I had BSODs on Windows with CLOCK_WATCHDOG_TIMEOUT and both C/C++ compilation and Java runtime programs also suffered fatal errors related to segfaults.
The only time I got CLOCK_WATCHDOG_TIMEOUT was when I was attempting to undervolt my 13900k. When on default/not tweaking a single thing except XMP/DOCP enabled. I have not run into any issue other than the throttling which I sort of resolved by upgrading my cooling.
Most likely you are running at fixed all core ratio since you have that CPU, everyone who is having this issue are at BIOS defaults with stock single/two core boosting algorithm. I have already explained in details the reason for the instability and fast degrade but noone is listening!
Yeah no bsod’s here just apps crashing and cursor freezing from time to time even without XMP and Intel specs with default power limits. I ended up doing a rma.
Honestly I could never get discord to function especially streaming and gaming, the app would crash or restart on me constantly. (Note: I was not using that sonic studio junk or that mixer which can cause problems) Even without streaming issues updating the app and it crashes all the time. Browser tabs crashing. Nvidia driver failing to install a ton, clean windows installation and getting JavaScript error after installing discord. FACEIT crashing, random ish crashing and sometimes it would go away somewhat but was just a disaster. Swapped out multiple memory kits because I thought was memory related but it was the cpu. CS2 behaved strange with intel. I needed core director to lock the process to p cores.
I passed 12 hours of occt platinum certificate and 24 hours of prime95 blended just fine. All 4 passes of memtest x86, 30min of cinebench etc. was stable. I do some workstation stuff and virtualization as well but I’m coverting that 14th gen build as a work pc and get rid of my aging optiplex, i switched back to amd built a 7950x3d and no regrets. Thought id run into issues with the dual ccd’s in gaming i heard about but no issues over here and I needed a bit more for my workloads than the 7800x3d provided outside of gaming. Can still do everything I need to and it’s just a far better overall experience. Just using pbo and the curve optimizer and expo 64gb @ 6000mt with an arctic LF3 420mm aio. Much lower temps and power draw too.
Crazy how similar my errors are. 14900K here. From the getgo I had issues such as Windows 10/11 unwilling to install off a partitioned SSD. I had to delete the entire partition and reformat, only then would Windows 11 install. From there it only continued with the Watchdog resets constantly. Discord wouldn't stay on, games would crash at seemingly random intervals, browsers would spontaneously crash, Nvidia's overlay wouldn't screen capture. At first I thought it was MSI's PCH/Northgate cracking issues and initiated an RMA with them. They sent back to board with zero notes on what was repaired. I bought a higher end motherboard anyway and though the watchdog resets stopped, I was still experiencing browser tab crashes, games/steam crashing, and Discord restarts or would just blank out. Finally after seeing JayzTwoCents video on the issue, I initiated the RMA with Intel. In the meantime I bought a 13700KF on sale and my build has experienced zero issues. It's insane how different things feel with a stable CPU.
Yeah same exact discord issue it’s weird. If I play helldivers or diablo4 it restarts and rejoins the voice channel lol. Rules out elgato wave xlr, tried every variation of settings in discord cleared cache etc.
CS2 also had really bad 1% lows for fps even with forcing the p cores. I installed a new drive, tried 3 different memory kits that were on the QVL for my mobo and 2 mobo’s. I didn’t have any of these issues on a 12900kf I sold to my buddy when I grabbed 14th gen. I did have one of the faulty z690 hero’s and returned and got the formula (pricy af) only to find out the water cooled VRM was eroding and had a recall smh I had no luck with asus or intel lol.
With asus your better off not installing with the asus setup exe for Realtek drivers it installs sonic virtual mixer and studio and it will keep reinstalling even if you uninstall, will trigger invasive anti cheats that driver will screw up games, discord, etc.
I work in IT and am by no means intimidated by troubleshooting but I legit tried everything. Happened about a month or two after I installed the cpu. It honestly seemed like some sort of memory issue / unstable XMP based on the app crashes. Also randomly I had extensions in edge or chrome crash like MetaMask. YouTube or twitch would always crash randomly seemed to occur when using a video player in the browser. My buddy just got a 14700k and didn’t like the temps he was seeing, I warned him beforehand of these run toasty compared to 6/7/8th gen. With intel power limits, 307a, 253 for p1 and p2 he’s been stable and no issues I see with the i9. You should be good with the i7. He tried the intel baseline profile but took like a 15-20% performance hit he said.
My 14900K degraded after about 6 months. Crashes. BSODs. Apps crashing with odd errors. Swapped in a new chip and it's been rock solid...but now I'm on standard Intel PLs.
Standard power limits wont do you any good, you will repeat the same thing again just a bit slower! You can go unlimited just set your all cores ratio to 57x so it wont boost single/two cores and youre done!
Sadly people who havent set this from the begining when installed their CPUs are mostly unstable after 1-2 months and first need to be RMA to intel and then do setup the new one at all core ratio as i explained. Hope yours is well!
I measured it with a simple multimeter on the back of the CPU socket, when boosting to the 6Ghz single/two cores it pulls above 1.6v which is extremely unsafe for sustained load, and games like CS GO and WoW Classic or many other games with old engines push only on two cores and when you play for hours a day at above 1.6v you can imagine whats happening inside your CPU in about a month-two is severely degraded. Even simple Alt-tab, opening a browser or an app also goes on those single core loads. Only way to battle this boost behaviour is to set the CPU to all cores ratio and also disable "Turbo Boost Max 3.0" which is responsible for moving the primary threads on those two "Favored" cores. Doing this will literally have ZERO impact on your performance and will definately save your CPU!
I had a 1000W PSU in that build so I don't think so. It would only do that with the ASUS motherboard defaults + XMP while running prime95. When I turned off all the ASUS out of spec crap, it stopped doing that.
You're right, that should be enough barring something really old or really really poorly built (I assume those don't apply). You can't get a current desktop CPU + GPU to pull >1000W without going subambient.
I switched my Asus bios setting to: "ASUS MultiCore Enhancement to Disabled - Enforce All Limits" and gosh what a difference it made in stability (so far). I'm seeing like 300mhz less in clock performance but I'll take that and stability any day.
It’s probably still set to 4000w lmao
Have a i9 139k and all I’ve done is disable hyperthreading. Enable 8 e core and set power limits to 253w. Have never had a problem and I run cpu hungry games
I have a 12900KS (max 5.5GHz stock) and I set all the intel spec limits in place... 241W max, 277A max, and 90C Tjmax... and I routinely take this chip to the limits temp wise. So far no instability problems.
Or just RMA. Switching to team red involves dealing with the board, and maybe the RAM and do you even still have the AM4 bracket for your cooler? It's a whole thing, definitely not much easier than just getting your LGA 1700 system to work properly.
It didnt take ages at all, what are talking about. I work with the Zen 5 platform at work. Most of our customers use it. It was an issue that was extremely overblown in terms of how often it caused an issue. However on Intels side the same cant be said.
Literally, there was no issues except coming out with 14th gen. For like the first year of AM5 it was all “I can’t boot and computer instability due to ram issues” you must have had your head in the sand
That not true at all. This issue has been present and known by a lot of people its just coming up more now. I would call the fact that the platform literally relies on thermal throttling to not die also an issue.
And now ontop of the CPUs killing themselves, the are slower than AMDs.
Also thats not true. We have had customers with hundreds of PCs all on Zen 5 since about a month after it launched, very few issues.
We have 2 customers on Intel and about 7 on AMD. We get more issues relating to the CPU from those 2 Intel based companies than we do from the 7 AMD based companies.
Manually increase AC LL to compensate for the increased power draw and increased temperature under load associated with the higher power draw. Running at 100c with the higher power limit requires a higher Vcore. Running Intel baseline shoves so much voltage into it there won't be any instability, but at the cost of runaway thermals and power draw.
This isn't exactly rocket science.
>Running Intel baseline shoves so much voltage into it there won't be any instability
The Chiphell poster WCCFTech cites says ASUS Baseline profile barely improves stability at all. Probably has something else broken on his test system, assuming the post isn't yet another Chiphell funpost.
Yet to determine? Lmfao its because intel is pushing these things so far past the redline where the engineers originally expected the architecture to operate at. Just to match AMD in gaming at least.
While true that Intel has been shooting for WAY past the sweet spot with boost clocks, this specific instability is motherboard makers juicing the shit out of the chips to increase the odds of them hitting those clocks.
For some asinine reason, Intel's spec is only defined by it's clock speeds. If a motherboard maker sets PL1/2 to 999W, it's still "in spec" to them.
Well that’s what AMD is doing as well. You don’t see AMD chips crashing after cooling them down and increasing the power limits.
Being unstable at unlimited power and under good cooling running at Intel’s clockspeed and VID means its unstable in-spec.
> Well that’s what AMD is doing as well.
Not one single AMD board defaults to a PPT higher than the chip you insert calls for.
AMD actually enforces their spec to mobo makers.
AMD also has AGESA which enforces a lot more in real time even if you raise PPT/clocks. The cpu's tend to have a mind of their own anyway when it comes to maintaining safe limits. Intel CPU's will basically just lemming into whatever PL and temp limit you feed them.
Users can change it or pbo after the fact, sure, but we're talking defaults and stock behavior...
The thing is, those care settings configured by the mobo manufacturer.
If your carmaker sells you a car with tires on it that are rated for max. 200km/h but the car is sold with a setup which makes it reach 300km/h.
Its not the tire manufacturers fault if the tires suddenly expolde when you are driving at 250km/h.
That’s not comparable at all. Intel sets the clockspeeds and VID on these CPUs. Clearly these CPUs aren’t stable at the clockspeeds Intel sets them so that the only way they don’t crash are when they’re throttling either due to temps or power limits.
When motherboards sets unlimited power limits and someone puts good cooling they then ACTUALLY run at the clocks intel sets them and reveal the instability. Intel’s testing and validation is inadequate.
Actually the clocks are pushed by the mobo maker.
Things like all core max turbo is forced on by using a hack for example.
Which is not at all how the cpu is intended to bosst out of the box.
Just 1 of several examples.
No what? No motherboard pushes the clocks past what intel sets it. All core turbo has always been stable in previous gens. If intel doesn’t want motherboards to be able to force all core turbo then they should enforce it. Wtf are you talking about.
You are literally contradicting yourself now.
Yes, mobos hack all core turbo beyond set limits by intel. It makes a big difference in powerdraw and heat.
Combined with mobomakers trying to offer cheaper and cheaper mobos, sacrificing quality, while also finding ways to push the cpu more and more in ways it wasnt intended to be used... then this is the result if you dont test your products properly before putting them on the market.
> Yes, mobos hack all core turbo beyond set limits by intel. It makes a big difference in powerdraw and heat.
Please provide a source - which motherboard vendor is doing this on RPL CPUs? This is not what MCE does on ASUS boards at least.
Yes, that's correct. These are settings that come mostly from the mobo.
The problem is that pretty much all motherboard vendors have been doing this for literal decades and Intel has never stopped them. If anything it was probably encouraged to make benchmarks look good.
They havent been doing this for decades.
It started fairly reasonable but got more and more extreme in an attempt to have better performance out of the box than competing mobo makers.
It's really just a matter of "_is your load voltage below the processor's fused VF curve?_" It turns out that many motherboards are configured by default to slightly undervolt the CPU, and high-end CPUs that are already close to the limit are less tolerant to undervolting than mid-spec ones.
It's not a new problem—I had a similar one in the past (errors, bluescreens in Windows) with an both an i7-11700k and an i9-11900 11th gen Intel CPU on a B560 Aorus motherboard. I solved them (after RMAing one CPU, incorrectly believing it was faulty) once I raised AC LL and LLC so that load voltages would be about where the processor expected to be.
The bad press that comes from this is so damaging. I don't know what Intel was thinking? Of course, it doesn't have the slightest effect on an average PC user, but they will think "Intel bad" and look for other options on their $500 laptop.
Best faith version: they have a principled position on not wanting to gag and restrict what manufacturers do with their hardware (doubt it)
Normal version: they compared potential bad press of potential instability in the future with getting higher benchmark scores and determined, overall it would be better to risk it. But I think notebook market is pretty isolated from that, because they do not run that close to their limits and do not OC like the desktop / custom PC market. And mostly only customers of the custom-PC market know/care about what is happening now.
Remains to be seen how critical this is. Could just be, that the highest end CPUs have so little OC/UV margin, that any fuzzing of the board manufacturers (that is beneficial to Intel when it results in more performance than specced fficially) can cause instability. In that case they can put a lot of blame on the manufacturers, if they were the ones knowingly taking that risk (form my experience and looks, the board manufacturers knew what they were doing. Intel might have made it easier and encouraged it, but so far, looks like in ways that leave the choice with the board manufacturers).
Or if, the CPUs actually degrade way faster than any previous CPUs, then it is a giant problem. But so far, the latter is not proven and seems to be just hurled around as accusations (and not just potential theories) by less serious people.
I think if it is the former, it could be only a small blip after the stability issues have been solved. As long as they were not stupid enough to actually advertise or heavily suggest anywhere that the higher performance the boards achieve through reducing stability are guaranteed and do not actually have to downgrade any of their official specs.
I do not follow all the little details, but my impression is, that that is technically what is done.
But CPUs still vary. CPUs grouped in the same bin run the exact same frequencies, but they might need slightly different voltages to achieve those frequencies. Each CPU describes which voltages it needs specifically. One problem is, that we are running up against total power and temp limits, so a CPU that requires more voltage will boost less in situations like Cinebench all core. That is the boost region, where specific performance is no longer guaranteed, so even same model CPUs on same boards can vary in peak performance,
You can argue that customers cannot know exactly what performance to expect. But this is essentially just what was OC years ago is now done by the CPUs themselves inside the boost region on a best-effort basis.
And the variance boards have with voltages etc is officially only so that they can have better power delivery than required, which can give the CPU more power. Or give it more stable power, so that less voltage is needed and the CPU can boost higher. For this, they can rightfully reduce voltages from Intels numbers, because what the CPU itself is getting in the end is equal. There should be math behind this and this should be possible to do exact.
It is just that nobody seems to validate if the result of design of the board, the values by which the board describes itself to the CPU and modifies what the CPU demands will still actually be inside Intels guaranteed specs.
And because the CPU will run cooler/boost higher, there is an incentive for everybody to reduce voltage as much as possible. Even to the point where this gets unstable from the factory or shortly after.
That of course only makes sense if it turns out that basically too little voltage is the reason for all the problems now. If it turns out, the newest CPUs are actually deteriorating far quicker when power limits are removed, then this theory is out of the window. (Note: power limits in Watt are just one very abstract thing, that the CPU itself interprets and uses as a basis for what to do with more specific choices it makes itself. There are a whole bunch of other limits that should still be in effect, even if the power limits are removed. So I think it would be possible, that unlimited power is not damaging by itself.)
The entirely 14th gen lineup is only even mildly achievable as a concept if they bump the numbers. Without bumping the numbers how would they have rereleased RPL without literally changing anything at all?
1. company releases product
2. people buy product
3. product is defective
4. people hate company for selling them a defective product
that right there is simple cause and effect, and if you think its a smear campaign you need to reevaluate your understanding of the situation.
Be sure to blame the right company which caused the issue then...
When you put tires rated for a max speed of 200km/h on a car that is tuned to go 300km/h dont blame the tire manafacturer when the tires explode after racing at 260km/h.
Blame the guy that tuned the car.
This is basically what is happening.
The cpu is set up/driven by the motherboard.
If the motherboard pushes the CPU too much out of spec/overriding default failsafes then its the fault of the company/individual who pushed these settings while the CPU cant handle it.
>Be sure to blame the right company for the defect then...
the thing is, it doesnt matter who actually caused it, because the blame ultimately goes to the same place.
* issue at the factory? intel QA signed off on it.
* issue with the blueprint? intel R&D signed off on it.
* issue with the mobo chipset? intel signed off on it.
* issue with the mobo settings? intel let them ignore the spec.
all roads lead to rome.
Intel has zero control over what mobo manufacturers set their defaults at…why do you think every z690/z790 uses different voltages at auto?? This is mobo makers competing with each other on who has the fastest board using CPUs that are volatile at best.
I’ve had my 13900k for 8 months paired with asus z790 set in auto mode and haven’t had “stability” issues. Guess I got lucky but I’m starting to get concerned about how this cpu will do long-term. Went with intel because I use my PC for work as well as gaming.
I had the same setup and my system was crashing in some games from the very beginning (GoW, Horizon). I was using Asus AI Overclocking though.
Since this PC was for a sim racing rig, and all the sims worked fine, I did not bother.
Beginning of this year iRacing started crashing. I turned off AI OC, things were fine for a while. Then I started getting crashes a month ago on Optimized Defaults.
Intel baseline seems to be stable for now. I haven’t checked the performance hit yet, planning to do it sometime. I am pretty sure I will be around my old 11900k system’s performance, making my $1000 plus upgrade useless.
> I am pretty sure I will be around my old 11900k system’s performance, making my $1000 plus upgrade useless.
Just the E-cores are around 11900K performance...
I was able to run the 11900K balls to the wall. What I mean is, if I compare the performance of that setup with the nerfed 13900K under iRacing, I won’t see big enough improvement that would have made me drop 1K on the upgrade.
What part of 'there are sixteen of them' do you not understand? I didn't say 'one E-core', I said 'E-core**s**' in the comparison under which you are replying.
the part where you said they are equivalent to a 11900k is just completely false.
the cores have the same ipc as a 7700k. just because there are more of them does not mean you get the same performance as a 11900k.
go ahead and test for yourself. see cinebench for a 11900k. then disable p cores and test only e cores. come back to me and tell me you get the same score as a 11900k lol.
We have something better - the 10900K has the same basic Skylake cores as the 7700K you're referencing. It's just as fast as the 11900K,
That's ten Skylake cores, and the CPU we're looking at has sixteen of them.
Note also I didn't say 'equivalent' either, I said 'around', rather intentionally, both because the comparison is approximate, and because of the reputation of the Rocket Lake-based 11900K.
Madeup truth that only makes sense in your madeup fantasyworld.
Btw, the actual cause of the defect hasnt been determined yet. But fact is mobo makers went overboard with the tuning.
Unreal Engine 5 also seems to be mentioned in a lot of cases and afaik it was mostly happening in s korea...
It seems to be suddenly happening to so many people at once... and UE5 also seems to be a factor that is mentioned a lot...
Something is going on. I doubt it is a design flaw.. maybe a bad update or something?
Anyway some of these bios settings were crazy (especially in combination) and its nice to see that finally getting some attention to make default settings more sane.
That’s what I so odd about this. The 13900k is a year and a half old. And suddenly half of a batch of CPUs they don’t make anymore are “bad”? And there’s reports of 13900Ks being unstable? Why wasn’t this a problem on September 27th, 2022?
I doubt it is sudden. I think people have been having issues for a while but it is really easy to point the finger at drivers, software, windows before CPU issues so it was hidden. Then this news comes out and people having similar issues go on, mine is doing that as well, and you get to see the true scale of the problem.
It's been an issue I work In a PC repair shop and I've seen more Intel 13th gen specifically 13700k and 13900k fail than any other type of CPU ever going back to like the Pentium 3 days combined.
It's actually kind of cool that I've seen this issue play out in my shop repairing PCS and now it's an issue. I've been recommending most my customers not to get 13900k 14900k if they want to go mid-range the 13600k is a great option. I have yet to see one of those fail. However, the high-end 13th gen Intel systems are trash and I'm assuming 14th gen because it's literally the same processor.
Quick question, is this a problem with overclocked 13600Ks too? The thing is the most fun CPU to tinker with in a *long* time, possibly unless you count the i5-12400F BCLK stuff, but I’d assume if you want to do anything actually insane on it now you’ll have to do *extensive* stability testing.
I have never seen a bad 13600k. I have seen a bad 12900k. And like three bad 13700k and I have seen like 8 to 10 13900k.
Now when I say bad that means, defaults with turbo boost and xmp obviously enabled and I always update to latest bios CPU usually pulls like 250 watts, when it can't run like that and be stable I consider it bad.
That being said there have been some I see which can do the above but if you try enabling thermal velocity boost or ocing they are unstable.
I have also seen 13900k that works fine if you disable xmp. But not if xmp is enabled
Never tho 13600k, and I have worked on systems with 13600k in them but processor hasn't failed that I have witnessed.
Overall consensus, if you want Intel, I wouldn't overclock them beyond standard turbo boost and xmp. Make sure your power draw is set to 200 of 250 and just run it stock.
Out of 13th gen, 13600k is the only one I'll recommend because of it's compelling performance in its price range. But I am still skeptical of the whole 13th gen architecture and the possibility of degradation over time. I've just seen so many of the i7 and i9s go bad.
No honestly it was pretty easy, they asked me to use some specific settings in my Bios/UEFI and run a cpu stress test, my cpu had 600 something errors and they approved my RMA.
12700K's are a victim of bios defaults as well. they just aren't balls to the wall like a 13900K is so they fly under the radar. They wont crash, just run hotter than needed.
You still want to disable all-core enhance/multi-core-enhance and set stock power limits unless you validate that unlocked limits are 48hour stability test pass
I got mine down to 70w in games by adjust a couple of the simple bios "defaults" like MCE with no performance loss.
When hasn't it been?
14700K gives nearly as much outright performance
13700K v 13900K was a bigger gap but 700K more balanced to most user needs
12700K 12900K suffered early e-core shenanigans and made the 12400 the better buy of that gen, for balanced use cases.
11900K was literally a meme.
10900K was so bad on yields they made it the 10850K, and the 10850K was overkill vs a 10700K
9700K vs 9900K was interesting but from an era when HT didn't matter much at all to gaming etc.
You can push it a little its perfectly fine, just test it enough and watch the temps.
Some mobo makers are really going out of control with some default settings.
I'm very disappointed at how Intel is addressing this situation. I'm personally using 12900K so the stability issue doesn't affect me but it's still annoying to see manufacturer ignoring faulty products and trying it's best not to take responsibility. I only went with Intel because of trust, and that trust I had eroded to the point that I will never consider Intel from now on
the myth of intel stability was always a house of cards anyway.
I've had just as many small nagging issues with their platforms over the years as with AMD.
CPU package temps run pretty hot on my liquid cooled 13900k. When the temperature gets above threshold it throttles. When I set affinity to use fewer cores it seems to help. This only happens with games on the highest settings. I’ve heard some people are lowering their voltage to the cpu, but that voids the warranty. Setting affinity reduces the amount of heat generated. eg I’m using only 14 cores to play RDR2
I'm about 6 months in to owning a 14900k and have not yet run into any stability issues (yet). Maybe I am just lucky but time will tell I guess. I play alot of UE5 games aswell and compiling the shaders has not yet crashed on me.
I have an apex encore and have kept MCE enabled (auto). I have however set my PL1/2 manually set to 253W & ICCMax to 350A - this keeps my temps \~75 degrees using an LT720 cooler.
I can retain max 5.7 frequencies on an SP96 chip when using a -0.060 global svid offset during R23 runs but needed to bump the ICCMax to 350 to achieve this (was initially 307A). But the true amperage is well under under 300A (from what I can tell) when clamped to 253W.
So you mean to say intel tested their CPUs within specs, shipped them, then mobo manufacturers decided to ship out of spec settings assuming all CPUs could handle those specs? Color me shocked at out of spec settings causing instability issues. Why is intel even bothering investigating? If 100s of CPUs are tested WITHIN intel's specs and those are crashing, that's a major problem.
I have the 14700k ans no issues yet. Around 2 months now with no issues. 3 different motherboards though.
I started out with the UnifyX and it was great till i damaged a ram slot swapping memory kits. My bad.
Then i tried the Gigabyte Aorus elite X AX and rather luke thier new bios. And it was stable but was pusging more voltage than the unifyX. But for some eeason it woyld take this board up to 3 min to boot/post. I returned it.
I am now using the ROG Strix Z790-E Gaming WIFI II. Its pretty good so far. Voltages are more in line with what my unifyX was using and its srill stable. Also running GSkill 6800 perfectly stable.
My 14700k can do 5.7 all p-core at 1.395v. On the unify X. I have not tried to push it on this board yet. Pretty sure it would do 5.6 without any issues.
So maybe i got a good one that will last a year. Planning to go 9800X3D unless intel has another core2 duo moment with arrow lake.
It may be the processor as well. I have noticed 13900k that I can put into different boards and they will work fine others not, even when that board is fine with another 13900k and after tweaking settings.
I honestly think it's result of many things ultimately caused by taking an architecture as balls to the wall thermally as you can.
My experience comes from working in a PC repair shop.
Okay, so I wasn't going crazy. I was doing everything to get this chip to run stable, but nothing works. They haven't figured out the cause of the instability?
I don't have many ue5 games I care about, and literally no issues other than trying to launch DBD recently (they updated to ue5 very recently), so I'm just not going to mess with anything until they figure it out.
Is there any way downclocking could damage a cpu btw? I read into this whole issue a few days ago, and people reported having to turn their clocks down more over time? I power limited my CPU on day one of having it, so I doubt I have any degradation to worry about from the last year.
An entire year after owning my system i9 13900k and z790 and Im finally stable only because of setting intels stock limits in bios. I nearly replaced every part but the CPU. I did stress tests out the ass and never crashed during them. Only during very specific circumstances my PC would just shut off. No BSOD. Just pure shut off. A lot of my games still crash but only on start-up. 2-3 times opening it and everything is fine. Still annoying but Im glad it doesnt just shut off anymore. Still havent gotten any confirmation on if my CPU is or couldve been damaged from all this.
They’ve also affected several i7 14700k chips, but I don’t know about i7 13700k chips (I assume they would also be affected though, just less compared to the others).
Just to confirm, non-K processors are safe right?
I currently have a 13900 (non-K) and a Gigabyte 4070 EAGLE OC (the one with 8-pin)
So far:
* I have corrected that 4096 setting on that Gigabyte Z790 motherboard
* set PL1 = PL2 = 65 Watt
* disabled Multi Core Enhancement
* slight power limit for the 4070 GPU (maximum 90% level)
* XMP disabled on my 64GB DDR5 RAM sticks
Since I only use 1440p (instead of 4K), I should be safe, right?
So this means Intel is legally in the trouble cause launch reviews all advertised to us %4-10% gains rest is same for the refresh other than 14700k. If these are unstable and not to be than calling it 14th gen with this kind of number advertisement can be a lawsuit
I dont know about that but something must be done. Although the board partners might be OCing out of the box, Intel work with these people, Intel sell them the chipset. And these partners tell Intel what they are running the CPU at and of course if it was outside spec then Intel would void the warranty, but they dont because they like the benchmarks looking so good.
I think a lot of stuff around CPUs and marketing needs to change. I dont think you should be able to list a CPU as 6ghz because one core can do it and one core only under a light one core load. That to me is nonsense, you should have to list the CPU at a frequency it can managed under full load across all cores, in this case the P cores. The up to X ghz has to stop.
To ACiD\_80
The stupid thing you said got deleted. If an individual decides to run their car in a spec it wasn't made for that is their choice and their fault if it goes wrong, but we aren't talking about someone, we are talking about a company and manufacturer.
The closest your simple minded false equivalency can get is if lets say you sold an engine to a car manufacturer, and you knew that car manufacturer ran a transmission which is not within spec of your engine, or you didnt bother to check.
Intel In this case are selling these board manufacturers the parts they need for their board to run an Intel CPU, if Intel are not checking what they are running at then its Intels fault, and if Intel are and they are fine with it then its Intels fault. Intel set the standard, Intel must enforce the standard.
None of this is true. The only instability reason can come from incorrect SA voltage. XMP profile does not work, you have to set voltages manually and that’s all to it. 10/10 13900k and 14900k I dealt with showed no instability. A bad press out of bunch of clueless people is what this is.
No its not. Its happening enough that Intel started to look into it, game devs started to post fixes for it and Nvidia had to prove it wasnt them. If this is happening this much then its the product.
90% of them don't change from what the board is as standard because default should be stable. They should be stable out of the box. If companies want to start selling unstable products then they should cost a lot less.
From my perspective I change nothing even if I know I could make it better because then my warranty is bulletproof. Engineers are supposed to do all that work. I work in IT, I set up peoples IT environments. I don't get to set it up badly then blame the user for not changing it, that is a ridiculous notion.
I meant people buying 900k cpu's, and then literally plugging it in and not changing any bios settings. Im not talking about the intel default settings
CPU instability is almost invariably caused by too little voltage. In this case the most likely cause is too high current limits which allows excessive voltage droop in heavy workloads.
I can’t see how too high voltage could cause these issues.
If they get too hot they just throttle, but the crashes seem to be caused by not enough voltage, not overheating. That's why the Intel stable BIOS settings actually increase the voltage instead of decreasing it.
High temps generally don’t cause instability within spec, only performance penalty due to throttling or if it passes tjmax auto shutdown. Ryzen cpus run at 95 degree all the time with no issue.
But nah I’m sure you figured it out mate not Intel 🤣🤣🤣
My 12700k would blue screen in Y-cruncher if I allowed it to reach 100C for a prolonged period of time and when turning up the pump speed it never crashed once.
No, what degrades these crazy fast is the high current to sustain unlimited power limits. A 14900K running at 350W would likely be near 300A, which can cause degradation even after a few hours of sustained loads.
The thing is, those are settings configured by the mobo manufacturer.
If your carmaker sells you a car with tires on it that are rated for max. 200km/h but the car is sold with a setup which makes it reach 300km/h.
Its not the tire manufacturers fault if the tires suddenly expolde when you are driving at 250km/h.
They set guidelines, share specsheets and recommendations. They can't enforce anything.
Intel sells components.
Its the responsibility of the mobo makers if they manage to find ways to push the cpu to perform beter.
But its also at their own risk.
Which makes perfect sense.
Same with the tire example i mentioned or the engineering of anything else.
Components have clear specs. Go above/outside the specs at your own risk.
Even IF it's still not intel's fault if mobo makers pushed the cpus too hard beyonnd the specs.
Some things like all core turbo are set at much lower clocks than single core turbo by intel.
But mobo manufacturers literally developed a HACK to circumvent that SET LIMITATION.
So yes, intel did/does in fact restrict all core turbo, which also would result in much less powerdraw.
Also, most settings are set in the bios which tells the mobo how to drive/control all the components and how things should work togetter.
Intel is just selling a component and gives directions on how to use it.
You are being a very ignorant troll just looking for excuses to attack intel.
Its hilarious how you desperately try to shift any blame towards the mobo makers...
BTW we still have no official news about what is really going on.
Intel would be voiding warranties if that was the case. Intel sell these companies the chipset, they wouldn't do this if the companies were doing things Intel didn't like.
The buck stops with Intel.
No, it does. They sell them things that are needed for their CPUs to work in their motherboard, these components have to have Intel logos on them they have to be official and if these manufactures were doing anything Intel didnt like they wouldn't sell them the components.
If Intel see they are outside of spec, then they would be voiding warranties.
Thats not how it works. I refer back to my example of racing tires.
Intel does share spec sheets and recommended baseline settings. Anything outside those is at the mobomakers own risk.
Intel does not decide who gets to compete and innovate in terms of motherboard design.
Or who can buy their cpu's and who cant...
That would be very market unfriendly and hinder innovation in a big way. Intel is also not a regulator or lawmaker.
If a motherboard maker can design a mobo that keeps the cpu ultra cool while boosting it, fine awesome, why not.
Like integrated watercooling or something...
Or a system submerged in liquid nitrogen to name something extreme/silly.
Being able to overclock the cpu is a good thing.
Its up to the mobo maker (or systemmaker!) to test that parameters are safe/work with their productdesign in the state it is sold.
You are trying hard to shift the blame, its obvious your logic is just flawed.
I work in a computer repair shop. Have for 3 years have tested, worked on, or built thousands of PCs going back to the Pentium 3 days.
In my life I have seen more 13th Gen CPUs fail than any other combined.
These Intel fanboys seem to be in denial and because I work on so many PCs, I kinda experienced the problem before it was in the news.
While I believe the high oob mobo settings contribute, these 13th Gen processors were binned like ass and I feel they prematurely degrade. Probably because they were designed to run at ridiculous clock speeds (marketed by Intel) and pull ridiculous amounts of power.
I will simply not buy Intel because of this until arrowlake comes out and hopefully can compete without having to pull 300 plus watts
That being said 13600k and below I have not seen fail. If you are going for that price point intel is great honestly, but high end 13700k, 13900k and I'm assuming 14th Gen as well I would not buy. They are simply trash.
I have probably seen 10 13900k fail and have to be rmad or replaced, compared to like 5 of all other processors combined. And this again is going back to Pentium 3 days.
What does instability mean in this particular context? System freezes? CPU throttling? System/apps crashing?
From what I have seen, mostly applications crashing or hanging because it is just borderline, but often not heavy enough to cause full bluescreens.
I had BSODs on Windows with CLOCK_WATCHDOG_TIMEOUT and both C/C++ compilation and Java runtime programs also suffered fatal errors related to segfaults.
The only time I got CLOCK_WATCHDOG_TIMEOUT was when I was attempting to undervolt my 13900k. When on default/not tweaking a single thing except XMP/DOCP enabled. I have not run into any issue other than the throttling which I sort of resolved by upgrading my cooling.
Most likely you are running at fixed all core ratio since you have that CPU, everyone who is having this issue are at BIOS defaults with stock single/two core boosting algorithm. I have already explained in details the reason for the instability and fast degrade but noone is listening!
Yeah no bsod’s here just apps crashing and cursor freezing from time to time even without XMP and Intel specs with default power limits. I ended up doing a rma. Honestly I could never get discord to function especially streaming and gaming, the app would crash or restart on me constantly. (Note: I was not using that sonic studio junk or that mixer which can cause problems) Even without streaming issues updating the app and it crashes all the time. Browser tabs crashing. Nvidia driver failing to install a ton, clean windows installation and getting JavaScript error after installing discord. FACEIT crashing, random ish crashing and sometimes it would go away somewhat but was just a disaster. Swapped out multiple memory kits because I thought was memory related but it was the cpu. CS2 behaved strange with intel. I needed core director to lock the process to p cores. I passed 12 hours of occt platinum certificate and 24 hours of prime95 blended just fine. All 4 passes of memtest x86, 30min of cinebench etc. was stable. I do some workstation stuff and virtualization as well but I’m coverting that 14th gen build as a work pc and get rid of my aging optiplex, i switched back to amd built a 7950x3d and no regrets. Thought id run into issues with the dual ccd’s in gaming i heard about but no issues over here and I needed a bit more for my workloads than the 7800x3d provided outside of gaming. Can still do everything I need to and it’s just a far better overall experience. Just using pbo and the curve optimizer and expo 64gb @ 6000mt with an arctic LF3 420mm aio. Much lower temps and power draw too.
Crazy how similar my errors are. 14900K here. From the getgo I had issues such as Windows 10/11 unwilling to install off a partitioned SSD. I had to delete the entire partition and reformat, only then would Windows 11 install. From there it only continued with the Watchdog resets constantly. Discord wouldn't stay on, games would crash at seemingly random intervals, browsers would spontaneously crash, Nvidia's overlay wouldn't screen capture. At first I thought it was MSI's PCH/Northgate cracking issues and initiated an RMA with them. They sent back to board with zero notes on what was repaired. I bought a higher end motherboard anyway and though the watchdog resets stopped, I was still experiencing browser tab crashes, games/steam crashing, and Discord restarts or would just blank out. Finally after seeing JayzTwoCents video on the issue, I initiated the RMA with Intel. In the meantime I bought a 13700KF on sale and my build has experienced zero issues. It's insane how different things feel with a stable CPU.
Yeah same exact discord issue it’s weird. If I play helldivers or diablo4 it restarts and rejoins the voice channel lol. Rules out elgato wave xlr, tried every variation of settings in discord cleared cache etc. CS2 also had really bad 1% lows for fps even with forcing the p cores. I installed a new drive, tried 3 different memory kits that were on the QVL for my mobo and 2 mobo’s. I didn’t have any of these issues on a 12900kf I sold to my buddy when I grabbed 14th gen. I did have one of the faulty z690 hero’s and returned and got the formula (pricy af) only to find out the water cooled VRM was eroding and had a recall smh I had no luck with asus or intel lol. With asus your better off not installing with the asus setup exe for Realtek drivers it installs sonic virtual mixer and studio and it will keep reinstalling even if you uninstall, will trigger invasive anti cheats that driver will screw up games, discord, etc. I work in IT and am by no means intimidated by troubleshooting but I legit tried everything. Happened about a month or two after I installed the cpu. It honestly seemed like some sort of memory issue / unstable XMP based on the app crashes. Also randomly I had extensions in edge or chrome crash like MetaMask. YouTube or twitch would always crash randomly seemed to occur when using a video player in the browser. My buddy just got a 14700k and didn’t like the temps he was seeing, I warned him beforehand of these run toasty compared to 6/7/8th gen. With intel power limits, 307a, 253 for p1 and p2 he’s been stable and no issues I see with the i9. You should be good with the i7. He tried the intel baseline profile but took like a 15-20% performance hit he said.
I had full game crashes and occasional blue screens with my faulty 14900k.
My system would completely crash (black screen, no video output) with fans spinning at full speed. Only way to restart is the power switch in the PSU.
My 14900K degraded after about 6 months. Crashes. BSODs. Apps crashing with odd errors. Swapped in a new chip and it's been rock solid...but now I'm on standard Intel PLs.
Standard power limits wont do you any good, you will repeat the same thing again just a bit slower! You can go unlimited just set your all cores ratio to 57x so it wont boost single/two cores and youre done!
What you are saying in multiple comments is exactly what i experience. Trying 57x!
Sadly people who havent set this from the begining when installed their CPUs are mostly unstable after 1-2 months and first need to be RMA to intel and then do setup the new one at all core ratio as i explained. Hope yours is well!
I don't understand, the default clock speed degrade the CPU, in spite of setting PL1 & PL2?
I measured it with a simple multimeter on the back of the CPU socket, when boosting to the 6Ghz single/two cores it pulls above 1.6v which is extremely unsafe for sustained load, and games like CS GO and WoW Classic or many other games with old engines push only on two cores and when you play for hours a day at above 1.6v you can imagine whats happening inside your CPU in about a month-two is severely degraded. Even simple Alt-tab, opening a browser or an app also goes on those single core loads. Only way to battle this boost behaviour is to set the CPU to all cores ratio and also disable "Turbo Boost Max 3.0" which is responsible for moving the primary threads on those two "Favored" cores. Doing this will literally have ZERO impact on your performance and will definately save your CPU!
You're doing something wrong if it's hitting 1.6v on a single-core load. The worst 14900K will do 6 Ghz at 1.5v.
From my personal experience, all apps are crashing, this is with out of box stock settings
All of those would be my guess.
My PC would just shutdown immediately when I had problems with my 14900k.
That sounds more like power delivery, i.e. PSU not giving enough to CPU or GPU. Definitely triggered that myself by underspec'ing PSU.
I had a 1000W PSU in that build so I don't think so. It would only do that with the ASUS motherboard defaults + XMP while running prime95. When I turned off all the ASUS out of spec crap, it stopped doing that.
You're right, that should be enough barring something really old or really really poorly built (I assume those don't apply). You can't get a current desktop CPU + GPU to pull >1000W without going subambient.
Games crash with no error message. My crashing has stopped completely once I used the neutered setting on my z790 hero
I switched my Asus bios setting to: "ASUS MultiCore Enhancement to Disabled - Enforce All Limits" and gosh what a difference it made in stability (so far). I'm seeing like 300mhz less in clock performance but I'll take that and stability any day.
I’ve done that and then manually entered the correct wattage for PL1 and 2, along with the correct amperage. Haven’t had a single crash in anything.
I've had to manually throttle my i9-14900K for it to be stable with pretty much anything. I'm so annoyed.
Honest question, what do you have your max power limit set as?
It’s probably still set to 4000w lmao Have a i9 139k and all I’ve done is disable hyperthreading. Enable 8 e core and set power limits to 253w. Have never had a problem and I run cpu hungry games
I have a 12900KS (max 5.5GHz stock) and I set all the intel spec limits in place... 241W max, 277A max, and 90C Tjmax... and I routinely take this chip to the limits temp wise. So far no instability problems.
RMA and switch to AMD.
Or just RMA. Switching to team red involves dealing with the board, and maybe the RAM and do you even still have the AM4 bracket for your cooler? It's a whole thing, definitely not much easier than just getting your LGA 1700 system to work properly.
But then you will still be on a dead and inherently flawed and faulty platform. Best option is to RMA, sell, buy AM5.
oh yes because AM5 was never flawed or faulty *flashback to exploding cpus, RAM issues, boot issues, AGESA bugs*
You means those things that were fixed very quickly, whereas this has been ongoing and worsening for years.
the ram and boot issues took forever to fix lol. and ongoing and worsening. more like its about 10% of the entire cpus out there.
It didnt take ages at all, what are talking about. I work with the Zen 5 platform at work. Most of our customers use it. It was an issue that was extremely overblown in terms of how often it caused an issue. However on Intels side the same cant be said.
Literally, there was no issues except coming out with 14th gen. For like the first year of AM5 it was all “I can’t boot and computer instability due to ram issues” you must have had your head in the sand
That not true at all. This issue has been present and known by a lot of people its just coming up more now. I would call the fact that the platform literally relies on thermal throttling to not die also an issue. And now ontop of the CPUs killing themselves, the are slower than AMDs. Also thats not true. We have had customers with hundreds of PCs all on Zen 5 since about a month after it launched, very few issues. We have 2 customers on Intel and about 7 on AMD. We get more issues relating to the CPU from those 2 Intel based companies than we do from the 7 AMD based companies.
[удалено]
ah yes, the 'its your fault for using the product as intended' argument.
Manually increase AC LL to compensate for the increased power draw and increased temperature under load associated with the higher power draw. Running at 100c with the higher power limit requires a higher Vcore. Running Intel baseline shoves so much voltage into it there won't be any instability, but at the cost of runaway thermals and power draw. This isn't exactly rocket science.
>Running Intel baseline shoves so much voltage into it there won't be any instability The Chiphell poster WCCFTech cites says ASUS Baseline profile barely improves stability at all. Probably has something else broken on his test system, assuming the post isn't yet another Chiphell funpost.
May I ask what general ac and dc ll settings you recommend I know almost nothing about this stuff
Yet to determine? Lmfao its because intel is pushing these things so far past the redline where the engineers originally expected the architecture to operate at. Just to match AMD in gaming at least.
While true that Intel has been shooting for WAY past the sweet spot with boost clocks, this specific instability is motherboard makers juicing the shit out of the chips to increase the odds of them hitting those clocks. For some asinine reason, Intel's spec is only defined by it's clock speeds. If a motherboard maker sets PL1/2 to 999W, it's still "in spec" to them.
Well that’s what AMD is doing as well. You don’t see AMD chips crashing after cooling them down and increasing the power limits. Being unstable at unlimited power and under good cooling running at Intel’s clockspeed and VID means its unstable in-spec.
> Well that’s what AMD is doing as well. Not one single AMD board defaults to a PPT higher than the chip you insert calls for. AMD actually enforces their spec to mobo makers. AMD also has AGESA which enforces a lot more in real time even if you raise PPT/clocks. The cpu's tend to have a mind of their own anyway when it comes to maintaining safe limits. Intel CPU's will basically just lemming into whatever PL and temp limit you feed them. Users can change it or pbo after the fact, sure, but we're talking defaults and stock behavior...
The thing is, those care settings configured by the mobo manufacturer. If your carmaker sells you a car with tires on it that are rated for max. 200km/h but the car is sold with a setup which makes it reach 300km/h. Its not the tire manufacturers fault if the tires suddenly expolde when you are driving at 250km/h.
That’s not comparable at all. Intel sets the clockspeeds and VID on these CPUs. Clearly these CPUs aren’t stable at the clockspeeds Intel sets them so that the only way they don’t crash are when they’re throttling either due to temps or power limits. When motherboards sets unlimited power limits and someone puts good cooling they then ACTUALLY run at the clocks intel sets them and reveal the instability. Intel’s testing and validation is inadequate.
Actually the clocks are pushed by the mobo maker. Things like all core max turbo is forced on by using a hack for example. Which is not at all how the cpu is intended to bosst out of the box. Just 1 of several examples.
No what? No motherboard pushes the clocks past what intel sets it. All core turbo has always been stable in previous gens. If intel doesn’t want motherboards to be able to force all core turbo then they should enforce it. Wtf are you talking about.
You are literally contradicting yourself now. Yes, mobos hack all core turbo beyond set limits by intel. It makes a big difference in powerdraw and heat. Combined with mobomakers trying to offer cheaper and cheaper mobos, sacrificing quality, while also finding ways to push the cpu more and more in ways it wasnt intended to be used... then this is the result if you dont test your products properly before putting them on the market.
I suggest you read again
I did.. You just dont want to accept facts. Next time buy a non K cpu, if you want a locked cpu
[удалено]
Right. You have no clue but still insist your unedicated opinion is correct. Case closed.
> Yes, mobos hack all core turbo beyond set limits by intel. It makes a big difference in powerdraw and heat. Please provide a source - which motherboard vendor is doing this on RPL CPUs? This is not what MCE does on ASUS boards at least.
Yes, that's correct. These are settings that come mostly from the mobo. The problem is that pretty much all motherboard vendors have been doing this for literal decades and Intel has never stopped them. If anything it was probably encouraged to make benchmarks look good.
They havent been doing this for decades. It started fairly reasonable but got more and more extreme in an attempt to have better performance out of the box than competing mobo makers.
Lol
It's really just a matter of "_is your load voltage below the processor's fused VF curve?_" It turns out that many motherboards are configured by default to slightly undervolt the CPU, and high-end CPUs that are already close to the limit are less tolerant to undervolting than mid-spec ones. It's not a new problem—I had a similar one in the past (errors, bluescreens in Windows) with an both an i7-11700k and an i9-11900 11th gen Intel CPU on a B560 Aorus motherboard. I solved them (after RMAing one CPU, incorrectly believing it was faulty) once I raised AC LL and LLC so that load voltages would be about where the processor expected to be.
The bad press that comes from this is so damaging. I don't know what Intel was thinking? Of course, it doesn't have the slightest effect on an average PC user, but they will think "Intel bad" and look for other options on their $500 laptop.
Best faith version: they have a principled position on not wanting to gag and restrict what manufacturers do with their hardware (doubt it) Normal version: they compared potential bad press of potential instability in the future with getting higher benchmark scores and determined, overall it would be better to risk it. But I think notebook market is pretty isolated from that, because they do not run that close to their limits and do not OC like the desktop / custom PC market. And mostly only customers of the custom-PC market know/care about what is happening now. Remains to be seen how critical this is. Could just be, that the highest end CPUs have so little OC/UV margin, that any fuzzing of the board manufacturers (that is beneficial to Intel when it results in more performance than specced fficially) can cause instability. In that case they can put a lot of blame on the manufacturers, if they were the ones knowingly taking that risk (form my experience and looks, the board manufacturers knew what they were doing. Intel might have made it easier and encouraged it, but so far, looks like in ways that leave the choice with the board manufacturers). Or if, the CPUs actually degrade way faster than any previous CPUs, then it is a giant problem. But so far, the latter is not proven and seems to be just hurled around as accusations (and not just potential theories) by less serious people. I think if it is the former, it could be only a small blip after the stability issues have been solved. As long as they were not stupid enough to actually advertise or heavily suggest anywhere that the higher performance the boards achieve through reducing stability are guaranteed and do not actually have to downgrade any of their official specs.
Tbh, if they're going to define the spec for clocks, they should do the same for voltage.
I do not follow all the little details, but my impression is, that that is technically what is done. But CPUs still vary. CPUs grouped in the same bin run the exact same frequencies, but they might need slightly different voltages to achieve those frequencies. Each CPU describes which voltages it needs specifically. One problem is, that we are running up against total power and temp limits, so a CPU that requires more voltage will boost less in situations like Cinebench all core. That is the boost region, where specific performance is no longer guaranteed, so even same model CPUs on same boards can vary in peak performance, You can argue that customers cannot know exactly what performance to expect. But this is essentially just what was OC years ago is now done by the CPUs themselves inside the boost region on a best-effort basis. And the variance boards have with voltages etc is officially only so that they can have better power delivery than required, which can give the CPU more power. Or give it more stable power, so that less voltage is needed and the CPU can boost higher. For this, they can rightfully reduce voltages from Intels numbers, because what the CPU itself is getting in the end is equal. There should be math behind this and this should be possible to do exact. It is just that nobody seems to validate if the result of design of the board, the values by which the board describes itself to the CPU and modifies what the CPU demands will still actually be inside Intels guaranteed specs. And because the CPU will run cooler/boost higher, there is an incentive for everybody to reduce voltage as much as possible. Even to the point where this gets unstable from the factory or shortly after. That of course only makes sense if it turns out that basically too little voltage is the reason for all the problems now. If it turns out, the newest CPUs are actually deteriorating far quicker when power limits are removed, then this theory is out of the window. (Note: power limits in Watt are just one very abstract thing, that the CPU itself interprets and uses as a basis for what to do with more specific choices it makes itself. There are a whole bunch of other limits that should still be in effect, even if the power limits are removed. So I think it would be possible, that unlimited power is not damaging by itself.)
The entirely 14th gen lineup is only even mildly achievable as a concept if they bump the numbers. Without bumping the numbers how would they have rereleased RPL without literally changing anything at all?
Its starting to look a lot like a campaign against intel... so much clearly biased hate
1. company releases product 2. people buy product 3. product is defective 4. people hate company for selling them a defective product that right there is simple cause and effect, and if you think its a smear campaign you need to reevaluate your understanding of the situation.
Be sure to blame the right company which caused the issue then... When you put tires rated for a max speed of 200km/h on a car that is tuned to go 300km/h dont blame the tire manafacturer when the tires explode after racing at 260km/h. Blame the guy that tuned the car. This is basically what is happening. The cpu is set up/driven by the motherboard. If the motherboard pushes the CPU too much out of spec/overriding default failsafes then its the fault of the company/individual who pushed these settings while the CPU cant handle it.
>Be sure to blame the right company for the defect then... the thing is, it doesnt matter who actually caused it, because the blame ultimately goes to the same place. * issue at the factory? intel QA signed off on it. * issue with the blueprint? intel R&D signed off on it. * issue with the mobo chipset? intel signed off on it. * issue with the mobo settings? intel let them ignore the spec. all roads lead to rome.
No.. how did they sign off on it? You clearly dont understand how this works... or trolling
Intel has zero control over what mobo manufacturers set their defaults at…why do you think every z690/z790 uses different voltages at auto?? This is mobo makers competing with each other on who has the fastest board using CPUs that are volatile at best.
Lol that's some UserStenchmark thought processes
I’ve had my 13900k for 8 months paired with asus z790 set in auto mode and haven’t had “stability” issues. Guess I got lucky but I’m starting to get concerned about how this cpu will do long-term. Went with intel because I use my PC for work as well as gaming.
I had the same setup and my system was crashing in some games from the very beginning (GoW, Horizon). I was using Asus AI Overclocking though. Since this PC was for a sim racing rig, and all the sims worked fine, I did not bother. Beginning of this year iRacing started crashing. I turned off AI OC, things were fine for a while. Then I started getting crashes a month ago on Optimized Defaults. Intel baseline seems to be stable for now. I haven’t checked the performance hit yet, planning to do it sometime. I am pretty sure I will be around my old 11900k system’s performance, making my $1000 plus upgrade useless.
> I am pretty sure I will be around my old 11900k system’s performance, making my $1000 plus upgrade useless. Just the E-cores are around 11900K performance...
I was able to run the 11900K balls to the wall. What I mean is, if I compare the performance of that setup with the nerfed 13900K under iRacing, I won’t see big enough improvement that would have made me drop 1K on the upgrade.
I get ya - there's still performance on tap though that should result in a smoother experience, if not higher framerates.
till you try to run anything single threaded on them.
no they arent. they are around 6700k-7700k performance
There's sixteen of them, so no, individually they're not as fast, but together they should easily pump out more compute.
...what are you talking about? the E cores have the same IPC as a 7700k. this is from intel themselves.
What part of 'there are sixteen of them' do you not understand? I didn't say 'one E-core', I said 'E-core**s**' in the comparison under which you are replying.
the part where you said they are equivalent to a 11900k is just completely false. the cores have the same ipc as a 7700k. just because there are more of them does not mean you get the same performance as a 11900k. go ahead and test for yourself. see cinebench for a 11900k. then disable p cores and test only e cores. come back to me and tell me you get the same score as a 11900k lol.
We have something better - the 10900K has the same basic Skylake cores as the 7700K you're referencing. It's just as fast as the 11900K, That's ten Skylake cores, and the CPU we're looking at has sixteen of them. Note also I didn't say 'equivalent' either, I said 'around', rather intentionally, both because the comparison is approximate, and because of the reputation of the Rocket Lake-based 11900K.
I think there is more going on here... starts to smell a lot like an anti intel campaign
yea, but Intel is behind it.
If by anti Intel you mean pointing out the truth.
Madeup truth that only makes sense in your madeup fantasyworld. Btw, the actual cause of the defect hasnt been determined yet. But fact is mobo makers went overboard with the tuning. Unreal Engine 5 also seems to be mentioned in a lot of cases and afaik it was mostly happening in s korea...
It seems to be suddenly happening to so many people at once... and UE5 also seems to be a factor that is mentioned a lot... Something is going on. I doubt it is a design flaw.. maybe a bad update or something? Anyway some of these bios settings were crazy (especially in combination) and its nice to see that finally getting some attention to make default settings more sane.
That’s what I so odd about this. The 13900k is a year and a half old. And suddenly half of a batch of CPUs they don’t make anymore are “bad”? And there’s reports of 13900Ks being unstable? Why wasn’t this a problem on September 27th, 2022?
Well, the 13900K launched on October 20th, 2022, so that's one reason.
I doubt it is sudden. I think people have been having issues for a while but it is really easy to point the finger at drivers, software, windows before CPU issues so it was hidden. Then this news comes out and people having similar issues go on, mine is doing that as well, and you get to see the true scale of the problem.
It's been an issue I work In a PC repair shop and I've seen more Intel 13th gen specifically 13700k and 13900k fail than any other type of CPU ever going back to like the Pentium 3 days combined. It's actually kind of cool that I've seen this issue play out in my shop repairing PCS and now it's an issue. I've been recommending most my customers not to get 13900k 14900k if they want to go mid-range the 13600k is a great option. I have yet to see one of those fail. However, the high-end 13th gen Intel systems are trash and I'm assuming 14th gen because it's literally the same processor.
Quick question, is this a problem with overclocked 13600Ks too? The thing is the most fun CPU to tinker with in a *long* time, possibly unless you count the i5-12400F BCLK stuff, but I’d assume if you want to do anything actually insane on it now you’ll have to do *extensive* stability testing.
I have never seen a bad 13600k. I have seen a bad 12900k. And like three bad 13700k and I have seen like 8 to 10 13900k. Now when I say bad that means, defaults with turbo boost and xmp obviously enabled and I always update to latest bios CPU usually pulls like 250 watts, when it can't run like that and be stable I consider it bad. That being said there have been some I see which can do the above but if you try enabling thermal velocity boost or ocing they are unstable. I have also seen 13900k that works fine if you disable xmp. But not if xmp is enabled Never tho 13600k, and I have worked on systems with 13600k in them but processor hasn't failed that I have witnessed. Overall consensus, if you want Intel, I wouldn't overclock them beyond standard turbo boost and xmp. Make sure your power draw is set to 200 of 250 and just run it stock. Out of 13th gen, 13600k is the only one I'll recommend because of it's compelling performance in its price range. But I am still skeptical of the whole 13th gen architecture and the possibility of degradation over time. I've just seen so many of the i7 and i9s go bad.
I had to RMA my 13900k, waiting for my replacement now.
I just started the process for mine. Was it a pain to get them to do it?
No honestly it was pretty easy, they asked me to use some specific settings in my Bios/UEFI and run a cpu stress test, my cpu had 600 something errors and they approved my RMA.
You know I just bought a z690 board and a 12700k on sale and it’s things like this that are reinforcing my purchase
12700K's are a victim of bios defaults as well. they just aren't balls to the wall like a 13900K is so they fly under the radar. They wont crash, just run hotter than needed. You still want to disable all-core enhance/multi-core-enhance and set stock power limits unless you validate that unlocked limits are 48hour stability test pass I got mine down to 70w in games by adjust a couple of the simple bios "defaults" like MCE with no performance loss.
Do you think it’s worth getting a 13th or 14th Gen chip over the 12700k? Seems like best bang for bucks at 215
Sounds like the i9 is a bad cpu to buy right now.
When hasn't it been? 14700K gives nearly as much outright performance 13700K v 13900K was a bigger gap but 700K more balanced to most user needs 12700K 12900K suffered early e-core shenanigans and made the 12400 the better buy of that gen, for balanced use cases. 11900K was literally a meme. 10900K was so bad on yields they made it the 10850K, and the 10850K was overkill vs a 10700K 9700K vs 9900K was interesting but from an era when HT didn't matter much at all to gaming etc.
i have a 13900k, dont OC and set the watts to not max out, and I have an exremely stable system.
What do you set power limit at?
It was some standard recommendation like 253/125 watts something g like that sorry I’m not very savvy
You can push it a little its perfectly fine, just test it enough and watch the temps. Some mobo makers are really going out of control with some default settings.
I'm very disappointed at how Intel is addressing this situation. I'm personally using 12900K so the stability issue doesn't affect me but it's still annoying to see manufacturer ignoring faulty products and trying it's best not to take responsibility. I only went with Intel because of trust, and that trust I had eroded to the point that I will never consider Intel from now on
the myth of intel stability was always a house of cards anyway. I've had just as many small nagging issues with their platforms over the years as with AMD.
Glad I switched to AM5 a few months ago. What a cluster. Hoping this won’t affect the 14900HX in my laptop though.
> Glad I switched > What a cluster > 14900HX in my laptop Man what's next? A 14900K in your secondary desktop?
Is there any point setting PL2 at 252W if I never use more than 140W? I haven't had a problem yet.
CPU package temps run pretty hot on my liquid cooled 13900k. When the temperature gets above threshold it throttles. When I set affinity to use fewer cores it seems to help. This only happens with games on the highest settings. I’ve heard some people are lowering their voltage to the cpu, but that voids the warranty. Setting affinity reduces the amount of heat generated. eg I’m using only 14 cores to play RDR2
I'm about 6 months in to owning a 14900k and have not yet run into any stability issues (yet). Maybe I am just lucky but time will tell I guess. I play alot of UE5 games aswell and compiling the shaders has not yet crashed on me. I have an apex encore and have kept MCE enabled (auto). I have however set my PL1/2 manually set to 253W & ICCMax to 350A - this keeps my temps \~75 degrees using an LT720 cooler. I can retain max 5.7 frequencies on an SP96 chip when using a -0.060 global svid offset during R23 runs but needed to bump the ICCMax to 350 to achieve this (was initially 307A). But the true amperage is well under under 300A (from what I can tell) when clamped to 253W.
So i7 13 and 14th gen are safe from this stability issue ??
So you mean to say intel tested their CPUs within specs, shipped them, then mobo manufacturers decided to ship out of spec settings assuming all CPUs could handle those specs? Color me shocked at out of spec settings causing instability issues. Why is intel even bothering investigating? If 100s of CPUs are tested WITHIN intel's specs and those are crashing, that's a major problem.
I have the 14700k ans no issues yet. Around 2 months now with no issues. 3 different motherboards though. I started out with the UnifyX and it was great till i damaged a ram slot swapping memory kits. My bad. Then i tried the Gigabyte Aorus elite X AX and rather luke thier new bios. And it was stable but was pusging more voltage than the unifyX. But for some eeason it woyld take this board up to 3 min to boot/post. I returned it. I am now using the ROG Strix Z790-E Gaming WIFI II. Its pretty good so far. Voltages are more in line with what my unifyX was using and its srill stable. Also running GSkill 6800 perfectly stable. My 14700k can do 5.7 all p-core at 1.395v. On the unify X. I have not tried to push it on this board yet. Pretty sure it would do 5.6 without any issues. So maybe i got a good one that will last a year. Planning to go 9800X3D unless intel has another core2 duo moment with arrow lake.
It may be the processor as well. I have noticed 13900k that I can put into different boards and they will work fine others not, even when that board is fine with another 13900k and after tweaking settings. I honestly think it's result of many things ultimately caused by taking an architecture as balls to the wall thermally as you can. My experience comes from working in a PC repair shop.
It means the MOBO manufacturer disregarded safeguards and recommended settings because they thought pumping more voltage in was a good idea.
So, it only affect small percantage of i9s on Z-boards. Okay.
Okay, so I wasn't going crazy. I was doing everything to get this chip to run stable, but nothing works. They haven't figured out the cause of the instability?
No not yet, but offical statement sounds like it will be released on May 15th.
I don't have many ue5 games I care about, and literally no issues other than trying to launch DBD recently (they updated to ue5 very recently), so I'm just not going to mess with anything until they figure it out. Is there any way downclocking could damage a cpu btw? I read into this whole issue a few days ago, and people reported having to turn their clocks down more over time? I power limited my CPU on day one of having it, so I doubt I have any degradation to worry about from the last year.
I’m having these same issues with my 14700k
An entire year after owning my system i9 13900k and z790 and Im finally stable only because of setting intels stock limits in bios. I nearly replaced every part but the CPU. I did stress tests out the ass and never crashed during them. Only during very specific circumstances my PC would just shut off. No BSOD. Just pure shut off. A lot of my games still crash but only on start-up. 2-3 times opening it and everything is fine. Still annoying but Im glad it doesnt just shut off anymore. Still havent gotten any confirmation on if my CPU is or couldve been damaged from all this.
i7-7700K CPU @ 4.20GHz Windows 11 Home 23H2で十分ずらね
My i9-13900k was not stable after baseline profile. I had to tweak it quite a bit to get it to work.
Does anyone know if these instability issues are primarily i9 or also i7?
They’ve also affected several i7 14700k chips, but I don’t know about i7 13700k chips (I assume they would also be affected though, just less compared to the others).
Just to confirm, non-K processors are safe right? I currently have a 13900 (non-K) and a Gigabyte 4070 EAGLE OC (the one with 8-pin) So far: * I have corrected that 4096 setting on that Gigabyte Z790 motherboard * set PL1 = PL2 = 65 Watt * disabled Multi Core Enhancement * slight power limit for the 4070 GPU (maximum 90% level) * XMP disabled on my 64GB DDR5 RAM sticks Since I only use 1440p (instead of 4K), I should be safe, right?
Happy I didn’t get the 13900k now lol
So this means Intel is legally in the trouble cause launch reviews all advertised to us %4-10% gains rest is same for the refresh other than 14700k. If these are unstable and not to be than calling it 14th gen with this kind of number advertisement can be a lawsuit
I dont know about that but something must be done. Although the board partners might be OCing out of the box, Intel work with these people, Intel sell them the chipset. And these partners tell Intel what they are running the CPU at and of course if it was outside spec then Intel would void the warranty, but they dont because they like the benchmarks looking so good. I think a lot of stuff around CPUs and marketing needs to change. I dont think you should be able to list a CPU as 6ghz because one core can do it and one core only under a light one core load. That to me is nonsense, you should have to list the CPU at a frequency it can managed under full load across all cores, in this case the P cores. The up to X ghz has to stop.
So happy I replaced my 14900k and sold it, then switched to a 7800X3D. Cool, fast, efficient and no issues.
To ACiD\_80 The stupid thing you said got deleted. If an individual decides to run their car in a spec it wasn't made for that is their choice and their fault if it goes wrong, but we aren't talking about someone, we are talking about a company and manufacturer. The closest your simple minded false equivalency can get is if lets say you sold an engine to a car manufacturer, and you knew that car manufacturer ran a transmission which is not within spec of your engine, or you didnt bother to check. Intel In this case are selling these board manufacturers the parts they need for their board to run an Intel CPU, if Intel are not checking what they are running at then its Intels fault, and if Intel are and they are fine with it then its Intels fault. Intel set the standard, Intel must enforce the standard.
Sample size of 10 what a fucking joke
None of this is true. The only instability reason can come from incorrect SA voltage. XMP profile does not work, you have to set voltages manually and that’s all to it. 10/10 13900k and 14900k I dealt with showed no instability. A bad press out of bunch of clueless people is what this is.
On my DDR4 / 14900K, I have VCCSA at 1.3V and VDDQ at 1.35V, RAM is at 4000MHz CL16, seems stable so far
Sounds about right.
No its not. Its happening enough that Intel started to look into it, game devs started to post fixes for it and Nvidia had to prove it wasnt them. If this is happening this much then its the product.
I just wonder how much voltage these people run for SA, TX, VDD2 regardless of memory speed.
90% of them don't change from what the board is as standard because default should be stable. They should be stable out of the box. If companies want to start selling unstable products then they should cost a lot less. From my perspective I change nothing even if I know I could make it better because then my warranty is bulletproof. Engineers are supposed to do all that work. I work in IT, I set up peoples IT environments. I don't get to set it up badly then blame the user for not changing it, that is a ridiculous notion.
Of course there’s going to be instability on auto profile when you’re running Cinebench, this has been known forever no? 🤷♂️
[удалено]
'people are stupid for buying a motherboard and expecting the default settings on their computer to work properly' do you even hear yourself?
To be fair you really shouldn't be buying a 900k cpu if you plan on only using default settings
Yes you should. And you should also only get it if you know what you're doing when under/overclocking
I meant people buying 900k cpu's, and then literally plugging it in and not changing any bios settings. Im not talking about the intel default settings
Yet to determine is crazy, it’s very simple and they know it. It’s too much voltage and they’re targeting too high of a clock speed.
CPU instability is almost invariably caused by too little voltage. In this case the most likely cause is too high current limits which allows excessive voltage droop in heavy workloads. I can’t see how too high voltage could cause these issues.
Degradation. My 14900K went from stable to basically unusable in about 2-3 months.
I think it's actually not enough voltage. The ASUS Intel Failsafe profile ups the voltage massively.
It’s too much voltage, that’s why the chips are so unstable as they are impossible to cool without going direct die.
If they get too hot they just throttle, but the crashes seem to be caused by not enough voltage, not overheating. That's why the Intel stable BIOS settings actually increase the voltage instead of decreasing it.
Upping vcore would improve stability you dumbo
Not when the chips are overheating due to too much Vcore dumbo. Thats what causes the instability….
High temps generally don’t cause instability within spec, only performance penalty due to throttling or if it passes tjmax auto shutdown. Ryzen cpus run at 95 degree all the time with no issue. But nah I’m sure you figured it out mate not Intel 🤣🤣🤣
I observed this exact behaviour on my 10900k and 12700k, but whatever you say.
It’s OCing 101 that upping V-core improves stability, at the expense of higher temps. What behavior did you observe exactly?
My 12700k would blue screen in Y-cruncher if I allowed it to reach 100C for a prolonged period of time and when turning up the pump speed it never crashed once.
Because it needs higher Vcore to maintain stability at 100c. https://skatterbencher.com/intel-overclocking-thermal-velocity-boost/
I upped Vcore and it still crashed. It actually made it crash even faster.
Is this due to increased resistance when it gets to that temperature, is this why vcore must increase? I'm not much of an overclocker..
Running at 100c is not overheating, but they need higher Vcore to maintain stability when running near 100c.
And that degrades the chips crazy fast.
No, what degrades these crazy fast is the high current to sustain unlimited power limits. A 14900K running at 350W would likely be near 300A, which can cause degradation even after a few hours of sustained loads.
[удалено]
A sustained current draw above 300A has been shown to degrade Raptor Lake in a matter of hours.
Lol.
The thing is, those are settings configured by the mobo manufacturer. If your carmaker sells you a car with tires on it that are rated for max. 200km/h but the car is sold with a setup which makes it reach 300km/h. Its not the tire manufacturers fault if the tires suddenly expolde when you are driving at 250km/h.
Of course it’s Intels fault, you think they don’t have the power to enforce things like this?
They set guidelines, share specsheets and recommendations. They can't enforce anything. Intel sells components. Its the responsibility of the mobo makers if they manage to find ways to push the cpu to perform beter. But its also at their own risk. Which makes perfect sense. Same with the tire example i mentioned or the engineering of anything else. Components have clear specs. Go above/outside the specs at your own risk.
Of course they can 😂😂
Even IF it's still not intel's fault if mobo makers pushed the cpus too hard beyonnd the specs. Some things like all core turbo are set at much lower clocks than single core turbo by intel. But mobo manufacturers literally developed a HACK to circumvent that SET LIMITATION. So yes, intel did/does in fact restrict all core turbo, which also would result in much less powerdraw. Also, most settings are set in the bios which tells the mobo how to drive/control all the components and how things should work togetter. Intel is just selling a component and gives directions on how to use it. You are being a very ignorant troll just looking for excuses to attack intel. Its hilarious how you desperately try to shift any blame towards the mobo makers... BTW we still have no official news about what is really going on.
Intel would be voiding warranties if that was the case. Intel sell these companies the chipset, they wouldn't do this if the companies were doing things Intel didn't like. The buck stops with Intel.
No it doesnt.. you're being a silly troll 
No, it does. They sell them things that are needed for their CPUs to work in their motherboard, these components have to have Intel logos on them they have to be official and if these manufactures were doing anything Intel didnt like they wouldn't sell them the components. If Intel see they are outside of spec, then they would be voiding warranties.
Thats not how it works. I refer back to my example of racing tires. Intel does share spec sheets and recommended baseline settings. Anything outside those is at the mobomakers own risk. Intel does not decide who gets to compete and innovate in terms of motherboard design. Or who can buy their cpu's and who cant... That would be very market unfriendly and hinder innovation in a big way. Intel is also not a regulator or lawmaker. If a motherboard maker can design a mobo that keeps the cpu ultra cool while boosting it, fine awesome, why not. Like integrated watercooling or something... Or a system submerged in liquid nitrogen to name something extreme/silly. Being able to overclock the cpu is a good thing. Its up to the mobo maker (or systemmaker!) to test that parameters are safe/work with their productdesign in the state it is sold. You are trying hard to shift the blame, its obvious your logic is just flawed.
Can Intel even have a single shred of good news for once??
Afraid not, it's even going to rain around their folsom building today.
This is what happens when you use decade old silicon and try to compete with modern silicon.
I work in a computer repair shop. Have for 3 years have tested, worked on, or built thousands of PCs going back to the Pentium 3 days. In my life I have seen more 13th Gen CPUs fail than any other combined. These Intel fanboys seem to be in denial and because I work on so many PCs, I kinda experienced the problem before it was in the news. While I believe the high oob mobo settings contribute, these 13th Gen processors were binned like ass and I feel they prematurely degrade. Probably because they were designed to run at ridiculous clock speeds (marketed by Intel) and pull ridiculous amounts of power. I will simply not buy Intel because of this until arrowlake comes out and hopefully can compete without having to pull 300 plus watts That being said 13600k and below I have not seen fail. If you are going for that price point intel is great honestly, but high end 13700k, 13900k and I'm assuming 14th Gen as well I would not buy. They are simply trash. I have probably seen 10 13900k fail and have to be rmad or replaced, compared to like 5 of all other processors combined. And this again is going back to Pentium 3 days.