- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
The actual cause for the extremely fast degrede of i9 chips is actually intels own turbo boost algorithm on those two "favored" cores. While monitoring with multimeter at the back of the CPU socket i noticed some voltage spikes up to 1.65v on my 14900KF because of the two 6.0GHz P cores when opening apps, alt-tabbing and browsing with Chrome. leaving the CPU for 1-2 months with that voltage wont end well and degrades it with more than 100mv. then the constant BSOD and crashes start to happen!
Currently the only solution to actually preserve your new i9 is not with applying some forced power limits which cripples your CPU, but setting the turbo ratio to all core boost instead of the default per core and manually limiting the maximum voltages! Also is good to disable Turbo Boost 3.0 which forces more load on those specific two favored cores mentioned and has nothing to do with the actual turbo.
This is an example of what you should set around, use it as a guideline and if your silicon is stable with less than this, the better! Moving above said voltages is an indicator that your chip has already started degrading since they are +50mv above the minimum voltage possible for the "average" bin.
13900K/KF - 55p 43e at 1.27v
13900KS - 56p 43e at 1.30v
14900K/KF - 57p 44e at 1.30v
14900KS - 59p 45e at 1.42v
Turbo Boost 3.0 - DISABLE
Enhanced Turbo - DISABLE
Link Copied
- « Previous
-
- 1
- 2
- Next »
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
So some further testing, with a core ratio limit of x58, the chip is stable at (AC/DC) 0.8/0.8. It is not stable at 0.7/0.7 down to 0.5/0.5, but then is stable again at 0.4/0.4 and 0.3/0.3 (but significantly slower)... it looks like once the voltage drops below a certain level it falls back to a slower clock speed, and is stable again. This shows you have to be careful jumping straight to load line value like 0.3/0.3 as it can be completely stable, but you are losing performance, because its operating in a lower "gear".
I think the fact that the chip is stable at 0.8/0.8 at x58, but requires 1.4/1.4 to be stable at x59 shows there is some kind of discontinuity there...
Testing with hyper-threading disabled the CPU is stable at (AC/DC) 0.8/0.8 with no core ratio limit, and is able to boost to x62 on both preferred cores with a single-threaded load, and x59 on the others with an all p-core load.
So something clearly goes wrong at x59 and above with hyper-threading enabled.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
@Distinct_Reporter_40when you give 1.42v for 14900ks, where is this voltage measured?
Is this the voltage set at the VRM (so it will actually be lower at the core depending on current, the more load the lower it will actually be because of vdroop)
Or is this the BIOS measured vcore, or from "in0" of the nct6798 chip (on my motherboard)...
For example, if I set the VRM output to 1.4v, the BIOS monitor shows 1.376v and "in0" of the nct6798 in the OS shows 1.25v. I am not sure which one I should be looking at?
One thing I didn't not realise until recently was the core voltage shown for each core in tools like i7z are read from the core MSR registers, and actually show the VID requested voltage, not the actual measured voltage, so these do not change no matter what offset or manual core voltage you set...
When I tested with the VRM output at 1.4v 7 of the 8 p-cores worked fine with both hyper threads loaded at x59, but one failed... I am trying again with the VRM output set to 1.5v
However neither of these can sustain all-core loads with 16 threads on the p-core, presumably because the vdroop at that kind of current is lowering the vcore on the chip too much...
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
If this claim is true.
It can be said that the 13/14th i9 i7 CPUs around the world are dying when they are not doing anything.
And since systems equipped with powerful cooling solutions will attempt to boost clock more often, death will occur more quickly.
My 14900k also deteriorated stably only by increasing 0.04V in 2 months.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Your chip can still be saved! I had multiple i9 which degraded between 0.07 to 0.10 in about 1-2 months and only one has survived till now with zero degrade, and it is the only one i had with static voltage and manual all core ratio because it is inside a small ITX case which is quite hot and has zero airflow, the rest were all at stock BIOS defaults and on a custom loop!
I have never turned off those PCs, they are 24/7 active and we connect to them remotely via Parsec to game on, and at some point the constant BSOD and crashing started so the remote became unreliabe which defeated its sole purpose.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Sorry for the late reply, but I do think your chip needs to RMA, 1.624V is definitely not normal.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
The chip itself definitely needs to get RMAed, on my previous i9-13900K under full load, voltage is around 1.26V when running Cinebench R23 with 320W power limit (your CPU's Vcore is definitely too high)
When you get your new CPU, just remember to put some restrictions in place in BIOS
set PL1=PL2=253W
set IccMax to 1600 (400A)
set Voltage limit to 1.4V
turn off Multi-Core Enhancement
Btw, How did you chip behaving like this in the first place?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
I only see novices and beginners here; it was as simple as limiting your boost as low as the chips released three years ago. I would rather run it till it breaks and deal with Mr. RMA.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
I tried these settings, but i don't see my p-cores go past 4,5 ghz.
14900K - 57p 44e at 1.30v
Turbo Boost 3.0 - DISABLE
Enhanced Turbo - DISABLE
Also had PL1 and PL2 set to 253 and ICCmax to 400A.
Since I bought this cpu i've been running it mostly with PL1 set to 125 and PL2 set to 175.
Am I missing some important setting or is my chip that bad?
Mostly been gaming with this pc, not like i've been stressing it like crazy.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Hello, I have a 13900K processor, I made the changes proposed by you and games run smoothly except that I need more voltage. But I noticed in a program like Davinci Resolve (color page and delivery page), the playback es very slow, like half the normal (from 24 FPS to 12 FPS) the same for render in delivery page, when I enable Turbo Boost 3.0 again, the program runs normally. Is there a solution for this? I have settled two profiles in BIOS (with and without TB 3.0) but seems cumbersome to change depending on which program I'm using.
![](/skins/images/C4F7392A5C68ACA60290C9576F107044/responsive_peak/images/icon_anonymous_message.png)
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- « Previous
-
- 1
- 2
- Next »