Core i9 14900K, is it protected by the new microcodes without enabling "Intel Default Settings"?

[fesg1]

Hello.
I'll just say that I may be asking something that doesn't make any sense... sorry.

I have a new 14900K on an Asus Maximus z790 Hero, 64GB at 6000M, and the latest BIOS 2602 which already includes all the fixes and updated microcodes from Intel, and (I understand) under which the microprocessor should be "safe" from all situations that such fixes should protect against. Cooled by an EK 380mm radiator and an EKWB Velocity2 water block.

I read somewhere that if you were to not select "Intel Default Settings" in the BIOS (any of the options except this one in particular), such Intel fixes would stop having an effect.

With "Intel Default Settings" enabled, and all other points that Intel publishes must be enabled (CEP, eTVB, TVB, ICC MAX Unlimited Bit disable, Tj max Offset with "0", and Cstates enabled) apart from limited PL1 and PL2 to 253W and ICCMAX to 400A, the values ​​I get in Cinebench are very low (I think...) around 34500 pts. Am I doing something wrong to get such low values ​​when the "standard" situation of this microprocessor in Cinebench should be around 38400 pts
Looking around the internet there are people who perform "undervolt" limiting the maximum supply voltage of the micro to IA VR limit of 1450, Load Line at 4 (this is how the latest Bios leaves it by default) all cores synchro at 5600 Mhz, and undervolt of 0.06 V.
With the above they get values ​​close to 40000 pts in R23.

I don't know if I'm right but "always at my risk" since the values ​​are limited within Intel, with a supply limit of 1450, and undervolt of - 0.06, I think the micro is protected without going to dangerous values ​​but... is it still "protected" with the above by Intel's updated microcodes? I didn't increase the voltage, but I reduced it, and it's completely stable.

I did the test with my microprocessor and I get 38270 points in Cinebench, it doesn't go over 87º C, but shouldn't I get this directly with "Intel Default Settings"?

[JeanetteC_Intel]

Hello fesg1,

Thank you for posting in Intel Communities.

I'll check on this query and I will post an update once it's available.

Best regards,

JeanetteC.

Intel® Customer Support Technician

[RandyT_Intel]

Hello fesg1,

Following extensive investigation of the Intel® Core™ 13th and 14th Gen desktop processor Vmin Shift Instability issue, Intel can now confirm the root cause diagnosis for the issue. This post will cover Intel’s understanding of the root cause, as well as additional mitigations and next steps for Intel® Core™ 13th and 14th Gen desktop users.

Vmin Shift Instability Root Cause 

Intel® has localized the Vmin Shift Instability issue to a clock tree circuit within the IA core which is particularly vulnerable to reliability aging under elevated voltage and temperature. Intel has observed these conditions can lead to a duty cycle shift of the clocks and observed system instability.  

Intel® has identified four (4) operating scenarios that can lead to Vmin shift in affected processors: 

1. Motherboard power delivery settings exceeding Intel power guidance. 
2. a. Mitigation: Intel® Default Settings recommendations for Intel® Core™ 13th and 14th Gen desktop processors.  
3. eTVB Microcode algorithm which was allowing Intel® Core™ 13th and 14th Gen i9 desktop processors to operate at higher performance states even at high temperatures. 
4. a. Mitigation: microcode 0x125 (June 2024) addresses eTVB algorithm issue.  
5. Microcode SVID algorithm requesting high voltages at a frequency and duration which can cause Vmin shift. 
6. a. Mitigation: microcode 0x129 (August 2024) addresses high voltages requested by the processor.  
7. Microcode and BIOS code requesting elevated core voltages which can cause Vmin shift especially during periods of idle and/or light activity. 
8. a. Mitigation: Intel® is releasing microcode 0x12B, which encompasses 0x125 and 0x129 microcode updates, and addresses elevated voltage requests by the processor during idle and/or light activity periods.  

Regarding the 0x12B update, Intel® is working with its partners to roll out the relevant BIOS update to the public.

Source: Intel Core 13th and 14th Gen Desktop Instability Root Cause Update - Intel Community

Intel Default Settings may impact system performance in certain workloads as compared to unlocked or overclocked settings. As always, system performance is dependent on configuration and several other factors.

Performance claims provided by Intel for its Intel® Core™ 13th and 14th Gen desktop processors can be reviewed at the Intel Performance Index (www.Intel.com/PerformanceIndex). 

Randy T. 

Intel Customer Support Technician 

[fesg1]

Hello.
I appreciate the reply but it doesn't answer my question at all. I already know all the steps taken by Intel to solve the problems, that's why I indicate that I already have the latest BIOS for Asus 2602 that incorporates all the solutions.
The basic and direct question is:
if you were to not select "Intel Default Settings" in the BIOS (any of the options except this one in particular), "such Intel fixes" would stop having an effect.
With "Intel Default Settings" enabled, and all other points that Intel publishes must be enabled (CEP, eTVB, TVB, ICC MAX Unlimited Bit disable, Tj max Offset with "0", and Cstates enabled) apart from limited PL1 and PL2 to 253W and ICCMAX to 400A, the values ​​​​I get in Cinebench are very low (I think...) around 34500 pts. Am I doing something wrong to get such low values ​​​​when the "standard" situation of this microprocessor in Cinebench should be around 38400 pts.
That is, with everything that Intel indicates it should be, the performance is very low, 34500 points in Cinebench compared to 38400 points which would be normal.
What am I doing wrong or am I not selecting correctly in the Bios? This is a HiEnd motherboard and it has no limits to provide what the microprocessor needs....
It is extremely worrying to know if it is true or not that without selecting "Intel Default Settings", Intel patches would not be working; and this is the key to everything.

[SmartOne_2000]

I have the same exact problem as you. I get 35K scores on IDP vs 41K on Asus MCE running CB R23 on my Asus z690 mobo. I think the problem may be to do with IDPs default tuning of AC/DCLL values. Mine are 0.4/1.1mOhm by default and did not change from MCE settings.

Intel guidance says these number MUST BE EQUAL. This requirement is listed on their microcode spec sheet. They don't talk much about it though. I believe this is the root cause of the low scores we may be getting.

In the meantime, I run Asus MCE but limiting IA VR to1500mV. I checked on HWInfo and Vcore never exceeded 1.5v after hours of single and multithreaded testing. CB R23 scores are 38K... a decent compromise for now, until we know the true tuning we need to have.