How we prevent issues with stability and longevity on the Intel i9-14900k
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 сен 2024
- It is all about your cooler. Only ask your cooler to do what it can, and nothing more.
Intel is going to release a fix around mid-August 2024 that will prevent high voltages. This will be via a BIOS update from the board makers.
![ARGENTINA vs. CHILE [3-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 7](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/De3AWmXzhuA/mqdefault.jpg)
I finally did some research on Aida64. They have so many versions. The version I need, for testing on many machines by one "engineer" is Aida64 Engineer, which I now own. Again, the Engineer version allows one person to put in on many machines for burn-in testing like I do. The "Extreme" version is made for one person to use it on their home PC.
Is it only k which is bad, or i9 14900kf as well?
@@Cheesg The F processors are affected as well. Yours is not bad unless it has problems. There should be and updated BIOS for your mobo, now.
@@xforcepc Thank You very much, so no need to mess with voltage?
No, no, no - just no. This issue is very, very simple. To get top scores in some reviewers benchmarks, like Cinebench, Intel allows a single core (or two) to boost to 5.8 or 6.0GHz. To reach that freq. the core gets 1.55 or even 1.6v - which causes damage.
This is NOT a board problem. Intel endorsed these power settings because without them, Intel can't claim 5.8GHz. So blaming the board is BS. Intel said on record that it is only considered out of spec. if you change the clock multiplier.
Intel is the source and cause of the issue. The fix is easy:
SYNCH all your cores. Don't allow one or two cores to boost by themselves. I've seen a PC in an idle state suddenly BSOD because a background task started. Then a core tries to boost to 6.0GHz, gets 1.6v and now you have a degraded CPU.
Synch the cores. Might have to lower your multiplier depending on the state of your chip, but after that you're safe.
Problem solved.
This, in my opinion, is the worst possible way to have your CPU running at lower temperatures than stock. The are ways to lower temperatures while you are maintaining the rated clock speeds. The best way is to install a high quality cooler along with a high quality thermal paste and if possible, a contact frame. The second best option is to under volt the operating voltage by offsetting the VID table. I personally do not own a 14900K or any i9 of 13th and 14th generation but I do both options anyway in any of my CPUs and GPUs ever owned as good practice. I understood early on that not all chips are created equally but all power delivery mechanisms have to be designed to work with all of those chips and the only way they can do this, is to supply an expense of power "just in case". This is going-on forever and the sooner someone realizes it, the better for his hardware will be. Thank you for sharing your thoughts in this video.
Seen a few videos showing motherboard manufacturers ignoring CPU recommended power limits. The assumption for most users is that Auto means the CPU vendor recommended settings. Clearly that is not the case.
Not a power/heat problem. What you're doing will still cause issues depending on the motherboard default settings and workloads running.
The problem is voltage. Intel is redlining these chips to squeeze as much frequency as they can out of them and they degrade faster than whatever internal models/risk calculations predicted likely due to real world variability being higher than anticipated.
These things run 1.5V continuously.
If you've ever done any sort of overclocking 1.5V for modern process nodes is
a) impossible to cool unless you do direct die w/custom loop or run a chiller for cooling
b) will degrade within 1 month of operation typically even 1 week will be enough to show signs of degradation
Intel had the ability to "win" against AMD's zen 4 and this was how they did it. Running these chips overclocked as far as they'll go (to hit those boost frequencies) out of the box with a very small amount of wiggle room. That wiggle room is how they compensate for crap motherboards and real world variability and the like. Not having validation of the entire chain with such tight margins is recipe for failure. How intel thought that was a good idea is beyond me. Some chips can of course go even higher and will have zero issues within their lifetimes but those are custom tuned, running direct die, and got lucky. Silicon lottery is a thing. It didn't disappear no matter what any company will tell you.
Raptorlake i9 chips running minecraft servers in datacenters clock in a 100% defect rate never going above 65c. Minecraft is the perfect example because it's almost completely single threaded thus won't ever hit high power or temps. But it'll hammer those 6ghz cores with 1.5v+ at load 24/7. That's a recipe for degradation.
The solution was to drop the max frequency to 5.5-5.7ghz and all of a sudden failure rates go from 100% to sub 5% (not 0% as they're probably still running degraded silicon/not RMA'd). This lower frequency also results in lower voltages which slows degradation. The power limits you're setting do something similar but only at load.
TLDR: Intel pushed these chips too hard from factory to compete against AMD and are now paying the price. They did this before with exactly the same results back in the early 2000s when AMD was also competitive.
I hear ya, and I read what they said. We have had zero failures here keeping heat in check like the video above. But, we'll update to the latest BIOS when available for the voltage adjustment. It will certainly cause a noticable drop in performance. Intel needs to get their act together.
The most recent posts talk about a degradation of I/O portion of the CPU, basicly when Intel designed the Raptor Lake they moved the I/O portion of the CPU to another physical position inside the CPU and that part (called Ring or Uncore) is proving to be uncapable of handling the OUT OF THE BOX voltage settings.
The mayority of issues are appearing in i9's and the usual maximum vcore for those parts is around 1.52v ish for the single core advertised 5.8-6.0 Ghz.
yes, boost voltage may be the largest culprit. This is at its highest when fewest cores are active as well. There is some talk of oxidation of VIA's but I think if that were the issue it would show itself differently such as some cores losing access to L3.
A GOOD closed loop, and now a MoRa 420, DOES tame my 14900KS at 320W Extreme profile. Water temperature is 2-3C above ambient.
An external water chiller for a laser works great. It's a bit spendy but you can keep the CPU nice and ... chilly. :-)
Intel advertised 6 ghz boost. SO does this mean that this is now false advertising??
yes
as an owner of a stable i9 14900k , yes that is false if yo uwant your cpu to survive for ever , 5.6 is the max you will ever get
6ghz boost single core not all core
@@Jeromesg123 So is it still recommended for for 6 ghz boost? How about the multi core 5.8 Ghz specs?
every time I read the description on these bios updates I get stuck on this sentence "The new BIOS includes Intel microcode 0x129 and adjusts the factory default settings for the non-K processors, enhancing the stability of Intel Core 13th and 14th gen desktop processors." So, my skeptical critic asks? None of this applies to any of my three 13th gen "K" processor based systems?
Just to mention, an Intel engineer stated point blank that you are allowed to ride 100c on these CPUs, therefore not leaving any performance on the table.
When they lower the voltage in the patch, frequency will drop and so will performance.
sure it's possible. You need watercooling. Ive run mine at 370w under cinebench and its been fine. Not for extended times, however. they need to be watercooled and by large custom loops.
Very good video, very instructive and productive. But in conclusion, is it advisable to build a PC with an i9 14900k processor, with all that it implies? That is, an investment of several dollars is made just to be able to cool said processor, without knowing how long it will last. 1 year, 3 months, 1 month already installing the microcode. Because buying an i9 14900K every year or every month is not profitable.
Just install the latest mobo BIOS. The fixes are out.
If you don't want to put a chiller in your system then why is it okay to put a volcano in it? I'm curious as to the reason for getting a 14900K over anything else?
step 1: lock your cores
step 2: ???
step 3: use cpu forever
Seems weird that the processor can't control how much power it consumes and needs hard limits from the motherboard.
I wouldn't use the Heaven benchmark you have on the desktop. It's barely acceptable to benchmark a modern 1080 system, it's completely useless for 1440+ or testing stability for any overclock. I recommend 3d mark.
Yeah, I don't use it much anymore. Instead, I like to use FurMark for burn-in as it runs until you tell it to stop and it does a good job maxing out the GPU.
@@xforcepc FurMark is also good
trial version isn't that suicide for commercial use? license allow for that?
www.aida64.com/licensing
"Try our products with a free 30-day trial. We recommend testing them thoroughly before buying. You can download trial versions of AIDA64 Extreme, AIDA64 Engineer, AIDA64 Business and AIDA64 Network Audit editions from our website.
For a full evaluation of AIDA64 Network Audit and AIDA64 Business, request a free test license. This gives you full access for 30 days. Once the trial ends, the software will stop working, and you'll need a license to keep using it.
To switch from the trial to a full license, simply enter the product key you get when you buy one. No reinstallation is required to activate the product."
@@xforcepc Im glad you are safe ;D
@@bartoszskowronski I am going to look into purchasing it for burning in systems. I need to make sure I can put it on multiple (hundreds of PCs during the burn-in process).
@@xforcepc yea it's a pain in ass, moving license, best solution is if you have "usb pendrive/license key". program works only on that system with actually inserted usb key.
but unfortunately it's not that popular solution.
X-Plane 12.1 still uses only 1 core at 90% on a 14700K and the other cores are chilling. So 🤷🏼… personally I have a small air cooler on my 14700K and its just fine if u don’t use 100% of the CPU like in any game or flight sim. So unless X-Plane is gonnan be improved to really take advantage of every core well untill then I don’t even need to buy a water cooler aio.
Yeah, good point. BTW, X-Plane will use multiple cores during scenery loads. If you are curious, download CoreTemp and run it while you open X-Plane and it will record the max temp and current temp.
Yes, get a K cpu and undervolt it or limit its power, might have been better to get a non K cpu or a 14700 without K. amd and intel both are at fault, for the last 2 generations its more power and more heat.
Undervolting in general is a good practice, the K chips usually come with higher clocks than their non K counterparts. I have known people that bought K skus just because the 200 mhz out of the box without intentions of overclock. Thats non of anyone's business.
The problem here is that the recent Raptorlake based silicon is failing.
@@dethskullcrusher what i did! lol lmao..
im not having any issues with my 14700K.. and yes its undervolted and by core usage on P/E cores.. no issues and my cinebench score is through the roof my 13700K score was 30083, on the 14700K im hitting 35433, with some tweaking and slight adjustments to my bios i can hit 38000 :) vi
@@AnonCanna That's great news, in fact pro overclockers recommended to undervolt this i7/i9 parts even before the issue even appeared, there's not much performance to gain with OC but lots of thermal headroom and efficiency to regain by undervolting.
-source someone without hardware
Damn this is sad if you listen to this guy.. not the fix lmaoo
The fix does not currently exist. Laugh all you want.
To be fair, a month ago no one knew exactly what the cause was, and this here could have been a plausible solution - lowering peak voltages. It is only AFTER this video went up that Intel have come out and stated the actual issue - excessive voltage on the cpu caused by a microcode error within the cpu (allegedly).