Gigabyte's Intel baseline profile runs some ABSOLUTELY INSANE core voltages.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 жов 2024
- My Patreon: / buildzoid
Teespring: teespring.com/...
Bandcamp: machineforscre...
Twitch: / buildzoid
Twitter: / buildzoid1
Facebook: / actuallyhardcoreovercl...
#intel #Z790 #14900K
Gigabyte paid for the whole voltage, so they will use the whole voltage
Gigabyte giving their customers value for their hard earned dollar.
more specifically YOU paid for the voltages, but it's good that Gigabutt is giving you the voltages YOU PAID for
I had to change the pl2 for my mobile 14900HX as my eyes nearly popped out when I saw it was allowing the processor to pull 157w and that's in a laptop!.
Gigabutt? When did Gigabyte offend you? Or do you have adorable sophmoric insults for all PC companies? 😅@imthebadguys
Electromigration speedrun
Imagine dropping the big money for a 14900k, not overclocking it at all, and having it crash on a single pass of Cinebench.
That could happen with earlier versions of enthusiast motherboards aswell. Nothing new there really. Dont buy a K part or oc mb if you dont plan to tune it. On the otherside I would be very annoyed on the motherboard manufacturer doing a piss poor job on the stock voltage loadline.
@@impuls60 Don't buy a K if you don't want to tune it? Is that seriously how CPUs should be sold?
@@impuls60you're being disingenuous. How many system integraters have shipped PCs with stock settings only for customers to have either an unstable computer or having to warranty it? This is pretty unacceptable.
Imagine spending more on a 14900KS and having to underclock it to 5.8 all core to get stable 😂 oh wait that's my reality ☹️
@@impuls60 Your comment would make sense if the non-K SKUs had the same power limits as well as base and boost frequencies as the stock K SKUs which isn't the case as the non-K SKUs are always slower than equivalent K SKU at stock settings.
I saw 1.7V and thought that motherboard vendors were high on something. Now I see that this is technically within spec so now I know it's actually Intel that are high on something
Even my Riptide Z490 with a 12600k was running 160W and 1.31V and peaks at 1.41V for single core boosts. I genuinely thought something was wrong with the mobo since that type of voltage for 4.6GHz on modern cpus is completely insane. I then did UV and it now reaches the same all core frequency and R23 score at 1.14V and 120W. And if I let it go to 160W it boosts at 5.1ghz with 1.28V.
I know that UV will always have an efficiency advantage over stock settings, but going from 1.31 to 1.14V with same clock is insane
Both? Both. Both are mad.
That would produce 528.040 Watts of heat!!! 1.72 Volts times 307 Amps = 528.040 Watts.
I guess my 360mm AIO won't suffice for that.
@@elita2cents Introducing The New 528.040mm AIO "Hells Kitchen" or "Satans Schweddy Balls Edition"™℠ (Trade Mark and Service Mark)
@@mastroitek using 13600k stock clock with 1.07v (from 1.23-1.35v); i think i5's are safe from this entire issue 😅😅
the baseline spec is fluid and open to interpretation.
"Everyone should be able to express their baseline however the floof they want" -Someone at Gigabyte, Probably
When the boss says "just set everything to maximum in this Intel document and get back to your other tasks" and the worker dgaf
Actually they are black and white. Intel has a public document stating what the profiles are. Its PL1 253w PL2 253w with voltage protections on and the correct 56sec maximum boost timer.
@@CuttingEdgeRetro You may notice that notably absent from your list are any voltages. And voltage protection should not be something you rely on day in day out.
Nein Nein Nein watts is a-ok!
Intel is quite literally shooting itself in the foot without standard power & voltage limits.
AMD made this mistake with the AM5 ASUS boards, assuming manufacturers would follow guidelines. They learned fast to force limits on at least the X3D chips.
Now, it's Intel's turn lol.
they didn't force any limits with the X3D chips, they just run at lower voltages due to heat dissipation issues with the stacked cache
No, because Intel is a company that literally doesn't have feet and literally isn't an entity capable of wielding a weapon with which to shoot itself.
I believe that the AMD issue was related to XMP/EXPO. If the memory voltage was changed it impacted the SOC voltage due to a bug. Regular Zen chips could handle it, but X3D wad more sensitive.
@@cheese186 they did force limits. They have a max cap on SOC voltage now at 1.3v with new AGESA
Its a K processor. What do you expect
When BZ said "that's not even close to the highest voltage we're gonna see today"
I went to get a brew and some snacks as I knew this was going to be good!
Intel wanted to break the 6 GHz barrier, no matter if all of the silicon is really up to it. I think the board manufactures has been informed by Intel, that they "should" put out "plenty" of voltage for that boost frequency.
It's cheaper than QC of all the CPUs, and set a max voltage norm.
Why not set a stock CPU boost freq a few hundred mhz lower, and have it running healthy voltages and stable?
This CPU arms race just got into mad mode.
I'm sticking to AM4. Not even AM5 has got me excited. I like what just works! R9 5950X is an efficiency powerhouse (especially if you clock/voltage it a bit down)
yeah, just -30 the 5950X and it runs pretty cool
Yeah. They pushed at the cost of Silicon longevity, voltage and stability. If you see CEP in datasheet exists proves that HW engineers knew the limits. But bean counter management team simply did not care and wanted that 6Ghz. RIP.
I'm totally agree with you, because I reduced 14900k from default 5.7ghz to 5.4 ghz using intel XTU, the temperature run at least 10°C cooler on average.
On high loads it never exceed 80°C , i prefer it these way so the hardware produce least amount of heat can last longer.
Intel: where moving a mouse cursor needs 30 watts
That's a dumb take. AMD idles at that
@@BGraves unless it's a threadripper or epyc (the large one), which idles at 70 watts minimum
mouse cursor power consumption should be blamed on windows imo, given that it already causes weird power spikes
@@Radovanslav mouse is traveling across lots of dialog boxes causing lots of hooks in the back end to fire. you would want to run these threads at high speed on fast cores to prioritize UI speed feel. power bursts are no surprise.
@@BGraves Even in circumstances where he only moves the cursor across the cinebench scene there are power spikes. And whenever i move the mouse across my mostly empty desktop in W10, with taskmgr open, i can see usage spikes. The cursor on W95 cannot use anywhere near that amount of power (on an i486 and such) and it was responsible alright. In my opinion there's no good reason for mouse cursor to eat that much power.
Edit: also probably worth noting that the frame rate of the monitor probably limits UI responsiveness anyway
Gigabyte still overvolting since the days my 4790k default was 1.55v for 4.4 which i think was 4.2 allcore when I managed to get 4.4 all core at 1.15v
Luckily I was straight into the bios and noticed it before even installing an OS on the pc
if this idea helps, i think as long as theres not much "load" on your CPU while it's requesting that VID, you should be fine. (like 5% of load at 1.55V is not great, but it probably won't noticably degrade the CPU either. Whereas a 50% load at 1.6V will probably (maybe definitely) degrade the CPU, or some part of the CPU's design)
Around 1.5V continous is still high. I would like to see max 1.3V @continous on this size silicon.
Almost 1.7V boost is just insanity with ambient cooling.
1.35 is enough to do easily 5.5p/4.whatverE and use under 250w. And the kicker is that you still hit near 39k in C23. If you go all out on overclocking, have the big custom loops, you'll get maybe 42k, but at massive wattage increases & heat loads. For ~5% to 10% extra performance that isn't that relevant for most people.
@@bigpoppa1234 Exactly. Why it is bad that the motherboard vendors push the CPU so hard on "stock" settings. They should aim for stability/longevity on a stock settins profile. Just adding extra voltage for a tiny performance increase might lead to "stability" short term, right untill degradation.
In the old days, most of those who choose to manual overclock, knew this trade-off with the performance increase.
Most average consumers don't know this is happening, and they don't know the core temps either. High temps are not so bad if voltage is low(think laptops) But high temps are really bad if voltage is high. And the problem with electronic/semiconductor in general, is the hotter it gets, the more voltage is needed. So a vicious cycle.
The 5900X I daily drive does 1.5V SC sustained, but I suspect that's more about the boost algorithm freaking out at 20-40°c during load
@@laceflowerhw It's normal to see 1.5V during max SC boost on Zen 2 and 3. (And almost 5 GHz SC boost on 5900X) Not harmfull voltage on these shorter turbo boosts. But during sustained load, I would prefer max 1.35V on these... unless you can cool it with some extreme cooling.
I AGREE
34:10 Gigabyte is undervolting on the new BIOS skin, my 12700K was 40/90 AC/DC_LL on the older BIOS skin, 13900K was 50/90, on the newer BIOS the 13900K is 40/90 AC/DC.
Good to know when it started, cheera
Intel Addresses Stability Issues with 13th and 14th Gen CPUs, Blames Motherboard Manufacturers😇😇😇😇
well intel certainly didn't write the bios for the Gigabyte MB i'm using that put PL1 and PL2 at 4095 watt as a default. pretty sure they specificed my chip as having a 65 and 154 watt for PL1 and PL2 respectively
12:00 While true, for cinebench purposes the 14900k isn't competing with the 7800x3d it's competing with the 7950x, which is still cheaper.
but it does perform similarly in gaming to a 7800x3d so technically you get the gaming performance of the 7800x3d with the multithreaded performance of the 7950x but at a cost of stability and power. Not worth it IMO.
Nah, its competing with the 7800x3d. I bought mine for gaming since it has the best silicon in the lineup. You get best ram and ring speed chances with the xx900 series.
Wow, dude starts off saying that he's talking about cinebench and gets two replies trying to refute it by talking solely about gaming. Good job guys.
7950x stock scores less than my shit bin 13900kf at 5.5 41k
It amazes me that intel is blaming the mobo vendors when it is the cpu's that are telling the motherboard how many volts it wants. Mobo vendors leave it open but the cpu is demanding the insane volts.
12:53 wtf? 1.72V is ridiculous, how can that be "in spec" lol.
Remember when people were crapping on the FX series for being space heaters? Yeah the pendulum swings both ways I suppose.
I mean they quite literally followed the specs. Intel says 1.72 max operating voltage? NICE
Jokes aside, this whole situation is getting ridiculous
Edit: another way to make it stable would be to use a fixed voltage with a sensible llc, this way the acll wouldn't even apply. That would be kind of a work to find out a stable configuration that doesn't yeet the idle voltage to 'intel baseline' values with a decent llc, but it would work in some way. The issue with that is ... people using a cpu at stock settings shouldn't have to deal with it
Edit 2: it's funny to see the gigabyte Biscuits rating changing between 9:08 (92.943) and 49:56 (92.114). Well, nobody really knows how that score gets computed and BZ clears cmos multiple times, so that's probably just variance, but heh
💯
thats for 10th and 11th gen
@@ChrisGR93_TxSwhat, the 1.72v as specs? Nah it's also for 13th / 13th refresh. Not that I would trust it, but still
@@Profetorum the shrinking of the power lines might have them starting some other max, but I am sure Intel states to OEM's that this is a max, but not anything like a max 100 of the time - Really Intel needs to just kick some teeth in. AMD learned the hard ware, and then partially forgot - they both need to learn it and never forget it.
@@xBINARYGODx yeah i mean... to me it feels like these (beta) bioses are made just as a response for the drama surrounding the intel crashing, but they are really just band-aids. A serious limitation, with some serious standards would definitely be better
I have an Aorus Master Z790 with a 13th gen core i7 on it, and noticed the same pattern as you did, even unstable at some base MB presets with a very good watercooling solution on it, it took me quite some time to figure what's wrong.
I just concluded that these intel chips are kind of "factory overclocked" since the competition is putting a lot of pressure on them, and they need that extra voltage to not crash.
And since mine is a big silicon lottery looser, overclocking is out of the question, that's the 1st time i built a system for myself and not OC the CPU.
Daily driver overclocking is kinda dead. Used to be able to overclock 20%, likely not even sustained. Best you can do on these is like 300 MHz
The “Intel POR” profile has the values from Intel, not “Baseline”. Blame Gigabyte naming jank.
well, no. Intel POR uses AC_LL=0.4 mOhm and DC_LL=0.9 mOhm. PLs and IccMax are Intel recommended values.
@@Dakkidazeshould that be higher? Or are those values seemingly ok?
@@MonkeyMan125431 Intel **recommends** the following values for Raptor Lake-S 8P+16E models (so 13900K and 14900K):
Vmax = 1720 mV
AC_LL = DC_LL
DC_LL
Shout out to madness777 👍
This is kinda unrelated, but on my 7900x + b650 aorus elite board, hwinfo regularly reports vddcr_soc voltage spikes at 1.440v when the system is sleeping despite it being set to 1.2v or lower, I've seen them go beyond 2.0v, always running latest bios at any given point, gigabyte says its nothing to worry about when I email them about it. Thanks gigabyte 👍
Sleep causes all kinds of weird sensor bugs. So there's a decent chance that those readings aren't real.
@@ActuallyHardcoreOverclocking thanks for the insight, makes a lot of sense
Intel: Gigabyte runs our processors under conditions of "sustained high voltage and frequency during periods of elevated heat"!
Gigabyte: high frequency you say? there, fixed, good thing it was just frequency
It seems to me that Gigabyte just added a profile in the BIOS they will use as a recommendation when they get support requests for crashing CPUS. The call it "Intel baseline" but it is in fact an "overvolting baseline" so that degraded CPUs could work a few months more perhaps until they degrade even more due to the high voltage.
Gigabyte also has some real shenanigans on AM5 platform, like b650 boards that have overclocking and PBO in BIOS do nothing.
Here's the list:
Gigabyte B650 UD AC
Gigabyte B650M D3HP
Gigabyte B650M D3HP AX
Gigabyte B650M C V2
Gigabyte B650M Gaming Wifi
Gigabyte B650M D2H
Gigabyte B650M S2H
Gigabyte B650M H
AM4 too. My 5800x crashed with gigabyte x570 on default auto settings constantly until i changed everything to standard and turned off some settings. Took me more than a year to make it stable.
@@TechTusiast I'm not going over standard tech support 1.0 questionaire. It works without crashes now - it doesn't work on gigabyte's motherboard default settings. That's all there is to it.
Geez I was running these voltages 25 years ago on a 0.18 node!
So instead of the mobo figuring out a stable overclock for us, now we have to figure it out ourselves FROM SCRATCH. Thanks for making this video.
I don't know why Gigabyte and ASUS aren't getting way more crap for this than Intel. Lot's of board makers and boards just didn't do this. I mean on almost all their boards ASUS and Gigabyte didn't do this, presumably! Why is it not up to them? The board runs everything. They write the BIOS. They can write BIOS where they didn't do this, why did they do it here, and why is that Intel's fault? To me this is more like a car manufacturer putting tires rated for 118 miles an hour on their car oh and also bolting the throttle to the floor. And I'm not a intel honk.
It will be a cold day in hell before gigabyte gets their mobo bioses in order, theres always some setting fucked up.
Quite absurd when stock settings aren't stable. It's not the job of the buyer to tinker around just to get something to work properly out of the box.. System building has never been so unbalanced. If a system builder is piecing together a PC for someone who needs to do intensive tasks like video editing, they now have to worry about the customer's computer not functioning properly if something like a power outage resets their bios? Regardless of who is at fault, this is certainly not cool.
What's the difference between the new "baseline" and the old "enforce all limits" profiles, I was under the assumption that enforcing all limits is basically the baseline, or intel advertised defaults.
I'm having problems with my 13900K and ASUS Z690 Hero motherboard. I'm getting random blue screens. Tried reinstalling Windows, updating the BIOS and it couldn't update the ME firmware, so I had to rollback. I'm really frustrated atm! 😟
The thing that bothers me the most is that Intel has been my goto CPU for people that just want a stable computer to do daily stuff.
Now, we know what's going on and we're more than happy to mess around with settings to try and fix things, in fact, we enjoy it.
But for your average Joe, they have no way (currently) to know what is happening and more than likely blame themselves for the crashes. And while we can easily change settings, Intel and board manufacturers offering a crappy baseline setting in the BIOS does absolutely nothing for a majority of consumers.
This sucks.
Oh Gigabyte. I wonder if this is just standard Gigabyte 'oops we accidentally the whole settings', inter company politics where Gigabyte is doing something intentionally reckless to forcibly point out to intel that their spec is full of giant holes that lead to dead cpus, or if it is intel asking its board partners to bump voltage a little in the 'safe' settings to hide the degraded cpus that are out there (and gigabyte went way too far).
since intel is blaming board partners, i'd personally go very strictly with their guideline no matter how ridiciulous they would be
The Intel "spec" was beat AMD n hope shit didnt catch fire.
Unless your chip is just garbage, locking all cores to 57X wipes out crashes on a 14900K.
Once you reboot the first time it will retrain llc and over time voltage will v latch down... But clear cmos will revert that, so it's irrelevant after 1st reboot
Wat
@@vyor8837 on first boot, mobo will load llc 7-9 to make sure it's stable.. after a few reboots or some use and reboots the llc reverts to best setting, and vlatch is the minimum stable v for any frequency.. aka trained svid
On Asus B660 its a blessing. vcore offset -0.005v and the auto voltage overblast (1.53v) set by Asus is gone. -> 34800 CB r23 @220 watts 5.2 /4.2/ 4.5 (ring) Ghz. Haven't changed anything else and for the first time this computer runs stable without fiddling around in the bios every other day. Metro Exodus Benchmark min fps went up by almost 80% and stuttering is gone in every game I tried.
Crazy how a year later AM5 is actually pretty solid, I'm running DDR5-8000 with a 7950X daily and benching their new APU around DDR5-10000 while Intel can still crash in R20 out of the box and stabilizing high memory speeds feels like some kind of psychological warfare campaign.
Regardless who's fault all this is, it's absurd for a platform that has been out this long and there's no way in hell I'd run these chips at 1.60V+.
Lold. Intel is determined to burn your CPUs.😂🤣
Still rocking my 10850K
I added 0.025v to mine to get it stable.
34:02 yeah, that’s the conclusion I came to, not enough voltage.
A tiny + offset at stock/auto (not Intel baseline) solved the problem. I did also lower the power limits and clocks but that was to make it more efficient.
buy the 700 dollar CPU they said...
have it not even be able to run basic benchmarks
It was reported elsewhere that Gigabyte's "Intel Baseline Profile" set current limit to 249A. Is this what you observed?
The fact that Asus and Gigabyte "Intel Baseline Profiles" are different, and both violate specs in different ways would seem to me to be evidence that these settings are not coming from Intel.
Who would have thought that stagnated silicon design and brute force performance gains through insane power consumption (permitted through a lack of real requirements) could have ever lead to this?! Oh... wait...
I'm reminded of the 1GHz Pentium 3 that Intel ended up having to recall. This silicon is not (reliably) capable of running at the specified power and voltages.
As soon as multi core enhancement was introduced by board vendors i knew i was never going to be able to trust them again, and so from that day I never run defaults on my or a client's system
after watching this video... i'd RMA the CPU and Board and go back to AMD.
they probably will reject those RMAs because of them being a shitty companies
@@kingofstrike1234 they would stick four of their infamous orange arrow stickers at each of the socket's corners and call it a day. And maybe send you back your board within 28 business day...if they feel like it.
*memory trains for an hour every time you turn on the PC, blackscreens constantly because of shit drivers* - Enjoy amd bro lol.
@@bigpoppa1234 did you pray your daily papa is here already or why are you so triggered because there is a objectively better platform that is not an absolute dumpsterfire at the moment.
@@PSXman9 "better" lol.
Funniest thing is that if you just disabled hyper threading it becomes stable, less power and thermals. The only caveat is that the performance is similar to the intel baseline profile in the multi threaded workloads, but it's better in games than stock
I agree, and if you reduce the number of E-Cores to 8, it's even better for gaming.
Could you pls elaborate how limiting E-cores makes it stable? In that case would it make sense to choose 14700 instead? Aksing as I will eventually upgrade my 13600KF (runs on a regulab B760 Asrock board)
You can also disable 16 E-cores, Hyper-threading and 4 P-cores and get an overpowered version of 2500K. But no one will do this because it's stupid
@@lexkoal8657 I'd do it, mostly because I'm an idiot, but I'd do it.
@@lexkoal8657 you don't need more than 8 threads for gaming atm, so disabling hyper threading and e cores will avoid any thread allocation errors and give you far better thermals and stability. so for strictly gaming/ single threaded workloads that is the optimal configuration
In the future. Intel still uses a lot of power.
Is the Intel baseline profile "certified" by Intel or the board manufacturers by themselves . .total mess.
"stock bios settings" should only give the CPU the exact voltage the CPU requests, combined with intel stock PL1 and PL2.
Anything above and beyond that can be user settings or some preset 'extreme' bios setting or whatever.
Not true to be honest auto vcore will overshoot a lot usually had the exact same on my 13900kf without ai oc or mce or enhanced turbo auto vcore was over 1.45v on r23... only needs 1.32v or something to pass occt and everything... lol stock vcore will kill your shit.
@@TheBURBAN111"auto vcore" in most mobos is not "stock" per the intel cpu voltage table. it is usually much higher.
But the voltage table on the CPU is what intel has rated it to run at, so that's what it should run at *stock*.
If you wanna lower it, do it. Just don't do it out of the box. And don't raise it out of the box either.
I saw 1.72 vcore on a z790 strix board, not only gigabyte.
Jesus christ i thought 145v was high on mine only needs 1.32v 13900kf
This battle between Intel and AMD is getting out of hand. They need to prioritize customer satisfaction / stability.
AMD does it right
@@stormrider01 Like when the 7800X3D chips were blowing up?
@@stormrider01 piss off fanboy - fanboys of any kind are all equally shyt
@@griffin1366That was ASUS’s fault.
@@stormrider01Phenom 2 is the most stable AMD series. FX is alright and fair, ryzen is weird and requires undervolts for longevity.
Intel got lucky with 10th gen being stable stock, however the classics from 3&2th gen is the most stable the company has. 12th gen was under spec and saved in stock settings, but 13-14th gen is a dinosaur disaster gone bad like wow.
(Stock settings only)
Homeboy living in 2044
One thing i dont fully understand about the 188w power limit is that I've been getting this on my asus z690 as well and cant seem to get it to draw any more power unless doing full bios reset and allowing asus to use it's own "auto" optimized settings
15:00 That reminds me of Windows 98, when you move the mouse the computer ran faster.
that was an interrupt starvation problem
When it's clocked to Jupiter you need to be very cold and chunged to Saturn just to run baseline profile. Top room warmer awards goes to Intel CPU and applauded for consistency 3yrs in a row
bot?
@@xBINARYGODx no.
gigglebite just doing gigglebite things
1.7v
this is fine meme
Thus, with Intel base line profile, the chip will degrade faster due to higher voltage. Well done, intel.
I find it odd that none of the initial reviews caught this problem. All of a sudden it's problem.
That is the odd thing.
Most of the reviews I've seen don't have CPUs as bad as mine.
Why is your clock set to the year 2044?
My 13700k still not stable with 307 iccc max at stock ratio in occt small extreme.
I guess set the ICCMAX lower or bump the AC load line up a bit.
I don't know what Gigabyte is doing recently...My 13900KS runs 1.409V VR Out max. with single core load 6GHz on Apex Encore and never had any issue with the CPU or instability and never had to use any baseline profiles etc.
Intel 13 and 14 gen silicon is really flawed. They pegged them to max frequency at the cost of voltage, and the silicon can't handle. Intel dmg control is silence while mobo oems take the heat as they need to be Intel oems. Fact that CEP exists shows HW engg know the silicon limits. Many people think it's oems, but it's been the case for a long time. Reality is Intel, shipped a flawed silicon. Onlyfix will be a microcode and BIOS to put bandaid.
And here we are as laptop owners complaining that undervolting is blocked on most models with 13900HX because its a recommended default setting... Intel just cant make anyone happy with these chips
From my own experience motherboard companies tend to jack up vcore, my 9900k on an Asus Maximus board wants to push 1.35v+ vcore for stability on the optimised defaults setting and even higher if I do all core turbo.
With a little tweaking I got vcore down to 1.15v, which is slightly lower than Intel's default profile and dropped the temperature.
I can confirm that on my new Z790 Gigabyte board with the Intel Baseline setting, the board even uses more idle power, compared to when I just put all the powerlimits to "auto", which you know, turns any limits of.
So without any power limit on my 13700K, the board uses around 21 Watts of idle power.
However with the latest beta bios, this idle power usage goes up to 31 Watts, with except for the Baseline Profile, every other setting is the same as before.
So I just down-flashed that bios back to the one before that. That baseline is no bueno.
Yeah, feels like malicious compliance by GB. :)
"You put the blame on us?! See what it feels like if we follow your specs to the point and not use common sense and our years of experience."
while watching this - i found an article from a couple of weeks ago that said some of the motherboard makers are distributing new BIOS with intel baseline settings
- so i went and found that there is a new BIOS for my mb ( dated 5 days ago ) - it's only new spec is the baseline setting
The whole industry is flooded with lots of conflicting incentives based on what users want and what manufacturers want to sell us. Im very sure maximizing profits is a part of this.
Hey could you test the intel baseline power feature in asus boards?, i have a 13700k with a z690-e strix and i updated the bios today to test this feature. I havent seen the vcore over 1.46v which seems fine, but it would be nice to watch a review from you on asus boards
Im sorry if i missed it so whats the conclusion?
I have 14900k should i just set PL1 = PL2 = 253W and 307 amps?
You need to set the VID limit at 1.5V or under, so the maximum voltage the CPU can ask for is under 1.5V (somewhat safe).
P.S. I had my 12900K oc'ed to 5.5 ask for ~1.62V VID in HWINFO.
my MSI Pro Z-790-A by default set 512 A and 4096 W for PL1 and PL2. This is way beyond Intels specifications. 👀
AC LL/DC LL being 1.7 mOhms is clearly a bug in the BIOS.
Thanks... my binning seems to be as bad as yours. But limiting current to 350A and load line to 75 seems to have fixed it. And on this setting I can retain 300w power limit and allow all cores to boost to 6ghz without this being restricted to 2 cores, so no performance losses unlike this awful intel baseline setting.
Damn, it's like a requirement to undervolt and test the shit out of your cpu to run it sensibly, lol.
7800X3D is ~ 7000pts on R20 stock, 7500+ is a very good score.
Makes me wonder how these cpus even made it through validation
Just like Asus on the original Z790 Hero (not the Dark. Too bad the Dark has awful m.2 connectivity).
1.56V stock, 1.56V with the baseline.
According to Steve on an H100i, pump speed didn't matter. Like no difference in temps from quiet to performance pump speed.
I dont understand why Motherboard OEM's dont include specific CPU profiles which the user can select, i.e. if the user has a 159000K cpu then the board has a profile for that specific CPU.
On my core i5 13600k on my Gigabyte z790 Aorus Elite AX DDR4 motherboard, I have been able to run an AC Loadline of 1 & DC Loadline of 65 with good stability my LLC is set to low which is one up from the lowest without issue.
At a DC Loadline of 65 the voltage under load matches the VID.
Anyone buying intel at this stage is just fooling themselves
G'day Buildzoid,
What is it comments always says 🤔... 🤔... 🤔...
Oh yeah "Should have bought intel, they NEVER have any problems or need to update BIOS"
R, G or B Pobody's Nerfeckt they all have problems
Asus Intel baseline doesn't account for KS skew CPUs, giving them limits of thr regular K skews.
Now put the same CPU in Assus ROG motherboard and test it again..
Asus is the same on baseline..was get 1.6 v..so I went for default and 400 A and 253 on p1/2..baseline is crap
Ive got a z690 aero g with a 13700K. When I went to put intel default it still has my max watts set to 4095w which was the same before I switched to the intel setting.
I dont have the Intel baseline setting but something that's called Intel pom
and this gives me VR VOUT of like 1.45 in idle???
Feel for you man, worst luck than me on silicon lottery lol.
Appreciate the video as always.
1.7v, -20% performance, frequencies on 14900k are now at 7800x3d level
Just wtf? No comments
gigabyte for you.
If you run any kind of Air cooling try this if you are having issues "Gigabyte Elite AX-W Z790 : Set PL1 to 253 PL2 to 125 , amp 307 "ICCmax" , turn off all Enchaned multicore and Enchaned TVB , and choose load line "Normal" you lose like 8-10% performance but in my case the most of the time I don`t see over 85c anymore might go to 90c in very high load benchmark. Already lost one CPU I9 14th K due to the bad settings on the motherboards.
Same with Asus. I think it will make the vdroop problem worse.
Lol I can run r23 and r15 same time. It really is a joke when tuned right
18:50 prediction: keep calm and raise vcore
This hits a little different now. I have an Aorus as well and it was nuts on initial boot, much better when limits are set.
Mans from the future 😊 2044
This is neat.
Jesus! That's a lot of voltage! My pentium G3258 gets 1.28V
I really think the best long-term solution is for Intel to add a second LLC that has temperature as an input.
Are you using a load-line capable (line interactive) voltage regulator, like an Eaton or Tripplite UPS? I'm curious if a line interactive UPS would help with overclocking, versus a standby UPS or an always online UPS.
a UPS only gives out as the load line demands, it's not like it's blasting max amps all the time
@@erkinalp yeah but there are different types of UPS. The "online" UPS are always putting out the exact voltage, no matter what the power company is doing. The standby and line-interactive UPS have a delay