i got defrauded. I paid for a 13900k and got a 13850k
Yikes, unfort my man genuinely when you put it like that I’m just upset for you bc I’ve had those thoughts of instability and bad silicon lottery but it was never this bad
This reminds me of the Pentium 3 1.13Ghz fiasco in 2000 , same sort of thing - trying to get too much frequency out of the chips for their own good. In that case even Tom's Hardware had problems getting them running stable on first party Intel motherboards and chipsets (i820) for testing and they had to recall them!
This was caused by a windows update that changed the power controls.
friends 13700k needed a positive offset of 0.04V to run cinebench stable
at 0.025V i would crash after a bit
at stock cinebench multi would just outright crash
wow, mines undervolted 0.1v to 1.3v with p cores boosted to 5.6 and e cores on auto. It gets 31000 in cinebench multicore. Try resetting bios configuration then overclocking and undervolting without the use of xmp. When i used xmp it would thottle like crazy and the cpu voltages were to high even when i set it lower.