Are you one of those who are constantly complaining about 13th and 14th gen stability and BSODs? Well, read this:
While this specifically mentions ASUS, MSI and Gigabyte are in this mess also.
Doc (not an Intel employee or contractor)
[If you find any Intel driver you might need, download and save it now.]
Link Copied
obviously all components of the hardware have a limit. Intel provides specs to motherboard manufacturers on power, voltage etc.
At which point you check specs for a overclocklable CPU and it says 125W but also 253W, and you think, ok, i guess it will draw peak 253W...except if it's a Z Series motherboard, it's power limit will be somewhere between 400W and maybe 700W peak.
The CPU with air cooling, has however different limits as with water cooling and also way different than with liquid helium cooling.
Therefore since a while the motherboards have options to choose power profiles.
CPU has the lower limit, and if its a K version of the CPU....designed to run with no limits....right?
A B760 Gigabyte motherboard is not for overclocking, i was not expecting the CPU to draw a lot of power.
On default it allowed the CPU to draw 250W..
However, the peak power that my motherboard can deliver is not 250, i have seen it draw slightly over 300W.
Funny, bcoz XTU graph can show max 300W...and so a short test results with a power usage where the CPU did not even reach it's specs about frequency, but went over the top as for power usage:
To say it in simple words, AMD forced Intel to use ridiculous means to achive same perfromance, except, the AMD CPUs taht beat Intel in benchmarks and games, use less power than Intel does. At same power consumption, AMD annihilates Intel CPUs, a total reverse situation compared to year 2010.
@Keean wrote:
....a core is not a single thing....
yea, that is why in the specs it says that a CPU has for exampe 20 cores, and each single one of them has at least one tmperature sensor.
Highest Temperature on any core will trigger thermal throttling for all cores. (altho you can set Tmax for each core i guess) The resistors used for thermal sensing are on the bottom of the die, which is where the pins are, so the IHS has different temperature than the sensors show, like none of the sensors reading will match IHS temperature when under load.
@Keean wrote:
To the second point power limits reflect the available power, not the power draw.
I am not talking about CPU being idle, but under full load, which will then be at the TDP limit, bcoz then the BSOD, thermal throttling and other unwanted stuff happens.
@Keean wrote:
The point is the core will scale frequency based on available power and thermal headroom. In this case because it gets the temperature wrong it's scaling too aggressively.
"cale frequency based on available power and thermal" = thermal throttling, taht is the word you are looking for.
So the planned frequency for the core will be the maximum what has been set, not anything else, only after reaching Tmax will it get throttled dwon. You can observe it on any graph that shows frequency for the cores.
And as i said, the temperature sensor sits on the opposite side as the IHS, it actually shows the hottest spot on a core, there is no better placement as teh side that is not being cooled down.
If you have a CPU taht has integrated GPU, then temperature on taht GPU (if GPU unused) will be the lowest temperature on the whole CPU....and that will be in fact IHS temperature, as seen here on the graph:
@Keean wrote:
You can't control this with package power limits, you would need a per-core power limit, which is something we don't have.
Hmm, in a single core scenario, you can set a power limit. Remember, P = I x U, power equals to current multiplied by the voltage, and you can set both.
So in a single core scenario, you set voltage to 1,4V on taht specific core and ICCmax to 10A = 14W.
14W is then the power on the whole CPU package, since only one core is active.
And it makes no sense to set a power limit per core, they shuffle the load in order to optimize the distribution of heat, so hitting higher load for a shorter period of time is better, than constant load on all cores....that is how you get a better average perfomance.
if you do not set Tmax per core or voltage, then the core with highest temp will indeed trigger thermal throttling.
As ai said, the CPU shuffles the load between cores.....this may not happen if the CPU has 100% load or nearly that, in order to mitigate that, all cores will get some throttling.
"none of the temperature sensors will match IHS temp when under load"
This will stay true, even 2 or 3mm in distance may result in high difference in temperatures, as the die has been made thinner on the 12gen onwards.
Proof:
None of the temperatures is as low as the unused grahpics on the CPU....bcoz that temperature is literally IHS temp.
@Keean wrote:> So the planned frequency for the core will be the maximum what has been set, not anything else, only after reaching Tmax will it get throttled dwon. You can observe it on any graph that shows frequency for the cores.
This is not true since Thermal Velocity Boost was introduced.
Thermal velocity boost for specific cores....this applies only if you change the settings and interfere with default settings....still the set frequency will be achieved if the PC switches from idle to full load and will remain so until Tmax is reached....this still will not change.
Quote from Intel "The frequency gain and duration is dependent on the workload, capabilities of the processor and the processor cooling solution."
The last part of the definition of Thermal Velocity Boost, literally says what i said.
@Keean wrote:> And as i said, the temperature sensor sits on the opposite side as the IHS, it actually shows the hottest spot on a core, there is no better placement as teh side that is not being cooled down.
There is not a single hot-spot but multiple. The FPU can get hot, the SSE ALU can get hot, there are multiple points where the chip can get hot and which point is hottest depends on the code being executed.
Quote from Google "CPU cores are physical components of a processor that are responsible for executing instructions"
So i don't understand, what you think SSE ALU or FPU is, the whole die is made of transistors, resistors, maybe some capacitors, but the transistors convert electricity into heat, the transistors that sit in the cores and also the integrated graphics, there is nothing else that gets hot. The temperature sensing resistors are placed under the cores, in other words, under everything that can get hot.
This here is apparently i7 13700k which i use, the physical size is about 24mm x 12mm (1inch x 0,5inch?), so a Pcore would have a physical size of about 3mm x 4mm, for what i care, the temperature sensing resistor - has exactly that size, and if that is the case, the whole surface under the Pcore is sensing temperature.
There is nothing else there.
@Keean wrote:So in a single core scenario, you set voltage to 1,4V on taht specific core and ICCmax to 10A = 14W.
14W is then the power on the whole CPU package, since only one core is active.
We can do some measurements:
- All cores idle package power: 12W
- One core with both hyperthreads active: about 70W
A single core is drawing nearly 60W, and a package power limit of 253W is doing nothing to throttle this core on its own, it is free to boost all the way up until it hits the Tj Max and if the thermal sensor is not in the right place it will fail. If you wanted to throttle this single core using power limits you would need to set a limit less than 70W.
On idle the Pcores are almost dead, and most of Ecores also, on idle you may be using just 2~4 cores, so the 12W , (which on idle would be terrible, i get 3W) is the power drawn like but just a few cores at a time. XTU shows actually the amount of cores being active.
And behold of single thread benchmarks.....yes, 1 core can have only 1 thread, therefore, such benchmark will utilize the whole core.
I get max 34W total CPU power consumption on such benchmarks.
Which means, that one core taht was getting roasted, was using less than 34W.
And if you think that was an Ecore, nope, i double checked it, the benchmark hits a Pcore each time, i would need to disable Pcores in BIOS for the benchmark to use Ecores.
So for my i7 13700k with 8P and 8E cores, the power usage would be like 8P x 30W + 8E x 10W =240W+80W = 320W of total TDP without overclocking. And around 314W was the max i ever saw it draw, on a non OC motherboard.
Load shuffling can be seen in Task Manager and XTU as well, since both can show load on all cores.
If load would remain on few specific cores only, then you would see higher temperatures on such cores.
@chugzillafx wrote:yeah, it is def the MB maker's fault. even the so-called intel por setting on the gigabyte mb's isn't true intel defaults. it sets them at 253-253-517.75 on any CPU i have tested.
On the intel page for i7 14700k, it actually says this next to '125W':
So 125W has not been exceeded while testing the CPU.....and then there is this next to '253W':
253W is not the real limit, it is for a longer periode of time tho.
And teh part about 10ms.....it actually covers the 'spikes' that been the topic here so often.
